Law, psychology, education, journalism, etc. are dominated by women. Should we expect to see male quotas there?
Mathematically speaking, its quite strange. You always hear rhetoric about increasing the number of women in science, engineering, politics, grad school, etc. You never hear anything about reducing the number of female social workers, lawyers, teachers, therapists, etc. Where will all the extra women come from? It seems we will need more women to satiate the feminists. Perhaps that's why feminists have adopted the cause of transsexuals. Data on this subject is woefully lacking, but personal experience leads me to believe the vast majority of transsexuals go from male to female, not the other way. Think about it, trannies are making feminist goals mathematically possible.
On the other hand, the consequences of a LiPo or LiIon explosion in a car are much more serious than in a laptop. One fact of mass production is that consumers will misuse your product in every way possible. No matter how many safeguards you put on your batteries and chargers, some idiot is going to blow his face off and sue you.
Try making and selling Nickel Metal Hydride batteries suitable for electric cars and see how far you get.
That's not a matter of patents, but a simple matter of engineering. Batteries with memory are horribly suited for vehicles. I have enough trouble maintaining a good charge cycle on my electric razor. Imagine trying to do that with a car.
All those different sizes of Vista have to do with how much you are willing to trade cost for features and performance. The different versions have nothing to do with what you want to use it for. So there are lots of SKUs, but they are all aimed at the same broad market.
Conventional wisdom is that they make $50 on each console. But that was concieved back when the dollar was worth crap and a half. I wonder if the cost of their parts has dropped enough to balance the weak dollar. My guess is that is hasn't, since all the parts in the Wii were old when it first shipped. The cost of production probably hasn't decreased much, if at all. Perhaps they aren't even turning a profit on units sold in the US anymore. Raising the price during a recession would probably cost the Wii its hot-item status.
I'm as surprised as you are that you weren't modded down. I'd hardly consider myself left wing, and the thought-patrol modding on this site is impossible to ignore. Maybe the note at the bottom won over their hearts.
Civilian judges can't determine military matters, except to the extent that they may break our laws. If judges cannot enforce laws on the military, then there is no point in passing laws that effect the military because they are impossible to enforce. If we want congress to have the ability to pass a law preventing our soldiers from ripping out enemy combatants' fingernails, we must also concede to them the right to legislate on military matters in general. The executive has broad, but not unlimited, power over the military. Judges are qualified to interpret the law whether military or civilian, criminal or civil, etc. Incidentally, FISA judges are specially selected for their ability to rule on these cases.
Your point about criminal courts prosecuting after the fact conflates two functions of the court; criminal prosecution on the one hand and regulation of government on the other. Prosecuting terrorists post facto is hardly an effective prevention tactic, but that is not what is at question in this case. What is at question is their ability to put checks on law enforcement and intelligence operations.
Your idea that elected leaders should be able to do what they want, since the fact of their election means they have the will of the people behind them, negates the need for a constitution at all. If we trust elected leaders with absolute power to enact the will of the people, why bother setting aside rights and procedures? However, in a constitutional democracy, elected leaders do not have the right to deprive us of our privacy rights any more than they can deprive us of our right to own a firearm.
I've got no problem with the idea that during wartime, and within reason, some rights can be temporarily suspended to allow the military to wage an effective war. However, without a declaration of war or any legal way to designate whether or not we are in a war, all measures taken must be considered permanent. Can you envision an act of congress officially ending the war on terror? Would all the rights we suspend to wage this war then come back? I find that doubtful. As such, I consider any argument that takes 'given we are in a war' as a precondition to be irrelevant. If we are in a war now, I can't picture circumstances under which we will NOT be in a war.
Rhetoric about losing all of our freedoms because we strictly upheld a few is severely misplaced in the current conflict. We do not face a threat to our existence from terrorism. If we suddenly suspended all military and intelligence operations, our enemies would still lack the power to take over the country. Economic mismanagement, poor education, bad governance, and the gradual erosion of our constitution are much greater threats to our freedoms and our system of government than terrorism could ever hope to be.
To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane.
What's so onerous about taking the notebook to a secret court and having a judge sign off on the wiretaps? While you may object to the fact that unelected judges can tell other parts of the government that they are breaking the law, our entire legal system is built on the idea that unelected judges interpret the law. Its worth noting that law enforcement and intelligence personnel are not elected either.
I've noticed that whenever I know the actual details of a story (say its a story on someone's remarks, which I heard, or a story on technology I've known about for years) AP, Reuters, BBC, FOX, CNN, or whoever else carries the story gets it completely ass backwards. Easy proliferation of actual information has made it possible for people like me to realize this. It just makes me wonder what is wrong with the news agencies.
We have some existing data. Online voting is used in referendum voting at many college campuses. I've been impressed with what I've seen. When voting on issues online, college students can be quite moderate. But when you put everyone in the same room and have them vote publicly on issues, the results are not pretty.
I figured they were attracted to the preisthood because they were ashamed of their attraction to little boys and they thought that by becoming a priest they could make it go away.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Thats strong language considering you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How about reading some history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine and never speaking again?
From reading the OP, I can only conclude that your definition of flamebait is "any statement someone present is likely to disagree with". I'd love to see a forum based on that. Well, we already have Opera.
There are a few profit models that work with GPL, but there are many more that don't. Take loss-leading, for example. If the PS3 were open source, there is no way Sony could afford to sell it at a loss. Currently only a small segment of the population can buy a PS3 repurpose it. If it were open source, you could easily distribute a software package that would turn it into a desktop PC. Sony couldn't sustain selling it to everyone who wants a cheap PC.
In my apartment we have 3 and we break 30GB/month (combined upp+down) easily. We watch streaming tv shows, use skype, watch youtube videos. None of us uses bittorrent at home. 30GB is not very much these days.
That would take some serious infrastructure upgrades. Especially because people tend to watch movies around the same time. Unless the wiring infrastructure is nationalized, I don't see anyone willing to pay for that.
Ahmedenejad was elected largely on anger over the axis of evil comment. It came at a rare opening for diplomatic concessions from Iran which abruptly closed after that comment was made. But I suppose the Iranian regime would have been so hurt by that speech they would have just collapsed if no one had criticized it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did changing standards 'devastate' firefighting, policing or the Army?
Is a 50/50 split required in any of those professions?
All kidding aside, women scientists are hot.
Oh Scully, I want to believe.
Law, psychology, education, journalism, etc. are dominated by women. Should we expect to see male quotas there?
Mathematically speaking, its quite strange. You always hear rhetoric about increasing the number of women in science, engineering, politics, grad school, etc. You never hear anything about reducing the number of female social workers, lawyers, teachers, therapists, etc. Where will all the extra women come from? It seems we will need more women to satiate the feminists. Perhaps that's why feminists have adopted the cause of transsexuals. Data on this subject is woefully lacking, but personal experience leads me to believe the vast majority of transsexuals go from male to female, not the other way. Think about it, trannies are making feminist goals mathematically possible.
If you want to claim a conspiracy, you must offer some proof.
You clearly aren't familiar with the first rule of conspiracy theories: "The lack of evidence is proof that they are covering it up."
On the other hand, the consequences of a LiPo or LiIon explosion in a car are much more serious than in a laptop. One fact of mass production is that consumers will misuse your product in every way possible. No matter how many safeguards you put on your batteries and chargers, some idiot is going to blow his face off and sue you.
Try making and selling Nickel Metal Hydride batteries suitable for electric cars and see how far you get.
That's not a matter of patents, but a simple matter of engineering. Batteries with memory are horribly suited for vehicles. I have enough trouble maintaining a good charge cycle on my electric razor. Imagine trying to do that with a car.
All those different sizes of Vista have to do with how much you are willing to trade cost for features and performance. The different versions have nothing to do with what you want to use it for. So there are lots of SKUs, but they are all aimed at the same broad market.
Conventional wisdom is that they make $50 on each console. But that was concieved back when the dollar was worth crap and a half. I wonder if the cost of their parts has dropped enough to balance the weak dollar. My guess is that is hasn't, since all the parts in the Wii were old when it first shipped. The cost of production probably hasn't decreased much, if at all. Perhaps they aren't even turning a profit on units sold in the US anymore. Raising the price during a recession would probably cost the Wii its hot-item status.
Also, remove any flashy toys from your crib and wipe that reflective slobber off your face.
I'm as surprised as you are that you weren't modded down. I'd hardly consider myself left wing, and the thought-patrol modding on this site is impossible to ignore. Maybe the note at the bottom won over their hearts.
Civilian judges can't determine military matters, except to the extent that they may break our laws. If judges cannot enforce laws on the military, then there is no point in passing laws that effect the military because they are impossible to enforce. If we want congress to have the ability to pass a law preventing our soldiers from ripping out enemy combatants' fingernails, we must also concede to them the right to legislate on military matters in general. The executive has broad, but not unlimited, power over the military. Judges are qualified to interpret the law whether military or civilian, criminal or civil, etc. Incidentally, FISA judges are specially selected for their ability to rule on these cases.
Your point about criminal courts prosecuting after the fact conflates two functions of the court; criminal prosecution on the one hand and regulation of government on the other. Prosecuting terrorists post facto is hardly an effective prevention tactic, but that is not what is at question in this case. What is at question is their ability to put checks on law enforcement and intelligence operations.
Your idea that elected leaders should be able to do what they want, since the fact of their election means they have the will of the people behind them, negates the need for a constitution at all. If we trust elected leaders with absolute power to enact the will of the people, why bother setting aside rights and procedures? However, in a constitutional democracy, elected leaders do not have the right to deprive us of our privacy rights any more than they can deprive us of our right to own a firearm.
I've got no problem with the idea that during wartime, and within reason, some rights can be temporarily suspended to allow the military to wage an effective war. However, without a declaration of war or any legal way to designate whether or not we are in a war, all measures taken must be considered permanent. Can you envision an act of congress officially ending the war on terror? Would all the rights we suspend to wage this war then come back? I find that doubtful. As such, I consider any argument that takes 'given we are in a war' as a precondition to be irrelevant. If we are in a war now, I can't picture circumstances under which we will NOT be in a war.
Rhetoric about losing all of our freedoms because we strictly upheld a few is severely misplaced in the current conflict. We do not face a threat to our existence from terrorism. If we suddenly suspended all military and intelligence operations, our enemies would still lack the power to take over the country. Economic mismanagement, poor education, bad governance, and the gradual erosion of our constitution are much greater threats to our freedoms and our system of government than terrorism could ever hope to be.
To say that we can't monitor phone #'s found in a captured jihadi's notebook because one person on the line is in America or merely that their communications pass through America without the approval of unelected judges who appear to give terrorists more privacy rights than YouTube viewers is insane.
What's so onerous about taking the notebook to a secret court and having a judge sign off on the wiretaps? While you may object to the fact that unelected judges can tell other parts of the government that they are breaking the law, our entire legal system is built on the idea that unelected judges interpret the law. Its worth noting that law enforcement and intelligence personnel are not elected either.
And he's just one guy, you'd think a company with the resources of Linksys could do an even better job.
Unless he holds meetings with himself and forms committees of himself, I'd say hes got at least one advantage.
That fits with my experience. If anyone slams my front door I have to reset my WRT54G.
I've noticed that whenever I know the actual details of a story (say its a story on someone's remarks, which I heard, or a story on technology I've known about for years) AP, Reuters, BBC, FOX, CNN, or whoever else carries the story gets it completely ass backwards. Easy proliferation of actual information has made it possible for people like me to realize this. It just makes me wonder what is wrong with the news agencies.
two words: Ron Paul
We have some existing data. Online voting is used in referendum voting at many college campuses. I've been impressed with what I've seen. When voting on issues online, college students can be quite moderate. But when you put everyone in the same room and have them vote publicly on issues, the results are not pretty.
If only the public would listen to Simon Cowell style criticism of the proposed laws, that might actually be preferable to the current system.
I figured they were attracted to the preisthood because they were ashamed of their attraction to little boys and they thought that by becoming a priest they could make it go away.
Firstly, anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly stupid that it defies belief they have the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog. The Fairness Doctrine applied to both liberal and conservative viewpoints, and anyone who says differently is a liar.
Thats strong language considering you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. How about reading some history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine and never speaking again?
From reading the OP, I can only conclude that your definition of flamebait is "any statement someone present is likely to disagree with". I'd love to see a forum based on that. Well, we already have Opera.
There are a few profit models that work with GPL, but there are many more that don't. Take loss-leading, for example. If the PS3 were open source, there is no way Sony could afford to sell it at a loss. Currently only a small segment of the population can buy a PS3 repurpose it. If it were open source, you could easily distribute a software package that would turn it into a desktop PC. Sony couldn't sustain selling it to everyone who wants a cheap PC.
~30gb porn
Good god man. You should switch to hentai, its easier to compress.
In my apartment we have 3 and we break 30GB/month (combined upp+down) easily. We watch streaming tv shows, use skype, watch youtube videos. None of us uses bittorrent at home. 30GB is not very much these days.
That would take some serious infrastructure upgrades. Especially because people tend to watch movies around the same time. Unless the wiring infrastructure is nationalized, I don't see anyone willing to pay for that.
Ahmedenejad was elected largely on anger over the axis of evil comment. It came at a rare opening for diplomatic concessions from Iran which abruptly closed after that comment was made. But I suppose the Iranian regime would have been so hurt by that speech they would have just collapsed if no one had criticized it.