No, most of the time the transmitter and the battery compartment are built into the handle.
It's generally only the little condenser mics that you wear on a headset or clip to your lapel which need the transmitter to be in a separate box.
P.S. I noticed that you and the parent of your post used alternate spellings. Just for the record, both "mic" and "mike" are correct. One is a more clear abbreviation, the other is more clear to pronounce. Which one you use is a matter of taste. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
But the publishing industry still works for some lucky novelists who find a way to establish a connection with a readership sufficiently large to put bread on their tables. It's conventional to refer to these as "commercial" novelists, but I hate that term, so I'm going to call them Beowulf writers.
Pretense, thy name is Neal.
I can refute his point just by pulling a couple writers off the top of my head: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Maybe you've heard of them, Neal. They were a couple of college Profs who also wrote books, and you would probably kill for the chance for your books to sell nearly as well as some of their lesser works.
Patronage artists are not less accountable than commercial artists. Commercial artists have a publisher, who decides whether or not to print their books based on the opinion of whether or not they will sell.
So, unless he or she self-publishes and hands out the books in coffee shops, a commercial artist has a patron, too: the publisher.
You are not the village skald. You are a contracted employee, hired to write books that can be marketed to a chosen demographic. Get over it, and yourself.
P.S. All this nastiness aside, I do enjoy your books. Keep up the good work.
Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, eventually some doomsayer is going to be right, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be Dr. Kari, and it will not be in 2006.
I guess I'm one of the only people who likes the original and massive xbox controllers.
You are not the only one. I can't stand the tiny little PS2 controllers. They seem to have been made for the tiny hands of small Japanese children, not adult Americans. Even the X-Box "S" controller and the old Sega controller made my wrists cramp up from operating their itty-bitty buttons for a couple hours. Let's not even talk about the Nintendo cube's abomination.
If anything, I wish they would make a BIGGER controller for the X-Box. Same distance between the controls for each hand, but with about 14 inches of space between them, so you can hold your hands almost shoulder-width apart while playing.
Mind you, I'm a little taller than average... YMMV.
I think you mean Candide, not Candid, and citing the views of one of Voltaire's fictional characters as his own is about as valid as saying "Shakespeare said we should kill all the lawyers."... Not that you really expressed Candide's views very accurately, anyway. It was the enlightenment's view of God's benevolence ensuring that all things work for the best that Candide found to result in irrational optimism, not freedom.
You are the one who was equating libertarianism with Social Darwinism and/or corporatism, not me. The fact that you did so indicated to me that you have very little clue as to what libertarianism stands for.
Mentioning Smith and Voltaire is perfectly valid, not because I'm trying to use their names to prop up the prestige of my chosen political philosophy, but because their writing is exactly what eventually brought me to my chosen political philosophy. You still have said nothing about what objections either writer would have against libertarianism.
I would put it to you that a "middle class" person today is exponentially better off than a middle-class person of Ike's two terms, or for that matter during the LBJ years. My parents were middle-class in the 60s, and I thank God that I don't have to live the way they did back then.
You can only say things got worse if you keep raising the definition for poverty to the point where people who eat well, wear reasonably new clothes, drive cars, and own climate-controlled homes, and can even afford a few modest luxuries without government assistance are considered "poor."
Also, as was pointed out elsewhere, the growth of the post-WW II era had everything to do with the fact that we were the only player in the game. The rest of the industrialized world had been bombed nearly into the stone age, and American manufacturing was needed for almost everything.
Which views do you think they would object to? That free markets increase prosperity? That freedom of religion and expression are required in a just society? I'm not a LP member, but there are very few planks in their party platform which I could not build a case for using nothing but the works of those two writers.
If memory serves correctly, when Herbert Hoover (the man for whom the term "Big Government" was coined), introduced the federal income tax, the top marginal rate, paid by the richest of Americans, was 7%.
Income tax became huge under FDR during the war, but were gradually being scaled back by the presidents who followed (including JFK, who made taxes both lower and less progressive), but then were hiked up again to fund LBJ's "Great Society" (which Nixon did pretty much nothing to roll back.)
Reagan slashed taxes, especially in the top brackets, to levels pretty close to where they remain today, and most Americans have no desire to go back to sort of top marginal rates we had during the Carter years.
Actually, speaking as a libertarian, I find Rand to be utterly loathesome, and I'm far from being the exception. If you want to talk modern libertarian writers, look first to William F. Buckley.
Or, if you prefer lighter reading, humorist P.J. O'Rourke summarizes our views better than most folk.
We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently; there's no way to know.
Actually, there has.
Prior to the hand-over to the Chinese government, the city of Hong Kong was managed (or more accurately, not managed) by Brittish appointees who left the people of Hong Kong largely to their own devices. Immigration policy was "if you get here, you can stay." Copyright protection was non-existant. There was no minimum wage, ultra-low taxes, no government-run welfare state, and almost no sign of official bureaucracy getting in the way of business decisions.
Hong Kong had many of the problems which critics of libertarianism fear, but it also justified a lot of what the most extreme tin-foil hat capital-L Libertarians have been saying all along: With almost no help from an almost non-present government, Hong Kong thrived and prospered in a way which is still serving as a "best case" model for many of the economic reforms which China has been making since absorbing the city back under Chinese rule.
Of course, Hong Kong had a terrific advantage over many countries, in that they had no need of military protection. The only country who could possibly be interested in conquering them was eventually going to be peacefully taking them over anyway.
but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism -- "greed is the ultimate good"
Your entire argument is flawed because you are beginning with a false premise. That is not the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism. If you ever have read Adam Smith and Voltaire (the two most important writers on any libertarian's bookshelf), you clearly did not understand tehm correctly, and need to study them further.
Nor is it in 10.2, as long as you are using the current version of Safari.
Stop spreading FUD if you are not up to date on the product. You wouldn't want me to compare today's Safari with Firebird (the version before Firefox), but you are pretty much doing the same thing in the other direction.
Sinclair has every right to show this film on their networks except during election season. There are rules and regulations that must be followed. If they show this film then they must also show anti-Bush propoganda for the exact amount of time
That's not even remotely true. If it was, "60 Minutes" would have to follow up just about every show with a one-hour attack on Democrats.
The so-called "fairness doctrine" (which is no longer rigidly enforced anyway) only applies of you spend broadcast time telling people to vote for somebody. That would require you to air an equally long segment telling people to vote for the other guy. It was a stupid practice to enforce because, among other reasons (*cough*firstamendment*cough*) it screws third-party candidates.
You can put up a TV station which spends the vast majority of it's news-coverage time telling the public that Bush is a jackass without ever having to do the same to his opponents. Indeed, that's pretty much what CBS does. Likewise, FOX does not owe the public hundreds of hours of Bush-bashing to make up for all the time they've spent going after Kerry.
Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911
You haven't got it straight yet.
Lots of stations would love to air Fahrenheit 9/11. Instant ratings! For example, I did not see it in the theaters, and would not waste my money renting it, but would probably watch at least some of it if it was on broadcast TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Unfortunately for Moore's political agenda (but fortunately for his pocketbook), he chose a distributer which wants to make a profit, so they are not selling any broadcast rights until they are done milking the DVD sales market.
I've seen dozens of anti-Bush "documentaries" and "news magazine stories" on TV over the last year, with never a peep out of any outspoken Democrat about how such hatchet-job tabloid journalism is bad for democracy in America. Now one tiny media group wants to show one anti-Kerry documentary on less than 70 stations, and suddenly the consider the presense of slanted documentaries on Television to be a huge problem. One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
Safari also has tabs (which you can load in the background or foreground, not interfering with your browsing elsewhere), pop-up blocking, and pretty much every feature that Firefox has. It renders pages fine, in fact it's more likely to deal correctly with pages than Firefox. Also, yes it is fast.
Firefox is my favorite browser, hands down, when I'm on either a Windows or Linux system, but on my Mac I've found Safari to be the only browser I need.
A lot of people think Badnarik could pull a lot of votes away from Bush if allowed into a debate, because he's fiscally much more conservative than Bush.
However, my suspicion is that he's likely to damage Kerry's campaign a lot more, since he's much more steadfast in his opposition to the war in Iraq. Kerry would be faced with a choice between posing as a "moderate" on the Iraq war issue (and risk losing nearly all of the Deaniacs to third-party guys), or step up his anti-war rhetoric even farther, feeding on Bush's "how can he lead nations in a war he believes is wrong?" attacks.
Either way, if I were a big-shot for the DNC, I would be sending my best lawyers in to oppose Badnarik's lawsuit right now.
I don't care if effects the election or not, I'll root for the Skins, because each week my favorite two teams are the Minnesota Vikings and Whoever Is Playing The Packers.
Slashdot Mirror
No, most of the time the transmitter and the battery compartment are built into the handle.
It's generally only the little condenser mics that you wear on a headset or clip to your lapel which need the transmitter to be in a separate box.
P.S. I noticed that you and the parent of your post used alternate spellings. Just for the record, both "mic" and "mike" are correct. One is a more clear abbreviation, the other is more clear to pronounce. Which one you use is a matter of taste. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
Heh. My favorite part was this:
But the publishing industry still works for some lucky novelists who find a way to establish a connection with a readership sufficiently large to put bread on their tables. It's conventional to refer to these as "commercial" novelists, but I hate that term, so I'm going to call them Beowulf writers.
Pretense, thy name is Neal.
I can refute his point just by pulling a couple writers off the top of my head: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien.
Maybe you've heard of them, Neal. They were a couple of college Profs who also wrote books, and you would probably kill for the chance for your books to sell nearly as well as some of their lesser works.
Patronage artists are not less accountable than commercial artists. Commercial artists have a publisher, who decides whether or not to print their books based on the opinion of whether or not they will sell.
So, unless he or she self-publishes and hands out the books in coffee shops, a commercial artist has a patron, too: the publisher.
You are not the village skald. You are a contracted employee, hired to write books that can be marketed to a chosen demographic. Get over it, and yourself.
P.S. All this nastiness aside, I do enjoy your books. Keep up the good work.
*cough*Mathus*cough*
Just as a broken clock is right twice a day, eventually some doomsayer is going to be right, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't be Dr. Kari, and it will not be in 2006.
I guess I'm one of the only people who likes the original and massive xbox controllers.
You are not the only one. I can't stand the tiny little PS2 controllers. They seem to have been made for the tiny hands of small Japanese children, not adult Americans. Even the X-Box "S" controller and the old Sega controller made my wrists cramp up from operating their itty-bitty buttons for a couple hours. Let's not even talk about the Nintendo cube's abomination.
If anything, I wish they would make a BIGGER controller for the X-Box. Same distance between the controls for each hand, but with about 14 inches of space between them, so you can hold your hands almost shoulder-width apart while playing.
Mind you, I'm a little taller than average... YMMV.
I think you mean Candide, not Candid, and citing the views of one of Voltaire's fictional characters as his own is about as valid as saying "Shakespeare said we should kill all the lawyers." ... Not that you really expressed Candide's views very accurately, anyway. It was the enlightenment's view of God's benevolence ensuring that all things work for the best that Candide found to result in irrational optimism, not freedom.
You are the one who was equating libertarianism with Social Darwinism and/or corporatism, not me. The fact that you did so indicated to me that you have very little clue as to what libertarianism stands for.
Mentioning Smith and Voltaire is perfectly valid, not because I'm trying to use their names to prop up the prestige of my chosen political philosophy, but because their writing is exactly what eventually brought me to my chosen political philosophy. You still have said nothing about what objections either writer would have against libertarianism.
I think they would disagree with the Libertarian notions of what constitutes "free markets", "freedom of religion"...
Which notions?
For example, they would likely argue that the Libertarian approach to the economy would not lead to a free market...
What about the libertarian approach would not lead to free markets?
You are not giving any specifics at all, you're just saying "Smith and Voltaire would not like they way they do it."
To me, US Libertarianism looks like just like a verbal front for Social Darwinism and corporatism.
Oh. I see now. You're just another person who doesn't really understand the difference between libertarianim and anarchy.
I would put it to you that a "middle class" person today is exponentially better off than a middle-class person of Ike's two terms, or for that matter during the LBJ years. My parents were middle-class in the 60s, and I thank God that I don't have to live the way they did back then.
You can only say things got worse if you keep raising the definition for poverty to the point where people who eat well, wear reasonably new clothes, drive cars, and own climate-controlled homes, and can even afford a few modest luxuries without government assistance are considered "poor."
Also, as was pointed out elsewhere, the growth of the post-WW II era had everything to do with the fact that we were the only player in the game. The rest of the industrialized world had been bombed nearly into the stone age, and American manufacturing was needed for almost everything.
Which views do you think they would object to? That free markets increase prosperity? That freedom of religion and expression are required in a just society? I'm not a LP member, but there are very few planks in their party platform which I could not build a case for using nothing but the works of those two writers.
If memory serves correctly, when Herbert Hoover (the man for whom the term "Big Government" was coined), introduced the federal income tax, the top marginal rate, paid by the richest of Americans, was 7%.
Income tax became huge under FDR during the war, but were gradually being scaled back by the presidents who followed (including JFK, who made taxes both lower and less progressive), but then were hiked up again to fund LBJ's "Great Society" (which Nixon did pretty much nothing to roll back.)
Reagan slashed taxes, especially in the top brackets, to levels pretty close to where they remain today, and most Americans have no desire to go back to sort of top marginal rates we had during the Carter years.
Actually, speaking as a libertarian, I find Rand to be utterly loathesome, and I'm far from being the exception. If you want to talk modern libertarian writers, look first to William F. Buckley.
Or, if you prefer lighter reading, humorist P.J. O'Rourke summarizes our views better than most folk.
We don't have a Libertarian government, nor has there been one recently; there's no way to know.
Actually, there has.
Prior to the hand-over to the Chinese government, the city of Hong Kong was managed (or more accurately, not managed) by Brittish appointees who left the people of Hong Kong largely to their own devices. Immigration policy was "if you get here, you can stay." Copyright protection was non-existant. There was no minimum wage, ultra-low taxes, no government-run welfare state, and almost no sign of official bureaucracy getting in the way of business decisions.
Hong Kong had many of the problems which critics of libertarianism fear, but it also justified a lot of what the most extreme tin-foil hat capital-L Libertarians have been saying all along: With almost no help from an almost non-present government, Hong Kong thrived and prospered in a way which is still serving as a "best case" model for many of the economic reforms which China has been making since absorbing the city back under Chinese rule.
Of course, Hong Kong had a terrific advantage over many countries, in that they had no need of military protection. The only country who could possibly be interested in conquering them was eventually going to be peacefully taking them over anyway.
but the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism -- "greed is the ultimate good"
Your entire argument is flawed because you are beginning with a false premise. That is not the fundamental philosophy of libertarianism. If you ever have read Adam Smith and Voltaire (the two most important writers on any libertarian's bookshelf), you clearly did not understand tehm correctly, and need to study them further.
Heh. Debate over - TykeClone wins.
This might not be true in 10.3
It's not.
Nor is it in 10.2, as long as you are using the current version of Safari.
Stop spreading FUD if you are not up to date on the product. You wouldn't want me to compare today's Safari with Firebird (the version before Firefox), but you are pretty much doing the same thing in the other direction.
Actually, I would like it if F911 was broadcast. It would get people talking (even more than when it was in the theaters) and that's a Good Thing.
I'm all about the First Amendment, unlike some so-called "liberals" and "progressives" posting here.
Like Voltaire, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Most big media companies "reach" 100% of the US Population. 25% is very small in contrast.
Wow. We totally disagree. I'm pro-Bush (not anti-Kerry), and I would strongly support widespread airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 in the next couple week.
This is America. Protecting political expression is what the First Amendment is for. Otherwise, why have it?
Sinclair has every right to show this film on their networks except during election season. There are rules and regulations that must be followed. If they show this film then they must also show anti-Bush propoganda for the exact amount of time
That's not even remotely true. If it was, "60 Minutes" would have to follow up just about every show with a one-hour attack on Democrats.
The so-called "fairness doctrine" (which is no longer rigidly enforced anyway) only applies of you spend broadcast time telling people to vote for somebody. That would require you to air an equally long segment telling people to vote for the other guy. It was a stupid practice to enforce because, among other reasons (*cough*firstamendment*cough*) it screws third-party candidates.
You can put up a TV station which spends the vast majority of it's news-coverage time telling the public that Bush is a jackass without ever having to do the same to his opponents. Indeed, that's pretty much what CBS does. Likewise, FOX does not owe the public hundreds of hours of Bush-bashing to make up for all the time they've spent going after Kerry.
Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911
You haven't got it straight yet.
Lots of stations would love to air Fahrenheit 9/11. Instant ratings! For example, I did not see it in the theaters, and would not waste my money renting it, but would probably watch at least some of it if it was on broadcast TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Unfortunately for Moore's political agenda (but fortunately for his pocketbook), he chose a distributer which wants to make a profit, so they are not selling any broadcast rights until they are done milking the DVD sales market.
I've seen dozens of anti-Bush "documentaries" and "news magazine stories" on TV over the last year, with never a peep out of any outspoken Democrat about how such hatchet-job tabloid journalism is bad for democracy in America. Now one tiny media group wants to show one anti-Kerry documentary on less than 70 stations, and suddenly the consider the presense of slanted documentaries on Television to be a huge problem. One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
Hypocrites.
Safari also has tabs (which you can load in the background or foreground, not interfering with your browsing elsewhere), pop-up blocking, and pretty much every feature that Firefox has. It renders pages fine, in fact it's more likely to deal correctly with pages than Firefox. Also, yes it is fast.
Firefox is my favorite browser, hands down, when I'm on either a Windows or Linux system, but on my Mac I've found Safari to be the only browser I need.
I thought his mantra was "I have a plan." He said it even more often in the second debate than Bush said "hard work" in the first.
A lot of people think Badnarik could pull a lot of votes away from Bush if allowed into a debate, because he's fiscally much more conservative than Bush.
However, my suspicion is that he's likely to damage Kerry's campaign a lot more, since he's much more steadfast in his opposition to the war in Iraq. Kerry would be faced with a choice between posing as a "moderate" on the Iraq war issue (and risk losing nearly all of the Deaniacs to third-party guys), or step up his anti-war rhetoric even farther, feeding on Bush's "how can he lead nations in a war he believes is wrong?" attacks.
Either way, if I were a big-shot for the DNC, I would be sending my best lawyers in to oppose Badnarik's lawsuit right now.
I don't care if effects the election or not, I'll root for the Skins, because each week my favorite two teams are the Minnesota Vikings and Whoever Is Playing The Packers.
I meant the geek jargon plural of box, not the wood type.