I don't think calling someone "USAian" (or non-) is "bigoted". But I don't call people EUian, because that's wrong (and ugly). What people call themselves is not necessarily unique. There's more than one "Michael" in a crowd, and there can be more than one "American". Especially if one is the name for oneself in one's continent, and the other in one's country. People from Buffalo are "New Yorkers", even though they're not from Brooklyn.
In NYC my Sprint 4G smartphone doesn't get 4G hardly anywhere, and outside NYC I have yet to see it get 4G. Much of the time the phone doesn't even get 3G.
Sprint's plans are just about the cheapest, especially for 4G. But you don't get what you don't pay for.
I fully expect LTE to be even worse. Not technologically, but because Sprint has always sucked and reamed its customers, and gradually lowers expectations even more.
Sprint 4G to smartphones has always been limited by the really crappy 4G coverage. Even in NYC I hardly ever get a 4G signal. It seems like even a 7 storey apartment building is enough to block 4G.
Any way you look at it, "unlimited" 4G has been a scam from Sprint.
And why does Sprint get to unilaterally delete features from its contract? What's the point of a contract then, except to force the consumer to pay and take Sprint's abuse?
Why does a fee charged by the government, representing the public that owns the park, change the status from public access to private access?
The issue is clearly the filming. The park police aren't charging these people with assault or any other act except filming without a permit. By definition the issue is the filming.
But you gun fetishists are always waving around your guns - in words. When your actual rights were stolen for the last decade and more, you just waved your gun words around defending the thieves. You're never going to defend your rights with guns. By the time you did, the highly armed police state you rooted for will just take them away from you. Probably prying them from your cold, dead hands.
If these people actually tried to convince some unwitting park goers that they were a bigfoot attacking them, that would be assault, not fraud. There are plenty of laws protecting people from assault, in a park or not.
If you go down the street with a sock over your head and a baseball bat in your hand, but you don't threaten anyone, you are not liable to be arrested for disorderly conduct. Except maybe in some crazy police state town, which the US has plenty of. Which doesn't make the charge legit. Plenty of people are arrested for disorderly conduct for no reason except the cops or some local idiot dislikes their race, or their age, or their perceived political affiliation. It's a BS charge, and defending it is BS.
Speech is free beyond merely communication of a message. You're free to persuade people with speech so long as you don't lie or intimidate harm. The limits actually stand beyond even persuasion, into argument and more.
In fact, you're making statements of legal certainty that are obviously wrong. You should stop doing exactly what you exaggerate in this discussion: telling a lie or deception that harms people, by convincing them they're less free than they are.
No, you don't have a right to disturb other people's enjoyment of the park. But dressing up in a bigfoot costume while your friends shoot pictures of you acting out scenes with another friend doesn't disturb other people's enjoyment. Any more than a similar number of people building a fire and playing ukeleles might disturb those bigfoot actors' enjoyment.
These people each have the same right to enjoying the park. It's big enough for them all to share. That one group is recording it, for home movies, nonprofit Internet publication, or major theatrical release and hundreds of $millions in profit is totally irrelevant. It's up to you what you make of your day in the park, so long as you don't take someone else's day.
Why can't the park just monitor any activity of any size that might damage the park, and prohibit that? What's recording the park got to do with anything that needs stopping?
Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it (any more than those people's use interferes with anyone else's), what is the good reason to interfere with an American doing whatever they want in their park? Nobody's saying that anyone has the right to trash a public park, regardless of whether they're recording something or not.
There is a valid basis for the public perhaps charging a royalty fee from revenue gained from any recording made in the park. Maybe 1% of gross receipts * the percentage of the release's duration (or area for non-time recordings like pictures) containing recordings of the park, with a cap at the annual budget of the park the year it was recorded.
HTML4 won't have nearly the hold on mobiles, and HTML5 features are more suited to their more varied runtime constraints. Some of those features make sharing among client sessions better, and yes video. That's important for my app.
Your strategy is what I have in mind. When I find a consultancy with a good existing gallery, I'll go with the tools/frameworks they're good at.
Well, my other option is to hire someone who can reverse engineer my Flash/Flex app into its network APIs and user features, using whichever tools they prefer. Targeting probably HTML5 because I want a port to something at the start of its lifecycle, not late middle or end like HTML4. Do you know where I can look for someone like that? Preferably in NYC.
The points made in those comics you linked to are either lies (like about Warren and Obama's jobs policies) or just more false equivalencies.
On big wars, every Republican voted for invading Iraq, and only a few Democrats did. A Republican president actually invaded Iraq; a Democratic president declined for their 8 years and the next Democratic president both voted against it and is fulfilling their campaign promise to get us out. The last Democratic president to start a big war was JFK/LBJ, and the next Republican made it worse until Americans forced him out and ended it.
On bailouts, Republicans were nearly unanimous in the majorities that deregulated the crash that required the bailout, while only a few Democrats participated. A Republican president and their Republican Treasury Secretary created the bailout, which was the only option left by that late date for a Democratic Congress to vote for, but the Democratic president and Democratic Congress quickly changed the bailout terms, cutting the costs and adding some limits. Democrats produced the only meaningful financial re-regulation, though it was severely diluted by the minority Republicans abusing their power to block government action.
Maybe it's more accurate to say "Conservatives" instead of "Republicans", because most of the Democrats who are comparable to Republicans are just Conservatives - and all the Republicans are Conservatives. But that's just the reason that Republicans are without exception bad, while Democrats just have enough intolerably bad people to muddy the waters.
Democrats do follow through on some, actually most, of their promises. Even if not enough, and they don't even promise enough. But Republicans always lie to get power, never honor their promises - except the ones to destroy what's good and necessary. Democratic blame of Republicans for failing to complete their promises isn't just an excuse. Republicans go to extreme lengths to stop Democrats, even enthusiastically damaging the whole country in attempts to make Democrats look bad, so Republicans can get power back long enough to do more damage.
You have to be able to appreciate that even if one is bad and the other is totally, catastrophically bad, and neither is good, that doesn't make them equivalent. If you can't tell the difference between bad and devastating, then you're either not looking or you aren't really suited to accurate interpretations.
OK, sorry for being sour. You did say "please", and thank you for remaining polite.
I I thought you meant by "WUWT contrarians" maybe "people on WUWT who are contrary to WUWT". After all, it's deniers who are contrarian, even if they're well funded and too common a fringe group.
False equivalence. Of course there's some corruption among Democrats. But compared to Republicans... there's no comparison. This is easily recognized, but you have to be able to make the distinction. "Easy" != "zero effort". But the difference matters, as Republicans cover their tracks with "but the Democrats are the same". They're not the same.
Democratic corruption is sustainable, though we shouldn't accept it and should prevent and punish wherever we can. But Republican corruption destroys the country, and the world with it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do I get a direct Clearwire 4G service contract for my datacard?
Where can I take my Sprint WiMAX 4G phone? Or my Sprint WiMAX 4G datacard?
What are the politics here? Park rangers are petty tyrants in their little empire?
I don't think calling someone "USAian" (or non-) is "bigoted". But I don't call people EUian, because that's wrong (and ugly). What people call themselves is not necessarily unique. There's more than one "Michael" in a crowd, and there can be more than one "American". Especially if one is the name for oneself in one's continent, and the other in one's country. People from Buffalo are "New Yorkers", even though they're not from Brooklyn.
In NYC my Sprint 4G smartphone doesn't get 4G hardly anywhere, and outside NYC I have yet to see it get 4G. Much of the time the phone doesn't even get 3G.
Sprint's plans are just about the cheapest, especially for 4G. But you don't get what you don't pay for.
I fully expect LTE to be even worse. Not technologically, but because Sprint has always sucked and reamed its customers, and gradually lowers expectations even more.
Then that would be "non-American", not "non-USAian".
You just went full retard. Never go full retard.
Sprint 4G to smartphones has always been limited by the really crappy 4G coverage. Even in NYC I hardly ever get a 4G signal. It seems like even a 7 storey apartment building is enough to block 4G.
Any way you look at it, "unlimited" 4G has been a scam from Sprint.
And why does Sprint get to unilaterally delete features from its contract? What's the point of a contract then, except to force the consumer to pay and take Sprint's abuse?
Why does a fee charged by the government, representing the public that owns the park, change the status from public access to private access?
The issue is clearly the filming. The park police aren't charging these people with assault or any other act except filming without a permit. By definition the issue is the filming.
Or voting. Or suing.
But you gun fetishists are always waving around your guns - in words. When your actual rights were stolen for the last decade and more, you just waved your gun words around defending the thieves. You're never going to defend your rights with guns. By the time you did, the highly armed police state you rooted for will just take them away from you. Probably prying them from your cold, dead hands.
If these people actually tried to convince some unwitting park goers that they were a bigfoot attacking them, that would be assault, not fraud. There are plenty of laws protecting people from assault, in a park or not.
If you go down the street with a sock over your head and a baseball bat in your hand, but you don't threaten anyone, you are not liable to be arrested for disorderly conduct. Except maybe in some crazy police state town, which the US has plenty of. Which doesn't make the charge legit. Plenty of people are arrested for disorderly conduct for no reason except the cops or some local idiot dislikes their race, or their age, or their perceived political affiliation. It's a BS charge, and defending it is BS.
Speech is free beyond merely communication of a message. You're free to persuade people with speech so long as you don't lie or intimidate harm. The limits actually stand beyond even persuasion, into argument and more.
In fact, you're making statements of legal certainty that are obviously wrong. You should stop doing exactly what you exaggerate in this discussion: telling a lie or deception that harms people, by convincing them they're less free than they are.
No, you don't have a right to disturb other people's enjoyment of the park. But dressing up in a bigfoot costume while your friends shoot pictures of you acting out scenes with another friend doesn't disturb other people's enjoyment. Any more than a similar number of people building a fire and playing ukeleles might disturb those bigfoot actors' enjoyment.
These people each have the same right to enjoying the park. It's big enough for them all to share. That one group is recording it, for home movies, nonprofit Internet publication, or major theatrical release and hundreds of $millions in profit is totally irrelevant. It's up to you what you make of your day in the park, so long as you don't take someone else's day.
Why can't the park just monitor any activity of any size that might damage the park, and prohibit that? What's recording the park got to do with anything that needs stopping?
Why can't a Hollywood movie be shot in a national park without permits? As long as the shoot isn't damaging the park, or interfering with other people's use of it (any more than those people's use interferes with anyone else's), what is the good reason to interfere with an American doing whatever they want in their park? Nobody's saying that anyone has the right to trash a public park, regardless of whether they're recording something or not.
There is a valid basis for the public perhaps charging a royalty fee from revenue gained from any recording made in the park. Maybe 1% of gross receipts * the percentage of the release's duration (or area for non-time recordings like pictures) containing recordings of the park, with a cap at the annual budget of the park the year it was recorded.
Me "too".
HTML4 won't have nearly the hold on mobiles, and HTML5 features are more suited to their more varied runtime constraints. Some of those features make sharing among client sessions better, and yes video. That's important for my app.
Your strategy is what I have in mind. When I find a consultancy with a good existing gallery, I'll go with the tools/frameworks they're good at.
Nice talking with you.
You should get out more.
Well, my other option is to hire someone who can reverse engineer my Flash/Flex app into its network APIs and user features, using whichever tools they prefer. Targeting probably HTML5 because I want a port to something at the start of its lifecycle, not late middle or end like HTML4. Do you know where I can look for someone like that? Preferably in NYC.
The points made in those comics you linked to are either lies (like about Warren and Obama's jobs policies) or just more false equivalencies.
On big wars, every Republican voted for invading Iraq, and only a few Democrats did. A Republican president actually invaded Iraq; a Democratic president declined for their 8 years and the next Democratic president both voted against it and is fulfilling their campaign promise to get us out. The last Democratic president to start a big war was JFK/LBJ, and the next Republican made it worse until Americans forced him out and ended it.
On bailouts, Republicans were nearly unanimous in the majorities that deregulated the crash that required the bailout, while only a few Democrats participated. A Republican president and their Republican Treasury Secretary created the bailout, which was the only option left by that late date for a Democratic Congress to vote for, but the Democratic president and Democratic Congress quickly changed the bailout terms, cutting the costs and adding some limits. Democrats produced the only meaningful financial re-regulation, though it was severely diluted by the minority Republicans abusing their power to block government action.
Maybe it's more accurate to say "Conservatives" instead of "Republicans", because most of the Democrats who are comparable to Republicans are just Conservatives - and all the Republicans are Conservatives. But that's just the reason that Republicans are without exception bad, while Democrats just have enough intolerably bad people to muddy the waters.
Democrats do follow through on some, actually most, of their promises. Even if not enough, and they don't even promise enough. But Republicans always lie to get power, never honor their promises - except the ones to destroy what's good and necessary. Democratic blame of Republicans for failing to complete their promises isn't just an excuse. Republicans go to extreme lengths to stop Democrats, even enthusiastically damaging the whole country in attempts to make Democrats look bad, so Republicans can get power back long enough to do more damage.
You have to be able to appreciate that even if one is bad and the other is totally, catastrophically bad, and neither is good, that doesn't make them equivalent. If you can't tell the difference between bad and devastating, then you're either not looking or you aren't really suited to accurate interpretations.
OK, sorry for being sour. You did say "please", and thank you for remaining polite.
I I thought you meant by "WUWT contrarians" maybe "people on WUWT who are contrary to WUWT". After all, it's deniers who are contrarian, even if they're well funded and too common a fringe group.
Blah blah blah. If you don't know about Safecast, you're not qualified to answer this question.
I have no problem being a dick to people who should just shut up when they never do.
False equivalence. Of course there's some corruption among Democrats. But compared to Republicans... there's no comparison. This is easily recognized, but you have to be able to make the distinction. "Easy" != "zero effort". But the difference matters, as Republicans cover their tracks with "but the Democrats are the same". They're not the same.
Democratic corruption is sustainable, though we shouldn't accept it and should prevent and punish wherever we can. But Republican corruption destroys the country, and the world with it.
Maybe you should turn down your filter.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
"The Second Coming" by WB Yeats
Present company excepted, of course ;).
The point of the programme was to ensure Fisker creates American jobs. which it did, despite the lies to the contrary in this story.
You don't care about the truth. You just hate America.
GM's profit has risen strongly and steadily ever since Obama bailed them out with the public's money.
You're a stupid liar.