Wrong. There's no place for that term in political debate or intelligent discourse. Thugs threaten bodily harm and the characterization is totally repugnant. It pretty much invalidates whatever else he has to say. It's high time more people called out these perverse misrepresentations and fallacies that everyone loves to throw out to infuriate and scare people in American politics.
The is just as contemptible as the Democrats trying to reinstitute a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in order to silence Conservatives so I fail to see the newsworthiness of business-as-usual.
Contemptible? That's not how I would describe it. The fact that conservative radio and television as we know it essentially didn't exist before the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, conservatives vehemently oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and the so-called "liberal media" existed long before its demise says something. The conservative propaganda machine can't exist when they have to air opposing views. Conservatives love freedom of the press, but they've got a real problem when it's against the law to air bullshit.
Their real challenge that Republicans face is making the "younger demographic" believe that the GOP is not really hostile to them.
They'll eventually be successful. Look at what they've done with baby boomers. They have them voting against their self-interests under the guise of freedom and patriotism.
I would use whatever the renowned meteorite hunters are using. They must be renowned meteorite hunters for a reason, and probably know what gear to use.
I don't get all the Arduino haters in this thread. I've been programming PICs in assembly for years and just recently picked up an Arduino. I'm having a ball with it. I'm sure the TI Launchpad is fun, but it's obviously so cheap right now because TI is trying to flood the market and gain market share. It appears their development tools are not open source and are crippled. The Arduino is not offered or controlled by the microcontroller manufacturer, Atmel; it's an open source project and you can get Arduino variants from various companies. Furthermore, the boot loader, compiler, and board designs are open source.
You all can sit here and argue about what's a real microcontroller and make faulty Microsoft Bob analogies, but the Arduino has an established community and people are having fun with them. There are people doing more with Arduinos than blinking LEDs. If you want to impress your friends with a so-called "real" platform and play EE snobbery, have at it. Hopefully TI will still be gracious enough to keep selling their boards at $5 next year and let you use their free-as-in-beer development environment.
The fact that you can generate QAM by using two signals of a certain phase mixed together doesn't mean that you're transmitting two signals, that's just a technique for generating QAM. One can generate a single sideband voice emission by mixing multiple signals with the proper phase, but it's still just one signal, one emission that is created. You could just as well generate QAM directly in software without the two frequencies ever being generated or mixed.
QAM is merely a modulation technique; it doesn't specify anything about how the RF is transmitted and received. Dual signals on the same frequency are often transmitted from the same antenna with point-to-point microwave today, with each signal on a different polarity (vertical and horizontal). QAM is often used as the modulation technique, but that has nothing to do with the cross polarization technique. The two signals on the receive end are often "improved" by taking a sample of the signal of the opposite polarity, phasing it correctly, and mixing it with the incoming signal to cancel out opposite polarity interference. The technique in the article sounds like something similar but with transmit and receive in one antenna at the same frequency. However, they don't mention anything about cross-polarization of the two signals.
Palin's "rebutting" of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign invalidates that statement. Anyone who argues against an anti-obesity campaign under the guise of freedom and gives kids cookies at a school is political opportunist jackass.
The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It's considered too Marxist / Communist / Nazi by the right. The Fairness Doctrine lives on as yet another crazy bad thing "freedom-hating libruls" are going to do, and is periodically brought up by right wing pundits to rally the ignorant masses, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of coming back.
I agree with what you say. Though I'd add that on a few occasions I've been tempted to use firearms for self-defense, fortunately sanity prevailed. Anger, jealousy and fear cause people to do stupid things - if they feel compelled to do stupid things when in control of a bicycle they are less likely to act out their violence, and less likely to do harm - then if the same thing happens while they control a car.
This is one reason I don't carry. I'm a great marksman. But going to the range and being a great marksman teaches one nothing about how to handle a situation requiring a weapon. Most of the people I know who carry go to the range regularly, but the fact they carry scares me because it creates an air of cockiness and bravado around them that ultimately will get them in a situation where they'll need to pull their weapon. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you have a weapon, you have to make a decision when to cross that line. If an assailant sees you have a weapon, it's an immediate game changer and you may be forced to take an action that otherwise wouldn't have been necessary. Too often I think people who carry concealed weapons think the end goal is punishment of a criminal and protection of property. The focus should really be on one's survival. I think for many people having a weapon readily available actually decreases their chance of survival as they make unwise decisions and rather than walking away from a situation, they escalate it.
OK, then please post one statistic: how many successful self-defense occurrences (i.e. criminal stopped and no victims seriously injured) versus how many accidental shootings (i.e. gun owner injures himself or a bystander, or a third party finds the hidden weapon and injures or kills an innocent person) there have been in the past X years?
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
Do you mean "uses" or "occurrences"? If you're claiming occurrences, I call [citation needed].
BTW, I own guns, hunt, and was a competition shooter in my teenage years. I support reasonable gun ownership, but I think the self-defense aspects of it have been overblown. Likewise with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
And what's worse is the conservative media and blogosphere will cite this article and quote it and their viewers will eat it up and be regurgitating it everywhere. It's quite unrealistic and is really just a lame attempt at comedy. TCP/IP and the Internet were in use in other countries before 1993 when the article's timeline starts. If the FCC would had done any kind of blatantly bad regulation, the Internet would have merely evolved outside of the US. The fact is the FCC didn't regulate it, and net neutrality (however currently defective/insufficient) doesn't come close to any sort of heavy-handed regulation. But that doesn't support the right wing narrative of an out of control fascist state.
There is no evidence. The "he hates the Constitution" and "he's a socialist" retorts are boilerplate right wing labels for liberal and moderate politicians and candidates, or knee jerk dog-whistle political responses to legislation they dislike. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard it uttered that Obama has "shredded the Constitution". These same people didn't say a word when Bush called the Constitution a piece of paper.
Ironically, most of these "Constitution protectors" hate the 14th Amendment. But you're labeled a patriot if you propose repealing it, not a Constitution hater.
If you knew any history of the Democratic Party, you would realize that in the 1960s there were many who espoused the ideals of the today's right in the Democratic Party at that time. As a matter of fact, many of the Democratic politicians from the 1960s would be too far to the right of today's Democrats to be electable.
And likewise the conservatives of the 80s would be unelectable by teabaggers and conservative Christians currently driving the Republican bus.
There's certainly bias at the networks you list but they don't come anywhere close to Fox. Fox has been specifically engineered to cater to conservatives and provide news from an obvious right wing point of view. Anyone who thinks ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. come close to Fox needs to put down the crack pipe.
At ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN there's an occasional fart. Fox runs a 7x24 manure spreader.
So how do you prevent that beyond income eligibility limits (without denying benefits to those who really need food stamps) or civil rights-violating laws prohibiting the purchase of such items?
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. There's no place for that term in political debate or intelligent discourse. Thugs threaten bodily harm and the characterization is totally repugnant. It pretty much invalidates whatever else he has to say. It's high time more people called out these perverse misrepresentations and fallacies that everyone loves to throw out to infuriate and scare people in American politics.
Yea, it was one big conspiracy. How gullible I must have been.
The is just as contemptible as the Democrats trying to reinstitute a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" in order to silence Conservatives so I fail to see the newsworthiness of business-as-usual.
Contemptible? That's not how I would describe it. The fact that conservative radio and television as we know it essentially didn't exist before the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated, conservatives vehemently oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, and the so-called "liberal media" existed long before its demise says something. The conservative propaganda machine can't exist when they have to air opposing views. Conservatives love freedom of the press, but they've got a real problem when it's against the law to air bullshit.
Their real challenge that Republicans face is making the "younger demographic" believe that the GOP is not really hostile to them.
They'll eventually be successful. Look at what they've done with baby boomers. They have them voting against their self-interests under the guise of freedom and patriotism.
Umm, Climategate anyone?
Ummm, all the scientists involved were vindicated. But that didn't make headlines in conservative circles.
I would use whatever the renowned meteorite hunters are using. They must be renowned meteorite hunters for a reason, and probably know what gear to use.
I don't get all the Arduino haters in this thread. I've been programming PICs in assembly for years and just recently picked up an Arduino. I'm having a ball with it. I'm sure the TI Launchpad is fun, but it's obviously so cheap right now because TI is trying to flood the market and gain market share. It appears their development tools are not open source and are crippled. The Arduino is not offered or controlled by the microcontroller manufacturer, Atmel; it's an open source project and you can get Arduino variants from various companies. Furthermore, the boot loader, compiler, and board designs are open source.
You all can sit here and argue about what's a real microcontroller and make faulty Microsoft Bob analogies, but the Arduino has an established community and people are having fun with them. There are people doing more with Arduinos than blinking LEDs. If you want to impress your friends with a so-called "real" platform and play EE snobbery, have at it. Hopefully TI will still be gracious enough to keep selling their boards at $5 next year and let you use their free-as-in-beer development environment.
The fact that you can generate QAM by using two signals of a certain phase mixed together doesn't mean that you're transmitting two signals, that's just a technique for generating QAM. One can generate a single sideband voice emission by mixing multiple signals with the proper phase, but it's still just one signal, one emission that is created. You could just as well generate QAM directly in software without the two frequencies ever being generated or mixed.
QAM is merely a modulation technique; it doesn't specify anything about how the RF is transmitted and received. Dual signals on the same frequency are often transmitted from the same antenna with point-to-point microwave today, with each signal on a different polarity (vertical and horizontal). QAM is often used as the modulation technique, but that has nothing to do with the cross polarization technique. The two signals on the receive end are often "improved" by taking a sample of the signal of the opposite polarity, phasing it correctly, and mixing it with the incoming signal to cancel out opposite polarity interference. The technique in the article sounds like something similar but with transmit and receive in one antenna at the same frequency. However, they don't mention anything about cross-polarization of the two signals.
Palin's "rebutting" of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign invalidates that statement. Anyone who argues against an anti-obesity campaign under the guise of freedom and gives kids cookies at a school is political opportunist jackass.
The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It's considered too Marxist / Communist / Nazi by the right. The Fairness Doctrine lives on as yet another crazy bad thing "freedom-hating libruls" are going to do, and is periodically brought up by right wing pundits to rally the ignorant masses, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of coming back.
You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech.
The right does it as well. I wish Palin would speak more. She's a gift from God to the Democratic Party.
Does this mean I can't use the Sarah Palin name on my brand of specially-bred mutant jackasses I'm going to sell?
I agree with what you say. Though I'd add that on a few occasions I've been tempted to use firearms for self-defense, fortunately sanity prevailed. Anger, jealousy and fear cause people to do stupid things - if they feel compelled to do stupid things when in control of a bicycle they are less likely to act out their violence, and less likely to do harm - then if the same thing happens while they control a car.
This is one reason I don't carry. I'm a great marksman. But going to the range and being a great marksman teaches one nothing about how to handle a situation requiring a weapon. Most of the people I know who carry go to the range regularly, but the fact they carry scares me because it creates an air of cockiness and bravado around them that ultimately will get them in a situation where they'll need to pull their weapon. It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you have a weapon, you have to make a decision when to cross that line. If an assailant sees you have a weapon, it's an immediate game changer and you may be forced to take an action that otherwise wouldn't have been necessary. Too often I think people who carry concealed weapons think the end goal is punishment of a criminal and protection of property. The focus should really be on one's survival. I think for many people having a weapon readily available actually decreases their chance of survival as they make unwise decisions and rather than walking away from a situation, they escalate it.
OK, then please post one statistic: how many successful self-defense occurrences (i.e. criminal stopped and no victims seriously injured) versus how many accidental shootings (i.e. gun owner injures himself or a bystander, or a third party finds the hidden weapon and injures or kills an innocent person) there have been in the past X years?
There are far more self-defense uses of firearms than there are accidental shootings.
Do you mean "uses" or "occurrences"? If you're claiming occurrences, I call [citation needed].
BTW, I own guns, hunt, and was a competition shooter in my teenage years. I support reasonable gun ownership, but I think the self-defense aspects of it have been overblown. Likewise with the effectiveness of gun control laws.
And what's worse is the conservative media and blogosphere will cite this article and quote it and their viewers will eat it up and be regurgitating it everywhere. It's quite unrealistic and is really just a lame attempt at comedy. TCP/IP and the Internet were in use in other countries before 1993 when the article's timeline starts. If the FCC would had done any kind of blatantly bad regulation, the Internet would have merely evolved outside of the US. The fact is the FCC didn't regulate it, and net neutrality (however currently defective/insufficient) doesn't come close to any sort of heavy-handed regulation. But that doesn't support the right wing narrative of an out of control fascist state.
There is no evidence. The "he hates the Constitution" and "he's a socialist" retorts are boilerplate right wing labels for liberal and moderate politicians and candidates, or knee jerk dog-whistle political responses to legislation they dislike. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard it uttered that Obama has "shredded the Constitution". These same people didn't say a word when Bush called the Constitution a piece of paper. Ironically, most of these "Constitution protectors" hate the 14th Amendment. But you're labeled a patriot if you propose repealing it, not a Constitution hater.
Fox "News". Or at least it's in the narrative they like to perpetuate.
And your point would be....?
If you knew any history of the Democratic Party, you would realize that in the 1960s there were many who espoused the ideals of the today's right in the Democratic Party at that time. As a matter of fact, many of the Democratic politicians from the 1960s would be too far to the right of today's Democrats to be electable.
And likewise the conservatives of the 80s would be unelectable by teabaggers and conservative Christians currently driving the Republican bus.
But if it's a conservative slimy scumbag, everything is cool because all's fair when you're fighting the left.
There's certainly bias at the networks you list but they don't come anywhere close to Fox. Fox has been specifically engineered to cater to conservatives and provide news from an obvious right wing point of view. Anyone who thinks ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. come close to Fox needs to put down the crack pipe. At ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN there's an occasional fart. Fox runs a 7x24 manure spreader.
So how do you prevent that beyond income eligibility limits (without denying benefits to those who really need food stamps) or civil rights-violating laws prohibiting the purchase of such items?
Opt out of the settlement and sue them yourself to get your justice.