For people... safety nets from the government is a bad thing.
I know.... oh about a dozen people who are 'on the dole' who are very capable of working. They don't work (or work off the record) so they won't "lose" their aid. One person I know "can't" work due to chronic headaches (and on disability for it). What does he do with his time at home? World of Warcraft. Now he is comparing numbers, organizing/participating for raids, and managing a guild. Now if he can show up to a raid on time, why can't he show up for work on time? If he can stare at a monitor all day and enter data, why can't he work data entry?
Years ago when I got a my first 'real' job as an adult, my mother told me I should save 6 months of my income for a 'rainy day' fund. That way if I lose my job, I have 6 months of income I can use to find a new job. Now how many people do that? I doubt very many do because it's silly... we have a safety net.
Now if we take the social safety nets for people out of the hands of the government and return them to charities... That would do a lot. First, the safety net isn't a "right" but something you have to ask for. People still have their pride and will try *not* to use it. If they really need to they can still get help. The charities also have to run their books. They can't go over budget and shrug it off like government agencies can. This makes them more pro-active to kick people like my WoW-"Disabled" friend off the dole... and makes sure they do things to ensure the most bang for the charitable buck, like instead of handing out cash to people for food (that can be abused), provide a food-shelf for them to get food (less likely to be abused).
If the safety net is from the government.. it gives a "We need more money for the poor people!" card to the politicians... and how much of every dollar raised for the poor actually makes it to the poor? If you talk about cutting wasteful spending you get "Ohh you just want to cut funding from all the poor people" as the politicians build a bridge to nowhere. It is a strong emotional trump card.
Can you cite a case where a business went under and their competitors did as well... Unless the competitors were also doing poorly.
If GM went under, Ford and Chrysler would be higher in demand as they pick up the slack. If Johnson Controls (makers of car batteries) lost money due to GM going under, they will also have higher demand from GM and Chrysler... Plus they still provide batteries for existing cars. (in other words, the company should diversify, not provide products for only one business).
I use to support the "Safety Net" idea, but now... I don't. Safety Nets remove risk. Risk helps us avoid bad decisions. If a bank is told to make loans to people who are high-risk, The bank will protest. They know it's a bad idea. But if the government adds a safety net, say a promise to bail out bad loans... Why wouldn't the bank make the loan? If the loan works out: they get paid. If the loan fails: they get paid. Win-Win for the bank. Housing demand goes up, Home prices go up. Bank loans go up. You want to talk about making the economy suffer... it was just a matter of time before the bubble burst. And anybody who warned about the loans and tried to stop the bubble bursting was dismissed as "Hating the poor" or "Playing chicken little politics". *sigh*
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal...
The Second Amendment does *NOT* say:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It says "people"... Militia are not soldiers employed by the government, but everyday citizens. This country was founded by people who didn't trust the government... A government that distrusts government. The founders know how governments can trample on the rights of the people and two defenses for the people against over bearing governments are: The right to protest, and be heard (first amendment), and the right to protect yourself by force if needed (second amendment). Ice-T put it very well, The Second Amendment isn't to protect hunters.... It is the last line of defense against tyranny.
When a tragedy hits, we always feel a need to do something. Record setting Earthquake + Record tsunami + Nuclear reactor = Ban nuclear energy (despite it's extremely low death per Terawatt/hr). Plane crash? Is air travel safe (despite it being the safest way to travel). A nutjob kills a bunch of people? Must be guns fault (despite the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, vast majority not used illegally).
So lets not pass any knee-jerk laws at this. Lets mourn the fallen, take some time to collect ourselves and discuss reasonable actions that will target only those who do wrong, catching them before something bad happens, and leave those who do right alone.
City of Heroes went Free-to-Play months (maybe even a year) ago. F2P accounts were limited to number of characters and such (unlock more with micro-transactions). P2P accounts earned Vet rewards and and had much more unlocked.
Why can't stand your ground can't be used for Trayvon: He got away and went back. This is stated by both Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend.
Zimmerman didn't go out to confront Trayvon. Zimmerman got out of his SUV to look for him. Zimmerman knew about many break-ins in the area, and saw a strange person wandering around in front of a house. What Zimmerman didn't know was Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend using a Bluetooth headset. All he saw was a guy pacing in front of a house. Zimmerman did the right thing and called the cops, and gave a description (which the news agencies edited to sound racist). While watching, and waiting for the cops, Zimmerman lost contact with Trayvon and got out to look for him. Zimmerman gave up the search and was on his way back to his SUV. Trayvon almost made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, when he told his (Tryvon's) girlfriend he was going to go back and confront Zimmerman. Trayvon's girlfriend told him not to, and to just go back to the house. Trayvon confronted Zimermman before Zimmerman made it back to his SUV. That's when the fight broke out (Evidence does suggest Trayvon did sucker-punch Zimmerman, and continued to beat him). Zimmerman states during the fight Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun and said "You're gonna die!" while trying to grab the gun. This instance is where Zimmerman's "Stand your ground" defense comes into place. Zimmerman was able to get the gun first and shoot.
Now there should be an investigation... and there was. A trial comes if there is enough evidence to support it. Trials are expensive, even if you win. Everybody who looked at this case didn't support a trail because the evidence is that strong supporting Zimmerman. The media demanded a trial and now we have one. There isn't enough evidence to justify a murder charge in any level. There was no intent to kill from the beginning. You might be able to stretch a lower-level manslaughter (accidental death), but the jury would have to throw out the fight, or judge that Zimmerman started, or instigated the fight (against evidence otherwise, remember, the events were heard by Trayvon's girlfriend and she stated Zimmerman only asked "Why are you here?" before the fight broke out).
Like I said, there is a mountain of evidence that supports Zimmerman's self-defense case.
No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.
Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).
Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).
All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.
One on the plastic retail package, two places on the inner cardboard package that contains the instructions and storage case, one in the instructions, and finally on the storage case.
Each one is not fine-print... they are very noticeable.
The ban isn't on buckyballs specifically, it is on all similar products. Zen Magnets (a competitor) also under the ban, their last update: "CPSC Selects nuclear option. Magnet spheres may soon be harder to acquire than ammunition in the US. [Update 11/2] The magnet fight is not looking good."
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F The Emperor isn't dead. Luke becomes a Jedi Master, falls to the dark side (under the Emperor), returns to the light. Leia becomes a Jedi... Lots of stories continue the saga. Most in comic, or novel form.
For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
Keep in mind the top 3 intel agencies in the world all said he had WMDs and was ready to use them. Ends up he was wrong. The US Intel agencies started to share info better to detect errors like this. The Intel agent from British Intelligence committed suicide over the debacle. Unsure what the Russian Intel agency did to change.
Now I saw a story (years ago), that theorized that Saddam faked the intel himself. He was worried about Iran taking advantage of his limited military (due to UN policies) and was bluffing on having WMD's to keep Iran from invading. This is why he didn't want to cooperate with UN inspection teams, wanting them to wait before inspections... not because he had WMD's, but he could keep his bluff.
Also as for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis... Saddam killed a million+ before we got involved. How many more would he kill if we didn't take him out?
We do have copyright laws for style. Fonts are protected, even though the alphabet is clearly in public domain. We have many lawsuits over the look of a logo, even the use of color in an advertisement... Plan on Red background with white cursive lettering? Coca-Cola will be in touch with you.
I'm a big Android fan, I've used various Android ROMs on my rooted phone, and on my tablet. Over Labor Day I got my hands on a Samsung Galaxy 5 Player. This was unlike any Android I've used before. The UI was re-worked quite a bit and my first reaction was "This feels more like an Apple device". The desktop (for lack of a better word) was set up so the home page was the first window, and all extra were on the right (like Apple, where android has the home be the center window). The icons in the app tray had a background image put behind them that made it feel very apple like. The Samsung apps on it looked like Apple apps (Like a notepad that had the same icon as Apple's app). It wasn't a stretch to see many of the UI elements were taken from the iPhone. It was to the point where I had to search for settings, because the UI was more Apple-like than Android-like.
As much as I hate to say it, as I really loathe Apple products... I think Apple has a case here for the specific devices that the look/feel were copied. The Samsung S3 has a much more "Android" feel to it. It isn't Android, but a custom ROM Samsung made using Android to make their own version of an iPhone.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance. There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead". This is a dangerous and slippery slope we are on with this. It's the first time the government required you to buy something, with no way to opt out, no per-requisite purchase (if you buy X, you must also get Y). If you are breathing, you must buy it or face a tax (and per SCOTUS, it is a tax). Ask yourself who will pay that tax? The rich? Are they uninsured? No. The poor/middle class that can't afford the insurance, so they will get slapped with a tax.
I was really hopeful about Obama's original plan for health insurance... getting Democrats, Republicans, Doctors, and Insurance companies together and debating the problem, and having the debates online/on TV. What we got was HillaryCare with "Hillary" scratched off and "Obama" written over it... and funny thing is Obama flat out said that requiring somebody to by insurance then fining them if they can't afford it was going to make the poor worse off... and that is what we got.
I really hate to bring this up, but I hope we can focus on the topic, and not skew off to debate the court/political side of things....
Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman news coverage.
When the news story first reported most of the newspapers and news agencies showed the picture of Trayvon in the red shirt and George in an orange jumper. There were other pictures available, so somebody chose these pictures.
Trayvon's picture was of when he was 12 years old. The picture has a very happy looking kid, with a big smile. Eyes are bright, and the picture is very friendly, very innocent. George's picture is of a old mug shot, he was heavy, unshaven, the picture could be lightened or darkened (I've seen lighter and darker pictures, unsure what the original looked like). George is not smiling, unhappy, depressing.
Now there is a headline "Man kills teen" and phrase "Man kills in self-defense"
With the images provided we make assumptions. The Trayvon is 12 years old. False, Trayvon is 17. George is a convicted felon/criminal. False, George was arrested, but charges were dropped (yes I know there is some claims on this, but the charges were dropped.). George is white, Trayvon is black, this is racism. False, George is Hispanic. George is known for tutoring black children for free on the weekends, and was the only person to come to the defense of a homeless black man. The FBI investigated George and found no evidence that he is racist in any way.
So, the images and headline imply the idea: "White racist convicted felon kills innocent happy black child."
Other shading comes from the text - small example: Using "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" for names. "Trayvon" is a very "black-sounding" name. Zimmerman is a common German name (Germans aren't known for any racists right?).
And the damage is done. People have picked sides and have dug themselves in. Even now when we have up-to-date pictures (few are using the old red-shirt/orange jumper pics), the original images have set themselves in the minds of the people. What would have the story been like if the media outlets used the up-to-date pictures, rather than the kid/convict pictures?
It's fine if MSDOS contains parts of QDOS if Microsoft bought QDOS. The original authors got paid. Now if we consider the price paid to be fair is another story... But that doesn't matter, all that matters is did the author think it was a fair price at the time, and did he willingly accept it? In hindsight, of course he should have gotten more, but that is always the risk when you sell your IP...
It's more stupid teenagers. 2 bucky balls on your ear lobe can look like an ear ring... Hmm what about make it look like a tongue stud! Small ball covered with saliva... yeah that can get swallowed quite easily.
They are marketed to adults. Designed for adults. There are 6 warnings on the package, instructions, plastic storage box, etc that is so expressive, it's to the point where I'm not sure a child should LOOK at it. Really, above and beyond on warnings that kids should not go near these things.
This isn't about owning or renting online... this is about streaming, (i.e. pandora, slackware,etc). Think radio, your issue is mute. If one provider dies just select another. You're not purchasing anything.
If one provider dies, hope there is another. If there isn't, your SOL. If RIAA decides that a song violates a copyright and pulls it from all streaming... tough. vs I have a local copy, it will never die unless I choose.
and not just Samsung Galaxy S3, but any phone with Android 4.0 (ICS) with face unlock active. My EVO 4g LTE can be fooled the same way, but what is the odds that some random person just happens to have a picture of me? It's more likely they could guess my pin/pattern.
The reason why they are made to fit in the ear is because: Nobody wants a hearing aid.
It's a sign of that says "I'm old". There have been hearing aids that fit in the bow of eye glasses, worn on necklaces, things that look lake pagers... All are gone because people don't want to advertise that they need a hearing aid. This is why people want things hidden. There is no sexy hearing aid.
Slashdot Mirror
For people... safety nets from the government is a bad thing.
I know.... oh about a dozen people who are 'on the dole' who are very capable of working. They don't work (or work off the record) so they won't "lose" their aid. One person I know "can't" work due to chronic headaches (and on disability for it). What does he do with his time at home? World of Warcraft. Now he is comparing numbers, organizing/participating for raids, and managing a guild. Now if he can show up to a raid on time, why can't he show up for work on time? If he can stare at a monitor all day and enter data, why can't he work data entry?
Years ago when I got a my first 'real' job as an adult, my mother told me I should save 6 months of my income for a 'rainy day' fund. That way if I lose my job, I have 6 months of income I can use to find a new job. Now how many people do that? I doubt very many do because it's silly... we have a safety net.
Now if we take the social safety nets for people out of the hands of the government and return them to charities... That would do a lot. First, the safety net isn't a "right" but something you have to ask for. People still have their pride and will try *not* to use it. If they really need to they can still get help. The charities also have to run their books. They can't go over budget and shrug it off like government agencies can. This makes them more pro-active to kick people like my WoW-"Disabled" friend off the dole... and makes sure they do things to ensure the most bang for the charitable buck, like instead of handing out cash to people for food (that can be abused), provide a food-shelf for them to get food (less likely to be abused).
If the safety net is from the government.. it gives a "We need more money for the poor people!" card to the politicians... and how much of every dollar raised for the poor actually makes it to the poor? If you talk about cutting wasteful spending you get "Ohh you just want to cut funding from all the poor people" as the politicians build a bridge to nowhere. It is a strong emotional trump card.
Can you cite a case where a business went under and their competitors did as well... Unless the competitors were also doing poorly.
If GM went under, Ford and Chrysler would be higher in demand as they pick up the slack. If Johnson Controls (makers of car batteries) lost money due to GM going under, they will also have higher demand from GM and Chrysler... Plus they still provide batteries for existing cars. (in other words, the company should diversify, not provide products for only one business).
I use to support the "Safety Net" idea, but now... I don't. Safety Nets remove risk. Risk helps us avoid bad decisions. If a bank is told to make loans to people who are high-risk, The bank will protest. They know it's a bad idea. But if the government adds a safety net, say a promise to bail out bad loans... Why wouldn't the bank make the loan? If the loan works out: they get paid. If the loan fails: they get paid. Win-Win for the bank. Housing demand goes up, Home prices go up. Bank loans go up. You want to talk about making the economy suffer... it was just a matter of time before the bubble burst. And anybody who warned about the loans and tried to stop the bubble bursting was dismissed as "Hating the poor" or "Playing chicken little politics". *sigh*
What the founders intended is that those that exercise their right to bear arms be members of a regulated militia. The meaning has been twisted over the years, but the original intent is obvious because it is literal...
The Second Amendment does *NOT* say:
It says "people"... Militia are not soldiers employed by the government, but everyday citizens. This country was founded by people who didn't trust the government... A government that distrusts government. The founders know how governments can trample on the rights of the people and two defenses for the people against over bearing governments are: The right to protest, and be heard (first amendment), and the right to protect yourself by force if needed (second amendment). Ice-T put it very well, The Second Amendment isn't to protect hunters.... It is the last line of defense against tyranny.
When a tragedy hits, we always feel a need to do something. Record setting Earthquake + Record tsunami + Nuclear reactor = Ban nuclear energy (despite it's extremely low death per Terawatt/hr). Plane crash? Is air travel safe (despite it being the safest way to travel). A nutjob kills a bunch of people? Must be guns fault (despite the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, vast majority not used illegally).
So lets not pass any knee-jerk laws at this. Lets mourn the fallen, take some time to collect ourselves and discuss reasonable actions that will target only those who do wrong, catching them before something bad happens, and leave those who do right alone.
City of Heroes went Free-to-Play months (maybe even a year) ago. F2P accounts were limited to number of characters and such (unlock more with micro-transactions). P2P accounts earned Vet rewards and and had much more unlocked.
Why can't stand your ground can't be used for Trayvon: He got away and went back. This is stated by both Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend.
Zimmerman didn't go out to confront Trayvon. Zimmerman got out of his SUV to look for him. Zimmerman knew about many break-ins in the area, and saw a strange person wandering around in front of a house. What Zimmerman didn't know was Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend using a Bluetooth headset. All he saw was a guy pacing in front of a house. Zimmerman did the right thing and called the cops, and gave a description (which the news agencies edited to sound racist). While watching, and waiting for the cops, Zimmerman lost contact with Trayvon and got out to look for him. Zimmerman gave up the search and was on his way back to his SUV. Trayvon almost made it back to his father's girlfriend's house, when he told his (Tryvon's) girlfriend he was going to go back and confront Zimmerman. Trayvon's girlfriend told him not to, and to just go back to the house. Trayvon confronted Zimermman before Zimmerman made it back to his SUV. That's when the fight broke out (Evidence does suggest Trayvon did sucker-punch Zimmerman, and continued to beat him). Zimmerman states during the fight Trayvon saw Zimmerman's gun and said "You're gonna die!" while trying to grab the gun. This instance is where Zimmerman's "Stand your ground" defense comes into place. Zimmerman was able to get the gun first and shoot.
Now there should be an investigation... and there was. A trial comes if there is enough evidence to support it. Trials are expensive, even if you win. Everybody who looked at this case didn't support a trail because the evidence is that strong supporting Zimmerman. The media demanded a trial and now we have one. There isn't enough evidence to justify a murder charge in any level. There was no intent to kill from the beginning. You might be able to stretch a lower-level manslaughter (accidental death), but the jury would have to throw out the fight, or judge that Zimmerman started, or instigated the fight (against evidence otherwise, remember, the events were heard by Trayvon's girlfriend and she stated Zimmerman only asked "Why are you here?" before the fight broke out).
Like I said, there is a mountain of evidence that supports Zimmerman's self-defense case.
No that was the police, that were the first ones who took in the evidence, talked to witnesses, dealt with injuries.
Evidence overwhelmingly put Zimmerman in the clear. Trayvon had bruises on his knuckles that shows he was punching somebody. Zimmerman had no bruises on his fists, he wasn't, but he did have multiple wounds including a broken nose and bleeding from the back of the head. Eye witnesses saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, went to call the police - heard the gun shot and returned to see Trayvon on the ground. Interviews with Trayvon's girlfriend indicates Trayvon went back to confront Zimmerman, and what was said before (T: 'Why are you following me?" Z: "What are you doing here?" then a fight breaks out).
Liberal news agencies altered the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist (they apologized for this), filtered images to hide wounds on Zimmerman's head (after removing the filters they announced there were wounds...) They published a 6-7 year old picture of Trayvon as a 11 year old kid (helps draw sympathy), and an old mug shot of Zimmerman (Boy, helps the innocents there right? Didn't even mention all charges against him were dropped and he had a clear record).
All evidence collaborates with Zimmerman's story of self-defense. Trayvon did attack Zimmerman. Zimmerman's wounds were all self-defense style wounds.
That waring is in 5 places.
One on the plastic retail package, two places on the inner cardboard package that contains the instructions and storage case, one in the instructions, and finally on the storage case.
Each one is not fine-print... they are very noticeable.
In the US, we pass laws to protect the stupid.
Now we have too many stupid people.
The ban isn't on buckyballs specifically, it is on all similar products. Zen Magnets (a competitor) also under the ban, their last update:
"CPSC Selects nuclear option. Magnet spheres may soon be harder to acquire than ammunition in the US.
[Update 11/2] The magnet fight is not looking good."
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
The Emperor isn't dead. Luke becomes a Jedi Master, falls to the dark side (under the Emperor), returns to the light. Leia becomes a Jedi... Lots of stories continue the saga. Most in comic, or novel form.
For years and years, yes. So where was the imminent threat? There was none, there was only an imminent opportunity for Cheney's cronies to make money.
If we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, still thumbing his nose, but doing nothing to actually harm Americans. Instead, we have 2 trillion dollars to pay off (more than 9/11 cost our economy), 4800 dead Americans (more than died in 9/11), and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Dick Cheney is a war criminal.
Keep in mind the top 3 intel agencies in the world all said he had WMDs and was ready to use them. Ends up he was wrong. The US Intel agencies started to share info better to detect errors like this. The Intel agent from British Intelligence committed suicide over the debacle. Unsure what the Russian Intel agency did to change.
Now I saw a story (years ago), that theorized that Saddam faked the intel himself. He was worried about Iran taking advantage of his limited military (due to UN policies) and was bluffing on having WMD's to keep Iran from invading. This is why he didn't want to cooperate with UN inspection teams, wanting them to wait before inspections... not because he had WMD's, but he could keep his bluff.
Also as for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis... Saddam killed a million+ before we got involved. How many more would he kill if we didn't take him out?
We do have copyright laws for style. Fonts are protected, even though the alphabet is clearly in public domain. We have many lawsuits over the look of a logo, even the use of color in an advertisement... Plan on Red background with white cursive lettering? Coca-Cola will be in touch with you.
I'm a big Android fan, I've used various Android ROMs on my rooted phone, and on my tablet. Over Labor Day I got my hands on a Samsung Galaxy 5 Player. This was unlike any Android I've used before. The UI was re-worked quite a bit and my first reaction was "This feels more like an Apple device". The desktop (for lack of a better word) was set up so the home page was the first window, and all extra were on the right (like Apple, where android has the home be the center window). The icons in the app tray had a background image put behind them that made it feel very apple like. The Samsung apps on it looked like Apple apps (Like a notepad that had the same icon as Apple's app). It wasn't a stretch to see many of the UI elements were taken from the iPhone. It was to the point where I had to search for settings, because the UI was more Apple-like than Android-like.
As much as I hate to say it, as I really loathe Apple products... I think Apple has a case here for the specific devices that the look/feel were copied. The Samsung S3 has a much more "Android" feel to it. It isn't Android, but a custom ROM Samsung made using Android to make their own version of an iPhone.
Your phone didn't make itself and crawl out of a pile of parts either... It was intelligently designed. Its evolution was planned.
"Require you to buy some" is hardly an insurance plan.
I think every state requires you to buy auto insurance and all mortgage companies require homeowners insurance.
Wrong. *NO* state requires you to buy auto insurance by itself. They require that *IF* you by a car AND drive it, you have insurance.
If you don't own a car, you don't need auto insurance. There is a condition and people can (and do) weigh the cost of insurance when purchasing a vehicle.
With the "Require you to buy it" health care bill, there is no way to opt out. You can't say "I can't afford the insurance so I'll ride a bike, or take the bus instead". This is a dangerous and slippery slope we are on with this. It's the first time the government required you to buy something, with no way to opt out, no per-requisite purchase (if you buy X, you must also get Y). If you are breathing, you must buy it or face a tax (and per SCOTUS, it is a tax). Ask yourself who will pay that tax? The rich? Are they uninsured? No. The poor/middle class that can't afford the insurance, so they will get slapped with a tax.
I was really hopeful about Obama's original plan for health insurance... getting Democrats, Republicans, Doctors, and Insurance companies together and debating the problem, and having the debates online/on TV. What we got was HillaryCare with "Hillary" scratched off and "Obama" written over it... and funny thing is Obama flat out said that requiring somebody to by insurance then fining them if they can't afford it was going to make the poor worse off... and that is what we got.
You can get the quote here.
Dinosaurs killed my ancestors you insensitive clod!
I really hate to bring this up, but I hope we can focus on the topic, and not skew off to debate the court/political side of things....
Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman news coverage.
When the news story first reported most of the newspapers and news agencies showed the picture of Trayvon in the red shirt and George in an orange jumper. There were other pictures available, so somebody chose these pictures.
Trayvon's picture was of when he was 12 years old. The picture has a very happy looking kid, with a big smile. Eyes are bright, and the picture is very friendly, very innocent.
George's picture is of a old mug shot, he was heavy, unshaven, the picture could be lightened or darkened (I've seen lighter and darker pictures, unsure what the original looked like). George is not smiling, unhappy, depressing.
Now there is a headline "Man kills teen" and phrase "Man kills in self-defense"
With the images provided we make assumptions.
The Trayvon is 12 years old. False, Trayvon is 17.
George is a convicted felon/criminal. False, George was arrested, but charges were dropped (yes I know there is some claims on this, but the charges were dropped.).
George is white, Trayvon is black, this is racism. False, George is Hispanic. George is known for tutoring black children for free on the weekends, and was the only person to come to the defense of a homeless black man. The FBI investigated George and found no evidence that he is racist in any way.
So, the images and headline imply the idea: "White racist convicted felon kills innocent happy black child."
Other shading comes from the text - small example: Using "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" for names. "Trayvon" is a very "black-sounding" name. Zimmerman is a common German name (Germans aren't known for any racists right?).
And the damage is done. People have picked sides and have dug themselves in. Even now when we have up-to-date pictures (few are using the old red-shirt/orange jumper pics), the original images have set themselves in the minds of the people. What would have the story been like if the media outlets used the up-to-date pictures, rather than the kid/convict pictures?
Microsoft did purchase Qdos...
purchase != steal
It's fine if MSDOS contains parts of QDOS if Microsoft bought QDOS. The original authors got paid. Now if we consider the price paid to be fair is another story... But that doesn't matter, all that matters is did the author think it was a fair price at the time, and did he willingly accept it? In hindsight, of course he should have gotten more, but that is always the risk when you sell your IP...
It's more stupid teenagers. 2 bucky balls on your ear lobe can look like an ear ring... Hmm what about make it look like a tongue stud! Small ball covered with saliva... yeah that can get swallowed quite easily.
Buckyballs are *NOT* for kids!
They are marketed to adults. Designed for adults. There are 6 warnings on the package, instructions, plastic storage box, etc that is so expressive, it's to the point where I'm not sure a child should LOOK at it. Really, above and beyond on warnings that kids should not go near these things.
You cannot force people to use their real name... Especially on a free service that has no requirements to sign up for.
-Yours Truly,
Abe Froman
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
-Oscar Wilde
This isn't about owning or renting online... this is about streaming, (i.e. pandora, slackware,etc). Think radio, your issue is mute. If one provider dies just select another. You're not purchasing anything.
Moot. Your issue is moot moot.
If one provider dies, hope there is another. If there isn't, your SOL. If RIAA decides that a song violates a copyright and pulls it from all streaming... tough.
vs
I have a local copy, it will never die unless I choose.
As seen on Youtube.
and not just Samsung Galaxy S3, but any phone with Android 4.0 (ICS) with face unlock active. My EVO 4g LTE can be fooled the same way, but what is the odds that some random person just happens to have a picture of me? It's more likely they could guess my pin/pattern.
The reason why they are made to fit in the ear is because: Nobody wants a hearing aid.
It's a sign of that says "I'm old". There have been hearing aids that fit in the bow of eye glasses, worn on necklaces, things that look lake pagers... All are gone because people don't want to advertise that they need a hearing aid. This is why people want things hidden. There is no sexy hearing aid.