Japan can operate high-speed rail because most of 100,000,000 people are within close range of a mostly linear rail system running the backbone of a long narrow island.
China can because the people will, in general, live where told and pay what told to build what told.
The USA can't because it would require laying new track across some six million square miles to connect dozens of cities spread between the disparate corners of Boston, Seattle, San Diego, and Miami, and because the population won't stand to be taxed for massive subsidies to a hugely losing investment.
I keep asking a question of proponents, and keep not getting answers: On average, what is the total travel time and cost per passenger INCLUDING travel to/from terminals, vehicle ownership/rental costs to get to/from said terminals, waits for train arrival/delays, waits for security screenings, and adjusted for impact of limited luggage? Answer: prohibitive. All factors included, it's helluva lot easier and cheaper for me to throw two adults, two kids, two dogs, and a month's luggage in the SUV and make the 1000 mile drive 15 hours overnight from Atlanta to NY. Trains are great for the few people who actually live near them and travel to places near them. Key words: "few" and "near". Most people will expend the balance time & cost from the actual train ride on travel to/from the train. What's the point? With air travel you don't have to run a 1000 mile stretch thru 1000 miles of back yards, AND you get there faster.
Yes, I will. Thing is, they don't. It takes more effort to cheat on my assignments THEN do the work than if they had just done it right in the first place. If they cheat, it's because they can't do the work. If they can do the work, its easier to just do it than to find something to copy. If they learn their lesson, and learn the material, fine. If they keep cheating, they will destroy their own careers.
If i catch my students cheating they get a 0 until they submit their own passable work.
You cheat in my class and I don't catch you? I don't care. "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves." "What goes around comes around." "You reap what you sow." If you can't do the work yourself in my class, then you can't do the work in the real world and you'll crash and burn. Not my problem to teach you lessons you don't want to learn. As one of my instructors liked to tell his classes ”I don't care if you want to learn what I'm teaching you or not, either way I have your money." If want to learn I'll do everything I can to teach you, but if you cheat you're just wasting your own money, time and life.
I'm puzzled by the market cap of Apple being ~$0.3T... when the company never issues dividends. What's the point of owning stock then? it's like owning shares of the moon: yeah, it's there, and you may be legal owner of a miniscule fraction thereof, but you don't get anything from it and those doing anything with it won't consult you.
Build a machine correctly, and it will run - and fail - safely with minimal oversight. Automatic sensors can be installed to keep someone notified of how it's working; beyond that, a good design eliminates the need for 24/7 on-site monitoring and manipulation.
Before you come back with a "Titanic!" analogy, learn how this reactor works, what can go wrong, and how it handles failure. This is "news for nerds", not "news for clueless hysterical neo-Luddites".
Could something horrible conceivably go wrong? Sure. Can we do a risk analysis and determine what the odds & costs thereof are? Sure. Can we design a system to perform a task and mitigate the risks to an acceptable level? Yes - just like the risks of freeway driving have been mitigated to the point where you're not concerned about driving home after work, even though there's a non-zero chance you'll be killed/maimed doing so.
The whole point of this reactor is when it fails, when it heads toward going critical, the physics are such that it just shuts itself down - no explosion, no vented gasses, no need for the public at large wearing radiation suits.
BTW: it's assumed that because we're talking in soundbites, the discussion implies the obvious caveats. Criticizing TFS for not explaining everything in Encyclopedia Britannica sized detail is presumed forgivable.
Recall that _Highlander_3_ opened with our hero sitting in an ornate chair, looking straight at the audience, and flatly stating (in so many words) that the previous movie* didn't exist and they were starting this sequel about 10 minutes before the original film ended.
No, she doesn't drive herself - which makes the appearance even more disconcerting to uninformed onlookers when a perfectly healthy driver uses a handicapped spot.
Yeah, maybe he's just parking where he wants on the private property he (colloquially speaking) owns and operates.
And maybe he does have reason to park in a handicapped spot. Not all debilitating medical issues are obvious, and Jobs is quite private about what is, well, private. The man survived a nigh-unto-unsurvivable disease, and may have limitations you are not aware of.
Anecdote: an acquaintance stops breathing when sleeping, and is prone to narcolepsy - not a good combination. Otherwise healthy, she often garners snide comments from such as yourself for parking in a handicap space so she is close to the crucial breathing machine kept in the car.
Last week I was explaining to my wife why it was her cousin always did so well at the casino. It’s not that she’s “a positive person, which attracts success in gambling” or any other warm-fuzzy explanation. Consider that over a long run of gambling, someone will have probabilistic periods of “good runs” and “bad runs”; likewise, among multiple people statistics dictate that there will be some who have a lifetime of “bad runs” and some who “have all the luck”. By sheer stupid chance, the cousin in question is getting a “lucky streak” – for now.
Dragging this back to the subject...
If you run a group of people thru ESP testing, you’ll find a few who “outperform” the others. Those who don’t are dismissed, while those who do are hailed as psychics. It is, indeed, just dumb luck. A few will, according to standard probabilistic statistics, by plain chance happen to make correct guesses, and do so in a long enough run to make it look convincing. The longer the run, the greater the imputed powers hailed; once the run of “good luck” ends, a lame excuse is imputed and the “psychic” forgotten.
Couple the random good run with the human ability to cognitively perceive and process more information than is consciously recognized, and one appears to exceed the mere threshold of statistical significance. Compound a lucky run of good guesses with subconscious card-counting or other subtle cues indicating the reality of what is being guessed at, and the person is dubbed a psychic. Awareness + dumb luck != magic.
it's about regulating telecomms with one simple rule: "all traffic should be equal".
Except it isn't.
To paraphrase the old management joke: big, fast, cheap - pick two. And not everybody is going to pick the same two. Especially politicians who don't care about your data.
Is your driving need... Streaming/bulk data? a per-packet charge is going to cost you a LOT. The data difference between a Netflix-streaming couch potato and email-checking grandma is several orders of magnitude. Will your bill be four-five digits? or will her bill be pennies? Remember: "all traffic is equal" so you're going to pay per packet, and grandma's 'net bill isn't going to approach zero. Time-sensitive data? you want low-latency pings for your multiplayer games, you'll have to pay for prioritization - or, well, you can't because "all traffic is equal". Get your packets in line behind a buffered movie. Cheap data? since nobody can pay for prioritization even if they want to, you all get cheap data - and cheap does not necessarily mean inexpensive.
If people spent half an hour thinking, dusting off their old PC, and hooking up cables, they'd be GODS of their media.
People, on the whole, haven't a clue how this stuff works. They're lucky if they can hook up color-coded cables for 3 boxes. Of those who can follow basic installation directions, they still don't see how the magic works, they're just satisfied that it does.
Absent from your obscenity-filled screed about how they're clueless vs. how easy it is, is the generous real-life insertion of "X doesn't work... oh, that's easy, just do Y..." Sure, the big pieces are pretty simple, but there's always some glue logic that must be cobbled together to make it all work - and THAT is the hard part for most people. Anecdote: streaming "The Bachelorette" to the TV for my wife was easy. It's easy, right? Anyone can do it. Probably the easiest thing to do. Just go to the website (requiring clicking around until you find the "full episode" buried amid all the other tangential videos), plug in a $20 MiniDVI-to-Composite adapter on the MacBook (after going to the Apple store to buy one, and knowing which to buy), click 'play' on the notebook which is now sitting on the floor 10' from the couch (the wireless mouse is upstairs 'cuz that's where she usually uses the thing), click 'fullscreen', spend 10 minutes watching and wondering why something seems missing, realize (she didn't) that the allegedly fullscreen window is in fact much larger than the TV resolution so we've watched 1/4 the show with only 1/2 the image, discover after some experimentation of resizing/replugging multiple windows & cables that you have to plug in the adapter THEN open a new window THEN go to the website THEN play and fullscreen the video (wrong order = fractional image), and finally get a dirty look from the wife who wonders why we have to dork around with all this "but it's FREE!" technical bullsqueeze when we could just pay $60/month and watch whatever she wants with a simple remote control. "Oh, but now you've worked it all out, right?" you say. NOT. Next day she wants to see the next episode (like RIGHT NOW), and I have to explain how to do all that over the phone because we had to unplug the computer and attach the VCR because the little girl REALLY wanted to watch "Kipper" again, then explain again why it's stupid to pay $60/month for Cable when we could be, as you put it, "GODS of our media" for free.
Access the FULL internet? most people haven't a clue what's out there to access, much less know how. Multitask? if it's not visible RIGHT NOW most people think it isn't running. Share files? you explain media files, much less sharing them, to my mother-in-law. Copy discs? better be as simple as "insert disc 1, insert disc 2, hit 'Copy'." Oh, right, it isn't. Strip ads? most people don't care - or even view them as "public service announcements". ("How else will I know what's going on?") Normalize volume? "normalize"? by this point you'd better know where this is going. Bypass waste-of-time interfaces? Here's a way they like: for $XX/month, they can plug in a dedicated box with 6 buttons and access whatever they want - rather than hours of dorking around with confusing tech stuff for "free".
And that's why even Google is faltering at the task: Google TV is the culmination of what you describe, out-of-the-box pre-assembled stuff, and it's still to complicated for most people. Apple seems the only one to get it right: $99 one-time cost, plug in two obvious cables, easy menu system to access huge (yes, limited, but EASY and there's enough to keep most people happy) array of options, and pay a mere $1 per episode for zero-hassle no-commercial on-demand viewing.
Sure, you and I know it's easy & free to do all this stuff. That's because we're NERDS - which most people aren't, so it's cost-effective for them to pay.
There is a tech solution. Invent it. Build it. Patent/open-source it. Sell it. Get it out there.
But DON'T just sit there whining that ulterior-motive politicians and bureaucrats won't do things your way.
One solution: Build a cheap, open, legal, spread-spectrum, compact, no-setup, easy network relay box. Set broadcast power within legal no-license limits. Make a gazillion of them, plug 'em in wherever you can. Make a giant ad-hoc network. You know what I'm getting at.
Heck, this should already be in place between the innumerable cellphones & wireless routers out there. Get the ad-hoc network big enough, and the individual load should be minimal and the total disruptions minimal. TCP/IP is intended to circumvent network failures, so long as there is a path. Make a path.
And stop expecting powermongers to give you freedom.
The "all packets must be treated equally, no exceptions" version
Bandwidth is a limited resource. When there isn't enough of it, what to do?
Those replacing their TV service with streaming video want great data quantity. Those playing low-latency real-time games want great ping time. Those using little of either want great prices. Declaring "all packets must be treated equally" isn't realistic.
When there isn't enough bandwidth, what to do? A per-packet charge creates an unrealistic >4-order-of-magnitude difference in price between couch-potato streaming video vs. email-checking grandma. A latency-reduction charge violates "all treated equally".
Indeed, some packets are more equal than others. What to do?
You can't find everything online, or discern it from all the other unwanted crap that shows up in a search for a popular high-turnover product category.
Try finding a particular Sony camcorder battery online. All too often you'll get flooded with wrong models, crappy knockoffs, and otherwise have difficulty finding what you want. Easier to walk into a big-box store and pay a bit more - you can confirm its not a POS cheat, and can return it pronto if it is.
A smart retailer will recognize what customers want, want now, and will have trouble locating online. Yes, the nature of brick-and-mortar must change... for the better.
The issue with you is that you have an insane belief stuck in your head, that Obama is not a citizen, and nothing will shake it out of your head.
Funny, that's not the belief I see in my head. Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking is not what I'm thinking I'm thinking. Of course, you who knows nothing of me save one post knows more about me than I do.
You've blown right past the content of my post, having already decided what I've said therein even though it's not what I said.
The proof was shown.
Where? Show it. Don't tell me it was shown. SHOW IT.
And here we are, going around in circles again. My side saying "where's the proof?", your side saying "it was shown", repeated ad infinitum. There is no proof. No proof was shown. What has been shown isn't proof, it's claims proof exists. We'll shut up when it's shown; we're asking because it wasn't.
Can you articulate what the legal difference between the two categories of "citizen" in question are? No, you just spout your "shut up, idiot" line, deriding those who are asking for nothing more than a straight copy of one piece of paper - which you have not seen.
obama is a citizen of the usa. really. it has been proven satisfactorily. really.
Who is the misinformed one here?
The birth certificate - not a reformatted reprinted redacted copy - has not been shown. really. There are more than one category of citizen, not all of which are eligible to be President. really. While there is little or no question that he is a citizen of the usa, there remains the question of whether he is in the category of eligible-to-be-President citizens. really.
Thus, it is not a legitimate conclusion to slam 63 percent of Fox viewers who believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear) as "misinformed" - fact is, the proof has not been shown. The "misinformed" ones are, in fact, the ones who do not comprehend the legal difference and interactions between country of birth vs. country of citizenship - you being one.
This "survey" has interesting timing, driven by hardcore leftists (see prior posts listing those behind this "survey") and coming out at the same time other hardcore leftists are pushing a variety of "new, improved, unbiased" approaches to manipulating social politics - when they are, upon easy analysis, highly biased & opinionated and simply declaring themselves unbiased and factual.
Lacking proof of legal and/or scientific form, one has only opinion. Your stance, and that of the self-righteous group behind the "survey", is opinion. Just because it is your opinion does not make it fact. really.
Between Tron, Tron: Legacy, Tron: Ghost in the Machine, Tron: Derezzed, Tron 2.0, etc.... does anyone have a coherent map of Tron media storyline/chronology? Poking around, it's starting to look like the Ender's Game graph. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
So...is this a return to the days of building computers from discrete components (separate basic electronic components wired together), just smaller?
Who's going to build the first nano-PDP8?
Japan can operate high-speed rail because most of 100,000,000 people are within close range of a mostly linear rail system running the backbone of a long narrow island.
China can because the people will, in general, live where told and pay what told to build what told.
The USA can't because it would require laying new track across some six million square miles to connect dozens of cities spread between the disparate corners of Boston, Seattle, San Diego, and Miami, and because the population won't stand to be taxed for massive subsidies to a hugely losing investment.
I keep asking a question of proponents, and keep not getting answers:
On average, what is the total travel time and cost per passenger INCLUDING travel to/from terminals, vehicle ownership/rental costs to get to/from said terminals, waits for train arrival/delays, waits for security screenings, and adjusted for impact of limited luggage?
Answer: prohibitive.
All factors included, it's helluva lot easier and cheaper for me to throw two adults, two kids, two dogs, and a month's luggage in the SUV and make the 1000 mile drive 15 hours overnight from Atlanta to NY.
Trains are great for the few people who actually live near them and travel to places near them. Key words: "few" and "near". Most people will expend the balance time & cost from the actual train ride on travel to/from the train. What's the point? With air travel you don't have to run a 1000 mile stretch thru 1000 miles of back yards, AND you get there faster.
Yes, I will.
Thing is, they don't.
It takes more effort to cheat on my assignments THEN do the work than if they had just done it right in the first place.
If they cheat, it's because they can't do the work. If they can do the work, its easier to just do it than to find something to copy.
If they learn their lesson, and learn the material, fine.
If they keep cheating, they will destroy their own careers.
Upshot: cheaters fail, even without my "help".
If i catch my students cheating they get a 0 until they submit their own passable work.
You cheat in my class and I don't catch you? I don't care. "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves." "What goes around comes around." "You reap what you sow." If you can't do the work yourself in my class, then you can't do the work in the real world and you'll crash and burn. Not my problem to teach you lessons you don't want to learn. As one of my instructors liked to tell his classes ”I don't care if you want to learn what I'm teaching you or not, either way I have your money." If want to learn I'll do everything I can to teach you, but if you cheat you're just wasting your own money, time and life.
I'm puzzled by the market cap of Apple being ~$0.3T ... when the company never issues dividends. What's the point of owning stock then? it's like owning shares of the moon: yeah, it's there, and you may be legal owner of a miniscule fraction thereof, but you don't get anything from it and those doing anything with it won't consult you.
Build a machine correctly, and it will run - and fail - safely with minimal oversight. Automatic sensors can be installed to keep someone notified of how it's working; beyond that, a good design eliminates the need for 24/7 on-site monitoring and manipulation.
Before you come back with a "Titanic!" analogy, learn how this reactor works, what can go wrong, and how it handles failure. This is "news for nerds", not "news for clueless hysterical neo-Luddites".
Could something horrible conceivably go wrong? Sure. Can we do a risk analysis and determine what the odds & costs thereof are? Sure. Can we design a system to perform a task and mitigate the risks to an acceptable level? Yes - just like the risks of freeway driving have been mitigated to the point where you're not concerned about driving home after work, even though there's a non-zero chance you'll be killed/maimed doing so.
The whole point of this reactor is when it fails, when it heads toward going critical, the physics are such that it just shuts itself down - no explosion, no vented gasses, no need for the public at large wearing radiation suits.
BTW: it's assumed that because we're talking in soundbites, the discussion implies the obvious caveats. Criticizing TFS for not explaining everything in Encyclopedia Britannica sized detail is presumed forgivable.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
- Inigo Montoya
Recall that _Highlander_3_ opened with our hero sitting in an ornate chair, looking straight at the audience, and flatly stating (in so many words) that the previous movie* didn't exist and they were starting this sequel about 10 minutes before the original film ended.
(* - aka _Highlander_2:_The_Sickening_)
No, she doesn't drive herself - which makes the appearance even more disconcerting to uninformed onlookers when a perfectly healthy driver uses a handicapped spot.
Yeah, maybe he's just parking where he wants on the private property he (colloquially speaking) owns and operates.
And maybe he does have reason to park in a handicapped spot. Not all debilitating medical issues are obvious, and Jobs is quite private about what is, well, private. The man survived a nigh-unto-unsurvivable disease, and may have limitations you are not aware of.
Anecdote: an acquaintance stops breathing when sleeping, and is prone to narcolepsy - not a good combination. Otherwise healthy, she often garners snide comments from such as yourself for parking in a handicap space so she is close to the crucial breathing machine kept in the car.
Just sayin'.
"If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read."
The point isn't to stop anyone, it's to not get blindsided by the consequences.
Whoever wrote the policy, however, is unaware of the concept of "recursion".
On a topological statistical equivalency...
Last week I was explaining to my wife why it was her cousin always did so well at the casino. It’s not that she’s “a positive person, which attracts success in gambling” or any other warm-fuzzy explanation. Consider that over a long run of gambling, someone will have probabilistic periods of “good runs” and “bad runs”; likewise, among multiple people statistics dictate that there will be some who have a lifetime of “bad runs” and some who “have all the luck”. By sheer stupid chance, the cousin in question is getting a “lucky streak” – for now.
Dragging this back to the subject...
If you run a group of people thru ESP testing, you’ll find a few who “outperform” the others. Those who don’t are dismissed, while those who do are hailed as psychics. It is, indeed, just dumb luck. A few will, according to standard probabilistic statistics, by plain chance happen to make correct guesses, and do so in a long enough run to make it look convincing. The longer the run, the greater the imputed powers hailed; once the run of “good luck” ends, a lame excuse is imputed and the “psychic” forgotten.
Couple the random good run with the human ability to cognitively perceive and process more information than is consciously recognized, and one appears to exceed the mere threshold of statistical significance. Compound a lucky run of good guesses with subconscious card-counting or other subtle cues indicating the reality of what is being guessed at, and the person is dubbed a psychic. Awareness + dumb luck != magic.
Except it isn't.
To paraphrase the old management joke: big, fast, cheap - pick two.
And not everybody is going to pick the same two. Especially politicians who don't care about your data.
Is your driving need...
Streaming/bulk data? a per-packet charge is going to cost you a LOT. The data difference between a Netflix-streaming couch potato and email-checking grandma is several orders of magnitude. Will your bill be four-five digits? or will her bill be pennies? Remember: "all traffic is equal" so you're going to pay per packet, and grandma's 'net bill isn't going to approach zero.
Time-sensitive data? you want low-latency pings for your multiplayer games, you'll have to pay for prioritization - or, well, you can't because "all traffic is equal". Get your packets in line behind a buffered movie.
Cheap data? since nobody can pay for prioritization even if they want to, you all get cheap data - and cheap does not necessarily mean inexpensive.
Careful what you ask for. You might get it.
Good! Straight news not re-written by desk-bound "reporters", and opinions devoid of leftist drivel.
People, on the whole, haven't a clue how this stuff works. They're lucky if they can hook up color-coded cables for 3 boxes. Of those who can follow basic installation directions, they still don't see how the magic works, they're just satisfied that it does.
Absent from your obscenity-filled screed about how they're clueless vs. how easy it is, is the generous real-life insertion of "X doesn't work ... oh, that's easy, just do Y ..." Sure, the big pieces are pretty simple, but there's always some glue logic that must be cobbled together to make it all work - and THAT is the hard part for most people.
Anecdote: streaming "The Bachelorette" to the TV for my wife was easy. It's easy, right? Anyone can do it. Probably the easiest thing to do. Just go to the website (requiring clicking around until you find the "full episode" buried amid all the other tangential videos), plug in a $20 MiniDVI-to-Composite adapter on the MacBook (after going to the Apple store to buy one, and knowing which to buy), click 'play' on the notebook which is now sitting on the floor 10' from the couch (the wireless mouse is upstairs 'cuz that's where she usually uses the thing), click 'fullscreen', spend 10 minutes watching and wondering why something seems missing, realize (she didn't) that the allegedly fullscreen window is in fact much larger than the TV resolution so we've watched 1/4 the show with only 1/2 the image, discover after some experimentation of resizing/replugging multiple windows & cables that you have to plug in the adapter THEN open a new window THEN go to the website THEN play and fullscreen the video (wrong order = fractional image), and finally get a dirty look from the wife who wonders why we have to dork around with all this "but it's FREE!" technical bullsqueeze when we could just pay $60/month and watch whatever she wants with a simple remote control. "Oh, but now you've worked it all out, right?" you say. NOT. Next day she wants to see the next episode (like RIGHT NOW), and I have to explain how to do all that over the phone because we had to unplug the computer and attach the VCR because the little girl REALLY wanted to watch "Kipper" again, then explain again why it's stupid to pay $60/month for Cable when we could be, as you put it, "GODS of our media" for free.
Access the FULL internet? most people haven't a clue what's out there to access, much less know how.
Multitask? if it's not visible RIGHT NOW most people think it isn't running.
Share files? you explain media files, much less sharing them, to my mother-in-law.
Copy discs? better be as simple as "insert disc 1, insert disc 2, hit 'Copy'." Oh, right, it isn't.
Strip ads? most people don't care - or even view them as "public service announcements". ("How else will I know what's going on?")
Normalize volume? "normalize"? by this point you'd better know where this is going.
Bypass waste-of-time interfaces? Here's a way they like: for $XX/month, they can plug in a dedicated box with 6 buttons and access whatever they want - rather than hours of dorking around with confusing tech stuff for "free".
And that's why even Google is faltering at the task: Google TV is the culmination of what you describe, out-of-the-box pre-assembled stuff, and it's still to complicated for most people.
Apple seems the only one to get it right: $99 one-time cost, plug in two obvious cables, easy menu system to access huge (yes, limited, but EASY and there's enough to keep most people happy) array of options, and pay a mere $1 per episode for zero-hassle no-commercial on-demand viewing.
Sure, you and I know it's easy & free to do all this stuff. That's because we're NERDS - which most people aren't, so it's cost-effective for them to pay.
'nuf said.
Is this "news for nerds" or "news for lusers"?
There is a tech solution. Invent it. Build it. Patent/open-source it. Sell it. Get it out there.
But DON'T just sit there whining that ulterior-motive politicians and bureaucrats won't do things your way.
One solution:
Build a cheap, open, legal, spread-spectrum, compact, no-setup, easy network relay box. Set broadcast power within legal no-license limits. Make a gazillion of them, plug 'em in wherever you can. Make a giant ad-hoc network. You know what I'm getting at.
Heck, this should already be in place between the innumerable cellphones & wireless routers out there. Get the ad-hoc network big enough, and the individual load should be minimal and the total disruptions minimal. TCP/IP is intended to circumvent network failures, so long as there is a path. Make a path.
And stop expecting powermongers to give you freedom.
Bandwidth is a limited resource. When there isn't enough of it, what to do?
Those replacing their TV service with streaming video want great data quantity.
Those playing low-latency real-time games want great ping time.
Those using little of either want great prices.
Declaring "all packets must be treated equally" isn't realistic.
When there isn't enough bandwidth, what to do?
A per-packet charge creates an unrealistic >4-order-of-magnitude difference in price between couch-potato streaming video vs. email-checking grandma.
A latency-reduction charge violates "all treated equally".
Indeed, some packets are more equal than others.
What to do?
You can't find everything online, or discern it from all the other unwanted crap that shows up in a search for a popular high-turnover product category.
Try finding a particular Sony camcorder battery online. All too often you'll get flooded with wrong models, crappy knockoffs, and otherwise have difficulty finding what you want. Easier to walk into a big-box store and pay a bit more - you can confirm its not a POS cheat, and can return it pronto if it is.
A smart retailer will recognize what customers want, want now, and will have trouble locating online. Yes, the nature of brick-and-mortar must change ... for the better.
Funny, that's not the belief I see in my head. Thanks for telling me what I'm thinking is not what I'm thinking I'm thinking. Of course, you who knows nothing of me save one post knows more about me than I do.
You've blown right past the content of my post, having already decided what I've said therein even though it's not what I said.
Where? Show it. Don't tell me it was shown. SHOW IT.
And here we are, going around in circles again. My side saying "where's the proof?", your side saying "it was shown", repeated ad infinitum. There is no proof. No proof was shown. What has been shown isn't proof, it's claims proof exists. We'll shut up when it's shown; we're asking because it wasn't.
Can you articulate what the legal difference between the two categories of "citizen" in question are? No, you just spout your "shut up, idiot" line, deriding those who are asking for nothing more than a straight copy of one piece of paper - which you have not seen.
...and it doesn't fit. Send your opinion back, it doesn't suit you. Shows your bias _way_ too much.
ppl on /. think CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc. are news?
Who is the misinformed one here?
The birth certificate - not a reformatted reprinted redacted copy - has not been shown. really.
There are more than one category of citizen, not all of which are eligible to be President. really.
While there is little or no question that he is a citizen of the usa, there remains the question of whether he is in the category of eligible-to-be-President citizens. really.
Thus, it is not a legitimate conclusion to slam 63 percent of Fox viewers who believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear) as "misinformed" - fact is, the proof has not been shown. The "misinformed" ones are, in fact, the ones who do not comprehend the legal difference and interactions between country of birth vs. country of citizenship - you being one.
This "survey" has interesting timing, driven by hardcore leftists (see prior posts listing those behind this "survey") and coming out at the same time other hardcore leftists are pushing a variety of "new, improved, unbiased" approaches to manipulating social politics - when they are, upon easy analysis, highly biased & opinionated and simply declaring themselves unbiased and factual.
Lacking proof of legal and/or scientific form, one has only opinion.
Your stance, and that of the self-righteous group behind the "survey", is opinion.
Just because it is your opinion does not make it fact.
really.
Between Tron, Tron: Legacy, Tron: Ghost in the Machine, Tron: Derezzed, Tron 2.0, etc. ... does anyone have a coherent map of Tron media storyline/chronology? Poking around, it's starting to look like the Ender's Game graph. Thanks.