The connection is "social conservatives" are ripe for manipulation because of the emotional nature of the narrow band of issues they really care about:
The same can be said about fiscal liberals in the US - they continually used emotional arguments about how "it's mean" to not make a more successful (and thus wealthier) person subsidize / give a free ride to those who weren't as successful. No, really - go around the internet and read blogs, forums, or news articles. You'll see just as many, though I'd say probably more, references to the opposition being "soul-less" and "cold hearted" in posts by fiscal liberals in the US than you will social conservatives.
Disclaimer: I belong to neither group, I just hate how incredibly biased most discussions are in favor of fiscal liberals where they refuse to accept that fiscal liberals can do any wrong.
Because they were protesting to try to fix irresponsible government spending, while OWS is protesting to add even more deficit in order to avoid having to be judged based on their merits. It's no secret that TIME magazine is incredibly biased in favor of Democrats / Socialists / "progressives" (disgusting term, since there's nothing progressive about regurgitating the same proven to fail ideas).
Did the console payment legally entitle the user to have access to the network? The plaintiffs failed to show that it did.
Really, the fact that it's advertised RIGHT ON THE BOX as part of the package that you're buying is "failing to show" that PSN is bundled with buying a PS3?
Sony doesn't have to provide a reason to be banned if their contract doesn't require them to--whereas Ford and other auto companies might promise to provide service as part of a package that obligates them to do so.
Nothing in a cars warranty says that they can't remove features at their will. It simply says that anything that breaks must be replaced at no charge for a certain period of time.
But if they required you to disable your navigation system as a condition of their repairing a car they were not obligated to repair, I don't see why you would be able to sue them for that. (It would be a poor sales move, though.)
Because something that is fully functioning should never be broken after it's returned from being serviced. Just like how if you take your desktop to the Geek Squad to have a bad motherboard replaced, you can sue them if they remove or damage your video card that was working fine before.
My question to you is, what motivation do you have to promote Sony behaving in both a criminal and unethical manner? Everything that I pointed out is something that any other company could be sued over and would be found guilty - yet we routinely give software companies a pass on being held to the same standards.
Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?
Thanks for openly admitting that your argument is based on irrational emotions and not facts. No, I wouldn't want phones banned if my girlfriend or a family member was killed by someone who coincidentally happened to be on the phone while driving. Why? Because the phone didn't kill them. Some dipshit who couldn't bother to pay attention to what they're doing did. It's not hard to talk on the phone while driving as long as you have a high enough IQ to realize that you need to prioritize activities and put driving ahead of talking or any other activity. Someone's failure to do that is not the cause of the phone, the hamburger, the radio, or any other distraction - it's their fault for not focusing on the road and theirs alone.
It's rather simple. Build a statistical model with the dependent variable being the number of car accidents per 1,000 people in a given time frame (month, quarter, year - whatever frequency the data is collected) and then you use things such as seasonal values to compensate for weather, fuel prices, GDP, etc to compensate for the variance that isn't due to the ban and then you also have a binary variable for the ban that is 0 before the ban existed and 1 after the ban existed. Perform a simple regression and then look at the results to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of accidents per 1,000 people with the ban and without.
Really, it's NOT difficult to measure the effect of the ban. I can't really believe that I'm the only one thinking we should use actual science to test the claim that the ban is effective, can I?
Haven't you ever found yourself driving behind someone who's driving like crap and they're not on the phone? Like it or not, a lot of people are just fraking morons who never should've been issued a drivers license.
The science could hardly be more clear. Anyone who thinks using a mobile phone while driving is safe is simply ignorant.
Except that every study I've read was rigged to prevent them from doing basic things like stop talking or drop the phone in their lap to improve their driving when the situation required it. Have you looked into how your beloved anti-phone studies were performed to ensure that they didn't have this bias? That's just common sense to make sure that researchers aren't being biased and rigging a study to provide the results that they want.
But you clearly hate cell phones, so you look for data to support your predetermined conclusions. That's like you quoting studies that say exposure to black lights causes early death in rats when the study started out with rats that were already ill to begin with.
I have looked at the studies and they're all blatantly rigged. Why? Because they don't allow the driver to stop talking or put the phone down for any reason. In real life, anyone with a functioning brain with STFU or just drop the phone if they need to concentrate more or use both hands. Intentionally preventing people from doing what is natural to improve their driving during bad circumstances is not scientific and would get any grad student kicked out of graduate school for being so intellectually dishonest.
If you get poor cell phone reception in your office building you've seen the mindless dolts with phones to their ears walking into you, completely oblivious to everything around them. Well, they're affected even more badly when driving.
They do that because they're morons. Cell phones didn't make them stupid, it just makes it easier to see. Those same people would walk into a table while staring at a TV or pour a drink on themselves because they were watching YouTube. You can't fix stupid (other than increasing the requirements to get a drivers license - which I fully support) and it's ridiculous to blame an inanimate object for their stupidity.
Now, if you want some interesting results regarding the effects of alcohol and cell phones on driving, a year or two ago one of the car magazines (I forget which) did a test on a closed track involving two of their journalists - one in his mid-20's and one in his mid-40's. They drove the course sober, while talking on a cell phone, while drunk, and while drunk and on a cell phone. Now, predictably, reaction times decreased as they went along adding each item. What's the shocking part? The man in his mid-20's had a better reaction time while drunk off his ass and talking on a cell phone than the man in his mid-40's did stone sober without a cell phone. If you really wanted to improve safety on the roads, you'd ban drivers over 40, because they're clearly more dangerous than a drunk talking on a cell phone.:)
True - talking to a passenger has more of an impact because they can do things to cause you to turn your head and take your eyes off the road. Thanks for backing up the OP on banning passengers!
No, corruption or bribery couldn't possibly have to do with him stating that Sony did nothing wrong by advertising a feature of a product, selling you said product with that feature, then coming back later and removing it. Again, this double standard with software companies NEEDS TO STOP. If Ford decided to disable your navigation system (that was sold to you as part of the car) when you took your car in for maintenance, you'd be able to sue them to hell and back. But when a software company does it, it's just peachy.
To win, plaintiffs would have had to show they had a legal entitlement to continued access to the network. They didn't, so the judge tossed the case.
You mean like paying for the console (advertised as having access to PSN and other OS) and not providing any reason to be banned, such as using hacks to cheat in games?
I never said anything about sharing enthusiasm - I said I felt sad that you've never driven a car that's fun to drive. Also, do you not see the irony in saying that "boring cars are good because there's no surprises like things breaking" and then saying that you'd have fun on a motorcycle where a pot hole is no longer a minor annoyance but a potential death sentence?
I'm not talking about surprises. I'm talking about the driving experience - a car that's FUN to drive, that makes you WANT to get in the car and go somewhere. You can do that while still doing the 5mph under the speed limit that you'd prefer - it's not about how you drive, it's about how the car is designed. The Accord and Camry (just about any Honda and Toyota in general, but especially those models) are the exact opposite of that. They're toasters. They're completely unexciting and could put even a meth addict to sleep. Mazda does a wonderful job of making low cost, reliable, fuel efficient cars that are still fun to drive and Hyundai and Kia are learning from Mazda. You could buy one of those brands and pay less money, have a better looking car, and have a car that's fun to drive.
As a car enthusiast, it makes me sad that you've never driven a car that's actually fun to drive.
The best part is, the site wants you to log in using facebook to "prove you're human" - that way they can pin an IP address to an actual name and email address. If you don't use the facebook link, they provide something like a 26 letter long captcha (which as far as I can tell, will never let you in, thus forcing you to log in via facebook if you want to view the site). This site sounds like an extreme scam.
Get an Archos 80 G9 or Archos 101 G9. The 80 G9 has an 8" screen, way better specs all around than the Fire, Honeycomb (soon to be Ice Cream Sandwich), and you can pick it up on Amazon for only $70 more.
faculty do not know how much the books they choose to best teach the subject cost.
I'd be suspicious of getting a degree from a university where the professors are too incompetent to simply pull up the book on Amazon and see how much it costs.
Because they have a cult of millions who'll buy any iDevice, regardless of price or quality? Yes, any individual Android tablet is going to be "less popular" because it's ONE tablet in a sea of dozens - but it's Android tablets as a whole that are competing for market share against the iPad, and they're rapidly growing...just like Android did on phones.
PrinterShare is quite good. I picked it up for free off Amazon when they were giving it away a month or two ago (I think the full version is normally $5). I've been happy with it so far.
As someone who's owned two different HTC Android phones now and has used Samsung Android phones, I'd love to know in what ways you think HTC phones are "archaic and unusable". Even my friends who were devoted Samsung loyalists switched to HTC because Sense is vastly superior to TouchWiz (especially since TouchWiz looks like it was designed by Fischer-Price).
Regarding carrier installed crap, Sprint / HTC (one or the other, possibly both working together - not sure) have drastically improved this and on the Evo 3D you can uninstall almost every single pre-installed app without rooting and you'll still be able to get OTA updates just fine.
I WANT to like Android, but the level of shit I have to deal with to get a bare OS without all of the bloat is more than I want to hobby with on a phone I need to depend on.
Huh, I wasn't aware buying a Nexus phone was so hard. My friend wanted exactly what you described, so he bought a Nexus S 4G on Sprint and SHAZAM - he had it.
I'd say the ideal way would be to make Android use the Linux approach - UI's are just installed like any other application and aren't part of the OS itself, so that you can install the HTC Sense UI, Motoblur, whatever and if you don't like it, simply uninstall it and A) go back to the default Android UI or B) install another UI. Companies could also easily install things like the Webtop as software that can be installed or uninstalled at will. Hell, they could easily just provide their own brand specific app store for downloading said apps / UI's. You can have an HTC app store that ONLY HTC phones can access but then people are free to add / remove the apps as they please.
That way Google controls the OS and can rapidly push OS updates and then carriers / handset manufacturers can still customize their phones.
Yes, they will deliver there - they might charge a higher price to go to the middle of nowhere, but they'd be willing to deliver there. For now since they're legally not fully allowed to compete, it's easier to just push it off on the USPS.
Massive amounts of junk mail delivered via USPS is not the same as millions of packages delivered via FedEx and UPS that people actually don't throw in the trash. You also forget that almost every home gets at least one piece of junk mail per day - most homes don't get a package every day, so your numbers are utterly meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
The connection is "social conservatives" are ripe for manipulation because of the emotional nature of the narrow band of issues they really care about:
The same can be said about fiscal liberals in the US - they continually used emotional arguments about how "it's mean" to not make a more successful (and thus wealthier) person subsidize / give a free ride to those who weren't as successful. No, really - go around the internet and read blogs, forums, or news articles. You'll see just as many, though I'd say probably more, references to the opposition being "soul-less" and "cold hearted" in posts by fiscal liberals in the US than you will social conservatives.
Disclaimer: I belong to neither group, I just hate how incredibly biased most discussions are in favor of fiscal liberals where they refuse to accept that fiscal liberals can do any wrong.
Because they were protesting to try to fix irresponsible government spending, while OWS is protesting to add even more deficit in order to avoid having to be judged based on their merits. It's no secret that TIME magazine is incredibly biased in favor of Democrats / Socialists / "progressives" (disgusting term, since there's nothing progressive about regurgitating the same proven to fail ideas).
Did the console payment legally entitle the user to have access to the network? The plaintiffs failed to show that it did.
Really, the fact that it's advertised RIGHT ON THE BOX as part of the package that you're buying is "failing to show" that PSN is bundled with buying a PS3?
Sony doesn't have to provide a reason to be banned if their contract doesn't require them to--whereas Ford and other auto companies might promise to provide service as part of a package that obligates them to do so.
Nothing in a cars warranty says that they can't remove features at their will. It simply says that anything that breaks must be replaced at no charge for a certain period of time.
But if they required you to disable your navigation system as a condition of their repairing a car they were not obligated to repair, I don't see why you would be able to sue them for that. (It would be a poor sales move, though.)
Because something that is fully functioning should never be broken after it's returned from being serviced. Just like how if you take your desktop to the Geek Squad to have a bad motherboard replaced, you can sue them if they remove or damage your video card that was working fine before.
My question to you is, what motivation do you have to promote Sony behaving in both a criminal and unethical manner? Everything that I pointed out is something that any other company could be sued over and would be found guilty - yet we routinely give software companies a pass on being held to the same standards.
Ultimately this is the states' call, but if it was your kid, significant other, or friend who got killed by someone texting/talking on their phone would you let it go?
Thanks for openly admitting that your argument is based on irrational emotions and not facts. No, I wouldn't want phones banned if my girlfriend or a family member was killed by someone who coincidentally happened to be on the phone while driving. Why? Because the phone didn't kill them. Some dipshit who couldn't bother to pay attention to what they're doing did. It's not hard to talk on the phone while driving as long as you have a high enough IQ to realize that you need to prioritize activities and put driving ahead of talking or any other activity. Someone's failure to do that is not the cause of the phone, the hamburger, the radio, or any other distraction - it's their fault for not focusing on the road and theirs alone.
It's rather simple. Build a statistical model with the dependent variable being the number of car accidents per 1,000 people in a given time frame (month, quarter, year - whatever frequency the data is collected) and then you use things such as seasonal values to compensate for weather, fuel prices, GDP, etc to compensate for the variance that isn't due to the ban and then you also have a binary variable for the ban that is 0 before the ban existed and 1 after the ban existed. Perform a simple regression and then look at the results to see if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of accidents per 1,000 people with the ban and without.
Really, it's NOT difficult to measure the effect of the ban. I can't really believe that I'm the only one thinking we should use actual science to test the claim that the ban is effective, can I?
Of course! The ban doesn't work so instead of removing the ban, we'll add MORE bans! Because obviously we just didn't ban ENOUGH to make it work!
.
Haven't you ever found yourself driving behind someone who's driving like crap and they're not on the phone? Like it or not, a lot of people are just fraking morons who never should've been issued a drivers license.
The science could hardly be more clear. Anyone who thinks using a mobile phone while driving is safe is simply ignorant.
Except that every study I've read was rigged to prevent them from doing basic things like stop talking or drop the phone in their lap to improve their driving when the situation required it. Have you looked into how your beloved anti-phone studies were performed to ensure that they didn't have this bias? That's just common sense to make sure that researchers aren't being biased and rigging a study to provide the results that they want.
But you clearly hate cell phones, so you look for data to support your predetermined conclusions. That's like you quoting studies that say exposure to black lights causes early death in rats when the study started out with rats that were already ill to begin with.
I have looked at the studies and they're all blatantly rigged. Why? Because they don't allow the driver to stop talking or put the phone down for any reason. In real life, anyone with a functioning brain with STFU or just drop the phone if they need to concentrate more or use both hands. Intentionally preventing people from doing what is natural to improve their driving during bad circumstances is not scientific and would get any grad student kicked out of graduate school for being so intellectually dishonest.
If you get poor cell phone reception in your office building you've seen the mindless dolts with phones to their ears walking into you, completely oblivious to everything around them. Well, they're affected even more badly when driving.
They do that because they're morons. Cell phones didn't make them stupid, it just makes it easier to see. Those same people would walk into a table while staring at a TV or pour a drink on themselves because they were watching YouTube. You can't fix stupid (other than increasing the requirements to get a drivers license - which I fully support) and it's ridiculous to blame an inanimate object for their stupidity.
Now, if you want some interesting results regarding the effects of alcohol and cell phones on driving, a year or two ago one of the car magazines (I forget which) did a test on a closed track involving two of their journalists - one in his mid-20's and one in his mid-40's. They drove the course sober, while talking on a cell phone, while drunk, and while drunk and on a cell phone. Now, predictably, reaction times decreased as they went along adding each item. What's the shocking part? The man in his mid-20's had a better reaction time while drunk off his ass and talking on a cell phone than the man in his mid-40's did stone sober without a cell phone. If you really wanted to improve safety on the roads, you'd ban drivers over 40, because they're clearly more dangerous than a drunk talking on a cell phone. :)
True - talking to a passenger has more of an impact because they can do things to cause you to turn your head and take your eyes off the road. Thanks for backing up the OP on banning passengers!
No, corruption or bribery couldn't possibly have to do with him stating that Sony did nothing wrong by advertising a feature of a product, selling you said product with that feature, then coming back later and removing it. Again, this double standard with software companies NEEDS TO STOP. If Ford decided to disable your navigation system (that was sold to you as part of the car) when you took your car in for maintenance, you'd be able to sue them to hell and back. But when a software company does it, it's just peachy.
To win, plaintiffs would have had to show they had a legal entitlement to continued access to the network. They didn't, so the judge tossed the case.
You mean like paying for the console (advertised as having access to PSN and other OS) and not providing any reason to be banned, such as using hacks to cheat in games?
I never said anything about sharing enthusiasm - I said I felt sad that you've never driven a car that's fun to drive. Also, do you not see the irony in saying that "boring cars are good because there's no surprises like things breaking" and then saying that you'd have fun on a motorcycle where a pot hole is no longer a minor annoyance but a potential death sentence?
I'm not talking about surprises. I'm talking about the driving experience - a car that's FUN to drive, that makes you WANT to get in the car and go somewhere. You can do that while still doing the 5mph under the speed limit that you'd prefer - it's not about how you drive, it's about how the car is designed. The Accord and Camry (just about any Honda and Toyota in general, but especially those models) are the exact opposite of that. They're toasters. They're completely unexciting and could put even a meth addict to sleep. Mazda does a wonderful job of making low cost, reliable, fuel efficient cars that are still fun to drive and Hyundai and Kia are learning from Mazda. You could buy one of those brands and pay less money, have a better looking car, and have a car that's fun to drive.
As a car enthusiast, it makes me sad that you've never driven a car that's actually fun to drive.
If you're seeking bland and unexciting, get an Accord or Camry and you'll still save a lot of money over the BMW.
FTFY
The best part is, the site wants you to log in using facebook to "prove you're human" - that way they can pin an IP address to an actual name and email address. If you don't use the facebook link, they provide something like a 26 letter long captcha (which as far as I can tell, will never let you in, thus forcing you to log in via facebook if you want to view the site). This site sounds like an extreme scam.
Get an Archos 80 G9 or Archos 101 G9. The 80 G9 has an 8" screen, way better specs all around than the Fire, Honeycomb (soon to be Ice Cream Sandwich), and you can pick it up on Amazon for only $70 more.
faculty do not know how much the books they choose to best teach the subject cost.
I'd be suspicious of getting a degree from a university where the professors are too incompetent to simply pull up the book on Amazon and see how much it costs.
Because they have a cult of millions who'll buy any iDevice, regardless of price or quality? Yes, any individual Android tablet is going to be "less popular" because it's ONE tablet in a sea of dozens - but it's Android tablets as a whole that are competing for market share against the iPad, and they're rapidly growing...just like Android did on phones.
I think I need to email Apple's customer service and say "Isn't karma a bitch?"
PrinterShare is quite good. I picked it up for free off Amazon when they were giving it away a month or two ago (I think the full version is normally $5). I've been happy with it so far.
As someone who's owned two different HTC Android phones now and has used Samsung Android phones, I'd love to know in what ways you think HTC phones are "archaic and unusable". Even my friends who were devoted Samsung loyalists switched to HTC because Sense is vastly superior to TouchWiz (especially since TouchWiz looks like it was designed by Fischer-Price).
Regarding carrier installed crap, Sprint / HTC (one or the other, possibly both working together - not sure) have drastically improved this and on the Evo 3D you can uninstall almost every single pre-installed app without rooting and you'll still be able to get OTA updates just fine.
I WANT to like Android, but the level of shit I have to deal with to get a bare OS without all of the bloat is more than I want to hobby with on a phone I need to depend on.
Huh, I wasn't aware buying a Nexus phone was so hard. My friend wanted exactly what you described, so he bought a Nexus S 4G on Sprint and SHAZAM - he had it.
I'd say the ideal way would be to make Android use the Linux approach - UI's are just installed like any other application and aren't part of the OS itself, so that you can install the HTC Sense UI, Motoblur, whatever and if you don't like it, simply uninstall it and A) go back to the default Android UI or B) install another UI. Companies could also easily install things like the Webtop as software that can be installed or uninstalled at will. Hell, they could easily just provide their own brand specific app store for downloading said apps / UI's. You can have an HTC app store that ONLY HTC phones can access but then people are free to add / remove the apps as they please.
That way Google controls the OS and can rapidly push OS updates and then carriers / handset manufacturers can still customize their phones.
Yes, they will deliver there - they might charge a higher price to go to the middle of nowhere, but they'd be willing to deliver there. For now since they're legally not fully allowed to compete, it's easier to just push it off on the USPS.
Massive amounts of junk mail delivered via USPS is not the same as millions of packages delivered via FedEx and UPS that people actually don't throw in the trash. You also forget that almost every home gets at least one piece of junk mail per day - most homes don't get a package every day, so your numbers are utterly meaningless.