In which case you have to have far more antennas than a city is likely to afford, or plenty of dark spots. I think directional antennas are fantastic for connecting small numbers of people where laying cables is cost prohibitive, but I shudder at the idea of trying to connect a whole city with them.
We do have city-based water/sewer and power in a lot of places. And roads
None of which just go where they want to on their own. We do that because the city can control exactly where pipes and roads go. You can't do that with wireless.
If you were really trying to help the public you would have stayed any fought your hardest at anything that comes though the committee.
Unless you can't actually do anything. I spoke with a CEO once who was on one of Trump's committees and he had some interesting things to say about when you should stay on these committees and when you should leave.
When you should stay: You feel like your voice is heard. You feel like your opinions have real influence. You feel like you're representing an interest and that you can prevent harm to that interest. You aren't going to get everything you want, but you still are able to make a difference.
When you should leave: You feel like you can't make a difference because the deck is stacked against you. You feel like the one liberal on a Fox News opinion panel (you were put there basically to rally everyone else against you). You're only there so they can claim a false "balance" of interests. You're there only so they can claim they listened to both sides when their intention was to ram through their original plan regardless of what comes up. You feel like your name is being appropriated for acts that you're strongly against, that your personal reputation is being tarnished by this association. You feel like you can do more with a protest quitting than you can by being sidelined on the inside.
Said CEO had clearly been thinking about this, because he left the committee shortly after.
What tipped you off? Was it "these companies can now earn fair and reasonable profits?" Or was it the "I personally own massive holdings in telecom stocks?"
I remember GORE going to Oprah and stating that CLIPPER will STOP MOLESTERS and SATANISTS (remember that Satanists were a ****big deal**** and a moral panic in the late 90's. CLIPPER would STOP THEM).
Well I haven't heard much about ritual satanic abuse recently, so it looks like Clipper caught the abusers. Who's laughing now??
"Raped" DejaNews? Deja was circling the drain when Google acquired them. Their search was non-functional, they were mostly a shopping service by that point.
My favorite is Video Brinquedo. They release knockoffs of animated films the year that the original movie comes up. When Disney released Princess and the Frog, they released The Frog Prince. When Pixar released Cars, they released The Little Cars. Ratatoing followed Ratatouille, and What's Up? Balloon to the Rescue followed the balloon-based Up. The Little Panda Fighter followed Kung-Fu Panda, etcetc.
Though studio The Asylum gets props for being ballsy enough to release Snakes on a Train when Snakes on a Plane came out.
I can count the number of people who are "good at their job" in congress on the fingers of one hand. Are you aware that congress has about a 9% approval rating?
Of course "Congress" has a low approval rating. Most of the members of Congress do not represent you -- they represent their own districts and their own people and they work to bring resources (jobs, money, etc) to their people. If they don't, then everyone else will get all the good stuff, the people of that district will get angry, and they'll not vote for that member of congress for reelection.
The funny thing is... most people really like THEIR particular member of congress. It's the people from every other district that they hate.
After all, why would Russia destroy or diminish its investment? It is now the proud owner of a President of the United States, which couldn't have come cheap
Worse, there's an old saying on Capital Hill -- never give an office power that you don't want the next guy to have. He might not have your back like the current guy does.
Case in point: The Democrats invoking "the nuclear option" in 2013, and the Republicans using it in 2017.
The fact that you only understood 1/4 of what was communicated shows your severe lack of intelligence
People with a well-thought out point to make tend to make it in a coherent manner.
Very long cut-and-paste jobs rarely fall into that former category, so I don't blame anyone who won't even start reading it. If the first poster can't even do a half-assed job making his point in an understandable manner, then I'm not putting in that work for him when the payoff chances are so low.
Yeah - except when the Ruskies tested the Tsar Bomba, they found that (even at 50MTons) most of the blast went straight up and out of the atmosphere. This is why their ICBM nukes today are much smaller - there just isnt much point in making them that big.
I believe the point of the "torpedo" was to result in a sub-surface blast for the sole point of causing a tsunami which would cause most of the real damage.
But even after that, taking the fuel and putting it into MIRV-style missiles would probably be more cost effective.
He may have done it for the lulz, I did not. I cast a reluctant vote for Trump because Hillary would have been worse.
LK
I might disagree with that (I voted for neither) but at least I can understand the thinking behind it. "For the lulz" just seems like an incredibly childish response to a very serious situation.
You think Vladimir Putin is going to expose his puppet while he still controls that traitor's actions as 'president'
No. The Russian bots are all pretending they can't notice Moscow Donald's treasonous collusion with Russia's attacks on our country.
Moscow bots are all about eroding the power and reputation and influence of the United States by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean they support Trump. Since they don't appear as the same person, and try to conceal their identities and origins, they have no need to have a consistent message. So they can support Trump on one hand, and from different accounts say "look at this fucking idiot president. The USA is really going down the toilet." Both diminish the USA's influence and have other countries looking to partner with someone else, both benefit the Russian agenda.
or banning people from Facebook or Twitter for hate speech (not the government but these companies are essentially government with how much power they own).
Nope! Nope, you don't get to do that. If you're going to be anti-government power non-interventionist, then you have to accept the consequences of power accumulating in the private sector. Power WILL accumulate. Companies like Facebook and Twitter today, or Standard Oil of yesterday will accumulate it and run things as a government without the veneer or benevolence. You can't just shift away private accumulation of power and call it leftist government, as if neutering the government isn't what allows such things to happen.
Just curious. Why do you have to say that? Why such incredibly demeaning language and phrasing? I disliked Hillary, I didn't vote for her, but.. why do we have to be so dehumanizing? Why is this a thing now? Where did civility go?
Instead we get this guy that keeps working with the Russians, probably paid off solely from Putin's own vodka stash.
Personally, I don't think that Trump is paid off by anything. He was aided by Russian interference, but I don't think he was an active colluder. A puppet, but an unwitting one.
The problem is framing it like this. Yes, this is an obvious, clear example, but if you're going to talk like that on a muddier political topic, then you will definitely get blowback. It is a problem that some people with high intelligence have -- they will feel superior, lack patience, and be condescending. This will always cause a bad reaction in the person you're talking to, and the lack of respect will be met with hostility.
People want leaders who will respect them, not talk down to them. If you start talking down to someone like he or she is a child, you have lost them. It doesn't matter if you are right or not. If you're attacking them, they will respond.
He's terrible at his job, but things like his debate speech when he was asked to say something positive about Hillary were actually pretty decent.
That was a good moment, though of course he had to partly ruin it by throwing in "well, at least I think it was a compliment," as if Hillary was somehow tricking him into saying something complimentary.
I also thought his inauguration speech was pretty decent and gave me a little hope that he might pivot from crazy candidate Trump into maybe reasonable president Trump. I haven't had much to feel great about since then.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that was easy. I like to put more thought into it, but to each his own I guess.
If you think Trump "speaks it like it is," then you're not putting much thought into it.
Directional antennas, bro.
In which case you have to have far more antennas than a city is likely to afford, or plenty of dark spots.
I think directional antennas are fantastic for connecting small numbers of people where laying cables is cost prohibitive, but I shudder at the idea of trying to connect a whole city with them.
We do have city-based water/sewer and power in a lot of places. And roads
None of which just go where they want to on their own. We do that because the city can control exactly where pipes and roads go. You can't do that with wireless.
If you were really trying to help the public you would have stayed any fought your hardest at anything that comes though the committee.
Unless you can't actually do anything. I spoke with a CEO once who was on one of Trump's committees and he had some interesting things to say about when you should stay on these committees and when you should leave.
When you should stay: You feel like your voice is heard. You feel like your opinions have real influence. You feel like you're representing an interest and that you can prevent harm to that interest. You aren't going to get everything you want, but you still are able to make a difference.
When you should leave: You feel like you can't make a difference because the deck is stacked against you. You feel like the one liberal on a Fox News opinion panel (you were put there basically to rally everyone else against you). You're only there so they can claim a false "balance" of interests. You're there only so they can claim they listened to both sides when their intention was to ram through their original plan regardless of what comes up. You feel like your name is being appropriated for acts that you're strongly against, that your personal reputation is being tarnished by this association. You feel like you can do more with a protest quitting than you can by being sidelined on the inside.
Said CEO had clearly been thinking about this, because he left the committee shortly after.
Shill detected
What tipped you off? Was it "these companies can now earn fair and reasonable profits?"
Or was it the "I personally own massive holdings in telecom stocks?"
I remember GORE going to Oprah and stating that CLIPPER will STOP MOLESTERS and SATANISTS (remember that Satanists were a ****big deal**** and a moral panic in the late 90's. CLIPPER would STOP THEM).
Well I haven't heard much about ritual satanic abuse recently, so it looks like Clipper caught the abusers. Who's laughing now??
"Raped" DejaNews? Deja was circling the drain when Google acquired them. Their search was non-functional, they were mostly a shopping service by that point.
Ah ... the "market share" defense.
Sure, it's a valid defense for this specific statement.
Here is a question .... how may other companies are matching Apple's iPhone sales numbers?
Doesn't matter. If you're saying "everyone is using [this product]," that product had better have more than 12% of the devices out there.
My favorite is Video Brinquedo. They release knockoffs of animated films the year that the original movie comes up.
When Disney released Princess and the Frog, they released The Frog Prince.
When Pixar released Cars, they released The Little Cars. Ratatoing followed Ratatouille, and What's Up? Balloon to the Rescue followed the balloon-based Up.
The Little Panda Fighter followed Kung-Fu Panda, etcetc.
Though studio The Asylum gets props for being ballsy enough to release Snakes on a Train when Snakes on a Plane came out.
I can count the number of people who are "good at their job" in congress on the fingers of one hand. Are you aware that congress has about a 9% approval rating?
Of course "Congress" has a low approval rating. Most of the members of Congress do not represent you -- they represent their own districts and their own people and they work to bring resources (jobs, money, etc) to their people. If they don't, then everyone else will get all the good stuff, the people of that district will get angry, and they'll not vote for that member of congress for reelection.
The funny thing is... most people really like THEIR particular member of congress. It's the people from every other district that they hate.
Maybe he does. Doesn't mean the "moral crusaders" don't need to eat crow too.
They eventually used the same system to send out a retraction, it just took 45 minutes to figure out how.
After all, why would Russia destroy or diminish its investment? It is now the proud owner of a President of the United States, which couldn't have come cheap
Worse, there's an old saying on Capital Hill -- never give an office power that you don't want the next guy to have. He might not have your back like the current guy does.
Case in point: The Democrats invoking "the nuclear option" in 2013, and the Republicans using it in 2017.
The fact that you only understood 1/4 of what was communicated shows your severe lack of intelligence
People with a well-thought out point to make tend to make it in a coherent manner.
Very long cut-and-paste jobs rarely fall into that former category, so I don't blame anyone who won't even start reading it. If the first poster can't even do a half-assed job making his point in an understandable manner, then I'm not putting in that work for him when the payoff chances are so low.
Yeah - except when the Ruskies tested the Tsar Bomba, they found that (even at 50MTons) most of the blast went straight up and out of the atmosphere. This is why their ICBM nukes today are much smaller - there just isnt much point in making them that big.
I believe the point of the "torpedo" was to result in a sub-surface blast for the sole point of causing a tsunami which would cause most of the real damage.
But even after that, taking the fuel and putting it into MIRV-style missiles would probably be more cost effective.
I'm pretty sure the AC here is married to the Timecube guy.
Seriously, can we stop covering this asshole?
Why? The news is so fucking depressing day in and day out now.
It's nice to have a feel-good story like this every once in awhile.
He may have done it for the lulz, I did not. I cast a reluctant vote for Trump because Hillary would have been worse.
LK
I might disagree with that (I voted for neither) but at least I can understand the thinking behind it. "For the lulz" just seems like an incredibly childish response to a very serious situation.
You think Vladimir Putin is going to expose his puppet while he still controls that traitor's actions as 'president'
No. The Russian bots are all pretending they can't notice Moscow Donald's treasonous collusion with Russia's attacks on our country.
Moscow bots are all about eroding the power and reputation and influence of the United States by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean they support Trump. Since they don't appear as the same person, and try to conceal their identities and origins, they have no need to have a consistent message. So they can support Trump on one hand, and from different accounts say "look at this fucking idiot president. The USA is really going down the toilet." Both diminish the USA's influence and have other countries looking to partner with someone else, both benefit the Russian agenda.
they just scream "racist" at you like a trained monkey and close down
Shit, did you just call them monkies? What a fucking racist! Get a rope.
or banning people from Facebook or Twitter for hate speech (not the government but these companies are essentially government with how much power they own).
Nope! Nope, you don't get to do that. If you're going to be anti-government power non-interventionist, then you have to accept the consequences of power accumulating in the private sector. Power WILL accumulate. Companies like Facebook and Twitter today, or Standard Oil of yesterday will accumulate it and run things as a government without the veneer or benevolence. You can't just shift away private accumulation of power and call it leftist government, as if neutering the government isn't what allows such things to happen.
Maybe there just needs to be a -balance-.
that horrid cunt Shitllary
Just curious. Why do you have to say that? Why such incredibly demeaning language and phrasing?
I disliked Hillary, I didn't vote for her, but.. why do we have to be so dehumanizing? Why is this a thing now? Where did civility go?
Instead we get this guy that keeps working with the Russians, probably paid off solely from Putin's own vodka stash.
Personally, I don't think that Trump is paid off by anything. He was aided by Russian interference, but I don't think he was an active colluder. A puppet, but an unwitting one.
The problem is framing it like this.
Yes, this is an obvious, clear example, but if you're going to talk like that on a muddier political topic, then you will definitely get blowback. It is a problem that some people with high intelligence have -- they will feel superior, lack patience, and be condescending. This will always cause a bad reaction in the person you're talking to, and the lack of respect will be met with hostility.
People want leaders who will respect them, not talk down to them. If you start talking down to someone like he or she is a child, you have lost them. It doesn't matter if you are right or not. If you're attacking them, they will respond.
He's terrible at his job, but things like his debate speech when he was asked to say something positive about Hillary were actually pretty decent.
That was a good moment, though of course he had to partly ruin it by throwing in "well, at least I think it was a compliment," as if Hillary was somehow tricking him into saying something complimentary.
I also thought his inauguration speech was pretty decent and gave me a little hope that he might pivot from crazy candidate Trump into maybe reasonable president Trump. I haven't had much to feel great about since then.