From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections. Basically, for ISPS advertising broadband service, how many are meeting the new requirements. That figure does not indicate how many people only have the option of dial-up.
I can choose to go to another bank. That choice cannot be taken away.
Of course it can be taken away; the big bank can acquire the little bank. Just like how a lot of people left AT&T for T-Mobile, so AT&T tried to acquire T-Mobile. Fortunately we have an administration that respects consumer rights and put good people in charge of the regulatory agencies, so that attempted acquisition was blocked.
That doesn't appear to be true. While the first test result for any given sample has come back clean, that potentially just means that he's been ahead of the curve on using doping methods that avoid detection. The USADA reports indicate that some of the re-tests on samples have come back as indicating doping. We'll probably find out more as they take their case to the ICU.
Of course this whole thing from cycling to baseball to the Olympics is ridiculous. With shades of Futurama, it'll be a relief when we can put all these stories behind us after performance enhancing drugs in all sports are mandatory.
The original conscience ceases to exist, but why would this mean we aren't just machines? We aren't static machines; as with a computer, we have memory. But memory is still a physical part of the machine, its electrochemical configuration corresponding to the information it carries.
I understand the sentiment, but please reconsider your choice. Chick-Fil-A did not come under attack because of its CEO's statements, although those statements did fan the flames afterwards. Chick-Fil-A came under fire for its funding of hate groups. And I'm not using "hate group" here in a wishy-washy, "anyone who disagrees with me is a hate group" way. I'm talking about groups that are pushing for Ugandan law to make homosexuality a capital crime. There's some confusion out there about much of Chick-Fil-A's millions of dollars of donations research that particular organization, but I would anyone involved in supporting GLBT issues to find any association with that hate group to be reprehensible.
Glad I stuck to my Ubisoft (and EA and Blizzard) boycott even in the face of the big Steam Summer Sale. Here's hoping more gamers will stick to their principles and force developers into customer-friendly behavior, though sadly it seems that most people prefer to boycott companies just until a new title is released...
The resulting specification is a designed-by-committee patchwork of compromises that serves mostly the enterprise. To be accurate, it doesnâ(TM)t actually give the enterprise all of what they asked for directly, but it does provide for practically unlimited extensibility. It is this extensibility and required flexibility that destroyed the protocol. With very little effort, pretty much anything can be called OAuth 2.0 compliant.
Sounds familiar. For anyone following the Smart Grid work, this is exactly why Smart Energy 2.0 is a fiasco. All of our major standards organizations (IEEE, ANSI, IETF, etc.) have been taken over by bureaucratic-minded industry and government consultants -- parasites that feed first on the drawn-out work within the standards organization that results in a "flexible" specification (meaning that it's not a specification at all), then feed on any group that tries to implement the standard because they'll need the "expert" insight in order to make the "flexible" damn thing work at all.
Wal-Mart does not want you to use their website. Online shopping allows for informed decision making: you can easily compare prices of similar goods both within their own catalog and competitor's. You can find product and manufacturer reviews, look at price and sales history, etc. All of that runs counter to Wal-Mart's methodology of preying on underinformed customers. Wal-Mart maintains a low-price reputation by a small subset of inventory. That subset is indeed cheap, but visibly so: poor materials, flimsy construction, awkward designs, etc. But their other inventory isn't priced the same way, typically it's priced higher than you find elsewhere. So people who come for the cheap item but, seeing how crappy it is, go for the "next model up" pay more than they need. People who come for and buy the cheap item but end up with other impulse buys pay more than they need. People who do all their shopping at Wal-Mart because they assume the advertised pricing on the cheap subset is reflective of store-wide prices pay more than they need. Having informed customers would be terrible for their business. Sure, with their tightly integrated supply chain management they could turn a good profit even if they acted more ethically, but Wall Street looks down on executives that grow a business organically.
That is irrelevant to my point. The GP made a blanket statement that Islam is evil, while other groups (religious, political, or social-issue) are fine. The GP is wrong when s/he makes sweeping generalization about those who identify as Muslim. Not all Muslims are violent Islamic fundamentalists; not all Muslims are sympathetic to violent Islamic fundamentalists. The GP is also wrong when s/he ignores the violent fundamentalism based on other religions.
Whether violent fundamentalism is a more common trait in the Islamic world compared to other religions is a fine question--but would be a completely separate topic. One complicated by the roles of poverty, political organization, neighbor relations, land resources, etc. But a religion is what its adherents make of it, and clearly there is a sizable population of Muslims that make their religion one that can coexist harmoniously with and within a diverse, tolerant society.
Incorrect. What I'm saying is people need to look deeper than RuleSetX. RuleSetX is comprised of RuleSubsetA, which is decent, generally applicable social philosophy, RuleSubsetB which has some good ideas even if its backed by dodgy assumptions, RuleSubsetC which contains some wacky but essentially harmless fluff, RuleSubsetD which contains material that might have been relevant at some point in history but isn't applicable now, and RuleSubsetE which is all around bad news. And each subset can be further subdivided. Saying that someone is indoctrinating another into following RuleSetX is meaningless; there's tremendous variation within that space. Attacking someone for indoctrinating others into following RuleSetX is worse; that only encourages those indoctrinated in RuleSubsetA+RuleSubsetB to align with those indoctrinated in A+B+C+D+E, and provides ammunition for the sociopaths who use D+E to incite others to violence.
I won't shun those complaining about Subsets D and E, regardless of the parent RuleSet. Fundamentalism in all its guises is a serious, dangerous problem, and must be addressed. But I will shun those who celebrate the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, those who refuse to distinguish the thousands of permutations of A, B, C, D, E and their various respective subsets.
And yes, given the limited scope of a human lifespan, I will focus my time arguing against D+E of the RuleSet most likely to negatively impact my family, friends, and self. That's not hypocrisy, just pragmatism.
In the graduate studies lab where I got my Ph.D., my adviser and most of my coworkers were from Islamic countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia. All identified as Muslim, but represented various points between conservative and liberal: several drank alcohol, several (including both males and females) had premarital sex, several smoked tobacco, one (at least) smoked weed openly (as possible in the States). Most, but not all, regularly attended religious services. Most, but not all, fasted during the day during Ramadan. All but one of the females wore just Western clothing; the other wore Western clothing plus a hair scarf. Two of the married males were, to the whole group's opinion, overly demanding of their wives (in this opinion, there was no disagreement between the Western and other Islamic students). Of these two males, only one (the Saudi) intended to marry a second wife; all the others felt this was a backwards practice.
The rest of the lab consisted, with some fluctuation over time, of two Christians (one American, one Asian), two Atheists (one American, one Indian), one Jew (American) and two Hindis. And yet there was no cultural strife within the lab. Everyone got along, everyone helped out their fellow students when possible. The Islamic students would invite everyone to the evening meal during Ramadan, the Christian/Western-traditional students, if in town over Winter break, would invite everyone to Christmas dinner. As with any big group there were cliques of closer friends, but it didn't happen on sectarian lines.
So obviously Islam isn't totally evil, and Muslims aren't a single organism. As with any group, there is a continuous spectrum between conservative and liberal. As with any group, you have a majority of people just trying to get by, a few bad apple loud mouths, and a tiny minority of dangerous psychopaths. I won't deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem in the Middle East, and I won't say that there's never a reason for the US to intervene to protect our interests. But as an American, Christian fundamentalism is a much more pressing concern to me, as it can have (and has had) a much more direct negative impact on me and my country.
The meter will still be accumulating data even if it can't phone home to its data sink / meter data management system. There may be fines under the terms of service. And if you're on a real-time pricing tariff and the meter ran out of interval data storage, you may get dinged for the uncategorized usage being charged at the highest price (if the utility can prove you put the RF shield in place). But you probably can't get hit with criminal theft of services.
If you're putting energy back on the grid (net metering, etc.) you can also have a smart disconnect so that your local generation disconnects from the lines on which technicians will be working.
My TV hardware is not in an evolutionary arms race with the media that runs on it. It had a long useful life on its own, and an array of various input and output expansion ports to increase its viability. PCs, even those from Apple, are in a constant tug of war between software designed to push the cutting edge and better performing hardware, with faster release cycles than you see in other consumer electronics.
Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials, over the continued wars and insufficient domestic spending.
Seriously, your post is a mess. The choices presented are "Cure cancer" or "$10M". Then somehow the second choice veers off into being an unwashed homeless moron, but then swings back to slap on the giant fucking asterisk of "does not apply to the middle class".
So maybe the hillbilly with the life expectancy of 35 due to unsanitary conditions and drug abuse would chose option B. But I don't see many hillbillies doing targeted investment in the stock market, and fewer doing venture capitalism. I do see a lot of middle/upper-middle class doing the former, and a lot of wealthy people doing the later.
The people in place to actually make the choice already have some assurance of a comfortable lifestyle, including a life expectancy where cancer can be a major concern for themselves, their families and friends. It wouldn't be universal, but plenty of people will take option A.
As Bill Bryson quipped, this is just "proving conclusively that the danger for Tennesseans isn't so much that they may be descended from apes as overtaken by them."
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Autism-spectrum disorder rather than troll, but your supposed insight is bunk. No socially well adjusted person would agree that your example treated people equally. Equality with regards to human rights isn't just a simple mathematical concept; equality and fairness are inexorably linked.
Heterosexuals (and maybe 50% of the time bisexuals) can marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so.
In most of the United States, homosexuals are NOT able to marry a person they romantically love, even if that person is able to give consent as does so.
That anyone can claim that this is not depriving homosexuals of equal rights is astounding.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
From my reading of the FCC's Internet Access Report, that analysis came from people with >200 kbps connections. Basically, for ISPS advertising broadband service, how many are meeting the new requirements. That figure does not indicate how many people only have the option of dial-up.
I can choose to go to another bank. That choice cannot be taken away.
Of course it can be taken away; the big bank can acquire the little bank. Just like how a lot of people left AT&T for T-Mobile, so AT&T tried to acquire T-Mobile. Fortunately we have an administration that respects consumer rights and put good people in charge of the regulatory agencies, so that attempted acquisition was blocked.
That doesn't appear to be true. While the first test result for any given sample has come back clean, that potentially just means that he's been ahead of the curve on using doping methods that avoid detection. The USADA reports indicate that some of the re-tests on samples have come back as indicating doping. We'll probably find out more as they take their case to the ICU.
Of course this whole thing from cycling to baseball to the Olympics is ridiculous. With shades of Futurama, it'll be a relief when we can put all these stories behind us after performance enhancing drugs in all sports are mandatory.
The original conscience ceases to exist, but why would this mean we aren't just machines? We aren't static machines; as with a computer, we have memory. But memory is still a physical part of the machine, its electrochemical configuration corresponding to the information it carries.
("reached", not "research")
I understand the sentiment, but please reconsider your choice. Chick-Fil-A did not come under attack because of its CEO's statements, although those statements did fan the flames afterwards. Chick-Fil-A came under fire for its funding of hate groups. And I'm not using "hate group" here in a wishy-washy, "anyone who disagrees with me is a hate group" way. I'm talking about groups that are pushing for Ugandan law to make homosexuality a capital crime. There's some confusion out there about much of Chick-Fil-A's millions of dollars of donations research that particular organization, but I would anyone involved in supporting GLBT issues to find any association with that hate group to be reprehensible.
Glad I stuck to my Ubisoft (and EA and Blizzard) boycott even in the face of the big Steam Summer Sale. Here's hoping more gamers will stick to their principles and force developers into customer-friendly behavior, though sadly it seems that most people prefer to boycott companies just until a new title is released...
The resulting specification is a designed-by-committee patchwork of compromises that serves mostly the enterprise. To be accurate, it doesnâ(TM)t actually give the enterprise all of what they asked for directly, but it does provide for practically unlimited extensibility. It is this extensibility and required flexibility that destroyed the protocol. With very little effort, pretty much anything can be called OAuth 2.0 compliant.
Sounds familiar. For anyone following the Smart Grid work, this is exactly why Smart Energy 2.0 is a fiasco. All of our major standards organizations (IEEE, ANSI, IETF, etc.) have been taken over by bureaucratic-minded industry and government consultants -- parasites that feed first on the drawn-out work within the standards organization that results in a "flexible" specification (meaning that it's not a specification at all), then feed on any group that tries to implement the standard because they'll need the "expert" insight in order to make the "flexible" damn thing work at all.
It is unethical when it relies on deception and preying on ignorance.
Wal-Mart does not want you to use their website. Online shopping allows for informed decision making: you can easily compare prices of similar goods both within their own catalog and competitor's. You can find product and manufacturer reviews, look at price and sales history, etc. All of that runs counter to Wal-Mart's methodology of preying on underinformed customers. Wal-Mart maintains a low-price reputation by a small subset of inventory. That subset is indeed cheap, but visibly so: poor materials, flimsy construction, awkward designs, etc. But their other inventory isn't priced the same way, typically it's priced higher than you find elsewhere. So people who come for the cheap item but, seeing how crappy it is, go for the "next model up" pay more than they need. People who come for and buy the cheap item but end up with other impulse buys pay more than they need. People who do all their shopping at Wal-Mart because they assume the advertised pricing on the cheap subset is reflective of store-wide prices pay more than they need. Having informed customers would be terrible for their business. Sure, with their tightly integrated supply chain management they could turn a good profit even if they acted more ethically, but Wall Street looks down on executives that grow a business organically.
That is irrelevant to my point. The GP made a blanket statement that Islam is evil, while other groups (religious, political, or social-issue) are fine. The GP is wrong when s/he makes sweeping generalization about those who identify as Muslim. Not all Muslims are violent Islamic fundamentalists; not all Muslims are sympathetic to violent Islamic fundamentalists. The GP is also wrong when s/he ignores the violent fundamentalism based on other religions.
Whether violent fundamentalism is a more common trait in the Islamic world compared to other religions is a fine question--but would be a completely separate topic. One complicated by the roles of poverty, political organization, neighbor relations, land resources, etc. But a religion is what its adherents make of it, and clearly there is a sizable population of Muslims that make their religion one that can coexist harmoniously with and within a diverse, tolerant society.
Incorrect. What I'm saying is people need to look deeper than RuleSetX. RuleSetX is comprised of RuleSubsetA, which is decent, generally applicable social philosophy, RuleSubsetB which has some good ideas even if its backed by dodgy assumptions, RuleSubsetC which contains some wacky but essentially harmless fluff, RuleSubsetD which contains material that might have been relevant at some point in history but isn't applicable now, and RuleSubsetE which is all around bad news. And each subset can be further subdivided. Saying that someone is indoctrinating another into following RuleSetX is meaningless; there's tremendous variation within that space. Attacking someone for indoctrinating others into following RuleSetX is worse; that only encourages those indoctrinated in RuleSubsetA+RuleSubsetB to align with those indoctrinated in A+B+C+D+E, and provides ammunition for the sociopaths who use D+E to incite others to violence.
I won't shun those complaining about Subsets D and E, regardless of the parent RuleSet. Fundamentalism in all its guises is a serious, dangerous problem, and must be addressed. But I will shun those who celebrate the tyranny of the discontinuous mind, those who refuse to distinguish the thousands of permutations of A, B, C, D, E and their various respective subsets.
And yes, given the limited scope of a human lifespan, I will focus my time arguing against D+E of the RuleSet most likely to negatively impact my family, friends, and self. That's not hypocrisy, just pragmatism.
In the graduate studies lab where I got my Ph.D., my adviser and most of my coworkers were from Islamic countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia. All identified as Muslim, but represented various points between conservative and liberal: several drank alcohol, several (including both males and females) had premarital sex, several smoked tobacco, one (at least) smoked weed openly (as possible in the States). Most, but not all, regularly attended religious services. Most, but not all, fasted during the day during Ramadan. All but one of the females wore just Western clothing; the other wore Western clothing plus a hair scarf. Two of the married males were, to the whole group's opinion, overly demanding of their wives (in this opinion, there was no disagreement between the Western and other Islamic students). Of these two males, only one (the Saudi) intended to marry a second wife; all the others felt this was a backwards practice.
The rest of the lab consisted, with some fluctuation over time, of two Christians (one American, one Asian), two Atheists (one American, one Indian), one Jew (American) and two Hindis. And yet there was no cultural strife within the lab. Everyone got along, everyone helped out their fellow students when possible. The Islamic students would invite everyone to the evening meal during Ramadan, the Christian/Western-traditional students, if in town over Winter break, would invite everyone to Christmas dinner. As with any big group there were cliques of closer friends, but it didn't happen on sectarian lines.
So obviously Islam isn't totally evil, and Muslims aren't a single organism. As with any group, there is a continuous spectrum between conservative and liberal. As with any group, you have a majority of people just trying to get by, a few bad apple loud mouths, and a tiny minority of dangerous psychopaths. I won't deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem in the Middle East, and I won't say that there's never a reason for the US to intervene to protect our interests. But as an American, Christian fundamentalism is a much more pressing concern to me, as it can have (and has had) a much more direct negative impact on me and my country.
The meter will still be accumulating data even if it can't phone home to its data sink / meter data management system. There may be fines under the terms of service. And if you're on a real-time pricing tariff and the meter ran out of interval data storage, you may get dinged for the uncategorized usage being charged at the highest price (if the utility can prove you put the RF shield in place). But you probably can't get hit with criminal theft of services.
If you're putting energy back on the grid (net metering, etc.) you can also have a smart disconnect so that your local generation disconnects from the lines on which technicians will be working.
My TV hardware is not in an evolutionary arms race with the media that runs on it. It had a long useful life on its own, and an array of various input and output expansion ports to increase its viability. PCs, even those from Apple, are in a constant tug of war between software designed to push the cutting edge and better performing hardware, with faster release cycles than you see in other consumer electronics.
Yes, particularly around NDAA issues and drone attacks.
Code Pink has continued its protests and movement activities, targeting both Republicans and Democrats, including Obama administration officials, over the continued wars and insufficient domestic spending.
Choice A, no question.
Seriously, your post is a mess. The choices presented are "Cure cancer" or "$10M". Then somehow the second choice veers off into being an unwashed homeless moron, but then swings back to slap on the giant fucking asterisk of "does not apply to the middle class".
So maybe the hillbilly with the life expectancy of 35 due to unsanitary conditions and drug abuse would chose option B. But I don't see many hillbillies doing targeted investment in the stock market, and fewer doing venture capitalism. I do see a lot of middle/upper-middle class doing the former, and a lot of wealthy people doing the later.
The people in place to actually make the choice already have some assurance of a comfortable lifestyle, including a life expectancy where cancer can be a major concern for themselves, their families and friends. It wouldn't be universal, but plenty of people will take option A.
As Bill Bryson quipped, this is just "proving conclusively that the danger for Tennesseans isn't so much that they may be descended from apes as overtaken by them."
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume Autism-spectrum disorder rather than troll, but your supposed insight is bunk. No socially well adjusted person would agree that your example treated people equally. Equality with regards to human rights isn't just a simple mathematical concept; equality and fairness are inexorably linked.
Heterosexuals (and maybe 50% of the time bisexuals) can marry a person they romantically love, if that person is able to give consent and does so.
In most of the United States, homosexuals are NOT able to marry a person they romantically love, even if that person is able to give consent as does so.
That anyone can claim that this is not depriving homosexuals of equal rights is astounding.
That is such semantic nonsense. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they romantically love. Homosexuals do not have that right in most of the United States.
So: Being gay is wrong. Gays can't be open about their sexuality. Gays don't get the same rights as heterosexuals.
So yes, that absolutely does make you anti-gay.
Are these bastards really going to make me side with EA on something? I need a shower.