And of course the reason why so many companies do this is because not enough people bitch. Sure they can raise the rates to whatever they want, but no reason why people can't complain. First amendment and all that.
Stick out your thumb and forefinger and pretend you're changing a dial on a radio. Unless you're missing a finger, you're going to lightly grab the knob, turn it, release your grip, grab the knob again, turn it, and so on.
Whereas you can move the clickwheel in a single continious motion with a single finger. And, manipulate the rest of the controls with the same finger without moving your hand. And use it to quickly navigate menus and folders - good luck doing that with a radio dial. The only thing these two have in common is that they are both round, but then, so are a lot of things.
Oh wait, if you put "e", "i", before it or "computer/Network/Internet" after it - something invented 50+ years ago it is suddenly NEW! Welcome to the new iMillenium!
I'm surprised you aren't all for this patent, considering how overly impressed you are with your own cleverness.
Recycling of most things (glass, paper, plastic) is costly, dirty, wasteful work.
If it cost more to recycle than to use raw materials, companies wouldn't do it.
Ignoring the fact that recycled plastic costs much more than newly manufactured stuff, even after our government subsidies the recycling plants, the process of recycling plastic introduces many chemicals into the environment as or more dangerous than would be had by throwing it away and making a new one.
And this is based on...what exactly? I'm skeptical of this argument, the same one used against recycling paper. Are you basing your comparison on breaking down the materials and using them for cheaper products, or are you using the most expensive processing available?
Conservation of a finite resource is only going to extend the time until the finite resource is expended completely.
But there are plenty of resources that aren't finite. Fish and forests are prime examples.
I feel pretty comfortable that we can get by in life without fossil fuels. We did it before they were discovered, and I think we can use something else.
But of course the planets population is six times what it was then, and economies are becomming less and less agrarian. And even if we manage to completely switch to using nuclear, solar, tidal, or geothermal power, it's going to be our races single largest undertaking to switch from using 99% fossil fuels to other forms of energy.
What I find most puzzeling about people who blow off energy conservation, is that it's in their own financial interests to do so. Why pay $100 a month on electric bills when you could pay $20? Why pay $40 at the pump when you could pay $20? Do these people like throwing money away?
Conservation prolongs the inevitable - but it doesn't prevent anything - and therefore is pointless
Bzzt. Managing forests and fishing properly will ensure you can cut lumber and catch fish 10 years from now, 100 years from now or 1000 years from now. Or you could catch fish to the point of extinction and clear cut till all the forests are grasslands, and have absolutly nothing for the future.
Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."
Red herring. If the act has produced zero tangible benefits but has infringed on even a single person's rights, that much is too much.
It's not so bad that we're spending that much on roads, it's that huge amounts of it are straight pork. Like the bridge that's going up in Alaska for ~$230 million, to connect an island to a city of 8000 people. The island has 50 people on it, and there's a ferry that goes back and forth every 15 minutes. Must be because Alaska, the largest state with the lowest population per square mile is pressed for land.
Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products, but some things like the iPod battery issue are hardly ever resolved to satisfaction.
Many anti-Apple fanboy's look for deficiencies where none exist. Those "battery issues" are the same "issues" faced by every recharchable battery, and plenty of other companies sell non-easily-replacable batteries, for example Dell.
Re:Desire for monopoly = unions, taxes, censorship
on
When Pigs Wifi
·
· Score: 1
As to why you beleive this would mean no speed limits, police patrols, vehicle laws and registration i can only wonder
Because there's no public means of enforcement, obviously. Why should taxpayer paid police enforce limits on private roads, and why should taxpayer funded courts enforce citations?
As for the toll booth at every corner -- they are there -- you are just too blind to realize it. In fact, with the current system you pay the toll whether you drive or not -- the toll is extracted (by force -- with the threat of jail time) by the federal government everytime you receive a paycheck.
Okay, try changing those metaphorical toll booths into real ones, calculate what your time is worth, and see if you're still a self-centered skinflint.
Canada and Europe don't give away health care -- they steal health care from the providers and producers and pass it out to those in the public willing to deal in stolen goods.
If by "steal" you mean "pay for", then sure.
I have some advice for you -- next time somebody you know becomes seriously ill, thank god for the drug companies and pray that the government has not crippled them so badly that they can no longer afford to research new cures.
I have some better advice for you: go find someone who can't afford life saving medicine because drug companies have a God given right to $20 billion a year in profits, and then tell them how "lucky" they are.
I have to agree with this. Children have to be taught that there's a debate going on, that some people believe in intelligent design. If no mention is made of ID in schools, then kids will be at the mercy of people who will teach it to them as religious ideology and they won't have the tools to evaluate it properly.
Except there is no debate going on. On one hand you have 99.99999% of the scientific community, and on the other you have a few crackpots. This is not a debate, this is an attempt to confuse people into thinking there is some rational, scientific disagreement where none exists. If we talk about ID in schools, why not put up a flat-earther on Fox next to a geologist and call it a "fair and balanced" debate, as someone else suggested?
If you live in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas you pay about $800 a year per person for all handouts to illegal aliens + keeping the criminal ones (rapists, murders, etc) in prison.
I see you conveiniently missed the fact that illegals are also figured to subsidize Social Security, which they can't draw on, to the tune of $7 billion a year, forstalling the time when the system starts running out of money. And that they pay payroll taxes. And property taxes. And regressive sales taxes, which is where states like Texas (no income tax) get most of their money.
At what point do you "rat him out"? Do you wait for him to rape or kill someone?
At which point do you stop ratting him out? After you are throwing people into Soviet gulags, but before you've started drawing and quartering them in a Spanish Inquisition?
Just answering one ludicrous straw man with another.
Actually quite the opposit. The kid was under 18 so he only got a slap on the wrist, in other words: He may have learned a lesson and don't do it again.
Not likely. Think about it: is the kids reaction going to be "OMG, my friend was so right to turn me in, saving me from a life of crime selling cocaine to pre-schoolers, I am saved!", or, "my (former) friend is a @#$%@#$%@# dushbag!!!!"
If the parent was high on a morality kick and so pleased with himself for being capable of turning this kid in, then he should have been equally capable of calling the guy up and saying "take back the card or I tell the store". As it was the kid only learned to be more choosy in who he calls a friend, and the parent probably earned a pissed off enemy.
And you advocate that he should not have been punished at all?
Why do you guys keep repeating this crap over and over as if someone has EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS! Here's a hint: no one has ever said that someone who commits a crime is blameless, so stop using that straw man argument. Please.
Of course, ripping of a store on a $500 item is wrong. But so is ratting out your friend when it's not your business is also very wrong.
Oh how I love that dead horse cliche! It is extremely possible to be the "victum" of something and yet bear responsiblity for what happened to you. Like a drunk driver crashing into your car, injuring you, but you were a dumbass and weren't wearing your seatbelt.
If a customer is returning a $500 item, it damn sure is the responsiblitiy of the person at the customer service desk to open the box and check it. Even if you know the person isn't a cheat, you want to make sure all the cables/software/misc widgets are in there.
why on/. is it default for political crap to be the fault of the republicans/right wing/religious ???
Because they're the dominant party, and generally are the ones pushing this crap around. Duh. When the Democrats are back in power (assuming they ever develop a platform and spinal columns), it will be the same with them.
The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad.
I see you decided to blow the parent's over generalization away with one of your own. Yes, sex is okay, but only for an extremely limited purpose under extremely limited conditions: for procreation within marriage. So premarital sex is bad, homosexual sex is bad, post-menopausal sex is bad, sex with an infertile partner is bad, sex with an already pregnant woman is bad, and of course, taking any pleasure in the act is also bad.
The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it.
Nonsense. If porn objectifies and degrades women, it also degrades and objectifies men. You want sexist, degrading media? Check out just about any father on just about any modern sitcom.
This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
The problem with abortion is that all abortions get lumped together under one label. An abortion two days after the zygote has been implanted on the wall of the uterus is obviously a far cry from aborting a fetus two days before birth, but they are both called "abortion". One of the pro-life side's arguments is "at what point is a fetus a person", the implication being, that since we can't pick a single moment in time, you can't pick one at all. But the simple solution is to have two arbitrary points instead of one. During the first trimester, a fetus is obviously not a person, and an abortion at any time for any reason by anyone should be allowed. And during the third trimester, a fetus obviously is a person and should not be aborted unless circumstances are extreme.
Side tangent: one thing I find annoying about the pro-choice side is how a woman's "choice" is paramount, but the only choice a man has is to agree to whatever the woman wants. Why is 9 months of a woman's life sacrosanct, but 18 years of a man's life is irrelevant? When it comes to child support, men are told, "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences," but that argument somehow does not apply to a woman who chooses to have sex and gets pregnant.
Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality.
What's obnoxious are the number of Christians and politicians who take the Bible literally, but only when it suits them.
Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job
Yes, as 20 others harped on this subject, Job is not in Genesis. BFD. At least you argued his point rather than focusing on an irrelevant detail.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course the reason why so many companies do this is because not enough people bitch. Sure they can raise the rates to whatever they want, but no reason why people can't complain. First amendment and all that.
Stick out your thumb and forefinger and pretend you're changing a dial on a radio. Unless you're missing a finger, you're going to lightly grab the knob, turn it, release your grip, grab the knob again, turn it, and so on.
Whereas you can move the clickwheel in a single continious motion with a single finger. And, manipulate the rest of the controls with the same finger without moving your hand. And use it to quickly navigate menus and folders - good luck doing that with a radio dial. The only thing these two have in common is that they are both round, but then, so are a lot of things.
Oh wait, if you put "e", "i", before it or "computer/Network/Internet" after it - something invented 50+ years ago it is suddenly NEW! Welcome to the new iMillenium!
I'm surprised you aren't all for this patent, considering how overly impressed you are with your own cleverness.
Recycling of most things (glass, paper, plastic) is costly, dirty, wasteful work.
If it cost more to recycle than to use raw materials, companies wouldn't do it.
Ignoring the fact that recycled plastic costs much more than newly manufactured stuff, even after our government subsidies the recycling plants, the process of recycling plastic introduces many chemicals into the environment as or more dangerous than would be had by throwing it away and making a new one.
And this is based on...what exactly? I'm skeptical of this argument, the same one used against recycling paper. Are you basing your comparison on breaking down the materials and using them for cheaper products, or are you using the most expensive processing available?
Conservation of a finite resource is only going to extend the time until the finite resource is expended completely.
But there are plenty of resources that aren't finite. Fish and forests are prime examples.
I feel pretty comfortable that we can get by in life without fossil fuels. We did it before they were discovered, and I think we can use something else.
But of course the planets population is six times what it was then, and economies are becomming less and less agrarian. And even if we manage to completely switch to using nuclear, solar, tidal, or geothermal power, it's going to be our races single largest undertaking to switch from using 99% fossil fuels to other forms of energy.
What I find most puzzeling about people who blow off energy conservation, is that it's in their own financial interests to do so. Why pay $100 a month on electric bills when you could pay $20? Why pay $40 at the pump when you could pay $20? Do these people like throwing money away?
Bzzt. Managing forests and fishing properly will ensure you can cut lumber and catch fish 10 years from now, 100 years from now or 1000 years from now. Or you could catch fish to the point of extinction and clear cut till all the forests are grasslands, and have absolutly nothing for the future.
let the flameware begin
No flaiming, just debunking nonsense.
You could also kill yourself to conserve the resources you'd otherwise use. Are you too selfish to do that?
I need your stuff. Since need outweighs all with you, you'd be perfectly okay with me killing you and taking your shit, right?
Patriot Act, Schmatriot Act. Give me one specific example of how your life has been negatively impacted. And don't say "oooh, ooh, my civil liberties."
Red herring. If the act has produced zero tangible benefits but has infringed on even a single person's rights, that much is too much.
It's not so bad that we're spending that much on roads, it's that huge amounts of it are straight pork. Like the bridge that's going up in Alaska for ~$230 million, to connect an island to a city of 8000 people. The island has 50 people on it, and there's a ferry that goes back and forth every 15 minutes. Must be because Alaska, the largest state with the lowest population per square mile is pressed for land.
Many Apple loyalists are happy to overlook some deficiencies in Apple products, but some things like the iPod battery issue are hardly ever resolved to satisfaction.
Many anti-Apple fanboy's look for deficiencies where none exist. Those "battery issues" are the same "issues" faced by every recharchable battery, and plenty of other companies sell non-easily-replacable batteries, for example Dell.
As to why you beleive this would mean no speed limits, police patrols, vehicle laws and registration i can only wonder
Because there's no public means of enforcement, obviously. Why should taxpayer paid police enforce limits on private roads, and why should taxpayer funded courts enforce citations?
As for the toll booth at every corner -- they are there -- you are just too blind to realize it. In fact, with the current system you pay the toll whether you drive or not -- the toll is extracted (by force -- with the threat of jail time) by the federal government everytime you receive a paycheck.
Okay, try changing those metaphorical toll booths into real ones, calculate what your time is worth, and see if you're still a self-centered skinflint.
Canada and Europe don't give away health care -- they steal health care from the providers and producers and pass it out to those in the public willing to deal in stolen goods.
If by "steal" you mean "pay for", then sure.
I have some advice for you -- next time somebody you know becomes seriously ill, thank god for the drug companies and pray that the government has not crippled them so badly that they can no longer afford to research new cures.
I have some better advice for you: go find someone who can't afford life saving medicine because drug companies have a God given right to $20 billion a year in profits, and then tell them how "lucky" they are.
It's an Atomic Bomb. Not a meteor. Even though it's destructive power was terrible, it would not have done much to alter the geography of Mt. Fuji.
Of course not, but it would have scared the shit out of many thousands of people with the mushroom cloud. Which was the point.
Intelligent Design does deserve mention in science class, as it is a valid science (if you think otherwise, please take the time to educate yourself).
Whatever you say, Beavis. Pointing out that a theory can't explain $X at the drop of a hat does not science nor your own theory make.
I have to agree with this. Children have to be taught that there's a debate going on, that some people believe in intelligent design. If no mention is made of ID in schools, then kids will be at the mercy of people who will teach it to them as religious ideology and they won't have the tools to evaluate it properly.
Except there is no debate going on. On one hand you have 99.99999% of the scientific community, and on the other you have a few crackpots. This is not a debate, this is an attempt to confuse people into thinking there is some rational, scientific disagreement where none exists. If we talk about ID in schools, why not put up a flat-earther on Fox next to a geologist and call it a "fair and balanced" debate, as someone else suggested?
Death Certificate.
Cheap injet printer.
If you live in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas you pay about $800 a year per person for all handouts to illegal aliens + keeping the criminal ones (rapists, murders, etc) in prison.
I see you conveiniently missed the fact that illegals are also figured to subsidize Social Security, which they can't draw on, to the tune of $7 billion a year, forstalling the time when the system starts running out of money. And that they pay payroll taxes. And property taxes. And regressive sales taxes, which is where states like Texas (no income tax) get most of their money.
At what point do you "rat him out"? Do you wait for him to rape or kill someone?
At which point do you stop ratting him out? After you are throwing people into Soviet gulags, but before you've started drawing and quartering them in a Spanish Inquisition?
Just answering one ludicrous straw man with another.
I am not going to stand complacent of some wrong just because you are my friend. Being fair goes both ways.
So be a good friend and call him an asshole, and demand to know wtf he was thinking. But don't rat on him when it's not your business.
Actually quite the opposit. The kid was under 18 so he only got a slap on the wrist, in other words: He may have learned a lesson and don't do it again.
Not likely. Think about it: is the kids reaction going to be "OMG, my friend was so right to turn me in, saving me from a life of crime selling cocaine to pre-schoolers, I am saved!", or, "my (former) friend is a @#$%@#$%@# dushbag!!!!"
If the parent was high on a morality kick and so pleased with himself for being capable of turning this kid in, then he should have been equally capable of calling the guy up and saying "take back the card or I tell the store". As it was the kid only learned to be more choosy in who he calls a friend, and the parent probably earned a pissed off enemy.
And you advocate that he should not have been punished at all?
Why do you guys keep repeating this crap over and over as if someone has EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THIS! Here's a hint: no one has ever said that someone who commits a crime is blameless, so stop using that straw man argument. Please.
Of course, ripping of a store on a $500 item is wrong. But so is ratting out your friend when it's not your business is also very wrong.
Oh how I love blaming the victim!
Oh how I love that dead horse cliche! It is extremely possible to be the "victum" of something and yet bear responsiblity for what happened to you. Like a drunk driver crashing into your car, injuring you, but you were a dumbass and weren't wearing your seatbelt.
If a customer is returning a $500 item, it damn sure is the responsiblitiy of the person at the customer service desk to open the box and check it. Even if you know the person isn't a cheat, you want to make sure all the cables/software/misc widgets are in there.
Yes, I'm sure the people who lived through Soviet communism and the McCarthy hearings would think that was a wonderful idea.
Oh... ya... because Apple made it. My bad.
What's your point? That everyone else should stop making mice?
Socialism works? What a laugh!
Yes, it does. If you think pure capitalism would be so much better, try Googling for the "Gilded Age" or "Standard Oil".
The wall fell, get over it.
You need to get over it, and your insecure need to demonize the "enemy".
why on /. is it default for political crap to be the fault of the republicans/right wing/religious ???
Because they're the dominant party, and generally are the ones pushing this crap around. Duh. When the Democrats are back in power (assuming they ever develop a platform and spinal columns), it will be the same with them.
Bzzzt! Sorry but thank you for playing.
Speak for yourself, Sparky.
The christian faith believes that sex is good, not bad.
I see you decided to blow the parent's over generalization away with one of your own. Yes, sex is okay, but only for an extremely limited purpose under extremely limited conditions: for procreation within marriage. So premarital sex is bad, homosexual sex is bad, post-menopausal sex is bad, sex with an infertile partner is bad, sex with an already pregnant woman is bad, and of course, taking any pleasure in the act is also bad.
The viewing of pornography, like many other things, objectifies women, and degrades them in the eyes of those who consume it.
Nonsense. If porn objectifies and degrades women, it also degrades and objectifies men. You want sexist, degrading media? Check out just about any father on just about any modern sitcom.
This is the real debate with abortion. The real core of this fight, as I see it, comes down to the issue of the child. Is it alive, a person with rights and freedoms of its own or is it not. If it is, then abortion is an initiation of force against that child which violates its right to live. ("right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
The problem with abortion is that all abortions get lumped together under one label. An abortion two days after the zygote has been implanted on the wall of the uterus is obviously a far cry from aborting a fetus two days before birth, but they are both called "abortion". One of the pro-life side's arguments is "at what point is a fetus a person", the implication being, that since we can't pick a single moment in time, you can't pick one at all. But the simple solution is to have two arbitrary points instead of one. During the first trimester, a fetus is obviously not a person, and an abortion at any time for any reason by anyone should be allowed. And during the third trimester, a fetus obviously is a person and should not be aborted unless circumstances are extreme.
Side tangent: one thing I find annoying about the pro-choice side is how a woman's "choice" is paramount, but the only choice a man has is to agree to whatever the woman wants. Why is 9 months of a woman's life sacrosanct, but 18 years of a man's life is irrelevant? When it comes to child support, men are told, "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences," but that argument somehow does not apply to a woman who chooses to have sex and gets pregnant.
Last, but not least, your obtuse comment on the bible as an authority on sexual morality.
What's obnoxious are the number of Christians and politicians who take the Bible literally, but only when it suits them.
Job's daughters are never even mentioned in Genesis, but only in Job
Yes, as 20 others harped on this subject, Job is not in Genesis. BFD. At least you argued his point rather than focusing on an irrelevant detail.