Not to me. Even if I got to pick the channels, it's just not worth that much to me.
That's fine too. There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine. One of the guys I work with is a huge football fan so he's willing to pay quite a lot to get all the football related programming. Nothing wrong with that. Me? I could not care less about football so I it is worth nothing to me. What I have a problem with is the fact that the programming is bundled. So if I want the Food Network and SyFy but don't want ESPN, I shouldn't have to pay for ESPN. Even better would be the ability to pay for particular shows I'm a fan of rather than a channel since most of what is on any channel is typically uninteresting drivel. (your drivel may be different from mine of course) Of course if I'm paying to watch the show I have less than zero interest in watching advertisements so there's that...
The scientific method is entirely unnecessary to decide whether to step off of a tall building. People knew not do do that before the scientific method was codified.
You don't have to codify the method of study to use it. People who discovered the effects of falling off tall buildings WERE using the scientific method whether or not they were aware of that fact at the time.
You are what I'd call a legacy customer, who hasn't cut the TV cord yet.
Not actually true. I did cut the cord for about 3 years but there are a few things on cable I find worthwhile enough to pay for so I got a reasonable bundled deal with my internet. I wouldn't pay more than I do and I'd drop it in a heartbeat if they change the value proposition. I would be very happy to cut the cord again if I could find a service that fits my needs better.
On-demand services like Netflix mean that you are never stuck with 50 channels and nothing you want to watch, so suddenly you don't need 50 channels any more.
I've had a Netflix subscription twice in the not-too-distant past and I routinely couldn't find anything I was interested in watching. Trying to find a good movie on Netflix (or Amazon or Hulu or...) is irritating to put it mildly and I don't care at all about their original programming. I realize that is my particular taste but mine is the only one I really care about in this case.
You just need one or two on-demand services.
There is not yet any on-demand service that offers the mix of programming I'm interested in. I'd be happy to use one that did (if the price was right) but none exists. Believe me, I've looked.
I think this misses some of the biggest benefits of open hardware.
I'm not saying open hardware is bad. Not in any way. Merely that it is more difficult to do.
1) Schematics and PCB artwork allow others to learn from the design and make modifications to suit their needs, or re-use parts of it to save on duplicating effort.
All true. However unless they share their modifications as well there is no way for the community to benefit and grow. There is no easy way to do a GPL style license with hardware. You could do something like a BSD license but due to the economics involved in hardware design and production a BSD style license doesn't really help much. You might make it work for some relatively trivial designs but for something complicated it gets much harder. There isn't a well established infrastructure for sharing hardware designs like there is for software.
I think open hardware is a good thing but it's going to be quite a challenge.
Open hardware is hard mostly for economic and some legal reasons.
1) Open source works because of copyright. There is no such thing as copyright on hardware. There are patents but they are expensive and (comparatively) difficult to get. Copyright is automatic and free the moment you write something. Not so for hardware so certain types of open source licensing are off the table immediately with hardware unless someone wealthy is willing to spring for a patent and be willing to defend it.
2) Even if you intend to give away the designs, there are comparatively few people who can do anything with them. The cost of equipment needed to make/modify software is a rounding error compared with most hardware.
3) Marginal cost of production for hardware is always significant and far higher than for software. For software it is a good approximation of zero cost to make another copy. Even the simplest hardware costs substantial sums of money to produce in any quantity. This makes it far more difficult for individuals to make and modify works economically. It's somewhat like back in the day when you had to actually own an expensive printing press to publish anything. You can reduce the cost of hardware but so far we don't have any way to make it as cheap as software.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.
That depends heavily on the content of the 14 channels. I think most people don't really watch many more than that now. I know I do not. If there is good value in the 14 channels and I get to customize them to my particular tastes then it might be worth it. Your mileage may vary. If it is just the same swill I get from the cable companies now then I'm not interested.
Right now I pay about $30ish/month for some basic cable channels and about $90/month for 100 megabit internet. Guess which one I care about more? So yeah, I'd consider paying $30-40/month for a group of channels I'd watch a lot and which could replace my cable subscription but I'm not about to pay more than I am now. Currently I get about 150 channels, 90% of which I never, ever watch because they are shit and the things I do watch get recorded on my DVR. I pretty much never watch live TV, and frankly why would I? So I can get bombarded with ads? No thanks. I value my time more than that. I have no interest in the latest Kardashian family hijinks so don't waste the bandwidth sending it to me.
So there's the deal I want on the table. 15-30 channels of content (movies and other programming) *I* want to watch and that *I* get to pick with no ads that is easily searchable and which I can watch at a time and place that is convenient to me. And I'm not willing to pay more than $40/month for that. That's the deal, take it or leave it.
If you think American roads are full of drunk drivers and aggressive douchebag drivers who ignore rules of the road, you haven't been to Korea.
I've been to China and much of Southeast Asia and frankly most US drivers are pretty tame and rule abiding by comparison. I've been to a number of places where the traffic signals and lines on the road are merely suggestions that are routinely ignored. I haven't been to Korea but I can't imagine it is worse than India or some parts of China.
People are more polite in line at the grocery store than, on the internet.
No they are not. They might appear to be more polite but I assure you that it is a facade. They are still thinking the same things and their rudeness might be more nuanced but they are the same rude assholes they are online.
You can punch someone in the grocery store, or haunt them well into the parking lot, maybe even on the ride home.
And go to jail for assault and battery or stalking or harrassment. At no point however was a firearm involved or necessary.
Yes, we're doing it really wrong, but that doesn't entirely void the logic.
Yes it does, at least with regard to everyone carrying a firearm. There is precisely zero requirement for people to carry firearms to ensure a polite society and there is plenty of evidence that wide availability of them results in a more violent society. There are plenty of examples of countries around the world with FAR more restrictive rules of firearms AND far lower rates of violent crime than the US. This isn't a coincidence. Politeness has nothing to do with everyone carrying firearms.
Which is why we need policies that aren't based on fear. People are going to be afraid sometimes and our laws should help them engage in evidence based good practices. Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
"Several million"? Did you actually read what you linked to? It directly contradicts what you are claiming. The estimates from a variety of sources vary wildly and many are no where near the millions. Furthermore the numbers were from a PHONE SURVEY which is detailed in the document. If you think that is a reliably way to estimate this problem you don't understand the problems with phone surveys. If you need to see a badly designed survey look no further. The numbers from these surveys are easily demonstrated to be nonsense. It says point blank that the estimates you indicate are clearly nonsense.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
I don't care who said it. That quote is demonstrably false and the notion behind it is asinine. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping.
Which is pretty much akin to Anheuser-Busch having anti-drunk driving messaging right after an ad showing how much fun you'll have with their product. More than a little hypocritical and arguably a mixed message. The NRA is nothing more than a (very effective) lobbying arm of the firearms industry. It's remarkable how many people have bought into their propaganda.
"The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people. It just takes one unhinged person to commit a mass murder. You can do all the background checks you want but they aren't perfect and the simple fact is that would-be criminals continue to have easy access to firearms and continue to commit murders at an alarming rate. It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
...and the democrats want to "kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people" which are firearms.
There is no lack of firearms in the Middle East and yet their availability (and routine use) is clearly not slowing radicalization. Your argument makes zero sense and is clearly contradicted by the facts. Your notion that radicalization is effectively fought with firearms is not supported by the US Military. You cannot win a war of ideas with guns. All you can do is provide time and space for your own ideas. We've dumped trillions of dollars into wars in the Middle East and groups like ISIS are stronger than ever as a result. The ONLY thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is with speech and ideas. Firearms can only suppress them for a time at best. You don't win hearts and minds at the point of a gun.
I'm not for banning anything, but we should block hate speech or any speech associated with known or suspected terrorists.
You claim to not be for banning anything and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. So clearly you aren't in favor of free speech. Here's a hint - free speech doesn't just consist of speech you approve of.
Trump is a bit of a clown but he's saying what the people want to hear so what does that tell you...
It tells me that the people who are taking him seriously are idiots. The words "President Trump" should be terrifying to anyone with a functioning brain. What people need to hear and what they want to hear are frequently different.
Am I the only one who sees a/the problem there? There once was an american company called "General Food", or "General Fruits"? Responsible for most of the wars, dictators etc. in south america... (including Cuba, but it is claimed that Coca Cola was the company behind the dictators in Cuba)
There were numerous companies which basically raped and pillaged their way through the Caribbean and other places. It's where the term Banana Republic actually comes from. The company you are thinking of is the United Fruit Company which is now Chiquita Brands and yes they (and others) did some truly evil shit. Truly some of the most reprehensible behavior ever engaged in by a company.
That said, all that tragedy has little to do with whether the Cavendish is a good tasting fruit or not. It plays a big role in why we only have to one variety but it's a bit of a mystery why today don't see more even in specialty food stores or places like Whole Foods. I would have to think there would be a market for better tasting varieties bananas in the US, even at a premium price.
I went to the Andes 25 years ago and ate many types of bananas, tiny, pink, green, mushy, etc... Many were so good that ever since I've been unable to eat that Cavendish crap. It just makes me gag.
So you found something good and immediately became a hipster snob. Nice. "Makes you gag"? Really? Cavendish bananas are the same as they always were. They're fine. The only thing that has changed is you and if you liked them before then there is no reason to dislike them now. It's ok to prefer one of the tastier varieties of banana (I do too) but I think it's a little snooty to look down your nose at perfectly good food just because it isn't the best there is.
I had the same problem for a while after living off fresh caught salmon in Alaska and coming back to eat artificial-fed farm salmon...
Umm, yeah. Food that is fresh tastes better. News at 11. If you eat the best stuff grown near where you are you'll probably enjoy it more and the quality will be better. I live in an area where cherries are plentiful, fresh and available from every local farm stand during the summer. Better than anywhere else in the country. The ones I can get out of season from non-local growers simply don't compare. So I don't bother when they aren't in season or I preserve them so I can enjoy a treat in January.
The Cavendish banana is a tasteless, waxy disaster of a fruit.
Feeling a little snobby today are we? Personally I think the Cavendish is a good fruit. Not awesome but perfectly fine, tasty and practical. I enjoy them and I make no apologies for that. Yes I've had the pleasure of other kinds of bananas and many are better and more flavorful, but that doesn't make the Cavendish bad.
The fact that people still eat Cavendish bananas, Red Delicious apples and various varieties of ludicrously orange oranges with skins like pachyderms. is testament to the fact that American consumers really don't want fruit that tastes good as much as they want fruit that looks like it was rendered in a 3D program.
I (and many other Americans) would be very willing to eat other kinds of bananas but guess what? They don't sell any other kind where I live aside from a small number of starchy plantains. Bananas don't grow in most of the United States except in a green house so we end up with the monoculture Cavendish. Provide another option that people can buy and I'm pretty sure people will buy it. There are more than enough foodies in the US to appreciate a "better" banana but someone has to bring it to market first. Your notion that Americans don't want good fruit is outdated nonsense.
The death of the Cavendish could be a wonderful thing.
Only in the sense that maybe it would get rid of a monoculture. Otherwise it is a very bad thing.
When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death.
That is not the purpose of having a pet. That might happen but that isn't why you get one. You have a pet for the job they bring you while they are alive. Not so that your children can learn to cope with their loss.
But the conspiracy theorists all tell me the moon landings were fake... You mean to tell me there is actual evidence of us landing on the moon that we can see?
Finally lets remember what Obamacare really did. It did not expand access to insurance.
That is 100% incorrect. It absolutely did expand access to health insurance to millions of people. Prior to the Affordable Care Act millions of people literally could not buy reasonably quality health insurance outside of their employer. Losing your job generally meant losing your health insurance as well. More people have health insurance not than before the Act. QED it expanded access to health insurance.
It expanded/required access to health management. If anything Obamacare made actual insurance in the traditional sense of what insurance used to mean illegal for all practical intents.
Complete nonsense. It imposed penalties for not having health insurance but in no way shape or form did it change "what insurance used to mean" or make it illegal. Everybody has to use health care so having a system where some people don't or can't participate is a broken system. While the Affordable Care Act by no means fixed all the problems in our health care system (not even close), it did provide a way for almost all Americans to obtain health insurance for reasonable amounts of money. It's not even close to a perfect system but it was a system that was politically achievable and better than the one before. You know, the one where if you had a pre-existing condition you might as well declare bankruptcy because you couldn't get insurance at all.
Take a deep breath. Cultural or historic factors need to be taken in to consideration.
This has nothing to do with history and probably not much about culture either. It's (allegedly) about religion which is a mythology. And frankly I cannot see any rational argument that this damages the culture or historical record of anyone. It's a telescope on top of a mountain which is not being used for any other purpose. So long as there is no environmental issue or property rights issue involved then there is nothing to discuss.
If we simply discount our rich history, then we are no better than the fanatics destroying ancient monuments and statues in the desert.
Really? You're going to go there and compare scientists to a bunch of religious loonies destroying ancient artifacts? Ok, tell me what is being destroyed here. Aside from the area directly being built upon, what tangible thing is being destroyed? How does this change history or our record of history in any way? Who or what is actually being harmed here?
Maybe they're tired of white invaders trying to trample their natural landscapes and culture.
In case you didn't notice Hawaii is the only state where white people are not the majority. Not even close. White people account for less than 20% of the population and they certainly aren't in a position to "trample" anything if the voting public cares about an issue. Hawaii has an asian plurality and if you've ever been to Hawaii (I have) you'll quickly note that almost all the white people are tourists. Nobody is getting trampled here and they work very hard in Hawaii to respect local traditions. There are already telescopes on top of this volcano and aside from a few crazies, people are fine with it. The notion that this one violates something sacred is ridiculous.
A vocal minority of Hawaiians has vehemently protested the construction of the telescope for religious reasons.
Don't you love how people can make up nonsensical stories about how something is sacred to them to stop activities they don't like? Sometimes they even believe the nonsense they are spouting. But it's still nonsense. Personally I find scientific inquiry to be sacred ground and I can actually show how scientific inquiry benefits mankind. If they want to show how this telescope will cause some objective problem (environmental, logistical, financial, whatever) then by all means let's slow down and consider if the telescope is a good idea. But religious objections carry no weight with me.
So they have to hold a hearing so everyone can have their say. Fine. Hold the hearing. But religious objections are no grounds to stop construction of the telescope. Let them tell us how sacred this particular patch of ground is and then build the damn thing. I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.
In this case, the administration has used this power in ways congress doesn't like so it attempted to pass a law disallowing the changes in regulation.
The administration is using its power in ways specifically granted to it by congress. If they didn't like it then they shouldn't have delegated the authority in the first place. That's how our government has worked since the Constitution was ratified.
This is neither a constitutional or ordinary process.
Like hell it isn't. You yourself explain perfectly accurately how the system works. And it has (mostly) worked for 240 years. When congress wants to get specific in how it delegates power to the executive branch then they have that right, subject to the restrictions under the Constitution. If they cannot get enough votes to change their mind then that is how it is supposed to work.
I'm trying to sort out Mayer could have done differently?
Hard to say. The company does make pretty substantial profits and they have quite a lot of cash. The problem the company doesn't really seem to have organic growth prospects and they don't dominate an important segment like Google does with search or Apple does with devices. Yahoo just doesn't seem to have a focus to the company and I'm not sure anyone would be able to easily fix that.
And remember that predecessor was Jerry Yang, who could have sold Yahoo off to Microsoft, but didn't, and ushered in this current decline.
That is among the dumbest business decisions of all time. The board should have pimp slapped him when he didn't want to sell the company for such a staggeringly large amount of money. I can't stand Microsoft either but if they want to buy my company for way more than it is really worth I'd take the money and run.
It's too bad, really. I rather like the Yahoo weather iPhone app.
Really? I think it's a piece of crap and the temperatures and predictions it gives are routinely wrong. I have several other weather apps because it is fairly useless and it's predictions are generally the worst of any weather app on my phone.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to me. Even if I got to pick the channels, it's just not worth that much to me.
That's fine too. There is a range of what people want and what they are willing to pay and yours is probably different than mine. One of the guys I work with is a huge football fan so he's willing to pay quite a lot to get all the football related programming. Nothing wrong with that. Me? I could not care less about football so I it is worth nothing to me. What I have a problem with is the fact that the programming is bundled. So if I want the Food Network and SyFy but don't want ESPN, I shouldn't have to pay for ESPN. Even better would be the ability to pay for particular shows I'm a fan of rather than a channel since most of what is on any channel is typically uninteresting drivel. (your drivel may be different from mine of course) Of course if I'm paying to watch the show I have less than zero interest in watching advertisements so there's that...
I think the implication is that the scientific method may not be the best approach to uncover the manner in which the scientific method behaves.
That is a great example of begging the question.
The scientific method is entirely unnecessary to decide whether to step off of a tall building. People knew not do do that before the scientific method was codified.
You don't have to codify the method of study to use it. People who discovered the effects of falling off tall buildings WERE using the scientific method whether or not they were aware of that fact at the time.
You are what I'd call a legacy customer, who hasn't cut the TV cord yet.
Not actually true. I did cut the cord for about 3 years but there are a few things on cable I find worthwhile enough to pay for so I got a reasonable bundled deal with my internet. I wouldn't pay more than I do and I'd drop it in a heartbeat if they change the value proposition. I would be very happy to cut the cord again if I could find a service that fits my needs better.
On-demand services like Netflix mean that you are never stuck with 50 channels and nothing you want to watch, so suddenly you don't need 50 channels any more.
I've had a Netflix subscription twice in the not-too-distant past and I routinely couldn't find anything I was interested in watching. Trying to find a good movie on Netflix (or Amazon or Hulu or...) is irritating to put it mildly and I don't care at all about their original programming. I realize that is my particular taste but mine is the only one I really care about in this case.
You just need one or two on-demand services.
There is not yet any on-demand service that offers the mix of programming I'm interested in. I'd be happy to use one that did (if the price was right) but none exists. Believe me, I've looked.
I think this misses some of the biggest benefits of open hardware.
I'm not saying open hardware is bad. Not in any way. Merely that it is more difficult to do.
1) Schematics and PCB artwork allow others to learn from the design and make modifications to suit their needs, or re-use parts of it to save on duplicating effort.
All true. However unless they share their modifications as well there is no way for the community to benefit and grow. There is no easy way to do a GPL style license with hardware. You could do something like a BSD license but due to the economics involved in hardware design and production a BSD style license doesn't really help much. You might make it work for some relatively trivial designs but for something complicated it gets much harder. There isn't a well established infrastructure for sharing hardware designs like there is for software.
I think open hardware is a good thing but it's going to be quite a challenge.
Open hardware is hard mostly for economic and some legal reasons.
1) Open source works because of copyright. There is no such thing as copyright on hardware. There are patents but they are expensive and (comparatively) difficult to get. Copyright is automatic and free the moment you write something. Not so for hardware so certain types of open source licensing are off the table immediately with hardware unless someone wealthy is willing to spring for a patent and be willing to defend it.
2) Even if you intend to give away the designs, there are comparatively few people who can do anything with them. The cost of equipment needed to make/modify software is a rounding error compared with most hardware.
3) Marginal cost of production for hardware is always significant and far higher than for software. For software it is a good approximation of zero cost to make another copy. Even the simplest hardware costs substantial sums of money to produce in any quantity. This makes it far more difficult for individuals to make and modify works economically. It's somewhat like back in the day when you had to actually own an expensive printing press to publish anything. You can reduce the cost of hardware but so far we don't have any way to make it as cheap as software.
Sorry, but for $40 a month I'd sure as hell want more than 14 channels.
That depends heavily on the content of the 14 channels. I think most people don't really watch many more than that now. I know I do not. If there is good value in the 14 channels and I get to customize them to my particular tastes then it might be worth it. Your mileage may vary. If it is just the same swill I get from the cable companies now then I'm not interested.
Right now I pay about $30ish/month for some basic cable channels and about $90/month for 100 megabit internet. Guess which one I care about more? So yeah, I'd consider paying $30-40/month for a group of channels I'd watch a lot and which could replace my cable subscription but I'm not about to pay more than I am now. Currently I get about 150 channels, 90% of which I never, ever watch because they are shit and the things I do watch get recorded on my DVR. I pretty much never watch live TV, and frankly why would I? So I can get bombarded with ads? No thanks. I value my time more than that. I have no interest in the latest Kardashian family hijinks so don't waste the bandwidth sending it to me.
So there's the deal I want on the table. 15-30 channels of content (movies and other programming) *I* want to watch and that *I* get to pick with no ads that is easily searchable and which I can watch at a time and place that is convenient to me. And I'm not willing to pay more than $40/month for that. That's the deal, take it or leave it.
If you think American roads are full of drunk drivers and aggressive douchebag drivers who ignore rules of the road, you haven't been to Korea.
I've been to China and much of Southeast Asia and frankly most US drivers are pretty tame and rule abiding by comparison. I've been to a number of places where the traffic signals and lines on the road are merely suggestions that are routinely ignored. I haven't been to Korea but I can't imagine it is worse than India or some parts of China.
People are more polite in line at the grocery store than, on the internet.
No they are not. They might appear to be more polite but I assure you that it is a facade. They are still thinking the same things and their rudeness might be more nuanced but they are the same rude assholes they are online.
You can punch someone in the grocery store, or haunt them well into the parking lot, maybe even on the ride home.
And go to jail for assault and battery or stalking or harrassment. At no point however was a firearm involved or necessary.
Yes, we're doing it really wrong, but that doesn't entirely void the logic.
Yes it does, at least with regard to everyone carrying a firearm. There is precisely zero requirement for people to carry firearms to ensure a polite society and there is plenty of evidence that wide availability of them results in a more violent society. There are plenty of examples of countries around the world with FAR more restrictive rules of firearms AND far lower rates of violent crime than the US. This isn't a coincidence. Politeness has nothing to do with everyone carrying firearms.
Fear doesn't respond to evidence.
Which is why we need policies that aren't based on fear. People are going to be afraid sometimes and our laws should help them engage in evidence based good practices. Sadly our leaders are too often willing to pander to fear to obtain power rather than work to eliminate the need for the fear.
Clear evidence? Hate to say it, but even the Department of Justice under Clinton (no friend of lawful gun owners) says there are several million defensive uses of firearms per year.
"Several million"? Did you actually read what you linked to? It directly contradicts what you are claiming. The estimates from a variety of sources vary wildly and many are no where near the millions. Furthermore the numbers were from a PHONE SURVEY which is detailed in the document. If you think that is a reliably way to estimate this problem you don't understand the problems with phone surveys. If you need to see a badly designed survey look no further. The numbers from these surveys are easily demonstrated to be nonsense. It says point blank that the estimates you indicate are clearly nonsense.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
I don't care who said it. That quote is demonstrably false and the notion behind it is asinine. If you really need a gun to get people to speak "politely" to you then you are doing something REALLY wrong.
The boom has lately been helped by a drumbeat of mass shootings, whose attendant anxiety has only driven more people into the gun store.
Which is among the most bizarre reactions ever. I'm amazed how many people have the delusion that they are going to defend themselves with a gun despite the clear evidence that it almost never actually happens. Do you really want to live in a world where everyone is packing at all times? I sure don't. I have no problem against people owning firearms (I have some myself) but I think everybody arming themselves out of fear is anything less than insane.
The proposed schedule of programming allots an eight-minute segment each hour to safety public service announcements in between proposed segments on topics like women's concealed weapon's apparel, big-game hunting and camping.
Which is pretty much akin to Anheuser-Busch having anti-drunk driving messaging right after an ad showing how much fun you'll have with their product. More than a little hypocritical and arguably a mixed message. The NRA is nothing more than a (very effective) lobbying arm of the firearms industry. It's remarkable how many people have bought into their propaganda.
"The vast majority of people who own and use guns in this country, whether it's home protection, recreation or hunting, are responsible . I don't really know that it's going to put more guns on the streets."
The fact that most gun owners are responsible is true but irrelevant. The problem is that some people ARE killers and we can't tell who they are in most cases prior to them putting bullets into people. It just takes one unhinged person to commit a mass murder. You can do all the background checks you want but they aren't perfect and the simple fact is that would-be criminals continue to have easy access to firearms and continue to commit murders at an alarming rate. It is simply ludicrously easy for mentally ill people to get firearms and ammunition and groups like the NRA fight even the most reasonable efforts to contain the problem tooth and nail.
...and the democrats want to "kill the very instrument that would be most effective in de-radicalizing people" which are firearms.
There is no lack of firearms in the Middle East and yet their availability (and routine use) is clearly not slowing radicalization. Your argument makes zero sense and is clearly contradicted by the facts. Your notion that radicalization is effectively fought with firearms is not supported by the US Military. You cannot win a war of ideas with guns. All you can do is provide time and space for your own ideas. We've dumped trillions of dollars into wars in the Middle East and groups like ISIS are stronger than ever as a result. The ONLY thing that will ultimately defeat groups like ISIS is with speech and ideas. Firearms can only suppress them for a time at best. You don't win hearts and minds at the point of a gun.
I'm not for banning anything, but we should block hate speech or any speech associated with known or suspected terrorists.
You claim to not be for banning anything and then contradict yourself in the same sentence. So clearly you aren't in favor of free speech. Here's a hint - free speech doesn't just consist of speech you approve of.
Trump is a bit of a clown but he's saying what the people want to hear so what does that tell you...
It tells me that the people who are taking him seriously are idiots. The words "President Trump" should be terrifying to anyone with a functioning brain. What people need to hear and what they want to hear are frequently different.
Am I the only one who sees a/the problem there? There once was an american company called "General Food", or "General Fruits"? ... (including Cuba, but it is claimed that Coca Cola was the company behind the dictators in Cuba)
Responsible for most of the wars, dictators etc. in south america
There were numerous companies which basically raped and pillaged their way through the Caribbean and other places. It's where the term Banana Republic actually comes from. The company you are thinking of is the United Fruit Company which is now Chiquita Brands and yes they (and others) did some truly evil shit. Truly some of the most reprehensible behavior ever engaged in by a company.
That said, all that tragedy has little to do with whether the Cavendish is a good tasting fruit or not. It plays a big role in why we only have to one variety but it's a bit of a mystery why today don't see more even in specialty food stores or places like Whole Foods. I would have to think there would be a market for better tasting varieties bananas in the US, even at a premium price.
I went to the Andes 25 years ago and ate many types of bananas, tiny, pink, green, mushy, etc... Many were so good that ever since I've been unable to eat that Cavendish crap. It just makes me gag.
So you found something good and immediately became a hipster snob. Nice. "Makes you gag"? Really? Cavendish bananas are the same as they always were. They're fine. The only thing that has changed is you and if you liked them before then there is no reason to dislike them now. It's ok to prefer one of the tastier varieties of banana (I do too) but I think it's a little snooty to look down your nose at perfectly good food just because it isn't the best there is.
I had the same problem for a while after living off fresh caught salmon in Alaska and coming back to eat artificial-fed farm salmon...
Umm, yeah. Food that is fresh tastes better. News at 11. If you eat the best stuff grown near where you are you'll probably enjoy it more and the quality will be better. I live in an area where cherries are plentiful, fresh and available from every local farm stand during the summer. Better than anywhere else in the country. The ones I can get out of season from non-local growers simply don't compare. So I don't bother when they aren't in season or I preserve them so I can enjoy a treat in January.
The Cavendish banana is a tasteless, waxy disaster of a fruit.
Feeling a little snobby today are we? Personally I think the Cavendish is a good fruit. Not awesome but perfectly fine, tasty and practical. I enjoy them and I make no apologies for that. Yes I've had the pleasure of other kinds of bananas and many are better and more flavorful, but that doesn't make the Cavendish bad.
The fact that people still eat Cavendish bananas, Red Delicious apples and various varieties of ludicrously orange oranges with skins like pachyderms. is testament to the fact that American consumers really don't want fruit that tastes good as much as they want fruit that looks like it was rendered in a 3D program.
I (and many other Americans) would be very willing to eat other kinds of bananas but guess what? They don't sell any other kind where I live aside from a small number of starchy plantains. Bananas don't grow in most of the United States except in a green house so we end up with the monoculture Cavendish. Provide another option that people can buy and I'm pretty sure people will buy it. There are more than enough foodies in the US to appreciate a "better" banana but someone has to bring it to market first. Your notion that Americans don't want good fruit is outdated nonsense.
The death of the Cavendish could be a wonderful thing.
Only in the sense that maybe it would get rid of a monoculture. Otherwise it is a very bad thing.
When pets die it is like a practice run for the children in the family to learn to cope with death.
That is not the purpose of having a pet. That might happen but that isn't why you get one. You have a pet for the job they bring you while they are alive. Not so that your children can learn to cope with their loss.
But the conspiracy theorists all tell me the moon landings were fake... You mean to tell me there is actual evidence of us landing on the moon that we can see?
(yes I'm joking for the humor impaired)
Finally lets remember what Obamacare really did. It did not expand access to insurance.
That is 100% incorrect. It absolutely did expand access to health insurance to millions of people. Prior to the Affordable Care Act millions of people literally could not buy reasonably quality health insurance outside of their employer. Losing your job generally meant losing your health insurance as well. More people have health insurance not than before the Act. QED it expanded access to health insurance.
It expanded/required access to health management. If anything Obamacare made actual insurance in the traditional sense of what insurance used to mean illegal for all practical intents.
Complete nonsense. It imposed penalties for not having health insurance but in no way shape or form did it change "what insurance used to mean" or make it illegal. Everybody has to use health care so having a system where some people don't or can't participate is a broken system. While the Affordable Care Act by no means fixed all the problems in our health care system (not even close), it did provide a way for almost all Americans to obtain health insurance for reasonable amounts of money. It's not even close to a perfect system but it was a system that was politically achievable and better than the one before. You know, the one where if you had a pre-existing condition you might as well declare bankruptcy because you couldn't get insurance at all.
Take a deep breath. Cultural or historic factors need to be taken in to consideration.
This has nothing to do with history and probably not much about culture either. It's (allegedly) about religion which is a mythology. And frankly I cannot see any rational argument that this damages the culture or historical record of anyone. It's a telescope on top of a mountain which is not being used for any other purpose. So long as there is no environmental issue or property rights issue involved then there is nothing to discuss.
If we simply discount our rich history, then we are no better than the fanatics destroying ancient monuments and statues in the desert.
Really? You're going to go there and compare scientists to a bunch of religious loonies destroying ancient artifacts? Ok, tell me what is being destroyed here. Aside from the area directly being built upon, what tangible thing is being destroyed? How does this change history or our record of history in any way? Who or what is actually being harmed here?
Maybe they're tired of white invaders trying to trample their natural landscapes and culture.
In case you didn't notice Hawaii is the only state where white people are not the majority. Not even close. White people account for less than 20% of the population and they certainly aren't in a position to "trample" anything if the voting public cares about an issue. Hawaii has an asian plurality and if you've ever been to Hawaii (I have) you'll quickly note that almost all the white people are tourists. Nobody is getting trampled here and they work very hard in Hawaii to respect local traditions. There are already telescopes on top of this volcano and aside from a few crazies, people are fine with it. The notion that this one violates something sacred is ridiculous.
A vocal minority of Hawaiians has vehemently protested the construction of the telescope for religious reasons.
Don't you love how people can make up nonsensical stories about how something is sacred to them to stop activities they don't like? Sometimes they even believe the nonsense they are spouting. But it's still nonsense. Personally I find scientific inquiry to be sacred ground and I can actually show how scientific inquiry benefits mankind. If they want to show how this telescope will cause some objective problem (environmental, logistical, financial, whatever) then by all means let's slow down and consider if the telescope is a good idea. But religious objections carry no weight with me.
So they have to hold a hearing so everyone can have their say. Fine. Hold the hearing. But religious objections are no grounds to stop construction of the telescope. Let them tell us how sacred this particular patch of ground is and then build the damn thing. I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.
In this case, the administration has used this power in ways congress doesn't like so it attempted to pass a law disallowing the changes in regulation.
The administration is using its power in ways specifically granted to it by congress. If they didn't like it then they shouldn't have delegated the authority in the first place. That's how our government has worked since the Constitution was ratified.
This is neither a constitutional or ordinary process.
Like hell it isn't. You yourself explain perfectly accurately how the system works. And it has (mostly) worked for 240 years. When congress wants to get specific in how it delegates power to the executive branch then they have that right, subject to the restrictions under the Constitution. If they cannot get enough votes to change their mind then that is how it is supposed to work.
I'm trying to sort out Mayer could have done differently?
Hard to say. The company does make pretty substantial profits and they have quite a lot of cash. The problem the company doesn't really seem to have organic growth prospects and they don't dominate an important segment like Google does with search or Apple does with devices. Yahoo just doesn't seem to have a focus to the company and I'm not sure anyone would be able to easily fix that.
And remember that predecessor was Jerry Yang, who could have sold Yahoo off to Microsoft, but didn't, and ushered in this current decline.
That is among the dumbest business decisions of all time. The board should have pimp slapped him when he didn't want to sell the company for such a staggeringly large amount of money. I can't stand Microsoft either but if they want to buy my company for way more than it is really worth I'd take the money and run.
It's too bad, really. I rather like the Yahoo weather iPhone app.
Really? I think it's a piece of crap and the temperatures and predictions it gives are routinely wrong. I have several other weather apps because it is fairly useless and it's predictions are generally the worst of any weather app on my phone.