The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us....It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.
Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but you can't blame him for the DMCA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA "...signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998,.."
So, you think people slowing down doesn't cause traffic jams? What exactly do you think causes traffic jams?
Gently slowing and accelerating as required by terrain and traffic uses less fuel than sharp braking and accelerating.
Sure, for your car. But all the rest of the cars behind you are burning fuel like crazy waiting for you to get moving.
I have never had a problem with gently slowing up a hill, and gently applying the throttle as required while climbing, but mileage decreases dramatically by using "standard" techniques (as in me-first-driver techniques).
Of course you don't have a problem... it's the hundred cars lineup up behind you. Sheesh. And your 'techniques' are the epitome of 'me-first-driver'.
Gently climbing hills without flooring it and therefore using too much fuel doesn't automatically mean "driving below the limit" or any such thing.
So you are driving faster than the limit before you reach a hill??? Talk about wasting gas!
use the two-second rule, at LEAST
Sure, I'm two seconds behind you. Now we come to a hill. You slow down. Which means I have to slow down to keep the two second rule. And the guy behind me must do the same thing. etc, etc. Ta-da! Traffic jam!
...fix your driving habits...
And what exactly should I fix? I never mentioned anything about how I drive, so I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that my driving habits are at fault.
Translation: You slow down on hills. Result: You impede traffic and cause more fuel to be consumed because you have now caused a traffic jam and everyone is now in stop-and-go traffic.
I live in the San Francisco bay area, and nearly every highway that has even a small incline gets backed up because people don't know how to keep a steady speed while climbing a hill. Now, maybe you don't do this in high-congestion areas, which is OK. But for the love of God, DO NOT do this in high traffic areas.
Are you saying that my $9.99 trading fee is keeping me from becoming rich? If it was $0, I would suddenly be able to make money in stocks?
And my trades go through in about two seconds. Much faster than the guys running around on the floor while making ridiculous gestures that look like baseball managers telling the batter to bunt.
The stock market is itself a pretty asinine setup.
The stock market is a great setup, because I can buy as large or small a piece of as many companies as I want, and reap the rewards of their profits (dividends).
I thought that you were allowed by fair use to make copies for your personal use. You aren't violating copyright, since you purchased a DVD of Ghostbusters. The DMCA is another matter, though...
The fact that he even hinted that it might possibly be different in any way is idiotic.
It also makes it easier for the SSNs to be taken and used fraudulently.
How would it make it easier? Either way, the SSN and name is in plain view for all to see. I don't see how it makes any difference whether I show the entire record that contains a SSN/name, or just list the SSN/name, as long as I say where it came from and/or have a copy of the record in my possesion. It's the same either way, which was the reason that I felt the judge's statement was so bizarre.
But the judge stated his ruling might be "very different"... even if the SSN was copied from a public record. So even if I later showed the whole record to someone who asked where the SSN came from, he is saying that it would somehow be different... when it is the exact same thing. Legal 'logic' at work.
OK, so he properly ruled that she can list records that are already publicly available. Good for him. Then I read this amazing piece of idiocy:
He noted that the ruling may have been "very different" if Ostergren only listed Social Security numbers copied from records rather than the records themselves.
What?!?!? It's OK to show the whole record, but not part of the record? What the hell is the difference? The record already has the SSN in it.
Would storing the laptop in some type of inert gas (nitrogen) help? Hell, should the whole capsule be pumped full of nitrogen to reduce corrosion effects?
No, I said "those Western states", never "the Western states", and the much more general "the West"
You are right, you didn't say "the Western states", you said "the West". I shouldn't have put quotes around the entire statement, as I was only emphasizing your use of the word 'the'. Your original argument was the use of 'the' vs. 'those'. You used both. And California, Oregon, and Washington are in 'the West'. They are the most western states in the lower continental US, so they are in 'the West'.
Look, you meant to say, 'Red Western states'. Fine, I get it.
Holy crap, you just continue to say wrong things about your own link. Those figures are not per capita. They are "Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes", or $ per $. They have nothing to do with population.
What do java and Flash have to do with the internet? Now individual programs are considered part of 'the internet'? What if my computer can't run Real Player? Am I no longer on 'the internet'? Sounds like more government bureaucrats that have no idea about the basics of modern technology.
"...all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country..."
My reading comprehension is just fine. How's yours? Oh, that's right, it sucks.
"And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays"
It receives 40% more in taxes than it pays, which puts it in the upper 25% of all states. I'm not sure where you keep getting this 'little bit more' idea. Your link does not list any total or relative amounts.
Uh, according to you own link, there are several states in the West that pay more than they receive. California ($0.78), Washington ($0.88), Oregon ($0.93). In fact, California subsidizes at a higher rate than New York ($0.79). So, yeah, we are pretty independent.
"Maine gets a little more than it pays"
Maine gets a shitload more than it pays ($1.41). Do you even read your own link before you post?
this pretty much says it all. Don't you dare come at me with semantics, because the sentiment is pretty clear:
Um, I didn't come at you with semantics. You said that I wanted other states to keep the same winner-takes-all approach. I asked you to point out where I said that. Not only did you every show where I said that ('sentiment' my ass), but you came back with this bizarre statement that isn't even close to anything I said:
...because those are red states, and republicans don't need to follow the same rules.
That's so far removed from anything I've said in this thread that it makes me wonder what the words I typed look like to you.
And then you came up with these amazing leaps of logic:
But if they change it alone, it is at the expense of the voter's will.
Wha? So having the will of California voters accurately reflected is against the will of the California voters, because other states don't do things the same way? -1 = 1 in your world as well?
California makes up some electoral votes similarly "diluted" in the southeastern and midwestern block metropolitan areas.
California's electoral votes are California's electoral votes alone, irregardless of what other states do.
If you aren't even going to make sense, and just make up statements that I never said, then I'm through arguing with you.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's trying to communicate with us...
The last eight years have been a boon to the corporations and a disaster for the rest of us....It is on their watch that the PATRIOT act, the TSA and the DMCA have been passed.
Bush has screwed up a lot of things, but you can't blame him for the DMCA:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA ...signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998,.."
"
It's more like 3 out of 6, if you ask me.
Actually, this does not cause a traffic jam.
So, you think people slowing down doesn't cause traffic jams? What exactly do you think causes traffic jams?
Gently slowing and accelerating as required by terrain and traffic uses less fuel than sharp braking and accelerating.
Sure, for your car. But all the rest of the cars behind you are burning fuel like crazy waiting for you to get moving.
I have never had a problem with gently slowing up a hill, and gently applying the throttle as required while climbing, but mileage decreases dramatically by using "standard" techniques (as in me-first-driver techniques).
Of course you don't have a problem... it's the hundred cars lineup up behind you. Sheesh. And your 'techniques' are the epitome of 'me-first-driver'.
Gently climbing hills without flooring it and therefore using too much fuel doesn't automatically mean "driving below the limit" or any such thing.
So you are driving faster than the limit before you reach a hill??? Talk about wasting gas!
use the two-second rule, at LEAST
Sure, I'm two seconds behind you. Now we come to a hill. You slow down. Which means I have to slow down to keep the two second rule. And the guy behind me must do the same thing. etc, etc. Ta-da! Traffic jam!
...fix your driving habits...
And what exactly should I fix? I never mentioned anything about how I drive, so I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that my driving habits are at fault.
...fixed consumption hill climb...
Translation: You slow down on hills.
Result: You impede traffic and cause more fuel to be consumed because you have now caused a traffic jam and everyone is now in stop-and-go traffic.
I live in the San Francisco bay area, and nearly every highway that has even a small incline gets backed up because people don't know how to keep a steady speed while climbing a hill. Now, maybe you don't do this in high-congestion areas, which is OK. But for the love of God, DO NOT do this in high traffic areas.
Are you saying that my $9.99 trading fee is keeping me from becoming rich? If it was $0, I would suddenly be able to make money in stocks?
And my trades go through in about two seconds. Much faster than the guys running around on the floor while making ridiculous gestures that look like baseball managers telling the batter to bunt.
The stock market is itself a pretty asinine setup.
The stock market is a great setup, because I can buy as large or small a piece of as many companies as I want, and reap the rewards of their profits (dividends).
So, what happens when I build this thing, and try to get it registered at my local DMV?
DMV Drone: Make?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: No, who is the manufacturer?
Me: Me
DMV Drone: (sigh). Model?
Me: Mostly done in Solidworks.
DMV Drone: NEXT!
...Bill Gates coyly wiggling his ass...
*shudders*
NEVER use that fucking phrase again for as long as you live.
People... at a bar... watching a football game... applauded a commercial? About software?
So, what part of the Microsoft campus is this bar located at?
I thought that you were allowed by fair use to make copies for your personal use. You aren't violating copyright, since you purchased a DVD of Ghostbusters. The DMCA is another matter, though...
Strange that texting is a more efficient way to use the capacity of a cellular system, yet they charge more for texting. hmmmm....
Stop these bad puns or I will United States you until you stop.
United States = torture. Get it?
Shit, did I do that wrong?
First note the words "may have been".
The fact that he even hinted that it might possibly be different in any way is idiotic.
It also makes it easier for the SSNs to be taken and used fraudulently.
How would it make it easier? Either way, the SSN and name is in plain view for all to see. I don't see how it makes any difference whether I show the entire record that contains a SSN/name, or just list the SSN/name, as long as I say where it came from and/or have a copy of the record in my possesion. It's the same either way, which was the reason that I felt the judge's statement was so bizarre.
But the judge stated his ruling might be "very different"... even if the SSN was copied from a public record. So even if I later showed the whole record to someone who asked where the SSN came from, he is saying that it would somehow be different... when it is the exact same thing. Legal 'logic' at work.
OK, so he properly ruled that she can list records that are already publicly available. Good for him. Then I read this amazing piece of idiocy:
He noted that the ruling may have been "very different" if Ostergren only listed Social Security numbers copied from records rather than the records themselves.
What?!?!? It's OK to show the whole record, but not part of the record? What the hell is the difference? The record already has the SSN in it.
Would storing the laptop in some type of inert gas (nitrogen) help? Hell, should the whole capsule be pumped full of nitrogen to reduce corrosion effects?
Ensure that whatever device you send goes complete with power adapter and user manual. In at least two languages.
I think people will remember how to speak English in 25 years.
No, I said "those Western states", never "the Western states", and the much more general "the West"
You are right, you didn't say "the Western states", you said "the West". I shouldn't have put quotes around the entire statement, as I was only emphasizing your use of the word 'the'. Your original argument was the use of 'the' vs. 'those'. You used both. And California, Oregon, and Washington are in 'the West'. They are the most western states in the lower continental US, so they are in 'the West'.
Look, you meant to say, 'Red Western states'. Fine, I get it.
"Those data I cited are per capita"
Holy crap, you just continue to say wrong things about your own link. Those figures are not per capita. They are "Federal Spending per
Dollar of Federal Taxes", or $ per $. They have nothing to do with population.
If that sentence actually meant what that response perverted it into, it would have said "all the Western states", not "all those Western states".
You did say "the Western states"!
The list also demonstrates the myth that "the West is independent"
Again, I ask, how is your reading comprehension? Again, I answer, it sucks.
Oh, and I'm not a Republican. But it was a nice attempt to try to make me look 'biased' somehow.
What do java and Flash have to do with the internet? Now individual programs are considered part of 'the internet'? What if my computer can't run Real Player? Am I no longer on 'the internet'? Sounds like more government bureaucrats that have no idea about the basics of modern technology.
"...all those Western states are subsidized by the rest of the country..."
My reading comprehension is just fine. How's yours? Oh, that's right, it sucks.
"And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays"
It receives 40% more in taxes than it pays, which puts it in the upper 25% of all states. I'm not sure where you keep getting this 'little bit more' idea. Your link does not list any total or relative amounts.
Uh, according to you own link, there are several states in the West that pay more than they receive. California ($0.78), Washington ($0.88), Oregon ($0.93). In fact, California subsidizes at a higher rate than New York ($0.79). So, yeah, we are pretty independent.
"Maine gets a little more than it pays"
Maine gets a shitload more than it pays ($1.41). Do you even read your own link before you post?
I think it would be closer to six million dollars, man.
this pretty much says it all. Don't you dare come at me with semantics, because the sentiment is pretty clear:
Um, I didn't come at you with semantics. You said that I wanted other states to keep the same winner-takes-all approach. I asked you to point out where I said that. Not only did you every show where I said that ('sentiment' my ass), but you came back with this bizarre statement that isn't even close to anything I said:
...because those are red states, and republicans don't need to follow the same rules.
That's so far removed from anything I've said in this thread that it makes me wonder what the words I typed look like to you.
And then you came up with these amazing leaps of logic:
But if they change it alone, it is at the expense of the voter's will.
Wha? So having the will of California voters accurately reflected is against the will of the California voters, because other states don't do things the same way? -1 = 1 in your world as well?
California makes up some electoral votes similarly "diluted" in the southeastern and midwestern block metropolitan areas.
California's electoral votes are California's electoral votes alone, irregardless of what other states do.
If you aren't even going to make sense, and just make up statements that I never said, then I'm through arguing with you.