And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter.
Then how about you pass some federal legislation to make it fully legal to record police in public? You know how many people are told to stop recording and arrested for refusing to do so? Cops aren't at a 'disadvantage'. They don't want cameras, because they know right now it is their word over the word of criminals, suspected criminals, random people on the street, or dead guys. Guess who they think are going to be believed. They are just happy to have no recordings in case they screw up.
"I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
First, this is just another example of how the federal government takes our tax money, and then 'requires' things that are completely outside the scope of their constitutional authority to get said money back (in some form). The federal government has absolutely no power to require a local municipality to buy a camera and require their cops to wear them. Stick to your constitutional duties, because you guys are simply spreading out into areas you have no business being in.
Second, he is another jerk that believes in the old saying, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". Are you for gun control? Just have your legislation tucked away ready to go after the next school shooting, regardless of weather or not your pre-written legislation would have done any good in the latest crisis. Would a camera have done anything to prevent this shooting? Or determine who was at fault? Who knows, pass the legislation while the people are pissed!
Third, I actually think cameras are a good idea, but let states and municipalities determine if they are necessary. There are plenty of towns in this country that simply have no need for cameras because the odds of them really being needed are so small that it would be a poor use of resources. There are something like half a million cops in this country, and even at $1,000 apiece (camera, storage, support, etc.), you are looking at a price tag of half a billion dollars, from a federal budget that already bleeds red like crazy.
"The difference between someone who's truly great and just sort of okay is really huge,"
Now, I will run it through my bullshit translator, aaaaand...
"The difference between someone who's willing to work for less money because they live in a poor country and someone who wants a competitive wage is really huge,"
I'll bet more taxes to pay for more workers, higher salaries and benefits would fix this problem in a jiffy! Every time I see anybody talk about needing higher taxes to run government properly, I just think about the ten thousand examples just like this, and I just laugh to myself.
They are all about 'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'peace'... until you try to move into their area and don't think, talk, and act just like them. Then they start slashing your tires and blocking your buses. Say, didn't school segregationist use the same bus-blocking techniques to try and keep those 'others' out of their wholesome little schools? Oh, the irony...
In all seriousness, why is this being called a "Gigafactory"? How does this differ from a regular factory? Did I miss the kilofactories and megafactories?
That Apple even accepts this is ludicrous. Just tell the guy, "Look, we have a whole store full of this shit. It will be here tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after that. Come back when you clear your crap up with your bank, and THEN pay for it."
...is that they have no legal authority to arrest, detain or point a gun at me? Walmart can't send their employees out packing heat and arrest people. Why would these 'corporations' have that authority?
Most advertising doesn't really affect buying decisions. Sometimes you might see something new, but mostly it's Coke, Budwiser, etc., things that everyone has known about for decades.
The funniest online ads I see are when I search for or buy something... and then see an ad for that exact thing a few minutes later on some sidebar ad. Hey, dipshits, I already know about that thing you just advertised BECAUSE I JUST WENT ONLINE TO LOOK FOR IT AND BUY IT!
This is a little bit like paying someone to hold up a sign for Ford cars to show to people that have just left a Ford car lot.
Sheriff Doug Cox:. "My job is to make sure my employees go home safe."
Funny, I could have sworn your job was to protect the public. Or is that whole "To Protect and Serve" printed on the side of your cars a bunch of bullshit? Running over citizens with a bazillion ton military vehicle probably won't make them particularly safe.
1. 17 km to drive and purchase DVD? 50% of the trip is apportioned to the DVD transport to account for multiple purchases and errands per trip in the base-case? I doubt people are driving 10 miles just to purchase a DVD, or as only 50% of the reason to take the trip in the first place.
2. Average disc lifetime 5 years? I still have 'The Matrix' that I got for free with my first DVD player back in 1999. None of my DVDs seem to really have a 'lifetime' that I can tell.
Having a vaccine registry in place in the event of an outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and diseases like these would enable public health officials to identify the children and adults who need vaccinations.
If they were against getting the shots in the first place, how would you now force them to get the shots?
The problem becomes: Pay how much? A set standard rate regardless of what the loser actually paid their attorney? If I bring a lawsuit against a large corporation with an internal team of lawyers, how do I know much it really cost them to litigate? And even if I 'win' against a guy with no money, so what? And when is someone considered a 'loser', since there are so many levels of appeal?
I think the bigger problem with our legal system is that it even requires a lawyer to handle the most basic of procedures. That shows that the legal system has just become too complex to be useful. But since the legal system is ruled by lawyers (on all sides of the equation), there is little incentive for them to make the system more simplified and easy to access for the average person.
...but I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that they have the exact same freedom to use money they have earned vs. money their spouse has earned.
Well, yes they can make that claim with a straight face. I think you and I have different ideas about how a marriage works. Everything you have is equally both of yours.
By your reasoning, a house purchased is actually only owned by the earning spouse, and all decisions about when to sell/remodel/etc. are exclusively in the domain of the earning spouse.
Are all decisions about kids entirely up to the mother since she is the one that gave birth to them?
If my wife got an incredibly well paying job, I would not stay at home for the simple reason that I would have to beg her for money for everything I do.
Sucks that you have such a shitty marriage that your wife would consider any money that she makes as belonging to her and not to the both of you.
If she would decide to leave me, I'm screwed.
Yeah, because courts never give alimony to non-working spouses in a divorce settlement.
It seems like the people shouting here are single guys who have never met a successful women let alone married her.
Um, my wife is a very successful financial analyst who makes more money than I do.
And if BOTH spouses want to work, they should either stay in their home country where they can both legally work, or both have to apply separately for H1-B visas (or some other work visa).
Isn't the person holding the H1-B visa already making a good wage that should support both of them? Right? Oh, that's right, I forgot, the tech companies are using H1-B employees to drive down wages. Silly me.
Nuclear disarmament vs. greenhouse gas reduction is a poor comparison.
How much did nuclear disarmament affect the day-to-day lives of the average person? Zilch. Zero. Nada. 50 nuclear missiles sitting in some empty part of the country vs. 200 nuclear missiles sitting in some silos in some empty part of the country affects people not at all (unless there is a nuclear war, but were all screwed anyways).
Greenhouse gas reduction involves changing things in peoples day-to-day lives. How much is, of course, up for debate, but the perception is that we will have to sacrifice some of our standard of living to accomplish this.
Nuclear Disarmament spokesperson: "We are going to have fewer nuclear missiles in our subs. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: "Uhhhhh, OK...."
Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson: "We are going to slap a tax on the fuels you use, so now you will get to pay more at the pump. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: [punches Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson in the face]
Wait, first you say that the deductions are to make taxes 'fair'. But then you turn around and claim that the deductions are for 'improving society as a whole'? Well, which is it? I suspect you just like paying less taxes, and don't really care one whit about the justification for it.
I also loved this zinger:
I paid for it out of my own pocket, so you didn't subsidize it at all.
When you deduct your education bill from your taxes, how do you think that loss of taxes is made up?
Those who are selfish and do nothing to improve society end up keeping the most money, ultimately leaving the government to support all of the society's charity needs.
That is THEIR decision. If they want to be assholes about not giving out money, so be it. If the only reason you are making charitable contributions is to reduce your tax bill, then how charitable are you REALLY being? Again, I think you just like paying less taxes than the guy next to you.
Now, lest you think I'm just picking on education expenses, I don't agree with ANY of the deductions given to people for their expenses (child care, health care, mortgage interest, etc.), which include some that I benefit from. I want them all gone so that the tax code is simplified, and we stop using it for giveaways and trying to push people to do a certain thing (buying solar, electric cars, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
And police officers are now at a disadvantage, because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter.
Then how about you pass some federal legislation to make it fully legal to record police in public? You know how many people are told to stop recording and arrested for refusing to do so? Cops aren't at a 'disadvantage'. They don't want cameras, because they know right now it is their word over the word of criminals, suspected criminals, random people on the street, or dead guys. Guess who they think are going to be believed. They are just happy to have no recordings in case they screw up.
"I would like to see us say, 'If you want federal funding in your community, you've got to have body cams on your officers. And I think that would go a long way towards solving some of these problems, and it would be a great legacy over this tragedy that's occurred in Ferguson, regardless of what the facts say at the end as to whether or not anyone is criminally culpable."
First, this is just another example of how the federal government takes our tax money, and then 'requires' things that are completely outside the scope of their constitutional authority to get said money back (in some form). The federal government has absolutely no power to require a local municipality to buy a camera and require their cops to wear them. Stick to your constitutional duties, because you guys are simply spreading out into areas you have no business being in.
Second, he is another jerk that believes in the old saying, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". Are you for gun control? Just have your legislation tucked away ready to go after the next school shooting, regardless of weather or not your pre-written legislation would have done any good in the latest crisis. Would a camera have done anything to prevent this shooting? Or determine who was at fault? Who knows, pass the legislation while the people are pissed!
Third, I actually think cameras are a good idea, but let states and municipalities determine if they are necessary. There are plenty of towns in this country that simply have no need for cameras because the odds of them really being needed are so small that it would be a poor use of resources. There are something like half a million cops in this country, and even at $1,000 apiece (camera, storage, support, etc.), you are looking at a price tag of half a billion dollars, from a federal budget that already bleeds red like crazy.
I'm about ready to upgrade my iPhone 4, so I guess I will be in the market for a new phone around June 2015.
"The difference between someone who's truly great and just sort of okay is really huge,"
Now, I will run it through my bullshit translator, aaaaand...
"The difference between someone who's willing to work for less money because they live in a poor country and someone who wants a competitive wage is really huge,"
Watch as I refuse to pay my internet bill due to my internet no longer working. Why would an ISP agree to such a thing?
I'll bet more taxes to pay for more workers, higher salaries and benefits would fix this problem in a jiffy! Every time I see anybody talk about needing higher taxes to run government properly, I just think about the ten thousand examples just like this, and I just laugh to myself.
They are all about 'diversity', 'inclusiveness', and 'peace'... until you try to move into their area and don't think, talk, and act just like them. Then they start slashing your tires and blocking your buses. Say, didn't school segregationist use the same bus-blocking techniques to try and keep those 'others' out of their wholesome little schools? Oh, the irony...
In all seriousness, why is this being called a "Gigafactory"? How does this differ from a regular factory? Did I miss the kilofactories and megafactories?
That Apple even accepts this is ludicrous. Just tell the guy, "Look, we have a whole store full of this shit. It will be here tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after that. Come back when you clear your crap up with your bank, and THEN pay for it."
...is that they have no legal authority to arrest, detain or point a gun at me? Walmart can't send their employees out packing heat and arrest people. Why would these 'corporations' have that authority?
"Mark McGwire Takes Swing to Beat Roger Maris' Home-run Record."
So, naturally people would assume that McGwire was only trying to break Maris' personal best, and not the all-time single season record?
Christ, the stuff that gets modded 'insightful' on this site...
Most advertising doesn't really affect buying decisions. Sometimes you might see something new, but mostly it's Coke, Budwiser, etc., things that everyone has known about for decades.
The funniest online ads I see are when I search for or buy something... and then see an ad for that exact thing a few minutes later on some sidebar ad. Hey, dipshits, I already know about that thing you just advertised BECAUSE I JUST WENT ONLINE TO LOOK FOR IT AND BUY IT!
This is a little bit like paying someone to hold up a sign for Ford cars to show to people that have just left a Ford car lot.
...with a number of core competencies
Oh, so you are competent in a number of core things... like every company in existence? Sheesh.....
Sheriff Doug Cox:. "My job is to make sure my employees go home safe."
Funny, I could have sworn your job was to protect the public. Or is that whole "To Protect and Serve" printed on the side of your cars a bunch of bullshit? Running over citizens with a bazillion ton military vehicle probably won't make them particularly safe.
1. 17 km to drive and purchase DVD? 50% of the trip is apportioned to the DVD transport to account for multiple purchases and errands per trip in the base-case? I doubt people are driving 10 miles just to purchase a DVD, or as only 50% of the reason to take the trip in the first place.
2. Average disc lifetime 5 years? I still have 'The Matrix' that I got for free with my first DVD player back in 1999. None of my DVDs seem to really have a 'lifetime' that I can tell.
I actually looked up 'agnostic' because I have no idea what it means:
1. a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
2. a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
Soooooo, what the hell does this have to do with 'clouds'?
Having a vaccine registry in place in the event of an outbreak of measles, whooping cough, and diseases like these would enable public health officials to identify the children and adults who need vaccinations.
If they were against getting the shots in the first place, how would you now force them to get the shots?
The problem becomes: Pay how much? A set standard rate regardless of what the loser actually paid their attorney? If I bring a lawsuit against a large corporation with an internal team of lawyers, how do I know much it really cost them to litigate? And even if I 'win' against a guy with no money, so what? And when is someone considered a 'loser', since there are so many levels of appeal?
I think the bigger problem with our legal system is that it even requires a lawyer to handle the most basic of procedures. That shows that the legal system has just become too complex to be useful. But since the legal system is ruled by lawyers (on all sides of the equation), there is little incentive for them to make the system more simplified and easy to access for the average person.
I'm rather curious as to how solar energy will be produced by solar panels covered in snow...
...along with a Wi-Fi hotspot that operates without draining a mobile device's battery.
Yeah, because I'd NEVER think to plug in my mobile device while in my car. How much do these idiots get paid?
...but I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that they have the exact same freedom to use money they have earned vs. money their spouse has earned.
Well, yes they can make that claim with a straight face. I think you and I have different ideas about how a marriage works. Everything you have is equally both of yours.
By your reasoning, a house purchased is actually only owned by the earning spouse, and all decisions about when to sell/remodel/etc. are exclusively in the domain of the earning spouse.
Are all decisions about kids entirely up to the mother since she is the one that gave birth to them?
If my wife got an incredibly well paying job, I would not stay at home for the simple reason that I would have to beg her for money for everything I do.
Sucks that you have such a shitty marriage that your wife would consider any money that she makes as belonging to her and not to the both of you.
If she would decide to leave me, I'm screwed.
Yeah, because courts never give alimony to non-working spouses in a divorce settlement.
It seems like the people shouting here are single guys who have never met a successful women let alone married her.
Um, my wife is a very successful financial analyst who makes more money than I do.
And if BOTH spouses want to work, they should either stay in their home country where they can both legally work, or both have to apply separately for H1-B visas (or some other work visa).
Isn't the person holding the H1-B visa already making a good wage that should support both of them? Right? Oh, that's right, I forgot, the tech companies are using H1-B employees to drive down wages. Silly me.
Nuclear disarmament vs. greenhouse gas reduction is a poor comparison.
How much did nuclear disarmament affect the day-to-day lives of the average person? Zilch. Zero. Nada. 50 nuclear missiles sitting in some empty part of the country vs. 200 nuclear missiles sitting in some silos in some empty part of the country affects people not at all (unless there is a nuclear war, but were all screwed anyways).
Greenhouse gas reduction involves changing things in peoples day-to-day lives. How much is, of course, up for debate, but the perception is that we will have to sacrifice some of our standard of living to accomplish this.
Nuclear Disarmament spokesperson: "We are going to have fewer nuclear missiles in our subs. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: "Uhhhhh, OK...."
Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson: "We are going to slap a tax on the fuels you use, so now you will get to pay more at the pump. What do you think about that?"
Joe Blow: [punches Greenhouse Gas Reduction spokesperson in the face]
OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.
OP:
... that nuclear plants produce less radioactive waste...
I think you have serious reading comprehension issues...
Also, your 'debunking' link looks like it is just one of your /. comments. I think I will go with SA over random-guy-on-slashdot.
Who the hell is moding you up as insightful?
Wait, first you say that the deductions are to make taxes 'fair'. But then you turn around and claim that the deductions are for 'improving society as a whole'? Well, which is it? I suspect you just like paying less taxes, and don't really care one whit about the justification for it.
I also loved this zinger:
I paid for it out of my own pocket, so you didn't subsidize it at all.
When you deduct your education bill from your taxes, how do you think that loss of taxes is made up?
Those who are selfish and do nothing to improve society end up keeping the most money, ultimately leaving the government to support all of the society's charity needs.
That is THEIR decision. If they want to be assholes about not giving out money, so be it. If the only reason you are making charitable contributions is to reduce your tax bill, then how charitable are you REALLY being? Again, I think you just like paying less taxes than the guy next to you.
Now, lest you think I'm just picking on education expenses, I don't agree with ANY of the deductions given to people for their expenses (child care, health care, mortgage interest, etc.), which include some that I benefit from. I want them all gone so that the tax code is simplified, and we stop using it for giveaways and trying to push people to do a certain thing (buying solar, electric cars, etc).