There's more responsibility than that placed upon the police, which you would've seen if you'd done a 5-second search instead of just read a shitty slashdot summary:
"However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."
Because without government we could never accomplish these things. I'm sure if this guy eventually gets dressed and drives to work you'd bring up the roads, too, another impossibility to do without our benevolent rulers.:)
yeah, we COULD accomplish these things. Problem is, we wouldn't. Except in that one country where there's no government and they have clean water and clean air and electricity, and yes, even roads that you can safely drive 70 mph on. Where is that again? RIght, in the figment of an AC's mind.
It's stupid to think that just because "Apple makes it's [sic] money from selling devices", that they don't want to make even more money by using the data that they already have from spying on you.
I think the 'woosh' is yours. Parent is pointing out that there are states where it's ridiculously easy to buy guns, and those guns can easily be transported to areas where gun ownership is more restricted. However, the same is not true of cocaine, which can't easily be bought legally.
I like how you picked just one network (MSNBC) as an example of a "24-hour propaganda network run for their benefit". Gee, I wonder which way your political leanings flail./sarcasm
MSNBC was politically left-wing long before Comcast even started talking about buying them, and in fact, before we even had a Democrat president. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP then, and the executive branch. But nice try.
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
Spoiler alert: the article basically spends most of its time saying "Larry Page is a genius, and like many geniuses, is socially awkward." Wow. How ground-breaking.
That said, I did find it interesting enough to keep reading it.
(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)
"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."
I get the outrage over the FCC making this happen today, but where's the outrage over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals basically forcing them to make this rule?
Honest question from me (because maybe I'm missing something): Didn't the FCC attempt to block large service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against online content? And then in January, the court smacked them down and said "you don't have the power to do that." Seems like the FCC are not the worst bad guys here.
FYI, "the other things", and the cause of all of the cheering, was not from this awesome moon thing, but from the line just before... "Why does Rice play Texas?"
AC makes completely made-up claim, film at 11.
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
The Rice-Texas throwaway line was merely one humorous insertion while Kennedy was making a larger point. The continuation of this urban legend about people cheering for the football team should annoy you.
You're making a gross exaggeration. The focus of that part of the speech was about going to the moon. The line "Why does Rice play Texas" was just one example out of several offered up as "hard things":
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
You think he's not funny. But don't assume that you know what the rest of us are laughing at.
Comedy is more subjective than food. You can certainly disagree with what millions of people find funny about Letterman, and you can voice your opinion of those people for enjoying his humor, but when you make a statement about WHY those people are laughing, you reveal more about your own ignorance.
No, I understand entirely that they're not killing them. I say that's a good thing. I'm also not worried about 3% of them dying as that certainly seems reasonable when compared against the benefits of harvesting their blood. I was merely commenting on the fact that you seemed to be representing their status as not endangered at all - when that's the only sentence you write, you come off as someone that's annoyed by the fact that we're not just killing them, instead of the catch-and-release that actually is going on.
If I was incorrect about your point of view, I apologize, but maybe next provide a little more context - that way you won't have to jump down someone's throat and start typing in all caps like a 12-year-old.
weird, I only knew "the rabbit done died" from Aerosmith's Sweet Emotion. And yeah, I'm old enough to remember that song when it was new. Maybe the MASH* episode isn't as pervasive as you think, even among us older folk.
The very sentence you linked to contains this tidbit:
harvesting and habitat destruction have reduced its numbers at some locations and caused some concern for this animal's future.
So okay, not technically endangered, by the scientific definition, but certainly the "near threatened" status would suggest that it's a good idea to not just kill them indiscriminately. In fact, wouldn't that be a good idea regardless?
"show-stopper" originates in theater, referring to a moment in a performance that receives such overwhelmingly positive feedback that it literally "stopped the show."
Apparently, along the way somewhere, the meaning got completely reversed, but only in the context of computer software, when referring to a bug in software crashing a program. It certainly didn't mean that the bug would "stop sales", and even if it did, you're really stretching to cover up your misuse of a cliche. You were looking for "deal breaker", but your mistake is nowhere near as embarrassing as you typing "hate hate hate it!" like the "stupid children" you're so eager to denigrate.
as for "not sure if you are native english speaker", you might want to investigate your omission of the article a in that phrase. Something tells me you're projecting. And you're probably old, so you're angry at your perception that no one gives much of a damn anymore what you think.
Not to mention, there's lots of "stuff" that costs the same no matter where you live. A new TV, or anything on Amazon, costs about the same (maybe you save some pennies on state sales tax). Cars cost about the same. Vacation stays, wherever you go, cost the same, and all this is bought with my discretionary income - which I have more of, because I live here.
In fact, in the NY area, you've got 3 major airports (and lots of carriers) to choose from, so airfare is often cheaper. This, of course, goes back to "Part of your compensation is getting to live in New York." You can keep your cost-of-living savings for living in BFE. I'll take the extra cash in my pocket along with all the other benefits I enjoy.
Also, to the GP, I don't know what "calculator" you're using, but obviously numbers will vary wildly depending on what you do. I looked into moving to Denver once - found out I could reasonably expect to make about 65% of what I make now. No thanks. I'll buy plane tickets and stay at a ski-in/out instead.
The working people, including Engineers and Attorneys top out around $120k/yr.
That's one of the most ridiculous numbers I've ever seen pulled out of any asshole. Maybe where you live it's true, but at least in NYC (and I'd bet in a few other cities as well), there's plenty of regular job-type-jobs when people can, and do, make well above that - yes, on their W-2. You just have to be really good at what you do and be worth that much to the company that hired you away from the previous company that was paying you less. Mobility is part of the key here.
Slashdot Mirror
There's more responsibility than that placed upon the police, which you would've seen if you'd done a 5-second search instead of just read a shitty slashdot summary:
"However, a police order that is specifically directed at the First Amendment right to film police performing their duties in public may be constitutionally imposed only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the filming itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with his duties."
You can read even more (imagine that! read to educate yourself!) here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Because without government we could never accomplish these things. I'm sure if this guy eventually gets dressed and drives to work you'd bring up the roads, too, another impossibility to do without our benevolent rulers. :)
yeah, we COULD accomplish these things. Problem is, we wouldn't. Except in that one country where there's no government and they have clean water and clean air and electricity, and yes, even roads that you can safely drive 70 mph on. Where is that again? RIght, in the figment of an AC's mind.
It's stupid to think that just because "Apple makes it's [sic] money from selling devices", that they don't want to make even more money by using the data that they already have from spying on you.
Oh, well if COMCAST says it, it must be true.
It was. http://science.slashdot.org/co...
I think the 'woosh' is yours. Parent is pointing out that there are states where it's ridiculously easy to buy guns, and those guns can easily be transported to areas where gun ownership is more restricted. However, the same is not true of cocaine, which can't easily be bought legally.
I like how you picked just one network (MSNBC) as an example of a "24-hour propaganda network run for their benefit". Gee, I wonder which way your political leanings flail. /sarcasm
MSNBC was politically left-wing long before Comcast even started talking about buying them, and in fact, before we even had a Democrat president. Both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP then, and the executive branch. But nice try.
The fact is, these corporations shower money onto both sides. When people stop framing the problem as "left vs. right", and start framing it as "Corps+Pols vs. the Rest of Us", then maybe we'll see something happen. Until then, you're part of the problem.
Spoiler alert: the article basically spends most of its time saying "Larry Page is a genius, and like many geniuses, is socially awkward." Wow. How ground-breaking.
That said, I did find it interesting enough to keep reading it.
(Or he would be, if the law were Constitutional in the first place. SCOTUS says it's a "tax"? Well, tax laws have to originate in the House. Obamacare didn't.)
"The Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HR 3962) was a bill that was crafted by the United States House of Representatives in November 2009."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act
I get the outrage over the FCC making this happen today, but where's the outrage over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals basically forcing them to make this rule?
Honest question from me (because maybe I'm missing something): Didn't the FCC attempt to block large service providers from blocking or "unreasonably discriminating" against online content? And then in January, the court smacked them down and said "you don't have the power to do that." Seems like the FCC are not the worst bad guys here.
The parent obviously has no idea what "depth of field" means, so why bother arguing?
FYI, "the other things", and the cause of all of the cheering, was not from this awesome moon thing, but from the line just before... "Why does Rice play Texas?"
AC makes completely made-up claim, film at 11.
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
The Rice-Texas throwaway line was merely one humorous insertion while Kennedy was making a larger point. The continuation of this urban legend about people cheering for the football team should annoy you.
You're making a gross exaggeration. The focus of that part of the speech was about going to the moon. The line "Why does Rice play Texas" was just one example out of several offered up as "hard things":
But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
You think he's not funny. But don't assume that you know what the rest of us are laughing at.
Comedy is more subjective than food. You can certainly disagree with what millions of people find funny about Letterman, and you can voice your opinion of those people for enjoying his humor, but when you make a statement about WHY those people are laughing, you reveal more about your own ignorance.
Read at least one of the articles. They're actually pretty good. I can forgive the Australian summary, since it led me to a pretty interesting story.
Even if it's as you portray, that's preferable to say, CNN, which has points of view it *never* airs because it's against their political agenda.
Proof please.
No, I understand entirely that they're not killing them. I say that's a good thing. I'm also not worried about 3% of them dying as that certainly seems reasonable when compared against the benefits of harvesting their blood. I was merely commenting on the fact that you seemed to be representing their status as not endangered at all - when that's the only sentence you write, you come off as someone that's annoyed by the fact that we're not just killing them, instead of the catch-and-release that actually is going on.
If I was incorrect about your point of view, I apologize, but maybe next provide a little more context - that way you won't have to jump down someone's throat and start typing in all caps like a 12-year-old.
weird, I only knew "the rabbit done died" from Aerosmith's Sweet Emotion. And yeah, I'm old enough to remember that song when it was new. Maybe the MASH* episode isn't as pervasive as you think, even among us older folk.
harvesting and habitat destruction have reduced its numbers at some locations and caused some concern for this animal's future.
So okay, not technically endangered, by the scientific definition, but certainly the "near threatened" status would suggest that it's a good idea to not just kill them indiscriminately. In fact, wouldn't that be a good idea regardless?
Litmus test doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Gee, why bother with a dictionary, when you can just link to "Litmus_test_(politics)" on wikipedia to try to make your erroneous point?
the use of show-stopper was perfectly valid.
"show-stopper" originates in theater, referring to a moment in a performance that receives such overwhelmingly positive feedback that it literally "stopped the show."
Apparently, along the way somewhere, the meaning got completely reversed, but only in the context of computer software, when referring to a bug in software crashing a program. It certainly didn't mean that the bug would "stop sales", and even if it did, you're really stretching to cover up your misuse of a cliche. You were looking for "deal breaker", but your mistake is nowhere near as embarrassing as you typing "hate hate hate it!" like the "stupid children" you're so eager to denigrate.
as for "not sure if you are native english speaker", you might want to investigate your omission of the article a in that phrase. Something tells me you're projecting. And you're probably old, so you're angry at your perception that no one gives much of a damn anymore what you think.
There's this thing called cross-checking. It's very useful.
In other news, I can't find a car anymore where I have to roll the windows down manually! Stupid electric windows! that is a DEAL BREAKER for me.
(also, I think maybe you need to look up the idiom "show stopper")
Exactly.
Not to mention, there's lots of "stuff" that costs the same no matter where you live. A new TV, or anything on Amazon, costs about the same (maybe you save some pennies on state sales tax). Cars cost about the same. Vacation stays, wherever you go, cost the same, and all this is bought with my discretionary income - which I have more of, because I live here.
In fact, in the NY area, you've got 3 major airports (and lots of carriers) to choose from, so airfare is often cheaper. This, of course, goes back to "Part of your compensation is getting to live in New York." You can keep your cost-of-living savings for living in BFE. I'll take the extra cash in my pocket along with all the other benefits I enjoy.
Also, to the GP, I don't know what "calculator" you're using, but obviously numbers will vary wildly depending on what you do. I looked into moving to Denver once - found out I could reasonably expect to make about 65% of what I make now. No thanks. I'll buy plane tickets and stay at a ski-in/out instead.
The working people, including Engineers and Attorneys top out around $120k/yr.
That's one of the most ridiculous numbers I've ever seen pulled out of any asshole. Maybe where you live it's true, but at least in NYC (and I'd bet in a few other cities as well), there's plenty of regular job-type-jobs when people can, and do, make well above that - yes, on their W-2. You just have to be really good at what you do and be worth that much to the company that hired you away from the previous company that was paying you less. Mobility is part of the key here.