Oh, that's not what's going to happen. Soon, the poor are going to eat each other, the middle class are going to be next, and the rich are going to withdraw to armored compounds, or just move overseas, taking a large chunk of wealth with them. All that will remain will be the people who can survive on their own. This goup does not include many who depend on the government for everything today.
Considering the 60th vote the Democrats needed was Al Franken, and he was sworn in on July 7, 2009, I think you need better sources for your groupthink.
As for the filibuster, I bet you weren't complaining about it when the Republicans were in the majority, and Democrats could use it to their advantage.
Personally, I like the filibuster. It usually keeps 51% of the people from riding roughshod over the other 49%. If you can manage 60% of the Senate, there is enough support to claim a mandate. Barely more than half doesn't cut it.
Yeah, that's basically what this girl made. After image-googleing for Shotgun Sound Snooper, I think hers was shorter. The middle tubes weren't so much longer than rest. I think because it was for bird-watching, and bird calls tend to be higher pitch, she could focus on having the tubes concentrated on the shorter wavelengths than if she was trying to listen to a human conversation. Though now I'm not sure whether or not she added the funnel and microphone to record the sounds as well.
So, thanks for the info. Now I'm off to google some more.
I'm wondering if you saw or read about a sound device that someone made a while ago, probably in the 1990s. A teenage girl won a science or engineering contest for building a device to help bird watchers find a particular bird they can hear, but not see through the leaves. It was a couple dozen tubes, like a big bunch of straws, cut to different lengths and mounted on a tripod.
When you hear the bird chirping, and can tell the general direction in the trees around you, you point this thing in that direction and move it around, and listen for the sound to get louder when it's pointing at the bird. It didn't use any microphone, or even a power source, just natural sound propagation in the tubes.
I've been googling for it for an hour now, but I don't even know what the device would be called. Do you know what I am talking about? Or at least what the device would be called? I guess it wasn't commercially made, or there would be a page somewhere selling them.
So the other person I know who was told he couldn't have an unlicensed vehicle on a friend's property also didn't have the government force him to license it? It wasn't even operable anymore, but his choice was to pay the annual license or junk it.
You ever think that maybe your state's law is different than other states' laws?
My brother rented a room from someone out in the country for a while. That guy got a ticket for having a car behind his barn that wasn't currently licensed. The county knew it was there because they saw it from a helicopter that was looking for marijuana plots.
They want annual fees for anything registered, not just what is used on public roads.
It works for me so far. But I'm not one to stream movies over my phone, so I'm not claiming they are perfect for that. But when I need to look up something, or check my email, it generally is as reliable as the other phones/carriers of people around me.
Their biggest drawback is that they are a 'metro area' service, with specific areas of coverage. But they cover my area pretty well, and I could pay for roaming ability on other networks.
And, I don't know what is going to happen now that T-Mobil bought them out. Maybe I will have to find someone else, maybe they will keep what I like. We'll have to see.
Thanks for the additional input. As I said, I'm not saying this to be mean to you. If you make videos that others want to see, more power to you. My daughter follows a couple different guys that make hilarious videos. She even has a shirt from one of their web stores. So it's not about you making money off our actions.
It's just that ads have gotten more out of control over the years. So now those of us that know how, block them. As do many of our family members, co-workers, customers, friends, and so on. Now that product placement is getting more prevalent in TV shows, they are going to face a similar backlash effect. It's one thing to have the characters drinking Starbucks coffee, but when they start telling each other what's on sale this week some of us will stop watching. Others will be happy to know what's on sale without all those annoying commercial breaks.
I don't know what you're getting so worked up over.
Oh, I'm not getting worked up at all. The "fucking" part of "we don't fucking care" is just a quantifier.
If I had simply written, "We don't care.", it sounds more like apathy than the result of actual consideration of various situations, and years of experience with this situation in particular.
If I had used, "We really don't care.", it sounds like maybe we do care, or at least you have the pretext to believe we do. This is the response that ABC, Sony, etc., have been using for years to be bigger assholes than the year before.
Basically, the fact that you think the use of the word "fucking" means I'm frothing at the mouth means I got across my main point, that I/we do not care that creators of content are not seeing income from "horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads."
That's why I always say I am very happy I have MetroPCS, and have since 2006. Nowadays, there are other companies that followed their business model, but in 2006 the options were these:
1. National carrier, monthly contract, some 'free' minutes, but huge bill if you go over your limit 2. TracPhone, no contract, pre-pay a dime for every minute, cheaper if you buy the expensive bonus card at the start 3. MetroPCS, no contract, $55 a month, unlimited phone calls and text 4. Possibly other pre-pay services, but not worth considering
Since I knew I would be using my phone a lot, hours a day sometimes, I wanted something that wouldn't bankrupt me for it. And since I got screwed by one of the national carriers years ago, I didn't want a contract plan again. So MetroPCS has been been with me since then. And the monthly price actually dropped to $50.
Also, I had the same flip-phone from 2006 until last year February. Six years on a phone seems good to me. Last year though, I knew I needed to get a smartphone. In the after-the-holidays/dump-the-old-stock sale, I bought a Samsung Admire with 3G(lte) for $60. It does what I need, so I'll keep it for a while before upgrading again.
So, as for the article title, the Days of the Cheap, Subsidized Phones ended for me in 2005.
Not to be mean to you personally, but we don't fucking care. Just like we don't fucking care that ABC doesn't like us recording shows on our DVRs and watching them later without having to suffer through the horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads. We don't care that Sony and BMG want us to buy entire CDs of music, rather than download songs, or worse yet, find other music to listen to.
So, if your profession is making videos, and your income is based on ads played during those videos on a communal website, you may want to think of a better revenue stream. This one isn't going to last, whether Microsoft can pull this off or not.
Or put another way, if the KKK opened a laundromat, would you wash your clothes there?
Are you kidding? Blacks would be lined up around the block, with another line the other direction of ACLU lawyers, all demanding the KKK must service the public with no discrimination.
If a bartender tells a gay man to "Get out!", a lawsuit will be filed before the door closes behind him, and every gay in the neighborhood will start going there, "just to show him".
People love to give money and financial support to people whose politics they hate, and they get laws passed that enforces their desire to do so. It sounds like crazy bullshit, and actually it is crazy bullshit, but it's still the way things are today.
Actually, I think the whole Obamacare ordeal defies ready explanation in any traditional pigeon-holing system. It bears President Obama's name in the popular vernacular, but he didn't have a lot to do with it. Speaker Pelosi famously said they had to vote for it to see what's in it, but the House version was completely replaced by the Senate version, so she was actually irrelevant. You mention "all the cash from health care lobbyists", which would include the insurance companies, yet they are going to face extinction within a few years due to greatly expanded coverage of high-cost (as opposed to simply high-risk) customers. So all their cash and lobbying was not successful.
I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare.
That's a welcome change. Most times people do assume they know what I think of it, or what my reasons for opposing it are. So I thought that's where you were going. I'm glad I was wrong, and I thank you for the conversation.
$50/mo is the full-suite subscription price without the discount for CS licensees.
Not to those of us in the UK, it's not.
It's almost as if he doesn't know what the following phrase actually means.
£50/month (about US$75)
He can't tell you are not paying in dollars, and he can't figure out that the amount you would be paying is higher than the amount he is happy with.
Quite honestly, I admire your restraint in not informing him his head is planted far up his ass. I would have done that by now if I was being insulted by the ignorant moron.
If you actually wanted to know, you'd have asked google already. I can see that you don't.
No, if I really wanted to know what ecological damage you think China's Three Gorges Dam has done, I would have asked you.
Oh wait. That's exactly what I did.
And you have no intelligent response. Very interesting.
The Chinese government owns that land, they can do with it what they please.
That kind of thinking will render the biosphere uninhabitable.
If you think you can change China's way of thinking, you go right ahead. I wouldn't suggest you fly over there to enlighten them.
And is it worse than if they had built coal-powered plants to produce the same amount of electricity, which was my point?
Logical fallacy, false dichotomy.
No, that was my point. You can make any comparison you wish in your own comment. My comment specifically was that environmental idiots would rather China build coal-burning plants rather than develop clean hydro-power. The logical fallacy is on them as hypocrites.
China spans many latitudes and has a great deal of open land, they can use all kinds of altpower.
So, now the argument is that countries that are wide are not allowed to use hydro-power?
I won't even bother asking you to explain that logic. I think I've covered your response range quite well already.
Maybe the Chinese aren't as stupid as Americans think they are.
Neither are as smart as they think they are.
Not my issue, but the dam hasn't collapsed, has it.
any extreme action they attempted would reduce their own numbers far more than their opponents
That's not how it has gone so far.
And they haven't done any extreme action to reduce world population. If anything, they seemed to have convinced themselves to simply not reproduce in adequate numbers to ensure survival of their subspecies.
I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against,
as it would cause massive ecological damage, which has in fact been the case. It's even been fingered in heavy seismic activity which has occurred since.
What ecological damage? Flooding of formerly arable land in its reservoir? Flooding of woodlands/habitats as well? Minor landslides within the same basin? The Chinese government owns that land, they can do with it what they please. The same would be true if they paved it and built the largest shopping mall on it. As a serious question, other than loss of land, what ecological damage can you point to?
And is it worse than if they had built coal-powered plants to produce the same amount of electricity, which was my point?
As for earthquakes (major ones, not small landslides within the basin area), that was one of the reasons the dam was "doomed to fail" quickly. Yet it still stands. Maybe the Chinese aren't as stupid as Americans think they are.
Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
You really don't want people who think the world needs population reducation to take matters into their own hands.
Yes, actually I do. Whatever their actions would be, I would rather they be honest about it and do something. I've said many times, I hate hypocrisy, not opposing viewpoints or actions.
Besides that, any extreme action they attempted would reduce their own numbers far more than their opponents. The same goes for their opponents' possible actions.
There was no substantial damage to any coastal cities during the Jurassic period. However for the Triassic period, scientists have found no evidence that any cities survived the event that separates it from the Jurassic.
That and of course, CO2 isn't the only thing in the air atm, there's methane, sulphur, a three minute monologue's worth of derivatives of those wonderful elements, love, C3PO, CO, R2, and probably a lot of other things that didn't exist in the sepia/black and white toned eras.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's not what's going to happen. Soon, the poor are going to eat each other, the middle class are going to be next, and the rich are going to withdraw to armored compounds, or just move overseas, taking a large chunk of wealth with them. All that will remain will be the people who can survive on their own. This goup does not include many who depend on the government for everything today.
Considering the 60th vote the Democrats needed was Al Franken, and he was sworn in on July 7, 2009, I think you need better sources for your groupthink.
As for the filibuster, I bet you weren't complaining about it when the Republicans were in the majority, and Democrats could use it to their advantage.
Personally, I like the filibuster. It usually keeps 51% of the people from riding roughshod over the other 49%. If you can manage 60% of the Senate, there is enough support to claim a mandate. Barely more than half doesn't cut it.
Hey, I took a semester of Pascal back in college. I can pick out your mistake.
You forgot the "include stdio" command.
Also, I just started my new job working for Mr. McDonald's PubMatic as Vice President of Planning.
Yeah. Sorry Mr Jones, but I'm going to go with the AC's version.
Yeah, that's basically what this girl made. After image-googleing for Shotgun Sound Snooper, I think hers was shorter. The middle tubes weren't so much longer than rest. I think because it was for bird-watching, and bird calls tend to be higher pitch, she could focus on having the tubes concentrated on the shorter wavelengths than if she was trying to listen to a human conversation. Though now I'm not sure whether or not she added the funnel and microphone to record the sounds as well.
So, thanks for the info. Now I'm off to google some more.
He's talking about dogs eating cat shit, and you want to nag him about spelling? You have got to sort out your priorities.
I'm wondering if you saw or read about a sound device that someone made a while ago, probably in the 1990s. A teenage girl won a science or engineering contest for building a device to help bird watchers find a particular bird they can hear, but not see through the leaves. It was a couple dozen tubes, like a big bunch of straws, cut to different lengths and mounted on a tripod.
When you hear the bird chirping, and can tell the general direction in the trees around you, you point this thing in that direction and move it around, and listen for the sound to get louder when it's pointing at the bird. It didn't use any microphone, or even a power source, just natural sound propagation in the tubes.
I've been googling for it for an hour now, but I don't even know what the device would be called. Do you know what I am talking about? Or at least what the device would be called? I guess it wasn't commercially made, or there would be a page somewhere selling them.
So the other person I know who was told he couldn't have an unlicensed vehicle on a friend's property also didn't have the government force him to license it? It wasn't even operable anymore, but his choice was to pay the annual license or junk it.
You ever think that maybe your state's law is different than other states' laws?
Yes there definitely is.
My brother rented a room from someone out in the country for a while. That guy got a ticket for having a car behind his barn that wasn't currently licensed. The county knew it was there because they saw it from a helicopter that was looking for marijuana plots.
They want annual fees for anything registered, not just what is used on public roads.
Let's start with Legislatures.
Then ban Public Officials.
It works for me so far. But I'm not one to stream movies over my phone, so I'm not claiming they are perfect for that. But when I need to look up something, or check my email, it generally is as reliable as the other phones/carriers of people around me.
Their biggest drawback is that they are a 'metro area' service, with specific areas of coverage. But they cover my area pretty well, and I could pay for roaming ability on other networks.
And, I don't know what is going to happen now that T-Mobil bought them out. Maybe I will have to find someone else, maybe they will keep what I like. We'll have to see.
Thanks for the additional input. As I said, I'm not saying this to be mean to you. If you make videos that others want to see, more power to you. My daughter follows a couple different guys that make hilarious videos. She even has a shirt from one of their web stores. So it's not about you making money off our actions.
It's just that ads have gotten more out of control over the years. So now those of us that know how, block them. As do many of our family members, co-workers, customers, friends, and so on. Now that product placement is getting more prevalent in TV shows, they are going to face a similar backlash effect. It's one thing to have the characters drinking Starbucks coffee, but when they start telling each other what's on sale this week some of us will stop watching. Others will be happy to know what's on sale without all those annoying commercial breaks.
Game. Set. Match.
I don't know what you're getting so worked up over.
Oh, I'm not getting worked up at all. The "fucking" part of "we don't fucking care" is just a quantifier.
If I had simply written, "We don't care.", it sounds more like apathy than the result of actual consideration of various situations, and years of experience with this situation in particular.
If I had used, "We really don't care.", it sounds like maybe we do care, or at least you have the pretext to believe we do. This is the response that ABC, Sony, etc., have been using for years to be bigger assholes than the year before.
Basically, the fact that you think the use of the word "fucking" means I'm frothing at the mouth means I got across my main point, that I/we do not care that creators of content are not seeing income from "horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads."
That's why I always say I am very happy I have MetroPCS, and have since 2006. Nowadays, there are other companies that followed their business model, but in 2006 the options were these:
1. National carrier, monthly contract, some 'free' minutes, but huge bill if you go over your limit
2. TracPhone, no contract, pre-pay a dime for every minute, cheaper if you buy the expensive bonus card at the start
3. MetroPCS, no contract, $55 a month, unlimited phone calls and text
4. Possibly other pre-pay services, but not worth considering
Since I knew I would be using my phone a lot, hours a day sometimes, I wanted something that wouldn't bankrupt me for it. And since I got screwed by one of the national carriers years ago, I didn't want a contract plan again. So MetroPCS has been been with me since then. And the monthly price actually dropped to $50.
Also, I had the same flip-phone from 2006 until last year February. Six years on a phone seems good to me. Last year though, I knew I needed to get a smartphone. In the after-the-holidays/dump-the-old-stock sale, I bought a Samsung Admire with 3G(lte) for $60. It does what I need, so I'll keep it for a while before upgrading again.
So, as for the article title, the Days of the Cheap, Subsidized Phones ended for me in 2005.
Not to be mean to you personally, but we don't fucking care. Just like we don't fucking care that ABC doesn't like us recording shows on our DVRs and watching them later without having to suffer through the horrible, loud, insulting-to-the-intelligence ads. We don't care that Sony and BMG want us to buy entire CDs of music, rather than download songs, or worse yet, find other music to listen to.
So, if your profession is making videos, and your income is based on ads played during those videos on a communal website, you may want to think of a better revenue stream. This one isn't going to last, whether Microsoft can pull this off or not.
Or put another way, if the KKK opened a laundromat, would you wash your clothes there?
Are you kidding? Blacks would be lined up around the block, with another line the other direction of ACLU lawyers, all demanding the KKK must service the public with no discrimination.
If a bartender tells a gay man to "Get out!", a lawsuit will be filed before the door closes behind him, and every gay in the neighborhood will start going there, "just to show him".
People love to give money and financial support to people whose politics they hate, and they get laws passed that enforces their desire to do so. It sounds like crazy bullshit, and actually it is crazy bullshit, but it's still the way things are today.
But perhaps even asking such a non-politically correct question makes me "homophobic".
It isn't about a fucking 'cause', asswipe.
I think that should answer you question, liquid.
Actually, I think the whole Obamacare ordeal defies ready explanation in any traditional pigeon-holing system. It bears President Obama's name in the popular vernacular, but he didn't have a lot to do with it. Speaker Pelosi famously said they had to vote for it to see what's in it, but the House version was completely replaced by the Senate version, so she was actually irrelevant. You mention "all the cash from health care lobbyists", which would include the insurance companies, yet they are going to face extinction within a few years due to greatly expanded coverage of high-cost (as opposed to simply high-risk) customers. So all their cash and lobbying was not successful.
I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare.
That's a welcome change. Most times people do assume they know what I think of it, or what my reasons for opposing it are. So I thought that's where you were going. I'm glad I was wrong, and I thank you for the conversation.
$50/mo is the full-suite subscription price without the discount for CS licensees.
Not to those of us in the UK, it's not.
It's almost as if he doesn't know what the following phrase actually means.
£50/month (about US$75)
He can't tell you are not paying in dollars, and he can't figure out that the amount you would be paying is higher than the amount he is happy with.
Quite honestly, I admire your restraint in not informing him his head is planted far up his ass. I would have done that by now if I was being insulted by the ignorant moron.
What ecological damage?
If you actually wanted to know, you'd have asked google already. I can see that you don't.
No, if I really wanted to know what ecological damage you think China's Three Gorges Dam has done, I would have asked you.
Oh wait. That's exactly what I did.
And you have no intelligent response. Very interesting.
The Chinese government owns that land, they can do with it what they please.
That kind of thinking will render the biosphere uninhabitable.
If you think you can change China's way of thinking, you go right ahead. I wouldn't suggest you fly over there to enlighten them.
And is it worse than if they had built coal-powered plants to produce the same amount of electricity, which was my point?
Logical fallacy, false dichotomy.
No, that was my point. You can make any comparison you wish in your own comment. My comment specifically was that environmental idiots would rather China build coal-burning plants rather than develop clean hydro-power. The logical fallacy is on them as hypocrites.
China spans many latitudes and has a great deal of open land, they can use all kinds of altpower.
So, now the argument is that countries that are wide are not allowed to use hydro-power?
I won't even bother asking you to explain that logic. I think I've covered your response range quite well already.
Maybe the Chinese aren't as stupid as Americans think they are.
Neither are as smart as they think they are.
Not my issue, but the dam hasn't collapsed, has it.
any extreme action they attempted would reduce their own numbers far more than their opponents
That's not how it has gone so far.
And they haven't done any extreme action to reduce world population. If anything, they seemed to have convinced themselves to simply not reproduce in adequate numbers to ensure survival of their subspecies.
Thank you. I had no idea what it meant either.
I just wasn't that concerned with that situation.
I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against,
as it would cause massive ecological damage, which has in fact been the case. It's even been fingered in heavy seismic activity which has occurred since.
What ecological damage? Flooding of formerly arable land in its reservoir? Flooding of woodlands/habitats as well? Minor landslides within the same basin? The Chinese government owns that land, they can do with it what they please. The same would be true if they paved it and built the largest shopping mall on it. As a serious question, other than loss of land, what ecological damage can you point to?
And is it worse than if they had built coal-powered plants to produce the same amount of electricity, which was my point?
As for earthquakes (major ones, not small landslides within the basin area), that was one of the reasons the dam was "doomed to fail" quickly. Yet it still stands. Maybe the Chinese aren't as stupid as Americans think they are.
Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
You really don't want people who think the world needs population reducation to take matters into their own hands.
Yes, actually I do. Whatever their actions would be, I would rather they be honest about it and do something. I've said many times, I hate hypocrisy, not opposing viewpoints or actions.
Besides that, any extreme action they attempted would reduce their own numbers far more than their opponents. The same goes for their opponents' possible actions.
There was no substantial damage to any coastal cities during the Jurassic period. However for the Triassic period, scientists have found no evidence that any cities survived the event that separates it from the Jurassic.
That and of course, CO2 isn't the only thing in the air atm, there's methane, sulphur, a three minute monologue's worth of derivatives of those wonderful elements, love, C3PO, CO, R2, and probably a lot of other things that didn't exist in the sepia/black and white toned eras.
Wait! There are droids in the air?