There's been a website emulating an Acorn Archimedes for ages. Which is a far more interesting machine IMHO.
Than an Amiga? Come now, the Archimedes was pretty vanilla hardware for its day -- it was basically a glorified Apple II with an ARM chip in terms of capability. In comparison, the Amiga's hardware was a generation leap ahead, and its OS was far more modern.
If ITER ultimately leads the way to a marketable fusion reactor I am sure we can either licenses the tech or let foreigners build the plants - far cheaper for the tax payer while supporting our own alternative research.
Two problems with that:
1) How is ITER going to succeed if one of its major contributors pulls out? 2) Are there any domestic programs with a better chance of success and a more concrete plan? (I'm not aware of any.)
I never said anything about anyone's sister; you have confused and blurred people together in your head by not paying close attention. You know, kind of like your entire generalization of women.
No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.
Yeah, find that in the Constitution. The actual text of the clause is "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
You'll note that there is no definition of "regulate" that limits them to only the powers you ascribe. It isn't defined at all, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide, like the vast majority of the Constitution, which was written for a common law system in which courts had long held the role of statutory interpretation. Reasonable readings of the word "regulate" includes far more than just a simple "thumbs up/down for all cell phones." It includes the ability to regulate the types of phones being sold, and that includes mandating certain features -- like requiring seat belts in cars.
For that matter, "Commerce" is not defined anywhere either. The Court has sensibly held that the ability to regulate commerce that crosses state lines must also include the ability to regulate (a) products made from components that cross state lines, (b) the methods of production of a product intended to be sold across state lines, and (c) instances of a product that does not cross state lines if the same product is also sold across state lines by the seller.
So, unless cell phone manufacturers intend to set up an entire supply chain and factory to make a phone which will never be sold outside the state in which it is completely and wholly manufactured from scratch, then interstate commerce applies to it under even a restricted reading. (And it certainly applies the majority of phones made in China and shipped across the country.)
Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?
Really? So, how many women do you know, how many of the women you know are like you, and how many are like your sister? I would be very interested in an honest answer. But, I have a feeling any answer I get will be as honest as what women say when asked what they want in a man.
Besides being patronizing and insulting, your response is essentially, "Counter my generalizations based on anecdotes with anecdotes of your own. Which I won't believe anyway. Because you're a woman, and women lie, in my anecdotal experience."
The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.
Oh yes, they do, and wishful thinking doesn't make Congress's Article I powers go away. They have the right to regulate this under the Interstate Commerce Clause for several reasons:
1) The sale of the physical phones across state lines. 2) The sale of telecom services across state lines. 3) The fact that the phone is a radio transmission device whose signals cross state lines. 4) The fact that some phones are used to conduct business across state lines. 5) The presence of an interstate black market in stolen phones.
And of course, many of these also extend to international commerce. Some of these would be considered straightforward interstate and international commerce even under far more restrictive 19th century precedents.
Fine, if and only if it is also mandatory that a customer be allowed to disable the feature and not activate it. I do not want this on my phone. I consider it remote disabling to be a bigger risk to my enjoyment of my phone than physical theft.
Look, one side thinks America is a pretty spiffy place. The other side thinks it is a genocidal evil empire that can do no good.
You are living in a paranoid delusional fantasy world. I don't think any words can reach you at this point, so I'm going to stop trying after this one last appeal.
You honestly have embraced the idea that anything your side believes is good and anything other side believes is evil and twisted. That right there? That is how nations go mad. When you stop seeing people as *people* and start caricaturing and stereotyping their beliefs as labeling them as evil and stupid, you are just one perilous step removed from declaring that nothing done to these "evil" people can itself be evil. That is where genocides come from. That is where suicide bombers come from. That is where nearly every evil that humans have perpetrated as a group against other humans come from -- from dehumanizing those that are different.
Anyway, liberals don't believe America is an evil empire that can do no good. We just believe it can always be better than it currently is. That American can constantly improve and in fact has done so over the course of history. You see, we don't treat America as some revered ancestor as conservatives do, to always be respected and never be questioned -- as someone to inherit from and to forever stick to the traditions of. We see it as our child. Something we've created together as a people. Something to push to be better and to raise to make us proud. If it does wrong, then that should be acknowledged and not uncomfortably shoved under the rug and forgotten like a grandmother's racism. It should be examined and learned from so that we don't repeat it.
We all love America. It's just that conservatives are proudest of the America that never was, and liberals are proudest of the America that isn't here yet.
I'm not a xenobiologist, but wouldn't a high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmosphere conceivably be home to organisms similar to those that live around deep sea volcanic vents?
A hydrogen-rich atmosphere can better be phrased as "carbon/nitrogen/oxygen-poor." For example Neptune's upper atmosphere is 80% hydrogen and 19% helium. That leaves any life-supporting materials scattered and diffused too thing for life to be likely to exist in any shape resembling Earth biochemistry.
Pressure isn't as big of a problem since you can find a nice pressure at the right distance from the center, but pressures and temperatures near the center are high enough that liquid diamond may be found. We're talking 1000x Earth's. That would also preclude any biochemistry we currently can predict & understand.
That said, your argument is ridiculous. Species go extinct all the time, regardless of human intervention. It's called natural selection and we're not apart from it. If a species goes extinct because of us then it wasnt fit to live. Likewise if something comes along and kills all of us we werent fit to survive. Those are the breaks.
GP isn't making a value judgment like you are. He's making a utility judgment -- that casting away species before being able to assess their value is short-sighted.
That said, your argument is ridiculous if generalized. Just because something happens naturally does not mean it's okay if it happens by human will. Take human deaths, for example.
To save you the immense effort of a Google search, it's block of alum salt used as an alternative deodorant. You can also water-based mister deodorants with the same salts. From my own experience, they work pretty well unless you sweat hard enough to overcome them, at which point they become useless pretty quickly.
Largely used as an alternative to other aluminum-based stick deodorants by people who think that it's less likely to get into your brain and cause Alzheimer's (which is dubious on multiple counts). I used them for a while before settling on a different solution because I was sick of the way stick deodorant gets into the fabric of your shirts.
It doesn't deliver it in any significant quantities. Outlawing e-cigs because of that is like outlawing someone drinking in a bar, because they're exhaling alcohol.
Please. e-Cigarettes produce less nicotine than regular cigarettes (about 10%), but it's still quite detectable and can be found in the bloodstream of secondhand inhalers.
But frankly, I don't care if they puff out caffeine or Tylenol or magic healing pixie dust, the major point is the you don't get to set my level of drug exposure for your own benefit. The principle behind secondhand smoking bans is the old one of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face." It's the reason we have similar laws like noise ordinances. Your entertainment rights end when they intersect with my body and my health. You don't get to force your habits on me.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that proves second-hand smoke is dangerous to those who inhale it. However, there is no such evidence regarding the vapor exhaled by those using e-smokes.
Vaping doesn't produce many of the VOCs and other smoke-based pollution of cigarettes, but you still have the problem of delivering an active drug (nicotine) to unwilling recipients that makes a public smoking ban still logical. No one should be forced to indulge in someone else's drug habit just because they happen to be walking though a public space, regardless of the drug.
Jesus Christ, do we really need a class to teach kids that there are negative ramifications to overdrawing your checking account? We need to understand WHY people overdraw their checking accounts. People gots no money! People gots no jobs! They need to pay bills! They calculate that $200 in overdraft fees might not be as bad as being evicted for nonpayment of rent. So they suck it up.
Yes, we do. If you spend your money on a day-by-day basis without keeping track of expenditures and having a budget, then you can end up spending far more money than you realize. (I know, I've been there.) Lots of people who are making little money could still get by if someone had taught them how to manage their money responsibly at an early age before bad habits set in. Sure, there are times when you'll feel pinched, but if you don't track your money, you won't see it coming.
The entire predatory payday loan business is founded on poor financial decisions by the poor, and being poor tends to make people focus more on the now than the long-term, which only feeds the cycle.
These are hard times for the middle class and... working class? (Does that even still exist?)
The working class has been growing, especially as the quality of jobs has declined. It's the middle class you should be asking whether it still exists, because the lower middle class is vanishing right now.
Pay your bill on time, you pay zero interest, and get cash back.
The "cash back" you get is just a slice of the merchant's fee that makes prices go up for everyone, credit card users and non-users alike. This is why the company is willing to do business with you in the first place despite paying off your balances: you're still giving them a cut of everything you buy.
Hey, I learned it from the liberals. Look one story up for the "US death machine downsizing" for a plethora of examples of exaggerating.
You are part of the problem. Playing games of "who started it?" is exactly the sort of childish behavior I was talking about. Or did you not learn the importance of being the better man or leading by example when growing up?
Hell, ask any mainstream journalist if she thinks the American people deserve a nice country to live in. Piers Morgan would be a great example. Ask anyone from MSNBC or the New York Times. It's frightening what these leftists think should happen to us.
I think it's completely tragic and horrifying that you seem to seriously believe that anyone who has a different political view from you is a mustache-twirling villain who actively seeks the destruction of America rather than someone who wants their country to be the best it can be and who just has a different set of priorities on what issues to tackle first.
Most conservatives and liberals who aren't so wrapped up in "the game" really share a lot of similar core values. Open your eyes and try talking to people across the partisan divide instead of just throwing poo at them, and you'll find people with most of the same concerns you have, just a different set of ideas about how to tackle them.
No liberal wants abortion to be commonplace. No conservative wants a homeless person to die in the cold. No liberal wants to destroy small businesses. No conservative wants another school shooting. No liberal thinks people who can work shouldn't have to. No conservative thinks you shouldn't be able to get ahead if you do. We just have different solutions to the same problems and a different set of priorities when solutions come into conflict. That is where we can come together and compromise.
But only if people stop demonizing the other side and pretending that they are evil and cackling at the destruction of America. Because the people feeding you that lie are the ones closest to that fantasy.
Don't worry - that sort of thinking will be a quaint anachronism soon. Government dependence is the name of the game in 2014. Then, the dependent people can vote for more benefits for themselves, and continue in a virtuous cycle until America is a one-party nation. The future is going to be awesome!
I know you think you're being cute and funny, but this kind of asinine reductionism (whether sincere or not) is a huge part of the problem. There are some problems for which government -- i.e. the democratically chosen pooling of resources by the people -- is the best or only solution. Where the line lies between the far extremes of pure laissez faire capitalism and state-run socialism is a valid matter for civil debate and disagreement, but this sort of "all or nothing" BS is why America is completely dysfunctional at this point.
Because of people who think that the other side has nothing of value to offer and must be relentlessly mocked at any turn. Who think that purity of thought is a virtue and compromise a deadly sin.
Frankly, a lot of us are sick and tired of it. We need negotiators and diplomats. We need scientists and engineers. We don't need more divas and demagogues and firebrands. No more culture warriors and sound byte artisans.
Too bad Oklahoma receives more in federal dollars than it pays in, unlike most 'liberal' states.
You know what would help change that? More people knowing how to live within their means and how to avoid predatory lending. Are you really so wrapped up in "team rivalry" thinking that you reject this common sense idea on reflex?
Progressives should be happy that we're helping people in need, but we should also be even happier when they're shown how not to need it and to help others in need in their place. It's a sad thing that American politics has devolved the the point where you can only be self-reliant and independent OR compassionate and community oriented. Strong OR generous. What happened to being both?
According to him, he should still have $200 and is pissed that his bank screwed him because he now has only $170...... no one ever explained to him that a debit card purchase clears the bank within hours, a day at most while the check he deposited might take up to 3 days to clear and he had overdrafted and been fined $30. Again, none of his contemporaries posted that he was an idiot, the overwhelming number of posts were about how banks screw them all the time saying that they did not have enough money in the bank when they just deposited a check...
To be fair, that's a legitimate complaint. There's no justifiable reason for that delay nor is there one for not giving a grace period until the end of it before finalizing the overdraft fee. The only reason that historical processing delay is still there is to screw customers out of a fee that wouldn't happen if they put as much emphasis on processing deposits as they did on withdrawals. There's no technical justification for such a difference between the two nor for the lack of forgiveness.
He may be ignorant for not expecting to be screwed in that way, but it is still him getting screwed for no better reason than that it's a revenue stream for the banks.
You know, I count myself firmly as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but one of the strong suits of conservatism as a philosophy is a belief both in the value of self-reliance and self-responsibility, especially in a financial realm. I have no surprise seeing this come from a red state, and I wish more states would embrace such a curriculum.
It's irresponsible that we don't teach kids how to manage money, and it's a good place to get in their heads that math is useful for something, even if they don't like it. We need a society that values saving and long-term rewards over short-term consumption.
We spend too much time thinking of the other side as "the enemy" because of "wrong" beliefs that don't match our own and not enough time looking seriously at their strengths and how we can embrace those as common values -- places where we need to step up our own game in a bipartisan fashion.
So, good for you, Okies. May this be an example for the rest of us.
I'm not sure why it would "send a chill down your spine" to have the ability for you to find your phone if it was lost, which is very useful. It's not like anyone can trigger it without your iCloud account login.
I'm not likely to ever lose my iPhone (except in my bedroom, at which resolution I'm sure its of no use), so the positive use case for the ability is nigh zero for me. I'm far more worried about hackers from somewhere random in the world deciding to to disable phones for the lulz. I'm also (in a minor, abstract way) concerned about the carrier / government interest in being able to disable phones.
However, the fact that it has to be enabled and requires an iCloud account is a relief since I'd never do either.
Slashdot Mirror
There's been a website emulating an Acorn Archimedes for ages. Which is a far more interesting machine IMHO.
Than an Amiga? Come now, the Archimedes was pretty vanilla hardware for its day -- it was basically a glorified Apple II with an ARM chip in terms of capability. In comparison, the Amiga's hardware was a generation leap ahead, and its OS was far more modern.
If ITER ultimately leads the way to a marketable fusion reactor I am sure we can either licenses the tech or let foreigners build the plants - far cheaper for the tax payer while supporting our own alternative research.
Two problems with that:
1) How is ITER going to succeed if one of its major contributors pulls out?
2) Are there any domestic programs with a better chance of success and a more concrete plan? (I'm not aware of any.)
I never said anything about anyone's sister; you have confused and blurred people together in your head by not paying close attention. You know, kind of like your entire generalization of women.
No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.
Yeah, find that in the Constitution. The actual text of the clause is "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
You'll note that there is no definition of "regulate" that limits them to only the powers you ascribe. It isn't defined at all, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to decide, like the vast majority of the Constitution, which was written for a common law system in which courts had long held the role of statutory interpretation. Reasonable readings of the word "regulate" includes far more than just a simple "thumbs up/down for all cell phones." It includes the ability to regulate the types of phones being sold, and that includes mandating certain features -- like requiring seat belts in cars.
For that matter, "Commerce" is not defined anywhere either. The Court has sensibly held that the ability to regulate commerce that crosses state lines must also include the ability to regulate (a) products made from components that cross state lines, (b) the methods of production of a product intended to be sold across state lines, and (c) instances of a product that does not cross state lines if the same product is also sold across state lines by the seller.
So, unless cell phone manufacturers intend to set up an entire supply chain and factory to make a phone which will never be sold outside the state in which it is completely and wholly manufactured from scratch, then interstate commerce applies to it under even a restricted reading. (And it certainly applies the majority of phones made in China and shipped across the country.)
Basically, what it comes down to is that, you don't seem to respect the Court's authority to define words in the Constitution that are ambiguous in nature when they don't come to a conclusion that you like. Who exactly does have the right to define "Commerce" and "regulate," then?
Really? So, how many women do you know, how many of the women you know are like you, and how many are like your sister? I would be very interested in an honest answer. But, I have a feeling any answer I get will be as honest as what women say when asked what they want in a man.
Besides being patronizing and insulting, your response is essentially, "Counter my generalizations based on anecdotes with anecdotes of your own. Which I won't believe anyway. Because you're a woman, and women lie, in my anecdotal experience."
Misogyny, circular logic, and bad statistics, ho!
The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.
Oh yes, they do, and wishful thinking doesn't make Congress's Article I powers go away. They have the right to regulate this under the Interstate Commerce Clause for several reasons:
1) The sale of the physical phones across state lines.
2) The sale of telecom services across state lines.
3) The fact that the phone is a radio transmission device whose signals cross state lines.
4) The fact that some phones are used to conduct business across state lines.
5) The presence of an interstate black market in stolen phones.
And of course, many of these also extend to international commerce. Some of these would be considered straightforward interstate and international commerce even under far more restrictive 19th century precedents.
Fine, if and only if it is also mandatory that a customer be allowed to disable the feature and not activate it. I do not want this on my phone. I consider it remote disabling to be a bigger risk to my enjoyment of my phone than physical theft.
Jesus, no one still uses the Hepburn system, do they? Spell it like it's pronounced: Shinichirou.
Thank goodness I'm not the only one bothered by that.
Look, one side thinks America is a pretty spiffy place. The other side thinks it is a genocidal evil empire that can do no good.
You are living in a paranoid delusional fantasy world. I don't think any words can reach you at this point, so I'm going to stop trying after this one last appeal.
You honestly have embraced the idea that anything your side believes is good and anything other side believes is evil and twisted. That right there? That is how nations go mad. When you stop seeing people as *people* and start caricaturing and stereotyping their beliefs as labeling them as evil and stupid, you are just one perilous step removed from declaring that nothing done to these "evil" people can itself be evil. That is where genocides come from. That is where suicide bombers come from. That is where nearly every evil that humans have perpetrated as a group against other humans come from -- from dehumanizing those that are different.
Anyway, liberals don't believe America is an evil empire that can do no good. We just believe it can always be better than it currently is. That American can constantly improve and in fact has done so over the course of history. You see, we don't treat America as some revered ancestor as conservatives do, to always be respected and never be questioned -- as someone to inherit from and to forever stick to the traditions of. We see it as our child. Something we've created together as a people. Something to push to be better and to raise to make us proud. If it does wrong, then that should be acknowledged and not uncomfortably shoved under the rug and forgotten like a grandmother's racism. It should be examined and learned from so that we don't repeat it.
We all love America. It's just that conservatives are proudest of the America that never was, and liberals are proudest of the America that isn't here yet.
This stuff. It's also not great for an athletic level of perspiration, but it won't come to pieces under stress or heat-related sweating.
I'm not a xenobiologist, but wouldn't a high-pressure hydrogen-rich atmosphere conceivably be home to organisms similar to those that live around deep sea volcanic vents?
A hydrogen-rich atmosphere can better be phrased as "carbon/nitrogen/oxygen-poor." For example Neptune's upper atmosphere is 80% hydrogen and 19% helium. That leaves any life-supporting materials scattered and diffused too thing for life to be likely to exist in any shape resembling Earth biochemistry.
Pressure isn't as big of a problem since you can find a nice pressure at the right distance from the center, but pressures and temperatures near the center are high enough that liquid diamond may be found. We're talking 1000x Earth's. That would also preclude any biochemistry we currently can predict & understand.
That said, your argument is ridiculous. Species go extinct all the time, regardless of human intervention. It's called natural selection and we're not apart from it. If a species goes extinct because of us then it wasnt fit to live. Likewise if something comes along and kills all of us we werent fit to survive. Those are the breaks.
GP isn't making a value judgment like you are. He's making a utility judgment -- that casting away species before being able to assess their value is short-sighted.
That said, your argument is ridiculous if generalized. Just because something happens naturally does not mean it's okay if it happens by human will. Take human deaths, for example.
To save you the immense effort of a Google search, it's block of alum salt used as an alternative deodorant. You can also water-based mister deodorants with the same salts. From my own experience, they work pretty well unless you sweat hard enough to overcome them, at which point they become useless pretty quickly.
Largely used as an alternative to other aluminum-based stick deodorants by people who think that it's less likely to get into your brain and cause Alzheimer's (which is dubious on multiple counts). I used them for a while before settling on a different solution because I was sick of the way stick deodorant gets into the fabric of your shirts.
Key words: "more appropriate" /thread
Which means that current message is also appropriate.
Nope. An elephant being bigger than a flea doesn't make the flea big.
It doesn't deliver it in any significant quantities. Outlawing e-cigs because of that is like outlawing someone drinking in a bar, because they're exhaling alcohol.
Please. e-Cigarettes produce less nicotine than regular cigarettes (about 10%), but it's still quite detectable and can be found in the bloodstream of secondhand inhalers.
But frankly, I don't care if they puff out caffeine or Tylenol or magic healing pixie dust, the major point is the you don't get to set my level of drug exposure for your own benefit. The principle behind secondhand smoking bans is the old one of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face." It's the reason we have similar laws like noise ordinances. Your entertainment rights end when they intersect with my body and my health. You don't get to force your habits on me.
There is a great deal of scientific evidence that proves second-hand smoke is dangerous to those who inhale it. However, there is no such evidence regarding the vapor exhaled by those using e-smokes.
Vaping doesn't produce many of the VOCs and other smoke-based pollution of cigarettes, but you still have the problem of delivering an active drug (nicotine) to unwilling recipients that makes a public smoking ban still logical. No one should be forced to indulge in someone else's drug habit just because they happen to be walking though a public space, regardless of the drug.
Jesus Christ, do we really need a class to teach kids that there are negative ramifications to overdrawing your checking account? We need to understand WHY people overdraw their checking accounts. People gots no money! People gots no jobs! They need to pay bills! They calculate that $200 in overdraft fees might not be as bad as being evicted for nonpayment of rent. So they suck it up.
Yes, we do. If you spend your money on a day-by-day basis without keeping track of expenditures and having a budget, then you can end up spending far more money than you realize. (I know, I've been there.) Lots of people who are making little money could still get by if someone had taught them how to manage their money responsibly at an early age before bad habits set in. Sure, there are times when you'll feel pinched, but if you don't track your money, you won't see it coming.
The entire predatory payday loan business is founded on poor financial decisions by the poor, and being poor tends to make people focus more on the now than the long-term, which only feeds the cycle.
These are hard times for the middle class and... working class? (Does that even still exist?)
The working class has been growing, especially as the quality of jobs has declined. It's the middle class you should be asking whether it still exists, because the lower middle class is vanishing right now.
Pay your bill on time, you pay zero interest, and get cash back.
The "cash back" you get is just a slice of the merchant's fee that makes prices go up for everyone, credit card users and non-users alike. This is why the company is willing to do business with you in the first place despite paying off your balances: you're still giving them a cut of everything you buy.
Hey, I learned it from the liberals. Look one story up for the "US death machine downsizing" for a plethora of examples of exaggerating.
You are part of the problem. Playing games of "who started it?" is exactly the sort of childish behavior I was talking about. Or did you not learn the importance of being the better man or leading by example when growing up?
Hell, ask any mainstream journalist if she thinks the American people deserve a nice country to live in. Piers Morgan would be a great example. Ask anyone from MSNBC or the New York Times. It's frightening what these leftists think should happen to us.
I think it's completely tragic and horrifying that you seem to seriously believe that anyone who has a different political view from you is a mustache-twirling villain who actively seeks the destruction of America rather than someone who wants their country to be the best it can be and who just has a different set of priorities on what issues to tackle first.
Most conservatives and liberals who aren't so wrapped up in "the game" really share a lot of similar core values. Open your eyes and try talking to people across the partisan divide instead of just throwing poo at them, and you'll find people with most of the same concerns you have, just a different set of ideas about how to tackle them.
No liberal wants abortion to be commonplace. No conservative wants a homeless person to die in the cold. No liberal wants to destroy small businesses. No conservative wants another school shooting. No liberal thinks people who can work shouldn't have to. No conservative thinks you shouldn't be able to get ahead if you do. We just have different solutions to the same problems and a different set of priorities when solutions come into conflict. That is where we can come together and compromise.
But only if people stop demonizing the other side and pretending that they are evil and cackling at the destruction of America. Because the people feeding you that lie are the ones closest to that fantasy.
Don't worry - that sort of thinking will be a quaint anachronism soon. Government dependence is the name of the game in 2014. Then, the dependent people can vote for more benefits for themselves, and continue in a virtuous cycle until America is a one-party nation. The future is going to be awesome!
I know you think you're being cute and funny, but this kind of asinine reductionism (whether sincere or not) is a huge part of the problem. There are some problems for which government -- i.e. the democratically chosen pooling of resources by the people -- is the best or only solution. Where the line lies between the far extremes of pure laissez faire capitalism and state-run socialism is a valid matter for civil debate and disagreement, but this sort of "all or nothing" BS is why America is completely dysfunctional at this point.
Because of people who think that the other side has nothing of value to offer and must be relentlessly mocked at any turn. Who think that purity of thought is a virtue and compromise a deadly sin.
Frankly, a lot of us are sick and tired of it. We need negotiators and diplomats. We need scientists and engineers. We don't need more divas and demagogues and firebrands. No more culture warriors and sound byte artisans.
We need an adult in here.
Too bad Oklahoma receives more in federal dollars than it pays in, unlike most 'liberal' states.
You know what would help change that? More people knowing how to live within their means and how to avoid predatory lending. Are you really so wrapped up in "team rivalry" thinking that you reject this common sense idea on reflex?
Progressives should be happy that we're helping people in need, but we should also be even happier when they're shown how not to need it and to help others in need in their place. It's a sad thing that American politics has devolved the the point where you can only be self-reliant and independent OR compassionate and community oriented. Strong OR generous. What happened to being both?
Saving over short-term consumption? Are you trying to destroy our entire economy?!?!?
Yes. And to build a better one in it's place.
I did say I was a liberal, didn't I? :-)
According to him, he should still have $200 and is pissed that his bank screwed him because he now has only $170...... no one ever explained to him that a debit card purchase clears the bank within hours, a day at most while the check he deposited might take up to 3 days to clear and he had overdrafted and been fined $30. Again, none of his contemporaries posted that he was an idiot, the overwhelming number of posts were about how banks screw them all the time saying that they did not have enough money in the bank when they just deposited a check...
To be fair, that's a legitimate complaint. There's no justifiable reason for that delay nor is there one for not giving a grace period until the end of it before finalizing the overdraft fee. The only reason that historical processing delay is still there is to screw customers out of a fee that wouldn't happen if they put as much emphasis on processing deposits as they did on withdrawals. There's no technical justification for such a difference between the two nor for the lack of forgiveness.
He may be ignorant for not expecting to be screwed in that way, but it is still him getting screwed for no better reason than that it's a revenue stream for the banks.
You know, I count myself firmly as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but one of the strong suits of conservatism as a philosophy is a belief both in the value of self-reliance and self-responsibility, especially in a financial realm. I have no surprise seeing this come from a red state, and I wish more states would embrace such a curriculum.
It's irresponsible that we don't teach kids how to manage money, and it's a good place to get in their heads that math is useful for something, even if they don't like it. We need a society that values saving and long-term rewards over short-term consumption.
We spend too much time thinking of the other side as "the enemy" because of "wrong" beliefs that don't match our own and not enough time looking seriously at their strengths and how we can embrace those as common values -- places where we need to step up our own game in a bipartisan fashion.
So, good for you, Okies. May this be an example for the rest of us.
I'm not sure why it would "send a chill down your spine" to have the ability for you to find your phone if it was lost, which is very useful. It's not like anyone can trigger it without your iCloud account login.
I'm not likely to ever lose my iPhone (except in my bedroom, at which resolution I'm sure its of no use), so the positive use case for the ability is nigh zero for me. I'm far more worried about hackers from somewhere random in the world deciding to to disable phones for the lulz. I'm also (in a minor, abstract way) concerned about the carrier / government interest in being able to disable phones.
However, the fact that it has to be enabled and requires an iCloud account is a relief since I'd never do either.