Solution: One Mouse for looking and clicking on stuff, one 12 button joy stick for controlling the legs/button mashing. There was that really that hard?
The only thing that makes computer games better than consoles when it comes to input devices is choices. On a computer you can remap inputs to whatever you want on what ever device you want(Except on a few lazy console ports). This allows the user to use what they are most comfortable with. For example I wouldn't dream of using a game pad to play Civilization or Sim City. In BF3 I like to use a mouse and keyboard for everything but flying. (Flying has to be a game pad or joy stick the mouse is too finicky). And for games like Batman and Assassins Creed I use a game controller because the games just work better with one. So choices, its all about choices.
When I drive, or more correctly ride, I answer phone calls all the time with the hands free Bluetooth system built into my motorcycle helmet (Don't even take my hands off the handle bars, Phone tells me who's calling in a robotic voice and I just have to say answer or ignore) I don't find that the "Added distraction" of having to talk while on the bike is any worse than having a passenger in a car, and even less than having someone on the back of the bike. So, where are we going with this? Are we going to say that since passengers are distracting all drivers must be locked in the driving cone of silence with there eyes pried open so they can't blink. It's call acceptable risk, when you get behind the wheel of a car, in the passenger seat, or on a motorcycle you are choosing to gamble that you have higher odds you will arrive safely at your destination than not. But it's still a gamble. We will never make cars 100% safe and I still think the most dangerous thing on the road is some wanker who can't bother to check his mirrors before changing lanes.
Ok, I understand the concerns about privacy and all but what can a drone do that a well placed spy satellite can't? If they want to have tabs on all citizens in the country the can do that already, from space. Or they can fly manned air craft. The US Federal Government does not need this bill to spy on you and though cost might be an issue does it really look like the Fed cares about how much it spends? What this is about is whither or not local/state governments, or private citizens can use drones. I for one would like to see drone based delivery services, who doesn't want pizza delivered by a small helicopter hovering out your apartment window.
You're assuming that a well breed Military horse after training doesn't cost six-figures. While I'm not an expert, I'm guessing the cost of raising a horse from birth and training it to serve as a military pack animal would cost close to the robot and would have the added bonus of not being able to be crated and stored after its mission is completed and would be harder to replace if shot as they can't be built on an assembly line.
it's arguing that if I take the 300MB a month plan and watch netflix with it I will pay 68k a year. But if I was going to watch netflix on my phone why wouldn't I pay the extra 10 bucks a month to get the 3GB plan with 1GB/$10 additional vs the 300MB/$20 for the lower plan. It's like saying, Cabs are a rip off. If that guy there rode a cab for 150,000 miles he would pay way more than a guy who just bought a KIA for $20k and paid to run it. It's comparing apples to oranges. Who cares if the 300MB plan would cost someone 68k a year to stream netflix. If you are buying that plan you clearly don't give a crap about anything but email, or your really stupid. I think that this plan is for old guys like my dad who wants a blackberry to check his work email on the road with, but wouldn't even know how to use netflix if he ever cared too.
That's to bad, BF3 for PC is a great Multiplayer game and you really can't judge the game based on the Single Player either. EA really is shooting themselves in the foot by not doing what you suggested. Though I have to say the web based match making service pisses me off at times, and the lock into origin is annoying as well. Just what I need another large always running game service. I already have steam running all the time now I have to have origin too. Next thing you know someone is going to come out with some apps that merge my origin, steam, aim, yahoo chats all into one. It's the early 2000's all over again.
And if all the doctors quit, where will the other mothers get there post natal care? Forcing someone to do something that they personally feel violates their own morality is no better than the discrimination that the Gay/Lesbian community strives to over come. And on top of that where do we stop the forcing. If a man finds it immoral to kill a man but is pressed into military service because of a draft do we make him take a gun and kill, because if he quits he is a deserter and will be hung, or do we let him be a consciences objector. Your argument is sophomoric at best. Flame bait at worst.
1. The US Exports food, 2. The US is the 3rd Larges Oil Producer in the World. 3. The US has the largest GDP 4. The US is the 3rd Largest Exporter. 5. The US is the 1st in imports. Given these facts lets think about the situation. If the world were to suddenly cut off all trade with the United States over night the result would be disastrous. However, it would not only be disastrous for the United States but for most of its trading partners. If you run a business and your largest buyer is suddenly removed from the market it can destroy your business and China is in the business of selling things to the United States. Canada would lose almost all of its trade over night and really would starve. The United States, while experiencing massive sudden unemployment, and shortages of appliances, cars, tvs and all manner of finished goods would not starve. Now you may say that the us grows most of our food using Fertilizers and you would be correct. But given the choice between using its sizable oil production capacity for Cars and using it for food what do you think the US government will do. The government isn't stupid and they know that if they take away all the cars people will be pissed and a lot of the politicians will lose there jobs. But they know that if the people really start starving they will have all out right riots and the only thing a politician is more interested in losing less than his job is his head. Due to the now massive hike in fuel costs, living in suburbs will become economically impractical and the US will see another phase of massive city growth. The US's domestic companies will slowly turn around and start building things in the country. Many people will lose everything, the government may become totally UN-redeemable and full of tyrants, and many many small businesses will close. Will the country fall completely, in short no. It would probably be forced to retreat back to it's borders, stop mucking with the world, and deal with becoming self sufficient again. All the while Europe will have lost it's largest ally, China it's largest trading partner, and Canada may very well just be annexed if things got too bad. The scenario is shockingly bad for most of the world not just the US. I think that the US will only use Nukes cautiously and if backed into a corner or as a Tit-For-Tat retaliation for having been Nuked and if they do that, particularly to a small country like Iran, most of the world will have harsh words and no action, because they don't want to starve either. It's the same reason that Russia, or China won't nuke the crap out of someone. It's not that they wouldn't survive as a country its that its to painful, political and economically to stop trading. Politicians won't let it get that far unless they feel forced too (or are crazy). So in short, the world can't stop the US from doing anything they can just make the consequences of it's actions hurt a bit. Unless of course you meant that the whole world would go to War with the United States in which case it would lose in a long drawn out bloody battle that would probably result in the majority of the worlds population dieing in Nuclear fire. The US can be beaten, militarily and economically the question is at what cost.
Unfortunately the cultural change will probably never come baring some large society changing event like war, and I don't mean "Wars" like we have now I mean total balls out World War II war probably where we get invaded. Or a Hollywood style large scale natural disaster would do, basically we need enough turmoil to uproot the status quo because the majority of Americans live relatively comfortable lives and only really get upset when that is threatened. Given that I propose that the only way to get the US government to spend the money necessary for large scale space colonization would be for some other country to try and push for the militarization of space again (I'm looking at you China) so we use our over sized defense budget for it just like during the Apollo days.
Yeah, except that the Federal Government passed some law a year back that made the banks take the rewards programs off of there debit cards, or at least that is the line of BS my bank gave me when they said I had to open a credit card and transfer my debit's cards points to it to keep them. But, now that I have a credit card, I use that for everything and pay it off every month, not to mention it has better non-liability terms than my debit card ever did. So, I think in the end it has worked out, even though now my debit card is just used to get cash from the ATM.
It was a United States company first but when Westinghouse bought CBS they decided that making media instead of building things was more profitable and sold off all there industrial divisions. No wonder us Americans are in decline! Why build things like power plants, roads, bridges, buildings, or even tvs when we can just make media content and make the our government indefinably extend copy write? No large scale investment in infrastructure and endless profit looks like a win. Now let me go finish ordering that steel from China so I can replace that bridge that just fell.
Or if the scissors are plastic, oil disasters but those never happen I mean when was the last time you heard of a large scale oil industry fuck up. Oh. Wait.
The best counter-counter argument here is "But a beat cop costs 52k a year plus 10k in yearly benefits and a life time pension, our drone has a one time cost of 100k plus a 10k operating budget with a 5 year operating life cycle and one beat cop can operate 4 of these drones. That means that if we hire four beat cops for 25 years at cost 4x62k = 248k/yr for 25 years for 248k x 25 = 6.2 Mil assuming no raises and rolled in medical costs. And then half pay for the rest of the life of the police officers under there public pension for at least another 3.1 Mil assuming they all started at 25 retired at 50 and lived to 75. For a grand total of 9.3 Million. Then take the 4 drones, First Year 400k and another 400k every 5 years after. for 400k x 5 = 2 Mil plus 10k x 4 x 25 = 1 Mil operation budget for 25 years. For a total of 3 Mil plus one beat cop at 2.325 Million for a grand total of 5.325 Million total cost for 25 years. So since 9.3 Million > 5.325 Million the drones are cheaper and will save our poor cash strapped city money." And all the brain dead voters out their will go LESS MONEY and WE ARE SAFER! VOTE YES NOW!!!
Then again the city will hire the 4 cops anyway, increase there pensions and pay and find out that they grossly underestimated the drone budget and then ask for a bail out or raise taxes but you know that's how the government works.
Why do I live here again?
Gilded Age 1865-1900 http://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedage2.html
The gilded age was when they had that law, it got destroyed as the industrialists got more power through the slow corruption of politics but that is always inevitable. Also, the Gilded Age may have been bad in many ways but it was also good in many ways as well. For example from 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita. Compare that today's anemic GDP growth of 2.8% in 2010 over 2009 or 0.0% in 2009 or -2.3% in 2008. I would take 10 years of steady economic growth and large scale infrastructural building and some labor strife over 10 years of relatively stagnate economy and diminishing public rights and freedoms. Our government is closer to Fascist than anything. (Mind you not Nazism I am referring the the Fascist economic practices not Hitler's crazy idea of Aryan superiority and global conquest) In Fascism the government picks the winners and losers in a semi free economy either directly, through legislation, or through hand outs to corps, sounds familiar right. In the Gilded Age the government pretty much looked the other way, they would let people succeed or fail, do good or bad, pollute or clean. With freedom comes more chaos, greater risk and greater reward. America has obviously chosen a different path of trading freedom for protection and predictable results vs high risk & reward. For better or worse this is not the Gilded Age.
Not to mention EM spillage, the last thing we need is loosing the ability to call a tow truck from the side of the freeway because all the cars passing by have Cell Phone Jammers that keep knocking out my signal. If the jammer is powerful enough to block the phone in a way that isn't easily circumvented, i.e. external antenna, range booster, then it will be powerful enough to at least weaken the signal of phones nearby the car.
If they ban all phone usage including hands free devices, how will they ban the hands free device that hooks my phone to the radio in my car and the buttons on my steering wheel. When I'm in the car and get a call I hit a button on my steering wheel and then hold a conversation like the person is in the car with me. When I'm done I hit the same button on my steering wheel. If I want to make a call I hit that same button, say the name of the person I want to call and then it dials it and I talk to the person if they pick up. Unless the cops were to pull my phone record, which would require some pretense like me rear ending someone, they could never know if I was talking on the phone, singing along with the radio, or just crazy and enjoy the sound of my own voice. Honestly, hands free devices are only a problem if people are fumbling with there phone to dial numbers or texting and then it is just bad hands free design and implementation. I never have to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the wheel. F.Y.I I have an android phone, and a Mazda 3 with some modifications I made to the radio to allow the phone to be hooked up to it, that involve a Bluetooth headset being ripped apart and installed into my steering wheel but there is nothing stopping an auto manufacturer from putting a system like this into a car stock. Like in my sisters new Chevy Cruz or what ever they are calling the latest iteration of the sub compact. No, sadly all this is going to be is another excuse for the cops to pull someone over and find a reason. Though I understand this more than I do seat belt laws for adults. I mean come on, if I'm dumb enough to not wear a seat belt and I die in a crash didn't I just reap the just results of my actions. I don't need the government to tell me that a seat belt is a good idea, and anyone who is to proud or ignorant to realize that gets what they deserve.
When was the last time you rode in a cab? While some cab drivers are good I wouldn't call all of them professional drivers. Also, who wants to share the road with super rich teenagers who's parents are obviously rich enough to get them out of legal trouble with there fleet of lawyers, because that's what will happen. Mommy isn't going to want to drive her little princess to the mall when she is to busy with the pool boy and dad won't do it cause he is "Working late". And do you think that a rich kid who knows his parents will get him out of it will give two shits about weather cell phones are banned. No they will be showing off to the other teens because they can drive. Your solution is stupid, it just guarantee's that only low wage immigrants and the well off drive, and in the mean time GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and every other auto company will be buying every politician to make sure your "solution" never happens. What we need are cops that are less interested in how fast I'm driving and more interested if I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off, and following to close or you know driving unsafe. It is not speed in of itself that is unsafe, it is difference in speed and mass. But thanks for playing.
Wait painting numbers on rocks, why do that when we can mold, stamp, engrave the numbers right onto our rocks of element number 79! Hey, while were at it why don't we add some official looking seals and the head of some dead guy.
Ok, so I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist but what I remember from my limited high school and college courses on the subjects is that electrical energy losses efficiency due to heat loss which is energy. If the memory on the device is using energy to hold a state, wouldn't it be loosing the excess energy that is in the form of electrons to heat? Meaning that the weight would stay the same. Also, I though flash memory held a charge for 0's not 1's so that it would by there argument not weigh more but less if a book was downloaded. Also the electrons have to come from somewhere, so I also contend that the electrons are just moving from the battery to the flash memory. So weight isn't added it is just transferred unless one is arguing that the wifi antenna is pulling electrons out of the radio signal and adding them to the device. Basically this whole argument seems flawed to me.
LG Display (Korean: LG , KRX: 034220) is the world's largest LCD panel maker,[1] ahead of Samsung Electronics in a slender lead. Currently, the two South Korean companies together exceed 50% of the global LCD panel marketLG_Display [Wikipedia]
Doesn't that mean that Samsung is the second largest manufacturer of said panels? If that is the case doesn't that mean that Samsung will just stop taking orders from Apple if it cuts into their own business? Think about it.
From a legal point of view this whole thing is about nit picking. The truth is that the dems when they passed the bill didn't want to say they were creating a new tax, so they said that they were mandating health insurance and only if you didn't have it would you be charged the tax. This is problematic, in your above example the government was taxing sailors and then providing a service for there tax. This is the same thing that medicare does now and they aren't challenging that in court. No they are challenging the mandate for insurance. This whole thing could have been avoided if the spineless pukes who didn't want to lose their seats had just passed what they meant to pass. AKA a tax to cover the costs of medical care for the poor who can't afford medical care and a new tax deduction totaling the cost of the tax for anyone who can prove that they have medical insurance that is up to a defined standard. That little bit of rewording and the thing is constitutional because there is no mandate for insurance just a tax break if you got it. Same result different words no constitutional madness. That or they could have just done what they really wanted and pushed through a single payer universal health care bill. But then no one would get Big healthcare's campaign contributions so.....
Citizens of USA should pay exclusively for the maintenance of the roads they use,
Gas taxes effectively do this unless you're an electric driving hippy damn free loaders
the electricity of the lampposts that light their garages' entrances,
Wait don't those benefit other people trying to walk in front of my garage? Oh! We could get rid of all the decrepit public lampposts and have private ones, then I could charge a toll for my well lit private sidewalk.
and the police man-power required to patrol their neighborhoods.
Yeah it's call property taxes, but then again maybe the police should be private then I can hire my own security firm I can only see that being a good idea right?
You do realize that this argument won't work with most conservative because they think those tax write offs are stupid as well don't you? Most conservatives want a flat tax of say 15%, or a progressive tax that ratchets by 5% every time your income doubles past 50K to a 35% max with no deductions. Because deductions are how senators pay back rich people and businesses back for contributions. i.e. General Electric pays and effective 0% tax rate due to deductions.
These are required by states not the feds. Example: in Michigan when I ride my motorcycle I am required by law to wear a DOT certified helmet at all times I'm on a public road, while in Ohio on the other hand if I want to be an idiot and not wear a helmet then it's perfectly legal. This is what the healthcare debate is about, not that states are allowed to regulate the purchase of something, clearly that is ok states already require, home owners insurance, car insurance, and in the case of Massachusetts health insurance, but the problem is that the Federal government has not been given that power in the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution: One Mouse for looking and clicking on stuff, one 12 button joy stick for controlling the legs/button mashing. There was that really that hard? The only thing that makes computer games better than consoles when it comes to input devices is choices. On a computer you can remap inputs to whatever you want on what ever device you want(Except on a few lazy console ports). This allows the user to use what they are most comfortable with. For example I wouldn't dream of using a game pad to play Civilization or Sim City. In BF3 I like to use a mouse and keyboard for everything but flying. (Flying has to be a game pad or joy stick the mouse is too finicky). And for games like Batman and Assassins Creed I use a game controller because the games just work better with one. So choices, its all about choices.
When I drive, or more correctly ride, I answer phone calls all the time with the hands free Bluetooth system built into my motorcycle helmet (Don't even take my hands off the handle bars, Phone tells me who's calling in a robotic voice and I just have to say answer or ignore) I don't find that the "Added distraction" of having to talk while on the bike is any worse than having a passenger in a car, and even less than having someone on the back of the bike. So, where are we going with this? Are we going to say that since passengers are distracting all drivers must be locked in the driving cone of silence with there eyes pried open so they can't blink. It's call acceptable risk, when you get behind the wheel of a car, in the passenger seat, or on a motorcycle you are choosing to gamble that you have higher odds you will arrive safely at your destination than not. But it's still a gamble. We will never make cars 100% safe and I still think the most dangerous thing on the road is some wanker who can't bother to check his mirrors before changing lanes.
Scientist prove power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely news at 11.
Ok, I understand the concerns about privacy and all but what can a drone do that a well placed spy satellite can't? If they want to have tabs on all citizens in the country the can do that already, from space. Or they can fly manned air craft. The US Federal Government does not need this bill to spy on you and though cost might be an issue does it really look like the Fed cares about how much it spends? What this is about is whither or not local/state governments, or private citizens can use drones. I for one would like to see drone based delivery services, who doesn't want pizza delivered by a small helicopter hovering out your apartment window.
You're assuming that a well breed Military horse after training doesn't cost six-figures. While I'm not an expert, I'm guessing the cost of raising a horse from birth and training it to serve as a military pack animal would cost close to the robot and would have the added bonus of not being able to be crated and stored after its mission is completed and would be harder to replace if shot as they can't be built on an assembly line.
it's arguing that if I take the 300MB a month plan and watch netflix with it I will pay 68k a year. But if I was going to watch netflix on my phone why wouldn't I pay the extra 10 bucks a month to get the 3GB plan with 1GB/$10 additional vs the 300MB/$20 for the lower plan. It's like saying, Cabs are a rip off. If that guy there rode a cab for 150,000 miles he would pay way more than a guy who just bought a KIA for $20k and paid to run it. It's comparing apples to oranges. Who cares if the 300MB plan would cost someone 68k a year to stream netflix. If you are buying that plan you clearly don't give a crap about anything but email, or your really stupid. I think that this plan is for old guys like my dad who wants a blackberry to check his work email on the road with, but wouldn't even know how to use netflix if he ever cared too.
That's to bad, BF3 for PC is a great Multiplayer game and you really can't judge the game based on the Single Player either. EA really is shooting themselves in the foot by not doing what you suggested. Though I have to say the web based match making service pisses me off at times, and the lock into origin is annoying as well. Just what I need another large always running game service. I already have steam running all the time now I have to have origin too. Next thing you know someone is going to come out with some apps that merge my origin, steam, aim, yahoo chats all into one. It's the early 2000's all over again.
And if all the doctors quit, where will the other mothers get there post natal care? Forcing someone to do something that they personally feel violates their own morality is no better than the discrimination that the Gay/Lesbian community strives to over come. And on top of that where do we stop the forcing. If a man finds it immoral to kill a man but is pressed into military service because of a draft do we make him take a gun and kill, because if he quits he is a deserter and will be hung, or do we let him be a consciences objector. Your argument is sophomoric at best. Flame bait at worst.
1. The US Exports food, 2. The US is the 3rd Larges Oil Producer in the World. 3. The US has the largest GDP 4. The US is the 3rd Largest Exporter. 5. The US is the 1st in imports. Given these facts lets think about the situation. If the world were to suddenly cut off all trade with the United States over night the result would be disastrous. However, it would not only be disastrous for the United States but for most of its trading partners. If you run a business and your largest buyer is suddenly removed from the market it can destroy your business and China is in the business of selling things to the United States. Canada would lose almost all of its trade over night and really would starve. The United States, while experiencing massive sudden unemployment, and shortages of appliances, cars, tvs and all manner of finished goods would not starve. Now you may say that the us grows most of our food using Fertilizers and you would be correct. But given the choice between using its sizable oil production capacity for Cars and using it for food what do you think the US government will do. The government isn't stupid and they know that if they take away all the cars people will be pissed and a lot of the politicians will lose there jobs. But they know that if the people really start starving they will have all out right riots and the only thing a politician is more interested in losing less than his job is his head. Due to the now massive hike in fuel costs, living in suburbs will become economically impractical and the US will see another phase of massive city growth. The US's domestic companies will slowly turn around and start building things in the country. Many people will lose everything, the government may become totally UN-redeemable and full of tyrants, and many many small businesses will close. Will the country fall completely, in short no. It would probably be forced to retreat back to it's borders, stop mucking with the world, and deal with becoming self sufficient again. All the while Europe will have lost it's largest ally, China it's largest trading partner, and Canada may very well just be annexed if things got too bad. The scenario is shockingly bad for most of the world not just the US. I think that the US will only use Nukes cautiously and if backed into a corner or as a Tit-For-Tat retaliation for having been Nuked and if they do that, particularly to a small country like Iran, most of the world will have harsh words and no action, because they don't want to starve either. It's the same reason that Russia, or China won't nuke the crap out of someone. It's not that they wouldn't survive as a country its that its to painful, political and economically to stop trading. Politicians won't let it get that far unless they feel forced too (or are crazy). So in short, the world can't stop the US from doing anything they can just make the consequences of it's actions hurt a bit. Unless of course you meant that the whole world would go to War with the United States in which case it would lose in a long drawn out bloody battle that would probably result in the majority of the worlds population dieing in Nuclear fire. The US can be beaten, militarily and economically the question is at what cost.
Unfortunately the cultural change will probably never come baring some large society changing event like war, and I don't mean "Wars" like we have now I mean total balls out World War II war probably where we get invaded. Or a Hollywood style large scale natural disaster would do, basically we need enough turmoil to uproot the status quo because the majority of Americans live relatively comfortable lives and only really get upset when that is threatened. Given that I propose that the only way to get the US government to spend the money necessary for large scale space colonization would be for some other country to try and push for the militarization of space again (I'm looking at you China) so we use our over sized defense budget for it just like during the Apollo days.
Yeah, except that the Federal Government passed some law a year back that made the banks take the rewards programs off of there debit cards, or at least that is the line of BS my bank gave me when they said I had to open a credit card and transfer my debit's cards points to it to keep them. But, now that I have a credit card, I use that for everything and pay it off every month, not to mention it has better non-liability terms than my debit card ever did. So, I think in the end it has worked out, even though now my debit card is just used to get cash from the ATM.
It was a United States company first but when Westinghouse bought CBS they decided that making media instead of building things was more profitable and sold off all there industrial divisions. No wonder us Americans are in decline! Why build things like power plants, roads, bridges, buildings, or even tvs when we can just make media content and make the our government indefinably extend copy write? No large scale investment in infrastructure and endless profit looks like a win. Now let me go finish ordering that steel from China so I can replace that bridge that just fell.
Or if the scissors are plastic, oil disasters but those never happen I mean when was the last time you heard of a large scale oil industry fuck up. Oh. Wait.
The best counter-counter argument here is "But a beat cop costs 52k a year plus 10k in yearly benefits and a life time pension, our drone has a one time cost of 100k plus a 10k operating budget with a 5 year operating life cycle and one beat cop can operate 4 of these drones. That means that if we hire four beat cops for 25 years at cost 4x62k = 248k/yr for 25 years for 248k x 25 = 6.2 Mil assuming no raises and rolled in medical costs. And then half pay for the rest of the life of the police officers under there public pension for at least another 3.1 Mil assuming they all started at 25 retired at 50 and lived to 75. For a grand total of 9.3 Million. Then take the 4 drones, First Year 400k and another 400k every 5 years after. for 400k x 5 = 2 Mil plus 10k x 4 x 25 = 1 Mil operation budget for 25 years. For a total of 3 Mil plus one beat cop at 2.325 Million for a grand total of 5.325 Million total cost for 25 years. So since 9.3 Million > 5.325 Million the drones are cheaper and will save our poor cash strapped city money." And all the brain dead voters out their will go LESS MONEY and WE ARE SAFER! VOTE YES NOW!!! Then again the city will hire the 4 cops anyway, increase there pensions and pay and find out that they grossly underestimated the drone budget and then ask for a bail out or raise taxes but you know that's how the government works. Why do I live here again?
Gilded Age 1865-1900 http://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedage2.html The gilded age was when they had that law, it got destroyed as the industrialists got more power through the slow corruption of politics but that is always inevitable. Also, the Gilded Age may have been bad in many ways but it was also good in many ways as well. For example from 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita. Compare that today's anemic GDP growth of 2.8% in 2010 over 2009 or 0.0% in 2009 or -2.3% in 2008. I would take 10 years of steady economic growth and large scale infrastructural building and some labor strife over 10 years of relatively stagnate economy and diminishing public rights and freedoms. Our government is closer to Fascist than anything. (Mind you not Nazism I am referring the the Fascist economic practices not Hitler's crazy idea of Aryan superiority and global conquest) In Fascism the government picks the winners and losers in a semi free economy either directly, through legislation, or through hand outs to corps, sounds familiar right. In the Gilded Age the government pretty much looked the other way, they would let people succeed or fail, do good or bad, pollute or clean. With freedom comes more chaos, greater risk and greater reward. America has obviously chosen a different path of trading freedom for protection and predictable results vs high risk & reward. For better or worse this is not the Gilded Age.
Not to mention EM spillage, the last thing we need is loosing the ability to call a tow truck from the side of the freeway because all the cars passing by have Cell Phone Jammers that keep knocking out my signal. If the jammer is powerful enough to block the phone in a way that isn't easily circumvented, i.e. external antenna, range booster, then it will be powerful enough to at least weaken the signal of phones nearby the car.
If they ban all phone usage including hands free devices, how will they ban the hands free device that hooks my phone to the radio in my car and the buttons on my steering wheel. When I'm in the car and get a call I hit a button on my steering wheel and then hold a conversation like the person is in the car with me. When I'm done I hit the same button on my steering wheel. If I want to make a call I hit that same button, say the name of the person I want to call and then it dials it and I talk to the person if they pick up. Unless the cops were to pull my phone record, which would require some pretense like me rear ending someone, they could never know if I was talking on the phone, singing along with the radio, or just crazy and enjoy the sound of my own voice. Honestly, hands free devices are only a problem if people are fumbling with there phone to dial numbers or texting and then it is just bad hands free design and implementation. I never have to take my eyes off the road or my hands off the wheel. F.Y.I I have an android phone, and a Mazda 3 with some modifications I made to the radio to allow the phone to be hooked up to it, that involve a Bluetooth headset being ripped apart and installed into my steering wheel but there is nothing stopping an auto manufacturer from putting a system like this into a car stock. Like in my sisters new Chevy Cruz or what ever they are calling the latest iteration of the sub compact. No, sadly all this is going to be is another excuse for the cops to pull someone over and find a reason. Though I understand this more than I do seat belt laws for adults. I mean come on, if I'm dumb enough to not wear a seat belt and I die in a crash didn't I just reap the just results of my actions. I don't need the government to tell me that a seat belt is a good idea, and anyone who is to proud or ignorant to realize that gets what they deserve.
When was the last time you rode in a cab? While some cab drivers are good I wouldn't call all of them professional drivers. Also, who wants to share the road with super rich teenagers who's parents are obviously rich enough to get them out of legal trouble with there fleet of lawyers, because that's what will happen. Mommy isn't going to want to drive her little princess to the mall when she is to busy with the pool boy and dad won't do it cause he is "Working late". And do you think that a rich kid who knows his parents will get him out of it will give two shits about weather cell phones are banned. No they will be showing off to the other teens because they can drive. Your solution is stupid, it just guarantee's that only low wage immigrants and the well off drive, and in the mean time GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and every other auto company will be buying every politician to make sure your "solution" never happens. What we need are cops that are less interested in how fast I'm driving and more interested if I'm weaving in and out of traffic, cutting people off, and following to close or you know driving unsafe. It is not speed in of itself that is unsafe, it is difference in speed and mass. But thanks for playing.
Wait painting numbers on rocks, why do that when we can mold, stamp, engrave the numbers right onto our rocks of element number 79! Hey, while were at it why don't we add some official looking seals and the head of some dead guy.
Ok, so I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist but what I remember from my limited high school and college courses on the subjects is that electrical energy losses efficiency due to heat loss which is energy. If the memory on the device is using energy to hold a state, wouldn't it be loosing the excess energy that is in the form of electrons to heat? Meaning that the weight would stay the same. Also, I though flash memory held a charge for 0's not 1's so that it would by there argument not weigh more but less if a book was downloaded. Also the electrons have to come from somewhere, so I also contend that the electrons are just moving from the battery to the flash memory. So weight isn't added it is just transferred unless one is arguing that the wifi antenna is pulling electrons out of the radio signal and adding them to the device. Basically this whole argument seems flawed to me.
LG Display (Korean: LG , KRX: 034220) is the world's largest LCD panel maker,[1] ahead of Samsung Electronics in a slender lead. Currently, the two South Korean companies together exceed 50% of the global LCD panel marketLG_Display [Wikipedia]
Doesn't that mean that Samsung is the second largest manufacturer of said panels? If that is the case doesn't that mean that Samsung will just stop taking orders from Apple if it cuts into their own business? Think about it.
From a legal point of view this whole thing is about nit picking. The truth is that the dems when they passed the bill didn't want to say they were creating a new tax, so they said that they were mandating health insurance and only if you didn't have it would you be charged the tax. This is problematic, in your above example the government was taxing sailors and then providing a service for there tax. This is the same thing that medicare does now and they aren't challenging that in court. No they are challenging the mandate for insurance. This whole thing could have been avoided if the spineless pukes who didn't want to lose their seats had just passed what they meant to pass. AKA a tax to cover the costs of medical care for the poor who can't afford medical care and a new tax deduction totaling the cost of the tax for anyone who can prove that they have medical insurance that is up to a defined standard. That little bit of rewording and the thing is constitutional because there is no mandate for insurance just a tax break if you got it. Same result different words no constitutional madness. That or they could have just done what they really wanted and pushed through a single payer universal health care bill. But then no one would get Big healthcare's campaign contributions so.....
Citizens of USA should pay exclusively for the maintenance of the roads they use,
Gas taxes effectively do this unless you're an electric driving hippy damn free loaders
the electricity of the lampposts that light their garages' entrances,
Wait don't those benefit other people trying to walk in front of my garage? Oh! We could get rid of all the decrepit public lampposts and have private ones, then I could charge a toll for my well lit private sidewalk.
and the police man-power required to patrol their neighborhoods.
Yeah it's call property taxes, but then again maybe the police should be private then I can hire my own security firm I can only see that being a good idea right?
Anything else means the communists won.
Disclaimer: perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
I must agree with your last point I may very well be trolling.
You do realize that this argument won't work with most conservative because they think those tax write offs are stupid as well don't you? Most conservatives want a flat tax of say 15%, or a progressive tax that ratchets by 5% every time your income doubles past 50K to a 35% max with no deductions. Because deductions are how senators pay back rich people and businesses back for contributions. i.e. General Electric pays and effective 0% tax rate due to deductions.
These are required by states not the feds. Example: in Michigan when I ride my motorcycle I am required by law to wear a DOT certified helmet at all times I'm on a public road, while in Ohio on the other hand if I want to be an idiot and not wear a helmet then it's perfectly legal. This is what the healthcare debate is about, not that states are allowed to regulate the purchase of something, clearly that is ok states already require, home owners insurance, car insurance, and in the case of Massachusetts health insurance, but the problem is that the Federal government has not been given that power in the constitution.