What phone are you using with the 5450 and how do you like it?
Re:I'm not uncomfortable with speaking my mind
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Here is a better URL to info on the book I recommend...
http://www.urbancure.org/book/index.html
Re:I'm not uncomfortable with speaking my mind
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Bob, It's funny..
You speak the common sense of our founding fathers (who would agree on the Fed, Gov't Welfare, and minimization of government) yet there are people like Mark who will likely give lip service to (individual) freedom and compassion for others but who are, in reality, fighting against freedom and compassion.
We aren't free when the government defines compassion/welfare and forces us to participate by steeling from us. Government subsidies, at all levels (welfare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare) are enslaving us all.
Mark wants to be enslaved, but you, bob, are my true friend because you want both of us to be free.
If anyone reading this wants to educate themselves on this subject, please read this book (while focusing on welfare - which directly effected her as she is from the ghetto and was on it for 6-7 years, the idea does apply to other subsidies which she does touch on):
Too bad the SCOTUS just told us we have no First Amendment rights - because (to be unsuccessful) "campaign finance reform" is more important. I never thought the SCOTUS could LEARN from a socialist publication - but I guess that has become the case here.
"What country is this? Moldova and Byelorussia do not count as part of "Europe" as the rest of us understand it, really. I don't know what part of "Europe" you've been hanging out in..."
If there was any wonder why much of the rest of the world views Western Europeans as a bunch of snobs, the parent post should have cleared that up for you. (I'm not saying all Western Eupropeans are snobs...but there is definatly an issue with people like the parent poster making it look that way to outsiders.)
You don't hear U.S. residents or Canadians going around saying "Mexico doesn't count as part of 'North America' as I understand it." Damn straight they're on the same continent as the US and Canada.
It's absolutely stupid/ignorant/arrogant/bigoted to say that a country is not located on the same continent (WHEN IT IS) just because they're poor or have some other non-geographical trait that scares you or makes you somehow ashamed to acknowledge (the truth) that Moldova is even on the same continent as your beloved country.
I think you've got the wrong picture of me. EIB network? I didn't know what that was - had to go look it up. Am I going to get addicted to pain killers? Not likely, I've got more of a sense of personal responsibility than that. (I'm not a Rush sympathizer - He is no more a victim than a burgler who gets shot breaking into someone's home - he brought it on himself through personal decisions in which he was too stupid/weak-willed to make a good decision.)
I'm also not a die-hard Republican-or-Bush-no-matter-what kind of guy. I'm for smaller government, much lower taxes, civil rights, etc. You bet it pisses me off to see bills like the Pariot Act (clinton also did his share of power grabbing), Bush increasing social welfare programs instead of killing them (dems would do more of this), spending too much money, supporting the assault weapons ban (dems would do this), etc.
I admit I still think this is better than what we'd have with Gore in office... and I don't see a better replacement in the democratic candidates currently looking to sit in the oval office...but it's not because I pull a blanket over my eyes or tote a part line. I guess my tiff with Bush is that he's not as convicted as I expected him to be on certain things (named above) - and on those things he's hard to differentiate from democrats (who I disagree with on a lot more issues).
"This so-called recovery has been going on for well over a year, and only now are jobs beginning to be created. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of 'jobless recovery'."
Actually, If you knew much about economics, you'd know that unemployment is a "lagging economic indicator"...meaning the economy begins to improve before you see a decrease in unemployment. I know it sounds really strange/backward...but that perception can't change this fact.
If this is a jobless recovery? That remains to be seen. I doubt it it is/will be. I think many areas of our economy have corrected themselves, shed waste, made correct steps to increase/sustain productivity, etc...and we'll see non-trivial job creation in this recovery.
One other thing, I think many people are short-sichted...complaining when war takes longer than a month or the economy takes longer than a year to turn. These things take time. An economic recession or boom feeds more of the same. If you're losing your job, you're spending less, people are making less, and they need to lay off more. It takes a bit of time to turn something like that around (especially since while our economy was in this decline we had the added "insult to injury" of the WTC attacks).
Hazman, If you don't want your next two posts to be completely wrong too, you might want to visit google. The first result for "income tax brackets" is http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/ which will be helpful in getting a basic understanding (though you can count on these rates changing every year). These are just "income" tax...so they don't represent the other taxes taken out of your paycheck like social security, etc.
demaria, you never indicated your tax bracket, but it's obvious that if you're single you make between $26k and $63k. LOL - that's one pretty specific guess huh?
"Hey 'Discontinent Conservative'...Now go and change your Depends"
I think you mean incontinent. Again, I'd like to encourage you to get a little more education. It just might help when you're trying to make a point or insult someone.
Oh, BTW, I'm talking about the 2001 Bush tax cuts, not the 2003 Bush tax cuts ("Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003"). This newer tax law is effective for 2003 and 2004. Details:
-$600 child tax credit increased to $1000 (I've got no kids, so no dice for me). -Increased the "standard deduction" for married people filing together from $7950 to $9500. (Not that it matters much to me as I'll still probably be itemizing / using the long form...but maybe this will change that.) - Changes 15% bracket so that the top end is $23k for separate filings and $47k for joint filings...instead of $23k for joint filings (removes the "marriage tax penalty for SOME people" - again, not for me). - Accelerate the tax reductions %ages (my previous post mentioned the end-state tax rates...those are phased in. The rates for 2002 were 10, 15, 27, 30, 35, and 38.6.). - Increases the "alternative minimum tax amount" - and some other stuff like capital gains, dividend, and depreciation stuff.
"Well, by my calculations, assuming the reason for your tax rate reduction was soley due to the 'rebate' of $300, your income is only $10,000 dollars a year."
Well, by my calculations you're an idiot. The "rebate" was a one-time deal to get SOME of the tax cut into people's pockets before the next April when they filed their returns. The tax cuts were not $300 for everyone, but percentage cuts (and yes, the cuts effected all income levels).
So, the guy who said it changed his rate from 28% to 25% is not making $10k as you calculate...and will definately recieve more than $300/year from these tax cuts. He was also correct at the rates, where you were way off. The previous tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent were replaced by a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.
Instead of mocking people who are happy about the much-needed reduction in tax rates who might have voted for Bush, and using your own ignorance to back it up...you might want to actually educate yourself on the matter.
It's amazing what information and simple logic can produce (understanding maybe?). You should try it sometime.
I remember the crappy Compaqs (bought a consumer-level Compaq laptop several years ago to send oversees to someone and was horrified at the speed (much faster processer than my then Winbook, much slower computer - go figure). Same story from what I understand for their consumer-level PCs of that era. I even think HP went through that same thing a couple years back with their PCs.
Now it seems they're both pretty darn good. I've used both recently and the performance/price seems to be where it should be.
BTW, I was helping a friend shop for PCs (explaining HD, RAM, CPUs, etc). We priced computers with the same specs (memory, HD, CPU, OS, etc) at gateway.com, dell.com, and shopping.hp.com. The Gateway (which I never would buy, but wanted to check out of curiousity) and the HP (pavillion) were within $10. The Dell was a couple hundred more, but came with a "free" cheap-ass printer and a kodak digital camera. I guess I'd say they're all about equil, which wasn't what I was expecting.
What I noticed looking at those catalogs from Dell and HP is that Dell starts cheaper, but you generally don't get as much of a PC to start (HPs usually start with 256mb of RAM, Dells start with 128, Dell wants $20 or so to upgrade to an optical mouse, etc)...but they have these promotions like the mentioned "free" camera (which if you want is a good deal...but in the end you're really just paying more for more - simple economics at work I guess).
I have a HP DE100c (they were discontinued around the time of the merger). It's great 40GB HD, cd burner (can write CDs of MP3s or audio CDs from your MP3 collection), networkable (there is a SMB share that contains a folder where you can upload music to it, and one where you can download music to is).
When you stick a CD in it it goes out and checks CDDB for the artist, album, track titles, etc and displays them on the display (and on the TV via video out). Then you just hit record and they're converted to MP3 and stored on the HD. It has an optical and coax digital out, you can record to MP3s from analog sources, etc.
It is built on RedHat Linux with some sort of SW from RealNetworks helping it do it's charm. It does Internet Radio and there are USB ports that allow for a keyboard (makes typing in unknown CD info faster) and uploading to one of several supported portable MP3 players. These and other features were obviously lining it up to become a device people would use to sample and purchase music online (from an appliance/sterio component, not on a computer, and it updated itself with new features at night by phoning home).
Anyway, I obviously love mine...it's bee good to me. If you Google for "HP DE100c" you'll find there are many people who have now hacked it (they did a decent job of locking people out of the HD) and are doing things like installing ApacheMP3 so they can stream MP3s (so they can enjoy their music when they're not at home).
I still think you're missing the point. People always talk about how many people are killed by guns, but that's only a slice of what needs to be considered. There is a lot of value in guns as a deterrant to violent crime. The news never reports on people who defend themselves with a gun unless that gun was actually fired (cause then it's exciting). Pulling a gun on an intruder, etc is a much more common occurance in the US than most people think. Guns are used to stop crime and murder in the US far more than they're used to comit those crimes.
The fallacy in your logic is that you're trying to look at gun crime and gun ownership in a silo - as though guns can only be used to comit crime and not prevent it. If that were the case, cops would not carry guns. The fact is, guns are a useful tool, like encryption, and we don't want to make them illegal cause then we eliminate the good things they provide (guns providing safety, encryption providing privacy to lessen things like credit card fraud). Making them illegal will also fail to stop getting the "bad guys" from using them...cause you can make your own encryption and you can make your own guns.
There are benefits to encryption and there are benefits to guns, just like there is a benefit to a free society. There are costs to all of these, but the benefits far outweigh the costs
Non-gun violent crime is effected by gun ownership rates - you have to consider violent crimes in guaging at the efficacy of gun ownership / carry by the general populace. That is the point.
That's the dumbest comparison I've ever heard of. Guns are banned in DC - so generally the law-abiding people are prime for the killing, beating, mugging, robbing, etc. - just like the UK.
Why don't you compare Wyoming with the UK, or if you want a more-populated area, Florida or Virginia - all of which have pretty-permissive gun laws?
Also, it's important to focus on more than just murder, but also look at violent crime (muggings, hot burgluries, etc) - which is where the UK really has skyrocketing rates.
The government is and will be mostly ineffective in fighting terrorism as long as we are an open society (have freedoms). Going half way - giving up some rights and powers to the government - does not make them effective cause they don't go all the way.
I don't want to give them absolute power (cause history shows it will eventually be used to effectively terrorize a given subset of the population). Thus you've only gained that safety for a specific period, and set yourself up for a complete lack of safety later.
It's also 100% contrary to the Constitution and what this country (don't confuse country with government) is about.
I prefer to give the power to the people (to speak about what they see, bear arms, defend themselves, have privacy and fair trials, vote, etc). The people is where it rightly belongs. I understand that having us, the people, retain the power does involve some risk - and it also requires people to be vigilant in order to keep those rights. However, I don't think any other choice is a sane one.
There is no middle ground because a middle ground is where people lose rights with no gain (just like Ben Franklin said RE giving up rights for safety, and getting neither).
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan
You missed your mark - it helps to read the immediate context, not just skim the subheading and make assumptions.
They're clearly talking about fat-client/server computing. It would be like if your health care provider made you download and run a specific client to access your benefits information. Things are generally not done that way. In today's world you generally use a standard client (web browser) to access your benefits information, etc.
There are obvious exceptions (kazaa is fat-client, outlook, etc), but generally specialized fat clients really are a submerging technology. They'll always exist for certain things.
On the other hand, if you're going to develop internal client/server programs in your company for normal data access - you're going to want to put the intelligence on the server and use PHP or something to build the logic and interface into a web server. This saves you the hassle of creating (and later maintaining/updating/supporting) a specialized client for that one application.
"Raise your hands, you unemployed geeks who would jump at the chance of becoming paid-for spammer hunters."
While there is a part of me (of all of us) that starts to consider this idea, do you not believe something like this would end up making it not only possible for "grandma" to get punished for her email, but would provide economic encentive for her grandkids to turn her in?
It's thinking like this that helped Hitler round up his innocent victims.
Spam sucks, I know, but do we really need government keeping that close of an eye / control over the most powerful mechanism for (what could otherwise be free-as-in-speech) speech?
I once saw this locking mailbox that had a compartment below it that you could probably get a 1'x1'x2' box into...so UPS, etc had a place to securely put the smaller shipments. It wouldn't go on a pole, but was freestanding about the height of a regular mailbox. Another option this place had was putting a larger door, like the lower one, that you could build into the wall of your garage so UPS, etc could drop boxes into your garage.
Anyone know where these can be found...I don't remember?
Yah, it might be hard to show proof of ownership to the dealer and get the key made. However, if you worked at a dealership/car manufacturer and made copies of the info required to do this (or aquired a set of the nice plastic outlines they use to make the keys) and happened to have a keymaker, we're talking maybe 5 minutes from reading VIN to having a key.
Easy to do to a car in a parking lot. That whole "prove you own the car" thing only makes you feel safe...it's not 100%.
One of the things I like most about incandesant lights is that I can dim them. Call me ignorant, but is there a simple way to make a drop-in replacement LED "bulb" that will dim with traditional dimmers (which we know work by turning the light on and off, being off longer for dimmer lights).
If you can't dim them they're not going to be largely accepted and adopted, even at relitavely cheap price points.
Anyone care to clue me in as to if there are products like this or not yet? If so, if not - how would this work.
"Really asshole? What protections were available before it's passing?"
Ummm, try going to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. That's served me pretty well as a way to protect myself from these "horrible" smokers and their exhaust.
Slashdot Mirror
Go to Best Buy, CompUSA, Circuit City, or (enter long list of other stores here) and just buy one off the shelf.
What phone are you using with the 5450 and how do you like it?
Here is a better URL to info on the book I recommend...
http://www.urbancure.org/book/index.html
Bob, It's funny..
7 85 262199
You speak the common sense of our founding fathers (who would agree on the Fed, Gov't Welfare, and minimization of government) yet there are people like Mark who will likely give lip service to (individual) freedom and compassion for others but who are, in reality, fighting against freedom and compassion.
We aren't free when the government defines compassion/welfare and forces us to participate by steeling from us. Government subsidies, at all levels (welfare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare) are enslaving us all.
Mark wants to be enslaved, but you, bob, are my true friend because you want both of us to be free.
If anyone reading this wants to educate themselves on this subject, please read this book (while focusing on welfare - which directly effected her as she is from the ghetto and was on it for 6-7 years, the idea does apply to other subsidies which she does touch on):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0
Too bad the SCOTUS just told us we have no First Amendment rights - because (to be unsuccessful) "campaign finance reform" is more important. I never thought the SCOTUS could LEARN from a socialist publication - but I guess that has become the case here.
"What country is this? Moldova and Byelorussia do not count as part of "Europe" as the rest of us understand it, really. I don't know what part of "Europe" you've been hanging out in..."
If there was any wonder why much of the rest of the world views Western Europeans as a bunch of snobs, the parent post should have cleared that up for you. (I'm not saying all Western Eupropeans are snobs...but there is definatly an issue with people like the parent poster making it look that way to outsiders.)
You don't hear U.S. residents or Canadians going around saying "Mexico doesn't count as part of 'North America' as I understand it." Damn straight they're on the same continent as the US and Canada.
It's absolutely stupid/ignorant/arrogant/bigoted to say that a country is not located on the same continent (WHEN IT IS) just because they're poor or have some other non-geographical trait that scares you or makes you somehow ashamed to acknowledge (the truth) that Moldova is even on the same continent as your beloved country.
I think you've got the wrong picture of me. EIB network? I didn't know what that was - had to go look it up. Am I going to get addicted to pain killers? Not likely, I've got more of a sense of personal responsibility than that. (I'm not a Rush sympathizer - He is no more a victim than a burgler who gets shot breaking into someone's home - he brought it on himself through personal decisions in which he was too stupid/weak-willed to make a good decision.)
... and I don't see a better replacement in the democratic candidates currently looking to sit in the oval office...but it's not because I pull a blanket over my eyes or tote a part line. I guess my tiff with Bush is that he's not as convicted as I expected him to be on certain things (named above) - and on those things he's hard to differentiate from democrats (who I disagree with on a lot more issues).
I'm also not a die-hard Republican-or-Bush-no-matter-what kind of guy. I'm for smaller government, much lower taxes, civil rights, etc. You bet it pisses me off to see bills like the Pariot Act (clinton also did his share of power grabbing), Bush increasing social welfare programs instead of killing them (dems would do more of this), spending too much money, supporting the assault weapons ban (dems would do this), etc.
I admit I still think this is better than what we'd have with Gore in office
"This so-called recovery has been going on for well over a year, and only now are jobs beginning to be created. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of 'jobless recovery'."
Actually, If you knew much about economics, you'd know that unemployment is a "lagging economic indicator"...meaning the economy begins to improve before you see a decrease in unemployment. I know it sounds really strange/backward...but that perception can't change this fact.
If this is a jobless recovery? That remains to be seen. I doubt it it is/will be. I think many areas of our economy have corrected themselves, shed waste, made correct steps to increase/sustain productivity, etc...and we'll see non-trivial job creation in this recovery.
One other thing, I think many people are short-sichted...complaining when war takes longer than a month or the economy takes longer than a year to turn. These things take time. An economic recession or boom feeds more of the same. If you're losing your job, you're spending less, people are making less, and they need to lay off more. It takes a bit of time to turn something like that around (especially since while our economy was in this decline we had the added "insult to injury" of the WTC attacks).
Hazman, If you don't want your next two posts to be completely wrong too, you might want to visit google. The first result for "income tax brackets" is http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/ which will be helpful in getting a basic understanding (though you can count on these rates changing every year). These are just "income" tax...so they don't represent the other taxes taken out of your paycheck like social security, etc.
demaria, you never indicated your tax bracket, but it's obvious that if you're single you make between $26k and $63k. LOL - that's one pretty specific guess huh?
"Hey 'Discontinent Conservative'...Now go and change your Depends"
I think you mean incontinent. Again, I'd like to encourage you to get a little more education. It just might help when you're trying to make a point or insult someone.
Oh, BTW, I'm talking about the 2001 Bush tax cuts, not the 2003 Bush tax cuts ("Jobs & Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003"). This newer tax law is effective for 2003 and 2004. Details:
-$600 child tax credit increased to $1000 (I've got no kids, so no dice for me).
-Increased the "standard deduction" for married people filing together from $7950 to $9500. (Not that it matters much to me as I'll still probably be itemizing / using the long form...but maybe this will change that.)
- Changes 15% bracket so that the top end is $23k for separate filings and $47k for joint filings...instead of $23k for joint filings (removes the "marriage tax penalty for SOME people" - again, not for me).
- Accelerate the tax reductions %ages (my previous post mentioned the end-state tax rates...those are phased in. The rates for 2002 were 10, 15, 27, 30, 35, and 38.6.).
- Increases the "alternative minimum tax amount"
- and some other stuff like capital gains, dividend, and depreciation stuff.
"Well, by my calculations, assuming the reason for your tax rate reduction was soley due to the 'rebate' of $300, your income is only $10,000 dollars a year."
Well, by my calculations you're an idiot. The "rebate" was a one-time deal to get SOME of the tax cut into people's pockets before the next April when they filed their returns. The tax cuts were not $300 for everyone, but percentage cuts (and yes, the cuts effected all income levels).
So, the guy who said it changed his rate from 28% to 25% is not making $10k as you calculate...and will definately recieve more than $300/year from these tax cuts. He was also correct at the rates, where you were way off. The previous tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent were replaced by a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.
Instead of mocking people who are happy about the much-needed reduction in tax rates who might have voted for Bush, and using your own ignorance to back it up...you might want to actually educate yourself on the matter.
It's amazing what information and simple logic can produce (understanding maybe?). You should try it sometime.
I remember the crappy Compaqs (bought a consumer-level Compaq laptop several years ago to send oversees to someone and was horrified at the speed (much faster processer than my then Winbook, much slower computer - go figure). Same story from what I understand for their consumer-level PCs of that era. I even think HP went through that same thing a couple years back with their PCs.
Now it seems they're both pretty darn good. I've used both recently and the performance/price seems to be where it should be.
BTW, I was helping a friend shop for PCs (explaining HD, RAM, CPUs, etc). We priced computers with the same specs (memory, HD, CPU, OS, etc) at gateway.com, dell.com, and shopping.hp.com. The Gateway (which I never would buy, but wanted to check out of curiousity) and the HP (pavillion) were within $10. The Dell was a couple hundred more, but came with a "free" cheap-ass printer and a kodak digital camera. I guess I'd say they're all about equil, which wasn't what I was expecting.
What I noticed looking at those catalogs from Dell and HP is that Dell starts cheaper, but you generally don't get as much of a PC to start (HPs usually start with 256mb of RAM, Dells start with 128, Dell wants $20 or so to upgrade to an optical mouse, etc)...but they have these promotions like the mentioned "free" camera (which if you want is a good deal...but in the end you're really just paying more for more - simple economics at work I guess).
I have a HP DE100c (they were discontinued around the time of the merger). It's great 40GB HD, cd burner (can write CDs of MP3s or audio CDs from your MP3 collection), networkable (there is a SMB share that contains a folder where you can upload music to it, and one where you can download music to is).
When you stick a CD in it it goes out and checks CDDB for the artist, album, track titles, etc and displays them on the display (and on the TV via video out). Then you just hit record and they're converted to MP3 and stored on the HD. It has an optical and coax digital out, you can record to MP3s from analog sources, etc.
It is built on RedHat Linux with some sort of SW from RealNetworks helping it do it's charm. It does Internet Radio and there are USB ports that allow for a keyboard (makes typing in unknown CD info faster) and uploading to one of several supported portable MP3 players. These and other features were obviously lining it up to become a device people would use to sample and purchase music online (from an appliance/sterio component, not on a computer, and it updated itself with new features at night by phoning home).
Anyway, I obviously love mine...it's bee good to me. If you Google for "HP DE100c" you'll find there are many people who have now hacked it (they did a decent job of locking people out of the HD) and are doing things like installing ApacheMP3 so they can stream MP3s (so they can enjoy their music when they're not at home).
I still think you're missing the point. People always talk about how many people are killed by guns, but that's only a slice of what needs to be considered. There is a lot of value in guns as a deterrant to violent crime. The news never reports on people who defend themselves with a gun unless that gun was actually fired (cause then it's exciting). Pulling a gun on an intruder, etc is a much more common occurance in the US than most people think. Guns are used to stop crime and murder in the US far more than they're used to comit those crimes.
The fallacy in your logic is that you're trying to look at gun crime and gun ownership in a silo - as though guns can only be used to comit crime and not prevent it. If that were the case, cops would not carry guns. The fact is, guns are a useful tool, like encryption, and we don't want to make them illegal cause then we eliminate the good things they provide (guns providing safety, encryption providing privacy to lessen things like credit card fraud). Making them illegal will also fail to stop getting the "bad guys" from using them...cause you can make your own encryption and you can make your own guns.
There are benefits to encryption and there are benefits to guns, just like there is a benefit to a free society. There are costs to all of these, but the benefits far outweigh the costs
Non-gun violent crime is effected by gun ownership rates - you have to consider violent crimes in guaging at the efficacy of gun ownership / carry by the general populace. That is the point.
That's the dumbest comparison I've ever heard of. Guns are banned in DC - so generally the law-abiding people are prime for the killing, beating, mugging, robbing, etc. - just like the UK.
Why don't you compare Wyoming with the UK, or if you want a more-populated area, Florida or Virginia - all of which have pretty-permissive gun laws?
Also, it's important to focus on more than just murder, but also look at violent crime (muggings, hot burgluries, etc) - which is where the UK really has skyrocketing rates.
The government is and will be mostly ineffective in fighting terrorism as long as we are an open society (have freedoms). Going half way - giving up some rights and powers to the government - does not make them effective cause they don't go all the way.
I don't want to give them absolute power (cause history shows it will eventually be used to effectively terrorize a given subset of the population). Thus you've only gained that safety for a specific period, and set yourself up for a complete lack of safety later.
It's also 100% contrary to the Constitution and what this country (don't confuse country with government) is about.
I prefer to give the power to the people (to speak about what they see, bear arms, defend themselves, have privacy and fair trials, vote, etc). The people is where it rightly belongs. I understand that having us, the people, retain the power does involve some risk - and it also requires people to be vigilant in order to keep those rights. However, I don't think any other choice is a sane one.
There is no middle ground because a middle ground is where people lose rights with no gain (just like Ben Franklin said RE giving up rights for safety, and getting neither).
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan
We need to put an end to this aweful cycle.
You missed your mark - it helps to read the immediate context, not just skim the subheading and make assumptions.
They're clearly talking about fat-client/server computing. It would be like if your health care provider made you download and run a specific client to access your benefits information. Things are generally not done that way. In today's world you generally use a standard client (web browser) to access your benefits information, etc.
There are obvious exceptions (kazaa is fat-client, outlook, etc), but generally specialized fat clients really are a submerging technology. They'll always exist for certain things.
On the other hand, if you're going to develop internal client/server programs in your company for normal data access - you're going to want to put the intelligence on the server and use PHP or something to build the logic and interface into a web server. This saves you the hassle of creating (and later maintaining/updating/supporting) a specialized client for that one application.
It's so nice to read responses from the clueful.
"Raise your hands, you unemployed geeks who would jump at the chance of becoming paid-for spammer hunters."
While there is a part of me (of all of us) that starts to consider this idea, do you not believe something like this would end up making it not only possible for "grandma" to get punished for her email, but would provide economic encentive for her grandkids to turn her in?
It's thinking like this that helped Hitler round up his innocent victims.
Spam sucks, I know, but do we really need government keeping that close of an eye / control over the most powerful mechanism for (what could otherwise be free-as-in-speech) speech?
I once saw this locking mailbox that had a compartment below it that you could probably get a 1'x1'x2' box into...so UPS, etc had a place to securely put the smaller shipments. It wouldn't go on a pole, but was freestanding about the height of a regular mailbox. Another option this place had was putting a larger door, like the lower one, that you could build into the wall of your garage so UPS, etc could drop boxes into your garage.
Anyone know where these can be found...I don't remember?
Yah, it might be hard to show proof of ownership to the dealer and get the key made. However, if you worked at a dealership/car manufacturer and made copies of the info required to do this (or aquired a set of the nice plastic outlines they use to make the keys) and happened to have a keymaker, we're talking maybe 5 minutes from reading VIN to having a key.
Easy to do to a car in a parking lot. That whole "prove you own the car" thing only makes you feel safe...it's not 100%.
One of the things I like most about incandesant lights is that I can dim them. Call me ignorant, but is there a simple way to make a drop-in replacement LED "bulb" that will dim with traditional dimmers (which we know work by turning the light on and off, being off longer for dimmer lights).
If you can't dim them they're not going to be largely accepted and adopted, even at relitavely cheap price points.
Anyone care to clue me in as to if there are products like this or not yet? If so, if not - how would this work.
Thanks.
"Really asshole? What protections were available before it's passing?"
Ummm, try going to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. That's served me pretty well as a way to protect myself from these "horrible" smokers and their exhaust.