Right. And it just so happens that many of these 'private enterprises' happen to be owned by current or former high-level government officials. Probably not a great idea in their 'capitalist' economy to be a competitor to a company owned by a general.
Trees are just temporary storage. If I recall, Canada thought they'd hit the jackpot in terms of selling their carbon-credits, until they realized that forest-decay just releases most of the collected carbon back into the atmosphere.
This has the potential to be a much better long-term solution.
I've heard that for a lot of long-time smokers. My mother says that even after 30 years, she has an intense craving for a cigarette when she sips her first morning-coffee.
Lighten up. Looking at everything in life as a math formula or a calculated risk is boring. Some of my fondest memories were of doing things that probably weren't a very good idea.
Once the Lottery gets up this high, casual people start buying tickets, which really makes the jackpot jump. That's usually when I will buy a ticket, too. I realized the stupidity behind the a) chances of winning, and b) the fact that a shot at a mere 300 million isn't worthy of my $2. However, it does make a great escape, imagining yourself as one of the super-rich.
I'd say that $2 investment provides a much greater entertainment value, and discussion with my wife and friends, than does seeing half of the movies out there, to the tune of $10 each.
Also, have you ever tried to explain your logic to someone who won? I'm sure they'd love to hear how incredibly stupid they were. =D
I see, you're going to completely discount the possibility that protesters were paid.
So, it's feasible that the company that has an interest in a multi-billion dollar pipeline hire a para-military organization to demonize protests, but it's not feasible that an even richer company, that currently owns the railroad that presently carries by freight all of the oil over the very same reservation, organize a public-opinion propaganda machine to protect their interest in profits under the auspices of "saving the reservation."
It's a chess-game of billionaires, so picking a side based on your ideals and beating your chest about it just shows tremendous naiveté. So, which group of billionaires are you rooting for, again?
Government official wants money he didn't earn. Says he has good reason why he should be allowed to spend it on his priorities.
More like "government official wants money owed to government because of Volkswagen's deceitful practices." When you're a city with a polluter-toll, and you have a car company lying about their emissions causing consumers to unwittingly increase pollution while not paying said-tolls, I think it's safe to say there are damages. I think the government can spend the money however they see fit. What, would you prefer them to send a bill to the drivers of the vehicles? To me, this is the most legitimate and reasonable money-grab I've seen throughout the VW debacle.
This methodology sort of failed Jobs when he decided against a western-medicine treatment for his pancreatic cancer. Although, it may not have made a difference.
I do recall him saying, near the end, that was his biggest regret.
I too have to wear one and it's ungodly expensive. My argument is the fact I need them to have a normal life and work. So if people can get glasses for fairly low price and it's a item that people need then why can't insurance companies provide coverage too? Reason for that it's very specialized market and expensive.
Don't get one of those cheapie $49.95 hearing aids from the ads as they do not provide the proper specs to the type of hearing loss you have. In fact it'll make your hearing worse. It'll be like listening to iPod all day long.
See if they can offer a payment plan.
Good luck.
I can easily spend at least $500 on a pair of glasses every year or two, and that's without the uber-special designer frames or the candy-lens coatings. They can top $1000 pretty quickly if you go all-out.
I'd say that a lot more people wear glasses than hearing-aids, and the technology isn't exactly new. Still expensive, and most people don't have ocular insurance.
So yeah, you can get a $50 hearing aid that doesn't work very well, and I can get $200 eyeglasses from Walmart that I hate. By comparison, however, I'd say the pricing isn't all that far off.
This willful act could be considered assault by one of the attendees and BillG arrested. Even if not stung. Worse for him, this conceivably could come under US federal terrorism laws.
Some people are allergic to mosquito bites even if the mosquitoes are disease-free. Harm is not necessary in most states to convice for assault (that's battery). Just the threat of harm.
Only female mosquitoes bite after laying eggs. I'd assume Bill might have thought of that. Its likely that none of the mosquitoes will bite anyone.
I thought one of the biggest flops was taking the camera into the locker room. I played football after high school, and it didn't seem much different. Very Drab and boring to watch.
Now what I WOULD like to see is halftime footage in the Cheerleaders locker rooms! Now there's excitement!
What do you think is cheaper: letting people take $30 or $40 per month out of Hughes' pocket by not paying for the service, or replacing a single smart card.
Yes, but you're making a few ASSumptions here...
Every "hacked" card got hit, which isn't true.
That every person will pay for service if they can't steal it... doubt that is 100% across the board.
No valid customers accidentally got hit.
You also assume that stealing the signal is "of cost" to Hughes. If your cable carrier inadvertantly gives you HBO, even though you didn't order it, but you watch it anyway, you're stealing. I agree with that. However, since you'd never pay for HBO anyway, even though you watch it frequently, you aren't "costing" them anything.
What WOULD be costly is if they contacted you, a good subscriber, and said that you've failed to inform them of your free cable channels, and that they expect back payment for the 12 months you've been watching it. It would be costly to you, and likely costly to them because you would leave their service.
I really don't see a net gain for Hughes here. They've potentially lost customers by accidentally frying their cards, meanwhile, people who are "stealing" their service are going to have to wait a week before they can steal the service again.
I believe that a certain amount of theft of this type of service is of NO cost, because those parties would never subscribe in the first place.
With all due respect to the popular vote, the US does NOT have one large election for president...
We have 51 smaller elections that combine TOGETHER to elect the president. Viewing the election in this manner should enlighten you as to how the electoral college has come to be.
The most irritating thing our friend will find out is that his computer is now evidence.
...and that's BULLSHIT! I consider it theft. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I say the MOST they should be able to take should be the hard-disk, and they should make an image FOR you before they leave.
Joshua
So you're saying that the processes involved in burning gasoline -- everything from the harvesting of the petro, transportation, and refinement, right down to the actual inefficient burning of the fuel, is not only going to be cleaner, but also more efficient than the compressing of air? I'm talking total picture, taking into account what it will take to compress the air as well. I feel that's a bold statement.
Several processes can be done to make the compression of air more efficient. Stages of compression can be nearly skipped, for instance, making sure the air is cool before being initially compressed.
Even if not, I'm very comfortable that it is STILL more efficient than the current petro processes involved with internal combustion engines.
That being said, I'm interested in what alternative automobile fuel you feel is more competitive -- in environmental cleanliness, everyday performance, low cost, and overall energy consumption. Most fuels thus introduced don't make the grade, such as Hydrogen (tough to harvest, expensive), natural gas (similar to hydrogen, still a fossil fuel), electric (doh!). Obviously there are additional safety concerns that put air at a plus as well.
Slashdot Mirror
but wherever the a-hole is comfortable, I guess.
Right. And it just so happens that many of these 'private enterprises' happen to be owned by current or former high-level government officials. Probably not a great idea in their 'capitalist' economy to be a competitor to a company owned by a general.
Trees are just temporary storage. If I recall, Canada thought they'd hit the jackpot in terms of selling their carbon-credits, until they realized that forest-decay just releases most of the collected carbon back into the atmosphere.
This has the potential to be a much better long-term solution.
I've heard that for a lot of long-time smokers. My mother says that even after 30 years, she has an intense craving for a cigarette when she sips her first morning-coffee.
... with a format. Basically every year they say it's the year of Linux on the desktop.
Lighten up. Looking at everything in life as a math formula or a calculated risk is boring. Some of my fondest memories were of doing things that probably weren't a very good idea.
Once the Lottery gets up this high, casual people start buying tickets, which really makes the jackpot jump. That's usually when I will buy a ticket, too. I realized the stupidity behind the a) chances of winning, and b) the fact that a shot at a mere 300 million isn't worthy of my $2. However, it does make a great escape, imagining yourself as one of the super-rich.
I'd say that $2 investment provides a much greater entertainment value, and discussion with my wife and friends, than does seeing half of the movies out there, to the tune of $10 each.
Also, have you ever tried to explain your logic to someone who won? I'm sure they'd love to hear how incredibly stupid they were. =D
Jeeves just told me this is BS.
So you have absolutely no idea as to what your highest score was?
I see, you're going to completely discount the possibility that protesters were paid.
So, it's feasible that the company that has an interest in a multi-billion dollar pipeline hire a para-military organization to demonize protests, but it's not feasible that an even richer company, that currently owns the railroad that presently carries by freight all of the oil over the very same reservation, organize a public-opinion propaganda machine to protect their interest in profits under the auspices of "saving the reservation."
It's a chess-game of billionaires, so picking a side based on your ideals and beating your chest about it just shows tremendous naiveté. So, which group of billionaires are you rooting for, again?
Government official wants money he didn't earn. Says he has good reason why he should be allowed to spend it on his priorities.
More like "government official wants money owed to government because of Volkswagen's deceitful practices." When you're a city with a polluter-toll, and you have a car company lying about their emissions causing consumers to unwittingly increase pollution while not paying said-tolls, I think it's safe to say there are damages. I think the government can spend the money however they see fit. What, would you prefer them to send a bill to the drivers of the vehicles? To me, this is the most legitimate and reasonable money-grab I've seen throughout the VW debacle.
Very VIP, and I mean, Very, Very, Very VIP.
This methodology sort of failed Jobs when he decided against a western-medicine treatment for his pancreatic cancer. Although, it may not have made a difference.
I do recall him saying, near the end, that was his biggest regret.
If Windows 10 gave massages, I'd be running it now.
It's a Fire Sale!
I guess Romney's leeches must have stuck to their guns.
Isn't this a re-post from 1999?
I too have to wear one and it's ungodly expensive. My argument is the fact I need them to have a normal life and work. So if people can get glasses for fairly low price and it's a item that people need then why can't insurance companies provide coverage too? Reason for that it's very specialized market and expensive.
Don't get one of those cheapie $49.95 hearing aids from the ads as they do not provide the proper specs to the type of hearing loss you have. In fact it'll make your hearing worse. It'll be like listening to iPod all day long.
See if they can offer a payment plan.
Good luck.
I can easily spend at least $500 on a pair of glasses every year or two, and that's without the uber-special designer frames or the candy-lens coatings. They can top $1000 pretty quickly if you go all-out.
I'd say that a lot more people wear glasses than hearing-aids, and the technology isn't exactly new. Still expensive, and most people don't have ocular insurance.
So yeah, you can get a $50 hearing aid that doesn't work very well, and I can get $200 eyeglasses from Walmart that I hate. By comparison, however, I'd say the pricing isn't all that far off.
This willful act could be considered assault by one of the attendees and BillG arrested. Even if not stung. Worse for him, this conceivably could come under US federal terrorism laws.
Some people are allergic to mosquito bites even if the mosquitoes are disease-free. Harm is not necessary in most states to convice for assault (that's battery). Just the threat of harm.
Only female mosquitoes bite after laying eggs. I'd assume Bill might have thought of that. Its likely that none of the mosquitoes will bite anyone.
Amen!
Uh, linux is free. You tell me if there is a correlation.
I thought one of the biggest flops was taking the camera into the locker room. I played football after high school, and it didn't seem much different. Very Drab and boring to watch.
Now what I WOULD like to see is halftime footage in the Cheerleaders locker rooms! Now there's excitement!
What do you think is cheaper: letting people take $30 or $40 per month out of Hughes' pocket by not paying for the service, or replacing a single smart card.
Yes, but you're making a few ASSumptions here...
Every "hacked" card got hit, which isn't true.
That every person will pay for service if they can't steal it... doubt that is 100% across the board.
No valid customers accidentally got hit.
You also assume that stealing the signal is "of cost" to Hughes. If your cable carrier inadvertantly gives you HBO, even though you didn't order it, but you watch it anyway, you're stealing. I agree with that. However, since you'd never pay for HBO anyway, even though you watch it frequently, you aren't "costing" them anything.
What WOULD be costly is if they contacted you, a good subscriber, and said that you've failed to inform them of your free cable channels, and that they expect back payment for the 12 months you've been watching it. It would be costly to you, and likely costly to them because you would leave their service.
I really don't see a net gain for Hughes here. They've potentially lost customers by accidentally frying their cards, meanwhile, people who are "stealing" their service are going to have to wait a week before they can steal the service again.
I believe that a certain amount of theft of this type of service is of NO cost, because those parties would never subscribe in the first place.
With all due respect to the popular vote, the US does NOT have one large election for president...
We have 51 smaller elections that combine TOGETHER to elect the president. Viewing the election in this manner should enlighten you as to how the electoral college has come to be.
The most irritating thing our friend will find out is that his computer is now evidence.
...and that's BULLSHIT! I consider it theft. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I say the MOST they should be able to take should be the hard-disk, and they should make an image FOR you before they leave. Joshua
So you're saying that the processes involved in burning gasoline -- everything from the harvesting of the petro, transportation, and refinement, right down to the actual inefficient burning of the fuel, is not only going to be cleaner, but also more efficient than the compressing of air? I'm talking total picture, taking into account what it will take to compress the air as well. I feel that's a bold statement.
Several processes can be done to make the compression of air more efficient. Stages of compression can be nearly skipped, for instance, making sure the air is cool before being initially compressed.
Even if not, I'm very comfortable that it is STILL more efficient than the current petro processes involved with internal combustion engines.
That being said, I'm interested in what alternative automobile fuel you feel is more competitive -- in environmental cleanliness, everyday performance, low cost, and overall energy consumption. Most fuels thus introduced don't make the grade, such as Hydrogen (tough to harvest, expensive), natural gas (similar to hydrogen, still a fossil fuel), electric (doh!). Obviously there are additional safety concerns that put air at a plus as well.
What energy do you see as more promising?
Joshua