This is a good deal for travelers and occasional users; the alternatives are roaming or WiFi hotspots, both of which are much more expensive. If you use it more frequently than a few times a month, you can get much cheaper subscriptions.
I'd love to have this deal available in the US. Right now, I need a monthly subscription even though most of the time I just use WiFi at work and at home.
Probably all they'd have needed was to believe that Kerry and Obama was/is better than the alternative.
Between lying to Congress, lying to the American people, starting two wars, wrecking the economy, and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, a used car salesman would have been better than Bush; they at least make sure the car doesn't die on their lot.
I wonder if self-preservation in people can be measured in such ways that a fear or objection to gay marriage is self-preservation of the species?
If that's the root cause, then you'd expect a similar fear of infertile heterosexual couples, spinsters, monks, popes, and other celibate oddballs.
No, I'm afraid "gay marriage" is a controversy like Coke-vs-Pepsi: something artificially whipped up by a PR machinery for financial and/or political interests.
(Over-re)acting out of all proportion to the severity of the threat -- that's cowardice.
You mean like fighting a hugely expensive war against Iraq, causing the death of tens of thousands of civilians, and setting up torture camps, all for a terrorist attack that Iraq had nothing to do with and WMDs that did not exist?
Unfortunately, Libertarians don't stop at wanting to guarantee civil rights, they also want to dismantle many government regulations that are necessary so that people can exercise those civil rights.
The least regulated society is not the one giving the greatest freedom to its people; it takes a happy balance, and Libertarians are as far from that as Republicans and Democrats.
Of course the fact that republicans are cowards probably explains why the majority of the Armed Forces are republican.
Signing up for the military doesn't necessarily take much courage: most members of the military I have talked to had no idea what they were getting into.
Many of the ones that came back and actually retained their sanity seem to have ended up with far more liberal positions than they started out with, since they came to realize that Republican rhetoric and saber rattling doesn't work well in the real world.
Come on, these people voted Bush in for a second term, and they are all set to vote for McCain. How many trillions of dollars of mismanagement does it take to get through to these people? How many more disastrous wars? How much more economic chaos?
"Hi! We're calling from Gallup. What is your political affiliation? Republican. Ah, OK. Now, what is your mental health? Perfect, you say? Thank you very much for your cooperation."
To me, the most likely interpretation of the data is that Republicans are misjudging their mental status, just like they misjudge so many other things.
I think it's reasonable for ISPs to limit the number of connections and sustained upstream bandwidth if they disclose what they are doing.
However, they should not try to inspect packets or limit specific protocols. First of all, doing so is pointless given the existence of so many encrypted protocols. More importantly, what matters to me is whether my QoS gets degraded because my neighbor is tying up the line; which protocols he is using makes no difference to me or the degradation.
If they use your software in a manner that, from an academic point of view, requires citation, then they are going to cite you anyway if they are honest.
If they use your software in a manner that, from an academic point of view, does not require citation, then your clause puts them in a difficult position. For example, their editor might insist the citation be removed, but then your license kicks in.
Besides, how are you going to enforce this anyway? Are you going to sue? What kind of damages and remedies are you going to put in there?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good deal for travelers and occasional users; the alternatives are roaming or WiFi hotspots, both of which are much more expensive. If you use it more frequently than a few times a month, you can get much cheaper subscriptions.
I'd love to have this deal available in the US. Right now, I need a monthly subscription even though most of the time I just use WiFi at work and at home.
Limiting it by characteristics is what protocol-neutral means (as opposed to trying to determine the protocol and then setting policy based on that).
I just can't see that Gore or Kerry would have done any better.
I'm sorry, but I really can't take you seriously with a statement like that.
I'd love to vote for Obama, but I just don't see him doing what I want done.
Well, I'm sure glad that he wouldn't do what you want done, because with the way you talk, it sounds like what you want is wreck this country.
Probably all they'd have needed was to believe that Kerry and Obama was/is better than the alternative.
Between lying to Congress, lying to the American people, starting two wars, wrecking the economy, and wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, a used car salesman would have been better than Bush; they at least make sure the car doesn't die on their lot.
Just don't let them drive if they have long reaction times or bad vision.
I wonder if self-preservation in people can be measured in such ways that a fear or objection to gay marriage is self-preservation of the species?
If that's the root cause, then you'd expect a similar fear of infertile heterosexual couples, spinsters, monks, popes, and other celibate oddballs.
No, I'm afraid "gay marriage" is a controversy like Coke-vs-Pepsi: something artificially whipped up by a PR machinery for financial and/or political interests.
(Over-re)acting out of all proportion to the severity of the threat -- that's cowardice.
You mean like fighting a hugely expensive war against Iraq, causing the death of tens of thousands of civilians, and setting up torture camps, all for a terrorist attack that Iraq had nothing to do with and WMDs that did not exist?
Only the Libertarians care about such concepts.
Unfortunately, Libertarians don't stop at wanting to guarantee civil rights, they also want to dismantle many government regulations that are necessary so that people can exercise those civil rights.
The least regulated society is not the one giving the greatest freedom to its people; it takes a happy balance, and Libertarians are as far from that as Republicans and Democrats.
Of course the fact that republicans are cowards probably explains why the majority of the Armed Forces are republican.
Signing up for the military doesn't necessarily take much courage: most members of the military I have talked to had no idea what they were getting into.
Many of the ones that came back and actually retained their sanity seem to have ended up with far more liberal positions than they started out with, since they came to realize that Republican rhetoric and saber rattling doesn't work well in the real world.
We'd refer to that as "unusually honest".
Come on, these people voted Bush in for a second term, and they are all set to vote for McCain. How many trillions of dollars of mismanagement does it take to get through to these people? How many more disastrous wars? How much more economic chaos?
"Hi! We're calling from Gallup. What is your political affiliation? Republican. Ah, OK. Now, what is your mental health? Perfect, you say? Thank you very much for your cooperation."
To me, the most likely interpretation of the data is that Republicans are misjudging their mental status, just like they misjudge so many other things.
I think it's reasonable for ISPs to limit the number of connections and sustained upstream bandwidth if they disclose what they are doing.
However, they should not try to inspect packets or limit specific protocols. First of all, doing so is pointless given the existence of so many encrypted protocols. More importantly, what matters to me is whether my QoS gets degraded because my neighbor is tying up the line; which protocols he is using makes no difference to me or the degradation.
If they use your software in a manner that, from an academic point of view, requires citation, then they are going to cite you anyway if they are honest.
If they use your software in a manner that, from an academic point of view, does not require citation, then your clause puts them in a difficult position. For example, their editor might insist the citation be removed, but then your license kicks in.
Besides, how are you going to enforce this anyway? Are you going to sue? What kind of damages and remedies are you going to put in there?
I wonder whether the people who keep parrotting this actually know what it means.
Yes, correlation is not causation, but there are three possibilities to explain statistically significant correlations:
right wing political membership causes fear
fear causes right wing political memberhsip
some common factor causes both fear and right wing political membeship
Take your pick.