If you are offended by such trivial things, then you need to develop a tougher skin. I certainly meant no offense, anymore than when I see a female friend and say, "Hey dude... what's up?" Take a chill pill.
>>> If you manage to hit the 500 mile range then half an hour to recharge your own body is probably a good idea.
Nah. I drive 800 miles w/o stopping. I have food in the car that I eat as I'm going (or make a quick stop at McDonalds for take-out). Fie on taking breaks and wasting precious time.
>>>God forbid you have to take a half-hour break to get an 80% recharge
Batteries don't charge from 10% to 80% in just 30 minutes. And for good reason: They got very hot and the internal components become damaged, dramatically shortening the battery's life. (And then you have a $5000 replacement... equivalent cost to buying a whole new engine.)
Still can't take me from Maryland to California in 3 days, because of the time-to-recharge issue. Your EV would need to include a gasoline generator to recharge the battery as you're driving, and then it's a hybrid.
Now:
What about the danger of explosion? As it recharges it release oxygen. You wouldn't want to leave your Lithium-oxygen EV in your garage but outside so the O2 can safely escape rather than build up.
Some minor adjustments -- Because [Iran] isn't in a state of war with the US, they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in [Iraq or Saudi Arabia], which Iran is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if [Iran] gets a missile or nukes.
Why do politicians like Obama and Romney say they want to bomb Iran??? There is no need.
Ron Paul is right. The killing needs to stop ASAP.
Like the U.S. the EU guy is just talking about *other* countries preserving freedom, not the ISPs at home where its a-okay to have a "3 strike and you're banned" policy. Typical: Do as we say, not how we act.
>>>Becuase someone (the governement) forces the companies to build them that way.
And I don't have a problem with that. Corporations are a creation of the government, and government can regulate its creation in any fashion it chooses.
Also we have a right to clean air. Coal companies spewing coal dust into our lungs should be forced to scrub that exhaust until there's nothing left but water vaper.
Blah, blah...... blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is I was quoting a scientific study that examined the issue of bias (how many positive stories did each channel air). You provided nothing but your OPINION that Fox news sucks. Science trumps opinion... every time.
>>>they offered a tax credit for those that already had insurance, much the same way that there is a tax credit for replacing your older doors/windows with new energy efficient doors/windows.
NOPE. Once the law takes effect in 2014, you will receive no tax credit or deduction for having insurance. Instead you will be punished. You will be assessed a penalty of ~$1000. (Actual amount varies depending on your income.)
It's too bad they didn't do it your way (with a credit), because then it would be legal. But to force people to buy a product, or else be punished with a penalty, violates the 10th amendment. Only the Member States hold that power (and even then it may violate the state's constitution or enumeration of rights).
My DVR only accepts analog signals (NTSC). And to the guy below: No not cable. I refuse to pay Comsucks $1000/year for stuff I can get free (via antenna and hulu).
>>>where every news source took sides and had it's political slant and didn't even pretend to unbiased or accurate
GOOD. I'd rather have obvious bias that I can see, rather than a TV media falsely-claiming "we are not biased" while they push the pro-government or pro-corporate agenda.
They would have grown-up watching the original Star Trek (me, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) or the Next Generation Trek (younger folks). Those were both very positive influences showing that technology will improve the human condition. In fact given the ratings of 10% of U.S. households (about 9 million homes), I bet more people were watching trek than reading the negative sci-fi novels.
For all his 80s and early 90s doom-and-gloom fiction, the future turned out to be pretty bright. TV and radio media is dying-out, being replaced with the instant gratification of the internet media. No need to wait until 8 o'clock to see your favorite show; or wait for MTV to play your favorite song; just watch it now online.
People are talking directly to one another (okay typing to one another) and no longer believing the lies/blatant omissions coming from the old media. The press is once again the people, where it belonged all along. Things are being revealed that were never talked about before.
We now have computers that fit in our pockets, but are ~1000 times faster than the computer Mr. Stephensen used to type his novels. Instead of being confined to just our local community of friends, we can met people of similar interests across the continent. (I've met all kinds of people through facebook -- common goal: Restore the bill of rights. End the wars. Balance the budget.)
No the future's not perfect, but certainly better than the "I feel like slitting my wrist" future described by Neal.
>>>I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Likewise the Russian government doesn't need to grab servers in order to investigate claims of "illegally-copied software", but they do it anyway in order to shut down groups that are critical of government. The FBI is simply employing the same tactic to silence human rights groups (many of which are critical of the Congress) under the cover of an "investigation". Two birds killed with one warrant.
I thought you were talking about some movie, but then I found this on wikipedia:
"The terms of the Burning Man ticket require that participants wishing to use video-recording equipment (including, in practice, most digital cameras) sign over copyright in their images to Black Rock City, and forbid them from using their images for anything other than personal and private use. This has been criticized by many, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[87][88]
A Burning Man spokeswoman replied that the policies are not new, were written by a former head of the EFF, were used when suing to block pornographic videos and ultimately arose from participant concerns: "Weâ(TM)re proud that Black Rock City (a private event held on public land) is widely acknowledged as a bastion of creative freedom. [B]ut that protection [of participants' freedoms] does necessitate the acceptance of some general terms of engagement when it comes to cameras... EFF seems to think that anyone attending any event somehow has an absolute right to take photographs, and then to do whatever they want with those images without any effective restriction or manner of enforcement.
"While we believe that such rights do make sense for any of us taking pictures in purely public spaces, this is not true in the private space of Burning Man â" if it were it would mean that Burning Man couldnâ(TM)t protect participant privacy or prevent commercialization of imagery."
I have watched the games ever since 1992 (Barcelona?). Back then I setup a VCR to tape everything and watch it the next day, because I was on night shift. Now I use an analog DVR (replayTV).
The Olympics are the only form of sport I ever watch, because there's lots of variety, and these are the world's best athletes. Could care less about football, baseball, et cetera. So once every 2 years I watch sports.
I remember the 1996 U.S. olympics were criticized for being too commercialized (corporate sponsorship made it the only Olympics that gained a profit). But now it sounds like the UK will eclipse 1996 with its takeover by the corporate copyright police.
The words in the summary: "The researchers don't directly ask the teens about privacy issues" imply the researchers never asked permission or consent (kinda like how the police act under the Patriot Act). At no point does the shitty summary say that they signed a contract.
The words "The researchers don't directly ask the teens about privacy issues" implies the researchers never asked permission or consent. And at NO point does the shitty summary say that they signed a contract.
Slashdot Mirror
"No data-sharing without representation in the congress!" - EU citizen.
Think of the children has become Think of the terrorists, in order to justify passage of bad laws/treaties.
>>>the EU guy?
>>>could you troll more?
If you are offended by such trivial things, then you need to develop a tougher skin. I certainly meant no offense, anymore than when I see a female friend and say, "Hey dude... what's up?" Take a chill pill.
Big Oil will eventually run out of oil and have no choice but to turn to batteries for cars.
>>> If you manage to hit the 500 mile range then half an hour to recharge your own body is probably a good idea.
Nah. I drive 800 miles w/o stopping. I have food in the car that I eat as I'm going (or make a quick stop at McDonalds for take-out). Fie on taking breaks and wasting precious time.
>>>God forbid you have to take a half-hour break to get an 80% recharge
Batteries don't charge from 10% to 80% in just 30 minutes. And for good reason: They got very hot and the internal components become damaged, dramatically shortening the battery's life. (And then you have a $5000 replacement... equivalent cost to buying a whole new engine.)
>>>Your move, range anxiety crowd.
Still can't take me from Maryland to California in 3 days, because of the time-to-recharge issue. Your EV would need to include a gasoline generator to recharge the battery as you're driving, and then it's a hybrid.
Now:
What about the danger of explosion? As it recharges it release oxygen. You wouldn't want to leave your Lithium-oxygen EV in your garage but outside so the O2 can safely escape rather than build up.
Some minor adjustments -- Because [Iran] isn't in a state of war with the US, they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in [Iraq or Saudi Arabia], which Iran is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if [Iran] gets a missile or nukes.
Why do politicians like Obama and Romney say they want to bomb Iran??? There is no need.
Ron Paul is right.
The killing needs
to stop ASAP.
>>>Seriously.. has democracy been redefined to mean "corporate state"?
Mussolini defined that as fascism.
Like the U.S. the EU guy is just talking about *other* countries preserving freedom, not the ISPs at home where its a-okay to have a "3 strike and you're banned" policy. Typical: Do as we say, not how we act.
>>>Becuase someone (the governement) forces the companies to build them that way.
And I don't have a problem with that. Corporations are a creation of the government, and government can regulate its creation in any fashion it chooses.
Also we have a right to clean air. Coal companies spewing coal dust into our lungs should be forced to scrub that exhaust until there's nothing left but water vaper.
Blah, blah...... blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is I was quoting a scientific study that examined the issue of bias (how many positive stories did each channel air). You provided nothing but your OPINION that Fox news sucks. Science trumps opinion... every time.
>>>The only downside is that one High School deducted 15 points from a student's paper because it was not submitted in Word 7 format
That teacher would get bitch-slapped.
>>>they offered a tax credit for those that already had insurance, much the same way that there is a tax credit for replacing your older doors/windows with new energy efficient doors/windows.
NOPE.
Once the law takes effect in 2014, you will receive no tax credit or deduction for having insurance. Instead you will be punished. You will be assessed a penalty of ~$1000. (Actual amount varies depending on your income.)
It's too bad they didn't do it your way (with a credit), because then it would be legal. But to force people to buy a product, or else be punished with a penalty, violates the 10th amendment. Only the Member States hold that power (and even then it may violate the state's constitution or enumeration of rights).
My DVR only accepts analog signals (NTSC). And to the guy below: No not cable. I refuse to pay Comsucks $1000/year for stuff I can get free (via antenna and hulu).
>>>where every news source took sides and had it's political slant and didn't even pretend to unbiased or accurate
GOOD. I'd rather have obvious bias that I can see, rather than a TV media falsely-claiming "we are not biased" while they push the pro-government or pro-corporate agenda.
They would have grown-up watching the original Star Trek (me, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates) or the Next Generation Trek (younger folks). Those were both very positive influences showing that technology will improve the human condition. In fact given the ratings of 10% of U.S. households (about 9 million homes), I bet more people were watching trek than reading the negative sci-fi novels.
For all his 80s and early 90s doom-and-gloom fiction, the future turned out to be pretty bright. TV and radio media is dying-out, being replaced with the instant gratification of the internet media. No need to wait until 8 o'clock to see your favorite show; or wait for MTV to play your favorite song; just watch it now online.
People are talking directly to one another (okay typing to one another) and no longer believing the lies/blatant omissions coming from the old media. The press is once again the people, where it belonged all along. Things are being revealed that were never talked about before.
We now have computers that fit in our pockets, but are ~1000 times faster than the computer Mr. Stephensen used to type his novels. Instead of being confined to just our local community of friends, we can met people of similar interests across the continent. (I've met all kinds of people through facebook -- common goal: Restore the bill of rights. End the wars. Balance the budget.)
No the future's not perfect, but certainly better than the "I feel like slitting my wrist" future described by Neal.
>>>I just don't get what they need the server itself for. They are after the data, not the hardware.
Likewise the Russian government doesn't need to grab servers in order to investigate claims of "illegally-copied software", but they do it anyway in order to shut down groups that are critical of government. The FBI is simply employing the same tactic to silence human rights groups (many of which are critical of the Congress) under the cover of an "investigation". Two birds killed with one warrant.
Damn you Mitt Romney!
(I come from the future.)
They followed proper constitutional procedure (for a change). So blame the judge not the fbi.
I thought you were talking about some movie, but then I found this on wikipedia:
"The terms of the Burning Man ticket require that participants wishing to use video-recording equipment (including, in practice, most digital cameras) sign over copyright in their images to Black Rock City, and forbid them from using their images for anything other than personal and private use. This has been criticized by many, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[87][88]
A Burning Man spokeswoman replied that the policies are not new, were written by a former head of the EFF, were used when suing to block pornographic videos and ultimately arose from participant concerns: "Weâ(TM)re proud that Black Rock City (a private event held on public land) is widely acknowledged as a bastion of creative freedom. [B]ut that protection [of participants' freedoms] does necessitate the acceptance of some general terms of engagement when it comes to cameras... EFF seems to think that anyone attending any event somehow has an absolute right to take photographs, and then to do whatever they want with those images without any effective restriction or manner of enforcement.
"While we believe that such rights do make sense for any of us taking pictures in purely public spaces, this is not true in the private space of Burning Man â" if it were it would mean that Burning Man couldnâ(TM)t protect participant privacy or prevent commercialization of imagery."
The what games?
I have watched the games ever since 1992 (Barcelona?). Back then I setup a VCR to tape everything and watch it the next day, because I was on night shift. Now I use an analog DVR (replayTV).
The Olympics are the only form of sport I ever watch, because there's lots of variety, and these are the world's best athletes. Could care less about football, baseball, et cetera. So once every 2 years I watch sports.
>>>Dominique Moceanu was very much a cutie.
Shannon Miller was cuter. ;-)
I remember the 1996 U.S. olympics were criticized for being too commercialized (corporate sponsorship made it the only Olympics that gained a profit). But now it sounds like the UK will eclipse 1996 with its takeover by the corporate copyright police.
>>>GP didn't even read TFS.
The words in the summary: "The researchers don't directly ask the teens about privacy issues" imply the researchers never asked permission or consent (kinda like how the police act under the Patriot Act). At no point does the shitty summary say that they signed a contract.
The words "The researchers don't directly ask the teens about privacy issues" implies the researchers never asked permission or consent. And at NO point does the shitty summary say that they signed a contract.
So stop calling me an idiot.