Being on hold with Sprint for 10 minutes is a HUGE improvement! When I had (yes, past tense) Sprint the customer service wait time was rarely less than 30 minutes. One time I was on hold I got frustrated and I left the phone on the table while I went to the store...when I got home I was STILL on hold.
This was a number of years ago so, hopefully, their customer service has gotten better. It was horrendous when I was with them and I'll likely never consider them again.
"Don't bother looking for any links, he's wrong. Toyota Doesn't Do Diesel and they have no plans to either."
They aren't available in the US but Toyota "does do diesel". They even make diesel engines for other car manufacturers (e.g. the diesel version of the Mini is a Toyota-made engine...again, not available in the US).
> That may well be so, but the law in various parts of the United > States does not allow one to carry firearms
Actually, 37 states are "shall-issue" states meaning any law-abiding adult (age varies by state) citizen can carry concealed firearms. Some of those states require state-approved proficiency tests, written tests (mostly testing legal issues) and/or a physicians approval of mental status. Nevertheless, in those states it's not that difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit. Utah (where I imagine Darl lives) is a "shall-issue" state.
Eight other states are "restricted carry" states (usually) meaning a citizen has to prove a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. A demonstratable "need", however, is pretty nebulous.
Only 4 states and D.C. don't allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for any reason.
Surprisingly, open carry is legal in many states...though I imagine you'd be very popular with the police.
> In San Francisco, for example, where Darl claimed he had > armed bodyguards inside the Moscone Center. Were they > properly licensed in the City of SF?
I imagine they were properly licensed in the state of California. California is a "restricted carry" state. I imagine a bodyguard can probably demonstrate a "need" to carry to satisfy the state requirements. There are a lot of celebrities in California and a number of them have (probably armed) bodyguards.
Anyway, I'm not debating the politics of this...just pointing out the current laws.
I totally agree with your post. People often use the argument that armed citizens wouldn't have the firepower to protect themselves against tanks, planes, etc. However, would we need that firepower?
How difficult would it be for anyone in the military, even under orders, to kill a citizen, the same people the military is supposed to protect? Remember the 1989 Tiananman Square uprising and the famous scene of the tank in a standoff with a an unarmed person standing in the road. The tank could have easily mowed him over to get by, but didn't. I believe the same kind of thing would happen here.
In addition, if a cause against the government was so great that large numbers of citizens were actively revolting against the government don't you think a number of active duty military would support the revolt.
"I've observed plenty of otherwise calm, rational people lose their shit and do crazy things, especially when alcohol and drugs are involved"
You are absolutely right. However, I wouldn't categorize somebody who carries a firearm while drinking alcohol and/or doing drugs as being a "rational" person. They are being irresponsible.
Most (if not all) states that have concealed carry laws makes it illegal to carry while under the influence of drugs or having a blood alcohol content > 0.00.
"why can't your right to carry a gun end when you enter an urban area? If it poses more of a risk, statistically, to others around you for you to have it than for you not to have it"
Does it pose more of a risk? If you have evidence, please cite. I'd like to read it. Some might argue (read anything by John Lott, for example) that people legally carrying weapons is a safer (i.e. less violent crime) society.
My God!!! What a well-though out logical statement. Thank you!
I'd like to add a little tid-bit regarding the Constitution that many people fail to realize. You need to put the amendments in the Bill of Rights in context. That is, each one of them refers to rights of INDIVIDUALS/citizens. Each amendment refers to rights that can't be taken away by any government entity. They are rights believed to be necessary to maintain a free society. It is ridiculous to think that the second amendment grants a "right" of the military (i.e. government) to keep and bear arms. Militia does not equal Military.
In addition, why would the founding fathers grant a right to an entity (i.e. Military/National Guard) that didn't even exist at the time it the Bill of Rights were written?
"Example - how do you stop the dock from zooming in and out? "Right click" on it? No."
YES!!! Right click (or ctrl-left click for the one-button mouse) on the dock (not an application or file in the dock) and a menu pops up. Click "Turn Magnification Off". Admittedly, it's a bit tricky to click the dock without clicking on an application/file...but it does work just as you described it should work.
"Control panel? Don't think so."
YES!!! That's another way to do it. The Mac equivalent of Control Panel is "System Preferences". Within System Preferences is "Dock". I'm not sure how much more intuitive it can get.
"Try clicking on a broken X11 app link some time. Does it tell you it's broken? No - it just fades in a nice question mark. Of course if you don't know what that means"
It means it's a broken link. I don't think that's very unintuitive...but I guess that's my opinion. Do other OS's give better info in a similar situation aside from that fact that it can't find the linked file?
"There are lots of little things like that, that in my opinion make an OS that is pretty straightforward and predictable"
You may have a different opinion after playing with it a little more. I "switched" about 6 months ago and have been amazed how much more intuitive it is (among other things). Admittedly, some things are different than Windows, but that doesn't make it less intuitive.
"So, I've actually wondered why we don't just build a huge nucelar power complex in Nevada someplace on land already owned by the federal government and then ship that power nationwide."
I'm not sure it would be a good idea to concentrate the power generation for the entire country in one place...too vulnerable.
> but most readers familiar with the way science "works" won't be all that shocked. Scientific results are frequently altered or completely made up for one > reason. Money
Scientific results are NOT "frequently altered or completely made up". Sometimes it happens but it is NOT a very frequent occurrence. This is just plain wrong.
> Biologists go months without accomplishing anything, and the work is dirty.
True. I can't think of any other field where 90-95% of your work doesn't work or doesn't amount to anything (except as a "learning experience"). The hardest part to deal with is that in this field hard work does not necessarily equal success. There's a LOT of luck involved.
> Even the PhD's have it really tough. No one hires PhD's, they're overqualified. Most of them end up working long hours for years as post-docs making > $30,000.
Sadly, this is very true for many and pretty much describes my life. Sad, eh? Not surprisingly, I have been contemplating a career change for awhile now.
Any other burned-out, underpaid post-docs read Slashdot?
> Correction. You cannot buy an ad mentioning the name of a candidate. You have every right to buy an ad saying "SUPPORT PRO CHOICE > CANDIDATES" or "VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS" etc. just don't mention a candidates name.
Who cares? It's still limiting the rights given to us in the first amendment. Thus, it's still unconstitutional.
>get rid of the corprate conglomerates and let the mom and pop places spring up...
This would never work...
When the "mom and pop places spring up" and, thus, become successful, profitable and grow, they inevitably will grow into a larger business/corporation. When that happens what do you propose then? Penalize them with for becoming a successful business?
In addition, innovation, product research and development, and manufacturing for many goods costs WAY more than any "mom and pop" business can afford!
> I also happen to be agaist this "30/90 day gagg rule" on third parties commenting on the election issues/candidates/whatever.
I wish someone would explain to me how this part of the law is constitiutional!!!
Would Jay Leno be breaking the law by making jokes about politicians before an election? If not, then who decides who can or cannot comment on political candidates?
Also, how does this apply to political TV/Newspaper/Radio? Could the democrats use this law to shut down conservative talk radio (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) before an election? Likewise, would more liberal-leaning media be shut down for endorsing a democrat? Regardless of your political leanings, this is wrong!
It also means that you and some of your friends wouldn't be allowed to pool your funds to pay for radio/newspaper/tv ad to endorse a candidate you happen to have a common interest in. How is this constitutional!?!
I REALLY hope the Supreme Court rules this law unconstitutional.
> Good luck in your limits, I prefer no limits with a record.
> Staph is a normally not seen in the general poplution.
Actually, S. aureus is fairly common in the general population. It is often found on the skin and hair and in nasal passages. Generally, it becomes a problem if it gets into the bloodstream.
But would you agree that the medical advances in the U.S. surpasses that of Canada?
You may not agree but I work with a number of Canadian scientists here in the U.S. who wouldn't hesitate to agree with me.
Some questions to consider: How many medical advances has Canada/Canadian companies spearheaded compared to U.S./U.S. companies? How does the "thriving biomedical industry" compare to the biomedical industry in the U.S? (How many of the biomedical companies in Canada are actually U.S.-based companies?) If it's so thriving then why did Amgen, a huge biotech company, recently close up shop in Toronto?
I'm not trying to say that good science and medical advances DON'T happen in other countries. But, if you compare the medical advances and biomedical research that occurs in the U.S. compared to other countries (per capita) the U.S. would likely come out far ahead.
P.S. - If I'm not mistaken, in the recent past when a few of your prominent politicians (I can't remember their names) needed serious, life-saving treatments, they came to the U.S.
Perhaps...but the alternatives aren't necessarily better.
> Putting prices on people is not an ethical practice.
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that capitalist-driven medical care puts prices on peoples' heads. Removing the capitalistic rewards stifles innovation...and it's that innovation that allows the U.S. to lead the world in medical advances. Without capitalist-driven medical care the U.S. would advance more slowly (as would, arguably, the rest of the world) and future cures/treatments wouldn't be realized and more people die/suffer.
What many people don't realize is that the price people in the U.S. pay for medical care pays not only for their current health, but also funds the rapid advancement and innovation of medical care. And it's not just the U.S. that benefits from these advances.
A socialized medical system may pay for your current medical care but it will be at the expense of medical advances.
This is called Pharmacognosy. Yes, SOME drugs have been discovered this way but for the most part they are not. There are much more efficient and effective ways of discovering drugs then sending chemists around the world to "[get] to know the past".
Slashdot Mirror
Being on hold with Sprint for 10 minutes is a HUGE improvement! When I had (yes, past tense) Sprint the customer service wait time was rarely less than 30 minutes. One time I was on hold I got frustrated and I left the phone on the table while I went to the store...when I got home I was STILL on hold.
This was a number of years ago so, hopefully, their customer service has gotten better. It was horrendous when I was with them and I'll likely never consider them again.
"Don't bother looking for any links, he's wrong. Toyota Doesn't Do Diesel and they have no plans to either."
They aren't available in the US but Toyota "does do diesel". They even make diesel engines for other car manufacturers (e.g. the diesel version of the Mini is a Toyota-made engine...again, not available in the US).
Do a google search of "Toyota Diesel".
> That may well be so, but the law in various parts of the United > States does not allow one to carry firearms
Actually, 37 states are "shall-issue" states meaning any law-abiding adult (age varies by state) citizen can carry concealed firearms. Some of those states require state-approved proficiency tests, written tests (mostly testing legal issues) and/or a physicians approval of mental status. Nevertheless, in those states it's not that difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit. Utah (where I imagine Darl lives) is a "shall-issue" state.
Eight other states are "restricted carry" states (usually) meaning a citizen has to prove a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. A demonstratable "need", however, is pretty nebulous.
Only 4 states and D.C. don't allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for any reason.
Surprisingly, open carry is legal in many states...though I imagine you'd be very popular with the police.
> In San Francisco, for example, where Darl claimed he had
> armed bodyguards inside the Moscone Center. Were they
> properly licensed in the City of SF?
I imagine they were properly licensed in the state of California. California is a "restricted carry" state. I imagine a bodyguard can probably demonstrate a "need" to carry to satisfy the state requirements. There are a lot of celebrities in California and a number of them have (probably armed) bodyguards.
Anyway, I'm not debating the politics of this...just pointing out the current laws.
I totally agree with your post. People often use the argument that armed citizens wouldn't have the firepower to protect themselves against tanks, planes, etc. However, would we need that firepower?
How difficult would it be for anyone in the military, even under orders, to kill a citizen, the same people the military is supposed to protect? Remember the 1989 Tiananman Square uprising and the famous scene of the tank in a standoff with a an unarmed person standing in the road. The tank could have easily mowed him over to get by, but didn't. I believe the same kind of thing would happen here.
In addition, if a cause against the government was so great that large numbers of citizens were actively revolting against the government don't you think a number of active duty military would support the revolt.
Just some thoughts...
"I've observed plenty of otherwise calm, rational people lose their shit and do crazy things, especially when alcohol and drugs are involved"
You are absolutely right. However, I wouldn't categorize somebody who carries a firearm while drinking alcohol and/or doing drugs as being a "rational" person. They are being irresponsible.
Most (if not all) states that have concealed carry laws makes it illegal to carry while under the influence of drugs or having a blood alcohol content > 0.00.
"why can't your right to carry a gun end when you enter an urban area? If it poses more of a risk, statistically, to others around you for you to have it than for you not to have it"
Does it pose more of a risk? If you have evidence, please cite. I'd like to read it. Some might argue (read anything by John Lott, for example) that people legally carrying weapons is a safer (i.e. less violent crime) society.
My God!!! What a well-though out logical statement. Thank you!
I'd like to add a little tid-bit regarding the Constitution that many people fail to realize. You need to put the amendments in the Bill of Rights in context. That is, each one of them refers to rights of INDIVIDUALS/citizens. Each amendment refers to rights that can't be taken away by any government entity. They are rights believed to be necessary to maintain a free society. It is ridiculous to think that the second amendment grants a "right" of the military (i.e. government) to keep and bear arms. Militia does not equal Military.
In addition, why would the founding fathers grant a right to an entity (i.e. Military/National Guard) that didn't even exist at the time it the Bill of Rights were written?
> But Charlton Heston is president of the NRA
WAS president of the NRA.
Just a clarification.
Maybe you need to play with a Mac a little more.
"Example - how do you stop the dock from zooming in and out? "Right click" on it? No."
YES!!! Right click (or ctrl-left click for the one-button mouse) on the dock (not an application or file in the dock) and a menu pops up. Click "Turn Magnification Off". Admittedly, it's a bit tricky to click the dock without clicking on an application/file...but it does work just as you described it should work.
"Control panel? Don't think so."
YES!!! That's another way to do it. The Mac equivalent of Control Panel is "System Preferences". Within System Preferences is "Dock". I'm not sure how much more intuitive it can get.
"Try clicking on a broken X11 app link some time. Does it tell you it's broken? No - it just fades in a nice question mark. Of course if you don't know what that means"
It means it's a broken link. I don't think that's very unintuitive...but I guess that's my opinion. Do other OS's give better info in a similar situation aside from that fact that it can't find the linked file?
"There are lots of little things like that, that in my opinion make an OS that is pretty straightforward and predictable"
You may have a different opinion after playing with it a little more. I "switched" about 6 months ago and have been amazed how much more intuitive it is (among other things). Admittedly, some things are different than Windows, but that doesn't make it less intuitive.
"as apposed to two illegal (as in against the UN charter)wars in THREE years."
Illegal!?! Since when was the UN a "legal" authority?
"So, I've actually wondered why we don't just build a huge nucelar power complex in Nevada someplace on land already owned by the federal government and then ship that power nationwide."
I'm not sure it would be a good idea to concentrate the power generation for the entire country in one place...too vulnerable.
I second this...graphpad prism is a great program!
> but most readers familiar with the way science "works" won't be all that shocked. Scientific results are frequently altered or completely made up for one
> reason. Money
Scientific results are NOT "frequently altered or completely made up". Sometimes it happens but it is NOT a very frequent occurrence. This is just plain wrong.
> a few bad apples in the funding basket (*cough cough* pharmaceutical companies *cough cough*)
Why are pharmaceutical companies bad?
> Biologists go months without accomplishing anything, and the work is dirty.
True. I can't think of any other field where 90-95% of your work doesn't work or doesn't amount to anything (except as a "learning experience"). The hardest part to deal with is that in this field hard work does not necessarily equal success. There's a LOT of luck involved.
> Even the PhD's have it really tough. No one hires PhD's, they're overqualified. Most of them end up working long hours for years as post-docs making
> $30,000.
Sadly, this is very true for many and pretty much describes my life. Sad, eh? Not surprisingly, I have been contemplating a career change for awhile now.
Any other burned-out, underpaid post-docs read Slashdot?
Oh well, back to the lab bench...
> Correction. You cannot buy an ad mentioning the name of a candidate. You have every right to buy an ad saying "SUPPORT PRO CHOICE
> CANDIDATES" or "VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS" etc. just don't mention a candidates name.
Who cares? It's still limiting the rights given to us in the first amendment. Thus, it's still unconstitutional.
>get rid of the corprate conglomerates and let the mom and pop places spring up...
This would never work...
When the "mom and pop places spring up" and, thus, become successful, profitable and grow, they inevitably will grow into a larger business/corporation. When that happens what do you propose then? Penalize them with for becoming a successful business?
In addition, innovation, product research and development, and manufacturing for many goods costs WAY more than any "mom and pop" business can afford!
> I also happen to be agaist this "30/90 day gagg rule" on third parties commenting on the election issues/candidates/whatever.
I wish someone would explain to me how this part of the law is constitiutional!!!
Would Jay Leno be breaking the law by making jokes about politicians before an election? If not, then who decides who can or cannot comment on political candidates?
Also, how does this apply to political TV/Newspaper/Radio? Could the democrats use this law to shut down conservative talk radio (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) before an election? Likewise, would more liberal-leaning media be shut down for endorsing a democrat? Regardless of your political leanings, this is wrong!
It also means that you and some of your friends wouldn't be allowed to pool your funds to pay for radio/newspaper/tv ad to endorse a candidate you happen to have a common interest in. How is this constitutional!?!
I REALLY hope the Supreme Court rules this law unconstitutional.
> Good luck in your limits, I prefer no limits with a record.
Agreed!
> Staph is a normally not seen in the general poplution.
Actually, S. aureus is fairly common in the general population. It is often found on the skin and hair and in nasal passages. Generally, it becomes a problem if it gets into the bloodstream.
But would you agree that the medical advances in the U.S. surpasses that of Canada?
You may not agree but I work with a number of Canadian scientists here in the U.S. who wouldn't hesitate to agree with me.
Some questions to consider:
How many medical advances has Canada/Canadian companies spearheaded compared to U.S./U.S. companies?
How does the "thriving biomedical industry" compare to the biomedical industry in the U.S? (How many of the biomedical companies in Canada are actually U.S.-based companies?) If it's so thriving then why did Amgen, a huge biotech company, recently close up shop in Toronto?
I'm not trying to say that good science and medical advances DON'T happen in other countries. But, if you compare the medical advances and biomedical research that occurs in the U.S. compared to other countries (per capita) the U.S. would likely come out far ahead.
P.S. - If I'm not mistaken, in the recent past when a few of your prominent politicians (I can't remember their names) needed serious, life-saving treatments, they came to the U.S.
> Capitalism always must have a price.
Perhaps...but the alternatives aren't necessarily better.
> Putting prices on people is not an ethical practice.
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that capitalist-driven medical care puts prices on peoples' heads. Removing the capitalistic rewards stifles innovation...and it's that innovation that allows the U.S. to lead the world in medical advances. Without capitalist-driven medical care the U.S. would advance more slowly (as would, arguably, the rest of the world) and future cures/treatments wouldn't be realized and more people die/suffer.
What many people don't realize is that the price people in the U.S. pay for medical care pays not only for their current health, but also funds the rapid advancement and innovation of medical care. And it's not just the U.S. that benefits from these advances.
A socialized medical system may pay for your current medical care but it will be at the expense of medical advances.
This is called Pharmacognosy. Yes, SOME drugs have been discovered this way but for the most part they are not. There are much more efficient and effective ways of discovering drugs then sending chemists around the world to "[get] to know the past".
I wonder what the response would be if I asked my insurance company for a quote to insure a submarine...