The Iphone battery guage is a lot like cars from the 90's... the guage goes down slowly to make you THINK you're getting good milleage, but then as soon as you hit a quarter tank... BAM it drops like a brick....this is pretty much the same with my Evo too.
I've observed this with my Touch Pro 2. Goes down at a steady rate until it hits 25% and then drops like a rock. I would guess it's a Lion battery thing.
What the GP meant to say is that "This is the part where I reply to a post without thoroughly reading it first; making myself look like an ass in the process."
What Microsoft should have done is have a security policy where the firewall is turned on and off with a dial up connection.
Windows XP supports something like that. You can specify domain and non-domain firewall profiles. The domain profile activates when the computer is connected to the corporate network and the non-domain profile activates when connected to any other network. I have our machine configured to turn on the firewall and not allow any exceptions when not connected to our network.
Conservative growth is less than democratic growth.
So which party is stocked with these mythical "conservatives" you speak of? You excluded the Democratic party and considering the fact that the federal government grew must faster under Reagan, and both Bushes than it did under Carter and Clinton, it certainly isn't the Republican party.
Why would I bother? If I produce them, the other party will simply disbelieve them or drum up their own.
Because for every person who already has their mind made up, there are three, or four, or ten who don't. Those are the people sit idly by and watch ideologues duke it out but don't say anything. If you post something that is factually incorrect (judging by the replies to your original post, it looks like you may have), you are likely to lead others to believe things that are false.
That's great for snopes' bottom line, but not so great for society as a whole.
What's even funnier is that, not only was it a Democratic president, it was also a Democratic congress.
For years now, I've observed Republicans attempting to rewrite history. Their claim is that it was the Republican congressional majority gained in 1994 that was actually responsible for the balanced budget. This is an absolute lie. The legislation that ultimately led to our short-live balanced budget was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and bill which raised taxes in several areas. Of course, not one Republican voted for it.
I think Air America failed because their target demographic just doesn't listen to talk radio.
Based my experience listening to the local 50K watt AM station in my area, the demographic of talk radio in general seems to be comprised mostly of older people with lots of free time, well-off small business owners whose fiscal interests align with conservatives, and evangelical stay-at-home moms.
That's not exactly Air America's bread and butter.
If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up.
This is a circular cause and consequence. You can just as easily argue that if Americans would work for less or wages would go up immigrants would not be here. The immigrant population regularly ebbs and flows due to market conditions, and has been shrinking for the last three years.
It would cost billions to get rid of illegal immigrants that are currently here via the border enforcement/deportation process. It would be much more beneficial to our economy to address the market conditions which cause to businesses to prefer hiring immigrants.
You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction.
It hardly contradicts my original statement. I said, "With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants generally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance." I touched on the separate issue of emergency health care, which as you and I both know is guaranteed to anyone no matter what. Wisconsin is actually being financially prudent in setting up a system where emergency care is paid for via normal channels, as the alternative is cost shifting.
People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world.
It's not charity when their value of their labor exceeds their cost to the state. This is the case with immigrants. Removing them would not magically improve our economy. It would simply shift costs around and it most certainly would lower overall productivity in the short term.
Some telling demographic differences between WI and CA:
Wisconsin: 3.6% foreign born population California: 26.2% foreign born population
I've found that natives who live in areas with higher immigrant populations have much more sympathetic view of immigrants that natives in areas low immigrants populations.
First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire.
Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now.
"Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. "
The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by.
Sounds like an more of a indictment of our countries ridiculously low minimum wage than anything else.
Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.
While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.
Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link [wisconsin.gov] has a pretty good description of available benefits.
Thanks. Did some digging and found this, and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.
We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,
We actually have made it legal - or as legal as we can under federal law. Most states have labor laws that exempt farm workers from protections afforded to other workers.
This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.
Congratulation. You wasted your mod points so you could expose your own ignorance.
You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime.
Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.
I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?
If abuses were so bad at a company that the employee had to leave and he told the world via the internet what abuses he suffered, it eventually reaches a point where no one will go to that company for work and the company dies.
The government built the internet. In your fantasy world who builds it and why?
The "rich" don't magically have some sort of power because they have wealth
This is what your sense of rights are. The problem I have with that view is that the arguments for it usually involve logical contradictions and arbitrary definitions which cannot be agreed upon.
You're okay with a society saying slavery is okay?
No. The right to own a slave is not a societal construct I would be okay with.
[On an island]...you could even carry a big stick with a big rock attached to the end to protect yourself, and not get a license from the club police.
And if someone else happened upon that island, I could bash their brains out with my big stick, take their possessions, and there would be no repercussions. Using your logic, the right to murder people and take their possessions is self-evident.
The only way in which I can possibly agree with the argument that that rights are "self evident" is if only rights of action are included, and absolutely no actions are excluded. Following that, and returning to your red herring about slavery, I would argue that as long as I could muster the necessary power, I would indeed have the right to force someone to perform labor for me.
It's doesn't even matter. Even if it was true that some rich people left fleeing taxes, it didn't mean shit in the big picture when you look at the overall economic data.
I see this bullshit argument all the time when it comes to California. For the last 10 years, businesses have supposedly been fleeing California to avoid the oppressive taxes here. Leaving aside the fact that the overall tax burden in CA is quite average, when you look at the actual economic data, it's quite apparent that those phantom businesses must not have been contributing much.
The only view he listed that strays from the Libertarian party line is the one about the environment, but he might just be saying we should *personally* strive to protect the environment, which would also fall in line with the Libertarian POV.
Slashdot Mirror
The Iphone battery guage is a lot like cars from the 90's... the guage goes down slowly to make you THINK you're getting good milleage, but then as soon as you hit a quarter tank... BAM it drops like a brick....this is pretty much the same with my Evo too.
I've observed this with my Touch Pro 2. Goes down at a steady rate until it hits 25% and then drops like a rock. I would guess it's a Lion battery thing.
What the GP meant to say is that "This is the part where I reply to a post without thoroughly reading it first; making myself look like an ass in the process."
What Microsoft should have done is have a security policy where the firewall is turned on and off with a dial up connection.
Windows XP supports something like that. You can specify domain and non-domain firewall profiles. The domain profile activates when the computer is connected to the corporate network and the non-domain profile activates when connected to any other network. I have our machine configured to turn on the firewall and not allow any exceptions when not connected to our network.
Or IPSEC policies in the windows side.
Conservative growth is less than democratic growth.
So which party is stocked with these mythical "conservatives" you speak of? You excluded the Democratic party and considering the fact that the federal government grew must faster under Reagan, and both Bushes than it did under Carter and Clinton, it certainly isn't the Republican party.
Why would I bother? If I produce them, the other party will simply disbelieve them or drum up their own.
Because for every person who already has their mind made up, there are three, or four, or ten who don't. Those are the people sit idly by and watch ideologues duke it out but don't say anything. If you post something that is factually incorrect (judging by the replies to your original post, it looks like you may have), you are likely to lead others to believe things that are false.
That's great for snopes' bottom line, but not so great for society as a whole.
What's even funnier is that, not only was it a Democratic president, it was also a Democratic congress.
For years now, I've observed Republicans attempting to rewrite history. Their claim is that it was the Republican congressional majority gained in 1994 that was actually responsible for the balanced budget. This is an absolute lie. The legislation that ultimately led to our short-live balanced budget was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, and bill which raised taxes in several areas. Of course, not one Republican voted for it.
But I can't be bothered to look it up
This is the problem with political discourse in this country.
I think Air America failed because their target demographic just doesn't listen to talk radio.
Based my experience listening to the local 50K watt AM station in my area, the demographic of talk radio in general seems to be comprised mostly of older people with lots of free time, well-off small business owners whose fiscal interests align with conservatives, and evangelical stay-at-home moms.
That's not exactly Air America's bread and butter.
Seagal would probably eat the plane.
If the immigrants were not there either Americans would work for less or wages will go up.
This is a circular cause and consequence. You can just as easily argue that if Americans would work for less or wages would go up immigrants would not be here. The immigrant population regularly ebbs and flows due to market conditions, and has been shrinking for the last three years.
It would cost billions to get rid of illegal immigrants that are currently here via the border enforcement/deportation process. It would be much more beneficial to our economy to address the market conditions which cause to businesses to prefer hiring immigrants.
You listed two benefits (pre-natal care and emergency care) and then said illegals don't get any benefits. That's quite the contradiction.
It hardly contradicts my original statement. I said, "With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants generally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance." I touched on the separate issue of emergency health care, which as you and I both know is guaranteed to anyone no matter what. Wisconsin is actually being financially prudent in setting up a system where emergency care is paid for via normal channels, as the alternative is cost shifting.
People need to realize that America is not here to provide charity to the rest of the world.
It's not charity when their value of their labor exceeds their cost to the state. This is the case with immigrants. Removing them would not magically improve our economy. It would simply shift costs around and it most certainly would lower overall productivity in the short term.
Some telling demographic differences between WI and CA:
Wisconsin: 3.6% foreign born population
California: 26.2% foreign born population
I've found that natives who live in areas with higher immigrant populations have much more sympathetic view of immigrants that natives in areas low immigrants populations.
We both fit the stereotype.
First of all I'd rather my children be contributing to the economy and social security when I retire.
Illegal immigrants are bankrolling your SS right now.
"Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration and someone who enjoys bipartisan support for his straightforwardness, said that by 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants.
That represented an astounding 5.4 percent to 10.7 percent of the trust fund's total assets of $2.24 trillion that year. The cumulative contribution is surely higher now. Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone, Goss said. "
SOURCE.
The illegals were willing to work for minimum wage and I couldn't. I have a few unemployed friends who would be more than willing to work on a farm or something similar for $8-$10 an hour just so they can get by.
Sounds like an more of a indictment of our countries ridiculously low minimum wage than anything else.
Simple logic dictates that if said illegal immigrants were not here in the first place their impact on our health care system would be zero. This would free up resources to help unemployed and underemployed Americans who cannot afford health care. It would also free up low paying (better than nothing) jobs for unemployed Americans.
While it's true that it would be optimal for citizens to be doing the jobs that the immigrants currently do, the fact is that the group of Americans who could be doing these jobs feel entitled to a higher standard of living that these jobs provide. Anger toward immigrants is misplaced. They are filling a market demand.
Sure. Look at Badger Care for health care. Check out this link [wisconsin.gov] has a pretty good description of available benefits.
Thanks. Did some digging and found this, and according to it my original assertion is correct. Outside of pre-natal care and benefits for children, (two things of which the state will ultimately pay for in one way or another) illegal immigrants do not qualify for any of the benefits afforded by Badger Care.
We should realize cheap labor is exactly what we want and make it legal,
We actually have made it legal - or as legal as we can under federal law. Most states have labor laws that exempt farm workers from protections afforded to other workers.
This is so ridiculous I am undoing moderation to reply.
Congratulation. You wasted your mod points so you could expose your own ignorance.
You are also forgetting the burden illegal immigrants put on our welfare system. Since they often work for low wages and live below the poverty line they qualify for all sorts of benefits. In Wisconsin they get excellent health care (better than my current employment benefits and they pay nothing for it), housing assistance, heating assistance, food stamps, etc... all on the American taxpayer's dime.
Bullshit. With the exception of maybe the children of immigrants, illegal immigrants genreally do not qualify for any type of welfare, food stamps, or housing assistance. Regarding health care, studies have shown that illegal immigrants place a lower burden on our health care system than citizens of the same socioeconomic class. Here is a second study which came to the same conclusion. Here is a third. A fourth.
Interestingly it seems that these programs were tailored for illegal immigrants as you do not need a social security number to qualify--meaning you don't have to be paying taxes to get the benefits.
I've never heard of a state giving illegals welfare-type benefits. I'd love a link to these programs in Wisconsin you speak of. Got one?
t's not even a particularly poor country by the world standards, and it is classified as an "upper middle-income" country by the World Bank.
If you are of the "white" variety of Mexicans, yes. The darker "Mestizo" ones are treated like sub-humans.
-1 day exploit.
You mean the user?
Health care as a "business opportunity". That pretty much says it all.
If abuses were so bad at a company that the employee had to leave and he told the world via the internet what abuses he suffered, it eventually reaches a point where no one will go to that company for work and the company dies.
The government built the internet. In your fantasy world who builds it and why?
The "rich" don't magically have some sort of power because they have wealth
Holy shit you're naive.
Rights are self evident.
This is what your sense of rights are. The problem I have with that view is that the arguments for it usually involve logical contradictions and arbitrary definitions which cannot be agreed upon.
You're okay with a society saying slavery is okay?
No. The right to own a slave is not a societal construct I would be okay with.
[On an island]...you could even carry a big stick with a big rock attached to the end to protect yourself, and not get a license from the club police.
And if someone else happened upon that island, I could bash their brains out with my big stick, take their possessions, and there would be no repercussions. Using your logic, the right to murder people and take their possessions is self-evident.
The only way in which I can possibly agree with the argument that that rights are "self evident" is if only rights of action are included, and absolutely no actions are excluded. Following that, and returning to your red herring about slavery, I would argue that as long as I could muster the necessary power, I would indeed have the right to force someone to perform labor for me.
Men want sex
Women want security
Rights are a just a much a construct of society as entitlements. In the absence of society, you and I would have no right to anything.
In regards to rights in the declaration of independence and "God given rights", our forefathers were simply being hyperbolic.
It's doesn't even matter. Even if it was true that some rich people left fleeing taxes, it didn't mean shit in the big picture when you look at the overall economic data.
I see this bullshit argument all the time when it comes to California. For the last 10 years, businesses have supposedly been fleeing California to avoid the oppressive taxes here. Leaving aside the fact that the overall tax burden in CA is quite average, when you look at the actual economic data, it's quite apparent that those phantom businesses must not have been contributing much.
Libertarians are not emotional at all.
That makes no sense. Every political ideology is borne out of emotion.
This class warfare that the left spouts is irrational.
As opposed to the rational class warfare that the right engages in?
He's a Libertarian.
The only view he listed that strays from the Libertarian party line is the one about the environment, but he might just be saying we should *personally* strive to protect the environment, which would also fall in line with the Libertarian POV.