Big Oil's control of certain members of Congress is not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret by definition and the Oil Lobby's congressional pressure is right out in the open.
You don't trust journalists, especially NYT journalists, for tech stories. As a group they're one of the most arrogant groups of people around. They're above going to someone that knows the tech to make sure their stories are accurate. Yeah this is a sweeping generalization, but I would say over 90% of the tech stories I've ever read from a regular newspaper journalist have had some glaring error that could have been easily corrected. Techs are simply below them. If you think this is wrong, try to work IT at a newspaper...
If the logs or forged to that extent there is going to by something sloppy somewhere. Everyone has access to them and it will be found... too many eyes.
You can look at my comment history... I have a history of trust problems with corporate America, but in this case there are logs backing up the claims. The NYT has free access to those logs and if there is tampering then it IS going to be found.
What SHOULD have been done by the NYT here... they should have had video evidence of what they are saying. We're stuck with one reporter who has shown to have an anti-electric car bias and his word vs a log. It's not hard to see who has the burden of proof in this situation.
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"? Because that sure seems to be what people are meaning by the word these days.
If you think Obama is breaking the law, give solid examples. If you think he is lying, give facts that attempt to prove your case. If and when your facts are shown to be lacking, acknowledge the fact and come up with a different argument. At the moment the people that don't like Obama are throwing words around like rocks but I never, EVER see any facts coming about.
I hate what is going on with the drones, but the absolute lack of rationality in Obama's opposition right now keeps driving me to make comments. Get some rational leaders and get some good arguments with honest to goodness FACTS that aren't simply word twisting and I'm sure people will listen to your side, but right now you're no better than the loud, drunk redneck in a saloon.
It doesn't have to be, but it usually is. I use Linux as my regular desktop OS, and there are PLENTY of things off limits because of bad DRM design or designers that don't care about Linux.
The current version of the nutbag arm of the libertarian party seems to be much more interested in defending corporate "liberty" rather than individual liberty. It's stories like this that show the two are totally incompatible. If you have no restraints on big institutions (including corporations) there is no such thing as individual rights.
CEOs don't get big pay because of "market forces."
They get big pay because their buddies sit on their board. These CEOs also sit on THEIR buddies boards. They vote each other big packages. If YOU want a big pay package are you going to vote down a big pay package for one of your buddies?
Writing congresscritters does nothing. I do it about something every once in a while. The result is always a letter back that says, to an extent, "I'm right and you're wrong."
My congressman is essentially a representative of corporate and GOP interests. When I send him a comment I get the equivalent of being flipped the bird in email form. It doesn't hurt him... there is no way in hell I would ever vote for him.
The rule of thumb is, how does the proposed law affect a corporate entity that has its hand in the lobbying game.
If it has no affect, it will be ignored and never brought up. It's a waste of time. If it is detrimental, it will be openly struck down. If it means money in the pockets of corporate partners, it will sail right through.
This works WAY more often than not. It gets more interesting when more than one special interest in involved. Then there is a fight. The big guy usually wins (look at the oil lobby).
As I understand HIPPA (and I am not a doctor or a lawyer but someone that had to worry about this for a specific project at one time), it covers your health care professional and means nothing to your employer or other agency.
Again... it's corporate anarchy. They have this information and they are going to leverage it. They're WAY bigger than individuals or families, so screw you.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are so many people so willing to accept "rampant left bias" but refuse to see the rampant corporate bias?
Big Oil's control of certain members of Congress is not a conspiracy. Conspiracies are secret by definition and the Oil Lobby's congressional pressure is right out in the open.
You don't trust journalists, especially NYT journalists, for tech stories. As a group they're one of the most arrogant groups of people around. They're above going to someone that knows the tech to make sure their stories are accurate. Yeah this is a sweeping generalization, but I would say over 90% of the tech stories I've ever read from a regular newspaper journalist have had some glaring error that could have been easily corrected. Techs are simply below them. If you think this is wrong, try to work IT at a newspaper...
This is almost the exact same (bogus) argument used about the EV-1.
The same counter-argument applies... many people were happy because they wanted the car for town driving and it was well within their range.
If the logs or forged to that extent there is going to by something sloppy somewhere. Everyone has access to them and it will be found... too many eyes.
This is right on. Trust data.
You can look at my comment history... I have a history of trust problems with corporate America, but in this case there are logs backing up the claims. The NYT has free access to those logs and if there is tampering then it IS going to be found.
What SHOULD have been done by the NYT here... they should have had video evidence of what they are saying. We're stuck with one reporter who has shown to have an anti-electric car bias and his word vs a log. It's not hard to see who has the burden of proof in this situation.
That's just incorrect. I still have a Linksys iPhone I bought the year before or the same year the iPhone was released.
When did the definition of tyranny become "Government doing something I don't like"? Because that sure seems to be what people are meaning by the word these days.
If you think Obama is breaking the law, give solid examples. If you think he is lying, give facts that attempt to prove your case. If and when your facts are shown to be lacking, acknowledge the fact and come up with a different argument. At the moment the people that don't like Obama are throwing words around like rocks but I never, EVER see any facts coming about.
I hate what is going on with the drones, but the absolute lack of rationality in Obama's opposition right now keeps driving me to make comments. Get some rational leaders and get some good arguments with honest to goodness FACTS that aren't simply word twisting and I'm sure people will listen to your side, but right now you're no better than the loud, drunk redneck in a saloon.
What was the drinking game trigger that caused Rubio to take a drink in the middle of his speech I wonder....
Based on what the nutters keep claiming, it's fairly obvious that they think Obama is a Timelord.
It doesn't have to be, but it usually is. I use Linux as my regular desktop OS, and there are PLENTY of things off limits because of bad DRM design or designers that don't care about Linux.
Anything that breaks the cross-platform nature of the web is a breakage of the web. We've got enough shit that does that now.
No.. but add "...on a computer" on the end of it and it's your innovation.
Apparently, you can take any patent in the database, copy-pasta in a word processing document, go to the end of the document and add these characters:
And you have a new patent, ready for filing.
This is becoming absolutely absurd.
This might be true in a society where the corporate elite can use the court system as a weapon.
Just to head off the obvious troll being obvious.. I messed up and did not use the proper version of "their." Soooo sorry.
They're careers will be systematically destroyed.
Not to mention what they say, even if perfect in its documentation and rationality, will just be ignored.
Economists that don't toe the corporate line of thinking get booted.
The current version of the nutbag arm of the libertarian party seems to be much more interested in defending corporate "liberty" rather than individual liberty. It's stories like this that show the two are totally incompatible. If you have no restraints on big institutions (including corporations) there is no such thing as individual rights.
CEOs don't get big pay because of "market forces."
They get big pay because their buddies sit on their board. These CEOs also sit on THEIR buddies boards. They vote each other big packages. If YOU want a big pay package are you going to vote down a big pay package for one of your buddies?
A fine solution if you don't have to eat.
Writing congresscritters does nothing. I do it about something every once in a while. The result is always a letter back that says, to an extent, "I'm right and you're wrong."
My congressman is essentially a representative of corporate and GOP interests. When I send him a comment I get the equivalent of being flipped the bird in email form. It doesn't hurt him... there is no way in hell I would ever vote for him.
The rule of thumb is, how does the proposed law affect a corporate entity that has its hand in the lobbying game.
If it has no affect, it will be ignored and never brought up. It's a waste of time.
If it is detrimental, it will be openly struck down.
If it means money in the pockets of corporate partners, it will sail right through.
This works WAY more often than not. It gets more interesting when more than one special interest in involved. Then there is a fight. The big guy usually wins (look at the oil lobby).
As I understand HIPPA (and I am not a doctor or a lawyer but someone that had to worry about this for a specific project at one time), it covers your health care professional and means nothing to your employer or other agency.
Again... it's corporate anarchy. They have this information and they are going to leverage it. They're WAY bigger than individuals or families, so screw you.
The word "corporation" comes to mind.
Welcome to the corporate anarchy, citizen.
Jeff Bezos registered himself as a charity? When did that happen?