I can't agree more. Calling your representatives is one of the most effective ways of showing you support or disapprove of something. It only takes a couple minutes and can have a huge impact, especially if you belong to a political phone tree (where you call your rep and then call X number of other people to tell them to do the same and then they call their contacts, etc, etc).
Never used AV at home before. Right now we only have 4 boxes running and only the one my daughter uses has Security Essentials on it. The others have nothing. In 20 years I've never gotten a virus on a home system. But I run all updates, I shut off the internet when we don't use it and I don't allow unapproved installs or downloads by my wife or kid. Oddly enough, being a responsible computer user results in having a much faster system. Call me a fool, but a 20 year track record of clean systems without AV and I'd say the fool is the guy paying $25 a year to protect themselves from viruses that are probably already patched in the OS.
We run Symantec End-Point protection and the clients are as thin as I think they can get and still provide some kind of protection. Any other product by Symantec is worse than having a virus and the same holds true for Mcaffe, we used to have a sign on the wall that said "If you have Mcaffe, we will remove it as part of the solution to fixing your problem, unless you specifically request we leave it, in which case there is an addition $50 charge for having to deal with it."
Is it my command of the language that is dismal or your inability to understand it when it isn't used the way you done learnt it? I'm sure William Shakespeare would find both of us revolting in the way we have twisted up the Queen's language. Never said I had a problem communicating, said I had an issue with a roommate being a self righteous grammar nazi that insisted on correcting people when they done didn't follow all 'em "rules". I suspect you might want to go back and read it a forth time, 'cause you still haven't caught the meaning of what I was saying.
A close Democrat relative of mine recently registered as a Republican just so he could vote in the primaries for Ron Paul. I'm curious how strong the trend is.
How many Democrats would be willing to register Republican just to save their Civil liberties?
I have another Democrat brother-in-law who disowned the other for suggesting he do the same, he blew a gasket just at the thought of Rush Limbaugh and him belong to same organization. I don't think getting the full treatment from a squad of TSA officers would change his mind either.
You make a valid point, but I don't think that's the only reason we have security checkpoints. They're a method of making people compliant to police inspection. It's a way to remove the 4th Amendment under the guise of protecting us from bad guys. The only way to win the war on terror, is to stop being afraid and begin fostering a culture of respect and integrity.
I tend to agree, I recently decided to support Ron Paul. Even registered as a Republican. Not because I agree with his personal views (I disagree with several of them). But because I strongly agree with his political views, which include not forcing his "personal" views on everyone else.
Then again, I'm a web geek, what do I know for politics? A couple of our customers are "conservative" political groups and going by the chatter in their forums the top choices in Missouri at the moment are Paul and (gulp) Newt. They seem to detest Mitt and Santorum, but Mitt does have a few fans. These groups comprise several thousand members across the state, so right now that's how I see it going here. I don't think Newt can win an election, but I think Paul might be able to swing enough support from both sides to pull off the election. Unfortunately his views shake up the Republican status quo, which means the only way Paul can win the ticket is if enough people join the Republican party to pull a political coup and change the dynamics and principals of the party.
I personally prefer "intensive purposes", despite it not being the "cliche", it sounds "intense". What I dislike are grammer Nazis and people who find it oh so important to point out misspelled wods on a forum... I would rather see the mistake than someone getting up on their high and mighty pedestal of superiority (no offense).
If you are about to reply and tell me I misspelled grammar and words then for all intensive purposes you're who I'm talking about. Had a roommate in school who was an English major, drove me nuts (I'm from a rural area and speak fluent Hayseed), then again I suspect i gave him a bit of a tizzy as well.
Very true, the Constitution does not give rights to citizens, but instead limits the powers of the government. The point I wanted to make was that the First Amendment specifically states that it deals with laws Congress shall not establish. The "reasonable man" argument does not apply.
All are good arguments, but none of them are constitutionally correct. Go read the first amendment. There's nothing in it that guarantees free speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Far as I can tell this only contains provisions involving what laws CONGRESS shall NOT make.
I'm pretty sure that would just create a new industry to create umbrellas, chairs & fizzy new sodas from other manufacturers eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly realizes that all his vendors just gave him the middle finger and decided to sell only to the inland beaches and no longer care about his quickly dying empire. You want to live in a stagnant world where if you can buy a coke at one beach then you better be able to drink a coke at the next beach. Go on a trip 1000 miles away to another beach, then you want coke on your beach. It's okay, you can try something new, it might even be better, if it is then it will grow in popularity and eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly will realize that his competitors have used INNOVATION to grow their business while he used intimidation. Your business grows an evolves, his stagnates and dies. Just because you have the "best thing ever" and can bully a people around doesn't mean no one can come up with a better idea or method, nor does it mean you have to put up with being bullied. If you're a total pussy you do, but people with backbone often stand up for themselves and find creative ways to succeed, it's kind of the philosophy the USA was built on.
Are you missing that they aren't? They aren't the first, the last or even close to the only one. But you know what they are? The Best. Don't believe me? Bing it and see.
Google doesn't own all the search engines in the world. If a Monopoly abuses it's power then it spurs innovation. Let's say I owned ALL the beach property in the entire world. No beaches unless they belong to me and you can't go without using my sun screen. You think maybe someone out there might dredge a lake and build their own beaches? In fact, those beaches wouldn't be swamped with pollution from shipping traffic and may even be located in more temperate areas. Heck, those beaches will end up being better than mine in numerous ways. The end result is that thousands of people get jobs dredging lakes and making man-made beaches, wave machines not to mention the tourism boost to the local economy. During this time, my beaches lose visitors, my suntan lotion sales plummet and eventually I'm forced to sell my beaches just to pay my taxes. Or, you could fine me, impression me, take away MY LAND and split it all up and give it to people who might not know anything about the beach business and those new improved inland beaches will never get built and there will be no reason to innovate any other solutions. I know which world I want to live in, which world do you?
Let's look at that example. Say I own said piece of real estate and I decide that no one can use my beach unless they use my suntan lotion. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rat's ass what the law says. It's my beach. If you want to use it you better have my suntan lotion on. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
In the real world when things like this occur, people look for alternatives. Maybe the nearest beach isn't so nice, but with a little time, money and creativity I'm sure it can be transformed into something unique and wonderful where people can wear whatever suntan lotion they want.
If you don't like a product or company then don't support it with your ad dollars. If it hadn't been for Federal involvement we would have had smart phones back in the mid-90s, but there was no reason for true innovation in communication when the Fed was busy splitting up ATT. Who needed to come up with a better product when the government was guaranteeing stagnation in development by leveling a playing field in a dying technology.
I agree, the hype over Siri is hype. At least a half-dozen co-workers all upgraded to the 4s within a couple weeks of release and for a couple weeks Siri was all the rage. I just asked a couple here in my wing of the building (both thought it was the most revolutionary thing they had every seen), neither one could remember the last time they used it nor could they recall a time they used it when they weren't showing it off to someone. It's a great concept if you're a Sci-Fi writer, but about as practical as everyone buying a flying car.
That's because we haven't had any Mammoths to hunt. Soon the whole spear industry will be booming again. I'm not sure, but I think IBM holds the patent rights and collects royalties from anyone who gives anyone else the shaft, which should cover all future spear or shaft based technologies. I hear Microsoft and Apple both pay billions just for the right to give anyone the shaft at any time and the US government pays in the trillions.
We noticed this in our site logs months ago. Chrome has been sitting higher than Firefox for a long time. When possible we encourage our clients to use Chrome because of the lightening fast JavaScript engine (we do a lot of heavy js development). On a personal level I use Chrome as my primary, but almost always have IE loaded.
He doesn't have any money. He has a lot of assets, but no cash. You can't go to McDonalds and buy lunch with the title on a strip mall. Those assets cost him a lot of money each month to keep, more than what they're currently bringing in. In order to have cash to maintain his assets, pay his utilities, buy groceries or pick up lunch he has to sell assets (which were once income producing and are now income draining). Do you know how hard it is to sell an asset that is bleeding money? He has to sell way below "value" and his 'profit' is taxed at the highest level (unless he reinvests, which he can't do because he needs the funds). He might be "worth" 10 million on paper, but his assets aren't really worth that, some of his assets have debts attached to them, he might be able to make just enough money selling everything to end up only 250k in debt, if he's really lucky. His annual income was negative 3 million last year. You think it's hard putting food on the table when you make 20k a year, try feeding a family on negative 3 million. One last comment; being worth 10 million in assets doesn't even come close to "super-rich", in fact you missed the whole point, he's flat ass broke and close to liquidating just so he'll end up with ONLY a quarter of a million in DEBT.
Actually, it's the people with 10,000 times our income that are having the big problems. It all stems from greed, crooked accounting and poor business practices. The problem is the upper class defrauded their way into wealth and now it's catching up with them and as a result the problems are trickling down to us. Sadly, a lot of the 'super-rich' are broke and they're just now realizing all of their wealth was built on lies and deception. I have a friend with a supposed net worth over 10 million, last week I had to buy lunch because he's broke. Sure, he's "worth" a lot, but he has almost no liquid capital and his net worth is shrinking fast, which means his investments are costing him money, not making him money.
The 10th Amendment;
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is not a Federal issue, it is the right of the States to guarantee or deny access. We do not need a Federal Amendment, allow the states to handle this issue. FYI, this is not an inter-state commerce issue, this is a right of access issue.
I'm not convinced either. We actually host and manage several political websites for various groups, mostly conservative organizations (We're politically neutral, as long as it isn't inflammatory we'll host just about anything). Many of the member's of these groups will click 'Like' on things they don't really like, just so they can share it with their circle of friends, not because they actually agree with the content of a certain page. I see this all the time in their feeds. I wonder how many of those 23 million 'likes' were done by people trying to share the page and shouldn't be taken as a sign of approval or support.
I think they made a mistake. Wait until we see field trials on this thing, I bet it has the same freaky buzzing noise that Big Dog has when it isn't hooked up to all the wires. Go watch some of the old Big Dog videos when it's in the lab, it's just as quiet. Personally I think the buzzing noise is the most intimidating part of it. Imagine a couple hundred of those thing marching at you making that sound, the noise alone would freak the enemy and send shivers down their spines.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't agree more. Calling your representatives is one of the most effective ways of showing you support or disapprove of something. It only takes a couple minutes and can have a huge impact, especially if you belong to a political phone tree (where you call your rep and then call X number of other people to tell them to do the same and then they call their contacts, etc, etc).
Never used AV at home before. Right now we only have 4 boxes running and only the one my daughter uses has Security Essentials on it. The others have nothing. In 20 years I've never gotten a virus on a home system. But I run all updates, I shut off the internet when we don't use it and I don't allow unapproved installs or downloads by my wife or kid. Oddly enough, being a responsible computer user results in having a much faster system. Call me a fool, but a 20 year track record of clean systems without AV and I'd say the fool is the guy paying $25 a year to protect themselves from viruses that are probably already patched in the OS.
We run Symantec End-Point protection and the clients are as thin as I think they can get and still provide some kind of protection. Any other product by Symantec is worse than having a virus and the same holds true for Mcaffe, we used to have a sign on the wall that said "If you have Mcaffe, we will remove it as part of the solution to fixing your problem, unless you specifically request we leave it, in which case there is an addition $50 charge for having to deal with it."
it's "frumious bandersnitch" not "frumious bandersnatch".
Is it my command of the language that is dismal or your inability to understand it when it isn't used the way you done learnt it? I'm sure William Shakespeare would find both of us revolting in the way we have twisted up the Queen's language. Never said I had a problem communicating, said I had an issue with a roommate being a self righteous grammar nazi that insisted on correcting people when they done didn't follow all 'em "rules". I suspect you might want to go back and read it a forth time, 'cause you still haven't caught the meaning of what I was saying.
A close Democrat relative of mine recently registered as a Republican just so he could vote in the primaries for Ron Paul. I'm curious how strong the trend is.
How many Democrats would be willing to register Republican just to save their Civil liberties?
I have another Democrat brother-in-law who disowned the other for suggesting he do the same, he blew a gasket just at the thought of Rush Limbaugh and him belong to same organization. I don't think getting the full treatment from a squad of TSA officers would change his mind either.
You make a valid point, but I don't think that's the only reason we have security checkpoints. They're a method of making people compliant to police inspection. It's a way to remove the 4th Amendment under the guise of protecting us from bad guys. The only way to win the war on terror, is to stop being afraid and begin fostering a culture of respect and integrity.
I tend to agree, I recently decided to support Ron Paul. Even registered as a Republican. Not because I agree with his personal views (I disagree with several of them). But because I strongly agree with his political views, which include not forcing his "personal" views on everyone else.
Then again, I'm a web geek, what do I know for politics? A couple of our customers are "conservative" political groups and going by the chatter in their forums the top choices in Missouri at the moment are Paul and (gulp) Newt. They seem to detest Mitt and Santorum, but Mitt does have a few fans. These groups comprise several thousand members across the state, so right now that's how I see it going here. I don't think Newt can win an election, but I think Paul might be able to swing enough support from both sides to pull off the election. Unfortunately his views shake up the Republican status quo, which means the only way Paul can win the ticket is if enough people join the Republican party to pull a political coup and change the dynamics and principals of the party.
1. Get more Paulbots
2. ???
3. Get rid of the TSA
I personally prefer "intensive purposes", despite it not being the "cliche", it sounds "intense". What I dislike are grammer Nazis and people who find it oh so important to point out misspelled wods on a forum... I would rather see the mistake than someone getting up on their high and mighty pedestal of superiority (no offense). If you are about to reply and tell me I misspelled grammar and words then for all intensive purposes you're who I'm talking about. Had a roommate in school who was an English major, drove me nuts (I'm from a rural area and speak fluent Hayseed), then again I suspect i gave him a bit of a tizzy as well.
Very true, the Constitution does not give rights to citizens, but instead limits the powers of the government. The point I wanted to make was that the First Amendment specifically states that it deals with laws Congress shall not establish. The "reasonable man" argument does not apply.
There are 10 kinds of people is this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
All are good arguments, but none of them are constitutionally correct. Go read the first amendment. There's nothing in it that guarantees free speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" Far as I can tell this only contains provisions involving what laws CONGRESS shall NOT make.
I'm pretty sure that would just create a new industry to create umbrellas, chairs & fizzy new sodas from other manufacturers eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly realizes that all his vendors just gave him the middle finger and decided to sell only to the inland beaches and no longer care about his quickly dying empire. You want to live in a stagnant world where if you can buy a coke at one beach then you better be able to drink a coke at the next beach. Go on a trip 1000 miles away to another beach, then you want coke on your beach. It's okay, you can try something new, it might even be better, if it is then it will grow in popularity and eventually Mr. Beach Monopoly will realize that his competitors have used INNOVATION to grow their business while he used intimidation. Your business grows an evolves, his stagnates and dies. Just because you have the "best thing ever" and can bully a people around doesn't mean no one can come up with a better idea or method, nor does it mean you have to put up with being bullied. If you're a total pussy you do, but people with backbone often stand up for themselves and find creative ways to succeed, it's kind of the philosophy the USA was built on.
Are you missing that they aren't? They aren't the first, the last or even close to the only one. But you know what they are? The Best. Don't believe me? Bing it and see.
Google doesn't own all the search engines in the world. If a Monopoly abuses it's power then it spurs innovation. Let's say I owned ALL the beach property in the entire world. No beaches unless they belong to me and you can't go without using my sun screen. You think maybe someone out there might dredge a lake and build their own beaches? In fact, those beaches wouldn't be swamped with pollution from shipping traffic and may even be located in more temperate areas. Heck, those beaches will end up being better than mine in numerous ways. The end result is that thousands of people get jobs dredging lakes and making man-made beaches, wave machines not to mention the tourism boost to the local economy. During this time, my beaches lose visitors, my suntan lotion sales plummet and eventually I'm forced to sell my beaches just to pay my taxes. Or, you could fine me, impression me, take away MY LAND and split it all up and give it to people who might not know anything about the beach business and those new improved inland beaches will never get built and there will be no reason to innovate any other solutions. I know which world I want to live in, which world do you?
Let's look at that example. Say I own said piece of real estate and I decide that no one can use my beach unless they use my suntan lotion. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a rat's ass what the law says. It's my beach. If you want to use it you better have my suntan lotion on. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. In the real world when things like this occur, people look for alternatives. Maybe the nearest beach isn't so nice, but with a little time, money and creativity I'm sure it can be transformed into something unique and wonderful where people can wear whatever suntan lotion they want. If you don't like a product or company then don't support it with your ad dollars. If it hadn't been for Federal involvement we would have had smart phones back in the mid-90s, but there was no reason for true innovation in communication when the Fed was busy splitting up ATT. Who needed to come up with a better product when the government was guaranteeing stagnation in development by leveling a playing field in a dying technology.
I agree, the hype over Siri is hype. At least a half-dozen co-workers all upgraded to the 4s within a couple weeks of release and for a couple weeks Siri was all the rage. I just asked a couple here in my wing of the building (both thought it was the most revolutionary thing they had every seen), neither one could remember the last time they used it nor could they recall a time they used it when they weren't showing it off to someone. It's a great concept if you're a Sci-Fi writer, but about as practical as everyone buying a flying car.
That's because we haven't had any Mammoths to hunt. Soon the whole spear industry will be booming again. I'm not sure, but I think IBM holds the patent rights and collects royalties from anyone who gives anyone else the shaft, which should cover all future spear or shaft based technologies. I hear Microsoft and Apple both pay billions just for the right to give anyone the shaft at any time and the US government pays in the trillions.
We noticed this in our site logs months ago. Chrome has been sitting higher than Firefox for a long time. When possible we encourage our clients to use Chrome because of the lightening fast JavaScript engine (we do a lot of heavy js development). On a personal level I use Chrome as my primary, but almost always have IE loaded.
He doesn't have any money. He has a lot of assets, but no cash. You can't go to McDonalds and buy lunch with the title on a strip mall. Those assets cost him a lot of money each month to keep, more than what they're currently bringing in. In order to have cash to maintain his assets, pay his utilities, buy groceries or pick up lunch he has to sell assets (which were once income producing and are now income draining). Do you know how hard it is to sell an asset that is bleeding money? He has to sell way below "value" and his 'profit' is taxed at the highest level (unless he reinvests, which he can't do because he needs the funds). He might be "worth" 10 million on paper, but his assets aren't really worth that, some of his assets have debts attached to them, he might be able to make just enough money selling everything to end up only 250k in debt, if he's really lucky. His annual income was negative 3 million last year. You think it's hard putting food on the table when you make 20k a year, try feeding a family on negative 3 million. One last comment; being worth 10 million in assets doesn't even come close to "super-rich", in fact you missed the whole point, he's flat ass broke and close to liquidating just so he'll end up with ONLY a quarter of a million in DEBT.
Actually, it's the people with 10,000 times our income that are having the big problems. It all stems from greed, crooked accounting and poor business practices. The problem is the upper class defrauded their way into wealth and now it's catching up with them and as a result the problems are trickling down to us. Sadly, a lot of the 'super-rich' are broke and they're just now realizing all of their wealth was built on lies and deception. I have a friend with a supposed net worth over 10 million, last week I had to buy lunch because he's broke. Sure, he's "worth" a lot, but he has almost no liquid capital and his net worth is shrinking fast, which means his investments are costing him money, not making him money.
Who wants to live in a democracy? Rule by the masses? No thanks. I'll keep my Republic, thank you very much.
The 10th Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is not a Federal issue, it is the right of the States to guarantee or deny access. We do not need a Federal Amendment, allow the states to handle this issue. FYI, this is not an inter-state commerce issue, this is a right of access issue.
I'm not convinced either. We actually host and manage several political websites for various groups, mostly conservative organizations (We're politically neutral, as long as it isn't inflammatory we'll host just about anything). Many of the member's of these groups will click 'Like' on things they don't really like, just so they can share it with their circle of friends, not because they actually agree with the content of a certain page. I see this all the time in their feeds. I wonder how many of those 23 million 'likes' were done by people trying to share the page and shouldn't be taken as a sign of approval or support.
I think they made a mistake. Wait until we see field trials on this thing, I bet it has the same freaky buzzing noise that Big Dog has when it isn't hooked up to all the wires. Go watch some of the old Big Dog videos when it's in the lab, it's just as quiet. Personally I think the buzzing noise is the most intimidating part of it. Imagine a couple hundred of those thing marching at you making that sound, the noise alone would freak the enemy and send shivers down their spines.