Sheesh...and they say cell phone service in the US is bad. Granted I pay more, but with t-mobile, $22 a month lets me call anywhere in the US from anywhere in the US with zero restrictions. I also have unlimited data and texts from anywhere to anywhere in the world (well...anywhere except from cruise ships and a small number of backwater countries I'd never see myself either going to or calling anyways, which is mainly a symptom of these particular areas charging their own embargoes to EVERYBODY, including the locals.)
Add $10 a month and I can make voice calls to some 70+ odd countries unlimited.
Basically the federal government deliberately limits its choices in contractors, and then spends a ton of money and doesn't get good results. (Meanwhile a lot of the anti-capitalist types falsely use this as an argument for why the government is more efficient than the private sector.)
If you're going to moan and groan about GMO food, at least learn what you're moaning and groaning about. Nobody anywhere ever splices insect DNA, or DNA from any other species for that matter, into any food that lands on your plate. Those stories you hear the contrary are one of three things:
1) A sci-fi movie 2) An urban myth 3) Experimentation to better understand genetics
The third item has never made it to your dinner plate. Concepts derived from it may have, but the actual act of copying genes from one species into the genome of another has never been used to commercially produce any food you've eaten. All commercially sold GMO foods are modified with very tiny (compared to natural mutations during normal reproduction) changes to small sets of proteins.
Here are a few inconvenient facts for the anti-GMO crowd:
1) Monsanto has never spliced a gene from one species into another and then sold it to you. 2) You yourself however are the result of exactly this process. We all are. In fact the human placenta comes from a gene that is actually foreign to is what is otherwise own natural DNA. Same with about 100,000 other genes we carry.
3) Natural mutations caused by normal breeding are much larger, are much more unknown, have a much bigger potential for causing harm than the ones Monsanto introduces into its stock. 4) GMO has played a huge role in ending world hunger as of late. It also follows that being anti-GMO can kill people and cause wars in the same vein as anti-vax. 5) All supposed "studies" showing GMO foods cause harm have been debunked as junk science during peer review. Every single one of them. Keep that in mind before you go linking to me the one about the rats with colon cancer (debunked; they used rats already known to be prone to this kind of cancer, and the results were unable to be reproduced) and the pigs with stomach cancer (also debunked; the "researchers" behind this study cherry picked their data, and likewise the experiment was not reproducible.) 6) The organic industry makes much higher profit margins than the GMO industry, and they actively fund the junk science like I mentioned above so that they can get people like you to buy more of their product.
Honestly, the anti-GMO movement makes me think of a bunch of peasants with pitchforks and torches standing outside of an old lady's house making up stories about the demons she summons inside, and then they somehow have themselves convinced that this is a fact and it actually happens, so they go and burn down her house because they "know for certain" that she practices witchcraft and has seen actual demons.
I mean really, you guys are THAT bad. You guys regularly make claims about GMO that are just outright false (just as you did,) but they're lies you tell so much that you're convinced they're true, and endless stories of "my cousin's roomate's aunt's friend worked there and saw them put a fish gene in a tomato" and things equally absurd.
In the short term. We should construct incentive networks that slowly migrate off fossil fuels while the costs are reasonable. We are not doing that, and it's going to be hazardous to our entire system.
Actually we very much are doing that, we've been doing it for a long time. If you look at the US consumption of oil over the last four decades, it has changed very little:
So why do I say we are doing the opposite of what you're saying we're doing? Simple, look at the population growth over that same period; it grows exponentially while the oil consumption remains relatively flat. Furthermore, as an overall consumption of oil based goods and services, we've been dropping them heavily:
Such a common argument for justification I see when somebody wants to argue that a lesser sentence is deserved. Yet also a poor one, especially in this case, as in her state murder of any variety carries a minimum sentence of no less than 15 years (it's a mandatory minimum with that conviction,) which is more than twice what her maximum sentence is.
This is probably true, hence even though I want a-la-carte, I would never advocate adding new laws enforcing it. Instead I'd prefer to allow the content companies to become the victims of their own success, as I described here:
TL;DR, let's just allow the content companies will eventually price themselves out of the market. I don't subscribe to cable anymore, and I always tell everybody I know how they can get their entertainment without a cable sub.
The only people that are screwed are the ESPN viewers and 24/7 news channel viewers. Eventually as other people de-sub, these people will be forced to pay quite dearly for that content, and once these customers feel the pinch, the house of cards falls.
I believe a la carte is the future, but I don't think forcing it upon everybody is a good idea. The market is already gradually moving in that direction due to two forces pushing it that way:
1) Netflix and Amazon already offer original content, and you're free to choose between the two. Effectively a la carte. Other companies like Sony and Microsoft have already taken interest in doing their own Netflix style offering with their own original content. 2) The content providers are pricing themselves out of the market by demanding retrans fees that are increasingly impractical.
Now Netflix and Amazon aren't a huge selection, right? And even adding Microsoft and Sony here aren't either, right? Well remember that the traditional "all or nothing" pay industry started this way. In the original Community Antenna TeleVision (CATV) days, you maybe had 20 channels to choose from, but the content selection wasn't really that good. Netflix and Amazon combined have a selection that would make those 20 channels look like crap, and the price you pay for both of them is certainly a lot less than what you paid back then (adjusted for inflation.)
In order to be fair, a la carte rules may indeed force companies like Netflix to unbundle content collections. Netflix offers content from A&E, Viacom, ABC, and many, many others...telling them to split that up would be problematic IMO, especially for the $8 a month you pay.
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, let's not go down that road if we can avoid it. Instead let's simply allow market force #2 to kill the cable industry, forcing them to adapt. I think allowing the content companies to become the final victims of their own success would be the perfect execution of poetic justice.
She was convicted AND sentenced by a jury of her peers; not the police, not a judge.
Besides, I looked at the video and when I see the way she hits him and runs, it seems to me she planned on doing that from the get-go. You don't elbow somebody on accident and then run from them. Furthermore, if she was groped, how come she didn't make that claim until way later?
Sorry, but I'm with the 12 jurors on this one. I think 7 years might be excessive, but the law may call for that, and the jurors are instructed to prescribe a sentence based on how the law is written.
I don't think I'll ever understand why anybody ever distrusts an article when the news outlet specifically calls out who said what, which is exactly what Fox did.
Honestly, people who do that shit are no better than the news organizations that they lambaste on a daily basis. I mean fuck, Fox News even paints republicans in more of a negative light in that article.
Bullshit. The package had contact info that the receiver chose not to thoroughly pursue, and his story related to that doesn't hold water. Reddit is not the proper place to contact NOAA unless you wish to gain the kind of "street cred" that whoring bullshit at Reddit gains you, while calling a few numbers and taking the time to look into ownership is not as "sexy" to a "Redditor".
Bullshit. When I'm expecting a package, and I receive one addressed to me, I never bother to look at who sent it or where it came from, I just fucking open it. I'm pretty sure 99% of everybody else does the same thing. Maybe you're the paranoid type, or perhaps you have more enemies than you can count, but as for me personally? There's no reason for anybody to send me a mail bomb.
On top of that, once you open it, you have to pay return shipping to return it to the sender. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't drop the $20 or so it would cost to ship a package as heavy as I'm betting that one would be (not necessarily the drone parts themselves, but the big thick black plastic case it came in and the padding as well.)
Another thing to consider too though, is how long ago was he doing business with Microsoft? The reason I say that is because of this bit:
proprietary solutions from Microsoft or any other commercial software vendor 'need to justify themselves and to work doubly hard to have flexible business models to help us further our aims.'
In other words, it's because of Linux that Microsoft has to step up its game and do better than it did in the past. Had it not been for Linux, Microsoft would behave more similar to how you expect government services to behave (think rude employees, long lines, and general disregard for customer service at the DMV.)
He posted on Reddit because he was trying to get into contact with NOAA, which is apparently difficult to do (when he contacted them directly, they didn't provide any means for him to get it to them; perhaps not even aware of what he was talking about.)
Furthermore, it was addressed to him, even had his fucking name on it. That makes him well within his rights to open it, especially when he was actually EXPECTING a big package.
So the republicans are going to go after him because UPS doesn't want to be run by a union traditionally run by the mafia?
You might want to check if your powered tinfoil hat is working...generally those don't include batteries, so if you didn't put them in then it isn't going to do anything.
I know two of Osama Bin Laden's biggest beefs with America was that we permit homosexuality and interest bearing loans...I can't help but wonder if he hated bacon every bit as much as those though.
As of very recently though, Ghostery takes a step further by providing surrogate scripts that replace the function needed by these websites, only without the tracking. It's really nice because you very rarely need to pause it or add exceptions now.
Judgements are usually the first category to get discharged. It has always been this way. The only exception is if the lawsuit is over something that cannot be discharged even if it was outside of a lawsuit, such as student loan debt awarded by judgement.
This *may* be something he can't discharge, given that their allegations include fraud. However copyright infringement in and of itself...I imagine it could be discharged, but IANAL.
I'm trying to figure what you'd want with one of these anyways. I mean, does anybody even use tape anymore to begin with? No random access means recovering from a failure will take a long ass time. It's probably easier to just stick to hot mirrored arrays to begin with.
I don't think there ever has been a time in history when the rich haven't effectively run anything.
Even in communism, the party officials or community leaders always have it better off than everybody else, effectively making them richer even when there's supposedly no money.
Nothing you ever do...ever...can change this. Getting rid of it would very well match the true definition of catch-22.
The best thing you can do is create more wealth to begin with. Our system of capitalism is effectively doing that. Every time you make a trade where what you gain is worth more to you than what you gave up for it, you have literally created more wealth for both you and whoever you traded with. When economies grow, there is more wealth.
Communism and/or socialism are not the answer, mainly because they fundamentally believe in one sided exchanges. That is, where one party gives up something with zero gain. This is because people who favor such systems assume that economies are zero-sum games, but they aren't (as the previous paragraph describes.) Systems with one sided exchanges inevitably succumb to our old friend attrition. Every single time; everybody from the Icarians to the Russians to the North Koreans all have met that exact fate: a GDP that steadily declines until the whole system collapses.
That's a common thing I hear from people like you who troll, but if you actually saw how I lived, chances are you'd wish you lived the same. I'll probably have a higher income later, but college doesn't make that particularly easy. (And no, I'm not borrowing money to go to college, rather college is paying me. And no, I don't have any kind of minority scholarship, nor do I live anywhere near campus; far from it in fact.)
Right but developers found vulnerabilities in the OS and they were fixed, I didn't say or imply that anything is totally secure or that the Apple App Store is any more secure than Google Play but given the incredibly low amount of malware found in either store (real-world examples are in the single digit figures) they are about as secure as you could expect them to be.
No, actually in two of those cases there was no vulnerability to be fixed. The problem was that apple allowed apps through that did things the end user probably wouldn't want them to do. In one case, it read from your contact list and sent SMS messages to premium services. Both of those operations are permitted, and in fact there are API functions that even help you do them.
Well the fact is I'm an apple user (or are you counting them as users that use nothing but apple?) and I have never said anything of the sort,
I don't recall saying 100% of apple users. But it doesn't matter, when apple themselves make claims to that effect, then you can count on a lot of their customers repeating those claims.
Sure, your average techie can read between the lines, but you're average joe or hipster cannot. The implication apple makes in that commercial is a very strong one.
Great, good for you. But obviously the ability to cut off developers' revenue streams with adblockers is going to have a negative effect in the long run.
Actually most of the apps I have don't show ads to begin with. The main reason I install adfree is also for the web browser; it does a hosts file based block list, which I think is very effective. I don't mind ads, I just hate the really flashy big ads. DNS based blocking mainly hits those and rarely ever the text based ads. Not only that but it reduces bandwidth consumption by a fair amount.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh...and they say cell phone service in the US is bad. Granted I pay more, but with t-mobile, $22 a month lets me call anywhere in the US from anywhere in the US with zero restrictions. I also have unlimited data and texts from anywhere to anywhere in the world (well...anywhere except from cruise ships and a small number of backwater countries I'd never see myself either going to or calling anyways, which is mainly a symptom of these particular areas charging their own embargoes to EVERYBODY, including the locals.)
Add $10 a month and I can make voice calls to some 70+ odd countries unlimited.
Well, I would say SpaceX has a good point nonetheless. See this:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Basically the federal government deliberately limits its choices in contractors, and then spends a ton of money and doesn't get good results. (Meanwhile a lot of the anti-capitalist types falsely use this as an argument for why the government is more efficient than the private sector.)
If you're going to moan and groan about GMO food, at least learn what you're moaning and groaning about. Nobody anywhere ever splices insect DNA, or DNA from any other species for that matter, into any food that lands on your plate. Those stories you hear the contrary are one of three things:
1) A sci-fi movie
2) An urban myth
3) Experimentation to better understand genetics
The third item has never made it to your dinner plate. Concepts derived from it may have, but the actual act of copying genes from one species into the genome of another has never been used to commercially produce any food you've eaten. All commercially sold GMO foods are modified with very tiny (compared to natural mutations during normal reproduction) changes to small sets of proteins.
Here are a few inconvenient facts for the anti-GMO crowd:
1) Monsanto has never spliced a gene from one species into another and then sold it to you.
2) You yourself however are the result of exactly this process. We all are. In fact the human placenta comes from a gene that is actually foreign to is what is otherwise own natural DNA. Same with about 100,000 other genes we carry.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
3) Natural mutations caused by normal breeding are much larger, are much more unknown, have a much bigger potential for causing harm than the ones Monsanto introduces into its stock.
4) GMO has played a huge role in ending world hunger as of late. It also follows that being anti-GMO can kill people and cause wars in the same vein as anti-vax.
5) All supposed "studies" showing GMO foods cause harm have been debunked as junk science during peer review. Every single one of them. Keep that in mind before you go linking to me the one about the rats with colon cancer (debunked; they used rats already known to be prone to this kind of cancer, and the results were unable to be reproduced) and the pigs with stomach cancer (also debunked; the "researchers" behind this study cherry picked their data, and likewise the experiment was not reproducible.)
6) The organic industry makes much higher profit margins than the GMO industry, and they actively fund the junk science like I mentioned above so that they can get people like you to buy more of their product.
Honestly, the anti-GMO movement makes me think of a bunch of peasants with pitchforks and torches standing outside of an old lady's house making up stories about the demons she summons inside, and then they somehow have themselves convinced that this is a fact and it actually happens, so they go and burn down her house because they "know for certain" that she practices witchcraft and has seen actual demons.
I mean really, you guys are THAT bad. You guys regularly make claims about GMO that are just outright false (just as you did,) but they're lies you tell so much that you're convinced they're true, and endless stories of "my cousin's roomate's aunt's friend worked there and saw them put a fish gene in a tomato" and things equally absurd.
In the short term. We should construct incentive networks that slowly migrate off fossil fuels while the costs are reasonable. We are not doing that, and it's going to be hazardous to our entire system.
Actually we very much are doing that, we've been doing it for a long time. If you look at the US consumption of oil over the last four decades, it has changed very little:
http://www.indexmundi.com/ener...
So why do I say we are doing the opposite of what you're saying we're doing? Simple, look at the population growth over that same period; it grows exponentially while the oil consumption remains relatively flat. Furthermore, as an overall consumption of oil based goods and services, we've been dropping them heavily:
http://politicalcalculations.b...
People murder and get less...
Such a common argument for justification I see when somebody wants to argue that a lesser sentence is deserved. Yet also a poor one, especially in this case, as in her state murder of any variety carries a minimum sentence of no less than 15 years (it's a mandatory minimum with that conviction,) which is more than twice what her maximum sentence is.
This is probably true, hence even though I want a-la-carte, I would never advocate adding new laws enforcing it. Instead I'd prefer to allow the content companies to become the victims of their own success, as I described here:
http://entertainment.slashdot....
TL;DR, let's just allow the content companies will eventually price themselves out of the market. I don't subscribe to cable anymore, and I always tell everybody I know how they can get their entertainment without a cable sub.
The only people that are screwed are the ESPN viewers and 24/7 news channel viewers. Eventually as other people de-sub, these people will be forced to pay quite dearly for that content, and once these customers feel the pinch, the house of cards falls.
I believe a la carte is the future, but I don't think forcing it upon everybody is a good idea. The market is already gradually moving in that direction due to two forces pushing it that way:
1) Netflix and Amazon already offer original content, and you're free to choose between the two. Effectively a la carte. Other companies like Sony and Microsoft have already taken interest in doing their own Netflix style offering with their own original content.
2) The content providers are pricing themselves out of the market by demanding retrans fees that are increasingly impractical.
Now Netflix and Amazon aren't a huge selection, right? And even adding Microsoft and Sony here aren't either, right? Well remember that the traditional "all or nothing" pay industry started this way. In the original Community Antenna TeleVision (CATV) days, you maybe had 20 channels to choose from, but the content selection wasn't really that good. Netflix and Amazon combined have a selection that would make those 20 channels look like crap, and the price you pay for both of them is certainly a lot less than what you paid back then (adjusted for inflation.)
In order to be fair, a la carte rules may indeed force companies like Netflix to unbundle content collections. Netflix offers content from A&E, Viacom, ABC, and many, many others...telling them to split that up would be problematic IMO, especially for the $8 a month you pay.
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, let's not go down that road if we can avoid it. Instead let's simply allow market force #2 to kill the cable industry, forcing them to adapt. I think allowing the content companies to become the final victims of their own success would be the perfect execution of poetic justice.
The article specifically mentions that the jury deliberated for 3 hours, so I think there is quite a bit more to it than your narrative.
She was convicted AND sentenced by a jury of her peers; not the police, not a judge.
Besides, I looked at the video and when I see the way she hits him and runs, it seems to me she planned on doing that from the get-go. You don't elbow somebody on accident and then run from them. Furthermore, if she was groped, how come she didn't make that claim until way later?
Sorry, but I'm with the 12 jurors on this one. I think 7 years might be excessive, but the law may call for that, and the jurors are instructed to prescribe a sentence based on how the law is written.
I don't think I'll ever understand why anybody ever distrusts an article when the news outlet specifically calls out who said what, which is exactly what Fox did.
Honestly, people who do that shit are no better than the news organizations that they lambaste on a daily basis. I mean fuck, Fox News even paints republicans in more of a negative light in that article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
There, you happy?
Bullshit. The package had contact info that the receiver chose not to thoroughly pursue, and his story related to that doesn't hold water. Reddit is not the proper place to contact NOAA unless you wish to gain the kind of "street cred" that whoring bullshit at Reddit gains you, while calling a few numbers and taking the time to look into ownership is not as "sexy" to a "Redditor".
Bullshit. When I'm expecting a package, and I receive one addressed to me, I never bother to look at who sent it or where it came from, I just fucking open it. I'm pretty sure 99% of everybody else does the same thing. Maybe you're the paranoid type, or perhaps you have more enemies than you can count, but as for me personally? There's no reason for anybody to send me a mail bomb.
On top of that, once you open it, you have to pay return shipping to return it to the sender. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't drop the $20 or so it would cost to ship a package as heavy as I'm betting that one would be (not necessarily the drone parts themselves, but the big thick black plastic case it came in and the padding as well.)
Another thing to consider too though, is how long ago was he doing business with Microsoft? The reason I say that is because of this bit:
proprietary solutions from Microsoft or any other commercial software vendor 'need to justify themselves and to work doubly hard to have flexible business models to help us further our aims.'
In other words, it's because of Linux that Microsoft has to step up its game and do better than it did in the past. Had it not been for Linux, Microsoft would behave more similar to how you expect government services to behave (think rude employees, long lines, and general disregard for customer service at the DMV.)
Both of you are wrong, actually.
He posted on Reddit because he was trying to get into contact with NOAA, which is apparently difficult to do (when he contacted them directly, they didn't provide any means for him to get it to them; perhaps not even aware of what he was talking about.)
Furthermore, it was addressed to him, even had his fucking name on it. That makes him well within his rights to open it, especially when he was actually EXPECTING a big package.
So the republicans are going to go after him because UPS doesn't want to be run by a union traditionally run by the mafia?
You might want to check if your powered tinfoil hat is working...generally those don't include batteries, so if you didn't put them in then it isn't going to do anything.
We wouldn't have gotten the ACA
From what I've seen of it so far, I don't think that would have been a bad thing. For starters, there's nothing affordable about it.
I know two of Osama Bin Laden's biggest beefs with America was that we permit homosexuality and interest bearing loans...I can't help but wonder if he hated bacon every bit as much as those though.
Cash is even more anonymous than bitcoin; I would figure it a bigger threat in that regard.
As of very recently though, Ghostery takes a step further by providing surrogate scripts that replace the function needed by these websites, only without the tracking. It's really nice because you very rarely need to pause it or add exceptions now.
It was like my first first post.
Judgements are usually the first category to get discharged. It has always been this way. The only exception is if the lawsuit is over something that cannot be discharged even if it was outside of a lawsuit, such as student loan debt awarded by judgement.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
This *may* be something he can't discharge, given that their allegations include fraud. However copyright infringement in and of itself...I imagine it could be discharged, but IANAL.
I'm trying to figure what you'd want with one of these anyways. I mean, does anybody even use tape anymore to begin with? No random access means recovering from a failure will take a long ass time. It's probably easier to just stick to hot mirrored arrays to begin with.
I don't think there ever has been a time in history when the rich haven't effectively run anything.
Even in communism, the party officials or community leaders always have it better off than everybody else, effectively making them richer even when there's supposedly no money.
Nothing you ever do...ever...can change this. Getting rid of it would very well match the true definition of catch-22.
The best thing you can do is create more wealth to begin with. Our system of capitalism is effectively doing that. Every time you make a trade where what you gain is worth more to you than what you gave up for it, you have literally created more wealth for both you and whoever you traded with. When economies grow, there is more wealth.
Communism and/or socialism are not the answer, mainly because they fundamentally believe in one sided exchanges. That is, where one party gives up something with zero gain. This is because people who favor such systems assume that economies are zero-sum games, but they aren't (as the previous paragraph describes.) Systems with one sided exchanges inevitably succumb to our old friend attrition. Every single time; everybody from the Icarians to the Russians to the North Koreans all have met that exact fate: a GDP that steadily declines until the whole system collapses.
That's a common thing I hear from people like you who troll, but if you actually saw how I lived, chances are you'd wish you lived the same. I'll probably have a higher income later, but college doesn't make that particularly easy. (And no, I'm not borrowing money to go to college, rather college is paying me. And no, I don't have any kind of minority scholarship, nor do I live anywhere near campus; far from it in fact.)
Neither do I.
Right but developers found vulnerabilities in the OS and they were fixed, I didn't say or imply that anything is totally secure or that the Apple App Store is any more secure than Google Play but given the incredibly low amount of malware found in either store (real-world examples are in the single digit figures) they are about as secure as you could expect them to be.
No, actually in two of those cases there was no vulnerability to be fixed. The problem was that apple allowed apps through that did things the end user probably wouldn't want them to do. In one case, it read from your contact list and sent SMS messages to premium services. Both of those operations are permitted, and in fact there are API functions that even help you do them.
Well the fact is I'm an apple user (or are you counting them as users that use nothing but apple?) and I have never said anything of the sort,
I don't recall saying 100% of apple users. But it doesn't matter, when apple themselves make claims to that effect, then you can count on a lot of their customers repeating those claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, your average techie can read between the lines, but you're average joe or hipster cannot. The implication apple makes in that commercial is a very strong one.
Great, good for you. But obviously the ability to cut off developers' revenue streams with adblockers is going to have a negative effect in the long run.
Actually most of the apps I have don't show ads to begin with. The main reason I install adfree is also for the web browser; it does a hosts file based block list, which I think is very effective. I don't mind ads, I just hate the really flashy big ads. DNS based blocking mainly hits those and rarely ever the text based ads. Not only that but it reduces bandwidth consumption by a fair amount.