Well, because it might effect the ozone layer. Oh, wait... it might lead to more CO2 gases and cause a rise in temperature and sea level. Oh, wait... FINE! NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
It's about time we actually did hold people accountable and make them embarrassed to be that fucking stupid and quit pretending it's ok that they're that dumb and acting like avoiding hurting their feelings is more important than telling the truth and being a good citizen.
I agree. I wish more people understood economics so they'd vote Republican. I also don't care about hurting people's feelings. But intentionally insulting them and using vulgarities says a lot more about you and your intelligence than it does about them or theirs.
I'm really confused why you think people like myself who think and pay attention were the problem with the Democrats getting elected though.
It's not that you pay attention. It's not even your point of view. What lost the election for the Democrats is the absolutely mindless insulting comments levied by Democrats--and, in this case, everyone that appeared to be Democrats by being part of the Bush-bashing-fest. Regardless of what you believe, you will never win elections by insulting your opponents. It simply won't happen. In the last election, there were basically two groups: Those that voted for Bush, and there was everyone that hated Bush. You might not have voted Democrat, but your insulting comments look pretty much like the liberal lunatics that did lose the election for the Democrats.
Case in point: In 2004, I lived outside the U.S. While I wasn't particularly pro-Bush, I favored him over Kerry. But I wasn't going to vote because living overseas made the process a bit too much considering I didn't have strong views on the candidates. Then I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm not a huge Bush supporter by any means, but I can recognize an insulting package of lies when I see it. I found Moore's effort to influence the election with such amazing lies to be extremely offensive. So I immediately went down to the local U.S. consulate did what I had to do to be able to vote overseas. And I voted for Bush. And I've talked/chatted with quite a few people who were similarly motivated by either Fahrenheit-9/11 or a lot of the other insulting B.S. that was being spewed by the anti-Bush movement.
So, like I said, being insulting is not going to ever win you an election. It can only help you lose them. There's no way to prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry would have won if Fahrenheit 9/11 hadn't pissed off a lot of otherwise unmotivated Republicans.
Huh? A generalization is, by definition, true? No, actually, that's incorrect. A generalization may be true, but it isn't automatically so.
I challenge you to name 3 wars throughout history that were fought for noble purposes. And just because noble goals were claimed for a war does not make it qualify.
I wish you the best of luck with that.
I'd be happy to, but I've already seen your trolling behavior in other posts in this thread. It's easy to predict how a troll is going to respond. If I name three wars that were fought for noble purposes, you'll find non-noble actions and/or additional non-noble purposes that were also present and hold that out as some kind of proof that I'm wrong. Most wars are fought for both noble and non-noble purposes at the exact same time. But the fact that some of the reasons or ulterior motives of the participants are less than noble does not make the noble purposes of the war any less so. And the fact that many wars are fought for reasons that include non-noble motives does not mean wars "do not happen for noble goals."
The fact that you are a cynical troll does not change that.
Gosh, I just started to respond to yet another ignorant post and, lo and behold, it's Darby again. You're on a roll, aren't you?
Then you're deeply ignorant and painfully naive. Wars do not happen for noble goals.
That is the most absurd, patently wrong sweeping statement I've seen in a long time. I'll agree that not all wars are noble. Heck, you might even be able to make the case that most wars aren't. But to make a sweeping, all-encompassing statement like the one you just made speaks of your own extremely closed-minded and biased view that appears to be based on a lack of knowledge of history. And as is the case with virtually all statements that are all-encompassing (not to mention trolling posts that are filled with vulgar text), you are wrong.
What an insulting post. But keep at it. People like you and Michael Moore lost the 2004 election for the Democrats. If you try hard enough, you can lose 2008, too.
I agree 100%. The biggest threat to people in the IT industry are those people that see everything as a threat instead of an opportunity. If competition scares you--whether it be from India or Web 2.0--perhaps you're in the wrong industry? Competition is a healthy thing, and that isn't just limited to broadband providers, wireless/cellular, and game boxes. It applies to labor, too. Just as the best thing for advancement in those physical products is competition, the same is true in the IT industry.
What sucks about it is that they don't realize (or perhaps don't care) that while on the surface it looks like you're sticking it to the man, in reality you're sticking it to your fellow man. Quite different, and not very good for your karma.
So stealing from Best Buy would be "sticking it to the man?" Funny, I just consider that theft regardless of who you're stealing from. It's bad for your karma whether you do it to Best Buy or some civilian.
I'm sick and tired that Best Buy should "eat it". The thief should be the one that eats the damn tiles.
Agreed. But if Best Buy is accepting returns without looking inside the box to verify that there is a real product inside it, it becomes Best Buy's responsibility. If I buy something from Best Buy and I get home and the box contains something else, I absolutely positively expect Best Buy to "eat it." It's their fault. They should have inspected the contents of the box before accepting the return, and definitely before putting it back on the shelf for another victim to purchase.
But now realize the true sales price of the phone was 1031$ and they lowered it by 20% to 831.
Amazing that anyone would pay $1031 or $831 for a phone. But kudos to Apple for milking that market. There's one born every minute, and Apple might as well relieve those people of their money instead of someone else.:)
... that our return to sane lending standards has all but eliminated buyers from the market.
In other words, we were insane to try to make homeowners out of people that honestly couldn't afford it. I actually agree. If you can't afford the payment of a 30-year fixed loan, you have no business buying a house. Likewise, if you can't put together the 20% traditional down payment for the home, it seems unlikely you'll be able to deal with the expenses that come with home ownership.
Meanwhile, ARM payments are skyrocketing as the poorly-comprehended rate bumps kick in...
Poorly comprehended? If you're buying a house and the payment is $1500/month and someone offers to loan you the money for the same house and only wants to charge you $900/month, you're an idiot if you think there isn't a catch. People that got themselves in ARMs have no-one to blame but themselves.
... and rents are up because so few can buy while foreclosures are turning "owners" back into renters.
Indeed. It's a good time to be able to rent property. On the other hand, there are many opportunities in buying foreclosed properties. I know someone who bought a $300k property for $120k in the last month. Opportunities abound.
At the end of the day, the problem is we have too many houses available because we built lots of houses for people that couldn't really afford them. Now that the reality that they can't afford them has hit us, we have an oversupply of houses which is driving prices down. And probably will for quite some time. But the prices of housing isn't going up, it's going down. That's exactly why so many people with ARMs are scewed: They put no money down and their property is now worth less than their loan amount, so they can't refinance.
Many people are paying more per month and/or settling for less housing, while few are paying less than they were recently.
I have no sympathy for people with ARMs. They got a great rate for a couple years and are now paying the price. Meanwhile, I was paying a higher interest rate--but at least I knew it wouldn't change. Today's market turmoil has zero effect on my payments because I had the foresight to get a fixed-rate loan.
Whether or not people are actually paying less for housing today, they will in the future. The market is driving prices down and that will drive prices down. Of course, that doesn't mean **I** will pay less since I have a fixed rate and don't plan on buying a different home. But, market-wide, lower housing prices will of course drive down the cost of housing.
The fundamental problem is that it's more advantageous for each individual firm to hire people with some job experience (because they won't make novice mistakes), but if every company follows that rule then no one can enter the industry.
Unnamed employer: I'm sorry, Mr. Foster. We need someone with experience.
Brantley Foster: But how can I get any experience until I get a job that GIVES me experience?
Unnamed employer: If we gave you a job just to give you experience, you'd take that experience and get a better job. Then that experience would benefit someone else.
Brantley Foster: Yeah, but I was trained in college to handle a job like this, so in a sense I already have experience.
Unnamed employer: What you've got is college experience, not the practical, hard-nosed business experience we're looking for. If you'd joined our training program out of high-school, you'd be qualified for this job now.
One recent calculation of a LIVING wage is now $80,000 for a family of four with two adult earners.
You lost me there. Are you saying that a living wage is now $80,000 if both wage earners earn $80k? Are you saying that a family of four needs $160k to "live?" If so, my gosh, what kind of over-the-top materialistic "keep up with the Joneses" lifestyle is being considered "livable" these days? Or are you living in some extremely expensive place like San Francisco or NYC?
And if a family of four needs $80k to be livable, well, that still sounds extreme--but in that case your statement of "with two adult earners" is unnecessary since all you need to specify is how much a family of four needs to "live." Whether one or two adult earners is necessary to earn that much money is a question of their individual earning capacities.
Anyway, don't worry. The Democrats want to make sure everyone has a "livable" wage. So if we now need $160k to live, I guess the Democrats will just make minimum wage $80/hour. Problem solved!
I was happy with Cingular for years, never went over my minutes (always had rollover minutes) and the bill was always the same, under $50. Then AT&T bought them out, and all of a sudden I got hit with a $150 bill. I didn't pay it. The next month they tacked on another $450 on top of the $150, and shut off my service. After shutting off my service, they tacked ANOTHER $150 for the month I was without service, including taxes on the service they never provided.
Funny. AT&T bought Cingular and the only difference I noticed in my service was the logo that appears on the bills.
On a cell phone, 167MB/day is painful. When I go to Blockbuster and my wife asks me to check the comments/rating of a movie on IMDB via my cell phone, I cringe. It's painful. 167MB/day? The Verizon T.O.S. should be rewritten to say, "If you download more than 5GB per month, you are assumed to be stupid and your account will be terminated."
There is someone in a Comcast office right now thinking, "What other customer surveillance can we sell?"
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Comcast actually turns a profit from the wiretapping, let alone that someone is in an office is thinking of ways to expand the program? Lacking evidence, it seems to me more like paranoid conspiracy tripe.
It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that if they had done nothing wrong, then there would be no reason to grant immunity. The fact that they are asking for it means they know they acted irresponsibly with their customer's info, and illegally.
Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could very easily mean that none of the companies want to waste time and money proving that in court. Whether someone is guilty or not, being given immunity means that they will not have to prove their innocence in court.
Personally, I hope they don't. If laws were broken, it was at the request of people in government that should be enforcing the laws, not breaking them. Sue the government agencies or individuals that broke the laws. I don't think it's the job of private companies to make sure the federal government follows the law. We can admire those companies that took a stand (though we'd crucify them if their refusal to cooperate had lead to another terrorist attack), but I don't think we should hold the companies responsible for the excesses of government.
The telcom companies are being sued because people see deeper pockets there than going after the individuals in government that were directly responsible for the actions. This isn't about privacy, it's about money.
But tell me, when was the last time you copied 16,400 files using XP's built in copier?
I haven't checked exactly how many files I have lately, but when I do a backup, I just backup my develop/ and personal/ directories by selecting the two directories and copying them to my USB backup drive. It might not be an elegant way to do my backups, but I assumed it was working. I guess I better go back and see if the same number of files exist in the source/destination directories since not even the copy function of Vista can apparently be trusted.
Maybe I should just start using WinSCP to copy the two directories from my Vista machine to back them up to my Linux server.
Sounds like the trademark was used in a non-infringing way. Not only does this speak poorly of Google's policy, but it also speaks poorly of MoveOn: They're afraid of criticism. They're a political organization that levels plenty of public criticism. For them to request a "take-down" of an ad because it criticizes them is absolutely priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, because it might effect the ozone layer. Oh, wait... it might lead to more CO2 gases and cause a rise in temperature and sea level. Oh, wait... FINE! NOT IN MY BACKYARD!
:)
I agree. I wish more people understood economics so they'd vote Republican. I also don't care about hurting people's feelings. But intentionally insulting them and using vulgarities says a lot more about you and your intelligence than it does about them or theirs.
It's not that you pay attention. It's not even your point of view. What lost the election for the Democrats is the absolutely mindless insulting comments levied by Democrats--and, in this case, everyone that appeared to be Democrats by being part of the Bush-bashing-fest. Regardless of what you believe, you will never win elections by insulting your opponents. It simply won't happen. In the last election, there were basically two groups: Those that voted for Bush, and there was everyone that hated Bush. You might not have voted Democrat, but your insulting comments look pretty much like the liberal lunatics that did lose the election for the Democrats.
Case in point: In 2004, I lived outside the U.S. While I wasn't particularly pro-Bush, I favored him over Kerry. But I wasn't going to vote because living overseas made the process a bit too much considering I didn't have strong views on the candidates. Then I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. I'm not a huge Bush supporter by any means, but I can recognize an insulting package of lies when I see it. I found Moore's effort to influence the election with such amazing lies to be extremely offensive. So I immediately went down to the local U.S. consulate did what I had to do to be able to vote overseas. And I voted for Bush. And I've talked/chatted with quite a few people who were similarly motivated by either Fahrenheit-9/11 or a lot of the other insulting B.S. that was being spewed by the anti-Bush movement.
So, like I said, being insulting is not going to ever win you an election. It can only help you lose them. There's no way to prove it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry would have won if Fahrenheit 9/11 hadn't pissed off a lot of otherwise unmotivated Republicans.
Huh? A generalization is, by definition, true? No, actually, that's incorrect. A generalization may be true, but it isn't automatically so.
I'd be happy to, but I've already seen your trolling behavior in other posts in this thread. It's easy to predict how a troll is going to respond. If I name three wars that were fought for noble purposes, you'll find non-noble actions and/or additional non-noble purposes that were also present and hold that out as some kind of proof that I'm wrong. Most wars are fought for both noble and non-noble purposes at the exact same time. But the fact that some of the reasons or ulterior motives of the participants are less than noble does not make the noble purposes of the war any less so. And the fact that many wars are fought for reasons that include non-noble motives does not mean wars "do not happen for noble goals."
The fact that you are a cynical troll does not change that.
So start selling "Entropy Credits." There are people out there that are actually buying carbon credits, so you might as well get in on the scam. :)
Gosh, I just started to respond to yet another ignorant post and, lo and behold, it's Darby again. You're on a roll, aren't you?
That is the most absurd, patently wrong sweeping statement I've seen in a long time. I'll agree that not all wars are noble. Heck, you might even be able to make the case that most wars aren't. But to make a sweeping, all-encompassing statement like the one you just made speaks of your own extremely closed-minded and biased view that appears to be based on a lack of knowledge of history. And as is the case with virtually all statements that are all-encompassing (not to mention trolling posts that are filled with vulgar text), you are wrong.
What an insulting post. But keep at it. People like you and Michael Moore lost the 2004 election for the Democrats. If you try hard enough, you can lose 2008, too.
I'm sure he does. I wonder if you do.
I agree 100%. The biggest threat to people in the IT industry are those people that see everything as a threat instead of an opportunity. If competition scares you--whether it be from India or Web 2.0--perhaps you're in the wrong industry? Competition is a healthy thing, and that isn't just limited to broadband providers, wireless/cellular, and game boxes. It applies to labor, too. Just as the best thing for advancement in those physical products is competition, the same is true in the IT industry.
So stealing from Best Buy would be "sticking it to the man?" Funny, I just consider that theft regardless of who you're stealing from. It's bad for your karma whether you do it to Best Buy or some civilian.
Agreed. But if Best Buy is accepting returns without looking inside the box to verify that there is a real product inside it, it becomes Best Buy's responsibility. If I buy something from Best Buy and I get home and the box contains something else, I absolutely positively expect Best Buy to "eat it." It's their fault. They should have inspected the contents of the box before accepting the return, and definitely before putting it back on the shelf for another victim to purchase.
Amazing that anyone would pay $1031 or $831 for a phone. But kudos to Apple for milking that market. There's one born every minute, and Apple might as well relieve those people of their money instead of someone else. :)
In other words, we were insane to try to make homeowners out of people that honestly couldn't afford it. I actually agree. If you can't afford the payment of a 30-year fixed loan, you have no business buying a house. Likewise, if you can't put together the 20% traditional down payment for the home, it seems unlikely you'll be able to deal with the expenses that come with home ownership.
Poorly comprehended? If you're buying a house and the payment is $1500/month and someone offers to loan you the money for the same house and only wants to charge you $900/month, you're an idiot if you think there isn't a catch. People that got themselves in ARMs have no-one to blame but themselves.
Indeed. It's a good time to be able to rent property. On the other hand, there are many opportunities in buying foreclosed properties. I know someone who bought a $300k property for $120k in the last month. Opportunities abound.
At the end of the day, the problem is we have too many houses available because we built lots of houses for people that couldn't really afford them. Now that the reality that they can't afford them has hit us, we have an oversupply of houses which is driving prices down. And probably will for quite some time. But the prices of housing isn't going up, it's going down. That's exactly why so many people with ARMs are scewed: They put no money down and their property is now worth less than their loan amount, so they can't refinance.
I have no sympathy for people with ARMs. They got a great rate for a couple years and are now paying the price. Meanwhile, I was paying a higher interest rate--but at least I knew it wouldn't change. Today's market turmoil has zero effect on my payments because I had the foresight to get a fixed-rate loan.
Whether or not people are actually paying less for housing today, they will in the future. The market is driving prices down and that will drive prices down. Of course, that doesn't mean **I** will pay less since I have a fixed rate and don't plan on buying a different home. But, market-wide, lower housing prices will of course drive down the cost of housing.
See also: The Secret of My Success
Unnamed employer: I'm sorry, Mr. Foster. We need someone with experience.
Brantley Foster: But how can I get any experience until I get a job that GIVES me experience?
Unnamed employer: If we gave you a job just to give you experience, you'd take that experience and get a better job. Then that experience would benefit someone else.
Brantley Foster: Yeah, but I was trained in college to handle a job like this, so in a sense I already have experience.
Unnamed employer: What you've got is college experience, not the practical, hard-nosed business experience we're looking for. If you'd joined our training program out of high-school, you'd be qualified for this job now.
Brantley Foster: Then why did I go to college?
Unnamed employer: [laughs] Had fun, didn't you?
You lost me there. Are you saying that a living wage is now $80,000 if both wage earners earn $80k? Are you saying that a family of four needs $160k to "live?" If so, my gosh, what kind of over-the-top materialistic "keep up with the Joneses" lifestyle is being considered "livable" these days? Or are you living in some extremely expensive place like San Francisco or NYC?
And if a family of four needs $80k to be livable, well, that still sounds extreme--but in that case your statement of "with two adult earners" is unnecessary since all you need to specify is how much a family of four needs to "live." Whether one or two adult earners is necessary to earn that much money is a question of their individual earning capacities.
Anyway, don't worry. The Democrats want to make sure everyone has a "livable" wage. So if we now need $160k to live, I guess the Democrats will just make minimum wage $80/hour. Problem solved!
+5, Understatement of the year
Housing? Ok, I know you're an AC, but housing? Come on!
Funny. AT&T bought Cingular and the only difference I noticed in my service was the logo that appears on the bills.
On a cell phone, 167MB/day is painful. When I go to Blockbuster and my wife asks me to check the comments/rating of a movie on IMDB via my cell phone, I cringe. It's painful. 167MB/day? The Verizon T.O.S. should be rewritten to say, "If you download more than 5GB per month, you are assumed to be stupid and your account will be terminated."
You're trolling.
Nonsense. It is most likely far cheaper to spend time and money lobbying for immunity even if they didn't do anything wrong.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Comcast actually turns a profit from the wiretapping, let alone that someone is in an office is thinking of ways to expand the program? Lacking evidence, it seems to me more like paranoid conspiracy tripe.
Of course it doesn't necessarily mean that. It could very easily mean that none of the companies want to waste time and money proving that in court. Whether someone is guilty or not, being given immunity means that they will not have to prove their innocence in court.
Personally, I hope they don't. If laws were broken, it was at the request of people in government that should be enforcing the laws, not breaking them. Sue the government agencies or individuals that broke the laws. I don't think it's the job of private companies to make sure the federal government follows the law. We can admire those companies that took a stand (though we'd crucify them if their refusal to cooperate had lead to another terrorist attack), but I don't think we should hold the companies responsible for the excesses of government.
The telcom companies are being sued because people see deeper pockets there than going after the individuals in government that were directly responsible for the actions. This isn't about privacy, it's about money.
I haven't checked exactly how many files I have lately, but when I do a backup, I just backup my develop/ and personal/ directories by selecting the two directories and copying them to my USB backup drive. It might not be an elegant way to do my backups, but I assumed it was working. I guess I better go back and see if the same number of files exist in the source/destination directories since not even the copy function of Vista can apparently be trusted.
Maybe I should just start using WinSCP to copy the two directories from my Vista machine to back them up to my Linux server.
Sounds like the trademark was used in a non-infringing way. Not only does this speak poorly of Google's policy, but it also speaks poorly of MoveOn: They're afraid of criticism. They're a political organization that levels plenty of public criticism. For them to request a "take-down" of an ad because it criticizes them is absolutely priceless.