It might just be me, but a touchscreen-only phone seems like it might be less than ideal for a soldier. I would think that actual buttons would be a better idea for people who might be wearing various types of hand gear in varied conditions.
Aren't the people who specified the crappy parts workers too? They are employees of the company, after all. "Workmanship" does not just apply to the assembly of the vehicle, it applies to the entire design, engineering and construction process.
If poor components were used, that's poor workmanship on behalf of the company.
Not necessarily. The people who specify the parts sources are generally not considered workers in the automotive industry as they don't have any physical role in the assembly of the vehicle. Similarly in construction the people who select the materials are not generally considered workers unless they are also actually involved in the construction process.
So no, if the parts are crap, then workmanship is not necessarily the problem. If the parts are assembled poorly because the worker doesn't care or is inadequately trained for the job, then it is. Workmanship in the case of the automotive industry is understood to be the act of final vehicle assembly. The bean counters at GM are less connected to workmanship in the context of a vehicle than an office receptionist in a hospital is to a neurosurgery procedure.
Whether its poor engineering, workmanship, or parts (or a combination thereof), it doesn't make any difference if its junk.
It does when someone - for example, the person who started this thread - incorrectly assigns all the blame to one of the three.
And when someone says that their "car overheated", almost nobody with an IQ over room temperature will think the complaint is about the interior temp.
When you specifically talk about a car overheating in the summer, it could be the interior. Whether or not you have the intellect - and that is always questionable when an AC is posting - to know it, cars can also overheat in the other three seasons.
Let me emphasize if a car is crap, its crap. Doesn't matter why,
You're simply wrong on that. And being as the post I replied to was incorrectly assigning blame to the engineers - and even more so trying to claim that the engineers are responsible for new speculative problems - you're off-topic as well. You really should read more of a discussion before you inject yourself into it. Of course, you won't be back to reply after this so it doesn't really matter. ,br>
Seriously dude, your entire response makes absolutely *zero* sense
It's not my fault you lack the ability to follow the thread back to its origins and see what was being discussed. Why you chose to reply to me is anyone's guess, but it is rather clear why you replied AC.
crap-wagon for a car
There are many, many, worse cars that have been made than any that have been discussed in this thread. I knew someone who had a true crapwagon in the form of a first-generation (to the US) Hyundai Accent. It accented how much safer it is to walk on the freeway than to drive that miserable pile of failure. That car was barely capable of doing 62 mph downhill with a stiff tailwind with two people (including the driver) in it. It never should have been certified to be driven on the roads in this country as it posed a danger to the driver, any unlucky passengers, and everyone else who had to share the road with it. By comparison every car mentioned in this thread is reliable, comfortable, efficient, safe, and powerful.
I see the summary mentions version 8. I am still on 3.6.13. I don't recall hearing about 4, 5, 6, or 7. Did they pull a Sun and change their version numbering system?
First off, You sound like you own stock in Chevy and the like. I hope you do not: Let me elucidate:
No, I do not. I'm just tired of people who are bashing without factual basis. As I stated at the end of my message, you are free to hate GM as much as you want, but you would do yourself a favor to base your hatred on fact and not just your own feelings.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
I have not met an engineer at Chevy.
So then it is shown that your bashing the engineers at GM is baseless.
What I have met are mechanics that have to deal with the 'crap' Chevy has produced over the years
And that relates to your demonstrated hatred of GM engineers how?
It doesn't.
No other major car manufacturer has the same problems especially with leaking coolant and intake manifold gaskets.
Which is not intrinsically the engineers fault. If the engineers designed a part and then the bean counters allowed it to be made in a way that significantly deviated from the design, you have no justification in bashing the engineer for it.
You need to separate workmanship from parts' sourcing.
I do separate those two, and guess what, I do not care
Hence you are not separating them. If you don't care about the distinction then functionally you are not separating them.
Other cars never overheated, but they were being driven on the same roads. Explain that.
Really? No other car, made anywhere, by anyone, ever overheated? You don't help to make a sensible argument when you reach for sweeping generalizations like that. I can say with certainty that there was at least one car not sold by GM in the history of time that overheated in the summer, somewhere.
OK...I agree. I over generalized. Sorry!
You would make a better argument if you did it less often. I presume the apology was only for your original over-generalization, you have made at least two more since. That said I'm not sure who you are apologizing to; it doesn't help me to see you apologize and then repeat the same offense; if you want to improve your discussion habits you might want to apologize to yourself and then stop with the over-generalizations.
You want the facts? Head to a Chevrolet-bashing website:
You have demonstrated that you hate Chevy. Good for you. The fact that you view them as the evil of the world, while using almost no unbiased evidence to support it, suggest you either don't know what you're talking about or you just have an axe to grind and see them as a good target.
I was always skeptical of the Chevy Volt, not because of its technology per se, but because of the "executor". In this case, engineers at Chevy.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
After living in a household that owned Chevys for decades, and seeing how poor workmanship was an almost guaranteed feature in all those vehicles, the Chevy left a bad mark on my mind.
You need to separate worksmanship from parts' sourcing. When the overall vehicle quality was suffering from the big three, they were also doing a lot of lowest-bidder dealing for parts; making almost nothing themselves. The workers can make sure that the parts are assembled correctly, but if the parts are crap because some bean counter in an office found they could save $.43 per car by sourcing a critical bolt through a fly-by-night machine shop run in a former communist state, you can't blame the worker when said crappy bolt fails. The worker did his job, someone else fucked it up and got away with it.
Even simple stuff like seats were poorly done
Even the seats had parts coming from all over the planet. Tracks, motors, upholstery, etc, all coming from different sources. Regardless of what you want to believe, the workers had no say in this matter and had to assemble what was in front of them regardless of how crappy the parts were.
The cars over heated in the summer
So you are now blaming GM for solar radiation? I've stepped into Hondas in the summer that were plenty warm as well. Or are you talking about the engine overheating, as a result of the crappy water pumps, crappy gaskets, crappy hoses, and crappy radiators - all of which came from different companies?
and many of them would just lose power when you needed it most
That is a sweeping generalization. If you can't support it, there is no point in responding to it. If I responded by telling you Japanese cars are boring, I would expect a similar response.
Needless to say, I do not think I will ever own one even if given to me as a gift.
You are free to hate on any company you wish. You would do yourself a favor to actually have facts behind your hatred though.
when I think about it, $100 is well worth me not spending 10-20 hours a year configuring and tweaking my OS to keep it running in top shape.
Most windows users spend 10-20 hours a year updating and reinstalling their OS. I think your investment is likely awash.
If Windows is sufficiently stable for your needs, then good for you. You did provide a long list of utilities that you use in order to operate with non-Windows systems, but if that works for you, then its great that you found a solution. Of course if you were limited to only what ships with Windows, you would be in a much more difficult situation...
The only place where I use Windows regularly is at work, and I do that only on PCs that are connected to specific instruments that are supported only in Windows. Then I take the data from those instruments and process it in Linux or another *nix OS. All my important PCs that aren't directly connected to instruments are running Linux.
I'm not sure we're in the same conversation, here. I am talking about using the web version of gmail instead for the gmail app.
1) It doesn't weigh down your BB with loads of email in the core system
Accessing gmail on the web doesn't, either.
2) You load it up when YOU want to read your email, not when the email comes through
Which is exactly how I use gmail on the web.
3) Closing it is a nice way of forgetting about work
I just point my browser to a different web page... though more importantly what person of marginal sanity uses gmail for their work email?
4) You could search all your old mail
OK, this I haven't tried yet. I don't have all that much mail in my gmail account, and I can easily find what I need without using a search function.
I actually got stuck in Madrid airport without BIS quite recently, so I tried the mobile web version of gmail. It was a terrible experience - it was unresponsive, the ui was too big, yet too cluttered, waiting for 2 pages to reload every time you wanted to look at a new email etc etc was a pain. And this was on wifi on Blackberrys latest and greatest (9900)
I don't know when you tried it. I use it pretty well every day on my 8520 with wifi. It could be that google did something dramatically different to it for 9xxx series berries, but that seems unlikely.
Long story short I will miss the gmail app.
Nobody is forcing you to not use it. Google is not going to uninstall it from your phone. They just won't be releasing any new versions of it.
I've only recently converted to blackberry, I'm a fussy bugger about keyboards and it really can't be beaten. This makes me sad.
I still think RIM's best bet is to make an enterprise grade 'app' for Apple iOS and Android to provide Blackberry style service on non-RIM hardware.
That is actually a really good idea for them. Unfortunately there is probably someone at RIM who looks at that idea and views it as being parallel to going from being Microsoft (where they were years ago) to being Novell (where they could potentially end up under that idea). And right now, not even Novell wants to be Novell.
They don't seem to see that the alternative - if they do nothing - will end up with them being like Palm.
I'll say that the gmail app isn't as universally useful on the blackberry as the gmail webpage. The biggest problem with it is that it is permanently linked to having data service available through your wireless carrier, while the webpage can work through your wireless carrier on a data plan, or anywhere that you have wifi (and most blackberries have had built in wifi for some time now). The webpage is at the point where it is very useful for the blackberry, and it supports at least two different modes for the phone depending on your needs as well.
So really, this isn't a big deal. Not to say that RIM isn't in trouble, but losing an app that wasn't that great to begin with isn't a huge blow to blackberries.
The CAN-SPAM act loses what little punch it has as soon as you cross the state line from New York into Quebec . ..
Correction - CAN-SPAM is just as worthless outside the US as it is inside. That was my first point. Strange how pretty well nobody (at least who replied to me) bothered to read past that - or even all the way through it.
How can we, collectively, take action to make them understand that we do not like their mass mailing practice?
Are you under the impression that spam continues because people think we like it? That if they only understood how much we don't like it, they would stop?
I just hope that doesn't mean you are one of the mindless masses who believes that spam is sent out purely to make people angry or waste their time. People of even moderate intellect realize that spam is all about money, and the only way to stop the spam is to stop the flow of money to the spammers - or at least make it more difficult for them to get so much money so easily.
Naturally, you want to use the CAN-SPAM act, and send it to spam@uce.gov.
Oh, wait, you wanted something effective, didn't you?
If you want to fight spam effectively you need to focus on the prime motivation behind spam - money. Spam is sent out because people make money sending it out. Ordinarily spam is sent out by a company other than the spamvertised company, which gives you a few more avenues to explore. There are, however, a few things you can still look into.
First, who is the registrar behind the domain? Most registrars have AUP's that prohibit spamming from domains they sell. You can try to report the spam to that registrar and if they are truly vigilant about spam they could essentially de-register the domain from its address, which would prevent all return traffic to it. No email, no web, no anything else going to their domain. The registrar would still have the rights to the domain, hence the customer (your spammer) wouldn't be able to do anything with their established domain until they clear up the situation with the registrar.
Of course, most registrars are in on the take and won't take such action. Your next option is the hosting company (or ISP if they are hosting their own website). Contact them about it as well, most hosting providers and ISPs frown heavily on their traffic being used for spamming or for spamvertised sites. Same thing could happen here; their domain could become unreachable. Only downside of this avenue versus getting the registrar to do it is it wouldn't take nearly as long for the spammer to get their domain back up afterwards.
FreeBSD has some great features, but most of them are lost on the desktop/laptop. Even more so, a lot of software that is important to a lot of users doesn't care about FreeBSD (wine comes to mind in particular on this one) and FreeBSD doesn't tend to care about those ports / packages because they aren't important to the mission of "the power to serve".
I'm just posting here because some hacktacular idiot thinks I have been running around moderating his comments down. If it was me, this post would undo all those moderations. Since it wasn't me, this post will have no effect.
Go ahead and moderate this comment down if you want, I've got karma to burn. It deserves to be moderated off-topic, at the very least.
I don't know who the hell you are, but I'm willing to wager that roman_mir won't stop posting on slashdot any time soon. He's beside himself to see his idol getting so much popularity in the mainstream press - though for some reason surprised that slashdot is also giving him copious amounts of coverage - so he'll keep coming around for some time to tell us how wrong we all (well, all 8 of us here who aren't hardcore supporters of his idol) are.
So if you, the dim-witted and half-hearted troll, stops posting here, I won't care. And if roman_mir stops posting here, I won't care either. I've made plenty of posts here that have had nothing to do with him. And I will continue to do so no matter what he may think.
Unions are a bad thing when exactly like other entities, they take a hold of government power.
Now if that had actually happened in the last several decades, you would have a legitimate concern. But in the US, in reality, the unions have repeatedly given up power to everyone else.
Once President Perry eliminates the job-killing EPA!
President Perry? Why wait? President Lawnchair will beat him to it! Just wait until the rest of the conservatives tell him that he is being unpatriotic by not eliminating the EPA and that they won't talk to him about anything at all until he does and then... POOF! Gone is that pesky EPA, courtesy of President Lawnchair.
Q: Mr. President, can you collapse under pressure?
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing they have ever done well is bring in more money to registrars.
Can I get a "phone that just makes calls" post?
Well, the article is about the Army's smartphone strategy. So I think that suggestion might fall short of the criteria.
It might just be me, but a touchscreen-only phone seems like it might be less than ideal for a soldier. I would think that actual buttons would be a better idea for people who might be wearing various types of hand gear in varied conditions.
Aren't the people who specified the crappy parts workers too? They are employees of the company, after all. "Workmanship" does not just apply to the assembly of the vehicle, it applies to the entire design, engineering and construction process.
If poor components were used, that's poor workmanship on behalf of the company.
Not necessarily. The people who specify the parts sources are generally not considered workers in the automotive industry as they don't have any physical role in the assembly of the vehicle. Similarly in construction the people who select the materials are not generally considered workers unless they are also actually involved in the construction process.
So no, if the parts are crap, then workmanship is not necessarily the problem. If the parts are assembled poorly because the worker doesn't care or is inadequately trained for the job, then it is. Workmanship in the case of the automotive industry is understood to be the act of final vehicle assembly. The bean counters at GM are less connected to workmanship in the context of a vehicle than an office receptionist in a hospital is to a neurosurgery procedure.
Whether its poor engineering, workmanship, or parts (or a combination thereof), it doesn't make any difference if its junk.
It does when someone - for example, the person who started this thread - incorrectly assigns all the blame to one of the three.
And when someone says that their "car overheated", almost nobody with an IQ over room temperature will think the complaint is about the interior temp.
When you specifically talk about a car overheating in the summer, it could be the interior. Whether or not you have the intellect - and that is always questionable when an AC is posting - to know it, cars can also overheat in the other three seasons.
Let me emphasize if a car is crap, its crap. Doesn't matter why,
You're simply wrong on that. And being as the post I replied to was incorrectly assigning blame to the engineers - and even more so trying to claim that the engineers are responsible for new speculative problems - you're off-topic as well. You really should read more of a discussion before you inject yourself into it. Of course, you won't be back to reply after this so it doesn't really matter.
,br>
Seriously dude, your entire response makes absolutely *zero* sense
It's not my fault you lack the ability to follow the thread back to its origins and see what was being discussed. Why you chose to reply to me is anyone's guess, but it is rather clear why you replied AC.
crap-wagon for a car
There are many, many, worse cars that have been made than any that have been discussed in this thread. I knew someone who had a true crapwagon in the form of a first-generation (to the US) Hyundai Accent. It accented how much safer it is to walk on the freeway than to drive that miserable pile of failure. That car was barely capable of doing 62 mph downhill with a stiff tailwind with two people (including the driver) in it. It never should have been certified to be driven on the roads in this country as it posed a danger to the driver, any unlucky passengers, and everyone else who had to share the road with it. By comparison every car mentioned in this thread is reliable, comfortable, efficient, safe, and powerful.
I see the summary mentions version 8. I am still on 3.6.13. I don't recall hearing about 4, 5, 6, or 7. Did they pull a Sun and change their version numbering system?
First off, You sound like you own stock in Chevy and the like. I hope you do not: Let me elucidate:
No, I do not. I'm just tired of people who are bashing without factual basis. As I stated at the end of my message, you are free to hate GM as much as you want, but you would do yourself a favor to base your hatred on fact and not just your own feelings.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
I have not met an engineer at Chevy.
So then it is shown that your bashing the engineers at GM is baseless.
What I have met are mechanics that have to deal with the 'crap' Chevy has produced over the years
And that relates to your demonstrated hatred of GM engineers how?
It doesn't.
No other major car manufacturer has the same problems especially with leaking coolant and intake manifold gaskets.
Which is not intrinsically the engineers fault. If the engineers designed a part and then the bean counters allowed it to be made in a way that significantly deviated from the design, you have no justification in bashing the engineer for it.
You need to separate workmanship from parts' sourcing.
I do separate those two, and guess what, I do not care
Hence you are not separating them. If you don't care about the distinction then functionally you are not separating them.
Other cars never overheated, but they were being driven on the same roads. Explain that.
Really? No other car, made anywhere, by anyone, ever overheated? You don't help to make a sensible argument when you reach for sweeping generalizations like that. I can say with certainty that there was at least one car not sold by GM in the history of time that overheated in the summer, somewhere.
OK...I agree. I over generalized. Sorry!
You would make a better argument if you did it less often. I presume the apology was only for your original over-generalization, you have made at least two more since. That said I'm not sure who you are apologizing to; it doesn't help me to see you apologize and then repeat the same offense; if you want to improve your discussion habits you might want to apologize to yourself and then stop with the over-generalizations.
You want the facts? Head to a Chevrolet-bashing website:
You have demonstrated that you hate Chevy. Good for you. The fact that you view them as the evil of the world, while using almost no unbiased evidence to support it, suggest you either don't know what you're talking about or you just have an axe to grind and see them as a good target.
I was always skeptical of the Chevy Volt, not because of its technology per se, but because of the "executor". In this case, engineers at Chevy.
Have you actually met an engineer at GM, Ford, or Chrysler? Where does your bias against them come from?
After living in a household that owned Chevys for decades, and seeing how poor workmanship was an almost guaranteed feature in all those vehicles, the Chevy left a bad mark on my mind.
You need to separate worksmanship from parts' sourcing. When the overall vehicle quality was suffering from the big three, they were also doing a lot of lowest-bidder dealing for parts; making almost nothing themselves. The workers can make sure that the parts are assembled correctly, but if the parts are crap because some bean counter in an office found they could save $.43 per car by sourcing a critical bolt through a fly-by-night machine shop run in a former communist state, you can't blame the worker when said crappy bolt fails. The worker did his job, someone else fucked it up and got away with it.
Even simple stuff like seats were poorly done
Even the seats had parts coming from all over the planet. Tracks, motors, upholstery, etc, all coming from different sources. Regardless of what you want to believe, the workers had no say in this matter and had to assemble what was in front of them regardless of how crappy the parts were.
The cars over heated in the summer
So you are now blaming GM for solar radiation? I've stepped into Hondas in the summer that were plenty warm as well. Or are you talking about the engine overheating, as a result of the crappy water pumps, crappy gaskets, crappy hoses, and crappy radiators - all of which came from different companies?
and many of them would just lose power when you needed it most
That is a sweeping generalization. If you can't support it, there is no point in responding to it. If I responded by telling you Japanese cars are boring, I would expect a similar response.
Needless to say, I do not think I will ever own one even if given to me as a gift.
You are free to hate on any company you wish. You would do yourself a favor to actually have facts behind your hatred though.
If a lithium battery is pierced by steel
Are you saying we are using steel in cars again? I thought with the exception of the drivetrain, they were pretty well all plastic today.
... and see Mr. Garrison's "it"? With this creation you are, after all, riding something that looks to be shoved up your ass...
Google news is your friend; same article but sans paywall.
You're welcome.
when I think about it, $100 is well worth me not spending 10-20 hours a year configuring and tweaking my OS to keep it running in top shape.
Most windows users spend 10-20 hours a year updating and reinstalling their OS. I think your investment is likely awash.
If Windows is sufficiently stable for your needs, then good for you. You did provide a long list of utilities that you use in order to operate with non-Windows systems, but if that works for you, then its great that you found a solution. Of course if you were limited to only what ships with Windows, you would be in a much more difficult situation...
The only place where I use Windows regularly is at work, and I do that only on PCs that are connected to specific instruments that are supported only in Windows. Then I take the data from those instruments and process it in Linux or another *nix OS. All my important PCs that aren't directly connected to instruments are running Linux.
1) It doesn't weigh down your BB with loads of email in the core system
Accessing gmail on the web doesn't, either.
2) You load it up when YOU want to read your email, not when the email comes through
Which is exactly how I use gmail on the web.
3) Closing it is a nice way of forgetting about work
I just point my browser to a different web page ... though more importantly what person of marginal sanity uses gmail for their work email?
4) You could search all your old mail
OK, this I haven't tried yet. I don't have all that much mail in my gmail account, and I can easily find what I need without using a search function.
I actually got stuck in Madrid airport without BIS quite recently, so I tried the mobile web version of gmail. It was a terrible experience - it was unresponsive, the ui was too big, yet too cluttered, waiting for 2 pages to reload every time you wanted to look at a new email etc etc was a pain. And this was on wifi on Blackberrys latest and greatest (9900)
I don't know when you tried it. I use it pretty well every day on my 8520 with wifi. It could be that google did something dramatically different to it for 9xxx series berries, but that seems unlikely.
Long story short I will miss the gmail app.
Nobody is forcing you to not use it. Google is not going to uninstall it from your phone. They just won't be releasing any new versions of it.
I've only recently converted to blackberry, I'm a fussy bugger about keyboards and it really can't be beaten. This makes me sad.
I'm not sure you actually read the story...
I still think RIM's best bet is to make an enterprise grade 'app' for Apple iOS and Android to provide Blackberry style service on non-RIM hardware.
That is actually a really good idea for them. Unfortunately there is probably someone at RIM who looks at that idea and views it as being parallel to going from being Microsoft (where they were years ago) to being Novell (where they could potentially end up under that idea). And right now, not even Novell wants to be Novell.
They don't seem to see that the alternative - if they do nothing - will end up with them being like Palm.
I'll say that the gmail app isn't as universally useful on the blackberry as the gmail webpage. The biggest problem with it is that it is permanently linked to having data service available through your wireless carrier, while the webpage can work through your wireless carrier on a data plan, or anywhere that you have wifi (and most blackberries have had built in wifi for some time now). The webpage is at the point where it is very useful for the blackberry, and it supports at least two different modes for the phone depending on your needs as well.
So really, this isn't a big deal. Not to say that RIM isn't in trouble, but losing an app that wasn't that great to begin with isn't a huge blow to blackberries.
The CAN-SPAM act loses what little punch it has as soon as you cross the state line from New York into Quebec . . .
Correction - CAN-SPAM is just as worthless outside the US as it is inside. That was my first point. Strange how pretty well nobody (at least who replied to me) bothered to read past that - or even all the way through it.
How can we, collectively, take action to make them understand that we do not like their mass mailing practice?
Are you under the impression that spam continues because people think we like it? That if they only understood how much we don't like it, they would stop?
I just hope that doesn't mean you are one of the mindless masses who believes that spam is sent out purely to make people angry or waste their time. People of even moderate intellect realize that spam is all about money, and the only way to stop the spam is to stop the flow of money to the spammers - or at least make it more difficult for them to get so much money so easily.
Naturally, you want to use the CAN-SPAM act, and send it to spam@uce.gov.
Oh, wait, you wanted something effective, didn't you?
If you want to fight spam effectively you need to focus on the prime motivation behind spam - money. Spam is sent out because people make money sending it out. Ordinarily spam is sent out by a company other than the spamvertised company, which gives you a few more avenues to explore. There are, however, a few things you can still look into.
First, who is the registrar behind the domain? Most registrars have AUP's that prohibit spamming from domains they sell. You can try to report the spam to that registrar and if they are truly vigilant about spam they could essentially de-register the domain from its address, which would prevent all return traffic to it. No email, no web, no anything else going to their domain. The registrar would still have the rights to the domain, hence the customer (your spammer) wouldn't be able to do anything with their established domain until they clear up the situation with the registrar.
Of course, most registrars are in on the take and won't take such action. Your next option is the hosting company (or ISP if they are hosting their own website). Contact them about it as well, most hosting providers and ISPs frown heavily on their traffic being used for spamming or for spamvertised sites. Same thing could happen here; their domain could become unreachable. Only downside of this avenue versus getting the registrar to do it is it wouldn't take nearly as long for the spammer to get their domain back up afterwards.
FreeBSD has some great features, but most of them are lost on the desktop/laptop. Even more so, a lot of software that is important to a lot of users doesn't care about FreeBSD (wine comes to mind in particular on this one) and FreeBSD doesn't tend to care about those ports / packages because they aren't important to the mission of "the power to serve".
I'm just posting here because some hacktacular idiot thinks I have been running around moderating his comments down. If it was me, this post would undo all those moderations. Since it wasn't me, this post will have no effect.
Go ahead and moderate this comment down if you want, I've got karma to burn. It deserves to be moderated off-topic, at the very least.
I don't know who the hell you are, but I'm willing to wager that roman_mir won't stop posting on slashdot any time soon. He's beside himself to see his idol getting so much popularity in the mainstream press - though for some reason surprised that slashdot is also giving him copious amounts of coverage - so he'll keep coming around for some time to tell us how wrong we all (well, all 8 of us here who aren't hardcore supporters of his idol) are.
So if you, the dim-witted and half-hearted troll, stops posting here, I won't care. And if roman_mir stops posting here, I won't care either. I've made plenty of posts here that have had nothing to do with him. And I will continue to do so no matter what he may think.
Unions are a bad thing when exactly like other entities, they take a hold of government power.
Now if that had actually happened in the last several decades, you would have a legitimate concern. But in the US, in reality, the unions have repeatedly given up power to everyone else.
Why "maybe", when you do not need them?
Hey you just never know. I live in the middle of the continent, I could come down with scurvy and need vitamin C urgently!
Though really, I just buy them because they are convenient. Fruit cups have a shelf life that is almost on par with canned vegetables.
Once President Perry eliminates the job-killing EPA!
President Perry? Why wait? President Lawnchair will beat him to it! Just wait until the rest of the conservatives tell him that he is being unpatriotic by not eliminating the EPA and that they won't talk to him about anything at all until he does and then ... POOF! Gone is that pesky EPA, courtesy of President Lawnchair.
Q: Mr. President, can you collapse under pressure?
A:Like a Lawnchair!