I'm also a T-Mobile customer, and I live in the Bay Area. Voice / Text / Data isn't really an issue here. I recently switched from Verizon, because I could get a monthly plan with unlimited data for $50, rather than paying $85/mo for Verizon.
If you live in rural America, Verizon is one of the better choices. I grew up in the Santa Cruz Mountains and owned my first cell phone 12 years ago. Back then, coverage was really an issue.
Since I love to go riding in rural areas, I may end up buying a Verizon Pay as You Go phone as well. $1.99 for unlimited calls on the few days I need it.
Not to mention, you COULD just adopt... or do as you did, and pay for private care.
Not sure about other countries, but there is no such thing as 'just adopting' in the united states. Demand for healthy babies far out-weighs availability, so there are huge waiting lists and difficult interviews that need to be passed. From what I've heard, it's somewhat comparable to going through the process of obtaining a US green card.
The situation is easier if you want to raise a special needs child or one that euphemistically 'doesn't look like mommy and daddy.' It's much harder to find parents willing to adopt a drug addicted baby or one that has been in foster care for a while, so the requirements for raising a special needs kid are much more relaxed. Unfortunately, raising such a special needs kid isn't really what parents hoping to have their own children want.
Ratchet design isn't static because their makers woke up one day and said, "It's perfect! Let's stop trying to improve it!" They just don't have any design improvements that will convince you to throw out your old ratchets and buy new ones. If they could, they would.
Not to be pedantic, but they have made many improvements to ratchets over the last 50 years.
- Ergonomic handle shapes - Fine tooth ratcheting mechanisms (helps work in small spaces) - Low profile designs - Flex heads - Different reversing mechanisms - Different release mechanisms
Even now, you can go to hadware stores and see new and improved designs being marketed.
There are a couple keys with ratchet sets... The ratchet to socket interface is standardized; ball placement, shape, diameter, etc. This is much like API design in software. Because the interface between ratchet and socket is standardized, any attempts to introduce an incompatible ratchet will more or less fail, because no one wants to throw out perfectly good sockets. (To be fair there are a few specialty ratchets that are useful in situations where a deep socket isn't deep enough.)
Because the interfaces are all standardized, ratchet manufacturers have no way of creating compatibility issues that would force users happy with their existing ratchets to throw out all their ratchets and upgrade. Compare and contrast to Microsoft Office, where you pretty much have to upgrade with every new release, or you will be unable to open documents created by newer software.
Huh? Regan is rightfully painted as a barrow and spend republican - the first of a generation of em. But I've never heard anyone complain that he raised taxes. Bush Sr. got that complaint, but honestly I kind of respect him for trying to balance the budget after Regan's irresponsible spending.
If you want an example of a fiscally responsible administration, Clinton is your guy. Of course, there was a policy at that time that spending could not increase without a reduction elsewhere or an increase in revenue.
Those steps would be unpopular with many, but to save the US economy in the long run, we're gonna have to cut a LOT of spending, and a lot of that is social programs, there's just no two ways about it. Medicare will likely go bankrupt in the near future if nothing is done.
I cringe every time I hear something like this. If you want to reduce debt, you cut spending and raise revenues, and you do it in such a way that doesn't kill your future (E.g. don't cut educational spending) or create additional drains on the economy (cutting medical programs.)
Everyone wants to talk about running the government like a business. Look at HP and Apple. Which focused on cutting spending, and which focused on raising revenues? Name a single company that grew and thrived through cost cutting alone.
Not sure you're proving what you think you're proving by citing OSX. From a user perspective, OSX is pretty far seperated from BSD. The BSD under-pinnings are certainly there if you want to dig down into them, but your average OSX user has no need or desire to do so. In fact, your average OSX user probably knows as much about BSD as your average Android user knows about Linux.
Probably not in the form it takes now. Android based devices do a lot to improve usability of Linux, and feel pretty damn forign to anyone with heavy unix experience. On the upside, they are very easy to manage. If linux makes it to the desktop, it won't be in the form we see now.
I know you think you're being all geeky and clever, but seriously. If you aspire to second-guess every engineering decision that NASA makes, perhaps you should apply for a management position there.
You do seem to be a job creator. It's a bit of a shame though that we don't have an opposing word for the kind of people who downsize companies, cut benefits, and out-source jobs. Somehow, they still seem to get called job creators, and end up grouped in with passionate guys like you
- Be college students who haven't graduated yet - Be high-school graduates who aren't going to college - Might actually be in high-school as the article implies.
I will say that I know a lot of Indians who have moved here to the US. While my experience doesn't necessarily speak for Indians who live in India, I get the general impression that the graduates don't really want to sit in a help-desk call center.
Plus, I think hiring college graduates to work your call center may somewhat cut down on the cost savings IBM is hoping to gain by outsourcing to India.
Sorry, editing error. The reports are contradictory. Some reports show a reduction in violent crime of 5%-7%. Others show no correlation between CCW permits and crime rates. Regardless, while 5-7% is statistically significant, it most certainly isn't evidence that CCW permits are a solution to crime problems.
The GP wrote carry, which I'll take to mean concealed carry as most US states allow open carry. The article you linked discusses crime vs. ownership statistics, not crime vs. concealed carry statistics. The words "concealed" and "carry" do not appear in the article you linked.
Wikipedia summarizes research on Concealed Cary laws vs crime rates. Some studies report a statistically significant. Unfortunately, other studies have shown no significant correlation.
Listen, I shoot, and if it wasn't for the cost, I'd own. But this lie has been repeated so often that people no longer even seem to question it. Causation has never been established between gun ownership and violence. But it's been demonstrably shown that gun ownership does not correlate to lower violence rates.
You didn't bother to read either of the articles you linked to, did you?
In both cases, it was established that government agents pressured the defendents to commit the crime they are being prosocuted for.
Here's the most relevent quotes from the articles you linked:
Jacobson v. United States
After 2 1/2 years on the Government mailing list, Jacobson was solicited to order child pornography. He answered a letter that described concern about child pornography as hysterical nonsense and decried international censorship, and then received a catalog and ordered a magazine depicting young boys engaged in sexual activities. He was arrested after a controlled delivery of a photocopy of the magazine, but a search of his house revealed no materials other than those sent by the Government and the Bare Boys magazines. At his jury trial, he pleaded entrapment and testified that he had been curious to know the type of sexual actions to which the last letter referred and that he had been shocked by the Bare Boys magazines because he had not expected to receive photographs of minors. He was convicted, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The prosecution failed, as a matter of law, to adduce evidence to support the jury verdict that Jacobson was predisposed, independent of the Government's acts and beyond a reasonable doubt, to violate the law by receiving child pornography through the mails. In their zeal to enforce the law, Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442. Jacobson was not simply offered the opportunity to order pornography, after which he promptly availed himself of that opportunity. He was the target of 26 months of repeated Government mailings and communications,
Sorrells v. United States:
The substance of the testimony at the trial as to entrapment was as follows: for the government, one Martin, a prohibition agent, testified that, having resided for a time in Haywood County, North Carolina, where he posed as a tourist, he visited defendant's home near Canton on Sunday, July 13, 1930, accompanied by three residents of the county who knew the defendant well. He was introduced as a resident of Charlotte who was stopping for a time at Clyde. The witness ascertained that defendant was a veteran of the World War and a former member of the Thirtieth Division A.E.F. Witness informed defendant that he was also an ex-serviceman and a former member of the same Division, which was true. Witness asked defendant if he could get the witness some liquor, and defendant stated that he did not have any. Later, there was a second request, without result. One of those present, one Jones, was also an ex-serviceman and a former member of the Thirtieth Division, and the conversation turned to the war experiences of the three. After this, witness asked defendant for a third time to get him some liquor, whereupon defendant left his home and, after a few minutes, came back with a half gallon of liquor for which the witness paid defendant $5. Martin also testified that he was "the first and only person among those present at the time who said anything about securing some liquor," and that his purpose was to prosecute the defendant for procuring and selling it. The government rested its case on Martin's testimony.
Actually, it's pretty rare to have track time without other road users.
I'm curious if there's no risk that you take purely for pleasure. I wonder if you'd have the same discussion with someone who wants to obtain a private pilot's license.
Out of curiosity, have you ever ridden or considered riding a quad?
To answer your questions, I've crashed on the street twice, on the track 3 times. I've dislocated my right shoulder in a trackday accident. I have lots of friends who have broken bones. I have lots of friends with various bits of titanium in them. A couple friends in wheel chairs. A few dead friends. I'm pretty sure I'm better informed than you on the risks of riding, and I kind of doubt there's much you could tell me that I don't already know.
It'd be interesting to hear you explain why I'm an irrational person, with an invalid understanding of this matter.
Doing that *will* kill you. It's just a matter of doing it often enough.
The vast majority of the people racing motorcycles die of old age.
You're playing Russian Roulette and arguing about the number of bullets in the gun? Two is safer than three...? Only for some abstract, technical definition of "safe".
The vast majority of the people playing russian rulette with a semi-automatic pistol die of bullet wounds.
I think you're making a stink because your ego demands it.
Everything you say is absolutely true for traveling in a car at freeway speeds. If you hit an fixed object such as a bridge at 65MPH, you will die, and no combination of seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones will protect you. It's situationally 'safe' - most of the stuff you might hit is not fixed, and most of the stuff which is fixed is either safely out of your path of travel, or protected by barriers.
Regardless, you're wasting your time with this argument. I do not consider riding a motorcycle on the street or on the track safe. It's a calculated risk, and one that I'm fairly confident I understand a hell of a lot better than you do.
I believe I made that clear in my original post.
I hope you do enjoy a few unsafe activities in your life... A rare stake... Traveling somewhere off the beaten path... Skydiving... Flying... Something. Anything.
If a three letter agency does the same, and it causes people who otherwise would not have done that particular crime to do it, it's called entrapment. It would change the suspect's status.
This is a common and incorrect understanding of entrapment. It's entrapment if the FBI tells you to steal credit cards, and then arrests you for it. It is not entrapment if the FBI makes credit cards available to be stolen, and then arrests you for it stealing them, The former is an example of the FBI pressuring you to do something you wouldn't have done. The latter is an example of the FBI facilitating you to do something you would have done, given an opportunity.
Entrapment: You should hire that hitman to kill your wife. Not entrapment: I'm a hitman. Do you want to kill your wife?
I ride a motorcycle. I've done speeds well in excess of 100MPH, with parts of my body dragging along the ground. I don't however, make a habit of shooting myself in the head, nor do I have a desire to do so.
There is a huge difference between engaging in activities that *could* kill you, and engaging in activities that *will* kill you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also a T-Mobile customer, and I live in the Bay Area. Voice / Text / Data isn't really an issue here. I recently switched from Verizon, because I could get a monthly plan with unlimited data for $50, rather than paying $85/mo for Verizon.
If you live in rural America, Verizon is one of the better choices. I grew up in the Santa Cruz Mountains and owned my first cell phone 12 years ago. Back then, coverage was really an issue.
Since I love to go riding in rural areas, I may end up buying a Verizon Pay as You Go phone as well. $1.99 for unlimited calls on the few days I need it.
Not sure about other countries, but there is no such thing as 'just adopting' in the united states. Demand for healthy babies far out-weighs availability, so there are huge waiting lists and difficult interviews that need to be passed. From what I've heard, it's somewhat comparable to going through the process of obtaining a US green card.
The situation is easier if you want to raise a special needs child or one that euphemistically 'doesn't look like mommy and daddy.' It's much harder to find parents willing to adopt a drug addicted baby or one that has been in foster care for a while, so the requirements for raising a special needs kid are much more relaxed. Unfortunately, raising such a special needs kid isn't really what parents hoping to have their own children want.
Maybe they just gave up and stopped counting at 60?
Not to be pedantic, but they have made many improvements to ratchets over the last 50 years.
- Ergonomic handle shapes
- Fine tooth ratcheting mechanisms (helps work in small spaces)
- Low profile designs
- Flex heads
- Different reversing mechanisms
- Different release mechanisms
Even now, you can go to hadware stores and see new and improved designs being marketed.
There are a couple keys with ratchet sets... The ratchet to socket interface is standardized; ball placement, shape, diameter, etc. This is much like API design in software. Because the interface between ratchet and socket is standardized, any attempts to introduce an incompatible ratchet will more or less fail, because no one wants to throw out perfectly good sockets. (To be fair there are a few specialty ratchets that are useful in situations where a deep socket isn't deep enough.)
Because the interfaces are all standardized, ratchet manufacturers have no way of creating compatibility issues that would force users happy with their existing ratchets to throw out all their ratchets and upgrade. Compare and contrast to Microsoft Office, where you pretty much have to upgrade with every new release, or you will be unable to open documents created by newer software.
Huh? Regan is rightfully painted as a barrow and spend republican - the first of a generation of em. But I've never heard anyone complain that he raised taxes. Bush Sr. got that complaint, but honestly I kind of respect him for trying to balance the budget after Regan's irresponsible spending.
If you want an example of a fiscally responsible administration, Clinton is your guy. Of course, there was a policy at that time that spending could not increase without a reduction elsewhere or an increase in revenue.
I cringe every time I hear something like this. If you want to reduce debt, you cut spending and raise revenues, and you do it in such a way that doesn't kill your future (E.g. don't cut educational spending) or create additional drains on the economy (cutting medical programs.)
Everyone wants to talk about running the government like a business. Look at HP and Apple. Which focused on cutting spending, and which focused on raising revenues? Name a single company that grew and thrived through cost cutting alone.
Not sure you're proving what you think you're proving by citing OSX. From a user perspective, OSX is pretty far seperated from BSD. The BSD under-pinnings are certainly there if you want to dig down into them, but your average OSX user has no need or desire to do so. In fact, your average OSX user probably knows as much about BSD as your average Android user knows about Linux.
Probably not in the form it takes now. Android based devices do a lot to improve usability of Linux, and feel pretty damn forign to anyone with heavy unix experience. On the upside, they are very easy to manage. If linux makes it to the desktop, it won't be in the form we see now.
I think NASA has already has enough issues with managers second-guessing the engineers.
Apparently, all my hello world programs are very high quality.
You do seem to be a job creator. It's a bit of a shame though that we don't have an opposing word for the kind of people who downsize companies, cut benefits, and out-source jobs. Somehow, they still seem to get called job creators, and end up grouped in with passionate guys like you
Wow... Article is kind of stupid and misleading.
These workers may:
- Be college students who haven't graduated yet
- Be high-school graduates who aren't going to college
- Might actually be in high-school as the article implies.
I will say that I know a lot of Indians who have moved here to the US. While my experience doesn't necessarily speak for Indians who live in India, I get the general impression that the graduates don't really want to sit in a help-desk call center.
Plus, I think hiring college graduates to work your call center may somewhat cut down on the cost savings IBM is hoping to gain by outsourcing to India.
Most high-tech employers offer commuter checks, which are pre-tax. So the actual cost goes down to about $45/mo.
Sorry, editing error. The reports are contradictory. Some reports show a reduction in violent crime of 5%-7%. Others show no correlation between CCW permits and crime rates. Regardless, while 5-7% is statistically significant, it most certainly isn't evidence that CCW permits are a solution to crime problems.
Wikipedia summarizes research on Concealed Cary laws vs crime rates. Some studies report a statistically significant. Unfortunately, other studies have shown no significant correlation.
No. They don't.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/
Listen, I shoot, and if it wasn't for the cost, I'd own. But this lie has been repeated so often that people no longer even seem to question it. Causation has never been established between gun ownership and violence. But it's been demonstrably shown that gun ownership does not correlate to lower violence rates.
Girlfriends might work, but I think bread and circuses may be more cost effective.
From what I gather, India is also dealing with massive levels of political corruption.
You didn't bother to read either of the articles you linked to, did you?
In both cases, it was established that government agents pressured the defendents to commit the crime they are being prosocuted for.
Here's the most relevent quotes from the articles you linked:
Jacobson v. United States
Sorrells v. United States:
Actually, it's pretty rare to have track time without other road users.
I'm curious if there's no risk that you take purely for pleasure. I wonder if you'd have the same discussion with someone who wants to obtain a private pilot's license.
Out of curiosity, have you ever ridden or considered riding a quad?
To answer your questions, I've crashed on the street twice, on the track 3 times. I've dislocated my right shoulder in a trackday accident. I have lots of friends who have broken bones. I have lots of friends with various bits of titanium in them. A couple friends in wheel chairs. A few dead friends. I'm pretty sure I'm better informed than you on the risks of riding, and I kind of doubt there's much you could tell me that I don't already know.
It'd be interesting to hear you explain why I'm an irrational person, with an invalid understanding of this matter.
The vast majority of the people racing motorcycles die of old age.
The vast majority of the people playing russian rulette with a semi-automatic pistol die of bullet wounds.
I think you're making a stink because your ego demands it.
Everything you say is absolutely true for traveling in a car at freeway speeds. If you hit an fixed object such as a bridge at 65MPH, you will die, and no combination of seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones will protect you. It's situationally 'safe' - most of the stuff you might hit is not fixed, and most of the stuff which is fixed is either safely out of your path of travel, or protected by barriers.
Regardless, you're wasting your time with this argument. I do not consider riding a motorcycle on the street or on the track safe. It's a calculated risk, and one that I'm fairly confident I understand a hell of a lot better than you do.
I believe I made that clear in my original post.
I hope you do enjoy a few unsafe activities in your life... A rare stake... Traveling somewhere off the beaten path... Skydiving... Flying... Something. Anything.
If a three letter agency does the same, and it causes people who otherwise would not have done that particular crime to do it, it's called entrapment. It would change the suspect's status.
This is a common and incorrect understanding of entrapment. It's entrapment if the FBI tells you to steal credit cards, and then arrests you for it. It is not entrapment if the FBI makes credit cards available to be stolen, and then arrests you for it stealing them, The former is an example of the FBI pressuring you to do something you wouldn't have done. The latter is an example of the FBI facilitating you to do something you would have done, given an opportunity.
Entrapment: You should hire that hitman to kill your wife.
Not entrapment: I'm a hitman. Do you want to kill your wife?
As Migraineman surmised in his post, I ride on a closed circuit.
Life is terminal. I don't want to die... But I don't want to grow frail knowing I missed out on some of the greatest experiences of my life.
I ride a motorcycle. I've done speeds well in excess of 100MPH, with parts of my body dragging along the ground. I don't however, make a habit of shooting myself in the head, nor do I have a desire to do so.
There is a huge difference between engaging in activities that *could* kill you, and engaging in activities that *will* kill you.