I love retards who think they know tech.. the option you refer to has existed in NoScript for a long time..
"Temporarily allow top-level sites by default"
I don't use NoScript personally, but I'm far from a tech-newbie. Having said that, nothing in the line you quoted would cause me to believe that this would "Allow javascript from the site you're on to run while blocking 3rd party scripts." Nothing at all. If anything, "Top-level" would seem to imply that JS from "domain.com" would be enabled, but "somewhere.domain.com" would not - which is just weird. Also, the conjunction of "temporarily" and "by default" is very strange and hard to read, even once you know what its supposed to mean. I'd guess that checking that would allow "top-level" JS to run by default, but the next time I started the browser it would go back to being disallowed - but I don't think that's what you're describing either.
"Allow javascript from the site you're on to run while blocking 3rd party scripts." - much harder to mis-understand.
I don't think that will help as much as you're hoping it will. So much is served up through CDNs with different domain names, that the video you're trying to play probably still won't play.
I occasionally watch Stewart and Colbert, but mostly Stewart because I find him a little less predictable. Colbert's routine is starting to wear a bit thin. I am not a big Bill O'reilly fan but basing your whole existence on lampooning Bill O'Reilly is getting stale. I do wonder how much acclaim and praise these two would get if they were constantly poking fun at the other side. Instead of spending an hour joking about Sarah Palin and Rand Paul. How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama? Do you think there might be some rich material there?
Honestly, how hard would be for anyone to run a video clip of a public figure (either side) followed by a long pause with a straight face and make fun of them. My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed. Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!
Yeah, you're just plain wrong. Daily Show viewers lead Fox viewers in both education and income, so if anything, they probably pay more taxes.
Why does the safety net have to be government-provided? And even if it does, why does it have to be federal? This is something that can and should be handled at the state level, for many reasons, where it can't be effectively addressed by private charitable organizations.
As for your assertion of increased criminal costs, you should compare the portion of our GDP that is spent on such things today with how much we spent before we created the "safety net".
Do I get to factor in things like the "war on drugs"? Also, you're trying to make the safety net into an optional thing subject to the ability of charities to provide for it, when charities are always at their leanest when times are the toughest. I think that's a bad idea.
As for your assertion of increased criminal costs, you should compare the portion of our GDP that is spent on such things today with how much we spent before we created the "safety net".
Am I to assume you've done that? What were your findings?
You have to cut entitlements back gradually, and you have to do it in a way that doesn't harm those have believed that it would be there to help them and now don't have any way to provide for themselves. But it can be done.
It could be done over the span of a few generations, but certainly not quickly. Everyone that has paid into the system is going to want their money back from it, and they should, otherwise they were just being taxed to pay for a lie. Even then you still need some sort of safety net in place, otherwise you're going to see costs go up in the form of crime, law enforcement, incarceration, judicial expenses, etc. And then you still need a way to provide for those who are too old or disabled to provide for themselves. Getting rid of, or reducing by too much, the social safety net, will not solve our problems. Not only will it still be expensive, but the world will be a shittier place to live too.
I actually do watch the show, although I prefer Colbert, who is far more courteous and fair to his guests.
WTF? Have you watched more than a couple episodes? I love both shows, but Colbert is far more obnoxious to his guests, regardless of who they are, than Stewart. It's just part of his persona. He repeatedly cuts them off and talks over them. He's doing the O'Reilly thing.
And people who don't see the "Bill Maher" in Stewart are likely those who agree with his agenda (and as such choose not to see it).
Stewart cuts people off _frequently_ when he doesn't agree with what they're saying, especially when they're trying to make a point. He also frequently diverts away from what they're saying towards sensationalist/emotional content to get a rise out of his audience and make the guest look bad.
I think you're gonna need some serious evidence to back that up. I watch the show a lot and I can't think of many times where Stewart was anything but courteous (and the show has been on for quite a few years now, so it'll take more than a few examples to prove some kind of M.O.), whereas Maher is often a jackass about things, which is part of the reason I don't watch his show. I don't even agree with Stewart about some things, like gun rights for instance, but at least he keeps things civil and usually isn't an ass about it.
I've seen a lot of mocking of the democrats and Obama as well from him lately. I don't know what the actual ratio is, but if someone is truly interested in a real answer, they could maybe watch all the shows from the last 6 months or whatever and see how much time is devoted to mocking either side. I think he dislikes both sides really, and the false dichotomy they represent, but it just depends on what's going on at the time that is most mockable. With all the unadulterated crazy we see from the Tea Party people, and from Republicans trying to harness them, it's obviously going to be a prime target. We don't see much high profile stuff from the left. They aren't very organized and are split into a million factions. Look at the Democrats in congress. It's like herding cats to get all the various Dem factions to agree on something. Republicans don't have that problem. They're practically a hivemind compared to the Democrats.
There's been too much "we'll show them!" and not enough, hey lets have a calm discussion and "we'll show them" our point of view, and if they still disagree, we'll just agree to disagree.
This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. Its rational vs. irrational.
Calm and rational discussions don't attract enough eyeballs, so the 24x7 news networks will fight it tooth and nail and do all they can to undermine it, which is exactly what we see now.
Why would I bother? If I produce them, the other party will simply disbelieve them or drum up their own. Then I could find someone who reported what I suspected was true. Ad infinitum. It's an exercise in futility.
So you're saying that the numbers are all suspect, and determining which one is more likely correct is hard, so you'll just believe whatever you want. I believe the previous poster's statement stands. Truthiness rules.
Everything stated is extremely widely known. The fact that you're demanding a citation for what is essentially common knowledge says far, far more about you and how ill equipped you are to be making comments here, on this subject, than anything else.
Estimates of Iraq war deaths versus Saddam inflicted deaths do not remotely equate to "a drop in the bucket" by any math I can think of. This is where a citation of what numbers you're using would at least tell us that you're not just making shit up, and that you're doing an apples to apples comparison.
As for the chance of revolt being zero, yeah, I think that requires some explanation, the kind that might be provided through a citation. Saying that they would have revolted at the start would mean that they thought they could do so without getting bombed by the U.S. or that the U.S. was actually going to follow through this time rather than getting them to act and then abandoning them, as it had done before to the Kurds. So, no, I don't think you've made a case for your zero chance claim.
The reality is, the people were completely terrified on Saddam. The number of people killed in the Iraq war is a drop in the bucked compared to the deaths inflicted by Saddam every year. He was a modern day Stalin. And that's not counting the roaming terror squads who would randomly pick someone up. Frequently they were murdered. Torture was always used - typically involving meat hooks. Mass rape occurred every day. The chance of civil revolt was zero. For it to be non-zero means the population would have revolted and overthrown the government at the start of of the invasion. The population was frozen in terror. There was zero chance of revolt. US had actually hoped it would happen during the days of the invasion. It never did.
Wow. Bizarre logic, and not a single citation to back up any of your claims. And you have the sack to criticize other people's claims? Pathetic.
Why should someone suffer repercussions for lying to Congress, when the members of Congress themselves face no repercussions for lying to their constituents? Just Playing Devil's Advocate.
Because their lies affect all of us. Members of Congress should face stiff penalties for lying as well, probably greater than those who simply testify before them. That won't happen until voters quit looking at politics the way they do professional sports, with a "my team" and "the opposing team" view that leads them to never advocate for sever penalties for lying or corruption by elected officials. Whenever it comes up, everyone defends their team and nothing ever gets done.
Someone has to pay for it. It's just a question of whether those costs should be socialized or not. Even in cases where most of the medical costs are socialized, I can see it being a concern that socializing things like on-site emergency care could really drive up costs for the health system if people feel like they can use them for things that may not be necessary. So you end up having to make rules about what is considered necessary or not, and that is perilous territory. There are bound to be lots of gray areas where the judgment call could go either way. You'd almost have to err on the side of inclusiveness, which would probably lead to higher costs. It would likely have the effect of more lives saved as well, but at a much higher cost to the system overall. So it's going to come down to a political decision that will have to be made by voters. Is it worth it to them to pay the costs?
... and the mark of a good skeptic, is somebody who understands that they realistically cannot know all that much of anything, and to defer to the judgement of experts -- and not just ANY experts, but recognised experts.
Seriously, no. The mark of a good skeptic is to be skeptic of claimed authority - which includes "recognized experts". You know, you find cheating scientists in the later group, until they get caught.
You were right in that a good skeptic knows the limits of his or her own knowledge as well though.
I think the point was that you don't have to rely on any single "recognized expert", but that you get the benefit of the scientific process, including peer review by other experts to identify fraudulent or flawed science.
Yes. As dumb as the guy may be, he has no obligation to host the comments of others that he doesn't want.
It's not that he did it, it's the reason he gave for doing it, which is that they had opinions about his opinion and he didn't like them expressing those.
A person who lives in Bohemian semi-poverty but is rich in friends, ideas, and experiences is wiser than a friendless man who accumulates wealth so vast it can't be experienced except as an abstraction.
Which is why a truly wise rich man would have a huge Scrooge McDuck type money bin that he could swim around in to viscerally experience his wealth!
People love blaming inherited problems on the person currently in power.
The President (any President, any party) is head of the Executive Branch of Government. The head of the FBI answers to the President, making him ultimately responsible for what the FBI does or does not do.
Now, if Congress was responsible for the changes and he didn't veto it, he's still responsible. I didn't vote for the FBI head, I voted for who would be his boss. The buck stops with him. This is indeed squarely on Obama's shoulders.
I agree that the current administration is responsible for what the FBI does on their watch, and they should be directing it to deal with more important issues and ensuring it has the resources to do so. That said, for many people, these kinds of things are left to fester until someone they don't like is in charge, either in the presidency or in Congress. If they're blaming Obama now, were they blaming Bush when this problem existed under his administration too, or vice versa? And will they blame the next administration that they support when it continues these policies?
What's worse is that once the people they don't support are out of office, they often no longer raise the issue with the administration that they do support. Wouldn't want to embarrass them or call for any sort of accountability I guess.
Right, fundamentally, there is no ownership. Someone can always organize a larger or more powerful gang and come take it. At some point, this frequently escalates to nations going to war in order to do some taking.
So, really, there is no ownership. It's a fantasy created by transient national stability.
Ownership is a reality, as long as there is a government that is strong and stable enough to enforce it. We've had such a government for quite a while now, so ownership has been stable as well.
From the sketches it appears the buses use a rail on one side to help guide them, this is probably the biggest failure point. All it will take is someone crashing into the rail to cause a delay for the bus until it can be repaired. Seems like they would be better off just building an elevated road for buses only. My first though was that the buses would just use rails like a train that were set to be flush with the road so cars could easily change lanes. Only problem there would be debris de-railing them. The best solution would be to let everyone telecommute and invest in laying fiber for greater bandwidth.;)
Building elevated roads seems like it would cost many many times what building elevated buses and street-level rails would cost. That said, I'm all in favor of telecommuting as much as possible.
Seems like any accident could leave debris in the tracks. I can't imagine that would end well. It would also be very easy to sabotage.
Light rail systems have been around in various forms for over a century now. I'm sure they're aware of the potential issues of them. I'm curious what would happen if a vehicle under the bus were to veer into the the side. How strong is the support structure, and could it withstand multiple vehicle impacts if there were to be a serious accident under it. I could see the thing freaking out some drivers.
Try using something like that when trying to code.
You could probably set something like this up to use different auto-correct dictionaries and settings based on what application you're typing in, or via some other selector.
I still have yet to understand why people download ringtone and wallpaper apps on Android. I can use any MP3/WAV/etc. music for ringtones and any JPG/etc. image for backgrounds. I figure anyone who installed either is so completely uninformed about their device they're just begging to get malware of some form.
People seem to like apps that change their wallpaper based on various conditions, whether it be time of day, location, weather, etc. So they have apps to do these things.
I first read "They are authority to use force [...]". Hmm, bit odd way of saying things, but I guess it's okay.
Then I go on, and it continues with "derives from". Two predicates? Uh oh, now it stops making sense.
I stop for a moment, go several words back, and replace "they are" with "their" and re-read the whole thing. NOW it makes sense. It would have been more efficient though, if you had done it instead. Then every reader wouldn't have to go through this process.
I bet the chicks can't keep they're hands off you.
Obama is a socialist. Well, more of a corporatist whore, but certainly embracing socialism and fascism as well. Your diatribe to the contrary doesn't change the fact that he embraces wealth redistribution, state control of private companies, and crony capitalism.
Both a socialist and fascist? Neat trick.
However, the idea that republicans aren't just as bad is pretty laughable.
They are much worse. Much, much worse. But 'much much worse' compared to 'fucking horrible' is not exactly a great situation to be in.
While you easily distracted people on both sides of the aisle defend your 'team', we all get screwed by the same establishment party.
My team? I don't know what 'team' that is. I'm against the party system (of any # of parties) entirely. It's the #1 thing that's strangling this country. The fiscal conservatives can't have any kind of rational discussion because of all the crazies, and the fiscal conservatives are lumped in with the social conservatives (which MOST of this country is NOT). If there was a 'fiscally reasonable, socially mostly-liberal' party, they would win every national election, according to most polling I've seen. The people who call themselves 'fiscally conservative' seem to react more on uneducated gut instinct than actual fact, and seem to still think that 'trickle down economics' works, when it's well-known that it doesn't. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't work, and that's the only solution the GOP ever puts forth. Both parties are corporatists to the bone, and as far as I can tell, and I really hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, seem to be engaging in a big act that they're different, so that nothing ever actually changes.
That pretty much sums up my own position as well. I live in a solidly republican state, and I consider myself a fiscal conservative (within reason), and social liberal. So I basically can't stand either of the major parties. There are others that get on the ballot, but they tend to be nutjobs with an ideological hammer that see every problem as just another nail. If I could vote for one of those nutjobs, it would be the one that has the single issue of reforming the election system.
Wait...you'd be laughing at his attempt to make up a funny story? Wouldn't that be mission accomplished then? As is clearly demonstrated by TFA, there are in fact different kinds of humor, after all.
I think it's the difference between laughing with him and laughing at him. Getting people to laugh at you is easy.
I get that all the time. I either explain I'm a programmer and don't really deal with that sort of stuff, or I give them a hand if it's something simple and I have the time.
There's no need to be a dick about it.
In that case, sure. Computer repair can be quite tricky depending on the problem. But needing the help of a designer to create a simple document with a picture and a couple lines of text? Really? You could accomplish your task with a sheet of paper, some tape, and a marker. Things any secretary has easy access to. Why waste other people's work time with something as trivial as that?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use NoScript personally, but I'm far from a tech-newbie. Having said that, nothing in the line you quoted would cause me to believe that this would "Allow javascript from the site you're on to run while blocking 3rd party scripts." Nothing at all. If anything, "Top-level" would seem to imply that JS from "domain.com" would be enabled, but "somewhere.domain.com" would not - which is just weird. Also, the conjunction of "temporarily" and "by default" is very strange and hard to read, even once you know what its supposed to mean. I'd guess that checking that would allow "top-level" JS to run by default, but the next time I started the browser it would go back to being disallowed - but I don't think that's what you're describing either.
"Allow javascript from the site you're on to run while blocking 3rd party scripts." - much harder to mis-understand.
I don't think that will help as much as you're hoping it will. So much is served up through CDNs with different domain names, that the video you're trying to play probably still won't play.
I occasionally watch Stewart and Colbert, but mostly Stewart because I find him a little less predictable. Colbert's routine is starting to wear a bit thin. I am not a big Bill O'reilly fan but basing your whole existence on lampooning Bill O'Reilly is getting stale. I do wonder how much acclaim and praise these two would get if they were constantly poking fun at the other side. Instead of spending an hour joking about Sarah Palin and Rand Paul. How about Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or Obama? Do you think there might be some rich material there?
Honestly, how hard would be for anyone to run a video clip of a public figure (either side) followed by a long pause with a straight face and make fun of them. My point is, the audiences of these shows are mostly young liberal and uninformed. Their audience aren't concerned about things like big government because most of them pay no taxes. Try audience replacing his studio audience with middle aged tax payers or people working two jobs to pay their mortgage and see how funny they are!
Yeah, you're just plain wrong. Daily Show viewers lead Fox viewers in both education and income, so if anything, they probably pay more taxes.
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-09-28/entertainment/comedy.politics_1_viewers-o-reilly-quiz?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions
Why does the safety net have to be government-provided? And even if it does, why does it have to be federal? This is something that can and should be handled at the state level, for many reasons, where it can't be effectively addressed by private charitable organizations.
As for your assertion of increased criminal costs, you should compare the portion of our GDP that is spent on such things today with how much we spent before we created the "safety net".
Do I get to factor in things like the "war on drugs"? Also, you're trying to make the safety net into an optional thing subject to the ability of charities to provide for it, when charities are always at their leanest when times are the toughest. I think that's a bad idea.
As for your assertion of increased criminal costs, you should compare the portion of our GDP that is spent on such things today with how much we spent before we created the "safety net".
Am I to assume you've done that? What were your findings?
You have to cut entitlements back gradually, and you have to do it in a way that doesn't harm those have believed that it would be there to help them and now don't have any way to provide for themselves. But it can be done.
It could be done over the span of a few generations, but certainly not quickly. Everyone that has paid into the system is going to want their money back from it, and they should, otherwise they were just being taxed to pay for a lie. Even then you still need some sort of safety net in place, otherwise you're going to see costs go up in the form of crime, law enforcement, incarceration, judicial expenses, etc. And then you still need a way to provide for those who are too old or disabled to provide for themselves. Getting rid of, or reducing by too much, the social safety net, will not solve our problems. Not only will it still be expensive, but the world will be a shittier place to live too.
I actually do watch the show, although I prefer Colbert, who is far more courteous and fair to his guests.
WTF? Have you watched more than a couple episodes? I love both shows, but Colbert is far more obnoxious to his guests, regardless of who they are, than Stewart. It's just part of his persona. He repeatedly cuts them off and talks over them. He's doing the O'Reilly thing.
And people who don't see the "Bill Maher" in Stewart are likely those who agree with his agenda (and as such choose not to see it). Stewart cuts people off _frequently_ when he doesn't agree with what they're saying, especially when they're trying to make a point. He also frequently diverts away from what they're saying towards sensationalist/emotional content to get a rise out of his audience and make the guest look bad.
I think you're gonna need some serious evidence to back that up. I watch the show a lot and I can't think of many times where Stewart was anything but courteous (and the show has been on for quite a few years now, so it'll take more than a few examples to prove some kind of M.O.), whereas Maher is often a jackass about things, which is part of the reason I don't watch his show. I don't even agree with Stewart about some things, like gun rights for instance, but at least he keeps things civil and usually isn't an ass about it.
I've seen a lot of mocking of the democrats and Obama as well from him lately. I don't know what the actual ratio is, but if someone is truly interested in a real answer, they could maybe watch all the shows from the last 6 months or whatever and see how much time is devoted to mocking either side. I think he dislikes both sides really, and the false dichotomy they represent, but it just depends on what's going on at the time that is most mockable. With all the unadulterated crazy we see from the Tea Party people, and from Republicans trying to harness them, it's obviously going to be a prime target. We don't see much high profile stuff from the left. They aren't very organized and are split into a million factions. Look at the Democrats in congress. It's like herding cats to get all the various Dem factions to agree on something. Republicans don't have that problem. They're practically a hivemind compared to the Democrats.
There's been too much "we'll show them!" and not enough, hey lets have a calm discussion and "we'll show them" our point of view, and if they still disagree, we'll just agree to disagree.
This isn't about liberal vs. conservative. Its rational vs. irrational.
Calm and rational discussions don't attract enough eyeballs, so the 24x7 news networks will fight it tooth and nail and do all they can to undermine it, which is exactly what we see now.
Why would I bother? If I produce them, the other party will simply disbelieve them or drum up their own. Then I could find someone who reported what I suspected was true. Ad infinitum. It's an exercise in futility.
So you're saying that the numbers are all suspect, and determining which one is more likely correct is hard, so you'll just believe whatever you want. I believe the previous poster's statement stands. Truthiness rules.
Do I need a citation that 1+1=2?
Everything stated is extremely widely known. The fact that you're demanding a citation for what is essentially common knowledge says far, far more about you and how ill equipped you are to be making comments here, on this subject, than anything else.
Estimates of Iraq war deaths versus Saddam inflicted deaths do not remotely equate to "a drop in the bucket" by any math I can think of. This is where a citation of what numbers you're using would at least tell us that you're not just making shit up, and that you're doing an apples to apples comparison.
As for the chance of revolt being zero, yeah, I think that requires some explanation, the kind that might be provided through a citation. Saying that they would have revolted at the start would mean that they thought they could do so without getting bombed by the U.S. or that the U.S. was actually going to follow through this time rather than getting them to act and then abandoning them, as it had done before to the Kurds. So, no, I don't think you've made a case for your zero chance claim.
The reality is, the people were completely terrified on Saddam. The number of people killed in the Iraq war is a drop in the bucked compared to the deaths inflicted by Saddam every year. He was a modern day Stalin. And that's not counting the roaming terror squads who would randomly pick someone up. Frequently they were murdered. Torture was always used - typically involving meat hooks. Mass rape occurred every day. The chance of civil revolt was zero. For it to be non-zero means the population would have revolted and overthrown the government at the start of of the invasion. The population was frozen in terror. There was zero chance of revolt. US had actually hoped it would happen during the days of the invasion. It never did.
Wow. Bizarre logic, and not a single citation to back up any of your claims. And you have the sack to criticize other people's claims? Pathetic.
Why should someone suffer repercussions for lying to Congress, when the members of Congress themselves face no repercussions for lying to their constituents? Just Playing Devil's Advocate.
Because their lies affect all of us. Members of Congress should face stiff penalties for lying as well, probably greater than those who simply testify before them. That won't happen until voters quit looking at politics the way they do professional sports, with a "my team" and "the opposing team" view that leads them to never advocate for sever penalties for lying or corruption by elected officials. Whenever it comes up, everyone defends their team and nothing ever gets done.
If every person that lied to Congress were prosecuted, we wouldn't have a legislature!
Great! Lock them all up and we'll elect a new batch! Maybe they'll learn not to lie, lest they meet the same fate.
Someone has to pay for it. It's just a question of whether those costs should be socialized or not. Even in cases where most of the medical costs are socialized, I can see it being a concern that socializing things like on-site emergency care could really drive up costs for the health system if people feel like they can use them for things that may not be necessary. So you end up having to make rules about what is considered necessary or not, and that is perilous territory. There are bound to be lots of gray areas where the judgment call could go either way. You'd almost have to err on the side of inclusiveness, which would probably lead to higher costs. It would likely have the effect of more lives saved as well, but at a much higher cost to the system overall. So it's going to come down to a political decision that will have to be made by voters. Is it worth it to them to pay the costs?
Seriously, no. The mark of a good skeptic is to be skeptic of claimed authority - which includes "recognized experts". You know, you find cheating scientists in the later group, until they get caught.
You were right in that a good skeptic knows the limits of his or her own knowledge as well though.
I think the point was that you don't have to rely on any single "recognized expert", but that you get the benefit of the scientific process, including peer review by other experts to identify fraudulent or flawed science.
Yes. As dumb as the guy may be, he has no obligation to host the comments of others that he doesn't want.
It's not that he did it, it's the reason he gave for doing it, which is that they had opinions about his opinion and he didn't like them expressing those.
A person who lives in Bohemian semi-poverty but is rich in friends, ideas, and experiences is wiser than a friendless man who accumulates wealth so vast it can't be experienced except as an abstraction.
Which is why a truly wise rich man would have a huge Scrooge McDuck type money bin that he could swim around in to viscerally experience his wealth!
People love blaming inherited problems on the person currently in power.
The President (any President, any party) is head of the Executive Branch of Government. The head of the FBI answers to the President, making him ultimately responsible for what the FBI does or does not do.
Now, if Congress was responsible for the changes and he didn't veto it, he's still responsible. I didn't vote for the FBI head, I voted for who would be his boss. The buck stops with him. This is indeed squarely on Obama's shoulders.
I agree that the current administration is responsible for what the FBI does on their watch, and they should be directing it to deal with more important issues and ensuring it has the resources to do so. That said, for many people, these kinds of things are left to fester until someone they don't like is in charge, either in the presidency or in Congress. If they're blaming Obama now, were they blaming Bush when this problem existed under his administration too, or vice versa? And will they blame the next administration that they support when it continues these policies?
What's worse is that once the people they don't support are out of office, they often no longer raise the issue with the administration that they do support. Wouldn't want to embarrass them or call for any sort of accountability I guess.
Right, fundamentally, there is no ownership. Someone can always organize a larger or more powerful gang and come take it. At some point, this frequently escalates to nations going to war in order to do some taking.
So, really, there is no ownership. It's a fantasy created by transient national stability.
Ownership is a reality, as long as there is a government that is strong and stable enough to enforce it. We've had such a government for quite a while now, so ownership has been stable as well.
From the sketches it appears the buses use a rail on one side to help guide them, this is probably the biggest failure point. All it will take is someone crashing into the rail to cause a delay for the bus until it can be repaired. Seems like they would be better off just building an elevated road for buses only. My first though was that the buses would just use rails like a train that were set to be flush with the road so cars could easily change lanes. Only problem there would be debris de-railing them. The best solution would be to let everyone telecommute and invest in laying fiber for greater bandwidth. ;)
Building elevated roads seems like it would cost many many times what building elevated buses and street-level rails would cost. That said, I'm all in favor of telecommuting as much as possible.
Seems like any accident could leave debris in the tracks. I can't imagine that would end well. It would also be very easy to sabotage.
Light rail systems have been around in various forms for over a century now. I'm sure they're aware of the potential issues of them. I'm curious what would happen if a vehicle under the bus were to veer into the the side. How strong is the support structure, and could it withstand multiple vehicle impacts if there were to be a serious accident under it. I could see the thing freaking out some drivers.
Try using something like that when trying to code.
You could probably set something like this up to use different auto-correct dictionaries and settings based on what application you're typing in, or via some other selector.
I still have yet to understand why people download ringtone and wallpaper apps on Android. I can use any MP3/WAV/etc. music for ringtones and any JPG/etc. image for backgrounds. I figure anyone who installed either is so completely uninformed about their device they're just begging to get malware of some form.
People seem to like apps that change their wallpaper based on various conditions, whether it be time of day, location, weather, etc. So they have apps to do these things.
I first read "They are authority to use force [...]". Hmm, bit odd way of saying things, but I guess it's okay.
Then I go on, and it continues with "derives from". Two predicates? Uh oh, now it stops making sense.
I stop for a moment, go several words back, and replace "they are" with "their" and re-read the whole thing. NOW it makes sense. It would have been more efficient though, if you had done it instead. Then every reader wouldn't have to go through this process.
I bet the chicks can't keep they're hands off you.
Obama is a socialist. Well, more of a corporatist whore, but certainly embracing socialism and fascism as well. Your diatribe to the contrary doesn't change the fact that he embraces wealth redistribution, state control of private companies, and crony capitalism.
Both a socialist and fascist? Neat trick.
However, the idea that republicans aren't just as bad is pretty laughable.
They are much worse. Much, much worse. But 'much much worse' compared to 'fucking horrible' is not exactly a great situation to be in.
While you easily distracted people on both sides of the aisle defend your 'team', we all get screwed by the same establishment party.
My team? I don't know what 'team' that is. I'm against the party system (of any # of parties) entirely. It's the #1 thing that's strangling this country. The fiscal conservatives can't have any kind of rational discussion because of all the crazies, and the fiscal conservatives are lumped in with the social conservatives (which MOST of this country is NOT). If there was a 'fiscally reasonable, socially mostly-liberal' party, they would win every national election, according to most polling I've seen. The people who call themselves 'fiscally conservative' seem to react more on uneducated gut instinct than actual fact, and seem to still think that 'trickle down economics' works, when it's well-known that it doesn't. Giving tax breaks to the wealthy doesn't work, and that's the only solution the GOP ever puts forth. Both parties are corporatists to the bone, and as far as I can tell, and I really hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, seem to be engaging in a big act that they're different, so that nothing ever actually changes.
That pretty much sums up my own position as well. I live in a solidly republican state, and I consider myself a fiscal conservative (within reason), and social liberal. So I basically can't stand either of the major parties. There are others that get on the ballot, but they tend to be nutjobs with an ideological hammer that see every problem as just another nail. If I could vote for one of those nutjobs, it would be the one that has the single issue of reforming the election system.
Wait...you'd be laughing at his attempt to make up a funny story? Wouldn't that be mission accomplished then? As is clearly demonstrated by TFA, there are in fact different kinds of humor, after all.
I think it's the difference between laughing with him and laughing at him. Getting people to laugh at you is easy.
I get that all the time. I either explain I'm a programmer and don't really deal with that sort of stuff, or I give them a hand if it's something simple and I have the time.
There's no need to be a dick about it.
In that case, sure. Computer repair can be quite tricky depending on the problem. But needing the help of a designer to create a simple document with a picture and a couple lines of text? Really? You could accomplish your task with a sheet of paper, some tape, and a marker. Things any secretary has easy access to. Why waste other people's work time with something as trivial as that?