He asked for opinions on a technical solution, not for parenting advice.
Good job on the cursing and name calling though. Having a temper tantrum like a child who isn't used to being told no isn't a very effective way of getting anyone to take you seriously.
So after logging into his spy monitor he sees a moving dot on a road. Then what? He still doesn't know what happened. He still has to call the school. He's panicking even more by now, and from the original post, he seems very ready to jump to the worst possible conclusions on the least evidence.
Or, he calls the school, they know what bus services that area, they call the driver. Easy. All this assumes he doesn't just call the kid directly, although when my daughter was in school she had to turn the ringer off on her phone during the day and it was hit or miss that she'd remember to turn it back on.
Your kid will hate you for this should you ever try to do it.
Not only did mine not hate me for it, she was damn happy when shortly after she got her drivers license and got lost that I was able to bring up her location and give her directions to get back on track. Just because you have the ability to track someone doesn't mean you have to be a creep and use it all the time, just show a little self control and common sense. If there's a problem, it's there, if there isn't, why would you spend your time tracking them?
Yeah, kids hate it when you give them cellphones
I don't know where you live, but around me I dare you to find a kid over the age of 10 who doesn't have a phone. Quite frankly it seems like most people I know start hearing the kids start pleading for their own phones by 7 or 8, some get them, some don't.
Who's talking about cellphones? He said a GPS tracker, "placed on her". She'll feel like a tagged animal or a convict; when her friends find out they'll certainly make her feel that way.
He asked for a solution. A cellphone fits almost every aspect of his requirements list. I'm not sure he fully understands that GPS itself is passive, which means a homebrew solution is pretty unlikely though since he'd still need a transmitter of some kind, but I didn't get anything from his question that suggested to me that he intended to implant or handcuff something to the kid.
I have an 11-year-old daughter. If I was worried about her getting on the wrong bus, I'd spnd half an hour talking to her about what to do. I might go along with her and talk to the driver myself and make sure he could be trusted him to help. I wouldn't tell her I'm going to inject a GPS tracker/strap it on her ankle or whatever. If she's old enough to go to school by herself, she can handle this without calling in SWAT.
And that's great for *you*. Just as nobody should be trying to force you to have a tracking system for you daughter, where do you get off telling everyone else that since you don't think it's necessary they're basically all idiots for wanting it themselves?
And as with all these "Ask Slashdot", I wonder if any of it is true, or if the whole scenario was crafted to hit hot buttons. "A Linux based solution"? WTF?
I'll agree with you there. Considering some of the questions I've seen lately they should rename the section "Things I could figure out for myself if I would just Google for it for 3 minutes". Oh well, it worked, and we both read the stupid thing.
How would your device help your kid after she got on the wrong bus? Will you intercept it in your Batmobile?
I dunno, maybe he'd just like to know where the kid actually is when they aren't at their bus stop when the bus they're supposed to be on drives away without them stepping off of it.
Worst case she spends an hour sitting on a bus till it gets back to the terminal and she gets the right one, or you pick her up.
And he gets to spend a wonderful hour (at least) of calling all over the school district trying to find out just where his kid is, and enjoying the gnawing (although unlikely) feeling that something horrible has happened, rather than looking at a screen and calling the school to say "It looks like you put little Billy on the wrong bus. Right now it's at 5th and Main, what's the best way to fix this?".
Doesn't warrant surgical implantation.
How the hell did you come up with this? He said he wanted a small, unobtrusive device. He didn't say anything about sharpening up his home-doctor kit to play experimental surgeon on the kid. Personally, I came away thinking cellphone.
School bus drivers do know how to handle kids who get the wrong bus.
Your kid will hate you for this should you ever try to do it.
Yeah, kids hate it when you give them cellphones. I always hear them whining, "God mom, I can't believe you gave me my own phone. I totally don't want one of these. Now I'll have to like talk to my friends and send text messages whenever I want. I totally hate you!"
yeah, but in the tradition of the free-market system, eventually only the best dictatorship will rise to the top based on it's superior dictatorial system, it'll just take a little time for market forces to bring that out....
I'm not sure this is all that great of an example. The two gun owners involved in the incident are cops: "Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[5] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[6] pulled his.357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe."
Not to take anything away from these guys for responding, but usually when talking about armed citizens stopping crime, I'd expect examples to be civilians, not trained police officers.
Oh come on, just because their priorities are different from yours they aren't automatically stupid. A parent might write something similar:
"The devices in question, such as the boosted wifi routers, are programmed to automatically increase their output levels and blast through any interference (i.e. their owners response to interference is to increase the transmitters broadcast power and shout louder to be overheard by the intended recipient above the rest of the noise). The devices are programmed for maximum rudeness because the customers (pasty nerds who need a 24/7 link to World of Warcraft) wouldn't stand for any lag in their video stream from Hulu or on their Skype calls to Domino's Pizza. The only reliable way to shut these people up is to get a signal booster that allows one to "increase the power" on the baby monitor and hope that the slashdot crowd isn't smart enough to realize that they're not the only ones who can boost a signal".
Now, I obviously wouldn't agree with a post like that, but to the hypothetical parent it would make just as much sense as yours.
Also, and this part isn't directed at you in particular, but why the outrage specifically at baby-monitors? Wouldn't the wireless security cameras and "rear-bumper cams" that you can buy at any big-box store cause exactly the same interference? For that matter, I seem to recall almost the exact same story about the controllers used by XBoxes not too long ago. Seems to me the outrage should be directed at sloppy use of radio frequencies in general, and not people who are buying a product that they feel fills a need that they have. They're not engineers, but (in theory) the people who make these things are.
Are you attempting to claim you were the AC? Anyways, the views where not of the AC's own, the AC won't even comment on them, and if the AC commented on them we still wouldn't know anything because people post AC in order to hide their identity and say things that can't or would be difficult to trace back to them. I'm not so sure why you are claiming the AC is some ultra upstanding citizen who shouldn't be questioned. I mean fuck, he posted anonymously so none of his statements could be connected to him, he parroted something Warren Buffet has said and the democrats have heralded as some sort of battle cry when they think rich is anyone making a living and they need to tax them back into poverty just to claim they are helping the poor.
The AC didn't believe that way, he was brainwashed into it. I can tell this because while it isn't exactly plagiarism, it is 90% of what has already been said in an effort to push a political agenda. I'm not sure why you're so upset over calling a spade a spade.
Okay, so you took two paragraphs to dance around the actual question and buried your answer in the middle of a rant. I asked how it was plagiarism, and ultimately you admitted it isn't. Two words would have sufficed. Oh, and where did I suggest that I was the AC? This is an open forum, I saw a thread I felt like commenting on. That's all there is to it.
There is no delusion on my part. You don't hide your income to escape higher taxes then claim your not paying enough taxes. That's a fucking oxymoron is there ever was one. Because you know asshats like that doesn't change this issue. It's like you hoarding all the water during an emergency and then claiming it should be illegal for others to hoard clean drinking water. Do you see where that just isn't right?
It's not about deductions either. Do you even know what tax structure is or the concept we are looking at? We will focus on Buffet because those words were his originally. Buffet didn't take a deduction, he structured his income from Berkshire Hathaway so that he specifically pays only half the taxes he would otherwise pay if he would have taken a regular paycheck. This is all before deductions and any other bullshit. This is why he is paying less and it has nothing to do with raising taxes to the level that was in place when Clinton was in office. It's a direct manipulation to avoid paying what everyone else pays in taxes and he's claiming he should be paying more. Well, the answer is to stop manipulating your income structure to evade the regular tax rates and you would be paying more.
Your own sources are where the issue of deductions came from. If you didn't want to use them, why did you supply them? As far as the way he structures his earnings, I wouldn't call it "hiding" the money if everyone knows where it is and how much there is. Once again, you don't like the rules of the game, you try to get the rules changed. You don't go after particular individuals and say that they're a problem because playing by the rules isn't good enough. Buffet proposes changing the rules, and says he'll follow them. Until he does otherwise, he's in-bounds.
I think you have a serious comprehension problem and are probably reading your own thoughts into the mix without realizing that you only imagined I said something. The central point is that it's disingenuous to claim you should be doing X when you are given the choice between X and Y and you avoid X. That's like becoming a pastor and refusing to believe in god because no one else you know does but you are charged with bringing people to GOD.
Nonsense. This game has rules. You can suggest changes to a rule before going off and applying it only to yourself, no hypocrisy involved. Hypocrisy would be to get the rule changed, and then ignore it, not the other way around.
If it was as simple as everyone plays by the same rules, then I would be fine with i
He can agree all he wants. The problem isn't his opinion or agreement as much as it is his plagiarism and pretending that it's his own words.
Okay then, let's start there. If this is plagiarism, supply the original quote that was copied. Not a similar sentiment, but the quote that was copied. That would be plagiarism, otherwise, it's just a similar viewpoint. I think vanilla ice cream is good. Have I just "plagiarized" everyone who made this discovery before me, or is it possible I came to this conclusion on my own.
You don't find it just a bit suspect that about everyone who says we need to pay more in taxes in the same ways the AC did, has either legally or illegally taken specific steps to avoid just that? You don't find it just a bit suspect that those same people were made aware of what they already knew in that they could pay extra at any time and refused to do so but they claim it's their "moral duty" to pay more. It's complete fucking hogwash.
I would if I were as deluded as you are, but I'm not. Again, I know plenty of people who hold this view. They make the amounts that would put them in the tax brackets that would actually go up. They don't have a problem with the taxes going back up to the rates under Clinton (which is what the AC specifically mentioned), or even a little higher. And scream it all you want, but legitimate deductions are okay. If you want to argue otherwise, go find someone else to do it with, because I see no moral or ethical dilemma with using them.
The dense part is that you refuse to understand that these people are not advocating their taxes go up, they are advocating that your taxes go up.
Really? So Buffet's point that he should be paying a higher rate than his secretary was actually code for his secretary should be paying a higher rate? Aside from that, the AC specifically talked about higher rates for high-income earners. So how, exactly, would my taxes go up while theirs don't? And for the love of god, leave legal and legitimate deductions out of it. I can do those too, and so can you.
I didn't say that anything Buffet was doing was illegal or immoral, I said it goes counter to what he has said.
That seems to be your central point. I disagree, get over it. I still don't think you understand the basic principle that's being discussed. He's not talking about everyone simply giving extra. He's talking about revamping the tax system to be more equatable. Once again, the system has to be structured so that everyone plays by the same rules, otherwise paying extra is a futile and pointless gesture.
The man is a hypocrite pushing party policy under the false premise of his own beliefs. He didn't say he thought everyone else should be paying more, he said he thought HE SHOULD BE PAYING MORE then using that as justification to why others should be paying more.
He said that he, and others like him, should be taxed at a higher rate. He specifically cited that he felt it was unfair that his secretary should be taxed at nearly 30%, while people like himself are taxed at closer to 20%. Why is this so offensive to you? Do you not believe that multi-millionaires should pay a higher rate than the middle class, or do you just not think that multi-millionaires should talk about it?
You need to learn a little about sarcasm and conjunctive dissociation. I was directly attacking the AC in order to provoke a reply from him.
I know exactly what you were doing. It was stupid, rude, and pointless. Perhaps if you engaged the AC a little more politely, rather than behaving like an ass, you would have gotten more out of him, assuming he even read your comment.
Your probably one of those people who walk around complaining about how unfree you are in today's society but yell the loudes
It makes complete sense. You have someone who is parroting something someone else said in an effort to spread propaganda and gain support for something that they felt otherwise wouldn't have it. It would be different if the AC used his own words, but he didn't, he use the words of someone else changed slightly. The messenger was a tool attempting to turn people like you. Pointing that out is completely valid.
Or, he simply agrees. I really don't know what you're going for here. Why exactly can't he agree with Buffet? You seem to disagree with him. Does that mean you're just a tool attempting to turn people like me against that idea? What's up with the "people like you" thing anyway? Guess what, you don't impress me much, so don't think you're somehow here to enlighten me. At best you're a passing distraction.
You don't need to believe everything I say, but you at least should have the knowledge about what was said. What I mean by that is, if I say X and X is a strawman or a bastardization of something else in an attempt to fool you, then you knowledge of that helps you decide whether or not my statement can persuade you to my line of thinking. It doesn't matter who tells you what's up, what's important is that you know of it.
You haven't demonstrated that the AC is trying to fool anyone. You seem to think he is, but that's not the same thing as it actually being true.
It means that everyone else who has parroted those same words or some close incarnation to them has been a hypocrite in practice. Most of them have been so hypocritical that they have been caught cheating on their taxes. So to say "I can pay more and think I should pay more" but when presented with the opportunity, you you do the exact opposite, shows that your not sincere about your position or the statement in question. I'm sorry that you can't see that. I'm also sorry that you couldn't see my sarcasm was being hypocritical in the example of using more fossil fuels then anyone else while telling everyone else they need to cut back. It's the Do as I say, not as I do syndrome which is completely wrong.
You really don't understand the concept. People who say this aren't saying that they volunteer to pay some arbitrary amount over their taxes just for the hell of it. They're saying that they can afford an increase, and that rather than whining about it they'll go along with that increase. Are you being deliberately dense on this point, or do you just not understand?
Lol.. Are you that out of touch with reality? I mean this is common knowledge but if you really do need a picture drawn [arohanvalue.com] or someone else to do the google finger for you, I guess I can. Warren Buffets financial structure is so public knowledge that investment strategies of just doing what he does has been created and Buffet has actually allowed access to his transactions to let this happen. He actually publicly admitted to this in his famous statement "I pay less taxes them my secretary" [timesonline.co.uk] where he went on to show how he protects or shelters income from taxes "legally" and eventually to the same statement the AC posted.
Okay, so you have sources, you just don't understand them. The first link says this about his taxes: "Mr Buffett will only pay taxes if he sells his equity (again, the fact that his charitable actions have helped him avoid taxes altogether is besides the point)". Why is this bad? Until he sells his equity, that value is not money. He can't go to BestBuy and spend his equity. Once he sells it, he'll owe taxes on it, but until that happens, it's potential money, not actual money. As for the charitable deductions, again, what's wrong with that? Our tax code allows for it for a reason. If he's donating so much to charity that it's greatly reducing his tax burden, that means he's giving away a vast amount of money that the government recognizes as b
The reason they were brought up was to show the intent of the messenger. And yes, to put it too your analogy with the murderers, it would mean suspect the messenger so if John Wayne Gacy did say murder was wrong, we could correctly suspect him of being a murderer.
That makes no sense. In this case, the "messenger" was the AC. Unless you can prove that the AC is either of the people you mentioned, their comments are irrelevant.
Yea, and me driving my SUV around from airport to airport and jetting around the country or world while I leave all the light on at my mansion so it draws more electricity then all my neighbors combined to say "you have to curb your carbon emissions to save the world" is not just a bit hypocritical.
The fucks don't practice what they preach and you don't find that Odd or disingenuous? The poster said he could pay more as the reason why others like him should pay more. If he isn't going to lead by example then it's pointless to take him seriously. Perhaps you can be fooled by smooth talk, but I will always look a gift horse in the mouth just to make sure there aren't any Trojans hiding.
What the hell does this have to do with the conversation at hand? You seem to be going for a "rich people all suck" thing, and if that's it, this conversation is pointless because it's not hard to find specific examples of bad behaviour. That still does not invalidate the idea that there are people who have high incomes and support paying higher tax rates.
So you took a generalization and think it will disprove everything else. Well, here is the proof, look at Warren Buffet who originated the statement the AC bastardized. He doesn't pay anything extra plus he structures his income to eliminate a good portion of his tax obligation. Oh, there is Ted Kennedy and a host of politicians who believe the same. I also find it interesting that the politicians in the party claiming to be helping the poor the most seem to have the least charitable contributions. Well, on the national and presidential levels anyways.
Cite specifics or don't waste my time. I'm not here to research your arguments for you.
Do you think I'm an idiot because you want to act like one? We aren't talking about taking the child tax credit here. We are talking about creating trusts and holding companies to funnel money through in order to manipulate tax obligations and lower the effective tax rates. That is completely counter to supporting a higher tax rate.
Again, just because *some* people abuse the system does not mean *everyone* does. I know plenty of people who have high six and even seven figure incomes and they do not have dummy holding companies.
It's not about you knowing or even me knowing. It's about someone who knows him knowing and calling him out on it. You see, when you attribute false information to trick someone, you will succeed in tricking someone. But when you attribute your name to it or some identifiable mark that can be traced back to you, someone who knows the information to be false will come by and notice all the lies. That means poof, the jig is up and he is busted which is what they wanted to avoid.
If you're just going to invent your own backstory for an AC, why bother replying to them at all? You're not calling this guy out on anything here, since as you said, you have no idea who he is so therefore your speculations about his motives are completely pointless.
And yes, there are people on Slashdot who know both of us if not personally at least to a point that they remember previous posts that may have been different. I remember seeing you being dupped [slashdot.org] into replying to a few contrived posts [slashdot.org] on here. Some of them recently. So the point isn't that you or I would know personally, it would be that someone could know either personally
First of all, I don't think "contrived" means what you think it means. Saying that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people is a valid opinion, just one you don't seem to agree with.
Next, why bother bringing up a couple of people who claimed to believe similarly to the AC but didn't? Would you say murder is okay because until they got caught the Boston Strangler and John Wayne Gacy said murder was wrong? The philosophy isn't tainted just because someone tried to use it as camouflage for their activities.
Anyways, here is the problem. You keep using the word I. In everything you say, it's all about you. So why are you trying to impose this idea of yours into others? If you don't pay enough taxes and that's your honest believe [...snip irrelevant nonsense...] there is a process where you can donate more then what your allowed.
That's just silly. You can support higher taxes without taking it upon yourself to simply pay more than is required. One person paying a few thousand extra is not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. It just doesn't scale that way. The AC would be an idiot to simply pay more while nobody else does. As far as the AC "imposing" his view on others, he's not. He's sharing his view. If enough people agree with that view, it gets adopted as a general rule for everyone. This is part of living in a society. If that system doesn't work for you, I would suggest you may like Somalia. They don't have one of those evil government things there, they all get to do whatever they like. Personally, I don't think that sounds all that great, but that's just me.
In fact, everyone who claimed they can or should pay more taxes fail to pay more then they have to and most of them have structured their income to the point that most of their tax obligation is negated or they just cheat and don't report the income.
Citation needed. Good luck being able to prove "everyone", or even "most" do this. Some do, some don't.
And when you and others do your taxes, why is it that you always attempt to take as many deductions as possible? Your entire statement was about how you feel, and how you do whatever but it's nothing more then lip service.
What's wrong with legitimate deductions? They exist for a reason. Again, you can support a higher tax rate while taking deductions without a conflict. Abuse of deductions are an entirely different story, but since you have no proof that the AC has done this, it's irrelevant. By the way, someone with a very high income can take quite a few deductions and still pay more in taxes than the average person makes in a year. This isn't an either-or issue.
You posted AC so no one who knows you will chime in with the truth of you making 35k a year with a wife and 2 kids and don't even pay a 10% effective tax rate.
Or he's a middle-manager making a low six-figures, or Warren Buffet, or even Jimmy Buffet. Even if he did post under his regular name, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. I have no idea what you make, even though you didn't post AC.
Yeah, it's only torture when other countries do it. When our country does it, it's a valuable interrogation technique.
But hey, just because torture is generally considered an unreliable method of gaining information, why shouldn't we do it anyway? It proves we're tough, right?
That would be why the jets are there. I'm fairly certain that they'd have disabled the jet *long* before it got to NYC if they were off-course, had no permission to take off, etc.
So, just out of curiosity, where exactly would you "disable" a 747 that's taken off from Newark airport that you suspect is going to hit a building in Manhattan? Manhattan is not surrounded by uninhabited fields, it's surrounded by the most densely populated area in the country. If you shoot the plane down, it's probably going to do as much damage when it hits the ground, just not to the exact spot it was initially aimed at.
Way to take part of a sentence out of context. He said:
Basically, losing his Amazon account just made it difficult (but not impossible) to put DRM'ed books on the Kindle.
Specifically referring to DRM'd books. Earlier in the post he said it's not hard to put non-DRM'd content on without an Amazon account.
That's just as dishonest as me saying something like: When asked about the Kindle, PopeRatzo said "product is user-friendly". A ringing endorsement of the Kindle by PopeRatzo, Huzzah!
I've tried it on my Motorola Q9h, using Sprint's EVDO network, and it was awful. The latency and sound quality made it a completely failed experiment. If I want to make an international call, I've been using "Skype-To-Go", which gives you a local number to dial into, which then moves the call to Skype for the next leg of the call. Still uses minutes, but far cheaper than calling France on my regular cell account.....
How's life in the land of "missing the point", population: you.
My first point was: *you* say Catholics are not "true Chritians", they say the same thing about you. Why is *your* interpretation supposed to be the right one? Believe it or not, they're as sure of their position as you are of yours.
Did you know that the Bible is noticeably different to all other books. It contains a lot of prophecies and predictions of the future. For example Micah 5:2 predicts that a ruler from ancient days will be born in Bethlehem - "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days." This was predicted hundreds of years before Jesus was born. The Bible is also the best preserved Historical document from those times. It has been proved right on many details that only one living at the time could have known and the gospels were written within a generation of Jesus' death and so are considered very reliable.
This whole little scree is so dumb it's almost cute. Your book does not predict the future. I can make vague "predictions" all day long, and guess what, later on I can also pick events that sort of match and say "See, nailed it!". As far as a well preserved historical document goes, that's just rubbish. It's been written, re-written and translated so many times that every version you encounter is different. Or are you going to try to tell me that there's no difference between the various Bibles that are out there? Oh, wait, I get it....the version *you* like is the really accurate one, and all the other ones are wrong. Am I getting warm here?
Please remember that we are not good upstanding religious folks but fallen people
Apparently you're not very familiar with the concept of sarcasm.
who need Jesus, just as you do.
Wrong. This is exactly what I meant when I said "Wait, I've got it, how about all of you good upstanding religious folks just keep your mythologies to yourselves and stop worrying about the rest of us. We're fine, really.....". I don't need your fairy tale. Live by any code you want, but please, for the love of his Great and Noodly Majesty, stop trying to tell me I have any need of your delusion of choice.
So you consider yourself to be a member of the religion of not believing in Annubis? How about the religion of not believing in Anansi? Let's not forget the religions of not believing in Apollo, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Eris. If you define all of these as religious beliefs, haven't you watered down the term to the point of near-meaninglessness?
Atheism does not require faith. It is a *lack* of belief in an unsubstantiated claim.
Christians have been locked up and killed for this message by Jews, Romans, Catholics, Communists and Muslims
Um, you know that Catholics are Christians, right? Oh, wait, those must be the "false christians" you mentioned. But wait, they say you're the "false christian"? But at least your watching out against all of those religions that are acts of "rebellion against God". Of course, according to all of them, it's everyone else who's rebelling against god, including you. But of course you're right, because the book you like says you are, but on the other hand, their books say that they're right and......Oh what to do, what to do? Wait, I've got it, how about all of you good upstanding religious folks just keep your mythologies to yourselves and stop worrying about the rest of us. We're fine, really.....
If this entity can teleport a fully functional Kara Thrace and a fully functional like-new Viper into space, there is no consequcnce to anything the characters do. Everything is pointless because the magical being behind the curtain can fiat anything it wants to happen. This makes following the story and the drama pointless.
Who says creating what was apparently a temporary Kara Thrace "construct" requires that something be "all-powerful"? We don't know what exactly she was, only that she was instantiated for an apparently intentionally short period of time. I'm not saying that I think this kind of thing is necessarily possible, but if you'd written a story in the 1600's that featured people looking into glass windows and seeing events that happen thousands of miles away, some critic would call it impossible and silly. We call it television.
Which is basically how religion came about, so I guess I can see why religious people liked it
Why is it that: I can like Star Wars, but nobody thinks I must therefore believe in The Force. I can like Lord of the Rings, but nobody thinks that I must therefore believe in magic, hobbits and dragons. I can like Heroes, but nobody thinks that I must therefore believe in superheroes.....and yet liking Battlestar Galactica and allowing for the idea that some "higher power" can be in the story somehow means I'm religious? By the way, who says that this "higher power" is even supernatural? It could be anything, since it's never completely defined and they actually mention that "it" doesn't like being called God. For all we know, BSG's reality is a copy of "The Sims" that some kid bought at WalMart and is running a "god-mode" patch on, or anything else you can imagine.....
I have an iPAQ hx4700 that has a touchscreen bigger than the iPhone's, a 624MHz CPU, and both SD and CF slots; how about an "app" for that, hmmm, Amazon?
I wouldn't hold my breath, but I've always liked the eReader (available for both Pocket PCs and iPod/iPhone) and the MobiPocket reader (PocketPC, no iPod/iPhone version). Fictionwise.com and ereader.com are both nice online bookstores that support both of those readers.
I'm frankly getting sick of these Apple "there's an app for that" ads, ads that once again twist reality to make it sound like the planets revolve around a big glowing apple rather than the sun. Pretty much every non-3G app that exists for the iPhone would be just as functional and applicable on an hx4700, but Apple doesn't want people to know that.
Really now, why on earth would Apple want to raise awareness of Pocket PC devices? Microsoft isn't some little backwater company operating at a disadvantage here....the PPC has been around for ages, and they've done a rotten job marketing it. Direct your complaints here to MS and HP, it's their job to hype Pocket PCs, not Apple's.....
I'm confused.... How did they attach this ticket to you after you sold/traded in/whatever that car? It would have different license plates than it had when you owned it, or are you talking about a rental?
okay, I have to ask....why on earth would you want to live there? You've just described a place that sounds like it's rife with drug-dealers, junkies and a completely unprofessional police force (which might explain the number of drug-dealers and junkies), so....why? Yeah, the winters here around NYC are rotten, but apart from that it sounds like paradise compared to what you just described. As far as violence in and around NYC goes, I live here, you don't. I can't imagine describing life around here the way you describe it there, so while it's not Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, it's not the violent free-for-all you seem to think is normal either.
Slashdot Mirror
He asked for opinions on a technical solution, not for parenting advice.
Good job on the cursing and name calling though. Having a temper tantrum like a child who isn't used to being told no isn't a very effective way of getting anyone to take you seriously.
Or, he calls the school, they know what bus services that area, they call the driver. Easy. All this assumes he doesn't just call the kid directly, although when my daughter was in school she had to turn the ringer off on her phone during the day and it was hit or miss that she'd remember to turn it back on.
Not only did mine not hate me for it, she was damn happy when shortly after she got her drivers license and got lost that I was able to bring up her location and give her directions to get back on track. Just because you have the ability to track someone doesn't mean you have to be a creep and use it all the time, just show a little self control and common sense. If there's a problem, it's there, if there isn't, why would you spend your time tracking them?
I don't know where you live, but around me I dare you to find a kid over the age of 10 who doesn't have a phone. Quite frankly it seems like most people I know start hearing the kids start pleading for their own phones by 7 or 8, some get them, some don't.
He asked for a solution. A cellphone fits almost every aspect of his requirements list. I'm not sure he fully understands that GPS itself is passive, which means a homebrew solution is pretty unlikely though since he'd still need a transmitter of some kind, but I didn't get anything from his question that suggested to me that he intended to implant or handcuff something to the kid.
And that's great for *you*. Just as nobody should be trying to force you to have a tracking system for you daughter, where do you get off telling everyone else that since you don't think it's necessary they're basically all idiots for wanting it themselves?
I'll agree with you there. Considering some of the questions I've seen lately they should rename the section "Things I could figure out for myself if I would just Google for it for 3 minutes". Oh well, it worked, and we both read the stupid thing.
I dunno, maybe he'd just like to know where the kid actually is when they aren't at their bus stop when the bus they're supposed to be on drives away without them stepping off of it.
And he gets to spend a wonderful hour (at least) of calling all over the school district trying to find out just where his kid is, and enjoying the gnawing (although unlikely) feeling that something horrible has happened, rather than looking at a screen and calling the school to say "It looks like you put little Billy on the wrong bus. Right now it's at 5th and Main, what's the best way to fix this?".
How the hell did you come up with this? He said he wanted a small, unobtrusive device. He didn't say anything about sharpening up his home-doctor kit to play experimental surgeon on the kid. Personally, I came away thinking cellphone.
Which, at best, takes time and leaves him in the position of worrying needlessly, rather than just having the information readily at hand. Maybe the kid gets off at the wrong stop and takes even longer to find, or maybe ends up getting locked in the bus for six hours in an empty parking lot before someone finds him.
Yeah, kids hate it when you give them cellphones. I always hear them whining, "God mom, I can't believe you gave me my own phone. I totally don't want one of these. Now I'll have to like talk to my friends and send text messages whenever I want. I totally hate you!"
yeah, but in the tradition of the free-market system, eventually only the best dictatorship will rise to the top based on it's superior dictatorial system, it'll just take a little time for market forces to bring that out....
I'm not sure this is all that great of an example. The two gun owners involved in the incident are cops: .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe."
"Gross, a police officer with the Grifton Police Department in his home state of North Carolina, retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[5] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, N.C.,[6] pulled his
Not to take anything away from these guys for responding, but usually when talking about armed citizens stopping crime, I'd expect examples to be civilians, not trained police officers.
Oh come on, just because their priorities are different from yours they aren't automatically stupid. A parent might write something similar:
"The devices in question, such as the boosted wifi routers, are programmed to automatically increase their output levels and blast through any interference (i.e. their owners response to interference is to increase the transmitters broadcast power and shout louder to be overheard by the intended recipient above the rest of the noise). The devices are programmed for maximum rudeness because the customers (pasty nerds who need a 24/7 link to World of Warcraft) wouldn't stand for any lag in their video stream from Hulu or on their Skype calls to Domino's Pizza. The only reliable way to shut these people up is to get a signal booster that allows one to "increase the power" on the baby monitor and hope that the slashdot crowd isn't smart enough to realize that they're not the only ones who can boost a signal".
Now, I obviously wouldn't agree with a post like that, but to the hypothetical parent it would make just as much sense as yours.
Also, and this part isn't directed at you in particular, but why the outrage specifically at baby-monitors? Wouldn't the wireless security cameras and "rear-bumper cams" that you can buy at any big-box store cause exactly the same interference? For that matter, I seem to recall almost the exact same story about the controllers used by XBoxes not too long ago. Seems to me the outrage should be directed at sloppy use of radio frequencies in general, and not people who are buying a product that they feel fills a need that they have. They're not engineers, but (in theory) the people who make these things are.
Okay, so you took two paragraphs to dance around the actual question and buried your answer in the middle of a rant. I asked how it was plagiarism, and ultimately you admitted it isn't. Two words would have sufficed.
Oh, and where did I suggest that I was the AC? This is an open forum, I saw a thread I felt like commenting on. That's all there is to it.
Your own sources are where the issue of deductions came from. If you didn't want to use them, why did you supply them? As far as the way he structures his earnings, I wouldn't call it "hiding" the money if everyone knows where it is and how much there is. Once again, you don't like the rules of the game, you try to get the rules changed. You don't go after particular individuals and say that they're a problem because playing by the rules isn't good enough. Buffet proposes changing the rules, and says he'll follow them. Until he does otherwise, he's in-bounds.
Nonsense. This game has rules. You can suggest changes to a rule before going off and applying it only to yourself, no hypocrisy involved. Hypocrisy would be to get the rule changed, and then ignore it, not the other way around.
Okay then, let's start there. If this is plagiarism, supply the original quote that was copied. Not a similar sentiment, but the quote that was copied. That would be plagiarism, otherwise, it's just a similar viewpoint. I think vanilla ice cream is good. Have I just "plagiarized" everyone who made this discovery before me, or is it possible I came to this conclusion on my own.
I would if I were as deluded as you are, but I'm not. Again, I know plenty of people who hold this view. They make the amounts that would put them in the tax brackets that would actually go up. They don't have a problem with the taxes going back up to the rates under Clinton (which is what the AC specifically mentioned), or even a little higher. And scream it all you want, but legitimate deductions are okay. If you want to argue otherwise, go find someone else to do it with, because I see no moral or ethical dilemma with using them.
Really? So Buffet's point that he should be paying a higher rate than his secretary was actually code for his secretary should be paying a higher rate? Aside from that, the AC specifically talked about higher rates for high-income earners. So how, exactly, would my taxes go up while theirs don't? And for the love of god, leave legal and legitimate deductions out of it. I can do those too, and so can you.
That seems to be your central point. I disagree, get over it. I still don't think you understand the basic principle that's being discussed. He's not talking about everyone simply giving extra. He's talking about revamping the tax system to be more equatable. Once again, the system has to be structured so that everyone plays by the same rules, otherwise paying extra is a futile and pointless gesture.
He said that he, and others like him, should be taxed at a higher rate. He specifically cited that he felt it was unfair that his secretary should be taxed at nearly 30%, while people like himself are taxed at closer to 20%. Why is this so offensive to you? Do you not believe that multi-millionaires should pay a higher rate than the middle class, or do you just not think that multi-millionaires should talk about it?
I know exactly what you were doing. It was stupid, rude, and pointless. Perhaps if you engaged the AC a little more politely, rather than behaving like an ass, you would have gotten more out of him, assuming he even read your comment.
Or, he simply agrees. I really don't know what you're going for here. Why exactly can't he agree with Buffet? You seem to disagree with him. Does that mean you're just a tool attempting to turn people like me against that idea? What's up with the "people like you" thing anyway? Guess what, you don't impress me much, so don't think you're somehow here to enlighten me. At best you're a passing distraction.
You haven't demonstrated that the AC is trying to fool anyone. You seem to think he is, but that's not the same thing as it actually being true.
You really don't understand the concept. People who say this aren't saying that they volunteer to pay some arbitrary amount over their taxes just for the hell of it. They're saying that they can afford an increase, and that rather than whining about it they'll go along with that increase. Are you being deliberately dense on this point, or do you just not understand?
Okay, so you have sources, you just don't understand them. The first link says this about his taxes: "Mr Buffett will only pay taxes if he sells his equity (again, the fact that his charitable actions have helped him avoid taxes altogether is besides the point)". Why is this bad? Until he sells his equity, that value is not money. He can't go to BestBuy and spend his equity. Once he sells it, he'll owe taxes on it, but until that happens, it's potential money, not actual money. As for the charitable deductions, again, what's wrong with that? Our tax code allows for it for a reason. If he's donating so much to charity that it's greatly reducing his tax burden, that means he's giving away a vast amount of money that the government recognizes as b
That makes no sense. In this case, the "messenger" was the AC. Unless you can prove that the AC is either of the people you mentioned, their comments are irrelevant.
What the hell does this have to do with the conversation at hand? You seem to be going for a "rich people all suck" thing, and if that's it, this conversation is pointless because it's not hard to find specific examples of bad behaviour. That still does not invalidate the idea that there are people who have high incomes and support paying higher tax rates.
Cite specifics or don't waste my time. I'm not here to research your arguments for you.
Again, just because *some* people abuse the system does not mean *everyone* does. I know plenty of people who have high six and even seven figure incomes and they do not have dummy holding companies.
If you're just going to invent your own backstory for an AC, why bother replying to them at all? You're not calling this guy out on anything here, since as you said, you have no idea who he is so therefore your speculations about his motives are completely pointless.
That is one of the best posts I've read in a while. Thank you.
First of all, I don't think "contrived" means what you think it means. Saying that rich people should pay more taxes than poor people is a valid opinion, just one you don't seem to agree with.
Next, why bother bringing up a couple of people who claimed to believe similarly to the AC but didn't? Would you say murder is okay because until they got caught the Boston Strangler and John Wayne Gacy said murder was wrong? The philosophy isn't tainted just because someone tried to use it as camouflage for their activities.
That's just silly. You can support higher taxes without taking it upon yourself to simply pay more than is required. One person paying a few thousand extra is not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things. It just doesn't scale that way. The AC would be an idiot to simply pay more while nobody else does. As far as the AC "imposing" his view on others, he's not. He's sharing his view. If enough people agree with that view, it gets adopted as a general rule for everyone. This is part of living in a society. If that system doesn't work for you, I would suggest you may like Somalia. They don't have one of those evil government things there, they all get to do whatever they like. Personally, I don't think that sounds all that great, but that's just me.
Citation needed. Good luck being able to prove "everyone", or even "most" do this. Some do, some don't.
What's wrong with legitimate deductions? They exist for a reason. Again, you can support a higher tax rate while taking deductions without a conflict. Abuse of deductions are an entirely different story, but since you have no proof that the AC has done this, it's irrelevant. By the way, someone with a very high income can take quite a few deductions and still pay more in taxes than the average person makes in a year. This isn't an either-or issue.
Or he's a middle-manager making a low six-figures, or Warren Buffet, or even Jimmy Buffet. Even if he did post under his regular name, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. I have no idea what you make, even though you didn't post AC.
Yeah, it's only torture when other countries do it. When our country does it, it's a valuable interrogation technique.
But hey, just because torture is generally considered an unreliable method of gaining information, why shouldn't we do it anyway? It proves we're tough, right?
So, just out of curiosity, where exactly would you "disable" a 747 that's taken off from Newark airport that you suspect is going to hit a building in Manhattan? Manhattan is not surrounded by uninhabited fields, it's surrounded by the most densely populated area in the country. If you shoot the plane down, it's probably going to do as much damage when it hits the ground, just not to the exact spot it was initially aimed at.
Way to take part of a sentence out of context. He said:
Specifically referring to DRM'd books. Earlier in the post he said it's not hard to put non-DRM'd content on without an Amazon account.
That's just as dishonest as me saying something like:
When asked about the Kindle, PopeRatzo said "product is user-friendly". A ringing endorsement of the Kindle by PopeRatzo, Huzzah!
And this passed for insightful
Wait wait wait.....if ever I've seen a need for [CITATION NEEDED], this is it. If this is true, I really want more details.
I've tried it on my Motorola Q9h, using Sprint's EVDO network, and it was awful. The latency and sound quality made it a completely failed experiment. If I want to make an international call, I've been using "Skype-To-Go", which gives you a local number to dial into, which then moves the call to Skype for the next leg of the call. Still uses minutes, but far cheaper than calling France on my regular cell account.....
How's life in the land of "missing the point", population: you.
My first point was: *you* say Catholics are not "true Chritians", they say the same thing about you. Why is *your* interpretation supposed to be the right one? Believe it or not, they're as sure of their position as you are of yours.
This whole little scree is so dumb it's almost cute. Your book does not predict the future. I can make vague "predictions" all day long, and guess what, later on I can also pick events that sort of match and say "See, nailed it!". As far as a well preserved historical document goes, that's just rubbish. It's been written, re-written and translated so many times that every version you encounter is different. Or are you going to try to tell me that there's no difference between the various Bibles that are out there? Oh, wait, I get it....the version *you* like is the really accurate one, and all the other ones are wrong. Am I getting warm here?
Apparently you're not very familiar with the concept of sarcasm.
Wrong. This is exactly what I meant when I said "Wait, I've got it, how about all of you good upstanding religious folks just keep your mythologies to yourselves and stop worrying about the rest of us. We're fine, really.....". I don't need your fairy tale. Live by any code you want, but please, for the love of his Great and Noodly Majesty, stop trying to tell me I have any need of your delusion of choice.
So you consider yourself to be a member of the religion of not believing in Annubis? How about the religion of not believing in Anansi? Let's not forget the religions of not believing in Apollo, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Eris.
If you define all of these as religious beliefs, haven't you watered down the term to the point of near-meaninglessness?
Atheism does not require faith. It is a *lack* of belief in an unsubstantiated claim.
Um, you know that Catholics are Christians, right? Oh, wait, those must be the "false christians" you mentioned. But wait, they say you're the "false christian"? But at least your watching out against all of those religions that are acts of "rebellion against God". Of course, according to all of them, it's everyone else who's rebelling against god, including you. But of course you're right, because the book you like says you are, but on the other hand, their books say that they're right and......Oh what to do, what to do? Wait, I've got it, how about all of you good upstanding religious folks just keep your mythologies to yourselves and stop worrying about the rest of us. We're fine, really.....
I believe the correct term is actually "damaged Cylon" you insensitive frakin' clod.
Who says creating what was apparently a temporary Kara Thrace "construct" requires that something be "all-powerful"? We don't know what exactly she was, only that she was instantiated for an apparently intentionally short period of time. I'm not saying that I think this kind of thing is necessarily possible, but if you'd written a story in the 1600's that featured people looking into glass windows and seeing events that happen thousands of miles away, some critic would call it impossible and silly. We call it television.
Why is it that: ....and yet liking Battlestar Galactica and allowing for the idea that some "higher power" can be in the story somehow means I'm religious? By the way, who says that this "higher power" is even supernatural? It could be anything, since it's never completely defined and they actually mention that "it" doesn't like being called God. For all we know, BSG's reality is a copy of "The Sims" that some kid bought at WalMart and is running a "god-mode" patch on, or anything else you can imagine.....
I can like Star Wars, but nobody thinks I must therefore believe in The Force.
I can like Lord of the Rings, but nobody thinks that I must therefore believe in magic, hobbits and dragons.
I can like Heroes, but nobody thinks that I must therefore believe in superheroes.
I wouldn't hold my breath, but I've always liked the eReader (available for both Pocket PCs and iPod/iPhone) and the MobiPocket reader (PocketPC, no iPod/iPhone version). Fictionwise.com and ereader.com are both nice online bookstores that support both of those readers.
Really now, why on earth would Apple want to raise awareness of Pocket PC devices? Microsoft isn't some little backwater company operating at a disadvantage here....the PPC has been around for ages, and they've done a rotten job marketing it. Direct your complaints here to MS and HP, it's their job to hype Pocket PCs, not Apple's.....
I'm confused....
How did they attach this ticket to you after you sold/traded in/whatever that car? It would have different license plates than it had when you owned it, or are you talking about a rental?
okay, I have to ask....why on earth would you want to live there? You've just described a place that sounds like it's rife with drug-dealers, junkies and a completely unprofessional police force (which might explain the number of drug-dealers and junkies), so....why?
Yeah, the winters here around NYC are rotten, but apart from that it sounds like paradise compared to what you just described.
As far as violence in and around NYC goes, I live here, you don't. I can't imagine describing life around here the way you describe it there, so while it's not Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, it's not the violent free-for-all you seem to think is normal either.