Many rural areas still lack broadband access. My father lives in such an area where even the dialup is run out of a closet leased from the local funereal home. There is no cable television provider, and he is far outside the allowable distance from the CO for DSL.
Yeah, he's in the middle of nowhere in Utah, but then again a lot of the population lives in rural areas with similar constraints.
I saw a special, on History Channel I think, where they thought that the trees that Stradivarius used to make his violins had unusual density qualities caused by the mini ice age.
The simple solution most, if not all of our problems is to tax everything bought/sold/traded/etc over the intarweb.
I know your post was tongue-in-cheek but I have to point out that everything bought on the internet is already subject to sales tax. It's a tax that the government cannot effectively enforce (yet), and so no one bothers to pay it (so far).
I didn't intent to imply that all people of faith are religious zealots, or that all religious zealots are Republicans. I think you used the most extreme possible interpretation of what I wrote.
There are prominent fundamentalist Christian members of the Republican party that make it a hard pill to swallow for those of us who are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.
The Democrats appear to be satisfied just to point out that they aren't Republicans.
This is what I meant in my original post. If the Republicans were to return to the core values on which the party was founded, the Democrats would have to start doing a much better job to convince us they have the best ideas. Everyone wins.
No, I don't. But you don't have any either, do you? So around we go again...
But to close loop, I really don't want to leave the decision about what happens to me completely in the hands of a stranger, one who isn't particularly motivated to look out for my good health and continued life, and one who has already decided not to abide by at least some of society's rules.
Some people value life higher than others. I hope that if you're ever actually in the situation we're theoretically discussing that it works out well for you. Because hope is all you'll have.
If a mugger knew I didn't have a weapon, he'd be happy to take my wallet and leave. If he thought I may have a gun, he might shoot me, then take my wallet and run.
I'd much prefer not having an ability to defend myself than to risk getting shot.
If the mugger knew you could not defend yourself, he might take your wallet, then happily murder you so that you could not identify him later.
How is "the right to own a gun" on the same team as "ban abortions and gay marriage"? This doesn't make any sense to me. You and me both. It makes it hard to pick a party affiliation, that's for sure. If the reds ever rid themselves of the religious zealots, the blues sure would have to step up in a big way. Wouldn't it be great?
I guess that depends on the definition of "won". If we leave behind a stable, friendly government that can manage it's internal affairs without outside intervention, that's "won". I see small incremental improvements by this definition. Not winning by a landslide, but not losing either.
Settling should not be an option for class action lawsuits. The client/s should decide whether to settle, not the lawyer/s. A settlement should always be an opt-in, not an opt-out. One can always choose to litigate individually if they do not like the way the class action is handled.
Please mod parent up. Performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on tiny infants is barbaric by any rational standard.
A man can always choose to get a circumcision as an adult. The fact that, given a choice, nearly all men choose not to do so can be taken as evidence that, once informed consent is available, the procedure is undesirable.
Yes, I realize that women find a circumcised penis more attractive. Take a step back and try to be objective; that's a horribly weak rationalization for surgery.
Your assumption that oil is scarce isn't correct. It might be scarce in a few decades, although there is debate around how long exactly, but the high prices we see today aren't because of scarcity of raw materials. What is scarce is refinery capacity.
...he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO) What other kind is there? Cite examples of living people, please. There isn't much upside to the job otherwise.
I like this one better:
The fact is that the GPL v3 does have its implications and that such implications become treats to any company willing to use software under such license. (emphasis added)
I immediately thought of Hostess Cupcakes. Don't ask me why. I'm taking a copy of the GPL and heading to the store to see if they'll give me some, Or Else.:P
...there is no question about it being intentional harm with wide impact, and therefore terrorism... Wow, I didn't realize that's how terrorism is defined. With my newfound knowledge, here are some other examples of terrorism:
Pollution 2girls1cup Enron goatse.cx PATRIOT Act DMCA The Pirate Bay
Incredible. We can call almost anything terrorism now! Thank you!
Some people send chain mail, others don't. Others still, don't want their friends to know they're chain mail sending idiots, thus explaining the "meandering routes". Sadly, the chain mail sending idiots don't know they are chain mail sending idiots.
That argument only makes sense in the context of every content creator (note that I did not say distributor) subscribes to the same principals and personal philosophy that you do. Which is a pretty arrogant assumption.
Illegal is defined by the law.
Immoral is defined by society.
Lots of interesting things happen when these two get confused. The US government, for example, doesn't generally understand that there's a difference. Something can be legal while being immoral, and vice-versa. I think that your argument doesn't separate these concepts sufficiently.
I am not a Mormon, but I would like to point out that every single religion I can think of has their own kind of relics or other objects that are considered by them to be spiritually meaningful. These object are sometimes thought to have extraordinary powers that non-believers often find incredulous.
Many Catholics, for example, wear a crucifix on their body at all times. From what I understand of Catholicism and Mormonism, the Catholics wear this for the exact same reasons that Mormons wear their underclothes. Mostly to be a reminder of their commitment to their religion, and some believe it might help protect them from harm, etc.
As another example, if you aren't Jewish, strapping little boxes to your body seems pretty weird.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many examples of this sort of thing.
My point is that singling out Mormons as "weird" for their "magic underwear" doesn't make much sense when placed in context with other, more accepted religions. They are all "weird" to outsiders.
Yup, I use my PSP to read eBooks in TXT format almost daily. I am planning to replace it with a e-ink device at some point though, the backlight bothers my eyes a little after long reading sessions. Maybe this year, who knows.
Slashdot Mirror
Many rural areas still lack broadband access. My father lives in such an area where even the dialup is run out of a closet leased from the local funereal home. There is no cable television provider, and he is far outside the allowable distance from the CO for DSL.
Yeah, he's in the middle of nowhere in Utah, but then again a lot of the population lives in rural areas with similar constraints.
I saw a special, on History Channel I think, where they thought that the trees that Stradivarius used to make his violins had unusual density qualities caused by the mini ice age.
Napster? I remember uudecoding with a Vax. A
Now, get the hell off my lawn!
The simple solution most, if not all of our problems is to tax everything bought/sold/traded/etc over the intarweb.
I know your post was tongue-in-cheek but I have to point out that everything bought on the internet is already subject to sales tax. It's a tax that the government cannot effectively enforce (yet), and so no one bothers to pay it (so far).
Define Rich.
That's easy. Someone who has a lot more money than you.
I didn't intent to imply that all people of faith are religious zealots, or that all religious zealots are Republicans. I think you used the most extreme possible interpretation of what I wrote.
There are prominent fundamentalist Christian members of the Republican party that make it a hard pill to swallow for those of us who are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.
The Democrats appear to be satisfied just to point out that they aren't Republicans.
This is what I meant in my original post. If the Republicans were to return to the core values on which the party was founded, the Democrats would have to start doing a much better job to convince us they have the best ideas. Everyone wins.
No, I don't. But you don't have any either, do you? So around we go again...
But to close loop, I really don't want to leave the decision about what happens to me completely in the hands of a stranger, one who isn't particularly motivated to look out for my good health and continued life, and one who has already decided not to abide by at least some of society's rules.
Some people value life higher than others. I hope that if you're ever actually in the situation we're theoretically discussing that it works out well for you. Because hope is all you'll have.
I'd much prefer not having an ability to defend myself than to risk getting shot.
If the mugger knew you could not defend yourself, he might take your wallet, then happily murder you so that you could not identify him later.I guess that depends on the definition of "won". If we leave behind a stable, friendly government that can manage it's internal affairs without outside intervention, that's "won". I see small incremental improvements by this definition. Not winning by a landslide, but not losing either.
Please mod parent up. Performing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on tiny infants is barbaric by any rational standard.
A man can always choose to get a circumcision as an adult. The fact that, given a choice, nearly all men choose not to do so can be taken as evidence that, once informed consent is available, the procedure is undesirable.
Yes, I realize that women find a circumcised penis more attractive. Take a step back and try to be objective; that's a horribly weak rationalization for surgery.
Your assumption that oil is scarce isn't correct. It might be scarce in a few decades, although there is debate around how long exactly, but the high prices we see today aren't because of scarcity of raw materials. What is scarce is refinery capacity.
...he's solely in the position for money and power (the worst type of politician IMO) What other kind is there? Cite examples of living people, please. There isn't much upside to the job otherwise.I immediately thought of Hostess Cupcakes. Don't ask me why. I'm taking a copy of the GPL and heading to the store to see if they'll give me some, Or Else.
...there is no question about it being intentional harm with wide impact, and therefore terrorism... Wow, I didn't realize that's how terrorism is defined. With my newfound knowledge, here are some other examples of terrorism:Pollution
2girls1cup
Enron
goatse.cx
PATRIOT Act
DMCA
The Pirate Bay
Incredible. We can call almost anything terrorism now! Thank you!
I believe those regulations differ from state to state.
Simply restarting anything never solves the problem. It only potentially provides a crude work-around.
That argument only makes sense in the context of every content creator (note that I did not say distributor) subscribes to the same principals and personal philosophy that you do. Which is a pretty arrogant assumption.
Illegal is defined by the law.
Immoral is defined by society.
Lots of interesting things happen when these two get confused. The US government, for example, doesn't generally understand that there's a difference. Something can be legal while being immoral, and vice-versa. I think that your argument doesn't separate these concepts sufficiently.
I am not a Mormon, but I would like to point out that every single religion I can think of has their own kind of relics or other objects that are considered by them to be spiritually meaningful. These object are sometimes thought to have extraordinary powers that non-believers often find incredulous.
Many Catholics, for example, wear a crucifix on their body at all times. From what I understand of Catholicism and Mormonism, the Catholics wear this for the exact same reasons that Mormons wear their underclothes. Mostly to be a reminder of their commitment to their religion, and some believe it might help protect them from harm, etc.
As another example, if you aren't Jewish, strapping little boxes to your body seems pretty weird.
This is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many examples of this sort of thing.
My point is that singling out Mormons as "weird" for their "magic underwear" doesn't make much sense when placed in context with other, more accepted religions. They are all "weird" to outsiders.
Yup, I use my PSP to read eBooks in TXT format almost daily. I am planning to replace it with a e-ink device at some point though, the backlight bothers my eyes a little after long reading sessions. Maybe this year, who knows.
There'ss a pretty good comparison matrix of a bunch of eBook readers with links, including the iLiad, here.
Rigging an election? Now that's Real Ultimate Power!!!
Only actually using Vista can make it suck less than the somewhat undeserved reputation it has.
:P
It's fun to be on the bandwagon though, huh?