>>>Don't reelect the jerks who are not working in your interest. Hold your government responsible for your wellbeing.
So naive. We got rid of the Democrats and gave the Republicans majority rule (from 94 to 2006) and they screwed us. So we put the Democrats back as the majority, and now we're still getting screwed. They passed the Corporate Bailout Bill despite 80% opposition and the Healthcare Bill despite over 70% opposition (according to Gallup polls).
D or R makes no difference. The ballot box is ineffective
I find it funny the GP's post was modded "insightful" while his second post was modded "flamebait", even though both messages are essentially the same thoughts.
If you want to see what happens to an unarmed populace, all you need to do is look at Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The unarmed enemies were rounded-up and jailed easily (or shot if they resisted). The armed enemies made the government's plans fall apart (see Jewish Uprisings and the defense of Switzerland by its own armed citizens).
Guns create problems for government leaders and slow down their ability to be tyrants.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
UK Effectively Bans Guns - Violent Crime Goes UP - because now the criminals have a bunch of unarmed sheep they can prey upon. I've also heard horror stories about people defending themselves with whatever was available (sticks, rocks), and instead of the attacker being arrested, the victim was charged with wielding a weapon. Now that's what I call a messed-up governance.
"Gun Control's Twisted Outcome"
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
>>>Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews
Also the japanese-descended Americans during World War 2. Or have you forgotten how FDR unconstitutionally imprisoned Americans in concentration camps? He took their liberty, their property, their homes, their wealth, and imprisoned them without trial for almost four years. FDR makes Bush look like a nice guy in comparison. FDR was an ass that mistreated millions of American citizens.
But you've forgotten that. You've forgotten we had concentration camps right here on our own soil.
There is something better than Democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). A Republic where the law reigns supreme (even above the government) and protects the individual from harm by either his neighbors or his leaders. THAT is better than democracy and that is what the US Founders gave us with written constitutions (supreme laws). Ditto the founders of the EU with their Constitution and Charter of Fundamental Rights (aka Lisbon Treaty).
The UK has effectively banned gun ownership, and yet has a higher murder rate than the US. Criminals now see the UK populace as unarmed sheep to be preyed upon at will.
>>>which means the majority of that is just being shifted, not created anew.
And even if the electricity did go up, the overall *energy* usage would be less than moving a ~4000 pound vehicle across ~50 miles (typical american commute). Moving electrons across wires is far more energy efficient than moving people back-and-forth to work. Staying home uses FAR less energy overall.
>>>The amount of gasoline consumed is directly proportional to the weight being carried.
A common misconception. Since her Suburban weighs around 5000 pounds the extra 2 pounds of my game or book make no measurable difference in the gasoline consumption. Put another way: Whether I carry 1 person or 4 persons in my car, I still get 35mpg regardless. The weight differential is not measurable because there are far more important factors in gasoline consumption, such as the tuning of the engine, how fast I drive (air resistance), and so on.
The store where I used to work shortened its day by about 5 hours. They open one hour later, close 1/2 an hour earlier, and the janitorial staff doesn't show up at 6am anymore, instead waiting until just prior to opening (11am). That reduces A/C costs (both dollars and CO2) by about 20%.
Of course the store didn't do this for altruistic reasons. It did it because they are only getting half as many shoppers since the Web took over.
Although I admit my main motive is not solely pollution, but also eliminating the 5 dollar and 45-60 minute cost of the drive. I'd like to work from home for the same reason.
The postwoman is already driving past my house every day. It takes no extra gasoline for her to carry that latest Amazon book or Electronic Boutique game with her.
Plus the freight trucks that move this crap across the country burn far less gas than if we all drove to the store. ~10,000 boxes carried in one truck is more efficient than 10,000 car trips.
Because children grow-up to become adults, and they don't want to have a censored internet anymore than we do. If you are TRULY thinking of the children, then you will leave the internet uncensored so they can have free speech as adults.
>>>The Justice department would still have to get a court order, as they do now.
Except that in this case the website owner is "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent. It puts all the hard work upon the citizen, when it should be the other way round (the onus should be on the government to prove guilt)(and failing that, the citizen's website remains up). .
>>>Why the government is involved at all in civil justice is beyond me?
They've redefined copyright infringement as a criminal offense, with assigned punishments ($7500 upto $150,000 per song or movie).
>>>Ever notice the same people who call Net Neutrality a government takeover of the internet are usually pretty quiet whenever somebody in Congress proposes a law that'd allow them to block or shut websites down?
No. In fact Limbaugh, Beck, and others have been talking about the government's ability to shutdown random websites for almost a year now.
Nice troll though. You got me and several others to respond to your Strawman Argument. Two thumbs up, plus a finger snap with a npple twist.
"The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down [FOX.com and bushsucks.com] with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court [with fellatio or cunning lingua] to have it lifted." Okay. Now it's complete.
>>>It does...and that one message you thought you sent ends up getting billed as three or four messages.
Beat me to it. Hopefully the iPhone has a method to limit text messages to standard SMS length (160?). My phone charges 15 cents per text, so a long message broken into 4 parts would be 60 cents just like that. It would be cheaper to voicecall.
>>>Being able to have the movie on my iPod has value, and thus the movie people expect to be paid for that.
Fuck them.
A consumer should only have to pay for a movie once on DVD, and then use that copy anywhere - living room TV, streaming across the internal net to a PC or bedroom TV, and on a portable player like an iPod. The only reason they would insist a consumer should pay 3 times is because they are money-hungry Ebenezer Scrooge types.
>>>I personally see it switch instant to off (and show on the screen that it is) because off a slow connection
My Dialup provider appears to be high-speed because it (1) grabs the whole page and then (2) compresses it followed by (3) streaming it across the phone line. Ditto if you have Opera with Turbo enabled. Since it appears to be a high-speed line google leaves instant turned-on.
Yes. Bad move. Just give me a damn joystick, so when I push a button or shove the stick in a certain direction, it registers. I get extremely frustrated with the Wii's not registering my moves, and then I die. That is the opposite of fun - it's like we turned back the clock to the 1982 Atari SuperSystem/5200 with its shitty control (analog sticks and PacMan do not mix). .
>>>motion control is a prime selling point for your most unique, successful competitor?
Just because Wii is number one doesn't mean its controller is worth copying. NES used to be number one too, and its cartridge slot was shit. (Remember having to lick your carts just so they'd work?) Copying is great if your copying GOOD ideas. Copying bad ideas is just foolish.
Like when I copied my lab partner. He got a D, and so too did I.
That's simply not true. The Amiga owners ran on 256k from 1985 to 1988. There was no need to expand to a larger size, because the programs were designed to fit inside the available space of the standard machine (just as programs were designed to fit inside a Commodore's 64k space). Not until much later did programs require 1/2 or 1 meg expansion. .
>>>And no the memory specifications and dates for the Apple III and Commodore B are real and factual
I cited my figures from wikipedia. Where did you get you cites from?
>>>I don't think I would go so far as call the Mac inferior.
I would. And did. The only reason I switched to a Mac was because the better machines (Atari and Amiga) disappeared off the market. The Commodore Amiga could do all the desktop publishing a Mac could do PLUS produce movies (Aladdin) and TV shows (B5, seaquest, space A&B, etc) besides. .
>>>I think Apple took IBM more seriously than the assorted home computers and as long as the average office had B/W printing, Jobs felt justified in his thinking.
Yeah as it turned-out the PC was the main competitor for all these companies, and it was pretty dull.
>>>MS also released their first real GUI OS, Windows NT. By 1996 MS has a credible OS, which remain useful until 2000, when XP became a reasonable successor.
Uh... what? XP is not a successor to NT. It *is* NT. Ditto Vista and Seven (NT 6.0 and 6.1 respectively). You make a good point about the web being the main use for most people, but you still need an OS to run those various programs - like the browser. And the video editor. And the music downloader (aka iTunes). And of course from time to time even casual users need to write a resume on their word processor. You need the OS as the base for all these programs.
Sorry but I don't see cloud programs as being any more successful than the old dumb terminals of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>But will you be presenting IN Codec2?
But staticy. By my quick calculation it's only 2.4 kbps encoding. Like listening to voice over a 2400 baud modem.
>>>Don't reelect the jerks who are not working in your interest. Hold your government responsible for your wellbeing.
So naive. We got rid of the Democrats and gave the Republicans majority rule (from 94 to 2006) and they screwed us. So we put the Democrats back as the majority, and now we're still getting screwed. They passed the Corporate Bailout Bill despite 80% opposition and the Healthcare Bill despite over 70% opposition (according to Gallup polls).
D or R makes no difference. The ballot box is ineffective
I find it funny the GP's post was modded "insightful" while his second post was modded "flamebait", even though both messages are essentially the same thoughts.
If you want to see what happens to an unarmed populace, all you need to do is look at Germany during the 1930s and 40s. The unarmed enemies were rounded-up and jailed easily (or shot if they resisted). The armed enemies made the government's plans fall apart (see Jewish Uprisings and the defense of Switzerland by its own armed citizens).
Guns create problems for government leaders and slow down their ability to be tyrants.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.
UK Effectively Bans Guns - Violent Crime Goes UP - because now the criminals have a bunch of unarmed sheep they can prey upon. I've also heard horror stories about people defending themselves with whatever was available (sticks, rocks), and instead of the attacker being arrested, the victim was charged with wielding a weapon. Now that's what I call a messed-up governance.
"Gun Control's Twisted Outcome"
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
cite - http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome
>>>Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews
Also the japanese-descended Americans during World War 2. Or have you forgotten how FDR unconstitutionally imprisoned Americans in concentration camps? He took their liberty, their property, their homes, their wealth, and imprisoned them without trial for almost four years. FDR makes Bush look like a nice guy in comparison. FDR was an ass that mistreated millions of American citizens.
But you've forgotten that. You've forgotten we had concentration camps right here on our own soil.
Mr. Churchill was wrong.
There is something better than Democracy (tyranny of the majority to squash the minority underfoot). A Republic where the law reigns supreme (even above the government) and protects the individual from harm by either his neighbors or his leaders. THAT is better than democracy and that is what the US Founders gave us with written constitutions (supreme laws). Ditto the founders of the EU with their Constitution and Charter of Fundamental Rights (aka Lisbon Treaty).
The UK has effectively banned gun ownership, and yet has a higher murder rate than the US. Criminals now see the UK populace as unarmed sheep to be preyed upon at will.
Excellent point.
>>>which means the majority of that is just being shifted, not created anew.
And even if the electricity did go up, the overall *energy* usage would be less than moving a ~4000 pound vehicle across ~50 miles (typical american commute). Moving electrons across wires is far more energy efficient than moving people back-and-forth to work. Staying home uses FAR less energy overall.
>>>The amount of gasoline consumed is directly proportional to the weight being carried.
A common misconception. Since her Suburban weighs around 5000 pounds the extra 2 pounds of my game or book make no measurable difference in the gasoline consumption. Put another way: Whether I carry 1 person or 4 persons in my car, I still get 35mpg regardless. The weight differential is not measurable because there are far more important factors in gasoline consumption, such as the tuning of the engine, how fast I drive (air resistance), and so on.
The store where I used to work shortened its day by about 5 hours. They open one hour later, close 1/2 an hour earlier, and the janitorial staff doesn't show up at 6am anymore, instead waiting until just prior to opening (11am). That reduces A/C costs (both dollars and CO2) by about 20%.
Of course the store didn't do this for altruistic reasons. It did it because they are only getting half as many shoppers since the Web took over.
(raises hand)
Although I admit my main motive is not solely pollution, but also eliminating the 5 dollar and 45-60 minute cost of the drive. I'd like to work from home for the same reason.
The postwoman is already driving past my house every day. It takes no extra gasoline for her to carry that latest Amazon book or Electronic Boutique game with her.
Plus the freight trucks that move this crap across the country burn far less gas than if we all drove to the store. ~10,000 boxes carried in one truck is more efficient than 10,000 car trips.
>>>Why don't you think of the children?
Because children grow-up to become adults, and they don't want to have a censored internet anymore than we do. If you are TRULY thinking of the children, then you will leave the internet uncensored so they can have free speech as adults.
>>>The Justice department would still have to get a court order, as they do now.
Except that in this case the website owner is "presumed guilty" until he proves himself innocent. It puts all the hard work upon the citizen, when it should be the other way round (the onus should be on the government to prove guilt)(and failing that, the citizen's website remains up).
.
>>>Why the government is involved at all in civil justice is beyond me?
They've redefined copyright infringement as a criminal offense, with assigned punishments ($7500 upto $150,000 per song or movie).
>>>Ever notice the same people who call Net Neutrality a government takeover of the internet are usually pretty quiet whenever somebody in Congress proposes a law that'd allow them to block or shut websites down?
No. In fact Limbaugh, Beck, and others have been talking about the government's ability to shutdown random websites for almost a year now.
Nice troll though. You got me and several others to respond to your Strawman Argument.
Two thumbs up, plus a finger snap with a npple twist.
Yeah the summary left out some important bits:
"The new bill would give the government the authority to shut down [FOX.com and bushsucks.com] with a court order; the site owner would have to petition the court [with fellatio or cunning lingua] to have it lifted." Okay. Now it's complete.
>>>It does...and that one message you thought you sent ends up getting billed as three or four messages.
Beat me to it. Hopefully the iPhone has a method to limit text messages to standard SMS length (160?). My phone charges 15 cents per text, so a long message broken into 4 parts would be 60 cents just like that. It would be cheaper to voicecall.
>>>Being able to have the movie on my iPod has value, and thus the movie people expect to be paid for that.
Fuck them.
A consumer should only have to pay for a movie once on DVD, and then use that copy anywhere - living room TV, streaming across the internal net to a PC or bedroom TV, and on a portable player like an iPod. The only reason they would insist a consumer should pay 3 times is because they are money-hungry Ebenezer Scrooge types.
>>>I personally see it switch instant to off (and show on the screen that it is) because off a slow connection
My Dialup provider appears to be high-speed because it (1) grabs the whole page and then (2) compresses it followed by (3) streaming it across the phone line. Ditto if you have Opera with Turbo enabled. Since it appears to be a high-speed line google leaves instant turned-on.
Yes. Bad move. Just give me a damn joystick, so when I push a button or shove the stick in a certain direction, it registers. I get extremely frustrated with the Wii's not registering my moves, and then I die. That is the opposite of fun - it's like we turned back the clock to the 1982 Atari SuperSystem/5200 with its shitty control (analog sticks and PacMan do not mix).
.
>>>motion control is a prime selling point for your most unique, successful competitor?
Just because Wii is number one doesn't mean its controller is worth copying. NES used to be number one too, and its cartridge slot was shit. (Remember having to lick your carts just so they'd work?) Copying is great if your copying GOOD ideas. Copying bad ideas is just foolish.
Like when I copied my lab partner.
He got a D, and so too did I.
>>>Nobody used an Amiga 1000 with just 256k.
That's simply not true. The Amiga owners ran on 256k from 1985 to 1988. There was no need to expand to a larger size, because the programs were designed to fit inside the available space of the standard machine (just as programs were designed to fit inside a Commodore's 64k space). Not until much later did programs require 1/2 or 1 meg expansion.
.
>>>And no the memory specifications and dates for the Apple III and Commodore B are real and factual
I cited my figures from wikipedia. Where did you get you cites from?
>>>I don't think I would go so far as call the Mac inferior.
I would. And did. The only reason I switched to a Mac was because the better machines (Atari and Amiga) disappeared off the market. The Commodore Amiga could do all the desktop publishing a Mac could do PLUS produce movies (Aladdin) and TV shows (B5, seaquest, space A&B, etc) besides.
.
>>>I think Apple took IBM more seriously than the assorted home computers and as long as the average office had B/W printing, Jobs felt justified in his thinking.
Yeah as it turned-out the PC was the main competitor for all these companies, and it was pretty dull.
>>>MS also released their first real GUI OS, Windows NT. By 1996 MS has a credible OS, which remain useful until 2000, when XP became a reasonable successor.
Uh... what? XP is not a successor to NT. It *is* NT. Ditto Vista and Seven (NT 6.0 and 6.1 respectively). You make a good point about the web being the main use for most people, but you still need an OS to run those various programs - like the browser. And the video editor. And the music downloader (aka iTunes). And of course from time to time even casual users need to write a resume on their word processor. You need the OS as the base for all these programs.
Sorry but I don't see cloud programs as being any more successful than the old dumb terminals of the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.