You know I have trouble telling if you are being sarcastic, or if you truly believe that, but you appear to actualy believe that the mainstream press was nice to Bush. The press continuously played up every accusation against Bush. The mainstream press was talking about how bad the economy was when unemployment was 4.8%. Now that unemployment is 9.8%, they are constantly talking about how the economy is doing wonderful, it's just those "unexpectedly" high unemployment numbers that we need to worry about.
If they aren't interested in that, how do you explain all of the companies that pay programmers to work on Open Source?
Most (if not all) of those companies already had programmers on staff to write custom software for the company. They discovered that it was easier and cheaper (and often better) to modify Open Source Software than it was to write their own application from scratch (or to buy such an application from some proprietary vendor).
Actually, most of the people who miss that are not listening closely enough. The point of the "many eyes" thing with Open Source software is that if an OSS project is of interest to a company (in particular a company that hires programmers anyway) that company can have its people look at the software from the perspective of the way that company uses the software and they can make changes (either bug fixes or otherwise) to make the software better for their company. If they were using proprietary software, they would be at the mercy of the company that owned the rights to that software for any fixes or improvements.
My point is that when one looks at the accident statistics, one quickly realizes that there is no reason to worry about re-testing elderly drivers. While there is the occasional, high profile accident involving an elderly driver who should have long since given up driving, overall elderly drivers are so much less often involved in car crashes than teenagers that re-testing them would be a waste of resources. This may change with the aging of Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers have different enough attitudes from their seniors that they may not demonstrate the same good sense with regarding to driving (of course, it is entirely possible that they will).
(Do you really think that all of the people out there driving in their late 80s drive just as well as they did when they were 19?)
Considering the accident statistics for people in their 80s vs people in their teens, I think it would be a good supposition that people in their 80s drive better than when they were teens. That is not to say that they are better drivers as far as an overall skill set goes, it's just that in general they make better decisions. There are exceptions, but I remember what it was like to be 19. Everybody I know who is in their 80s who still drives is a safer driver than I was when I was 19 (and I was one of the safest drivers I knew at my age, there were some who quite likely were better but I had never ridden with them so I had no way to judge how safely they drove).
I approve of car companies (and after market companies) putting backup cameras in vehicles for those who want them. I disapprove of the government mandating them for people who don't want to pay the price.
Things advance to the point where a majority of us agree that that will be the new normal and we spec it out and move on.
If the majority agree that it will be the new normal, you don't need to have a government mandate, the market will provide that new normal. Once the majority of people want a certain feature in new cars, manufacturers will gradually stop making cars without that feature.
So, you want to pay more for new cars, I don't. You may consider a backup camera to be worth the price. I don't. I would have to relearn how I drive to make use of a backup camera. Have you given any thought to how much backup cameras would increase the cost of used cars? Once they become standard, they will need to be in working order for the car to pass inspection. When somebody hits one of these cars and damages the backup camera system, how much will it cost to fix it?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the sons in the parable are young enough to constitute problems with child labor laws. Because I am familiar with the culture in which this parable was told (and because it was told in a similar context to the parable of the prodigal son), I have always read the sons as being in their late teens to early twenties. There is certainly nothing in the parable (or its context) that requires this, there is also nothing in the parable that even suggests that the sons in question are young children.
The problem is the point made by the parable is valid, whether or not you believe the religion that generated it. So it is perfectly valid to reward the person who pointed that out in a humorous manner. You are the one who should be modded done, since you are more concerned with being anti-religion than paying attention to the point that the original poster made.
As I replied to another poster, not all subpoenas are issued by a court. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena,..."
Subpoenas are also issued by government agencies without a judge. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena,..."
I may be mistaken about the timing of renogiating, but yeah this is basically Level3 trying to use PR to get a better deal out of Comcast (something I think they based their pricing to Netflix on being able to get).
It looks to me like Level3 is pissed because they negotiated a deal with Netflix that undercut their competitors by a significant amount based on not having to pay Comcast anything for peering and now Comcast is saying they have to pay the same as their competitors and that Netflix deal isn't looking so good anymore.
Someone else mentions that this traffic used to be handled by Akamai and that Akamai colocates servers on Comcast's network. What they didn't mention was that Akamai, also, paid Comcast to send this traffic. Now that Level3 is handling this traffic Comcast wants them to pay the fee that Akamai paid. Level3 doesn't want to do that because they offered Netflix a lower CDN price than Akamai based on not having to pay Comcast to handle the traffic (this is me reading between the lines).
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate.
That is what this is about, Comcast is telling Level3 that they need to renegotiate their peering agreement because Level3 is about to significantly increase the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network. Netflix used to use Akamai as one of their primary ISPs. Akamai paid Comcast for the traffic they sent to Comcast's network. Level3 had a peering agreement with Comcast whereby they didn't pay to send traffic to Comcast because Comcast sent as much traffic to Level3's network as Level3 sent to Comcast's. That is about to change with Netflix switching from Akamai to Level3. Level3 is screaming because they undercut Akamai's price to provide service to Netflix on the basis of not paying Comcast to send data to Comcast's customers.
This has nothing to do with Netflix competing with Comcast (at leat not that anyone has so far offered any evidence for), this is about Level3 increasing the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network without a similar increase in the amount of traffic that Comcast sends over Level3's network.
I agree with you about the filibuster, it doesn't have to be one person, but they should make someone get up at the podium to speak. If no one wants to get up to speak, the chair can call for a vote on the bill, the only way a vote to end debate is necessary is if someone is speaking.
That's only true if one considers the programs to be fungible. Personally, anyone who tries to tell me "If you don't like the loud commercials during Big Bang Theory, then go watch the Jersey shore instead. Those commercials are quiet" is not only missing the point, but deserves to be kicked in the groin.
No, the answer is not to go watch the Jersey shore instead (at least if you are referring to the TV show), the answer is, that if there is no TV show that does not play commercials unreasonably loud that you wish to watch, don't watch TV at all. However, in general, people do not stop watching TV because the commercials are too loud, they just put up with it and complain.
It does not matter if TV programs are fungible, if you find the ads on the programs you would like to watch to be objectionably (for whatever reason) don't watch the shows. Then contact your local station and tell them why you are no longer watching their shows. If one person does this, it will make little or no difference, if all of the people who have complained to their legislators about this had taken my suggested action instead, the problem would already be fixed, but you have to be willing to stop watching.
No it is not the first time we have seen this with production cars. Toyota did not start making a profit on the Prius until sometime in the 2006-2008 time frame.
Actually, it might make sense for GM to sell the Volt at a loss (not that I think it does, but it might). When Toyota started selling the Prius, they were losing money on every car they sold. At the time, GM had decided not to build hybrids for that very reason (they would lose money on every car they sold). Toyota sold the Prius as a loss leader. They did not start making a profit on the Prius until sometime between 2006-2008 (and I'm not sure that covered the losses they were taking on it before them).
You do not recall correctly. The government is due to lose approximately half of the money that they gave/loaned/whatever other word you want to use for it to GM.
Now you are confusing "nullification" with "secession". Actually, Republicans (or at least proto-Republicans) used the theory of nullification to resist the federal fugitive slave laws. Considering that James Madison (the author of the Constitution) considered "interposition" (which is closely related to "nullification") to be a valid idea, it seems like there is some basis to the idea. Additionally, the arguments for "nullification" are not that the states dislike the law but that the law is unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So, if I thought that it was evil to eat chocolate you wouldn't think I was crazy? If you don't believe that there is an absolute moral code than I think you are crazy to still think that morals are important.
That is my experience exactly. I stopped using AVG when it went to version 8 and became bloatware. I switched to using Microsoft Security Essentials for all of my Windows boxes and recomend it for all of the people I provide informal support for,
Slashdot Mirror
just like they were so nice to Bush,
You know I have trouble telling if you are being sarcastic, or if you truly believe that, but you appear to actualy believe that the mainstream press was nice to Bush. The press continuously played up every accusation against Bush. The mainstream press was talking about how bad the economy was when unemployment was 4.8%. Now that unemployment is 9.8%, they are constantly talking about how the economy is doing wonderful, it's just those "unexpectedly" high unemployment numbers that we need to worry about.
If they aren't interested in that, how do you explain all of the companies that pay programmers to work on Open Source?
Most (if not all) of those companies already had programmers on staff to write custom software for the company. They discovered that it was easier and cheaper (and often better) to modify Open Source Software than it was to write their own application from scratch (or to buy such an application from some proprietary vendor).
Actually, most of the people who miss that are not listening closely enough. The point of the "many eyes" thing with Open Source software is that if an OSS project is of interest to a company (in particular a company that hires programmers anyway) that company can have its people look at the software from the perspective of the way that company uses the software and they can make changes (either bug fixes or otherwise) to make the software better for their company. If they were using proprietary software, they would be at the mercy of the company that owned the rights to that software for any fixes or improvements.
My point is that when one looks at the accident statistics, one quickly realizes that there is no reason to worry about re-testing elderly drivers. While there is the occasional, high profile accident involving an elderly driver who should have long since given up driving, overall elderly drivers are so much less often involved in car crashes than teenagers that re-testing them would be a waste of resources. This may change with the aging of Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers have different enough attitudes from their seniors that they may not demonstrate the same good sense with regarding to driving (of course, it is entirely possible that they will).
(Do you really think that all of the people out there driving in their late 80s drive just as well as they did when they were 19?)
Considering the accident statistics for people in their 80s vs people in their teens, I think it would be a good supposition that people in their 80s drive better than when they were teens. That is not to say that they are better drivers as far as an overall skill set goes, it's just that in general they make better decisions. There are exceptions, but I remember what it was like to be 19. Everybody I know who is in their 80s who still drives is a safer driver than I was when I was 19 (and I was one of the safest drivers I knew at my age, there were some who quite likely were better but I had never ridden with them so I had no way to judge how safely they drove).
I approve of car companies (and after market companies) putting backup cameras in vehicles for those who want them. I disapprove of the government mandating them for people who don't want to pay the price.
If people aren't looking, how does the backup camera help?
Things advance to the point where a majority of us agree that that will be the new normal and we spec it out and move on.
If the majority agree that it will be the new normal, you don't need to have a government mandate, the market will provide that new normal. Once the majority of people want a certain feature in new cars, manufacturers will gradually stop making cars without that feature.
So, you want to pay more for new cars, I don't. You may consider a backup camera to be worth the price. I don't. I would have to relearn how I drive to make use of a backup camera. Have you given any thought to how much backup cameras would increase the cost of used cars? Once they become standard, they will need to be in working order for the car to pass inspection. When somebody hits one of these cars and damages the backup camera system, how much will it cost to fix it?
You are making the mistake of assuming that the sons in the parable are young enough to constitute problems with child labor laws. Because I am familiar with the culture in which this parable was told (and because it was told in a similar context to the parable of the prodigal son), I have always read the sons as being in their late teens to early twenties. There is certainly nothing in the parable (or its context) that requires this, there is also nothing in the parable that even suggests that the sons in question are young children.
The problem is the point made by the parable is valid, whether or not you believe the religion that generated it. So it is perfectly valid to reward the person who pointed that out in a humorous manner. You are the one who should be modded done, since you are more concerned with being anti-religion than paying attention to the point that the original poster made.
As I replied to another poster, not all subpoenas are issued by a court. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, ..."
Subpoenas are also issued by government agencies without a judge. From the article, "For credit cards, agents can get real-time information on a person’s purchases by writing their own subpoena, ..."
I may be mistaken about the timing of renogiating, but yeah this is basically Level3 trying to use PR to get a better deal out of Comcast (something I think they based their pricing to Netflix on being able to get).
It looks to me like Level3 is pissed because they negotiated a deal with Netflix that undercut their competitors by a significant amount based on not having to pay Comcast anything for peering and now Comcast is saying they have to pay the same as their competitors and that Netflix deal isn't looking so good anymore.
Someone else mentions that this traffic used to be handled by Akamai and that Akamai colocates servers on Comcast's network. What they didn't mention was that Akamai, also, paid Comcast to send this traffic. Now that Level3 is handling this traffic Comcast wants them to pay the fee that Akamai paid. Level3 doesn't want to do that because they offered Netflix a lower CDN price than Akamai based on not having to pay Comcast to handle the traffic (this is me reading between the lines).
If Comcast doesn't like what Level3 is paying them to accept L3's traffic, they should renegotiate.
That is what this is about, Comcast is telling Level3 that they need to renegotiate their peering agreement because Level3 is about to significantly increase the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network. Netflix used to use Akamai as one of their primary ISPs. Akamai paid Comcast for the traffic they sent to Comcast's network. Level3 had a peering agreement with Comcast whereby they didn't pay to send traffic to Comcast because Comcast sent as much traffic to Level3's network as Level3 sent to Comcast's. That is about to change with Netflix switching from Akamai to Level3. Level3 is screaming because they undercut Akamai's price to provide service to Netflix on the basis of not paying Comcast to send data to Comcast's customers.
This has nothing to do with Netflix competing with Comcast (at leat not that anyone has so far offered any evidence for), this is about Level3 increasing the amount of traffic they send over Comcast's network without a similar increase in the amount of traffic that Comcast sends over Level3's network.
I agree with you about the filibuster, it doesn't have to be one person, but they should make someone get up at the podium to speak. If no one wants to get up to speak, the chair can call for a vote on the bill, the only way a vote to end debate is necessary is if someone is speaking.
That's only true if one considers the programs to be fungible. Personally, anyone who tries to tell me "If you don't like the loud commercials during Big Bang Theory, then go watch the Jersey shore instead. Those commercials are quiet" is not only missing the point, but deserves to be kicked in the groin.
No, the answer is not to go watch the Jersey shore instead (at least if you are referring to the TV show), the answer is, that if there is no TV show that does not play commercials unreasonably loud that you wish to watch, don't watch TV at all. However, in general, people do not stop watching TV because the commercials are too loud, they just put up with it and complain.
It does not matter if TV programs are fungible, if you find the ads on the programs you would like to watch to be objectionably (for whatever reason) don't watch the shows. Then contact your local station and tell them why you are no longer watching their shows. If one person does this, it will make little or no difference, if all of the people who have complained to their legislators about this had taken my suggested action instead, the problem would already be fixed, but you have to be willing to stop watching.
No it is not the first time we have seen this with production cars. Toyota did not start making a profit on the Prius until sometime in the 2006-2008 time frame.
Actually, it might make sense for GM to sell the Volt at a loss (not that I think it does, but it might). When Toyota started selling the Prius, they were losing money on every car they sold. At the time, GM had decided not to build hybrids for that very reason (they would lose money on every car they sold). Toyota sold the Prius as a loss leader. They did not start making a profit on the Prius until sometime between 2006-2008 (and I'm not sure that covered the losses they were taking on it before them).
You do not recall correctly. The government is due to lose approximately half of the money that they gave/loaned/whatever other word you want to use for it to GM.
Now you are confusing "nullification" with "secession". Actually, Republicans (or at least proto-Republicans) used the theory of nullification to resist the federal fugitive slave laws. Considering that James Madison (the author of the Constitution) considered "interposition" (which is closely related to "nullification") to be a valid idea, it seems like there is some basis to the idea. Additionally, the arguments for "nullification" are not that the states dislike the law but that the law is unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court has ruled.
So, if I thought that it was evil to eat chocolate you wouldn't think I was crazy? If you don't believe that there is an absolute moral code than I think you are crazy to still think that morals are important.
That is my experience exactly. I stopped using AVG when it went to version 8 and became bloatware. I switched to using Microsoft Security Essentials for all of my Windows boxes and recomend it for all of the people I provide informal support for,
That is exactly what I thought about when I read this.