Of course not, but the downside is you have to use DirecTV to use a DirecTiVo.
I have been extremely happy with DirecTV. I went to that from Cox Communications cable service and have never regretted it. I've had almost no outages. The picture quality is far better and the cost per desirable channel is much lower. The ability to record two channels simultaneously, or to watch one while recording another, is really valuable to me. While I know that can be done with over-the-air broadcasts using MythTV and a couple of tuner cards, I don't believe that it can be done by MythTV with satellite or digital cable (which requires an intermediary box to do the decoding).
I wouldn't hit a dog in the ass with a DirecTV receiver and will never pay one dime for their service after the lawsuits they are bringing against people for buying perfectly legal smartcards and readers. Not to mention, their old DirecTV DSL division which bought Telocity took me to collections TWICE for service I never even had with Telocity! Fuck DirecTV.
Sorry that you have had bad experiences with DirecTV, however, I was interested in discussing the technical performance aspects of MythTV vs. DirecTiVo. There are legitimate complaints that can be waged against any of the providers, whether it's price gouging by monopolistic cable companies, Comcast's destruction of TechTV, scheming to saddle consumers with DRM, or over-zealous company lawyers pressing lawsuits that were unjust. The list goes on and on.
You are mistaken. My MythTV box, built around the Hauppauge PVR-350, has better quality encoding than TiVo. MPEG-2 recording at full SDTV resolution of 720x480, while an unhacked TiVo is limited to around half that.
My DirecTiVo directly records the compressed data stream for each program. It doesn't expand it and then recompress it, which would reduce image quality. How does that compare to your MythTV box? As an overall question, would swapping out my DirecTiVo for a MythTV box configured like yours get me better quality recording quality?
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution.
There is no single "theory of evolution" -- and that's one of the particularly offensive things about the stickers on the textbooks. There is Darwin's theory of natural selection, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria, and the theory of genetic drift. All seek to explain the mechanism(s) behind evolution.
Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact.
That's not my point at all. The term "evolution" refers to the process of genetic change over time -- which is considered by the scientific community to be fact. When someone says "the theory of evolution," they are improperly characterizing the scientific community as having a single, universally shared, explanation for why evolution occurs.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory?
No, the premise of this court case is that evolution was singled out in order to promote and/or support religious beliefs. Excerpts rom the lawsuit (note that most references, paragraph numbers, etc. were removed for ease of reading. For the complete text, see http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17050):
No other theory, topic, or subject in the School system has a disclaimer.
The effect of the disclaimer is the disparagement of the non-religious scientific theory of evolution, to the benefit of the religious beliefs of creationism and intelligent design.
After agreeing to the language of the current disclaimer, but before placing the disclaimer in the textbooks, the Board considered and rejected an alternative disclaimer. The alternative disclaimer was both more accurate and more comprehensive, but was rejected by the Board in favor of the disclaimer that more clearly, and less accurately targeted evolution. The current disclaimer was chosen because it fell in line with the complaints from parents who wanted creationism and intelligent design taught in the classroom.
There are two uses of the word "theory." Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd College Ed.). One is the common usage, which defines theory as "speculation, a mental viewing or a contemplation." The other is the scientific usage. Id. A scientific theory "is the most parsimonious coordinated statement that a scientist uses to explain natural phenomena." Id. "It's basis is factual; its application is predictive." A scientific theory is a "thoroughly tested and well-substantiated scientific explanation." Evolution is a scientific theory. As such, evolution is "something known to occur." "There is no scientific dispute in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to whether evolution is fact and occurs." Indeed, evolution "is one of the best supported theories in all of science." "There is no scientific evidence that evolution does not occur, and there is a tremendous amount of active research into the details of how it occurs and how it can be applied for the human good." Evolution is a fact. The Board may claim that it was using the scientific usage of "theory." That cannot be true, however, because a scientific theory essentially is a fact. Thus, if written that way, the sentence would contradict itself. Nonetheless, the disclaimer rejected by the School Board does not totally discredit evolution as the current disclaimer does. The disclaimer uses the common usage of "theory" even though the disclaimer is placed in a science textbook and makes scientific claims. The disclaimer, therefore, distorts the truth about evolution and conveys a message that the School District supports the belief that evolution is "speculation" and does not support the fact that evolution is "one of the best supporte
It's a fact simply because authoritative sources say so?
It's not a fact simply because you, with no credentials or authority, say that it is not? Gee, Bob, who should I believe? Some of the most respected scientists of our time or some guy on Slashdot who thinks that Stephen J. Gould was a guy "from Discover"?
I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth[sic] by authoritative sources.
No, you have not submitted an argument. You have made assertions with no logical arguments supporting them.
You have yet to submit a counter argument.
That is a bald-faced lie and here are some examples:
Creationists misquote and take evolutionary scientists' quotes out of context and make the disagreement over the mechanisms of evolution seem like a disagreement over whether evolution has occurred. Well, no respected scientist questions whether evolution occurs or has occurred. It is considered a fact based on abundant evidence. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs.
and
Let us go back to the wording of the Cobb County sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Note that the stickers do not read "This textbook conains material on Darwin's theory of natural selection." Instead, they are designed to make it sound like there is doubt about whether the process of evolution takes place, something that all reputable scientists now accept as fact.
Natural selection is a theory. Punctuated equilibria is a theory. Genetic drift is a theory. But evolution is a fact.
I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
Yeah. Right. Except that the word "species" doesn't mean "a unique mathematical quantity" and, even if it did, that meaning would have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what we are (supposedly) discussing.
You are now just wasting my time. You refuse to debate any points that I make and even have the nerve to claim that I never made them. You claim that the most respected scientists are wrong but provide no logical refutation of their claims. Now you are redefining words and making absurd statements about things being "mathematically proven."
If you want to debate in an intellectually honest manner, then I'm happy to participate. Otherwise, I have better uses for my time and mental energy.
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Therefore, the process of evolution is a fact.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
That is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which you have now called a fact. It is still a theory in the strict scientific sense of the term and there are other (non-exclusive) theories. One is "punctuated equilibria", a theory set forth by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early '70s. Another theory of evolution is called "genetic drift", "neutralism" or "nonadaptive evolution". I won't waste space and your time by summarizing them here since you no doubt know how to use Google should you be curious about those theories.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
The generally taught "Theory of Evolution" holds that all life on Earth evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
An argument is neither true nor false. It is either without flaw or flawed. You are thinking of conclusions, and when most authoritative sources indicate that your conclusions are wrong, your conlusions probably are wrong. It's your job to come up with an argument which supports your conclusions and proves those authoritative sources wrong.
Let us go back to the wording of the Cobb County sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Note that the stickers do not read "This textbook conains material on Darwin's theory of natural selection." Instead, they are designed to make it sound like there is doubt about whether the process of evolution takes place, something that all reputable scientists now accept as fact.
Natural selection is a theory. Punctuated equilibria is a theory. Genetic drift is a theory. But evolution is a fact.
What I said was that the sticker on the books was an answer to the criticisms of parents who felt that the book should give equal time to creationism.
The way to "answer" those people is with a stern "no!"
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory.
No, it is intended to mislead students by the misuse of the words "theory" and "fact" as applied to the sciences.
Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
"Stephen J. Gould from Discover"? Are you serious? If you don't know who Stephen J. Gould is, you have no business discussing this subject.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was one of the best known and most widely read scientists of our time. He earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Columbia University in 1967. He was the Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, and adjunct member of the Department of the History of Science. He was also the Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University.
Professor Gould was known as the leading spokesperson for evolutionary theory. His monthly columns in Natural History magazine and his popular works on evolution earned him numerous awards and one of the largest readerships in the popular-science genre. He wrote over twenty successful books throughout his career.
If Stephen J. Gould says that evolution is a fact, you can bank on it.
But since that seems unlikely to satisfy you, here are some more quotes from other sources:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
I'm sure that won't satisfy you either, so here's another:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology (textbook) 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Evolution is a fact and the stickers that said otherwise were wrong, intentionally misleading, and intended to give credence to religious dogma.
It sounds more like the school board is trying to encourage students to approach the theory of evolution with an open mind, not "denigrating the theory of evolution" as was stated in the court case. I think this sticker was meant to quiet the complaints of the 2000 parents who complained that the text books described evolution as the origin of life with-ought giving equal time to creationism.
Why the should a science class give equal time to non-scientific, religious dogma? Creationism has nothing to do with science. What's next? Complaining that the schools are explaining that the tsunamis were caused by plate techtonics rather than "God's will"? Do you think that churches should be required to give equal time to teaching evolution?
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution.
The theory of evolution is one of the strongest and best supported (by evidence) theories in all science. Evolution is, for all practical purposes, a fact. Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
What the sticker does is repulsive. It preys on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but no Disney heroine has a massive rack.
Ever seen Disney's "Pocahontas"? That's Disney's idea of a family film: A love story about a 27 year old man and a girl of 11 or 12 who has a massive rack.
Re:another step in the wrong direction
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As another poster commented: market penetration; they got to put G4 on any affiliate that was carrying TechTV.
You and the other poster are probably correct, but the wisdom of Comcast's decision remains to be seen. Disappointing an existing loyal audience while forcing your channel into markets where the consumers aren't clamoring for it seems to be an odd way to build a successful channel. In fact, it seems like a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Were Comcast's G4 channel to suddenly appear in addition to TechTV, I'd probably have been apathetic. But now, having been exposed to it from the standpoint of what they did to The Screen Savers, I'm actively hostile towards it.
I haven't understood why the former employees and show hosts don't ban together for a class action lawsuit for wrongful termination.
The illegal act of "wrongful termination" only occurs when an employer violates specific state or Federal laws, regulations, or constitutional provisions. Unfortunately, there's no law or regulation which generally protects employees from "raw deals."
It's important to note that most states consider employment to be "at will". That legal term means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for employees and employers. An at-will employee may quit their job whenever they want, usually without consequence. Similarly, at-will employers may terminate employees whenever they want, usually without consequence.
In many states employers must at show "good cause" for terminating an employee. Good cause (AKA "just cause") simply means 'a legitimate business reason.' In the case of TechTV, the "good cause" could be anything from eliminating redundency after an acquisition to replacing an on-air personality with the hopes of getting better ratings.
I also don't understand why us geeks (who don't want mindless gaming shows 24/7 and miss the older content) can't ban together and find an attorney that will sue Comcast for collusion and misrepresentation.
Because Comcast had no legal contract with you. They don't owe you anything. You can't sue a television network every time they change their programming. To use a legal term, you don't have "standing" -- the legal right to initiate a lawsuit.
It's obvious (especially with this move) that Comcast had NO INTENTION to keep TechTv or any of it's content.
Nor do they have an obligation to.
The only grounds for legal action that I can see in this whole mess is a complaint related to monopolistic practices since there were only two channels which were providing tech content, but that's something that should have been broached prior to the acquisition.
Re:another step in the wrong direction
on
G4 Drops TechTV Name
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
I tried to watch the new Screen Savers with an open mind, but was horrified by the complete lack of technical know-how exhibited by the pretty boys and girls that they hired. Like the other poster, I sadly removed it from TiVo's To-Do list and I later gave it "thumbs down" when TiVo took the initiative and recorded a couple of episodes on its own.
I really don't understand the corporate mentality at Comcast. If you you have a totally different vision of what a tech channel should be, aren't interested in producing programming in the San Francisco area, and don't want to use the rights to the name "TechTV", why would you buy TechTV? Comcast's management could not have honestly believed that they would retain TechTV's audience after dumbing down the shows and replacing just about every on-screen personality with some reject from MTV's Real World. Comcast, if you don't intend to keep the people, the production facilities, the channel name, the shows, or the audience, just what were you buying?
The talk that I've heard has all been about using 40-50GB optical discs to deliver compressed HDTV movies to consumers. That's what the whole HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray debate is all about. Both are about compressed high definition movies.
Agreed, but, just as Minidisc didn't mean that CDs were a dead medium, neither does a compressed HDTV disc mean that there's no market for an uncompressed disc.
And while it may be technologically possible to make 510GB optical discs, there's very little reason for the industry to invest in such a format.
If it costs the same to press a 40GB optical disc and a 510GB optical disc, why not go for the larger format with more growth potential in the future? It all comes down to economics and, as we've seen, a much larger capacity does not necessarily mean a much higher production cost (it may, in this case, but I haven't seen any claims in either direction).
And as we've seen with the popularity of compressed digital music, very few consumers really care about quality beyond a relatively low threshold.
As you say, an entire season of HDTV on a single disc is appealing. So is a single disc that contains an HDTV version of Lord Of The Rings extended edition of all three movies with multiple angles, audio tracks, commentary tracks, outtakes, making-of featurettes, computer game, screensaver, wallpaper, etc. So are the computer-only applications. A writable optical media format benefits when it is adopted by both the entertainment consumer and the computer user at the same time. Look what happens to media that is not adopted by both. DAT, sadly, became a computer-only media (for all real intents) while Minidisc remained a consumer audio media. Neither did as well as CD or DVD in all of their incarnations.
So outside of the TV industry, there is no uncompressed HDTV data to deal with.
That is, "unless you're doing video editing." There has also been talk of using the new 510GB optical discs to deliver uncompressed HDTV movies to consumers.
No, you are recording an hour of compressed HDTV in 8.3GB.
Uncompressed HDTV 1080 60i 10-bit will fill four 73GB drives (292GB) in 62 minutes. See this professional HDTV hard drive based recorder for more information about the storage requirements for real (uncompressed) HDTV recording.
You'll never get a completely pure waveform with no rough edges.
This claim was effectively discredited by the other poster, so I will not repeat his efforts. Just suffice it to say that he was completely correct.
I just find it amusing that people can extoll the virtues of lossless audio compression while at the same time believe that digital recordings are of a higher quality than professional-grade analog.
That's analogous to a smug first grader being amused that some people don't believe in the tooth fairy.
Comparing professional grade recording equipment, digital is superior to analog. Period. Analog recordings suffer from "lumpy" frequency response, tape hiss, more distortion, less dynamic range, and saturation.
If you want to argue that it just "sounds better," then let's address that. Do you think that the purpose of studio recording equipment is to produce music or to accurately record it? I believe the latter. But if you view studio recording gear as something akin to a fuzz-box or an equalizer, that's fine, but recognize that you are embracing euphonic distortion over accuracy. Most musicians want something that will accurately record their work. They don't, for instance, want a recording that "modifies" the sound of a Stradivarius.
I'm going to quote you out of order here. Appologies in advance:
Thanks for the unexpected air of civility on Slashdot.
it seems to me that you're interpreting what I said to mean that I really do only want the rule to apply when it is to my liking.
Mine was a general posting aimed at those who would change rules for this election while being perfectly happy to accept the outcome of the Bush/Gore election, which was strikingly similar in closeness. You will note that I did not say "you" in my original posting in this thread. Nor did I assume, or mean to imply, that you, personally, would have used a double standard. I don't believe that you would.
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that you support the results of the third recount in Washington, and that fierce political debate in that area has caused you to react to comments about the subject emotionally instead objectively.
I don't know that I would say "support." I am mildly happy that, in a state on the other side of the country, a Democrat was elected Governor.
Since my suggestion would have put your long awaited positive outcome into question you probably assumed without even thinking about it that I was arguing for the other side... But then that's just speculation.
It wasn't "long awaited" to me and, in fact, I was not even aware that there was a too-close-to-call race taking place in Washington State until I heard a news report on the third recount.
What gets my goat is the hypocrisy of the Republicans. In Florida during the Bush/Gore race, they used every dirty trick in the book to stop the recounts. They even had the gall to fly in Republican staffers, posing as concerned locals, to stage a door-kicking, window-banging protest to intimidate Miami-Dade canvassing board into suspending a recount that was underway. See this and this. They accused Democrats of the trying to steal the election. And now, four years later, albeit in a smaller election, suddenly they want each and every vote counted again and again until their candidate wins. They are mounting the types of court challenges that they lambasted the Gore for using. When Gore supporters brought up allegations of voter intimidation of minorities in Florida, later proven to be true, they were called "sore losers." When Democrats complained that Republican party operatives illegally changed 4,700 absentee ballots, Republican officials basically decided to ignore them and no charges were filed. The whole thing showed just what a vicious machine the Republican Party has become and this election shows jusy what hypocrites they really are.
No, what you assumed is that I suggested something be done, but only when the outcome would suit me.
It is you who started this thread by claiming that "If they have a new election... they should have to pick two new candidates." So is that a "rule" you think should be tied to all close elections or is it just in this case?
You just have poor reading comprehension and a predisposition to my opinions; at least, that's the only rational explination[sic] for why you'd think otherwise given the text of this thread thus far.
I have excellent reading comprehension, but your writing would be a challenge to anyone. Just what is a "predisposition to [your] opinions"? You could say "he has a predisposition to interpret things in a sexual manner." You can say "she has a predisposition to anger." But "predisposition" refers to an inclination beforehand to interpret statements in a particular way -- but you don't say what "way" you feel I interpret your statements. Nor do you explain why you believe that I singled you out such that I would interpret your writings differently than those of the other hundreds of thousands of other pseudonymous posters on Slashdot.
Remember, however insignificant 4,000 people are compared to the tsunami, they are still 4,000 people, people who had families, lives and were americans who lived, worked and touched the lives of those around them. The tsunami was a natural disater, 9/11 was a deliberate attack with malicious intent. Even one person murdered is far to many to accept and ignore.
So what would you have us do? Get on TV and plead with the terrorists to please not kill any more of us? Beg for our lives? That's not how I think that we should honor our slain dead.
The purpose of terrorism is to instill fear and we should show none. We should go about our lives in a normal manner. You don't ignore terrorists. You target them through covert intelligence operations, not through public displays of expensive defensive measures that show just how scared they have made us.
You're assuming an awful lot about my opinions there, aren't you?
Yes. I assumed that they were logical, self-consistent, and rational. My bad.
The parent to your reply had a point. Since the situation wasn't similar, and you brought up an emotionally heated but unrelated event, you were in fact trolling.
The two situations are incredibly similar -- despite your inability to recognize that. In both cases, the candidates were essentially deadlocked and within the margin of error. Both races were determined by the Secretary of State (Kathleen Harris in Florida and Sam Reed in Washington state) certifying the results of the election. While you point out that they "didn't re-run the 2000 presidential election", neither did they rerun the Washington State gubanatorial election. When the Gore/Lieberman campaign fought for recounts and investigations into fraud, the Republicans mocked them with "Sore Loserman" signs. Yet four year later, we see the Republicans demanding the recounts and the investigations into alleged voter fraud. The only difference is that Gore got a solid majority of the popular vote.
The parent post is insightful! On 9/11, fewer than 4,000 people were killed. The tsunamis that hit this year have killed over 100,000. It shows just how impotent and insignificant the terrorists are.
I, for one, don't want to play into the hands of the terrorists by being afraid. It's asinine that senior citizens crippled from arthritus have to remove their shoes before boarding an airplane. It's disgraceful that U.S. citizens are being subjected to pat-down searches at airports with no probable cause. It's idiotic that we are giving up our essential liberties in the so-called "war on terror." Success to the terrorists wasn't measured in a body count. It's being measured every day in the way that America has become a frightened country.
Those who lost loved ones on 9/11 have my deepest sympathies, but we should not disgrace the memory of those who died by behaving like the terrified, paranoid people that the terrorists sought to make us.
1) theft doesn't necessarily translate to higher prices. Prices are based on many other factors, the cost added by theft is "lost in the noise".
Yes, theft does result in higher prices. According to the 2002 National Retail Security Survey, shoplifting occured 330 - 440 million times in 2002, resulting in a loss of $10 - $13 billion dollars. Nationwide, that equates to 1.0 - 1.2 million shoplift incidents everyday at a loss rate of $19,000 - $25,300 dollars stolen per minute. Depending on the type of retail store, retail inventory shrinkage ranges from.7% - 2.2% of gross sales with the average falling around 1.70%. Whole retail store chains have gone out of business due to their inability to control retail theft losses. Even when the store does take appropriate measures to limit shoplifting, the costs of those measures are passed on to the consumer. That includes salaries for store detectives, employee training in loss prevention, exit scanners, ceiling-mounted cameras, and a plethora of other security costs.
Somehow, I doubt you have much retail business experience. I do, and you don't need to conduct a search of checkout items to spot a thief.
You may have a lot of retail experience, but you apparently very little knowledge about loss prevention. Attentive cashiers who handle each piece of merchandise and are knowledgeable about the goods being sold are one of the most effective ways to keep shoplifters out of a retail establishment. Shoplifters who switch prices and conceal merchandise inside of other merchandise quickly learn to avoid stores where the cashiers recognize that an inexpensive purse is suspiciously heavy, that a $300 G. Loomis fishing rod just rung up as a $14.95 Berkley fishing rod, or that a barcode sticker is on the outside of the cellophane covering up the real barcode printed on the box inside.
Taking the backback from the consumer to ring it up was not a "search." At the time that the cashier took it, the backpack was still the store's property and opening it when it was obviously too heavy was perfectly reasonable.
Nice try, but I'm not like your little sexually insecure friends on the playground, so calling me "fag" isn't too effective. And I'm really not concerned with you calling me "stupid" given your pre-pubescent emotional and intellectual development. Go make some "snow angels" and come back when you could pass for a man.
Sorry, but your analogy is that of a person who can't think very well.
Actually, his analogy was spot on and yours was way off the mark. The cashier took the backpack to ring it up, following the same procedure for that customer as for every other customer. He noticed that it was heavy, opened it up (now having reasonable cause for suspicion) and discovered the rope.
More like it : the doc suggests you get a test for HIV because he thinks you MIGHT be gay. And if my doctor did this, he'd see the last of me that very second.
Why? Are you that insecure about your sexuality that you'd run out of a doctor's office "that very second" because the doctor thought that you "MIGHT be gay"? You know what? I think that you MIGHT be gay after reading that weird analogy.
And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County.
Interesting.
Let's think back to the Bush/Gore recounts in Florida in November of 2000...
Did you find it "interesting" on Nov. 14, when Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican and co-chair of the Florida Bush campaign, officially certified the election for Bush while the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board was still recounting its ballots by hand?
Did you find it "interesting" that 1,100 legal voters were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris through the criminally inaccurate purge of "felons"?
Did you find it "interesting" that Palm Beach County, a staunchly Democratic county, with a large Jewish population, had 3,704 ballots cast for Buchanan and that voters stated that they were confused by the "butterfly ballot?"
Did you find it "interesting" that over 10,600 votes were thrown out in Palm Beach County because voters confused by the butterfly ballot tried to correct their error by double-punching (Gore and Buchanan)?
Did you find it "interesting" when substantial numbers of blacks were turned away from polling booths in various parts of Florida in 2,000?
Did you find it "interesting" that ballots ran out in certain precincts?
Did you find it "interesting" that carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police with, in some cases, officers demanding to see a "taxi license"?
Did you find it "interesting" that polls closed with people still in line in Tampa?
Did you find it "interesting" that in Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne?
Did you find it "interesting" that Hispanic voters in Osceola County were required to produce two forms of id when only one is required?
Did you find it "interesting" that dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address?
Did you find it "interesting" that many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time?
Did you find it "interesting" that the mayoral candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee ballots for George w. Bush?
Did you find it "interesting" that in Volusia County, Florida, James Harris, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes (he got only 583 in the rest of the state)?
Did you find it "interesting" that many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not appear on the voting rolls?
Did you find it "interesting" that Jewish precincts had a suspiciously high number of double-punched ballots, and another lost its computerized votes altogether when a poll worker "accidentally" erased them?
Did you find it "interesting" that the Florida Highway Patrol confirmed that the department did conduct what it called a "routine" check point near a black precinct in Tallahassee on election day, where police asked black men to get out of their vehicles and produce identification?
Did you find it "interesting" that Sandy Goard, supervisor of elections of Seminole County, admitted allowing two Republican operatives to add missing voter-identification numbers to 4,700 incomplete absentee ballot requests, mostly GOP voters -- actions that were illegal -- and that those votes were counted?
No, you probably didn't find any of that interesting. You were probably too busy screaming that Gore was trying to "steal" the election.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not, but the downside is you have to use DirecTV to use a DirecTiVo.
I have been extremely happy with DirecTV. I went to that from Cox Communications cable service and have never regretted it. I've had almost no outages. The picture quality is far better and the cost per desirable channel is much lower. The ability to record two channels simultaneously, or to watch one while recording another, is really valuable to me. While I know that can be done with over-the-air broadcasts using MythTV and a couple of tuner cards, I don't believe that it can be done by MythTV with satellite or digital cable (which requires an intermediary box to do the decoding).
I wouldn't hit a dog in the ass with a DirecTV receiver and will never pay one dime for their service after the lawsuits they are bringing against people for buying perfectly legal smartcards and readers. Not to mention, their old DirecTV DSL division which bought Telocity took me to collections TWICE for service I never even had with Telocity! Fuck DirecTV.
Sorry that you have had bad experiences with DirecTV, however, I was interested in discussing the technical performance aspects of MythTV vs. DirecTiVo. There are legitimate complaints that can be waged against any of the providers, whether it's price gouging by monopolistic cable companies, Comcast's destruction of TechTV, scheming to saddle consumers with DRM, or over-zealous company lawyers pressing lawsuits that were unjust. The list goes on and on.
You are mistaken. My MythTV box, built around the Hauppauge PVR-350, has better quality encoding than TiVo. MPEG-2 recording at full SDTV resolution of 720x480, while an unhacked TiVo is limited to around half that.
My DirecTiVo directly records the compressed data stream for each program. It doesn't expand it and then recompress it, which would reduce image quality. How does that compare to your MythTV box? As an overall question, would swapping out my DirecTiVo for a MythTV box configured like yours get me better quality recording quality?
Thank you for a more reasoned debate.
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution.
There is no single "theory of evolution" -- and that's one of the particularly offensive things about the stickers on the textbooks. There is Darwin's theory of natural selection, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria, and the theory of genetic drift. All seek to explain the mechanism(s) behind evolution.
Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact.
That's not my point at all. The term "evolution" refers to the process of genetic change over time -- which is considered by the scientific community to be fact. When someone says "the theory of evolution," they are improperly characterizing the scientific community as having a single, universally shared, explanation for why evolution occurs.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory?
No, the premise of this court case is that evolution was singled out in order to promote and/or support religious beliefs. Excerpts rom the lawsuit (note that most references, paragraph numbers, etc. were removed for ease of reading. For the complete text, see http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=17050):
No other theory, topic, or subject in the School system has a disclaimer.
The effect of the disclaimer is the disparagement of the non-religious scientific theory of evolution, to the benefit of the religious beliefs of creationism and intelligent design.
After agreeing to the language of the current disclaimer, but before placing the disclaimer in the textbooks, the Board considered and rejected an alternative disclaimer. The alternative disclaimer was both more accurate and more comprehensive, but was rejected by the Board in favor of the disclaimer that more clearly, and less accurately targeted evolution. The current disclaimer was chosen because it fell in line with the complaints from parents who wanted creationism and intelligent design taught in the classroom.
There are two uses of the word "theory." Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd College Ed.). One is the common usage, which defines theory as "speculation, a mental viewing or a contemplation." The other is the scientific usage. Id. A scientific theory "is the most parsimonious coordinated statement that a scientist uses to explain natural phenomena." Id. "It's basis is factual; its application is predictive." A scientific theory is a "thoroughly tested and well-substantiated scientific explanation." Evolution is a scientific theory. As such, evolution is "something known to occur." "There is no scientific dispute in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as to whether evolution is fact and occurs." Indeed, evolution "is one of the best supported theories in all of science." "There is no scientific evidence that evolution does not occur, and there is a tremendous amount of active research into the details of how it occurs and how it can be applied for the human good." Evolution is a fact. The Board may claim that it was using the scientific usage of "theory." That cannot be true, however, because a scientific theory essentially is a fact. Thus, if written that way, the sentence would contradict itself. Nonetheless, the disclaimer rejected by the School Board does not totally discredit evolution as the current disclaimer does. The disclaimer uses the common usage of "theory" even though the disclaimer is placed in a science textbook and makes scientific claims. The disclaimer, therefore, distorts the truth about evolution and conveys a message that the School District supports the belief that evolution is "speculation" and does not support the fact that evolution is "one of the best supporte
It's not a fact simply because you, with no credentials or authority, say that it is not? Gee, Bob, who should I believe? Some of the most respected scientists of our time or some guy on Slashdot who thinks that Stephen J. Gould was a guy "from Discover"?
I have submitted my argument that evolution is theory and not fact, and you have merely responded with contradictions put fourth[sic] by authoritative sources.
No, you have not submitted an argument. You have made assertions with no logical arguments supporting them.
You have yet to submit a counter argument.
That is a bald-faced lie and here are some examples:
and
I was not referring to animal species, or plant species, merely the generic term species to represent a unique mathematical quantity.
Yeah. Right. Except that the word "species" doesn't mean "a unique mathematical quantity" and, even if it did, that meaning would have nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what we are (supposedly) discussing.
You are now just wasting my time. You refuse to debate any points that I make and even have the nerve to claim that I never made them. You claim that the most respected scientists are wrong but provide no logical refutation of their claims. Now you are redefining words and making absurd statements about things being "mathematically proven."
If you want to debate in an intellectually honest manner, then I'm happy to participate. Otherwise, I have better uses for my time and mental energy.
Fact: There exist a large fossil record which shows species changing incrementally over time.
Fact: Bacterial species have been observed to change characteristics over time.
Therefore, the process of evolution is a fact.
Fact: Species undergoing mutation in the presence of a sufficient quantity of natural selection will evolve into a form better adapted to their environment.
That is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which you have now called a fact. It is still a theory in the strict scientific sense of the term and there are other (non-exclusive) theories. One is "punctuated equilibria", a theory set forth by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early '70s. Another theory of evolution is called "genetic drift", "neutralism" or "nonadaptive evolution". I won't waste space and your time by summarizing them here since you no doubt know how to use Google should you be curious about those theories.
Theory: All life on earth has evolved from a single spontaneously generated cell over the course of billions of years.
The generally taught "Theory of Evolution" holds that all life on Earth evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.
Fact: No amount of quotations from authoritative sources will change the truth of my argument.
An argument is neither true nor false. It is either without flaw or flawed. You are thinking of conclusions, and when most authoritative sources indicate that your conclusions are wrong, your conlusions probably are wrong. It's your job to come up with an argument which supports your conclusions and proves those authoritative sources wrong.
Let us go back to the wording of the Cobb County sticker: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Note that the stickers do not read "This textbook conains material on Darwin's theory of natural selection." Instead, they are designed to make it sound like there is doubt about whether the process of evolution takes place, something that all reputable scientists now accept as fact.
Natural selection is a theory. Punctuated equilibria is a theory. Genetic drift is a theory. But evolution is a fact.
The way to "answer" those people is with a stern "no!"
The sticker does not "prey on on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific meaning of the term theory." The sticker's use of the word theory is appropriate, and is not derogatory.
No, it is intended to mislead students by the misuse of the words "theory" and "fact" as applied to the sciences.
Just because Stephen J. Gould from Discover want's to be able to say that evolution is a fact because of the term theory's supposed vernacular is unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong to say evolution is a theory.
"Stephen J. Gould from Discover"? Are you serious? If you don't know who Stephen J. Gould is, you have no business discussing this subject.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) was one of the best known and most widely read scientists of our time. He earned a Ph.D. in paleontology from Columbia University in 1967. He was the Professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology and Professor of Geology at Harvard University, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology in the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, and adjunct member of the Department of the History of Science. He was also the Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University.
Professor Gould was known as the leading spokesperson for evolutionary theory. His monthly columns in Natural History magazine and his popular works on evolution earned him numerous awards and one of the largest readerships in the popular-science genre. He wrote over twenty successful books throughout his career.
If Stephen J. Gould says that evolution is a fact, you can bank on it.
But since that seems unlikely to satisfy you, here are some more quotes from other sources:I'm sure that won't satisfy you either, so here's another:
Evolution is a fact and the stickers that said otherwise were wrong, intentionally misleading, and intended to give credence to religious dogma.
Why the should a science class give equal time to non-scientific, religious dogma? Creationism has nothing to do with science. What's next? Complaining that the schools are explaining that the tsunamis were caused by plate techtonics rather than "God's will"? Do you think that churches should be required to give equal time to teaching evolution?
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
Stephen J. Gould Excerpted from Discover Magazine (May, 1981).
The theory of evolution is one of the strongest and best supported (by evidence) theories in all science. Evolution is, for all practical purposes, a fact. Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity.
I don't think this label really does promote creationism. All it says is that evolution is being taught as a theory, not a fact.
What the sticker does is repulsive. It preys on the ignorant who don't understand the scientific
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but no Disney heroine has a massive rack.
Ever seen Disney's "Pocahontas"? That's Disney's idea of a family film: A love story about a 27 year old man and a girl of 11 or 12 who has a massive rack.
As another poster commented: market penetration; they got to put G4 on any affiliate that was carrying TechTV.
You and the other poster are probably correct, but the wisdom of Comcast's decision remains to be seen. Disappointing an existing loyal audience while forcing your channel into markets where the consumers aren't clamoring for it seems to be an odd way to build a successful channel. In fact, it seems like a good way to shoot yourself in the foot. Were Comcast's G4 channel to suddenly appear in addition to TechTV, I'd probably have been apathetic. But now, having been exposed to it from the standpoint of what they did to The Screen Savers, I'm actively hostile towards it.
I haven't understood why the former employees and show hosts don't ban together for a class action lawsuit for wrongful termination.
The illegal act of "wrongful termination" only occurs when an employer violates specific state or Federal laws, regulations, or constitutional provisions. Unfortunately, there's no law or regulation which generally protects employees from "raw deals."
It's important to note that most states consider employment to be "at will". That legal term means that, in the absence of contracts stating otherwise, employment is presumed to be voluntary and indefinite for employees and employers. An at-will employee may quit their job whenever they want, usually without consequence. Similarly, at-will employers may terminate employees whenever they want, usually without consequence.
In many states employers must at show "good cause" for terminating an employee. Good cause (AKA "just cause") simply means 'a legitimate business reason.' In the case of TechTV, the "good cause" could be anything from eliminating redundency after an acquisition to replacing an on-air personality with the hopes of getting better ratings.
I also don't understand why us geeks (who don't want mindless gaming shows 24/7 and miss the older content) can't ban together and find an attorney that will sue Comcast for collusion and misrepresentation.
Because Comcast had no legal contract with you. They don't owe you anything. You can't sue a television network every time they change their programming. To use a legal term, you don't have "standing" -- the legal right to initiate a lawsuit.
It's obvious (especially with this move) that Comcast had NO INTENTION to keep TechTv or any of it's content.
Nor do they have an obligation to.
The only grounds for legal action that I can see in this whole mess is a complaint related to monopolistic practices since there were only two channels which were providing tech content, but that's something that should have been broached prior to the acquisition.
I tried to watch the new Screen Savers with an open mind, but was horrified by the complete lack of technical know-how exhibited by the pretty boys and girls that they hired. Like the other poster, I sadly removed it from TiVo's To-Do list and I later gave it "thumbs down" when TiVo took the initiative and recorded a couple of episodes on its own.
I really don't understand the corporate mentality at Comcast. If you you have a totally different vision of what a tech channel should be, aren't interested in producing programming in the San Francisco area, and don't want to use the rights to the name "TechTV", why would you buy TechTV? Comcast's management could not have honestly believed that they would retain TechTV's audience after dumbing down the shows and replacing just about every on-screen personality with some reject from MTV's Real World. Comcast, if you don't intend to keep the people, the production facilities, the channel name, the shows, or the audience, just what were you buying?
The talk that I've heard has all been about using 40-50GB optical discs to deliver compressed HDTV movies to consumers. That's what the whole HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray debate is all about. Both are about compressed high definition movies.
Agreed, but, just as Minidisc didn't mean that CDs were a dead medium, neither does a compressed HDTV disc mean that there's no market for an uncompressed disc.
And while it may be technologically possible to make 510GB optical discs, there's very little reason for the industry to invest in such a format.
If it costs the same to press a 40GB optical disc and a 510GB optical disc, why not go for the larger format with more growth potential in the future? It all comes down to economics and, as we've seen, a much larger capacity does not necessarily mean a much higher production cost (it may, in this case, but I haven't seen any claims in either direction).
And as we've seen with the popularity of compressed digital music, very few consumers really care about quality beyond a relatively low threshold.
As you say, an entire season of HDTV on a single disc is appealing. So is a single disc that contains an HDTV version of Lord Of The Rings extended edition of all three movies with multiple angles, audio tracks, commentary tracks, outtakes, making-of featurettes, computer game, screensaver, wallpaper, etc. So are the computer-only applications. A writable optical media format benefits when it is adopted by both the entertainment consumer and the computer user at the same time. Look what happens to media that is not adopted by both. DAT, sadly, became a computer-only media (for all real intents) while Minidisc remained a consumer audio media. Neither did as well as CD or DVD in all of their incarnations.
So outside of the TV industry, there is no uncompressed HDTV data to deal with.
That is, "unless you're doing video editing." There has also been talk of using the new 510GB optical discs to deliver uncompressed HDTV movies to consumers.
No, you are recording an hour of compressed HDTV in 8.3GB.
Uncompressed HDTV 1080 60i 10-bit will fill four 73GB drives (292GB) in 62 minutes. See this professional HDTV hard drive based recorder for more information about the storage requirements for real (uncompressed) HDTV recording.
With 500GB of capacity, you could record about four hours of HDTV programming! Wow...
You'll never get a completely pure waveform with no rough edges.
This claim was effectively discredited by the other poster, so I will not repeat his efforts. Just suffice it to say that he was completely correct.
I just find it amusing that people can extoll the virtues of lossless audio compression while at the same time believe that digital recordings are of a higher quality than professional-grade analog.
That's analogous to a smug first grader being amused that some people don't believe in the tooth fairy.
Comparing professional grade recording equipment, digital is superior to analog. Period. Analog recordings suffer from "lumpy" frequency response, tape hiss, more distortion, less dynamic range, and saturation.
If you want to argue that it just "sounds better," then let's address that. Do you think that the purpose of studio recording equipment is to produce music or to accurately record it? I believe the latter. But if you view studio recording gear as something akin to a fuzz-box or an equalizer, that's fine, but recognize that you are embracing euphonic distortion over accuracy. Most musicians want something that will accurately record their work. They don't, for instance, want a recording that "modifies" the sound of a Stradivarius.
I'm going to quote you out of order here. Appologies in advance:
Thanks for the unexpected air of civility on Slashdot.
it seems to me that you're interpreting what I said to mean that I really do only want the rule to apply when it is to my liking.
Mine was a general posting aimed at those who would change rules for this election while being perfectly happy to accept the outcome of the Bush/Gore election, which was strikingly similar in closeness. You will note that I did not say "you" in my original posting in this thread. Nor did I assume, or mean to imply, that you, personally, would have used a double standard. I don't believe that you would.
If I had to speculate, I'd guess that you support the results of the third recount in Washington, and that fierce political debate in that area has caused you to react to comments about the subject emotionally instead objectively.
I don't know that I would say "support." I am mildly happy that, in a state on the other side of the country, a Democrat was elected Governor.
Since my suggestion would have put your long awaited positive outcome into question you probably assumed without even thinking about it that I was arguing for the other side... But then that's just speculation.
It wasn't "long awaited" to me and, in fact, I was not even aware that there was a too-close-to-call race taking place in Washington State until I heard a news report on the third recount.
What gets my goat is the hypocrisy of the Republicans. In Florida during the Bush/Gore race, they used every dirty trick in the book to stop the recounts. They even had the gall to fly in Republican staffers, posing as concerned locals, to stage a door-kicking, window-banging protest to intimidate Miami-Dade canvassing board into suspending a recount that was underway. See this and this. They accused Democrats of the trying to steal the election. And now, four years later, albeit in a smaller election, suddenly they want each and every vote counted again and again until their candidate wins. They are mounting the types of court challenges that they lambasted the Gore for using. When Gore supporters brought up allegations of voter intimidation of minorities in Florida, later proven to be true, they were called "sore losers." When Democrats complained that Republican party operatives illegally changed 4,700 absentee ballots, Republican officials basically decided to ignore them and no charges were filed. The whole thing showed just what a vicious machine the Republican Party has become and this election shows jusy what hypocrites they really are.
No, what you assumed is that I suggested something be done, but only when the outcome would suit me.
It is you who started this thread by claiming that "If they have a new election... they should have to pick two new candidates." So is that a "rule" you think should be tied to all close elections or is it just in this case?
You just have poor reading comprehension and a predisposition to my opinions; at least, that's the only rational explination[sic] for why you'd think otherwise given the text of this thread thus far.
I have excellent reading comprehension, but your writing would be a challenge to anyone. Just what is a "predisposition to [your] opinions"? You could say "he has a predisposition to interpret things in a sexual manner." You can say "she has a predisposition to anger." But "predisposition" refers to an inclination beforehand to interpret statements in a particular way -- but you don't say what "way" you feel I interpret your statements. Nor do you explain why you believe that I singled you out such that I would interpret your writings differently than those of the other hundreds of thousands of other pseudonymous posters on Slashdot.
Remember, however insignificant 4,000 people are compared to the tsunami, they are still 4,000 people, people who had families, lives and were americans who lived, worked and touched the lives of those around them. The tsunami was a natural disater, 9/11 was a deliberate attack with malicious intent. Even one person murdered is far to many to accept and ignore.
So what would you have us do? Get on TV and plead with the terrorists to please not kill any more of us? Beg for our lives? That's not how I think that we should honor our slain dead.
The purpose of terrorism is to instill fear and we should show none. We should go about our lives in a normal manner. You don't ignore terrorists. You target them through covert intelligence operations, not through public displays of expensive defensive measures that show just how scared they have made us.
You're assuming an awful lot about my opinions there, aren't you?
Yes. I assumed that they were logical, self-consistent, and rational. My bad.
The parent to your reply had a point. Since the situation wasn't similar, and you brought up an emotionally heated but unrelated event, you were in fact trolling.
The two situations are incredibly similar -- despite your inability to recognize that. In both cases, the candidates were essentially deadlocked and within the margin of error. Both races were determined by the Secretary of State (Kathleen Harris in Florida and Sam Reed in Washington state) certifying the results of the election. While you point out that they "didn't re-run the 2000 presidential election", neither did they rerun the Washington State gubanatorial election. When the Gore/Lieberman campaign fought for recounts and investigations into fraud, the Republicans mocked them with "Sore Loserman" signs. Yet four year later, we see the Republicans demanding the recounts and the investigations into alleged voter fraud. The only difference is that Gore got a solid majority of the popular vote.
The parent post is insightful! On 9/11, fewer than 4,000 people were killed. The tsunamis that hit this year have killed over 100,000. It shows just how impotent and insignificant the terrorists are.
I, for one, don't want to play into the hands of the terrorists by being afraid. It's asinine that senior citizens crippled from arthritus have to remove their shoes before boarding an airplane. It's disgraceful that U.S. citizens are being subjected to pat-down searches at airports with no probable cause. It's idiotic that we are giving up our essential liberties in the so-called "war on terror." Success to the terrorists wasn't measured in a body count. It's being measured every day in the way that America has become a frightened country.
Those who lost loved ones on 9/11 have my deepest sympathies, but we should not disgrace the memory of those who died by behaving like the terrified, paranoid people that the terrorists sought to make us.
1) theft doesn't necessarily translate to higher prices. Prices are based on many other factors, the cost added by theft is "lost in the noise".
.7% - 2.2% of gross sales with the average falling around 1.70%. Whole retail store chains have gone out of business due to their inability to control retail theft losses. Even when the store does take appropriate measures to limit shoplifting, the costs of those measures are passed on to the consumer. That includes salaries for store detectives, employee training in loss prevention, exit scanners, ceiling-mounted cameras, and a plethora of other security costs.
Yes, theft does result in higher prices. According to the 2002 National Retail Security Survey, shoplifting occured 330 - 440 million times in 2002, resulting in a loss of $10 - $13 billion dollars. Nationwide, that equates to 1.0 - 1.2 million shoplift incidents everyday at a loss rate of $19,000 - $25,300 dollars stolen per minute. Depending on the type of retail store, retail inventory shrinkage ranges from
Somehow, I doubt you have much retail business experience. I do, and you don't need to conduct a search of checkout items to spot a thief.
You may have a lot of retail experience, but you apparently very little knowledge about loss prevention. Attentive cashiers who handle each piece of merchandise and are knowledgeable about the goods being sold are one of the most effective ways to keep shoplifters out of a retail establishment. Shoplifters who switch prices and conceal merchandise inside of other merchandise quickly learn to avoid stores where the cashiers recognize that an inexpensive purse is suspiciously heavy, that a $300 G. Loomis fishing rod just rung up as a $14.95 Berkley fishing rod, or that a barcode sticker is on the outside of the cellophane covering up the real barcode printed on the box inside.
Taking the backback from the consumer to ring it up was not a "search." At the time that the cashier took it, the backpack was still the store's property and opening it when it was obviously too heavy was perfectly reasonable.
Wow, you're a stupid fag, aren't you?
Nice try, but I'm not like your little sexually insecure friends on the playground, so calling me "fag" isn't too effective. And I'm really not concerned with you calling me "stupid" given your pre-pubescent emotional and intellectual development. Go make some "snow angels" and come back when you could pass for a man.
Sorry, but your analogy is that of a person who can't think very well.
Actually, his analogy was spot on and yours was way off the mark. The cashier took the backpack to ring it up, following the same procedure for that customer as for every other customer. He noticed that it was heavy, opened it up (now having reasonable cause for suspicion) and discovered the rope.
More like it : the doc suggests you get a test for HIV because he thinks you MIGHT be gay. And if my doctor did this, he'd see the last of me that very second.
Why? Are you that insecure about your sexuality that you'd run out of a doctor's office "that very second" because the doctor thought that you "MIGHT be gay"? You know what? I think that you MIGHT be gay after reading that weird analogy.
3,500 more votes than voters in King County.
And it happens to be an overwhelming Democrat County.
Interesting.
Let's think back to the Bush/Gore recounts in Florida in November of 2000...
Did you find it "interesting" on Nov. 14, when Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican and co-chair of the Florida Bush campaign, officially certified the election for Bush while the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board was still recounting its ballots by hand?
Did you find it "interesting" that 1,100 legal voters were disenfranchised by Katherine Harris through the criminally inaccurate purge of "felons"?
Did you find it "interesting" that Palm Beach County, a staunchly Democratic county, with a large Jewish population, had 3,704 ballots cast for Buchanan and that voters stated that they were confused by the "butterfly ballot?"
Did you find it "interesting" that over 10,600 votes were thrown out in Palm Beach County because voters confused by the butterfly ballot tried to correct their error by double-punching (Gore and Buchanan)?
Did you find it "interesting" when substantial numbers of blacks were turned away from polling booths in various parts of Florida in 2,000?
Did you find it "interesting" that ballots ran out in certain precincts?
Did you find it "interesting" that carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police with, in some cases, officers demanding to see a "taxi license"?
Did you find it "interesting" that polls closed with people still in line in Tampa?
Did you find it "interesting" that in Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne?
Did you find it "interesting" that Hispanic voters in Osceola County were required to produce two forms of id when only one is required?
Did you find it "interesting" that dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address?
Did you find it "interesting" that many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time?
Did you find it "interesting" that the mayoral candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee ballots for George w. Bush?
Did you find it "interesting" that in Volusia County, Florida, James Harris, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes (he got only 583 in the rest of the state)?
Did you find it "interesting" that many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not appear on the voting rolls?
Did you find it "interesting" that Jewish precincts had a suspiciously high number of double-punched ballots, and another lost its computerized votes altogether when a poll worker "accidentally" erased them?
Did you find it "interesting" that the Florida Highway Patrol confirmed that the department did conduct what it called a "routine" check point near a black precinct in Tallahassee on election day, where police asked black men to get out of their vehicles and produce identification?
Did you find it "interesting" that Sandy Goard, supervisor of elections of Seminole County, admitted allowing two Republican operatives to add missing voter-identification numbers to 4,700 incomplete absentee ballot requests, mostly GOP voters -- actions that were illegal -- and that those votes were counted?
No, you probably didn't find any of that interesting. You were probably too busy screaming that Gore was trying to "steal" the election.