It's not cheap yet, but the price has (comparatively) plummeted in the past few years. I'd be surprised if we were more than 15 years out from affordable consumer models (sized to fit on a desk, not big enough to print a car lol.)
or do you honestly believe that everyone who runs for office is unfit to serve?
Bingo.
My vote implies support, and I refuse to support someone I don't want being in charge. Voting for the person who lies the least still means you're voting for a liar.
Again, my vote being cast for someone means that I consent to them representing me in matters of federal (or state) law.
I'm not going to give that to someone just because they are less of a fuckhead than the other options. If it means I never find someone to vote for, then so be it...but I refuse to support someone who won't represent me.
Voting for someone that represents you is the whole point...or at least it's supposed to be.
the real criminal is you: you who hold your candidates to impossible standards, and then complain no one meets those standards
So you consider wanting someone who is honest and isn't working in their or their party's self-interest to be unreasonable? What's so wrong about wanting the person who will be representing me to actually represent me? Isn't that the whole point?
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
I never said there were only two. I said "guy or gal" in an attempt to cut off anyone accusing me of being sexist ("What do you mean, vote for the guy? Why can't it be a woman?")
Voting for the "least evil" still means you're voting for "evil", regardless of its quantity. I refuse to give my support to someone that::shock:: I don't actually support.
Not in Maryland, there aren't. I've done my research, and none of them come across as genuine. They all spew out talking points and they all insist they (or their "side") have all the answers.
As soon as someone tries to tell me that only they (or their "side") have the answers, they lose all credibility with me.
True, but I refuse to my support behind someone who is deceiving the populace so that they can obtain some measure of power.
The system is fucked, regardless of who gets put in there; the very nature of our government and our modern politics dictate this to be so. By not voting, I am not responsible for any of those people being in power.
If the day arrives when an honest person who truly wants to change things for the better without any self-serving need to fulfill an ego or provide companies/politicians/lobbyists with favors, I'll vote for them. Until such a time, I'm not going to casually toss my support behind someone just for the hell of it.
Many people on this planet are don't get to vote. Likewise, many people on this planet are forced to vote. America is one of the few bastions where we not only have the freedom to vote, but the freedom to CHOOSE to vote.
You're right, I do have more choices...and every one of my choices is a person running under false pretenses who won't do what they say they will.
Not voting breeds apathy, you have no right to complain if you dont, etc. etc....well you know what? Voting for someone just because they aren't a part of the two-party system still puts me on record as having supported that person.
Like I said in my OP, voting for the person who lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar.
As others have mentioned, it's only AT&T that locks their phones down like that...there are many different reasons why they might, but they don't matter; the restriction is still circumvented.
So long as carriers don't rape it, Android is extremely open...all it takes to install things obtained outside of the Google App Store is pressing a checkbox that is easily found in the settings menu. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the option is only one-screen-deep, once on the settings screen (which can take between 1-2 touches, depending on how you have your phone set up. It's never more than 2 touches away though...three, if you have the screen lock when the phone is off.)
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
It's still just a couple of touches away from being installed from a different location.
It's the equivelent of Blockbuster refusing to rent out adult movies. You can still find adult movies for rent...just not at Blockbuster.
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.
Who says the app's use would be limited to partners/spouses?
Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)
Slashdot Mirror
I know you didn't ask me, but yeah, an open WiFi network is an invitation for anyone to access it.
That doesn't mean you should.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not so sure that works...
...it amounts to "Here's a loaded gun. Now, if you decide to shoot someone with it, that's your business.
It's not cheap yet, but the price has (comparatively) plummeted in the past few years. I'd be surprised if we were more than 15 years out from affordable consumer models (sized to fit on a desk, not big enough to print a car lol.)
or do you honestly believe that everyone who runs for office is unfit to serve?
Bingo.
My vote implies support, and I refuse to support someone I don't want being in charge. Voting for the person who lies the least still means you're voting for a liar.
Voting is a privilege that should not be taken lightly
We don't have the privilege of voting...we have the privilege of CHOOSING to vote, which is exactly what I'm doing: choosing.
you might as well make an effort to ensure that you get a pimp who won't beat you too much
Continuing your analogy, voting for a pimp who rarely beats me still means I'm supporting a pimp that beats me.
I refuse to do that.
You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
And that's somehow worse than choosing whose bitch I am?
If I thought I had the skills necessary to do so, I would have. As it stands, I don't.
This country doesn't need yet another person in charge who is unfit for the job.
vote or die
That's what happens in many other countries...you MUST vote, or you're punished.
America is one of the few nations on this planet where the citizenry have the freedom to CHOOSE to vote. I'm exercising that freedom.
Again, my vote being cast for someone means that I consent to them representing me in matters of federal (or state) law.
I'm not going to give that to someone just because they are less of a fuckhead than the other options. If it means I never find someone to vote for, then so be it...but I refuse to support someone who won't represent me.
Voting for someone that represents you is the whole point...or at least it's supposed to be.
the real criminal is you: you who hold your candidates to impossible standards, and then complain no one meets those standards
So you consider wanting someone who is honest and isn't working in their or their party's self-interest to be unreasonable? What's so wrong about wanting the person who will be representing me to actually represent me? Isn't that the whole point?
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
I never said there were only two. I said "guy or gal" in an attempt to cut off anyone accusing me of being sexist ("What do you mean, vote for the guy? Why can't it be a woman?")
Voting for the "least evil" still means you're voting for "evil", regardless of its quantity. I refuse to give my support to someone that ::shock:: I don't actually support.
There are good politicians.
Not in Maryland, there aren't. I've done my research, and none of them come across as genuine. They all spew out talking points and they all insist they (or their "side") have all the answers.
As soon as someone tries to tell me that only they (or their "side") have the answers, they lose all credibility with me.
True, but I refuse to my support behind someone who is deceiving the populace so that they can obtain some measure of power.
The system is fucked, regardless of who gets put in there; the very nature of our government and our modern politics dictate this to be so. By not voting, I am not responsible for any of those people being in power.
If the day arrives when an honest person who truly wants to change things for the better without any self-serving need to fulfill an ego or provide companies/politicians/lobbyists with favors, I'll vote for them. Until such a time, I'm not going to casually toss my support behind someone just for the hell of it.
Many people on this planet are don't get to vote. Likewise, many people on this planet are forced to vote. America is one of the few bastions where we not only have the freedom to vote, but the freedom to CHOOSE to vote.
I'm exercising that freedom.
You're right, I do have more choices...and every one of my choices is a person running under false pretenses who won't do what they say they will.
Not voting breeds apathy, you have no right to complain if you dont, etc. etc....well you know what? Voting for someone just because they aren't a part of the two-party system still puts me on record as having supported that person.
Like I said in my OP, voting for the person who lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar.
As others have mentioned, it's only AT&T that locks their phones down like that...there are many different reasons why they might, but they don't matter; the restriction is still circumvented.
So long as carriers don't rape it, Android is extremely open...all it takes to install things obtained outside of the Google App Store is pressing a checkbox that is easily found in the settings menu. Off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure the option is only one-screen-deep, once on the settings screen (which can take between 1-2 touches, depending on how you have your phone set up. It's never more than 2 touches away though...three, if you have the screen lock when the phone is off.)
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
Sorry, I spilled my Fun Dip packet in there...
Right??? I could see being modded "moron" for using "you're" when I should have said "your"...but troll? Beh.
Dammit. /seppuku
It's still just a couple of touches away from being installed from a different location.
It's the equivelent of Blockbuster refusing to rent out adult movies. You can still find adult movies for rent...just not at Blockbuster.
This is why not being tied to a single app store is awesome. Unless you jailbreak an iPhone, you're stuck with "Blockbuster", whereas on an Android phone, you can go to any "video rental place" you want.
So what, exactly, is the problem with this app, Google? My right to legally investigate my partner is being taken away, possibly illegally, if all apps of this type are removed.
Who says the app's use would be limited to partners/spouses?
Correct, provided you don't have a carrier-locked-down Android phone that prevents you from installing apps from sources other than the official market (though that kind of thing is quite rare...I believe there are only a couple out of the myriad of Android devices set up like this.)
Too late...the "first" guy already posted one. Wasn't even an AC!