I'm sorry, but what is wrong with saying "busted space probe"?
I mean, you use the wore "keybinding" in your sig to refer to "computer key macros", so I would think that you have come to terms with the idea that language is in a constant state of flux. Stop being such a snooty prick and try making an argument that has actual import. Thanks.
That was terrible. Don't quit your day job... or post any more "jokes". Not only is your racism, well... racist... it's not even remotely funny. Do yourself a favor and keep your "humor" to yourself. Thanks.
Also, as a general rule, I don't think you are generally getting shot at while you are trying to enter a password into a computer. If so, you should probably deal with the people shooting at you instead of trying to read your encrypted email.
The Chinese may not offer the best quality in the world when it comes to goods and services, but they compete ferociously and, in my experience, fairly[*]. They simply cut your throat on price and wait for you to bleed to death. American consumers shouldn't assume this is entirely a bad thing.
Of course this is a very bad thing... what happens when all the American companies have gone under and the Chinese start to raise prices because they no longer have any competitors? In an ideal world, the American companies would start back up... but I'm not sure that's really plausible.
Thing is, the "cheap" model works when you keep your labor in China. Once Chinese companies start having to hire workers and build infrastructure in the US their costs will quickly rise to the level of US providers.
The difference being that what constitutes a crime in China vs the USA is still very different. You can claim the government shouldn't be able to monitor your communications, but no matter how much you don't like it, they will always have some form of access to communications. They need to prevent crime, that's their job. The difference is that in the US they won't throw you in jail for criticizing the government (yet).
So an Authoritarian government is "investigating" a state-owned company for monopolistic practices? Who's doing the "investigation", the son of the company director?
I'm glad China is trying to clean up the corruption in their system, but there's little point if they don't allow competing political parties. An investigation of a state owned company by the state is somewhat suspicious in a democratic system, but when there's only one party, it's goddamn pointless.
Wait, how is that "Chinese == bad"? The summary merely states that China Telecom is being investigated for monopolistic practices. That's a fact, not an opinion.
It's only unreasonable because you deem it so. Is it so unreasonable to ask people to accept, for example, a 30% increase in their travel time? I agree, it sucks to have to wait a little longer.... but that's simply something we're going to have to accept if we want planet earth to support so many humans. We can either become more efficient, or we can decrease the number of people. There really is no third option, outside of some miraculous form of clean energy.
So, keep your derogatory and misinformed slights about the Tea Party and Republicans out of this, what you are witnessing is the same thing that happened under the Soviets in the 50s through 80s. You are witnessing so much government that it is not answerable to anyone.
Exactly... when the people can't regulate what the government can do, you get into trouble (as in China, and in the USSR). The same is true of corporations though; when the people can't regulate corporations (through the government) you get into the same sort of trouble.
The truth is that regulations were put into place for a reason; to protect people and the environment. They were put in place because industry was poisoning the earth... in spite of the "protections" of a free market. Removing regulations may have a positive impact in the short term (may, I have yet to see proof of this), but whatever benefit is far outweighed by the long term negative impact.
We have the technology to make coal pretty much completely clean (minus the CO2)
First of all, the CO2 is one of the primary concerns with coal. Secondly, while emissions into the air might be "clean", there is a massive amount of waste produced in the process of taking coal out of the ground and turning it into electricity. Your "clean" coal still produces massive amount of coal slurry and ash. Oh... and lets not forget that "Plant-emitted radiation carried by coal-derived fly ash delivers 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment than does the normal operation of a similar-productive nuclear plant." ["Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American." ]
Similarly note the DOE's budget for "Legacy" costs keeps increasing every single year because we still have no idea what to do with leftover nuclear waste.
We know exactly what to do with it... we hollowed out a goddamn mountain for this sole purpose. The problem is that a bunch of morons blocked the site, so now instead of having one (remote) storage location at risk, we have many (less-remote) storage locations. Goddamn brilliant.
Because while you are producing the coins, you're not really "minting" them. Rather, you're searching for them in a heap of worthless other stuff... i.e. mining. At least that's my take on it. Honestly it's just pointless metaphor semantics.
It's always cheaper to buy it, assuming you can sell it for the same price. This is well know, it's why people buy houses. People mainly rent for two reasons; they can't get together the capital to buy a house, or they're worried that a house isn't a liquid asset (they might only be living there for a short time and are worried they wouldn't be able to sell it). If neither of those is a concern, I would think that anyone would always buy rather then rent.
If renting from a landlord is cheaper than buying it outright, how does the landlord make money?
Um, because at the end of the day, they can always sell the property? The tenant on the other hand has nothing at the end of the day. So even if the landlord's mortgage is more than he receives in rent... he is still making money...
Actually, I'd say Germany and the US are a pretty fair comparison. If you really believe the population of Germany is homogeneous, you should try visiting sometime.
It just says they have to put it back up. It never says they have to keep it up indefinitely. Put the video back up, then delete it five minutes later. Problem solved. This is, of course, assuming that YouTube is against hosting the video. If they don't care one way or the other then they would just follow the DMCA and let the two parties take the matter to court.
So they put it back up, then immediately remove it. I can't be bothered to read the YouTube TOS, but do you honestly believe there isn't a clause in there that says "we can remove content and/or ban users at our discretion, without justification or warning"?
They can simply state that the video/poster violated their TOS. I'd be very surprised if they don't have clauses in their TOS that state they can remove content at their discretion and with no warning or justification.
I don't think this is true; YouTube can host/takedown any content whenever they damn well please. There is no law that obligates them to host something they don't want to.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, you use the wore "keybinding" in your sig to refer to "computer key macros", so I would think that you have come to terms with the idea that language is in a constant state of flux. Stop being such a snooty prick and try making an argument that has actual import. Thanks.
I could be wrong, but I'd imagine it's because NASA is much more expensive.
That was terrible. Don't quit your day job... or post any more "jokes". Not only is your racism, well... racist... it's not even remotely funny. Do yourself a favor and keep your "humor" to yourself. Thanks.
Also, as a general rule, I don't think you are generally getting shot at while you are trying to enter a password into a computer. If so, you should probably deal with the people shooting at you instead of trying to read your encrypted email.
I have the same problem, but with the German version... which is much harder for me to understand. Very annoying.
The Chinese may not offer the best quality in the world when it comes to goods and services, but they compete ferociously and, in my experience, fairly[*]. They simply cut your throat on price and wait for you to bleed to death. American consumers shouldn't assume this is entirely a bad thing.
Of course this is a very bad thing... what happens when all the American companies have gone under and the Chinese start to raise prices because they no longer have any competitors? In an ideal world, the American companies would start back up... but I'm not sure that's really plausible.
Thing is, the "cheap" model works when you keep your labor in China. Once Chinese companies start having to hire workers and build infrastructure in the US their costs will quickly rise to the level of US providers.
The difference being that what constitutes a crime in China vs the USA is still very different. You can claim the government shouldn't be able to monitor your communications, but no matter how much you don't like it, they will always have some form of access to communications. They need to prevent crime, that's their job. The difference is that in the US they won't throw you in jail for criticizing the government (yet).
I'm glad China is trying to clean up the corruption in their system, but there's little point if they don't allow competing political parties. An investigation of a state owned company by the state is somewhat suspicious in a democratic system, but when there's only one party, it's goddamn pointless.
Wait, how is that "Chinese == bad"? The summary merely states that China Telecom is being investigated for monopolistic practices. That's a fact, not an opinion.
Two such stops becomes unreasonable.
It's only unreasonable because you deem it so. Is it so unreasonable to ask people to accept, for example, a 30% increase in their travel time? I agree, it sucks to have to wait a little longer.... but that's simply something we're going to have to accept if we want planet earth to support so many humans. We can either become more efficient, or we can decrease the number of people. There really is no third option, outside of some miraculous form of clean energy.
So, keep your derogatory and misinformed slights about the Tea Party and Republicans out of this, what you are witnessing is the same thing that happened under the Soviets in the 50s through 80s. You are witnessing so much government that it is not answerable to anyone.
Exactly... when the people can't regulate what the government can do, you get into trouble (as in China, and in the USSR). The same is true of corporations though; when the people can't regulate corporations (through the government) you get into the same sort of trouble.
The truth is that regulations were put into place for a reason; to protect people and the environment. They were put in place because industry was poisoning the earth... in spite of the "protections" of a free market. Removing regulations may have a positive impact in the short term (may, I have yet to see proof of this), but whatever benefit is far outweighed by the long term negative impact.
We have the technology to make coal pretty much completely clean (minus the CO2)
First of all, the CO2 is one of the primary concerns with coal. Secondly, while emissions into the air might be "clean", there is a massive amount of waste produced in the process of taking coal out of the ground and turning it into electricity. Your "clean" coal still produces massive amount of coal slurry and ash. Oh... and lets not forget that "Plant-emitted radiation carried by coal-derived fly ash delivers 100 times more radiation to the surrounding environment than does the normal operation of a similar-productive nuclear plant." ["Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American." ]
Similarly note the DOE's budget for "Legacy" costs keeps increasing every single year because we still have no idea what to do with leftover nuclear waste.
We know exactly what to do with it... we hollowed out a goddamn mountain for this sole purpose. The problem is that a bunch of morons blocked the site, so now instead of having one (remote) storage location at risk, we have many (less-remote) storage locations. Goddamn brilliant.
Because while you are producing the coins, you're not really "minting" them. Rather, you're searching for them in a heap of worthless other stuff... i.e. mining. At least that's my take on it. Honestly it's just pointless metaphor semantics.
It's always cheaper to buy it, assuming you can sell it for the same price. This is well know, it's why people buy houses. People mainly rent for two reasons; they can't get together the capital to buy a house, or they're worried that a house isn't a liquid asset (they might only be living there for a short time and are worried they wouldn't be able to sell it). If neither of those is a concern, I would think that anyone would always buy rather then rent.
I will, thanks!
If renting from a landlord is cheaper than buying it outright, how does the landlord make money?
Um, because at the end of the day, they can always sell the property? The tenant on the other hand has nothing at the end of the day. So even if the landlord's mortgage is more than he receives in rent... he is still making money...
Actually, I'd say Germany and the US are a pretty fair comparison. If you really believe the population of Germany is homogeneous, you should try visiting sometime.
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.
But legislation made me shiver
With every takedown I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn’t take one more step.
I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about their lawless crime
But something touched me deep inside
The day the freedom died.
It just says they have to put it back up. It never says they have to keep it up indefinitely. Put the video back up, then delete it five minutes later. Problem solved. This is, of course, assuming that YouTube is against hosting the video. If they don't care one way or the other then they would just follow the DMCA and let the two parties take the matter to court.
So they put it back up, then immediately remove it. I can't be bothered to read the YouTube TOS, but do you honestly believe there isn't a clause in there that says "we can remove content and/or ban users at our discretion, without justification or warning"?
They can simply state that the video/poster violated their TOS. I'd be very surprised if they don't have clauses in their TOS that state they can remove content at their discretion and with no warning or justification.
YouTube is required to reinstate the content
I don't think this is true; YouTube can host/takedown any content whenever they damn well please. There is no law that obligates them to host something they don't want to.
That's what she said.
While it is contradictory, why not go with ironic, oxymoronic, or perhaps paradoxical?