BTW, just the launch costs for interplanetary missions probably start around $50-100M. It takes a lot of energy to fling something toward the stars out of Earth's gravity well.
Well then, I think it's time we invest a few billion dollars in making a giant slingshot that can launch probes at virtually no cost! Though that would be one hell of a rubber band......
That's what kept getting said during the whole so-called recovery of the 00's (the period between the brief 2001 recession and the current recession, which saw declining incomes in the bottom 3 quintiles with flat incomes in second-to-top quintile, with improvement in incomes confined largely in the top 5%. It was not, in any meaningful sense, a "recovery". (Which made the current recession that much worse, since -- but for inflated paper value of homes -- large numbers of people had been essentially wiped out during the preceding "recovery" before the official recession even hit.)
No, GDP is increasing, companies ARE hiring more people, layoffs are decreasing, home sales are going back up (both existing and new homes), etc. That's the economy improving. Just because it doesn't go from bad to amazing overnight doesn't mean that it's not happening. Also, another factor that's keeping the economy from improving faster is the government keeps discussing (repeatedly) different programs that will harm businesses, so businesses are afraid to hire. Obamacare was one issue, though since the taxes for that haven't kicked in yet we probably still haven't seen the full effects of that on the job market. Cap and Trade will cause all energy costs to go through the roof (even Obama openly admitted this in an interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4), which causes companies to be afraid to increase costs any more than is necessary. Then we have the government constantly talking about raising taxes, especially on "those evil businesses" - because the government is too incompetent to realize that the vast majority of people work for a business, not for themselves.
You are right however about the previous economy not really having a recovery - the government got involved, instead of letting things run their course, and instead we got a buildup to the current recession.
First, who would select these advisers?
Well we could always use the government officials to select the initial group, based on votes and with some other safeties built in to prevent one party rigging the deck. I know, government might actually be doing something that might be good for the people - shocking, isn't it?
Second, who is going to listen to advisers that aren't chosen by the people they are advising?
Did you choose your professors? No? So that means you didn't listen to anything they had to say, right? Oh, you did? Could it be because they had proven that they were knowledgeable in their field? Hmm, there might be a connection that a politician might listen to a group of people who are experts in their field and have nothing to gain by lying and playing party politics. Also, if a President and Congress ignores their recommendation and then things go to shit, then the American people will know that the politicians who were against listening to the experts were arrogant and incompetent who put their own agenda over doing what's best for the country - those politicians could then be voted out.
Third, now that you've given your little cabal of economists the power to remove elected officials for not following the program the economists prefer, what stops them from using that power to act as unchecked dictators?
No, oh wise one, the elected officials could replace the Economists who were shown to be repeatedly promoting bad decisions (Economists don't always agree, but if one person is always promoting a view that the others can demonstrate is a bad idea, then it's time for them to go). Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
the American people -- or enough of them, anyway -- are going to have to learn enough about economics to effectively judge politicians platforms and actions for economic sense, and are going to have to use that information when they vote.
it was rising too fast considering that the recovery still really hasn't come (i.e., there are still no jobs)
No, there is a recovery going on, it just takes time, plus it's a known fact that large scale hiring is the last thing that happens when coming out of a recession. There are jobs around, it just depends on what field you're in, what your specialty in that field is, and if you have the right amount of experience (too little and you'll be passed up for someone more experienced, too much and you'll be passed over for someone who costs less). I lost my job earlier this year and found a new one paying pretty much the same after only looking for about a month and a half. I also know of plenty of companies that are hiring. Part of the recovery is the fact that businesses did what they always do in bad times and they found ways to increase worker productivity so that they can produce more / make more money while having fewer workers to pay.
But first, we need to start getting rid of all the lawyers....
Very true, especially in the government. Congress was supposed to be made up of normal people of all trades, not a "welfare for lawyers" paradise. Also, considering how much power the president has over the economy, I think we need to pass an amendment requiring that in order to run for president you must have a good knowledge of economics (with a board of professors from various colleges questioning / giving an examination to the potential candidate to asses their economic competence). I also think that we need to cut economists from the list of presidential advisers who get appointed as favors for supporting a candidate and create and independent panel of Economists (3-5) to advise the president and congress and if members repeatedly support bad economic policies, they will be replaced. We've seen far too much damage done to our economy over the last 30 years (and back during the Depression as well) due to politicians (of both parties) who have no understanding of economic principles and thus they incur unintended negative consequences as a result of their ignorance.
If Arizona is just enforcing the fed law, tell me how they can enforce it EQUALLY and I mean non-racially.
Again, we have people getting mad when one ethnic group is the primary cause behind a problem and then people (naturally) pay more attention to them to try to stop the problem.
Yea, it sucks that you're Hispanic and actually a legal citizen. However, millions and millions of Mexicans (including the Mexican government who aides them in entering the US illegally) scream "FUCK YOU!" to taxpayers in the US daily. I'm well aware that there are people of other races who are here illegally, but the overwhelming majority of illegals are Mexican (due mostly to the horribly insecure border we have with Mexico).
If you want to get it to where race is no longer an issue for checking on if you're illegal, then instead of being one of the legal immigrants who defends illegals, be a legal immigrant who campaigns AGAINST illegals and work towards fixing the problem, not attacking those who are trying to fix the problem just because (due to bad luck of how you were born) you might get hassled some while working to fix the problem.
In AZs case, I have to not only avoid drawing suspicion, I have to carry docs - just in case I get pulled over.
Actually you only have to carry them if you're planning on committing a crime (since they can only check your status if they've already been given a reason to get involved over a crime). As for getting pulled over in a car? Everyone, regardless of race of citizenship status, is supposed to have that in their car at all times.
So it's a dick to stand up for yourself and not let yourself be beaten down? I've never had any problems with illegals, but I think if you started having problems with them (higher crime in your area, a few thefts or hit and runs, higher unemployment of Americans because unskilled workers get ignored for illegals who get paid less under the table, etc), you might change your tune.
The gist of your statement is "screw everyone in America, and I'll slander you if you try to stand up for yourself". That actually presents you as "a real dick".
So, really, fuck you Arizona - through no fault of my own, you feel entitled to detain me because of the failings of the government system?
They feel "entitled" to enforce and add on to a federal law because our federal government refuses to enforce it (regardless of which party in in power) because both parties are too focused on trying to get votes from illegals (who aren't even supposed to be allowed to vote anyways) to bother doing what's right and enforcing the law. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at 1) the federal INS who refuse to do their job (for both legal and illegal immigrants) and 2) the Mexican government who thinks the US is their personal dumping ground for their trash that they no longer want dragging their country down. Hell, on top of both of those, get angry and politicians who refuse to DO anything about all the millions of illegals running around - if the federal government would actually take care of the problem (such as deporting illegals, instead of making them a protected class), then the AZ law never would have been written.
While I'm sure you're right for a large group of people, I'd have to say that even more people buy Android phones because their family isn't on AT&T or for whatever reason they don't want to use AT&T, and thus can't get an iPhone so they go for something similar.
I'd be perfectly happy to vote for R's (and I have in the past) if they would let the science drive their ideology rather than the reverse.
Sorry, but that translates to "I'd be happy to vote for Republicans if they supported Democrats stance on GW". I despise both parties, but I've seen many more Republicans wanting to actually use science and facts to make policy as opposed to Democrats wanting to make policy based on their personal beliefs and feelings.
As for Al Gore? Since no one's head from him really since he made his fictional movie An Inconvenient Myth, I really couldn't give any exact quotes. However, he made it quite clear that only Democrats could save us from this horrible "disaster".
I never said no one had heard of it, I said that it wasn't a crisis until Al Gore realized the political power of screaming "We're all going to die from GW!!!! Only by electing Democrats can humanity survive!!!".
Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy?
Actually option 'C' is more likely than either of your options - government paid scientists off to justify raising taxes on businesses they didn't like and to curb behavior (such as driving cars) that they don't like.
Ever stop and think about how "global warming" wasn't a crisis until Al Gore (who has about as much science education as Obama has economics education - in other words, none) discovered it and brought it to the attention of the DNC?
Temperatures may or may not be changing (evidence seems to say that they're fairly stable), but there's zero reason to think that human behavior has anything to do with it - THAT part of GW is 100% manufactured for political purposes.
I don't think single player is any more valuable than multiplayer. The ridiculous amount of time spent by the population on Call of Duty is a good indicator of this.
I would also say that games like Mario Kart, WiiPlay and the various Rock Band titles have given me and my family significantly more than 20 hours of play-person-hours.
Yes, but multiplayer is repetitive (not to mention when it comes to online matchups, it's no fun playing with the douchebag 12 year olds that you find swarming most servers). A single player game has an objective, so I would definitely say it's more important. I've never played Halo 3 in single player, but I've played it plenty in multiplayer - sure, the maps change, but it's pretty much the same thing every time - if the single player mode actually has something to make it unique and not a repetition-fest, then it's infinitely more valuable than the multiplayer.
more European companies have been hit than American ones by the anti-monopoly and anti-kartel legislation.
From the articles I've read about the EU fining companies, I think you meant to say "more European companies have been hit than American ones by the anti-profit legislation." The EU massively abuses their power to throw fines at profitable companies just to rake in some extra cash, and the companies are too focused on making profit to have principles, so they pay the extortion fees instead of just pulling out of the EU and letting the citizens demand the government to behave so that they can have access to the luxuries the rest of the world has.
You must be one of those kids who never knew that their parent's called your friend's parents and checked if you were actually there.
No, I know for a fact that they didn't. Hell, even from being as young as 5 or 6 years old I was allowed to go where I wanted in the summer - I didn't have to file any plans, I didn't have a radio tag on me, I was allowed to go where I wanted and do what I want with the only rule being "Be home by dark". My parents trusted me to not do something I shouldn't and not to do something stupid and get myself killed. That's what happens when parents treat kids like human beings - they become capable of making intelligent decisions and looking out for themselves from an early age. They used to do it that way for all of history up until the last 30-40 years, and it worked well for raising responsible people who could take care of themselves. I've have a job since I was 10 because I was already responsible enough for it - no complaining, never missed a day either.
By your animosity, either your parents were quite over the line of reasonable, or you feel you were raised fine with no parental involvement so someone else's kids should be too.
Neither - my parents did a great job of having rules and teaching us right from wrong, but they also treated us like human beings and let us make out own decisions - if we made a bad one, we had to suffer the consequences. That's part of being a good parent - teaching kids personal responsibility and teaching them to be independent.
Both are very weak arguments.
Amusingly, you provided no argument to support your position of ruling with an iron fist and treating children as inhuman creatures that are incapable of thought.
Here's the approach I will likely take once my kids are old enough to use the net:
- Negotiate proper rules with them.
- Have something log what sites they go to, when etc.
- Let them know about the logging, and make it clear that you will review the logs if there is a need to do so.
- Also, I don't believe that someone who is 12 needs unsupervised net access. Have a machine in the family room and let them browse when you're around.
Ultimately, the only common denominator for success is parenting.
Here's the approach I will take if I have kids (currently no plans, but we'll reconsider in 10 years or so):
- Let them have their own laptops
- Put proper AV / Firewall tools on it
- Let them use it
People like you commonly confuse "controlling every aspect of their lives" with "parenting". Parenting means that you teach them right and wrong, then you let them live and trust that they'll do the right thing. If they happen to do something blatantly wrong / you stumble across them doing something wrong, THEN you punish them to try to make sure they don't do it again.
I agree but one should still be able to review logs of places the kids (or their friends) have been. I'm their parent, not just their friend.
So I'm assuming you're one of the power obsessed parents who uses Verizon's "family stalker" app to make sure you know when your kid is peeing and if they stopped to get ice cream or not? That kind of control isn't parenting, it's being a dictator - not only will your children despise you for it for the rest of their lives, but you're teaching them that they should be controlled and to not make their own decisions.
On the bright side for your kids, parents like you teach them that every person in a position of authority is an egotistical asshole who's not worth a single ounce of respect.
Treat your kids like human beings instead of slaves - you'll thank yourself in 40 years when you need your kids to pay to support you.
But occasionally you have to clean the house, cook dinner, go to the bathroom. Not all of us have the leisure to hover over children all day.
You SHOULDN'T be hovering over them all day, not even electronically. You teach your kids what they should and shouldn't do, then you let them live and if you had reasonable rules, they'll follow them. That's responsible parenting - teaching your kids and as they get older and older, you back the fuck off and let them start making their own decisions and you trust that they'll follow the rules while you occasionally check up to see if they're doing anything they shouldn't.
The people like you who think parenting is about having 100% absolute control over every thought and action of your children is downright psychotic and only serves your own lust for power, not the needs of your children. You're not raising children that way, you're raising slaves who are incapable of making their own decisions and being independent.
I know many people, including relatives of mine, who are on it. I'm very much aware of how it works, which is why I'm very against it. Perhaps you should actually meet someone on welfare, then you would realize that the overwhelming majority of them are people who just don't want to work and think those of us who do work are idiots for not just getting on welfare.
I've spent my whole life around people on welfare, and most of them are quite happy to give up having nice things for being lazy and not having to work. Though they don't give up many nice things, mostly it's just a nice car and home that they give up. Hell, every person I know on welfare has cell phones, cable / satellite, broadband internet, every game console, a big tv, and all sorts of things that poor people who actually have a job don't have because they know that they can't afford those luxuries.
Stop reading the fiction about welfare and actually get to know people on it, you might learn something.
I know many people, including relatives of mine, who are on it. I'm very much aware of how it works, which is why I'm very against it. Perhaps you should actually meet someone on welfare, then you would realize that the overwhelming majority of them are people who just don't want to work and think those of us who do work are idiots for not just getting on welfare.
I'm sorry, but that's nothing but a right-wing talking point. The same Department of Education administers to excellent schools and terrible schools, so clearly, that's not the problem.
If you weren't so busy focusing on stupid party politics, you'd have bothered to read the whole sentence which said "However, the problem with US public schools is the Department of Education and all the useless bureaucracy that goes along with it". I wasn't commenting about school performance at all in my post, I was talking about wasteful government spending that causes money that's supposed to go to education to be wasted on countless "administrators" that have nothing to do with educating students.
Except many of them know that they can get pregnant and then hop on welfare and get a free ride - so we'd have to pay them even more to not get pregnant than welfare pays them TO get pregnant.
Like it or not, there's no such thing as a school that couldn't do a better job educating kids with more money. It does take money to teach kids.
In general, you're correct. However, the problem with US public schools is the Department of Education and all the useless bureaucracy that goes along with it. The majority of money never gets close to a school because of all the useless administration jobs that don't do a thing to improve education, yet cost millions of dollars a year. We need to cut the bureaucracy and put the money tagged for education in the schools so that it actually goes towards education.
I cannot fathom why they did not include some sort of USB ports, video output, and include cables.
I agree on the USB, however the iPhone / iPod already have cables for doing video-out and those will work with an iPad. I also agree that it's pretty stupid that you have to sync the iPad just like an iPhone / iPod - that means that on trips you have to cart a laptop along, which then defeats the purpose of an iPad.
I think that the iPad has potential, but I say that it's only about 85% of what it needs to be in order for me to buy one.
LCD screens are superior in most aspects except for when reading lots and lots of text in which case the LCD screens are going to make your eyes cry out in pain
Normal LCD's, I'd agree with you. However, I read a LOT on my iPhone (news, ebooks, pdfs) and the only downside is the small size - I was surprised how easy it is to read for awhile on the screen. My desktop or laptop murder my eyes after a few minutes, but not the iPhone - possibly because I use the adaptive brightness function where it adjusts the brightness based on ambient light?
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, just the launch costs for interplanetary missions probably start around $50-100M. It takes a lot of energy to fling something toward the stars out of Earth's gravity well.
Well then, I think it's time we invest a few billion dollars in making a giant slingshot that can launch probes at virtually no cost! Though that would be one hell of a rubber band......
That's what kept getting said during the whole so-called recovery of the 00's (the period between the brief 2001 recession and the current recession, which saw declining incomes in the bottom 3 quintiles with flat incomes in second-to-top quintile, with improvement in incomes confined largely in the top 5%. It was not, in any meaningful sense, a "recovery". (Which made the current recession that much worse, since -- but for inflated paper value of homes -- large numbers of people had been essentially wiped out during the preceding "recovery" before the official recession even hit.)
No, GDP is increasing, companies ARE hiring more people, layoffs are decreasing, home sales are going back up (both existing and new homes), etc. That's the economy improving. Just because it doesn't go from bad to amazing overnight doesn't mean that it's not happening. Also, another factor that's keeping the economy from improving faster is the government keeps discussing (repeatedly) different programs that will harm businesses, so businesses are afraid to hire. Obamacare was one issue, though since the taxes for that haven't kicked in yet we probably still haven't seen the full effects of that on the job market. Cap and Trade will cause all energy costs to go through the roof (even Obama openly admitted this in an interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4), which causes companies to be afraid to increase costs any more than is necessary. Then we have the government constantly talking about raising taxes, especially on "those evil businesses" - because the government is too incompetent to realize that the vast majority of people work for a business, not for themselves.
You are right however about the previous economy not really having a recovery - the government got involved, instead of letting things run their course, and instead we got a buildup to the current recession.
First, who would select these advisers?
Well we could always use the government officials to select the initial group, based on votes and with some other safeties built in to prevent one party rigging the deck. I know, government might actually be doing something that might be good for the people - shocking, isn't it?
Second, who is going to listen to advisers that aren't chosen by the people they are advising?
Did you choose your professors? No? So that means you didn't listen to anything they had to say, right? Oh, you did? Could it be because they had proven that they were knowledgeable in their field? Hmm, there might be a connection that a politician might listen to a group of people who are experts in their field and have nothing to gain by lying and playing party politics. Also, if a President and Congress ignores their recommendation and then things go to shit, then the American people will know that the politicians who were against listening to the experts were arrogant and incompetent who put their own agenda over doing what's best for the country - those politicians could then be voted out.
Third, now that you've given your little cabal of economists the power to remove elected officials for not following the program the economists prefer, what stops them from using that power to act as unchecked dictators?
No, oh wise one, the elected officials could replace the Economists who were shown to be repeatedly promoting bad decisions (Economists don't always agree, but if one person is always promoting a view that the others can demonstrate is a bad idea, then it's time for them to go). Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.
the American people -- or enough of them, anyway -- are going to have to learn enough about economics to effectively judge politicians platforms and actions for economic sense, and are going to have to use that information when they vote.
Hahahahaha, I haven't
it was rising too fast considering that the recovery still really hasn't come (i.e., there are still no jobs)
No, there is a recovery going on, it just takes time, plus it's a known fact that large scale hiring is the last thing that happens when coming out of a recession. There are jobs around, it just depends on what field you're in, what your specialty in that field is, and if you have the right amount of experience (too little and you'll be passed up for someone more experienced, too much and you'll be passed over for someone who costs less). I lost my job earlier this year and found a new one paying pretty much the same after only looking for about a month and a half. I also know of plenty of companies that are hiring. Part of the recovery is the fact that businesses did what they always do in bad times and they found ways to increase worker productivity so that they can produce more / make more money while having fewer workers to pay.
But first, we need to start getting rid of all the lawyers....
Very true, especially in the government. Congress was supposed to be made up of normal people of all trades, not a "welfare for lawyers" paradise. Also, considering how much power the president has over the economy, I think we need to pass an amendment requiring that in order to run for president you must have a good knowledge of economics (with a board of professors from various colleges questioning / giving an examination to the potential candidate to asses their economic competence). I also think that we need to cut economists from the list of presidential advisers who get appointed as favors for supporting a candidate and create and independent panel of Economists (3-5) to advise the president and congress and if members repeatedly support bad economic policies, they will be replaced. We've seen far too much damage done to our economy over the last 30 years (and back during the Depression as well) due to politicians (of both parties) who have no understanding of economic principles and thus they incur unintended negative consequences as a result of their ignorance.
Commercials suck.
Yes, but not as much as having to pay / pay more for content. I'll put up with commercials just fine if it means I pay little to nothing for it.
If Arizona is just enforcing the fed law, tell me how they can enforce it EQUALLY and I mean non-racially.
Again, we have people getting mad when one ethnic group is the primary cause behind a problem and then people (naturally) pay more attention to them to try to stop the problem.
Yea, it sucks that you're Hispanic and actually a legal citizen. However, millions and millions of Mexicans (including the Mexican government who aides them in entering the US illegally) scream "FUCK YOU!" to taxpayers in the US daily. I'm well aware that there are people of other races who are here illegally, but the overwhelming majority of illegals are Mexican (due mostly to the horribly insecure border we have with Mexico).
If you want to get it to where race is no longer an issue for checking on if you're illegal, then instead of being one of the legal immigrants who defends illegals, be a legal immigrant who campaigns AGAINST illegals and work towards fixing the problem, not attacking those who are trying to fix the problem just because (due to bad luck of how you were born) you might get hassled some while working to fix the problem.
In AZs case, I have to not only avoid drawing suspicion, I have to carry docs - just in case I get pulled over.
Actually you only have to carry them if you're planning on committing a crime (since they can only check your status if they've already been given a reason to get involved over a crime). As for getting pulled over in a car? Everyone, regardless of race of citizenship status, is supposed to have that in their car at all times.
So it's a dick to stand up for yourself and not let yourself be beaten down? I've never had any problems with illegals, but I think if you started having problems with them (higher crime in your area, a few thefts or hit and runs, higher unemployment of Americans because unskilled workers get ignored for illegals who get paid less under the table, etc), you might change your tune.
The gist of your statement is "screw everyone in America, and I'll slander you if you try to stand up for yourself". That actually presents you as "a real dick".
So, really, fuck you Arizona - through no fault of my own, you feel entitled to detain me because of the failings of the government system?
They feel "entitled" to enforce and add on to a federal law because our federal government refuses to enforce it (regardless of which party in in power) because both parties are too focused on trying to get votes from illegals (who aren't even supposed to be allowed to vote anyways) to bother doing what's right and enforcing the law. If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at 1) the federal INS who refuse to do their job (for both legal and illegal immigrants) and 2) the Mexican government who thinks the US is their personal dumping ground for their trash that they no longer want dragging their country down. Hell, on top of both of those, get angry and politicians who refuse to DO anything about all the millions of illegals running around - if the federal government would actually take care of the problem (such as deporting illegals, instead of making them a protected class), then the AZ law never would have been written.
While I'm sure you're right for a large group of people, I'd have to say that even more people buy Android phones because their family isn't on AT&T or for whatever reason they don't want to use AT&T, and thus can't get an iPhone so they go for something similar.
I'd be perfectly happy to vote for R's (and I have in the past) if they would let the science drive their ideology rather than the reverse.
Sorry, but that translates to "I'd be happy to vote for Republicans if they supported Democrats stance on GW". I despise both parties, but I've seen many more Republicans wanting to actually use science and facts to make policy as opposed to Democrats wanting to make policy based on their personal beliefs and feelings.
As for Al Gore? Since no one's head from him really since he made his fictional movie An Inconvenient Myth, I really couldn't give any exact quotes. However, he made it quite clear that only Democrats could save us from this horrible "disaster".
I never said no one had heard of it, I said that it wasn't a crisis until Al Gore realized the political power of screaming "We're all going to die from GW!!!! Only by electing Democrats can humanity survive!!!".
Which is more likely: that scientists got together and colluded to invent a crisis thinking it would make tons of money roll in, or that the wealthy are projecting their greed onto the less greedy?
Actually option 'C' is more likely than either of your options - government paid scientists off to justify raising taxes on businesses they didn't like and to curb behavior (such as driving cars) that they don't like.
Ever stop and think about how "global warming" wasn't a crisis until Al Gore (who has about as much science education as Obama has economics education - in other words, none) discovered it and brought it to the attention of the DNC?
Temperatures may or may not be changing (evidence seems to say that they're fairly stable), but there's zero reason to think that human behavior has anything to do with it - THAT part of GW is 100% manufactured for political purposes.
I don't think single player is any more valuable than multiplayer. The ridiculous amount of time spent by the population on Call of Duty is a good indicator of this. I would also say that games like Mario Kart, WiiPlay and the various Rock Band titles have given me and my family significantly more than 20 hours of play-person-hours.
Yes, but multiplayer is repetitive (not to mention when it comes to online matchups, it's no fun playing with the douchebag 12 year olds that you find swarming most servers). A single player game has an objective, so I would definitely say it's more important. I've never played Halo 3 in single player, but I've played it plenty in multiplayer - sure, the maps change, but it's pretty much the same thing every time - if the single player mode actually has something to make it unique and not a repetition-fest, then it's infinitely more valuable than the multiplayer.
more European companies have been hit than American ones by the anti-monopoly and anti-kartel legislation.
From the articles I've read about the EU fining companies, I think you meant to say "more European companies have been hit than American ones by the anti-profit legislation." The EU massively abuses their power to throw fines at profitable companies just to rake in some extra cash, and the companies are too focused on making profit to have principles, so they pay the extortion fees instead of just pulling out of the EU and letting the citizens demand the government to behave so that they can have access to the luxuries the rest of the world has.
You must be one of those kids who never knew that their parent's called your friend's parents and checked if you were actually there.
No, I know for a fact that they didn't. Hell, even from being as young as 5 or 6 years old I was allowed to go where I wanted in the summer - I didn't have to file any plans, I didn't have a radio tag on me, I was allowed to go where I wanted and do what I want with the only rule being "Be home by dark". My parents trusted me to not do something I shouldn't and not to do something stupid and get myself killed. That's what happens when parents treat kids like human beings - they become capable of making intelligent decisions and looking out for themselves from an early age. They used to do it that way for all of history up until the last 30-40 years, and it worked well for raising responsible people who could take care of themselves. I've have a job since I was 10 because I was already responsible enough for it - no complaining, never missed a day either.
By your animosity, either your parents were quite over the line of reasonable, or you feel you were raised fine with no parental involvement so someone else's kids should be too.
Neither - my parents did a great job of having rules and teaching us right from wrong, but they also treated us like human beings and let us make out own decisions - if we made a bad one, we had to suffer the consequences. That's part of being a good parent - teaching kids personal responsibility and teaching them to be independent.
Both are very weak arguments.
Amusingly, you provided no argument to support your position of ruling with an iron fist and treating children as inhuman creatures that are incapable of thought.
Here's the approach I will likely take once my kids are old enough to use the net:
- Negotiate proper rules with them. - Have something log what sites they go to, when etc. - Let them know about the logging, and make it clear that you will review the logs if there is a need to do so. - Also, I don't believe that someone who is 12 needs unsupervised net access. Have a machine in the family room and let them browse when you're around.
Ultimately, the only common denominator for success is parenting.
Here's the approach I will take if I have kids (currently no plans, but we'll reconsider in 10 years or so):
- Let them have their own laptops
- Put proper AV / Firewall tools on it
- Let them use it
People like you commonly confuse "controlling every aspect of their lives" with "parenting". Parenting means that you teach them right and wrong, then you let them live and trust that they'll do the right thing. If they happen to do something blatantly wrong / you stumble across them doing something wrong, THEN you punish them to try to make sure they don't do it again.
I agree but one should still be able to review logs of places the kids (or their friends) have been. I'm their parent, not just their friend.
So I'm assuming you're one of the power obsessed parents who uses Verizon's "family stalker" app to make sure you know when your kid is peeing and if they stopped to get ice cream or not? That kind of control isn't parenting, it's being a dictator - not only will your children despise you for it for the rest of their lives, but you're teaching them that they should be controlled and to not make their own decisions.
On the bright side for your kids, parents like you teach them that every person in a position of authority is an egotistical asshole who's not worth a single ounce of respect.
Treat your kids like human beings instead of slaves - you'll thank yourself in 40 years when you need your kids to pay to support you.
But occasionally you have to clean the house, cook dinner, go to the bathroom. Not all of us have the leisure to hover over children all day.
You SHOULDN'T be hovering over them all day, not even electronically. You teach your kids what they should and shouldn't do, then you let them live and if you had reasonable rules, they'll follow them. That's responsible parenting - teaching your kids and as they get older and older, you back the fuck off and let them start making their own decisions and you trust that they'll follow the rules while you occasionally check up to see if they're doing anything they shouldn't.
The people like you who think parenting is about having 100% absolute control over every thought and action of your children is downright psychotic and only serves your own lust for power, not the needs of your children. You're not raising children that way, you're raising slaves who are incapable of making their own decisions and being independent.
I know many people, including relatives of mine, who are on it. I'm very much aware of how it works, which is why I'm very against it. Perhaps you should actually meet someone on welfare, then you would realize that the overwhelming majority of them are people who just don't want to work and think those of us who do work are idiots for not just getting on welfare.
I've spent my whole life around people on welfare, and most of them are quite happy to give up having nice things for being lazy and not having to work. Though they don't give up many nice things, mostly it's just a nice car and home that they give up. Hell, every person I know on welfare has cell phones, cable / satellite, broadband internet, every game console, a big tv, and all sorts of things that poor people who actually have a job don't have because they know that they can't afford those luxuries.
Stop reading the fiction about welfare and actually get to know people on it, you might learn something.
I know many people, including relatives of mine, who are on it. I'm very much aware of how it works, which is why I'm very against it. Perhaps you should actually meet someone on welfare, then you would realize that the overwhelming majority of them are people who just don't want to work and think those of us who do work are idiots for not just getting on welfare.
I'm sorry, but that's nothing but a right-wing talking point. The same Department of Education administers to excellent schools and terrible schools, so clearly, that's not the problem.
If you weren't so busy focusing on stupid party politics, you'd have bothered to read the whole sentence which said "However, the problem with US public schools is the Department of Education and all the useless bureaucracy that goes along with it". I wasn't commenting about school performance at all in my post, I was talking about wasteful government spending that causes money that's supposed to go to education to be wasted on countless "administrators" that have nothing to do with educating students.
Except many of them know that they can get pregnant and then hop on welfare and get a free ride - so we'd have to pay them even more to not get pregnant than welfare pays them TO get pregnant.
Like it or not, there's no such thing as a school that couldn't do a better job educating kids with more money. It does take money to teach kids.
In general, you're correct. However, the problem with US public schools is the Department of Education and all the useless bureaucracy that goes along with it. The majority of money never gets close to a school because of all the useless administration jobs that don't do a thing to improve education, yet cost millions of dollars a year. We need to cut the bureaucracy and put the money tagged for education in the schools so that it actually goes towards education.
Well, that didn't take long!
When I can tether the $499 iPad with my iPhone, I'll probably get one to replace my Acer Aspire One.
I have the money for the 3g version, but the idea of paying for two unlimited data plans is just offensive to me.
The iPad (stock) supports bluetooth tethering - a jailbroken iPhone allows for bluetooth and usb tethering........I don't see what's stopping you.....
I cannot fathom why they did not include some sort of USB ports, video output, and include cables.
I agree on the USB, however the iPhone / iPod already have cables for doing video-out and those will work with an iPad. I also agree that it's pretty stupid that you have to sync the iPad just like an iPhone / iPod - that means that on trips you have to cart a laptop along, which then defeats the purpose of an iPad.
I think that the iPad has potential, but I say that it's only about 85% of what it needs to be in order for me to buy one.
LCD screens are superior in most aspects except for when reading lots and lots of text in which case the LCD screens are going to make your eyes cry out in pain
Normal LCD's, I'd agree with you. However, I read a LOT on my iPhone (news, ebooks, pdfs) and the only downside is the small size - I was surprised how easy it is to read for awhile on the screen. My desktop or laptop murder my eyes after a few minutes, but not the iPhone - possibly because I use the adaptive brightness function where it adjusts the brightness based on ambient light?