The legal requirements are generally pretty lax, bro. The president of the United States for example just needs to be a natural born American over the age of 35. So... You're going to give everyone an equal amount of money decides they want to run for president and meets those qualifications?
You do realize you'll be giving the candidates something like "a" dollar if you split the money that many ways right? And the election will of course be an absolute circus.
Here's the other thing, elections are held at the state level. Not the federal level. If you're running for president, one of the things you have to do is get EACH state to put your name on the ballot. To do that, you often need to get X number of people in that state to sign a petition to put you on the ballot. This is one of the things the national parties organize. Anyone they nominate gets a giant pile of signatures.
I'm not saying this money issue is a deal breaker. what I am saying is that it is complicated.
They might as well announce they're getting Yettie insurance. They had their payment system compromised by people that got access to their point of sale system at one of their stores and then used that to gain access to their central system.
That has nothing to do with chip and pin.
And ultimately, how would you do chip and pin for online retail? You know, people that literally have to type their credit card number into a field? So indifferent to chip and pin, that is going to keep working. And I suspect that indifferent to chip and pin, somewhere in the target billing system there will be a list of credit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. A hacker gaining access to that database isn't going to care if the cards were chip and pin or not. Because by that point the data is prepared for processing. The only way chip and pin would be effective is if the security code were different for each transaction. That seems extremely unlikely but if you could some how pull that off then snagging the numbers might not get the thieves anything. Of course, how you'd get that to work with online retail is anyone's guess.
TLDR... I don't think chip and pin is going to accomplish anything and in so far as I understand the issue it wouldn't have stopped the breach at target in the first place. So i don't know why they're talking about it like its a solution to anything.
For an expert you're pretty bad at reading studies.
Lets dispense with that little fib... you're obviously not an expert or if you are... the title is obviously meaningless for this discussion. Even if you do legitimately hold such a title it isn't respectable under challenge.
As to the studies, there were a lot of qualifies and conditions on each. You can see how they were controlling for various variables. If you were at all curious on the subject you'd have looked into them a bit more and come out with more detailed insights.
You didn't though... you skimmed and looked for something to justify your position. Which is fine... it just isn't something experts do...
Anyway, until you actually read the studies as I did... there's no point in going further. And since you've clearly been lying and playing passive aggressive games from the first post I feel little obligation to keep humoring you.
True however, you are underestimating the cost difference in producing a laptop versus some one off micro pc.
the laptops already have a deep market that is just a great deal more efficient and given the greater adaptability of the laptop and utility... it will retain this advantage over these micro pcs indefinitely.
I have one... I take it on trips. It take it to work sometimes.
I spent something like 1500 dollars on it and its so fast that it can play every new game I've thrown at it at max settings. So... fine... 815 dollars is less... but from what I'm hearing that machine is slow.
Oh yeah, and I paid them about 100 bucks to put an alligator skin on my laptop. Obviously plastic... but it looks awesome.
These little machines cannot compete either with a proper ATX gaming rig or a sweet little gaming laptop like I've got.
On the price point, you can build a respectable ATX gaming rig for 800 dollars. Not the best but enough that it can play the new games on reasonable settings.
On the portability and size point, for about the same price you can have a gaming laptop that is probably a lot faster.
Seriously, look for a gaming laptop in the 800 dollar range and compare stats to what they put into this little computer. Bet the laptop is faster.
And now that we have SSD storage the old problem laptops used to have... slow harddrives... is irrelevant.
My gaming laptop for example uses a small SSD drive to run the OS... I think its something like ~100 gigs and then I have a conventional harddrive that has about 500 gigs of storage.
The system cold boots to desktop in about 10 seconds and I've noticed no drive lag on the games.
Seriously... these little computers are a product without a market. I would never buy one because there are better products at better prices.
Screens cost less then 100 dollars in most cases. The cost of the keyboard is literally something like 20 dollars. So... assuming all the things happen that you say... you'll see a machine that is about 120 dollars cheaper then a comparable laptop. Frankly, 120 dollars is worth those features.
What is more, the economies of scale you're hoping for won't happen because the market for laptops is a lot deeper then the market for those little computers will EVER be... ever. So what you're going to have is something like what we have now... an inferior machine at a higher cost due to inefficiencies in the supply chain and not a huge difference in the actual absolute cost of the components.
The cheapest option if that's what you're going for will be to get a desktop computer. Despite being larger the parts are more common and will ALWAYS be more common because the platform is more flexible and thus useful in multiple applications.
On top of that you can't just look at the cost of buying it and consider that the total cost. After all, these units depreciate in value over time either because components wear out or because the models themselves become inferior to newer machines. Thus there is a rate of turn over to be expected. And that turn over means either an upgrade cycle followed by a full system replacement or just a full system replacement.
These little machines don't look upgradable where as desktops clearly are upgradable. That means not only would the desktop likely cost less but it would also probably go through an upgrade cycle rather then a replacement after two to three years and that would mean a big savings on the cost of ownership over time. Furthermore, you have to consider maintenance, service, replacements, etc. Fixing a desktop isn't a big deal. Most of the parts are pretty common and the whole thing is built to be maintained. These little machines and most laptops are pretty much baked at sale. They're not especially upgradable beyond a harddrive or ram. Some of them even have the ram soldered into the board. The Lenovo X1 is an example of a machine with non-removable ram.
These little machines are a curiosity and I could see their use for lans I suppose but they're inferior to gaming laptops in that respect and gaming laptops are just so much better in general. I take mine trips all the time. Beats the hell out of watching hotel TV.
for 800 dollars you can almost get a gaming laptop that is decent.
I recently got one for 1200 that is amazing. I have yet to play a game on it that I can't put at max settings and get frames well over 100.
So why the hell would I get one of these things? Is the small form factor really worth money?
Imagine if the thing were four times larger BUT actually had good components or was a much cheaper price? Who is really THAT space constrained for it to matter. You could be in a tiny apartment and it wouldn't matter.
depends on how you define multiplayer or single player.
if you mean screen sharing then the only practical medium to do that is on the console because screen sharing a pc screen sucks.
That said, what you're really saying is that you have to work in city X because Microsoft and Sony aren't as cool with indy developers as Valve is... which isn't a very strong argument.
You'd do better to talk about the banking industry or the fashion industry. Those tend not to be outside of a few very large cities.
Even so, you do find banking in small towns. Its often a different type of banking but its as relevant to people there as any kind of banking. What is more, many companies are relocating headquarters to smaller cities because they're just more efficient places to work. The large cities have political, financial, and logistical problems that get worse as the cities get larger and larger. The smaller cities have most of the virtues of the large cities without most of the problems.
Truly huge cities tend to favor a small elite within the city that tend to almost exclusively enjoy the benefits of that density.
Keep in mind the point of cities. Do people pack in that tight because they want to be packed in that tight or because someone else wants them packed in that tight? Then ask yourself if you want to do what they want or what you want?
Suffice to say, unless you're in a pretty small group of people you should give the very large cities the laugh. Most of the higher income you believe you'll make there is an illusion in that nearly all the extra money and often more beyond that is spent on more expensive living costs. Which means someone else is tricking you into living in a place you don't want to live and making you pay for it.
Seems foolish to me. If you ACTUALLY want to live those cities... then by all means. Have fun. But that isn't why those cities got started or how they've gotten as big as they are now.
The estimates assumed current regulations, a minimum of graft, and a reasonable place to put the spent fuel.
Those are reasonable assumptions. We could decommission these plants for the cited price. It would require doing things efficiently however...
Given that for political reasons we can't do anything efficiently... just take all prices cited by government offices and assume conflicting regulations will slow everything down, the majority of all money spent will be stolen, and that when complete whatever it is won't actually work properly.
Because that's how we do things now.
It took us 4 years to build the golden gate bridge... now it takes us 15 years to decommission a power plant.
Its pathetic. Queue some witless fucktard that is going to defend the decay, the delay, the incompetence, and the waste. Let me stop you right there. It is people like your inevitable self that make this situation even possible. If people like you kept your mouths shut then maybe just maybe the system could be shamed into doing its actual job. But you won't be quiet. Sure sure... keep it up... we can't stop you from shitting all over everything. But it doesn't mean we ever forget things were better and could be again.
Actually you don't know the discussion. You've confused yourself.
We were talking about people moving to avoid localized economic hardship. Which you countered by saying what if they want to work in an industry that is centralized in those areas. You gave as an example the game industry.
I conceded your point that there might be some industries that do tie you to a city. However, the vast majority of people that live in such cities do not work in any business like that. They might aspire to working in such businesses but only a tiny fraction of them actually can and therefore it is in the interest of most to not live there on purely economic grounds.
Addressing the game developer issue, I also pointed out that there are a lot of very small game studios some of them no larger then ONE person that are doing alright. They work mostly through steam these days which allows for easy publishing on a shoestring.
Attempted to counter this by questioning whether 4 people could fit around the computer screen which is irrelevant. I pointed that out and you continued with this line of reasoning. Effectively you were arguing that if the game is not on one of the console it isn't a game. I pointed out that if you were unable to acknowledge 80 percent of the industry then you're making an absurd argument.
You decided to keep making the argument long after it was established to be not only fallacious but stupid.
And you're still doing that... which can only lead me to conclude that you're a halfwit.
Wikipedia cited studies to back up its position. If you'd like me to go and cite those directly we can do that. Otherwise, accept the initial citation.
On the one hand you start out being polite but at the end you are rude.
Then you profess ignorance of information that is easily obtained by simply googling it which brings up a couple different studies on the issue... and then you claim to be an expert.
So I don't know how to take your post. Your politeness sounds like passive aggressiveness when followed up by the insult. And your claims to expertise in the issue sounds like hollow baseless boasting when you also ask for information that as an expert you should already have.
You see my issue here. I don't know whether to engage you as a troll or discuss with you as a reasonable person. You're giving off conflicting signals which means you're either a troll in disguise or an "expert" that needs to be more polite and likely a great deal more humble.
In any case... allow me to show you exactly how hard this information was to find:
You will of course be telling me now that the cited information says that the cellphone users are more distracted. That said, there are multiple studies that tried to control for different factors and they ultimately found that the really relevant variable was if the driver was competent and if the person distracting them... be they on a phone or beside them was respectful of their primary responsibility at that moment.
So there you go. I could probably find more on the issue if you like but as an expert on the issue you're likely far better versed in the field... right?
If my response seems hostile... appreciate that you respond with passive aggression and a rather sad attempt to brow beat me. That earned you a slap... fair is fair;)
The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger. The common conception is that passengers are able to better regulate conversation based on the perceived level of danger, therefore the risk is negligible. A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brainâ(TM)s resources than listening. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening.[26] The Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham found that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers across various driving conditions. The number of questions asked averaged slightly higher for mobile phone conversations, although results were not constant across road types and largely influenced by a large number of questions on the urban roads.[27]
A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation. Drivers holding conversations on cell phones were four times more likely to miss the highway exit than those with passengers, and drivers conversing with passengers showed no statistically significant difference from lone drivers in the simulator.[28] A study led by Andrew Parkes at the Transport Research Laboratory, also with a driving simulator, concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than other common in-vehicle distractions such as passenger conversations.[29] However, some have criticized the use of simulation studies to measure the risk of cell-phone use while driving since the studies may be impacted by the Hawthorne effect.[30]
In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.[12] AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.[7] A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic. It concluded that drivers' training should address the hazards of both mobile phone and passenger conversations.[31]
What they found was that the variable of driver training and passenger/cellphone caller topic biased both results such that a passenger that is aware of the road is not as big of problem. And if a driver is competent, talking on the cell phone isn't a problem either.
But if the passenger is not particularly helpful or the driver isn't especially competent... you'll have problems.
However, one might argue that has more to do with the people then what they're doing.
You're not though. You've repeatedly dismissed 80 percent of the market as being valid in the discussion. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But in dismissing 80 percent you've effectively attempted to win an argument by changing the subject. Given that sort of mentality, I can only assume you're still trying to play rhetorical games rather then actually discuss the issue like a rational adult.
I've little patience for such foolishness.
If you're prepared to actually take your hand out of your pants and have a real discussion we can do that. But adolescent word games are beneath me.
I would agree. Also statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving. So since that isn't practical to ban... the cell phone issue is more of an older generation whining about the next new thing.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly how do they charge the card then?
The legal requirements are generally pretty lax, bro. The president of the United States for example just needs to be a natural born American over the age of 35. So... You're going to give everyone an equal amount of money decides they want to run for president and meets those qualifications?
You do realize you'll be giving the candidates something like "a" dollar if you split the money that many ways right? And the election will of course be an absolute circus.
Here's the other thing, elections are held at the state level. Not the federal level. If you're running for president, one of the things you have to do is get EACH state to put your name on the ballot. To do that, you often need to get X number of people in that state to sign a petition to put you on the ballot. This is one of the things the national parties organize. Anyone they nominate gets a giant pile of signatures.
I'm not saying this money issue is a deal breaker. what I am saying is that it is complicated.
They might as well announce they're getting Yettie insurance. They had their payment system compromised by people that got access to their point of sale system at one of their stores and then used that to gain access to their central system.
That has nothing to do with chip and pin.
And ultimately, how would you do chip and pin for online retail? You know, people that literally have to type their credit card number into a field? So indifferent to chip and pin, that is going to keep working. And I suspect that indifferent to chip and pin, somewhere in the target billing system there will be a list of credit card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. A hacker gaining access to that database isn't going to care if the cards were chip and pin or not. Because by that point the data is prepared for processing. The only way chip and pin would be effective is if the security code were different for each transaction. That seems extremely unlikely but if you could some how pull that off then snagging the numbers might not get the thieves anything. Of course, how you'd get that to work with online retail is anyone's guess.
TLDR... I don't think chip and pin is going to accomplish anything and in so far as I understand the issue it wouldn't have stopped the breach at target in the first place. So i don't know why they're talking about it like its a solution to anything.
For an expert you're pretty bad at reading studies.
Lets dispense with that little fib... you're obviously not an expert or if you are... the title is obviously meaningless for this discussion. Even if you do legitimately hold such a title it isn't respectable under challenge.
As to the studies, there were a lot of qualifies and conditions on each. You can see how they were controlling for various variables. If you were at all curious on the subject you'd have looked into them a bit more and come out with more detailed insights.
You didn't though... you skimmed and looked for something to justify your position. Which is fine... it just isn't something experts do...
Anyway, until you actually read the studies as I did... there's no point in going further. And since you've clearly been lying and playing passive aggressive games from the first post I feel little obligation to keep humoring you.
When people get on in years and gain financial independence... do they move to the city or the country?
I rest my case.
If the investment houses that do HFT didn't get an advantage by doing it then they wouldn't do it.
They clearly do it so they're getting an advantage.
Is this not plainly obvious to even a child?
yes yes... than then... sigh.
True however, you are underestimating the cost difference in producing a laptop versus some one off micro pc.
the laptops already have a deep market that is just a great deal more efficient and given the greater adaptability of the laptop and utility... it will retain this advantage over these micro pcs indefinitely.
Get a gaming laptop instead.
I have one... I take it on trips. It take it to work sometimes.
I spent something like 1500 dollars on it and its so fast that it can play every new game I've thrown at it at max settings. So... fine... 815 dollars is less... but from what I'm hearing that machine is slow.
Oh yeah, and I paid them about 100 bucks to put an alligator skin on my laptop. Obviously plastic... but it looks awesome.
These little machines cannot compete either with a proper ATX gaming rig or a sweet little gaming laptop like I've got.
On the price point, you can build a respectable ATX gaming rig for 800 dollars. Not the best but enough that it can play the new games on reasonable settings.
On the portability and size point, for about the same price you can have a gaming laptop that is probably a lot faster.
Seriously, look for a gaming laptop in the 800 dollar range and compare stats to what they put into this little computer. Bet the laptop is faster.
And now that we have SSD storage the old problem laptops used to have... slow harddrives... is irrelevant.
My gaming laptop for example uses a small SSD drive to run the OS... I think its something like ~100 gigs and then I have a conventional harddrive that has about 500 gigs of storage.
The system cold boots to desktop in about 10 seconds and I've noticed no drive lag on the games.
Seriously... these little computers are a product without a market. I would never buy one because there are better products at better prices.
Screens cost less then 100 dollars in most cases. The cost of the keyboard is literally something like 20 dollars. So... assuming all the things happen that you say... you'll see a machine that is about 120 dollars cheaper then a comparable laptop. Frankly, 120 dollars is worth those features.
What is more, the economies of scale you're hoping for won't happen because the market for laptops is a lot deeper then the market for those little computers will EVER be... ever. So what you're going to have is something like what we have now... an inferior machine at a higher cost due to inefficiencies in the supply chain and not a huge difference in the actual absolute cost of the components.
The cheapest option if that's what you're going for will be to get a desktop computer. Despite being larger the parts are more common and will ALWAYS be more common because the platform is more flexible and thus useful in multiple applications.
On top of that you can't just look at the cost of buying it and consider that the total cost. After all, these units depreciate in value over time either because components wear out or because the models themselves become inferior to newer machines. Thus there is a rate of turn over to be expected. And that turn over means either an upgrade cycle followed by a full system replacement or just a full system replacement.
These little machines don't look upgradable where as desktops clearly are upgradable. That means not only would the desktop likely cost less but it would also probably go through an upgrade cycle rather then a replacement after two to three years and that would mean a big savings on the cost of ownership over time. Furthermore, you have to consider maintenance, service, replacements, etc. Fixing a desktop isn't a big deal. Most of the parts are pretty common and the whole thing is built to be maintained. These little machines and most laptops are pretty much baked at sale. They're not especially upgradable beyond a harddrive or ram. Some of them even have the ram soldered into the board. The Lenovo X1 is an example of a machine with non-removable ram.
These little machines are a curiosity and I could see their use for lans I suppose but they're inferior to gaming laptops in that respect and gaming laptops are just so much better in general. I take mine trips all the time. Beats the hell out of watching hotel TV.
for 800 dollars you can almost get a gaming laptop that is decent.
I recently got one for 1200 that is amazing. I have yet to play a game on it that I can't put at max settings and get frames well over 100.
So why the hell would I get one of these things? Is the small form factor really worth money?
Imagine if the thing were four times larger BUT actually had good components or was a much cheaper price? Who is really THAT space constrained for it to matter. You could be in a tiny apartment and it wouldn't matter.
depends on how you define multiplayer or single player.
if you mean screen sharing then the only practical medium to do that is on the console because screen sharing a pc screen sucks.
That said, what you're really saying is that you have to work in city X because Microsoft and Sony aren't as cool with indy developers as Valve is... which isn't a very strong argument.
You'd do better to talk about the banking industry or the fashion industry. Those tend not to be outside of a few very large cities.
Even so, you do find banking in small towns. Its often a different type of banking but its as relevant to people there as any kind of banking. What is more, many companies are relocating headquarters to smaller cities because they're just more efficient places to work. The large cities have political, financial, and logistical problems that get worse as the cities get larger and larger. The smaller cities have most of the virtues of the large cities without most of the problems.
Truly huge cities tend to favor a small elite within the city that tend to almost exclusively enjoy the benefits of that density.
Keep in mind the point of cities. Do people pack in that tight because they want to be packed in that tight or because someone else wants them packed in that tight? Then ask yourself if you want to do what they want or what you want?
Suffice to say, unless you're in a pretty small group of people you should give the very large cities the laugh. Most of the higher income you believe you'll make there is an illusion in that nearly all the extra money and often more beyond that is spent on more expensive living costs. Which means someone else is tricking you into living in a place you don't want to live and making you pay for it.
Seems foolish to me. If you ACTUALLY want to live those cities... then by all means. Have fun. But that isn't why those cities got started or how they've gotten as big as they are now.
The estimates assumed current regulations, a minimum of graft, and a reasonable place to put the spent fuel.
Those are reasonable assumptions. We could decommission these plants for the cited price. It would require doing things efficiently however...
Given that for political reasons we can't do anything efficiently... just take all prices cited by government offices and assume conflicting regulations will slow everything down, the majority of all money spent will be stolen, and that when complete whatever it is won't actually work properly.
Because that's how we do things now.
It took us 4 years to build the golden gate bridge... now it takes us 15 years to decommission a power plant.
Its pathetic. Queue some witless fucktard that is going to defend the decay, the delay, the incompetence, and the waste. Let me stop you right there. It is people like your inevitable self that make this situation even possible. If people like you kept your mouths shut then maybe just maybe the system could be shamed into doing its actual job. But you won't be quiet. Sure sure... keep it up... we can't stop you from shitting all over everything. But it doesn't mean we ever forget things were better and could be again.
It absolutely is part of the US government. Just like amtrak.
Actually you don't know the discussion. You've confused yourself.
We were talking about people moving to avoid localized economic hardship. Which you countered by saying what if they want to work in an industry that is centralized in those areas. You gave as an example the game industry.
I conceded your point that there might be some industries that do tie you to a city. However, the vast majority of people that live in such cities do not work in any business like that. They might aspire to working in such businesses but only a tiny fraction of them actually can and therefore it is in the interest of most to not live there on purely economic grounds.
Addressing the game developer issue, I also pointed out that there are a lot of very small game studios some of them no larger then ONE person that are doing alright. They work mostly through steam these days which allows for easy publishing on a shoestring.
Attempted to counter this by questioning whether 4 people could fit around the computer screen which is irrelevant. I pointed that out and you continued with this line of reasoning. Effectively you were arguing that if the game is not on one of the console it isn't a game. I pointed out that if you were unable to acknowledge 80 percent of the industry then you're making an absurd argument.
You decided to keep making the argument long after it was established to be not only fallacious but stupid.
And you're still doing that... which can only lead me to conclude that you're a halfwit.
In the terms of the gaming world... gg.
Wikipedia cited studies to back up its position. If you'd like me to go and cite those directly we can do that. Otherwise, accept the initial citation.
^this.
By all means, audit the guy every so often to make sure he's doing a good job. But give him full authority to do that job.
... I don't know what to make of your post.
On the one hand you start out being polite but at the end you are rude.
Then you profess ignorance of information that is easily obtained by simply googling it which brings up a couple different studies on the issue... and then you claim to be an expert.
So I don't know how to take your post. Your politeness sounds like passive aggressiveness when followed up by the insult. And your claims to expertise in the issue sounds like hollow baseless boasting when you also ask for information that as an expert you should already have.
You see my issue here. I don't know whether to engage you as a troll or discuss with you as a reasonable person. You're giving off conflicting signals which means you're either a troll in disguise or an "expert" that needs to be more polite and likely a great deal more humble.
In any case... allow me to show you exactly how hard this information was to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
You will of course be telling me now that the cited information says that the cellphone users are more distracted. That said, there are multiple studies that tried to control for different factors and they ultimately found that the really relevant variable was if the driver was competent and if the person distracting them... be they on a phone or beside them was respectful of their primary responsibility at that moment.
So there you go. I could probably find more on the issue if you like but as an expert on the issue you're likely far better versed in the field... right?
If my response seems hostile... appreciate that you respond with passive aggression and a rather sad attempt to brow beat me. That earned you a slap... fair is fair ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
What they found was that the variable of driver training and passenger/cellphone caller topic biased both results such that a passenger that is aware of the road is not as big of problem. And if a driver is competent, talking on the cell phone isn't a problem either.
But if the passenger is not particularly helpful or the driver isn't especially competent... you'll have problems.
However, one might argue that has more to do with the people then what they're doing.
You're not though. You've repeatedly dismissed 80 percent of the market as being valid in the discussion. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But in dismissing 80 percent you've effectively attempted to win an argument by changing the subject. Given that sort of mentality, I can only assume you're still trying to play rhetorical games rather then actually discuss the issue like a rational adult.
I've little patience for such foolishness.
If you're prepared to actually take your hand out of your pants and have a real discussion we can do that. But adolescent word games are beneath me.
I don't see the motivation to be driving around with a cell phone jammer in your car?
I would agree. Also statistically, driving with a passanger and talking to them is about as dangerous as talking on the cellphone while driving. So since that isn't practical to ban... the cell phone issue is more of an older generation whining about the next new thing.
I'm sorry if that offends but it is accurate.
What if 1 million people wanted to run?
How do you decide who gets money and who does not?
As you've said, you are unwilling to recognize 80 percent of the market thus by your own admission you're not able to have this discussion.
Very well.
Good day, sir.
what does hoarding have to do with this discussion... or violent revolutions?
You're not making any sense.