I've only got the one phone. I'll have it for 2 years. Then I'll buy whatever I feel is best at the time. Research is the only way to make a good choice when there are many similar choices to pick from.
At about $10000 per pound launch cost I estimate that it would cost an average of about $1,000,000 per person minimum just to get into orbit. Never mind how much it would cost to make an extraterrestrial colony be self sufficient. If we were just to shoot the population of the US into space and forget them it would cost 300 trillion dollars.
This combined with the "emergency powers" over the internet that are being given to the Department of Homeland Security mean that most of the media in this country can conceivably be taken over by the government. If they don't like what you have to say they aren't going to allow you to say it.
Had no real beef with him until now. This just proves that there is no longer any real difference between the two major parties. The only reason they appear to oppose each other is so they can generate enough smoke to keep the public in the dark.
Patents are very important. People do not work for free. The more important the discovery the more the discoverer should be paid for it. As has been noted by others here, the inventor spent 15 years of his life and millions of dollars developing this invention. Now you want him to just give all that effort and expense away. You are right. The depths of human greed are astonishing. It is even more astonishing when people don't even recognize the depths of their own greed while denigrating it in others. Who is the one who wants something for nothing here? You!
Government's job is most certainly NOT to regulate everything. Government sucks at everything except what it is supposed to do. Namely, provide for defense, international relations, a just court system and coining money. Come to think of it they suck at those things too.
So tell me, since you seem to be a child rearing expert, what other things decisions should the government make for me and my child. It is not about what is bad for the children but what is bad for society in general. I and not society have the primary responsibility for raising my child. It is none of the state of California's business how I choose to raise my child. You "It Takes a Village Types" can take a hike!
I'm not aware of anyone putting their foot down anywhere except maybe on their gas pedals. Demand for gas is as high as it ever was and supplies are beginning to run out. Short term manipulation of prices is possible, but supply and demand always win out in the end.
The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence. Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators. Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist. The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue. So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic.
First, I'm from Texas and resent the "dumb ass Texan" comment. There are many highly intelligent people in this state. Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years. We have succeeded quite well up to this point. What we need is support, not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak, generalization.
Second, I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government, creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue. Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires.
Is this problem really so important that we need the federal government to solve it? Is it even within their power as outlined in the Constitution to do so? Seems to me any legislation along these lines would be a violation of the First Amendment. For that matter, The growing ubiquity of DVRs is eliminating the issue. No one watches commercials anymore.
It is extremely fallacious to compare me conducting my personal business in the way I see fit to the activities of robber barons and mob bosses. If I cannot make my own economic decisions based on what I feel is best for me, who do you suggest should take on the job? In case you haven't noticed the government is run by people. You say that "everyone is greedy and everyone deals in bad faith." So, how are the people in the government any better? I think their track record is terrible no matter what their political party is. Are these the same morons you want making your decisions for you? I'd much rather decide for myself than have people who don't even know me decide for me. The right to choose for yourself is what a free market economy is all about. Freedom of choice is what you want to give up.
Fraud and theft are already illegal. People who screw other people over in business transactions already go to jail on a regular basis. That or they are sued. Just because someone occasionally gets away with it is no reason to totally re-engineer our economy. Better enforcement, instead of laws to make actions that are already illegal, illegal in more ways may be a better answer.
I also think that freedom doesn't exist unless it exists for everyone. Freedom doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Freedom means that you can do what you want as long as you harm no one but yourself. Freedom comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences of your own actions. Freedom defined in this way means that there is no right that has to be given up to live in society.
Maybe there is such a thing as a healthy free market because greed is an antagonist of itself. Those who don't act in good faith when dealing with me are acting against my best interest. I will not deal with them anymore. Won't they soon be out of business since no one will deal with them? Thus their greed is self destructive.
I don't think that there is any real alternative to a free market for a free society. A free market is necessary for economic freedom. Without economic freedom I don't see how there can be much freedom of any sort. If I cannot freely choose what to buy, how much to pay for it and who I do business with, how am I free?
Over the shoulder attacks aren't much harder without the password being echoed. Just watch the keyboard instead of the screen. Systems could be set up to clear the password if no typing is done before a short timeout has expired. This would greatly reduce typos while probably only reducing security by a small amount. This might be a good topic for a small research project. At the least it should be looked into before being dismissed.
I could see checking security cameras in an area when a serious crime has been committed there, but why watch when nothing important is going on? Are we gonna need to supplement public restrooms with booger picking and butt scratching areas? or will there be cameras there as well? What kind of freak can watch people going about their normal business for hours on end without croaking from boredom?
There are satellite companies that have broadband coverage over the entire country. Maybe if your education level was a little higher you'd know that. That first resort of the moron is name calling and vulgarity.
Where will they live until these problems are solved? Don't churches, volunteer groups and government already spend money sheltering and feeding these people? Don't the homeless often frequently inhabit vacant buildings anyway?
It is still not a good idea to encourage the government to solve your problems for you. If Comcast is putting caps on bandwidth, it may be for a good reason. Forcing them to provide more service than they can provide at a price that is not sustainable may mean that they will withdraw from the business and you'll be back to dial up anyway.
Also, most satellite TV companies offer a broadband option that doesn't require dial up. Can't say how good it is since I haven't tried it, but you might consider it.
I thought there was a big concern in this country for the plight of the homeless. While I'm not usually one to to condone the government giving away my money, it seems to me that they've already stolen that property so they can tear it down. Couldn't we at least put up some of the homeless in these buildings? Looks like the usual ineffectual government meddling we've seen before. The gov. complains for years on end about social problems while using them as a pretense to expand its power and then when a way to solve the problem comes along they ignore it and do something that will only make it worse.
I think the best way to handle this is to take your business elsewhere if you are not satisfied with your ISP's price/performance. They'll get the message if enough people do it. The internal workings of their company are really no one's business but theirs. You have no right to force a company to run their business in a certain way just because you don't like their rate structure.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only got the one phone. I'll have it for 2 years. Then I'll buy whatever I feel is best at the time. Research is the only way to make a good choice when there are many similar choices to pick from.
At about $10000 per pound launch cost I estimate that it would cost an average of about $1,000,000 per person minimum just to get into orbit. Never mind how much it would cost to make an extraterrestrial colony be self sufficient. If we were just to shoot the population of the US into space and forget them it would cost 300 trillion dollars.
This combined with the "emergency powers" over the internet that are being given to the Department of Homeland Security mean that most of the media in this country can conceivably be taken over by the government. If they don't like what you have to say they aren't going to allow you to say it.
Had no real beef with him until now. This just proves that there is no longer any real difference between the two major parties. The only reason they appear to oppose each other is so they can generate enough smoke to keep the public in the dark.
Patents are very important. People do not work for free. The more important the discovery the more the discoverer should be paid for it. As has been noted by others here, the inventor spent 15 years of his life and millions of dollars developing this invention. Now you want him to just give all that effort and expense away. You are right. The depths of human greed are astonishing. It is even more astonishing when people don't even recognize the depths of their own greed while denigrating it in others. Who is the one who wants something for nothing here? You!
Government's job is most certainly NOT to regulate everything. Government sucks at everything except what it is supposed to do. Namely, provide for defense, international relations, a just court system and coining money. Come to think of it they suck at those things too.
Deduct the price of the toy from the happy meal (which they'll do anyway) then make the toy available for the difference.
So tell me, since you seem to be a child rearing expert, what other things decisions should the government make for me and my child. It is not about what is bad for the children but what is bad for society in general. I and not society have the primary responsibility for raising my child. It is none of the state of California's business how I choose to raise my child. You "It Takes a Village Types" can take a hike!
Expecting elected officials to be any better than the people that elect them is probably unwise.
I wonder if the people of California could successfully cross the street without their nanny holding their hand.
As long as it is possible to buy a cell phone without the chip if I so choose.
I'm not aware of anyone putting their foot down anywhere except maybe on their gas pedals. Demand for gas is as high as it ever was and supplies are beginning to run out. Short term manipulation of prices is possible, but supply and demand always win out in the end.
The same things can be said against the people on the other side of the global warming fence. Very few of them are actually climatologists and none that are scientists are legislators. Last I heard Al Gore was a lawyer by training not a scientist. The fact of the matter is that legislation is being used in an attempt to advocate the pro-global warming side of the issue. So those who have a differing opinion can hardly be blamed for using the same tactic.
First, I'm from Texas and resent the "dumb ass Texan" comment. There are many highly intelligent people in this state. Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years. We have succeeded quite well up to this point. What we need is support, not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak, generalization. Second, I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government, creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue. Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires.
Is this problem really so important that we need the federal government to solve it? Is it even within their power as outlined in the Constitution to do so? Seems to me any legislation along these lines would be a violation of the First Amendment. For that matter, The growing ubiquity of DVRs is eliminating the issue. No one watches commercials anymore.
It is extremely fallacious to compare me conducting my personal business in the way I see fit to the activities of robber barons and mob bosses. If I cannot make my own economic decisions based on what I feel is best for me, who do you suggest should take on the job? In case you haven't noticed the government is run by people. You say that "everyone is greedy and everyone deals in bad faith." So, how are the people in the government any better? I think their track record is terrible no matter what their political party is. Are these the same morons you want making your decisions for you? I'd much rather decide for myself than have people who don't even know me decide for me. The right to choose for yourself is what a free market economy is all about. Freedom of choice is what you want to give up. Fraud and theft are already illegal. People who screw other people over in business transactions already go to jail on a regular basis. That or they are sued. Just because someone occasionally gets away with it is no reason to totally re-engineer our economy. Better enforcement, instead of laws to make actions that are already illegal, illegal in more ways may be a better answer. I also think that freedom doesn't exist unless it exists for everyone. Freedom doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Freedom means that you can do what you want as long as you harm no one but yourself. Freedom comes with the responsibility to accept the consequences of your own actions. Freedom defined in this way means that there is no right that has to be given up to live in society.
Maybe there is such a thing as a healthy free market because greed is an antagonist of itself. Those who don't act in good faith when dealing with me are acting against my best interest. I will not deal with them anymore. Won't they soon be out of business since no one will deal with them? Thus their greed is self destructive. I don't think that there is any real alternative to a free market for a free society. A free market is necessary for economic freedom. Without economic freedom I don't see how there can be much freedom of any sort. If I cannot freely choose what to buy, how much to pay for it and who I do business with, how am I free?
Over the shoulder attacks aren't much harder without the password being echoed. Just watch the keyboard instead of the screen. Systems could be set up to clear the password if no typing is done before a short timeout has expired. This would greatly reduce typos while probably only reducing security by a small amount. This might be a good topic for a small research project. At the least it should be looked into before being dismissed.
I could see checking security cameras in an area when a serious crime has been committed there, but why watch when nothing important is going on? Are we gonna need to supplement public restrooms with booger picking and butt scratching areas? or will there be cameras there as well? What kind of freak can watch people going about their normal business for hours on end without croaking from boredom?
There are satellite companies that have broadband coverage over the entire country. Maybe if your education level was a little higher you'd know that. That first resort of the moron is name calling and vulgarity.
Where will they live until these problems are solved? Don't churches, volunteer groups and government already spend money sheltering and feeding these people? Don't the homeless often frequently inhabit vacant buildings anyway?
It is still not a good idea to encourage the government to solve your problems for you. If Comcast is putting caps on bandwidth, it may be for a good reason. Forcing them to provide more service than they can provide at a price that is not sustainable may mean that they will withdraw from the business and you'll be back to dial up anyway. Also, most satellite TV companies offer a broadband option that doesn't require dial up. Can't say how good it is since I haven't tried it, but you might consider it.
I thought there was a big concern in this country for the plight of the homeless. While I'm not usually one to to condone the government giving away my money, it seems to me that they've already stolen that property so they can tear it down. Couldn't we at least put up some of the homeless in these buildings? Looks like the usual ineffectual government meddling we've seen before. The gov. complains for years on end about social problems while using them as a pretense to expand its power and then when a way to solve the problem comes along they ignore it and do something that will only make it worse.
I think the best way to handle this is to take your business elsewhere if you are not satisfied with your ISP's price/performance. They'll get the message if enough people do it. The internal workings of their company are really no one's business but theirs. You have no right to force a company to run their business in a certain way just because you don't like their rate structure.
There are absolutely no desktop issues to deal with and the servers and applications seldom crash/lock up. You make more money too.