You are obligated to pay them every month, but if they do not provide you the service you paid for, then you can call your state's public utility commission, board of trade, state AG, or even the FTC, depending on type of company, and report them for non-delivery of service.
FTFY. Just because you yourself can't sue someone doesn't mean there isn't someone out there with an awfully big stick who can play whack-a-provider if they don't honor their contracts.
Maybe you missed the part where I complained about electric cars not having the range? So just ignore the money and focus on the fact that an electric car cannot drive from Dallas to San Antonio. Until one is invented that can, it's foolish to assume anyone in their right mind would buy one.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you in favor of more boondoggles and welfare for billionaires? Because that's all a subsidy for electric cars would be.
The political class of this country just doesn't get it. We're broke! The piggy bank is empty! There. Is. No. Money!
And yet they continue to push these asinine boondoggles down our throats. At what point will politicians realize they can't throw money at every problem just to boost their poll numbers? Unfortunately, probably not until Moody's gives us the rating we deserve, B+. Even then they might not have the will to slash the government the way it needs to be slashed.
Sure, why not? That kind of scheme (forcing people to give up something they own that has value for something else to replace it) worked for cash for clunkers.
Oh, but wait, there's a problem with this: what about people who want to drive long distances? My wife and I drive to Austin (from Dallas) to visit our oldest daughter at least once a year; we drive to San Antonio to visit friends at least three times a year (yes, we love our friends more than our child, get over it). Those trips are expensive enough with gas at $3 a gallon, at $5 a gallon they'd be undoable. And with an electric car with a 100 mile range, they'd be impossible.
So pray tell me, how do you justify forcing me to support something that actually, and demonstrably, harms me?
They can raise taxes after they've cut at least 25% of the budget, across the board. There's no point throwing more money at the problem until Congress proves they're willing to end their addiction to spending.
You assume a "theory" that assumes facts that are not falsifiable (e.g., the existence of a extra-dimensional creator) is, in fact, a theory. You also completely misunderstand what the theory of evolution states and ignore all of the observations that have been made to date that support it.
There is no evidence that life can arise and change outside of natural selection, and the pressures it induces, outside of a laboratory. And there is zero evidence that the entire universe is, itself, a laboratory. Until there is, the flat claim that "only evolution occurs in the natural world" is a bone fide one with no problems attached to it. For you to say there are problems of that nature with the theory betrays your own desire to have an invisible sky wizard be behind everything, when that simply isn't the case (or at least, it's neither a falsifiable position nor is it supported by any evidence).
In short, you neither understand evolution nor the scientific method, despite your claims to the contrary.
I was in 9th grade. I remember being in algebra class and one of the kids had brought in a ham radio. The teacher let us listen to the Challenger lifting off. Once it was in the air, she had him turn it off. It wasn't until next period when I I learned what had happened. After that, all of the classrooms that day had CNN on (first time I remember watching that network). Very surreal day for me.
I heard the first joke about it within two hours of the event. "They thought they found part of the black astronaut, but it was just the radiator tube from a '57 Chevy."
I pay $10 per month for unlimited text for me and my entire family. So I'm not sure where this "$0.25 per text" idea came from, unless you're an idiot who thinks that's somehow cheaper than the flat-rate plans that are available.
Wow, talk about a gross understanding of science and the scientific method, not to mention a complete and utter lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is. I think you should get a better grounding on this subject before attempting to deconstruct it.
I'd go so far as to say that anyone over the age of 8 who has an imaginary friend (whether they call that friend Jesus, Allah, or Krishna) should be declared legally insane and locked up for their own good.
Obviously, the high speed of cavalry, with a base move of at least 7", does help to close the difference. But the main reason knights are more useful against trebuchets is because they have 25mmx50mm bases, so fewer of them are touched by the small blast template. Infantry have either 20mm or 25mm square bases, resulting in considerably more (19 or 13, respectively) being hit.
Flying cavalry or other units of flyers are ideal, though. With their high speed (marching 20") they can get across the field in only one or two turns, and with their skirmishing formation and large bases, you could get by with only one or maybe two of them being hit by the template.
I call bullshit. Someone with a fast metabolism is going to have a lot easier time chasing down prey (and running from predators) than someone who takes two days to digest a single Twinkie.
Thank you for showing just why people under 30 are not to be trusted with important decisions. Now, go back and play with your XBox while the adults talk.
Yes, that's the proper course of action to take when something goes wrong: immediately affix blame and fire the person who made a mistake. Let's not take the time to learn from our mistakes and ensure we don't repeat them, just get rid of anyone who is at all imperfect.
This is why you are (probably) not in management and never will be. If you are in management, this is why your employees hate you.
Everyone has biases, including reporters. The myth of objective journalism is just that, a myth. And your focus on Mr. Whittington's political leanings is nothing short of an ad hominem. Either his article and ideas have merit, or they do not. Attacking (which includes criticizing as well as simply "pointing them out") his politics is a distraction and waste of time.
Wonder just what it looks like after several levels of replies. The previous version had a problem where text would bunch up after seven or eight replies and not fit within the space provided. Perhaps this design will fix that problem.
At least Idle now looks the same as the rest of the site. That alone is a huge improvement (and will mean I'll take it off "hidden" status from my frontpage).
Though I have to say, I'd gotten used to the AJAX widget in the upper-left corner to control loading more posts. Having that locked at the top of the page isn't nearly as convenient.
Slashdot Mirror
You are obligated to pay them every month, but if they do not provide you the service you paid for, then you can call your state's public utility commission, board of trade, state AG, or even the FTC, depending on type of company, and report them for non-delivery of service.
FTFY. Just because you yourself can't sue someone doesn't mean there isn't someone out there with an awfully big stick who can play whack-a-provider if they don't honor their contracts.
Maybe you missed the part where I complained about electric cars not having the range? So just ignore the money and focus on the fact that an electric car cannot drive from Dallas to San Antonio. Until one is invented that can, it's foolish to assume anyone in their right mind would buy one.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you in favor of more boondoggles and welfare for billionaires? Because that's all a subsidy for electric cars would be.
The political class of this country just doesn't get it. We're broke! The piggy bank is empty! There. Is. No. Money!
And yet they continue to push these asinine boondoggles down our throats. At what point will politicians realize they can't throw money at every problem just to boost their poll numbers? Unfortunately, probably not until Moody's gives us the rating we deserve, B+. Even then they might not have the will to slash the government the way it needs to be slashed.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Sure, why not? That kind of scheme (forcing people to give up something they own that has value for something else to replace it) worked for cash for clunkers.
Oh, but wait, there's a problem with this: what about people who want to drive long distances? My wife and I drive to Austin (from Dallas) to visit our oldest daughter at least once a year; we drive to San Antonio to visit friends at least three times a year (yes, we love our friends more than our child, get over it). Those trips are expensive enough with gas at $3 a gallon, at $5 a gallon they'd be undoable. And with an electric car with a 100 mile range, they'd be impossible.
So pray tell me, how do you justify forcing me to support something that actually, and demonstrably, harms me?
They can raise taxes after they've cut at least 25% of the budget, across the board. There's no point throwing more money at the problem until Congress proves they're willing to end their addiction to spending.
You assume a "theory" that assumes facts that are not falsifiable (e.g., the existence of a extra-dimensional creator) is, in fact, a theory. You also completely misunderstand what the theory of evolution states and ignore all of the observations that have been made to date that support it.
There is no evidence that life can arise and change outside of natural selection, and the pressures it induces, outside of a laboratory. And there is zero evidence that the entire universe is, itself, a laboratory. Until there is, the flat claim that "only evolution occurs in the natural world" is a bone fide one with no problems attached to it. For you to say there are problems of that nature with the theory betrays your own desire to have an invisible sky wizard be behind everything, when that simply isn't the case (or at least, it's neither a falsifiable position nor is it supported by any evidence).
In short, you neither understand evolution nor the scientific method, despite your claims to the contrary.
I was in 9th grade. I remember being in algebra class and one of the kids had brought in a ham radio. The teacher let us listen to the Challenger lifting off. Once it was in the air, she had him turn it off. It wasn't until next period when I I learned what had happened. After that, all of the classrooms that day had CNN on (first time I remember watching that network). Very surreal day for me.
I heard the first joke about it within two hours of the event. "They thought they found part of the black astronaut, but it was just the radiator tube from a '57 Chevy."
I pay $10 per month for unlimited text for me and my entire family. So I'm not sure where this "$0.25 per text" idea came from, unless you're an idiot who thinks that's somehow cheaper than the flat-rate plans that are available.
Or how about just preventing people from calling for help if a bomb were to go off? Seems like it would do that, too.
Wow, talk about a gross understanding of science and the scientific method, not to mention a complete and utter lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution is. I think you should get a better grounding on this subject before attempting to deconstruct it.
I'd go so far as to say that anyone over the age of 8 who has an imaginary friend (whether they call that friend Jesus, Allah, or Krishna) should be declared legally insane and locked up for their own good.
Obviously, the high speed of cavalry, with a base move of at least 7", does help to close the difference. But the main reason knights are more useful against trebuchets is because they have 25mmx50mm bases, so fewer of them are touched by the small blast template. Infantry have either 20mm or 25mm square bases, resulting in considerably more (19 or 13, respectively) being hit.
Flying cavalry or other units of flyers are ideal, though. With their high speed (marching 20") they can get across the field in only one or two turns, and with their skirmishing formation and large bases, you could get by with only one or maybe two of them being hit by the template.
It means you're less likely to end up in prison. Hard to be successful (using any meaningful definition of the term) while locked up behind bars.
I call bullshit. Someone with a fast metabolism is going to have a lot easier time chasing down prey (and running from predators) than someone who takes two days to digest a single Twinkie.
Thank you for showing just why people under 30 are not to be trusted with important decisions. Now, go back and play with your XBox while the adults talk.
The same old tired promises we've been hearing since 1790.
FTFY.
Yes, that's the proper course of action to take when something goes wrong: immediately affix blame and fire the person who made a mistake. Let's not take the time to learn from our mistakes and ensure we don't repeat them, just get rid of anyone who is at all imperfect.
This is why you are (probably) not in management and never will be. If you are in management, this is why your employees hate you.
-Geeks have layers, Like.. Onions!
That explains the smell.
Everyone has biases, including reporters. The myth of objective journalism is just that, a myth. And your focus on Mr. Whittington's political leanings is nothing short of an ad hominem. Either his article and ideas have merit, or they do not. Attacking (which includes criticizing as well as simply "pointing them out") his politics is a distraction and waste of time.
Yes, because great philosophical insights have never been hidden inside works of fiction.
Wonder just what it looks like after several levels of replies. The previous version had a problem where text would bunch up after seven or eight replies and not fit within the space provided. Perhaps this design will fix that problem.
At least Idle now looks the same as the rest of the site. That alone is a huge improvement (and will mean I'll take it off "hidden" status from my frontpage).
Though I have to say, I'd gotten used to the AJAX widget in the upper-left corner to control loading more posts. Having that locked at the top of the page isn't nearly as convenient.
And here I was expecting you to comment on Slashdot's latest, ahem, "improvement".