Jesus. Some/.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.
Implying that this is going to destroy the domestic satellite market? You're an idiot. Seriously.
Lets look at this. Government wants to protect data that protects its soldiers and 'operations'. Solution? They go to satellite corps and say "We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse." And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.
When the government isn't doing this, they're back to on their own and competing.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*. And you know what? American companies still have satellites taking photos! LIKE OMG. It's freaking amazing how when a company gets paid insane margins to do something that they manage to survive.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is: the images the government buys can't be made public, ever. That's a serious concern and killer of our right and power to audit our government.
BTW, you can bet your sweetass we do these same deals with foreign companies.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
Actually, financially speaking it doesn't since you probably don't pay an occupancy fee for your monitor.
(realize I've been solely an LCD owner for over 2 years now, i'm just saying it's financially smarter to have CRTs)
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
100+ watt CRT versus 30 watt LCD monitor;
Purchase prices between the two alone vastly outweigh immediate electricity costs. Throw in possibility of dead pixels, etc, and LCDs really aren't the best investment.
100 watt incandescent light bulbs versus 25 watt compact fluorescent.
Flourescent lights just suck. I lived with them for 3 years in my last apartment. I only had carbon filament lights in my bathroom and my kitchen. The flourescent lights always needed to "warm up" and even then I never felt like there was adequate light for anything. I had two in a room that was 13x16.
Beg your pardon but this country was founded on low taxes and individual power. It wasn't until FDR that higher taxes and publicly financed failures started becoming so common place.
You must be confused. This is Philadelphia, home of the most vigilant unions and liberals. They would *never* let you replace people with technology like that.
rott's aren't always the best choice. I just moved into a house with two chicks. One of them has a rott as her guard dog. The first night I dropped stuff off she said she'd lock him up because he eats people she hasn't introduced him to.
What was the first thing I did? Open the door and play with him. We wrestled, got him to do tricks (he was already trained), and ran around in the yard.
It's possible he didn't pay more than 10% of the bail, as it is possible he got a bail bond.
From www.premierebailbonds.com:
How Bail Works
Posting of a bail bond. This process involves a contractual undertaking guaranteed by a bail bondsman and the individual posting bail. The bail agent guarantees to the court that the defendant will appear in court each and every time the judge requires them to.
For this service, the defendant is charged a percentage of the bail amount. Before being released the defendant or a relative or friend of the defendant, typically contacts a bail agent to arrange for the posting of bail. Prior to the posting of a bail bond, the defendant or a co-signer must guarantee that they will pay the full amount of bail if the defendant does not appear in court.
Typically, a family member or a close friend of the defendant will post bail and cosign. Collateral is not always required for a person to be bailed from jail. Often a person can be bailed from jail on the signature of a friend or family member. Cosigners typically need to be working and either own or rent a home in the same area for some time.
After an agreement is reached, the bail bondsman posts a bond for the amount of the bail, to guarantee the defendant's return to court.
If the defendant "skips", the cosigner is immediately responsible for the full amount of the bail. If the defendant is located and arrested by the bail enforcement agent the cosigner is responsible for all expenses the bail agent incurs while looking for the defendant.
2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?
Your son will probably try to install some hacker software. He may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".
I have a friend who, in high school approximately 8-9 years ago, claimed to have chronic fatigue syndrome. To me it was the most amazing illness to have because it only affected you when you wanted it to. To me what happened was someone either mispronounced "cranky little b1tch syndrome" or possibly confused it with depression. I remember he even had a book that claimed people w/ CFS had pets that often showed symptoms of CFS (what I would otherwise call "laziness").
So, in your honest opinion, is CFS "real" or did someone somewhere want to justify their mood?
Oh, don't worry about it, just a little light genocide.
Oh, in that case, I'll bite. I take the same position as Bill Clinton and the U.N. did during the genocide in Rwanda in.. 93? I believe it was "So what?"
No, in all seriousness, I don't support genocide. So somebody should go over there and step in. Being from the U.S., I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. So, I'll be damned for doing and I'd send in the U.S. military and *not* as a U.N. operation.
The onus is not on the needy to get over their sense of entitlement. The onus is on the well-off to recognize their resposibility to others less fortunate than themselves.
No, there is no onus. There is no responsibility of a person who fought tooth and nail to get what he has to help out those who do not fight tooth and nail to get their own slice of the pie.
You giving a Floridian money does not constitute you being loyal, merely good at heart.
And your giving to the Red Cross actually doesn't guarantee any Floridian will get any money. If I'm not mistaken, the Red Cross will take your money, put it into a big pool of money and at some arbitrary time decide an arbitrary amount of money will be given victims in Florida. If you recall back in 2001 the Red Cross got a lot of flack for doing this with 9/11 because they weren't giving all of their donations to 9/11 victims, instead they were keeping some of the cash in case of another catastrophe (a smart move, in my humble opinion). But that's getting off topic.
Anyways, we're arguing two entirely different belief structures which aren't going to change, so I'm done.
1) I have no responsibilty to other humans, and they have none to me. I donate time and money to charities out of the goodness of my heart, not out of any responsibility. I help out my fellow humans because I want them to succeed as much as I want myself to, not because of a responsibility.
2) I am not familiar with Darfur nor the activities taking place there, so I can't comment.
3) My parents are still homeless thanks to Isabel. What aid they did receive from the government wasn't enough to cover much of anything. That aside, we're not giving those presently in Florida "everything." We're working to help them replace what they already had, which most likely wasn't given to them, but earned.
But, and I expect the U.S. to be handled the sameway, only if it is truely clear and evident that the country cannot fix itself and that the need for absolving the debt is not due to a leader who spends teh money for his own personal gain.
This is just a case in point:
If memory serves there was a president/leader/wahtever in Africa who was taking all sorts of US aid and used it to do things such as buy a brand new personal jet and other luxuries. This money was given to him as aid. If the people fail to remove him from office then I see no reason to absolve them of this debt. However, should they remove this person (and it's quite possible they already have) and openly admonish him, then I support absolving the debt and trying anew.
Why? Because you don't help people get on their feet by giving them everything. If you give them everything then they develop no responsibility. Whether it be individuals or nations.
The U.S. today does not need to be absolved of its debt. We are still growing and succeeding and doing fine. But should some day we become disadvantaged significantly, I expect foreign nations to help us out, since we do so much to help others out.
Maybe by then some of the nations will be kind enough to absolve us of some debt like we have done to countless other nations, specifically those in Europe.
I'm not a health person. But I know there's more to eating than simply the "full feeling." You're not supposed to eat until you feel amazingly "full", just until you're not long hungry.
Plus, they're probably targetting the poor that can't afford to eat until their full and really need to partition their meals. In which case it's probably better/easier for them to partition neatly individually packaged eggs than it is to cut/weigh chicken (I'm not poor and don't have a food scale, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus. Some /.'ers just love to smash anything the government does.
Implying that this is going to destroy the domestic satellite market? You're an idiot. Seriously.
Lets look at this. Government wants to protect data that protects its soldiers and 'operations'. Solution? They go to satellite corps and say "We're going to make you an offer you can't refuse." And they *OVERPAY* them to not distribute or sometimes even take photos.
That means the domestic satellite imagery market, when confronted by the government, RAKES IN THE MONEY.
When the government isn't doing this, they're back to on their own and competing.
The government has been doing this for *DECADES*. And you know what? American companies still have satellites taking photos! LIKE OMG. It's freaking amazing how when a company gets paid insane margins to do something that they manage to survive.
The only thing about this story anyone has any right to bitch about is: the images the government buys can't be made public, ever. That's a serious concern and killer of our right and power to audit our government.
BTW, you can bet your sweetass we do these same deals with foreign companies.
Actually, financially speaking it doesn't since you probably don't pay an occupancy fee for your monitor.
(realize I've been solely an LCD owner for over 2 years now, i'm just saying it's financially smarter to have CRTs)
100+ watt CRT versus 30 watt LCD monitor;
Purchase prices between the two alone vastly outweigh immediate electricity costs. Throw in possibility of dead pixels, etc, and LCDs really aren't the best investment.
100 watt incandescent light bulbs versus 25 watt compact fluorescent.
Flourescent lights just suck. I lived with them for 3 years in my last apartment. I only had carbon filament lights in my bathroom and my kitchen. The flourescent lights always needed to "warm up" and even then I never felt like there was adequate light for anything. I had two in a room that was 13x16.
Beg your pardon but this country was founded on low taxes and individual power. It wasn't until FDR that higher taxes and publicly financed failures started becoming so common place.
You must be confused. This is Philadelphia, home of the most vigilant unions and liberals. They would *never* let you replace people with technology like that.
It's because conservatives have to proactively defend the Constitution while liberals reactively dismember it.
it's mentioned above that to sell it w/ a TV tuner in the UK would require selling a tv license with it. something like 120 pounds or about $230 USD.
rott's aren't always the best choice. I just moved into a house with two chicks. One of them has a rott as her guard dog. The first night I dropped stuff off she said she'd lock him up because he eats people she hasn't introduced him to.
What was the first thing I did? Open the door and play with him. We wrestled, got him to do tricks (he was already trained), and ran around in the yard.
She seemed pretty concerned when I told her that.
It's possible he didn't pay more than 10% of the bail, as it is possible he got a bail bond.
:
From www.premierebailbonds.com
How Bail Works
Posting of a bail bond. This process involves a contractual undertaking guaranteed by a bail bondsman and the individual posting bail. The bail agent guarantees to the court that the defendant will appear in court each and every time the judge requires them to.
For this service, the defendant is charged a percentage of the bail amount. Before being released the defendant or a relative or friend of the defendant, typically contacts a bail agent to arrange for the posting of bail. Prior to the posting of a bail bond, the defendant or a co-signer must guarantee that they will pay the full amount of bail if the defendant does not appear in court.
Typically, a family member or a close friend of the defendant will post bail and cosign. Collateral is not always required for a person to be bailed from jail. Often a person can be bailed from jail on the signature of a friend or family member. Cosigners typically need to be working and either own or rent a home in the same area for some time.
After an agreement is reached, the bail bondsman posts a bond for the amount of the bail, to guarantee the defendant's return to court.
If the defendant "skips", the cosigner is immediately responsible for the full amount of the bail. If the defendant is located and arrested by the bail enforcement agent the cosigner is responsible for all expenses the bail agent incurs while looking for the defendant.
Crisis? What crisis?
I can still buy gas, and it's 1/2 the price here as in any other country.
was just a joke. I didn't get offended. I did feel like a tard when I read your comment and thought "heh, I fell for that one. >:-| "
Thanks for adding insult to injury, jackhole.
I FELL FOR THAT ONE
(I am being totally serious too)
That site is a sick joke, right?
from the site:
2. Are you finding programs on your computer that you don't remember installing?
Your son will probably try to install some hacker software. He may attempt to conceal the presence of the software in some way, but you can usually find any new programs by reading through the programs listed under "Install/Remove Programs" in your control panel. Popular hacker software includes "Comet Cursor", "Bonzi Buddy" and "Flash".
Are you saying that now we can, for example, sue Ford because they produced the car that was purchased by a drunken driver who killed someone?
Actually I would say that was established when people started suing gun companies. But that's not what this lawsuit is about.
Yea, that's just what we need. Another drunk driver out on the road and more bodies being pulled out of a river thanks to this guy.
I have a friend who, in high school approximately 8-9 years ago, claimed to have chronic fatigue syndrome. To me it was the most amazing illness to have because it only affected you when you wanted it to. To me what happened was someone either mispronounced "cranky little b1tch syndrome" or possibly confused it with depression. I remember he even had a book that claimed people w/ CFS had pets that often showed symptoms of CFS (what I would otherwise call "laziness").
So, in your honest opinion, is CFS "real" or did someone somewhere want to justify their mood?
Oh, don't worry about it, just a little light genocide.
.. 93? I believe it was "So what?"
Oh, in that case, I'll bite. I take the same position as Bill Clinton and the U.N. did during the genocide in Rwanda in
No, in all seriousness, I don't support genocide. So somebody should go over there and step in. Being from the U.S., I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. So, I'll be damned for doing and I'd send in the U.S. military and *not* as a U.N. operation.
The onus is not on the needy to get over their sense of entitlement. The onus is on the well-off to recognize their resposibility to others less fortunate than themselves.
No, there is no onus. There is no responsibility of a person who fought tooth and nail to get what he has to help out those who do not fight tooth and nail to get their own slice of the pie.
You giving a Floridian money does not constitute you being loyal, merely good at heart.
And your giving to the Red Cross actually doesn't guarantee any Floridian will get any money. If I'm not mistaken, the Red Cross will take your money, put it into a big pool of money and at some arbitrary time decide an arbitrary amount of money will be given victims in Florida. If you recall back in 2001 the Red Cross got a lot of flack for doing this with 9/11 because they weren't giving all of their donations to 9/11 victims, instead they were keeping some of the cash in case of another catastrophe (a smart move, in my humble opinion). But that's getting off topic.
Anyways, we're arguing two entirely different belief structures which aren't going to change, so I'm done.
1) I have no responsibilty to other humans, and they have none to me. I donate time and money to charities out of the goodness of my heart, not out of any responsibility. I help out my fellow humans because I want them to succeed as much as I want myself to, not because of a responsibility.
2) I am not familiar with Darfur nor the activities taking place there, so I can't comment.
3) My parents are still homeless thanks to Isabel. What aid they did receive from the government wasn't enough to cover much of anything. That aside, we're not giving those presently in Florida "everything." We're working to help them replace what they already had, which most likely wasn't given to them, but earned.
I would, gladly.
But, and I expect the U.S. to be handled the sameway, only if it is truely clear and evident that the country cannot fix itself and that the need for absolving the debt is not due to a leader who spends teh money for his own personal gain.
This is just a case in point:
If memory serves there was a president/leader/wahtever in Africa who was taking all sorts of US aid and used it to do things such as buy a brand new personal jet and other luxuries. This money was given to him as aid. If the people fail to remove him from office then I see no reason to absolve them of this debt. However, should they remove this person (and it's quite possible they already have) and openly admonish him, then I support absolving the debt and trying anew.
Why? Because you don't help people get on their feet by giving them everything. If you give them everything then they develop no responsibility. Whether it be individuals or nations.
The U.S. today does not need to be absolved of its debt. We are still growing and succeeding and doing fine. But should some day we become disadvantaged significantly, I expect foreign nations to help us out, since we do so much to help others out.
Maybe by then some of the nations will be kind enough to absolve us of some debt like we have done to countless other nations, specifically those in Europe.
And I was making a joke.
Much like:
A friend is a person you call to bail you out of jail.
A true friend is the person sitting next to you IN JAIL saying "DUDE! THAT WAS AWESOME!"
That's why us Republicans, tired of being bundled with neocons, have gone the way of the Libertarian party.
*Ability to talk to people at any time. If my friend isn't at the bar, I can't talk to him. The chance he's near his computer is much higher
I wouldn't call that person a friend, then.
I'm not a health person. But I know there's more to eating than simply the "full feeling." You're not supposed to eat until you feel amazingly "full", just until you're not long hungry.
Plus, they're probably targetting the poor that can't afford to eat until their full and really need to partition their meals. In which case it's probably better/easier for them to partition neatly individually packaged eggs than it is to cut/weigh chicken (I'm not poor and don't have a food scale, anyway).
Surprisingly enough, this is how contract work is handled.
If you're contracted to due X amount of work for Y amount of time, then you only need A amount of employees for Y amount of time.
Why keep them around afterwards? Cut the grass with scissors?
You have the choice of working under contract, not working under contract, or not working at all.