There was a post on/. a few days ago about how one of the cores had gone through the containment vessel and was now sitting on the concrete floor, but I have yet to see any news coverage of this. Did I completely misunderstand the post, or was it wrong, or is it just getting no coverage? Can anyone enlighten me on this?
And I believe when people say "seal it" they mean to encase it like the Chernobyl reactors were after they went to meltdown. I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the many articles I have seen on that possibility, but then again INANE....
While it doesn't change the point of your post, I believe you have the reason they are protesting the funerals wrong. And I also believe it goes against your point considering they have signs that read "God Hates You" which kind of makes me think they do hate. Of course we could be talking about different "crazy Baptist groups" after all; who knows how many of them are out there.
I'm not posting as to argue with you zipp, but to clarify hopefully. I believe Jimbo was referring more to his feelings/observations rather than precise terminology. Also, the "progressive" that you relate to Prohibition comes out of the "Progressive Era" (late 1800's - early 1900's). While the Progressives of this era were mostly supporters of Prohibition (not all Progressives supported Prohibition), the idea and support of Prohibition came less from pure Progressive ideals and more from the elevation of women's rights and and women's suffrage movement ascending through the Progressive cause of that time period. The "Progressive" Jimbo refers to (I believe) is less of a political party and more of a set of ideals about the role of government in modern society. The Progressives of today would definitely not support Prohibition (or the majority of them) nor do they support the Prohibition of marijuana, due to the lessons learned from the Prohibition of alcohol. Just as Prohibition gave rise to organized crime (as you point out), prohibition or "The War on Drugs" is the main reason for cartels and the crime that goes along with the black market (most governments did not seem to pay attention to the lessons of Prohibition). As Progressives seek to better society through science, technology, education, and government reform, the "Modern Progressive" movement has little resemblance to the "Progressive Era" as science and technology and general knowledge have advanced much since 1920. Modern Progressives are far more likely to support "single-payer universal health-care," environmental issues, and strengthening/protection of the middle class from corporations (although "progressive" changes depending on what country you are in/from).
While labels like these can be confusing and counterproductive, if we are going to use said labels it is important to very clear about that which we mean to say. IMO it is much more important to debate/discuss individual issues rather than trying to lump everything into broad political parties. I think we can all agree the partisanship we see today is much more counterproductive than anything single issue we face as a country. My main point was just to clarify "progressive" as I would identify many of my political and social beliefs as "progressive" yet I have little in common with the "Progressive Era" from a hundred years ago. I find the political landscape can be very frustrating as I often identify with Democrats, while other times I am on the side of Republicans. However with today's "all or nothing" partisanship it can be very difficult to work with either party to make "progress," which after all, is the goal.
Maybe you should suggest which books you will regard as correct then, as none of the many, many I have read seem to make your cut. I don't remember defending any of the actions or policies you mention, nor will I. It is my opinion, and just that, my opinion, that the Citizens United case is the worst of these offenses, not exclusively the only offense. None of the examples you mention have the consequence of taking the power of the vote away from the entire electorate by making money the only vote that matters. None of the examples you mention turn entities (companies) into members of the voting electorate. I can cite more reasons why I FEEL Citizens United is the worst and biggest threat, but you seem more set on shutting down conversation rather than encouraging it.
I am curious whether you are just trolling, simultaneously expressing and exalting your opinion only, or truly defending the Citizens United case? While I will grant you that your examples are all an affront to the constitution and its lofty ideals, the tone of your reply seems to deny that my example is even worthy of being seen as an affront. Are you unconcerned with the Citizens United decision or are you content with lumping it in with all the times our country has fallen short of its ideals?
I think all of the suggestions so far are very good, but I doubt AT$T (the $ is on purpose) is going that far. Most likely, IMO, is that anything over, say 4-6gb, and AT&T will just assume tethering is going on, simply based on usage. At that point, they send the notice out to requiring a switch to a tethering plan. Now we are left with just a few responses: 1) customer is tethering and thinks they are caught (surely AT&T can see they are tethering), so they switch to a tethering plan in order to keep using the feature which said customer has grown accustomed to using. RESULT: AT&T increases profit 2)customer is not tethering, has no idea what tethering means, but changes plan in order to keep using their precious iPhone. RESULT: AT&T increases profit dramatically 3)customer is tethering, but doesn't want to pay $45 fee so they stop tethering or at least limit their usage below 4gb. RESULT: AT&T frees up bandwidth on their already strained network 4)customer, tethering or not, calls AT&T and denies tethering to avoid paying $45 fee. At this point either AT&T can produce the "goods" (evidence) or they can't. RESULT: mixed
Having worked many years in the wireless industry, including but not limited to AT&T, I can promise most responses are going to be either 1 or 2. Customers rarely understand the technology behind the features, even the features they use; they just know it works or it doesn't work, and that is the scope of their understanding. Both 1 and 2 are going to increase the profit for AT&T, which is the whole point of this exercise. Far fewer responses are going to be 3, but this will still help AT&T by reducing the usage of their network (this is still a big WIN for AT&T). 4 is going to be the least likely response, and probably includes the few users that are tech say enough to understand how the feature works. Based on their interaction with the inbound call rep, they will either pay up or not. But this is such a small percentage, it is negligible to AT&T, therefore AT&T doesn't really care. AT&T has already accomplished their goal of maximizing profit with responses 1 and 2.
I think this is the most likely scenario based on how the whole issue is being handled. If AT&T really could tell with any certainty when an iPhone was being tethered, I believe the plan would automatically switch as soon as the first tethered connection was made. Since this notice is only sent after an approximately 4gb threshold is reached (even then it is still a notice that is sent first, not an automatic switch; this is for response 3) I doubt they can tell with any amount of certainty. Also, being able to detect tethering, even on jailbreaks, would require AT&T to add (or activate) some sort of software or hardware upgrade/technology to their own network backbone, which would cost money. Even just implementing an already existing GSM feature would cost something. These telco's are all about maximizing profit; keyword being MAXIMIZE, ie making the MOST INCOME while having the LEAST EXPENSES. My scenario would accomplish just this.
Please note this is only IMHO (I'm 99% sure this is what is going on) and not based on any inside knowledge or information other than knowing how these companies work and my observation skills, so please do not shoot the messenger....
I think, or hope, the poster was nuanced enough to mean that American politics are always moving to the right. If you look at Eisenhower Republicans, for example, although he was the Republican (and American) standard at the time, today his views would be very liberal. That is less a statement about the world and more about the state of American politics.
That viewpoint is fine, justifiable, and understandable as well. From your side (non-Americans) however, please understand there are those of us (Americans) that disagree with the tea party, are even ashamed of some of the propaganda it generates, and can articulately express why we feel as such. Also, please, understand the tea party has much more interest in protecting big business than anything else. There is nothing "grass routes" about it. I am not saying there are zero "common folk" that support the tea party, but it comes from Dick Armey, American's for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, and big business money. To put it bluntly: it is about money, money, money. Before any tea party members jump all over me: please do the research to understand who funds your "people's movement."
Also, I cried when Bush v Gore was decided, because at the time it was the biggest offense to the US Constitution ever and a very sad day for all true Americans (Yes, even Bush's supporters, if they would stop looking through Republican colored glasses and understand the constitutional issues). Now however, Bush v Gore has been bumped to #2 by the "Citizens United" decision; that should scare the entire world (entire "non-rich" world). Many of us do not think Reagan was the greatest president ever, although he did do some things that today would be very liberal (amnesty for illegal immigrants for one), as "trickle down economics" was a proverbial knife in the back to the middle class (or affront, to put it mildly).
Ann Rand? Her writings are not 100% wrong, but no where near 100% right; most people have no idea about her writing or ideals outside of hearing right-wing politicians mention her name. I say "her writings" because I have learned many political viewpoints espoused are not always believed even by those doing the espousing.
Our country is not perfect, but many of the bad moves could be mitigated if our entire electorate was less ignorant (lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant ) about the issues of which we vote. I will, however, go as far as necessary to defend everyone's right to vote. I love this country and truly feel it is the best country on earth (in ideals at least); one of the major reasons it is such is everyone gets a right to their one vote in each election. While I wish the entire electorate would educate themselves on the issues facing our country, the "one person/one vote" is the only things standing between our democracy and a plutocracy.
If everyone (both those inside and outside the US) will understand these things about the American citizenry, hopefully we could all get a fair shake, and get along much better too. Thank you for your time and understanding; I will now step down and put away my soapbox!
The story should be more about how these people have no idea when it comes to technology. I mean, what did she expect to happen? More likely, she never even thought about the obvious outcome, then goes crying when the obvious happens. If one wants to control how many people get invited to your party, maybe try sending paper invitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_invitation . I reference this link as proof they exist, which some might need to believe me. If ever there was a story for my "society" (see sig), this is it....
You know some of us working in the mobile business have degrees and experience in cs or cis, and working in the mobile industry EVERY DAY might give us a little edge over your brilliance. Now, really, I am sure you are quite knowledgeable, but if you walk into every store with the same attitude of your post, even those of us that are in the know will not help you just because of that. Granted, 85-90% of mobile associates are not the most educated or tech savy, but many try, and a few of us are educated and know about that which we speak. I hope you were just a little hasty in your post and don't really carry the same attitude into the store. I deal daily with customers that think they know more than me or my employees, and I find the same 85-90% number applies in that 85-90% do not have the technical superiority they think they have. When I am hiring, many times I stay away from the "interviewee" that knows everything because time and time again I find they do not know or understand the industry as well as they think they do; plus it is much harder to "retrain" and get them to understand they are not right than teach from scratch.
I would suggest to everyone, that as a customer, you qualify the sales rep just like the sales rep is supposed to qualify you during the sales process. If you find that you do know more than the rep you are dealing with, move on until you find a store with a rep that is on the same level (or close) as you. That way when you want to do something outside the norm, or actually get into an issue you can;t solve yourself, you have an actual helpful resource to turn to for help and hopefully resolution. While it is a boost to the ego to be able to blow the employee/rep out of the water, they provide no help and therefore just order off the website and skip the headache.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you said, but please don't assume what I do and do not know. And while you are completely right about the tactical strategy, I said nothing about that. I merely commented on the shear number of weapons we possess, which at 8500, is more than enough to make the entire planet uninhabitable.
Thanks for showing some of us actually read the posts we respond to darthdavid, as I thought I was pretty clear about that part with "...which is something I can't complain about...." I'm going to bet the anonymous coward falls under the "...although probably not a problem for most/.'ers" although I was mainly joking about that part. And to answer your question darthdavid that is only when she is feeling really, really frisky;-)
I don't agree that deterrence is obsolete. I do however wonder why we need so many nukes for that reason. The planet would be destroyed and unable to harbor any life far before we could use even a small portion of our arsenal. We have more nukes than all countries put together, just a fraction of which would be more than enough to annihilate all life (of any significant form). The shear number and power of our weapons shows there is another reason driving the idea behind our arsenal. I don't believe I need to link to a source as this should be common sense to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the firepower we have active today; look up the firepower just one of our nuclear submarines has on board, and we have several in open water at any one time.
I have been using F.lux for about 3 months and I can say it makes a huge difference in my ability to get to sleep. I never had a problem sleeping, it was falling asleep that took me a while. Now, when I go to bed, I go to sleep within minutes. I don't have to be in the dark for half an hour - an hour before getting to sleep, unless my wife is feeling frisky, which is something I can't complain about (although probably not a problem for most/.'ers). Yes F.lux could be a placebo effect, but after three months I feel fairly certain it is the bright light from the monitor, not the actual game/application being used. I actually start yawning while playing a game/watching Hulu or ESPN, which would never happen before I installed F.lux. My old CRT television has never bothered me, as my wife likes to fall asleep to the tv, but the bright light of my laptop monitor is quite different from the light of our tv. I wonder if any of you guys have noticed a difference with CRT screens versus the new LED/LCD/plasma televisions? I assume they would be much brighter, at least for a new LED screen. I know the LED and LCD screes are brighter, but I remember reading it has something to do with the type of light, not just the brightness. Any feedback about the tv's?
I completely agree with you on this. This is one issue that I clearly identify with libertarian, and small government conservatives (as opposed to social "we want a government big enough to enforce our no abortion, no gays ideals; ie a HUGE government" conservatives). I would think this would be right down the alley for the tea party, so my question is where are those people on this issue. This is an issue that exposes the tea party, Freedom Works, and their ilk as the complete hypocrites they are. If they truly believed in small government and no encroachment on personal liberties those "town halls" would already be starting to make sure this never happens. Unfortunately, since social conservatives "astro turfed" the whole tea party movement, there is no/will be no "town halls" or breaking Fox News over this; the national ID is not a threat to corporations and the ruling wealthy so therefore no need to even talk about the issue. This will only affect the unimportant 95-98% of citizens; that is those of us that don't have enough money to do anything that we please. Maybe if I could just get on my private plane and travel anywhere without worry, I would probably feel different. Since I am part of the middle class, or what is left of it (barely hanging on), my freedoms are important to me; my freedoms and personal liberties are some of the few things I can still afford to have and enjoy!
So back on point, where is the outrage and the "town halls" to protest this? Where is the media coverage? Oh, that's right; it isn't about forcing religious views on every other citizen so those groups don't care (I'm looking at you tea party, Freedom Works, Fox Noise)!!!
I only hope there are enough in the tea party with the intelligence to see this for the threat it is without Sarah and Glenn and Hannity telling them to get mad and protest. I fear that I already know the answer to that, but I would love to be proved wrong.
IMO, there is no loyalty to individual politicians or parties when it comes to revealing wrong doing. One of my biggest complaints of the supporters of Bush II was they were so loyal to him they overlooked any wrong doing, even when it was contrary to their "core beliefs." I have the same sick feeling now seeing the tea party, (the same ones that have been so upset and wanting Obama "out of their lives" because government shouldn't be making decisions, the people know best, etc) siding with Gov Walker to kill the unions, because now suddenly the government knows best and should be deeply involved in the lives of the people. It is hypocrisy of the worst kind: driven by greed, and it leads to lying and wrong doing. If Obama, or any politician for that matter, is involved in these shady, underhanded, and frankly illegal activities then I want to dig and expose it. Bring it to light, as sunlight is the best sanitizer. Say what you will, but Progressives are/should be progressive all the time, not so loyal to a man as to sell out the ideal. It will not be the first time he has let us down and sold us out....
Personally, I think most sensible people will be buying iPhones at least until Google stops outsourcing the hardware to awful designers and manufacturers like HTC and Motorola, and brings all of the engineering for the whole kit in-house to be worked on only by their own, competent, engineers.
The Evo (HTC) and Galaxy line (Samsung) seem to be doing pretty well. I will grant you there are other, less than desirable manufacturers out there, but after being in the technology/wireless industry for 10+ years, I have come to trust Samsung (at least high-end Samsungs) more than any other phone. So nice try at a good point, but maybe your aim needs a little work; I'm sure there's an app for that!
I can't argue with that. I am in awe of both your comprehension of my ideas and your understanding of American history. Those same arguments have been made at every point of government expansion in the past, let's say, two hundred years. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the masses(of which I belong to as well) will vote against their self-interest and defend with great passion a constitution they don't even begin to understand. I will respect your right to your own opinion, however uninformed and short-sighted; I hope you will respect my right to disengage from a discussion that has no chance of changing your ideas with things like "facts." And while we are here, let us both pray to be saved from the socialistic death panels. If we continue down this slippery slope we might find ourselves doing things like helping our neighbors and feeling like "we are all in this together..." Oh the horror!
You really believe that? Here is where all of these arguments fall through. The evil "single-payer" system we want in health care mirrors another single payer system: your local fire department. I don't remember seeing very much anti-fire department posts on here, or really ever hear too many people complaining about that. We all pay taxes to support our local fire department, and when someone's house catches on fire, they respond. The same principle is in effect with a single-payer health care system. And since I haven't seen anything making my fire department unconstitutional, I think we could fit in health care. If it is ran with the same efficiency of say, social security (two cents of every dollar goes to administrative costs) we might actually come up with something good.
I don't think anything here is so provocative as to merit citations... and always, this is only my opinion....
Amen to that. Maybe we shouldn't have a huge push against those "educated elitist" when it comes to picking our leaders. I remember when being educated and attending Harvard, etc, was not a bad thing like it is now. Whether you have a "D" or "R" after your name, having them both "Dr" should not be a bad thing....
You assume people buy a car that makes sense. How many of us drive a car that can hit 165 and handle turns at high speeds, but do we ever need to race? How many have pick-up trucks but never haul anything. 4wd's are everywhere but not many actually need them (or know how to drive them). If every one in a city drove a Prius or other hybrid we would save a lot of fuel, but not every one does/will.
Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights? Not being a geologist, "IANAG", maybe these are completely different metals/minerals. If they are the same I believe we have every right to mine them ourselves. We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves.
However it now becomes very interesting with China. I think most Americans forget how close to China our military is in Afghanistan.
Can anyone enlighten me if I am missing something since IANAG.
Okay, since all you do is ask the same question, maybe you need to do some research on your own. I think a good place for you to start on this whole ethics idea is to research the quote "Profit alone is not sufficient reason to start a business" and see if that helps you out.
I apologize to you all. It is great to be corrected on this. I remember when getting caught completely making things up would soon be followed by a resignation. Maybe she can make it work the way she makes alcohol (and entire bars) appear on military flights (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/21/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-accuses-nancy-pelosi-spending-100/ ). Not living there I just see a lot of the "stuff" she says and does.
Slashdot Mirror
There was a post on /. a few days ago about how one of the cores had gone through the containment vessel and was now sitting on the concrete floor, but I have yet to see any news coverage of this. Did I completely misunderstand the post, or was it wrong, or is it just getting no coverage? Can anyone enlighten me on this?
And I believe when people say "seal it" they mean to encase it like the Chernobyl reactors were after they went to meltdown. I'm pretty sure I didn't misread the many articles I have seen on that possibility, but then again INANE....
While it doesn't change the point of your post, I believe you have the reason they are protesting the funerals wrong. And I also believe it goes against your point considering they have signs that read "God Hates You" which kind of makes me think they do hate. Of course we could be talking about different "crazy Baptist groups" after all; who knows how many of them are out there.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/ns/us_news-life/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-westboro-protests-military-funerals/story?id=13037219
Now I hate that I have even given them attention in this discussion...
I'm not posting as to argue with you zipp, but to clarify hopefully. I believe Jimbo was referring more to his feelings/observations rather than precise terminology. Also, the "progressive" that you relate to Prohibition comes out of the "Progressive Era" (late 1800's - early 1900's). While the Progressives of this era were mostly supporters of Prohibition (not all Progressives supported Prohibition), the idea and support of Prohibition came less from pure Progressive ideals and more from the elevation of women's rights and and women's suffrage movement ascending through the Progressive cause of that time period. The "Progressive" Jimbo refers to (I believe) is less of a political party and more of a set of ideals about the role of government in modern society. The Progressives of today would definitely not support Prohibition (or the majority of them) nor do they support the Prohibition of marijuana, due to the lessons learned from the Prohibition of alcohol. Just as Prohibition gave rise to organized crime (as you point out), prohibition or "The War on Drugs" is the main reason for cartels and the crime that goes along with the black market (most governments did not seem to pay attention to the lessons of Prohibition). As Progressives seek to better society through science, technology, education, and government reform, the "Modern Progressive" movement has little resemblance to the "Progressive Era" as science and technology and general knowledge have advanced much since 1920. Modern Progressives are far more likely to support "single-payer universal health-care," environmental issues, and strengthening/protection of the middle class from corporations (although "progressive" changes depending on what country you are in/from).
While labels like these can be confusing and counterproductive, if we are going to use said labels it is important to very clear about that which we mean to say. IMO it is much more important to debate/discuss individual issues rather than trying to lump everything into broad political parties. I think we can all agree the partisanship we see today is much more counterproductive than anything single issue we face as a country. My main point was just to clarify "progressive" as I would identify many of my political and social beliefs as "progressive" yet I have little in common with the "Progressive Era" from a hundred years ago. I find the political landscape can be very frustrating as I often identify with Democrats, while other times I am on the side of Republicans. However with today's "all or nothing" partisanship it can be very difficult to work with either party to make "progress," which after all, is the goal.
Maybe you should suggest which books you will regard as correct then, as none of the many, many I have read seem to make your cut. I don't remember defending any of the actions or policies you mention, nor will I. It is my opinion, and just that, my opinion, that the Citizens United case is the worst of these offenses, not exclusively the only offense. None of the examples you mention have the consequence of taking the power of the vote away from the entire electorate by making money the only vote that matters. None of the examples you mention turn entities (companies) into members of the voting electorate. I can cite more reasons why I FEEL Citizens United is the worst and biggest threat, but you seem more set on shutting down conversation rather than encouraging it.
I am curious whether you are just trolling, simultaneously expressing and exalting your opinion only, or truly defending the Citizens United case? While I will grant you that your examples are all an affront to the constitution and its lofty ideals, the tone of your reply seems to deny that my example is even worthy of being seen as an affront. Are you unconcerned with the Citizens United decision or are you content with lumping it in with all the times our country has fallen short of its ideals?
I think all of the suggestions so far are very good, but I doubt AT$T (the $ is on purpose) is going that far. Most likely, IMO, is that anything over, say 4-6gb, and AT&T will just assume tethering is going on, simply based on usage. At that point, they send the notice out to requiring a switch to a tethering plan. Now we are left with just a few responses:
1) customer is tethering and thinks they are caught (surely AT&T can see they are tethering), so they switch to a tethering plan in order to keep using the feature which said customer has grown accustomed to using. RESULT: AT&T increases profit
2)customer is not tethering, has no idea what tethering means, but changes plan in order to keep using their precious iPhone. RESULT: AT&T increases profit dramatically
3)customer is tethering, but doesn't want to pay $45 fee so they stop tethering or at least limit their usage below 4gb. RESULT: AT&T frees up bandwidth on their already strained network
4)customer, tethering or not, calls AT&T and denies tethering to avoid paying $45 fee. At this point either AT&T can produce the "goods" (evidence) or they can't. RESULT: mixed
Having worked many years in the wireless industry, including but not limited to AT&T, I can promise most responses are going to be either 1 or 2. Customers rarely understand the technology behind the features, even the features they use; they just know it works or it doesn't work, and that is the scope of their understanding. Both 1 and 2 are going to increase the profit for AT&T, which is the whole point of this exercise. Far fewer responses are going to be 3, but this will still help AT&T by reducing the usage of their network (this is still a big WIN for AT&T). 4 is going to be the least likely response, and probably includes the few users that are tech say enough to understand how the feature works. Based on their interaction with the inbound call rep, they will either pay up or not. But this is such a small percentage, it is negligible to AT&T, therefore AT&T doesn't really care. AT&T has already accomplished their goal of maximizing profit with responses 1 and 2.
I think this is the most likely scenario based on how the whole issue is being handled. If AT&T really could tell with any certainty when an iPhone was being tethered, I believe the plan would automatically switch as soon as the first tethered connection was made. Since this notice is only sent after an approximately 4gb threshold is reached (even then it is still a notice that is sent first, not an automatic switch; this is for response 3) I doubt they can tell with any amount of certainty. Also, being able to detect tethering, even on jailbreaks, would require AT&T to add (or activate) some sort of software or hardware upgrade/technology to their own network backbone, which would cost money. Even just implementing an already existing GSM feature would cost something. These telco's are all about maximizing profit; keyword being MAXIMIZE, ie making the MOST INCOME while having the LEAST EXPENSES. My scenario would accomplish just this.
Please note this is only IMHO (I'm 99% sure this is what is going on) and not based on any inside knowledge or information other than knowing how these companies work and my observation skills, so please do not shoot the messenger....
I think, or hope, the poster was nuanced enough to mean that American politics are always moving to the right. If you look at Eisenhower Republicans, for example, although he was the Republican (and American) standard at the time, today his views would be very liberal. That is less a statement about the world and more about the state of American politics.
That viewpoint is fine, justifiable, and understandable as well. From your side (non-Americans) however, please understand there are those of us (Americans) that disagree with the tea party, are even ashamed of some of the propaganda it generates, and can articulately express why we feel as such. Also, please, understand the tea party has much more interest in protecting big business than anything else. There is nothing "grass routes" about it. I am not saying there are zero "common folk" that support the tea party, but it comes from Dick Armey, American's for Prosperity, the Koch brothers, and big business money. To put it bluntly: it is about money, money, money. Before any tea party members jump all over me: please do the research to understand who funds your "people's movement."
Also, I cried when Bush v Gore was decided, because at the time it was the biggest offense to the US Constitution ever and a very sad day for all true Americans (Yes, even Bush's supporters, if they would stop looking through Republican colored glasses and understand the constitutional issues). Now however, Bush v Gore has been bumped to #2 by the "Citizens United" decision; that should scare the entire world (entire "non-rich" world). Many of us do not think Reagan was the greatest president ever, although he did do some things that today would be very liberal (amnesty for illegal immigrants for one), as "trickle down economics" was a proverbial knife in the back to the middle class (or affront, to put it mildly).
Ann Rand? Her writings are not 100% wrong, but no where near 100% right; most people have no idea about her writing or ideals outside of hearing right-wing politicians mention her name. I say "her writings" because I have learned many political viewpoints espoused are not always believed even by those doing the espousing.
Our country is not perfect, but many of the bad moves could be mitigated if our entire electorate was less ignorant (lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant ) about the issues of which we vote. I will, however, go as far as necessary to defend everyone's right to vote. I love this country and truly feel it is the best country on earth (in ideals at least); one of the major reasons it is such is everyone gets a right to their one vote in each election. While I wish the entire electorate would educate themselves on the issues facing our country, the "one person/one vote" is the only things standing between our democracy and a plutocracy.
If everyone (both those inside and outside the US) will understand these things about the American citizenry, hopefully we could all get a fair shake, and get along much better too. Thank you for your time and understanding; I will now step down and put away my soapbox!
The story should be more about how these people have no idea when it comes to technology. I mean, what did she expect to happen? More likely, she never even thought about the obvious outcome, then goes crying when the obvious happens. If one wants to control how many people get invited to your party, maybe try sending paper invitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_invitation . I reference this link as proof they exist, which some might need to believe me. If ever there was a story for my "society" (see sig), this is it....
You know some of us working in the mobile business have degrees and experience in cs or cis, and working in the mobile industry EVERY DAY might give us a little edge over your brilliance. Now, really, I am sure you are quite knowledgeable, but if you walk into every store with the same attitude of your post, even those of us that are in the know will not help you just because of that. Granted, 85-90% of mobile associates are not the most educated or tech savy, but many try, and a few of us are educated and know about that which we speak. I hope you were just a little hasty in your post and don't really carry the same attitude into the store. I deal daily with customers that think they know more than me or my employees, and I find the same 85-90% number applies in that 85-90% do not have the technical superiority they think they have. When I am hiring, many times I stay away from the "interviewee" that knows everything because time and time again I find they do not know or understand the industry as well as they think they do; plus it is much harder to "retrain" and get them to understand they are not right than teach from scratch.
I would suggest to everyone, that as a customer, you qualify the sales rep just like the sales rep is supposed to qualify you during the sales process. If you find that you do know more than the rep you are dealing with, move on until you find a store with a rep that is on the same level (or close) as you. That way when you want to do something outside the norm, or actually get into an issue you can;t solve yourself, you have an actual helpful resource to turn to for help and hopefully resolution. While it is a boost to the ego to be able to blow the employee/rep out of the water, they provide no help and therefore just order off the website and skip the headache.
I wouldn't disagree with anything you said, but please don't assume what I do and do not know. And while you are completely right about the tactical strategy, I said nothing about that. I merely commented on the shear number of weapons we possess, which at 8500, is more than enough to make the entire planet uninhabitable.
Thanks for showing some of us actually read the posts we respond to darthdavid, as I thought I was pretty clear about that part with "...which is something I can't complain about...." I'm going to bet the anonymous coward falls under the "...although probably not a problem for most /.'ers" although I was mainly joking about that part. And to answer your question darthdavid that is only when she is feeling really, really frisky ;-)
I don't agree that deterrence is obsolete. I do however wonder why we need so many nukes for that reason. The planet would be destroyed and unable to harbor any life far before we could use even a small portion of our arsenal. We have more nukes than all countries put together, just a fraction of which would be more than enough to annihilate all life (of any significant form). The shear number and power of our weapons shows there is another reason driving the idea behind our arsenal. I don't believe I need to link to a source as this should be common sense to anyone with even a basic knowledge of the firepower we have active today; look up the firepower just one of our nuclear submarines has on board, and we have several in open water at any one time.
I have been using F.lux for about 3 months and I can say it makes a huge difference in my ability to get to sleep. I never had a problem sleeping, it was falling asleep that took me a while. Now, when I go to bed, I go to sleep within minutes. I don't have to be in the dark for half an hour - an hour before getting to sleep, unless my wife is feeling frisky, which is something I can't complain about (although probably not a problem for most /.'ers). Yes F.lux could be a placebo effect, but after three months I feel fairly certain it is the bright light from the monitor, not the actual game/application being used. I actually start yawning while playing a game/watching Hulu or ESPN, which would never happen before I installed F.lux. My old CRT television has never bothered me, as my wife likes to fall asleep to the tv, but the bright light of my laptop monitor is quite different from the light of our tv. I wonder if any of you guys have noticed a difference with CRT screens versus the new LED/LCD/plasma televisions? I assume they would be much brighter, at least for a new LED screen. I know the LED and LCD screes are brighter, but I remember reading it has something to do with the type of light, not just the brightness. Any feedback about the tv's?
I completely agree with you on this. This is one issue that I clearly identify with libertarian, and small government conservatives (as opposed to social "we want a government big enough to enforce our no abortion, no gays ideals; ie a HUGE government" conservatives). I would think this would be right down the alley for the tea party, so my question is where are those people on this issue. This is an issue that exposes the tea party, Freedom Works, and their ilk as the complete hypocrites they are. If they truly believed in small government and no encroachment on personal liberties those "town halls" would already be starting to make sure this never happens. Unfortunately, since social conservatives "astro turfed" the whole tea party movement, there is no/will be no "town halls" or breaking Fox News over this; the national ID is not a threat to corporations and the ruling wealthy so therefore no need to even talk about the issue. This will only affect the unimportant 95-98% of citizens; that is those of us that don't have enough money to do anything that we please. Maybe if I could just get on my private plane and travel anywhere without worry, I would probably feel different. Since I am part of the middle class, or what is left of it (barely hanging on), my freedoms are important to me; my freedoms and personal liberties are some of the few things I can still afford to have and enjoy!
So back on point, where is the outrage and the "town halls" to protest this? Where is the media coverage? Oh, that's right; it isn't about forcing religious views on every other citizen so those groups don't care (I'm looking at you tea party, Freedom Works, Fox Noise)!!!
I only hope there are enough in the tea party with the intelligence to see this for the threat it is without Sarah and Glenn and Hannity telling them to get mad and protest. I fear that I already know the answer to that, but I would love to be proved wrong.
IMO, there is no loyalty to individual politicians or parties when it comes to revealing wrong doing. One of my biggest complaints of the supporters of Bush II was they were so loyal to him they overlooked any wrong doing, even when it was contrary to their "core beliefs." I have the same sick feeling now seeing the tea party, (the same ones that have been so upset and wanting Obama "out of their lives" because government shouldn't be making decisions, the people know best, etc) siding with Gov Walker to kill the unions, because now suddenly the government knows best and should be deeply involved in the lives of the people. It is hypocrisy of the worst kind: driven by greed, and it leads to lying and wrong doing. If Obama, or any politician for that matter, is involved in these shady, underhanded, and frankly illegal activities then I want to dig and expose it. Bring it to light, as sunlight is the best sanitizer. Say what you will, but Progressives are/should be progressive all the time, not so loyal to a man as to sell out the ideal. It will not be the first time he has let us down and sold us out....
I have been very impressed with WP7 for it to be so young.
Personally, I think most sensible people will be buying iPhones at least until Google stops outsourcing the hardware to awful designers and manufacturers like HTC and Motorola, and brings all of the engineering for the whole kit in-house to be worked on only by their own, competent, engineers.
The Evo (HTC) and Galaxy line (Samsung) seem to be doing pretty well. I will grant you there are other, less than desirable manufacturers out there, but after being in the technology/wireless industry for 10+ years, I have come to trust Samsung (at least high-end Samsungs) more than any other phone. So nice try at a good point, but maybe your aim needs a little work; I'm sure there's an app for that!
I can't argue with that. I am in awe of both your comprehension of my ideas and your understanding of American history. Those same arguments have been made at every point of government expansion in the past, let's say, two hundred years. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the masses(of which I belong to as well) will vote against their self-interest and defend with great passion a constitution they don't even begin to understand. I will respect your right to your own opinion, however uninformed and short-sighted; I hope you will respect my right to disengage from a discussion that has no chance of changing your ideas with things like "facts." And while we are here, let us both pray to be saved from the socialistic death panels. If we continue down this slippery slope we might find ourselves doing things like helping our neighbors and feeling like "we are all in this together..." Oh the horror!
You really believe that? Here is where all of these arguments fall through. The evil "single-payer" system we want in health care mirrors another single payer system: your local fire department. I don't remember seeing very much anti-fire department posts on here, or really ever hear too many people complaining about that. We all pay taxes to support our local fire department, and when someone's house catches on fire, they respond. The same principle is in effect with a single-payer health care system. And since I haven't seen anything making my fire department unconstitutional, I think we could fit in health care. If it is ran with the same efficiency of say, social security (two cents of every dollar goes to administrative costs) we might actually come up with something good.
I don't think anything here is so provocative as to merit citations... and always, this is only my opinion....
Amen to that. Maybe we shouldn't have a huge push against those "educated elitist" when it comes to picking our leaders. I remember when being educated and attending Harvard, etc, was not a bad thing like it is now. Whether you have a "D" or "R" after your name, having them both "Dr" should not be a bad thing....
You assume people buy a car that makes sense. How many of us drive a car that can hit 165 and handle turns at high speeds, but do we ever need to race? How many have pick-up trucks but never haul anything. 4wd's are everywhere but not many actually need them (or know how to drive them). If every one in a city drove a Prius or other hybrid we would save a lot of fuel, but not every one does/will.
This really causes me to question our Afghanistan policy even more. We, the US Geo Survey(?), found these mass deposits of rare earth metals/minerals and, at last read I believe, the Chinese are getting the rights to actually mine and produce the metals/minerals (cit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ) and (for those that like more of a "story" with your "news" cit: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/14/discovers-t-minerals-afghanistan/ ).
Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights? Not being a geologist, "IANAG", maybe these are completely different metals/minerals. If they are the same I believe we have every right to mine them ourselves. We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves.
However it now becomes very interesting with China. I think most Americans forget how close to China our military is in Afghanistan.
Can anyone enlighten me if I am missing something since IANAG.
Dido is not very MTV.
Okay, since all you do is ask the same question, maybe you need to do some research on your own. I think a good place for you to start on this whole ethics idea is to research the quote "Profit alone is not sufficient reason to start a business" and see if that helps you out.
I apologize to you all. It is great to be corrected on this. I remember when getting caught completely making things up would soon be followed by a resignation. Maybe she can make it work the way she makes alcohol (and entire bars) appear on military flights (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/21/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-accuses-nancy-pelosi-spending-100/ ). Not living there I just see a lot of the "stuff" she says and does.