I have friends and family in the service. They are not brainwashed puppets. A military cannot function if everyone in every level of the chain of command decides to challenge orders or turn against themselves. Killing a leader is not an option. The real solution is for the public to elect the right people into office so that our government does not direct our military into situations they should not be involved in. What we do not need is a military coup to run counter to the laws of our nation.
North Korea is much like a cult. The flow of information is strictly controlled and its people are cut off from the outside world. That's not a situation that has an equivalent in developed nations. The fact that you can even post a comment like that shows the stark difference between us and them.
I honor the people that serve because our country only exists so long as there are people like them willing to die to protect it.
War isn't great. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve the freedoms we all share, those people are great. They are perhaps the greatest among us.
I think you're doing the same thing the President is doing and way over-simplifying the problem. Why is college so expensive? Redistributing wealth isn't the answer here. If something costs more than it should, you don't throw more money at it. You examine where the money is going and how you can run things more efficiently. As a tax-payer, I want some proof that this has been looked at before Uncle Sam starts helping himself to more of my paycheck. You may have extra money in your budget that you don't need, but that's not going to be true of every supposed "well-off" household. I'm only just getting to the point of paying off my student loans, and I'm not a youngster. And BTW, I was able to buy a house while I still had a significant amount of student loans. I couldn't afford a McMansion, but we have a decent home.
Yes, enforcing immigration laws may cause some disruption to industry, but I think that's the correct course of action. A lot of food in the grocery stores doesn't even come from the US, so I'm not sure how worried we should be. If the farm workers get better wages than we're less in need of wealth redistribution, right? I don't agree that the fact that someone hasn't been caught for some number of years means they should be eligible to stay. That's spitting in the eye of people who have been stuck on wait lists forever. The people on wait lists should be first.
"Government job is to insure the success of this country through whatever effective means necessary."
Great. Let's invade Canada and steal everything they have that might be valuable. That's basically what you and the President are proposing, except that you want to pillage the middle and upper middle classes. The individual states have their own ways of getting people to college. This is not a matter for the feds. If the feds want to analyze the state systems and find out ways in which some are more efficient and successful and provide that information to the other states, I'm fine with that. But I don't want unfunded mandates from DC that force compliance. Common core is contentious enough.
You're still using "free education" in your last line. There is no such thing. Understanding that should be a prerequisite of any further discussion. This is also not something that should be done as an executive action. The President is not the sole embodiment of the voice of all the people. There is no consent of the governed when decisions are made this way. A college education wouldn't matter because in the future we'd all be employed by the government.
There is no such thing as free. Now people will be stuck paying their student loans AND have to pay for the self entitled dipshits that get a "free" ride courtesy of Obama. It's just like immigration. The ones doing it illegally get amnesty while the ones trying to do it legally and have been waiting a long time to get in get screwed over. Government is not there to pay your bills for you or to make large swathes of the population immune from laws.
I think part of that is the rural areas have virtually nothing, so as they are just getting broadband they are getting a newer infrastructure as a starting point.
Exactly right. I live in an older part of town near enough to the central office that I should be able to get much higher speeds that I actually get over DSL. The problem is archaic wiring and infrastructure in my area. The phone company has no incentive to upgrade it because we have no other option than Comcast, and nobody wants that.
The only issues I've hit is that you can't get at Adblock Plus's settings, which is kind of weird. There's a fork you can install that fixes it. The only other glitch I've seen is that the search bar on Google's Play store disappears. That can be worked around by modifying the user-agent string. Other than that, it works fine. No issues with Youtube, even with plugins to download videos from it.
This is with the x64 build. I've been using it ever since the CEO firing thing happened.
Anyone can say they feel threatened or harassed by anything. It's the same reason why the FCC never defined what obscene content would be, it's not possible.
Personally, I'm in favor of community fiber. You can drum up support for that locally and actually stand a chance of accomplishing something. Whatever the feds do will be stuffed with pork and by the time it's signed into law, it will be contrary to the original stated purpose of the legislation. Hoping that the Dems or the GOP will actually do something for us is an exercise in futility. We have to try and get it done ourselves, or it isn't happening.
We're all liars. How many EULAs have you "agreed" to without even reading them?
0. No, personal insurance does not account for distance traveled or driving style. Maybe some do, but not any I've ever witnessed. I have given guesstimates of commuting miles, but I've never been asked to supply miles driven per year, and they have absolutely no way to monitor driving style other than through accidents or citations. Yea, there are those OBDII recorders, but those will never be installed in a vehicle I own.
1. Who says my comrades and I go to familiar places? For a good while, my friends and I would pick a mountain at random off a map and go climb it. Lots of miles to strange new locations. I find driving stressful regardless of who is in the vehicle. You would too if you live in or near Massachusetts.
2. Yes, but there's nothing stopping someone from driving 24x7 with friends under non-commercial insurance. It's unlikely, but it wouldn't be unlawful or in violation of a non-commercial policy. That's where this starts smelling bad to me. They want a cut simply because there's a cut to be had. I'm not pro-Uber, but I do think it's interesting to think about the things we never really stop to think about. Uber is provocative in that way.
Yea, yea, yea.. put the law aside. I'm not suggesting the law allows taxi service with non-commercial insurance. I don't argue your first point.
Second point, now you're on it. Your driving does not change. If I run red lights with non-paying passengers, I run red lights with paying passengers. If I speed habitually, I speed regardless of who is in the car with me. My friends are drunks, my paying passengers are drunk. No difference in risk. My friends are back stabbing capitalists, so are my paying passengers. No difference in risk. I'm always in a hurry, passengers or not. No difference in risk. Driving in more risky areas? I live in the high crime part of town already. No difference in risk.
I understand the legality, I don't accept the logic. How is the risk of operating the motor vehicle different if your passengers are paying versus if they are not? It's still x number of people in the same exact vehicle with the same driver and same roads. You're pretty much highlighting my point. If the driver is getting a cut, then the insurer wants a cut too. Yet if you do the same amount of driving with the same number of passengers (same exact risk) and they're not paying, you're fine under your normal policy. See the contradiction?
People do the same thing with mortgages and probably home owner's insurance as well. They live in their first home for some years, then move on to a nicer home. The original, still being paid for, becomes a rental even though neither the mortgage nor the insurance allow for it.
I'm split on this one. What's the difference between using a car for Uber versus a really social person frequently carting around friends and family? The typical non-Uber driver probably won't drive their car nearly as much, but it's not impossible. There's no mileage cap on personal vehicle insurance. If I drive cross-country and accumulate a ton of miles, my standard insurance still applies. So which party is the one taking advantage? The Uber driver or the insurance company?
Kindle ebooks account for 19.5% of all ebook sales, ebooks make up 30% of book sales. I'm not sure about the paper book stats, but that's not really what we're talking about here anyway.
Twenty percent is no monopoly. Not even close. As of a year ago, iTunes accounted for 63% of digital music sales. Are they also a monopoly that must be regulated? They're more than three times the offender that Amazon is with ebooks.
Amazon wasn't even the first on scene. Sony had e-ink readers and an online store for quite some time. There's also nothing stopping vendors from selling to Kindle users. They wouldn't be able to use DRM, but we're all against DRM here anyway, right? Supply your special Amazon email address that links to your reader, and off you go. Easy cheesy. There are a number of publishers already selling DRM free content, even on Amazon itself. This is what Amazon tried with Apple. They had all DRM free digital music and made it simple to drop their tracks into your iTunes catalog. The door is open for others to do that to Amazon with ebooks.
I don't see your distortion in unrelated fields. All I see is some claims that can't be substantiated from the evidence. You're arguing pre-crime. You want to harm a company for a position they might be in in the future. That's awful. That's not the type of country we live in.
I hear you. I was a long time customer of B&N, but the Kindle is killer. It may lead to lock in, but for now, there are plenty of competitors. iTunes hasn't monopolized music, and I think that's more likely than Amazon cornering the book trade.
I do bristle at the thought of people calling for regulation or audits simply because a company has a successful product or service. It's absurd.
Your premise is that Amazon is the only seller of books? B&N is still around, last I checked. Heck, public libraries still exist, and you don't even have to pay to access the books there. This anti-capitalist meme is getting really tiresome. People shop Amazon because it's convenient and generally affordable. Want to compete? Provide something better.
No, there isn't a need for regulation. We have more than enough laws already. If they're somehow a monopoly, as you suggest, there are laws already on the books to address that. But what's worse, your comment implies that Amazon is up to no good simply because they're a market leader. I buy ebooks there because they have the best selection. I'll bet that's why most of their customers are there. It sounds like you want nothing more than to punish success. Do you work for the IRS? You don't audit to fish for probable cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Hope and change lives!
Reread the coward's message, he was talking about friendly fire, not killing the enemy's leader.
I have friends and family in the service. They are not brainwashed puppets. A military cannot function if everyone in every level of the chain of command decides to challenge orders or turn against themselves. Killing a leader is not an option. The real solution is for the public to elect the right people into office so that our government does not direct our military into situations they should not be involved in. What we do not need is a military coup to run counter to the laws of our nation.
North Korea is much like a cult. The flow of information is strictly controlled and its people are cut off from the outside world. That's not a situation that has an equivalent in developed nations. The fact that you can even post a comment like that shows the stark difference between us and them.
I honor the people that serve because our country only exists so long as there are people like them willing to die to protect it.
War isn't great. Those who are willing to sacrifice themselves to preserve the freedoms we all share, those people are great. They are perhaps the greatest among us.
Pizza delivery people drive more than personal drivers. Do they need a commercial license?
Unsafe vehicles and rapists are ok so long as they aren't driving people around for money?
I think you're doing the same thing the President is doing and way over-simplifying the problem. Why is college so expensive? Redistributing wealth isn't the answer here. If something costs more than it should, you don't throw more money at it. You examine where the money is going and how you can run things more efficiently. As a tax-payer, I want some proof that this has been looked at before Uncle Sam starts helping himself to more of my paycheck. You may have extra money in your budget that you don't need, but that's not going to be true of every supposed "well-off" household. I'm only just getting to the point of paying off my student loans, and I'm not a youngster. And BTW, I was able to buy a house while I still had a significant amount of student loans. I couldn't afford a McMansion, but we have a decent home.
Yes, enforcing immigration laws may cause some disruption to industry, but I think that's the correct course of action. A lot of food in the grocery stores doesn't even come from the US, so I'm not sure how worried we should be. If the farm workers get better wages than we're less in need of wealth redistribution, right? I don't agree that the fact that someone hasn't been caught for some number of years means they should be eligible to stay. That's spitting in the eye of people who have been stuck on wait lists forever. The people on wait lists should be first.
"Government job is to insure the success of this country through whatever effective means necessary."
Great. Let's invade Canada and steal everything they have that might be valuable. That's basically what you and the President are proposing, except that you want to pillage the middle and upper middle classes. The individual states have their own ways of getting people to college. This is not a matter for the feds. If the feds want to analyze the state systems and find out ways in which some are more efficient and successful and provide that information to the other states, I'm fine with that. But I don't want unfunded mandates from DC that force compliance. Common core is contentious enough.
You're still using "free education" in your last line. There is no such thing. Understanding that should be a prerequisite of any further discussion. This is also not something that should be done as an executive action. The President is not the sole embodiment of the voice of all the people. There is no consent of the governed when decisions are made this way. A college education wouldn't matter because in the future we'd all be employed by the government.
There is no such thing as free. Now people will be stuck paying their student loans AND have to pay for the self entitled dipshits that get a "free" ride courtesy of Obama. It's just like immigration. The ones doing it illegally get amnesty while the ones trying to do it legally and have been waiting a long time to get in get screwed over. Government is not there to pay your bills for you or to make large swathes of the population immune from laws.
I think part of that is the rural areas have virtually nothing, so as they are just getting broadband they are getting a newer infrastructure as a starting point.
Exactly right. I live in an older part of town near enough to the central office that I should be able to get much higher speeds that I actually get over DSL. The problem is archaic wiring and infrastructure in my area. The phone company has no incentive to upgrade it because we have no other option than Comcast, and nobody wants that.
Careful what you wish for, next they'll take the "about:config" away.
The only issues I've hit is that you can't get at Adblock Plus's settings, which is kind of weird. There's a fork you can install that fixes it. The only other glitch I've seen is that the search bar on Google's Play store disappears. That can be worked around by modifying the user-agent string. Other than that, it works fine. No issues with Youtube, even with plugins to download videos from it.
This is with the x64 build. I've been using it ever since the CEO firing thing happened.
Fewer cables. It's also nice if you want to make room for a book or pile of papers or something temporarily, there's no cord to argue with.
Anyone can say they feel threatened or harassed by anything. It's the same reason why the FCC never defined what obscene content would be, it's not possible.
Personally, I'm in favor of community fiber. You can drum up support for that locally and actually stand a chance of accomplishing something. Whatever the feds do will be stuffed with pork and by the time it's signed into law, it will be contrary to the original stated purpose of the legislation. Hoping that the Dems or the GOP will actually do something for us is an exercise in futility. We have to try and get it done ourselves, or it isn't happening.
This bill does nothing to address that problem.
If insurance could prove you drive more miles than average without being a commercial driver, would you be okay with them dumping you?
We're all liars. How many EULAs have you "agreed" to without even reading them?
0. No, personal insurance does not account for distance traveled or driving style. Maybe some do, but not any I've ever witnessed. I have given guesstimates of commuting miles, but I've never been asked to supply miles driven per year, and they have absolutely no way to monitor driving style other than through accidents or citations. Yea, there are those OBDII recorders, but those will never be installed in a vehicle I own.
1. Who says my comrades and I go to familiar places? For a good while, my friends and I would pick a mountain at random off a map and go climb it. Lots of miles to strange new locations. I find driving stressful regardless of who is in the vehicle. You would too if you live in or near Massachusetts.
2. Yes, but there's nothing stopping someone from driving 24x7 with friends under non-commercial insurance. It's unlikely, but it wouldn't be unlawful or in violation of a non-commercial policy. That's where this starts smelling bad to me. They want a cut simply because there's a cut to be had. I'm not pro-Uber, but I do think it's interesting to think about the things we never really stop to think about. Uber is provocative in that way.
Yea, yea, yea.. put the law aside. I'm not suggesting the law allows taxi service with non-commercial insurance. I don't argue your first point.
Second point, now you're on it. Your driving does not change. If I run red lights with non-paying passengers, I run red lights with paying passengers. If I speed habitually, I speed regardless of who is in the car with me. My friends are drunks, my paying passengers are drunk. No difference in risk. My friends are back stabbing capitalists, so are my paying passengers. No difference in risk. I'm always in a hurry, passengers or not. No difference in risk. Driving in more risky areas? I live in the high crime part of town already. No difference in risk.
So.. where is the increase in liability?
I understand the legality, I don't accept the logic. How is the risk of operating the motor vehicle different if your passengers are paying versus if they are not? It's still x number of people in the same exact vehicle with the same driver and same roads. You're pretty much highlighting my point. If the driver is getting a cut, then the insurer wants a cut too. Yet if you do the same amount of driving with the same number of passengers (same exact risk) and they're not paying, you're fine under your normal policy. See the contradiction?
People do the same thing with mortgages and probably home owner's insurance as well. They live in their first home for some years, then move on to a nicer home. The original, still being paid for, becomes a rental even though neither the mortgage nor the insurance allow for it.
I'm split on this one. What's the difference between using a car for Uber versus a really social person frequently carting around friends and family? The typical non-Uber driver probably won't drive their car nearly as much, but it's not impossible. There's no mileage cap on personal vehicle insurance. If I drive cross-country and accumulate a ton of miles, my standard insurance still applies. So which party is the one taking advantage? The Uber driver or the insurance company?
Kindle ebooks account for 19.5% of all ebook sales, ebooks make up 30% of book sales. I'm not sure about the paper book stats, but that's not really what we're talking about here anyway.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/je...
Twenty percent is no monopoly. Not even close. As of a year ago, iTunes accounted for 63% of digital music sales. Are they also a monopoly that must be regulated? They're more than three times the offender that Amazon is with ebooks.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4...
Amazon wasn't even the first on scene. Sony had e-ink readers and an online store for quite some time. There's also nothing stopping vendors from selling to Kindle users. They wouldn't be able to use DRM, but we're all against DRM here anyway, right? Supply your special Amazon email address that links to your reader, and off you go. Easy cheesy. There are a number of publishers already selling DRM free content, even on Amazon itself. This is what Amazon tried with Apple. They had all DRM free digital music and made it simple to drop their tracks into your iTunes catalog. The door is open for others to do that to Amazon with ebooks.
I don't see your distortion in unrelated fields. All I see is some claims that can't be substantiated from the evidence. You're arguing pre-crime. You want to harm a company for a position they might be in in the future. That's awful. That's not the type of country we live in.
Serious question then: What do you suppose draws people to their online bookstore?
I hear you. I was a long time customer of B&N, but the Kindle is killer. It may lead to lock in, but for now, there are plenty of competitors. iTunes hasn't monopolized music, and I think that's more likely than Amazon cornering the book trade.
I do bristle at the thought of people calling for regulation or audits simply because a company has a successful product or service. It's absurd.
Your premise is that Amazon is the only seller of books? B&N is still around, last I checked. Heck, public libraries still exist, and you don't even have to pay to access the books there. This anti-capitalist meme is getting really tiresome. People shop Amazon because it's convenient and generally affordable. Want to compete? Provide something better.
No, there isn't a need for regulation. We have more than enough laws already. If they're somehow a monopoly, as you suggest, there are laws already on the books to address that. But what's worse, your comment implies that Amazon is up to no good simply because they're a market leader. I buy ebooks there because they have the best selection. I'll bet that's why most of their customers are there. It sounds like you want nothing more than to punish success. Do you work for the IRS? You don't audit to fish for probable cause.