I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor.
Are you implying that if the officers were not trying to catch speeders they would have been able to prevent a "real" crime? How are the police to know when and where a crime is going to occur so they can be there to stop it?
Layoffs, which at least one Yahoo executive had called for, are not in the plans.
Yahoo! also announced that they expect to overtake Google, in both market share and profitability, later this month thanks to their new strategic partnership with Santa Claus. An expected deal with the Easter Bunny should enhance their second quarter results.
It is not an analogy, it is a hypothetical. You do all the work, the investor "just" supplies money. You are well-compensated though the investor makes a lot more money for not doing much more than signing a check (yes, it's a far-out hypothetical--work with me here). Is that "morally repugnant", as the ggp says?
Let's say you invent a Star Trek-like transporter. Well, not invent, actually, because your design is much too expensive to implement with what you have in the bank. You go seeking investors to help you out. Let's say you find a really, really rich one who will fully fund you. One catch: he will fully fund your implementation and pay you $100,000,000 on top of that but he owns the patent. Even if it's a flop, you get to keep your $100,000,000. You like the idea of 100,000,000 risk-free dollars so you take the offer.
Turns out it's not a flop because you're really smart. You have your hundred mil and he has his hundred bil. Is that morally repugnant?
I've always wondered just how effective protests really are.
Say you lived in Texas when Bush invaded Iraq and you opposed it. Chances are you were feeling pretty lonely. Seeing a whole lotta people protesting might not only make you feel less lonely but encourage you to speak out. Nothing will ever lead Dubya to reverse a Custer decision but protests have other effects.
Um, but you know about all this stuff, right? What Congress and the Executive Branch has been doing is stupid but you know about it. It's not like they're hiding their shenanigans, a la Enron. That means they can be voted out of office...if people actually cared enough to.
It is not the unanimous view. You may not like it. You may think it's nuts.
Where did I say or even imply that acceptance of the consensus view is required or that dissenters are branded as looney? All I said was that the consensus view cannot be termed "radical".
As for your claim that environmentalism is a religion--says who? All you do is spit that out without a shred of reasoning behind your assertion--an assertion which is bizarre on its face. There is nothing radical or religious about adhering to the consensus scientific view. Frankly, dogmatic rejection of a consensus scientific view is closer to a religious view, along the lines of creationism. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with minority, dare I say "radical", views but flying in the face of consensus requires a heavy burden of proof.
Quit being so defensive and actually back up your posts.
Presumably you're calling Al Gore a radical environmentalist because he is espousing the current consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming. It is not the unanimous view. You may not like it. You may think it's nuts. However, since it is the consensus view, by definition, it cannot be termed "radical".
I bought a new shredder a few months back (thanks for the bargain, eBay). It's powerful enough to shred the whole envelope and its contents without opening, even with those fake credit cards inside. Junk mail management is now so much easier.
I have a small-ish website that allows people to submit sites that they want listed in my directory (think old Yahoo). I review the sites submitted before adding them so I can make sure the sites are relevant. Robo-spam submission was getting pretty horrible so I switched to a simple captcha script and it stopped all the robo-spam. Problem is, spam is still getting through because humans are still submitting things by hand. Somebody in India, for example, is getting paid to manually submit irrelevant sites to my little weight training site. Wish I could stop it but at least it's better than robo-spam.
Chipped away a little more? Apple owns the market. There is no reason--none--for them to license anything until they have to They are nowhere near that point.
Slashdot Mirror
And you know you are the norm because...?
You still haven't explained by what mechanism artists get paid for used CD sales. Holy Jedi Mind Trick.
Oh please. I went CD-only in January of 1985.
I'd videotape police officers sitting around "radaring" possible speeders in hopes of catching them doing that when a crime may have occurred at the same time -- a real crime with a real victim. Lucky for me, 3 out of 4 times that I caught a cop doing nothing but attempting to produce income for the State there had been a violent crime within 15 minutes of the wasted taxpayer labor.
Are you implying that if the officers were not trying to catch speeders they would have been able to prevent a "real" crime? How are the police to know when and where a crime is going to occur so they can be there to stop it?
Layoffs, which at least one Yahoo executive had called for, are not in the plans.
Yahoo! also announced that they expect to overtake Google, in both market share and profitability, later this month thanks to their new strategic partnership with Santa Claus. An expected deal with the Easter Bunny should enhance their second quarter results.
Your analogy is flawed.
It is not an analogy, it is a hypothetical. You do all the work, the investor "just" supplies money. You are well-compensated though the investor makes a lot more money for not doing much more than signing a check (yes, it's a far-out hypothetical--work with me here). Is that "morally repugnant", as the ggp says?
Let's say you invent a Star Trek-like transporter. Well, not invent, actually, because your design is much too expensive to implement with what you have in the bank. You go seeking investors to help you out. Let's say you find a really, really rich one who will fully fund you. One catch: he will fully fund your implementation and pay you $100,000,000 on top of that but he owns the patent. Even if it's a flop, you get to keep your $100,000,000. You like the idea of 100,000,000 risk-free dollars so you take the offer.
Turns out it's not a flop because you're really smart. You have your hundred mil and he has his hundred bil. Is that morally repugnant?
Why couldn't this device be included in the same monitoring system?
It could but that does not mean that it will. Besides, cameras in patrol cars don't catch everything.
I'm 44 and I can hear it just fine. Please keep that in mind.
I've always wondered just how effective protests really are.
Say you lived in Texas when Bush invaded Iraq and you opposed it. Chances are you were feeling pretty lonely. Seeing a whole lotta people protesting might not only make you feel less lonely but encourage you to speak out. Nothing will ever lead Dubya to reverse a Custer decision but protests have other effects.
I believe that gp meant he was in the middle lane. At least I hope so.
Um, but you know about all this stuff, right? What Congress and the Executive Branch has been doing is stupid but you know about it. It's not like they're hiding their shenanigans, a la Enron. That means they can be voted out of office...if people actually cared enough to.
You can't be free if you are being taken care of by the government.
Remember that the next time you're driving down an Interstate Highway.
Did you actually read my post? Let's review:
It is not the unanimous view. You may not like it. You may think it's nuts.
Where did I say or even imply that acceptance of the consensus view is required or that dissenters are branded as looney? All I said was that the consensus view cannot be termed "radical".
As for your claim that environmentalism is a religion--says who? All you do is spit that out without a shred of reasoning behind your assertion--an assertion which is bizarre on its face. There is nothing radical or religious about adhering to the consensus scientific view. Frankly, dogmatic rejection of a consensus scientific view is closer to a religious view, along the lines of creationism. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with minority, dare I say "radical", views but flying in the face of consensus requires a heavy burden of proof.
Quit being so defensive and actually back up your posts.
Presumably you're calling Al Gore a radical environmentalist because he is espousing the current consensus of the scientific community regarding global warming. It is not the unanimous view. You may not like it. You may think it's nuts. However, since it is the consensus view, by definition, it cannot be termed "radical".
You label Al Gore a radical environmentalist and call it a religion. Blessing your post as "logic" is akin to a Monty Python skit.
Nice try but thanks for playing.
As opposed to Al Gore's brand of authoritarian theocracy.
Please, do tell us about Al Gore's brand of authoriarian theocracy.
D'oh! Must've been temporary because it came up fine when I tried it just now.
I bought a new shredder a few months back (thanks for the bargain, eBay). It's powerful enough to shred the whole envelope and its contents without opening, even with those fake credit cards inside. Junk mail management is now so much easier.
Sorry but as much as it sucked to work there, they had great benefits.
When Mother Teresa died, no one cared.
WTF? You mean other than a full state funeral and a rush to beatification?
While I'm bashing you :-), which of your main achievements (money, fame, beauty) has Linus achieved?
I have a small-ish website that allows people to submit sites that they want listed in my directory (think old Yahoo). I review the sites submitted before adding them so I can make sure the sites are relevant. Robo-spam submission was getting pretty horrible so I switched to a simple captcha script and it stopped all the robo-spam. Problem is, spam is still getting through because humans are still submitting things by hand. Somebody in India, for example, is getting paid to manually submit irrelevant sites to my little weight training site. Wish I could stop it but at least it's better than robo-spam.
Chipped away a little more? Apple owns the market. There is no reason--none--for them to license anything until they have to They are nowhere near that point.
They see the writing on the wall with PlaysForSure, and want to put up some serious competition to the iPod before it's too late.
2004 called to say it's too late.