why should I pay the same for my internet service WITHOUT free WiFi as those who get free WiFi just because they run Windows?
So let me see if I follow your logic. Verizon offers something for FREE. No charge. Gratis. Since you can't take advantage of it, you expect a discount? So if you went to a bar offering free beer, would you ask for a discount on your beer since your kid isn't old enough to legally drink his free beer? Why would you expect a discount on free?
You can damn well bet I'll be calling every day and sending letters every day until I get a discounted rate for now being "allowed" to use all advertised features for some bunk reason.
So you again expect to get a discount for not being able to use an "advertised" feature, when the advertisement itself tells you the system requirments for use. So if I buy a game that says I need a high end graphics card and monitor to see the highest resolution, but I don't have one and don't want to pay for one, do I get a discount on the game?
Yes, it sucks it's only for Windows (for now I'd imagine) but it's not like they are hiding the fact. It's also not like you are losing money on the deal. It's FREE. I swear it's like the folks who pay no taxes bitching they didn't get a refund.
I'd say you've pretty much nailed it with that comment. A lot of the coverage of Obama was prompted by attacks that he was "pallin' around with terrorists" and whatnot. The press investigated, found that the concerns were baseless, and the result was what ammounts to a positive story for Obama.
I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!
The press investigated? The post says themselves that they didn't dig into Obama enough. Didn't research his undergrad years, his Harvard years, his past drug use. I read a lot of news and not even on Fox did I see anyone asking why Obama refused to release transcripts, co-workers names, where he lived, and with who, while at Columbia. Where did he get the money to pay for tuition? The press simply fell in love with a great "underdog" "first black president" "rags to riches" story and ran with that to the almost exclusion of anything that would even pass for actual reporting. Anyone who thinks they "know" Obama just from reading the papers is sadly deluding themselves.
Personally I hope the man does well. He has a lot of expectations to live up to, and I hope for our sake, he is able to do so. But please don't kid yourself into thinking that the press gave both sides a fair shake in their coverage. We know more about Palan's daughter's sex life then we know about Obama and his past.
Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
Who's point are you trying to prove? Medicare and Medicaid ARE Gov't run programs. So we spend more on healthcare when the Gov't runs it. Isn't that what the point of the previous post was?
Steve Fossett, the first person to fly a plane around the world without refueling
In 1986 Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew in Voyager around the world without refueling. Fossett was the first to fly around the world without refueling solo
Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.
What he really meant to say was, "Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will be our puppet. We think Janet Reno should come back"
Where were all the screaming Dems when Janet looked the other way at all the crap the Clinton administration pulled? Where were the Dems when Clinton fired all but 1 US attorney? Deafening silence from the left side of the aisle.
I wish the regular folks in this country would wake up and realize that the only difference between the D's and the R's is who they promise stuff to. The regular folks get screwed no matter who is in power.
If you care do do a bit of research you'd find that Australian gun laws changed after the Port Arthur Massacre, and semi-automatic weapons were banned. The results? No mass shootings since 1995.
The Patriot Act was enacted October 26, 2001. The results? No terrorist strikes on US soil since 2001.
Just because the law was passed doesn't mean that is why there have been no mass shootings. Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the US, but they always seem to be at the top or near the top of the gun related death heap.
It also means to the extent possible, the entire process must be observed by interested and neutral parties.
Aren't interested and neutral exclusionary in this case? By nature, anyone who has an interest in the outcome of an election cannot be neutral.
I'd like to think that folks could at least hide their bias if they are working the polls, but that doesn't seem to be the way human nature works.
I find most of the issues that arise on projects are not so much that the developers are incompetent, but that no one sets realistic, or are not allowed to set realistic expectations. How many times does the business change the specs? How many times are the developers given more time to allow for the changes?
The last project I worked on had a hard deadline. We were in the UAT phase when the business decided it wanted a change. A big one. Despite the fact that we were mere days from production, we were expected to make the changes, test them, and still meet the schedule. IT managements take was as usual. The business pays the bills so the business gets what it wants.
Until IT management can stand up to the business side, software development will always suffer.
People voted for the Democrats because they want them to fix some things; especially the war in Iraq.
I have yet to hear any Dem actually propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include just tucking tail and running home.
Of course I have yet to hear a Repub propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include the "stay the course" party line.
There has to be a middle ground and since the Dems ran on a basic agenda of "vote for us, we aren't them" I'm not holding my breath that anyone will come up with anything new.
And since everything can be tied to your Google account, Google promises not to share any information gathered with the US Government. They will, however, send all your data to China.
So long as those calls are being made by a citizen of the United States within the United States, the Constitution must apply. We already have too many places where it does not apply (Guantanamo comes to mind),
So maybe you can explain to me exactly how our constitution applies to a non-citizen? Seriously, I've been wondering about this. If someone is picked up fighting for Al Queda, they are not technically a foreign soldier. They fight under no country's flag, wear no uniform, swear allegiance to no head of state. Under the Geneva convention, what category do they fall under? The answer is none. So if they are foreign nationals our Constitution does not apply. Obviously the Geneva convention does not apply. So what sort of obligation are we under to provide them with lawyers and such?
I was with the 82nd Airborne at the time of the accident. We were at a Army Reserve base in Michigan doing winter weather training. I had Charge of Quarters duty that day and stayed at the HQ building warm and toasty. Nothing much to do but watch TV and answer the phone occasionally. At least they had satellite TV to keep me occupied. I watched the launch and the aftermath. (Looked like an explosion to me, but then again, our eyes deceive us).
I just remember sitting there for the longest time not really being able to absorb what I had just seen. When the rest of the guys came back from the field I told them what happened. Most of them refused to believe it until they saw the replays fro themselves. A sad day to be sure.
At least not until we know for certain what's going to happen to their lens-system.
Here is an article that says, in part, http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/19/konica/ind ex.php/ that "Sony plans to use the Konica Minolta Maxxum/Dynax lens mount on these digital SLR cameras." It goes on to say that "Konica Minolta said the ability of existing customers to use their lenses with future cameras is one advantage of transferring the digital SLR work to Sony." I think you are safe buying from Sony since it seems that all the existing Minolta lenses will still work on Sony's camera bodies.
But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.
I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.
I'm personally against the NSA wiretapping when they can easily get a FISA warrant to do so, but historically, presidents have had the authority to do so. Clinton and Gore did it, Reagan did it as have others. A Congressional subcommittee was informed several times of what was going on and gave it's approval...even the Dems on the committee approved it several times.
What's fishy is that when the Clinton/Gore team was doing this the ACLU could have cared less, but let a Republican president continue it and all hell breaks loose. Again, I'm not saying it's right no matter which party is in power, I just wish the ACLU would be consistant on what they get outraged about.
ABC News seemed to treat him as pretty psychologically stable.
And let's not forget how thoroughly the news agencies vet the information given them. Why I bet Dan Rather himself looked at this from every possible angle and gave it his personal blessing.
Face it, you don't get the truth from either the government OR from the media any longer. Everyone has an agenda and will bend facts to suit their needs.
Same one that helped BushCo purge all those voters in 2000
IIRC, the purge was done at the request of a Democrat after a particularly nasty mayoral election. So do you mean to say that two democrats were paid off by Bush to demand a purge that would help Bush in a later election? My God man, break out your tinfoil hat!!!!
So our friends in the NJ legislature have tried to sue gun makers for the mere act of selling guns lawfully that happen to later on be stolen and used by a criminal, but I'll be they bend over backwards to shield those gun makers that use this technology from any and all liability when someone relies on one of these guns and it fails to fire....and it WILL fail.....
Let's be realistic. I go to the range all the time. At the range, in a controlled situation, I grip my gun the same way all the time. The one time I actually had to grab for my gun in an emergency, I'm sure I did not have a "range grip" on it. How is this new Dynamic Grip Recognition supposed to tell the difference? Will it think it's me having an emergency, or will it think it's Joe Thug who stole the gun and is trying to now ventilate Grandma?
Also keep in mind that the law in NJ says that ALL guns sold in the state must use smart technology within three years of it being "commercially" available. Read the fine print on that bill and you'll find that "commercially" available does NOT mean it has to work, be affordable, or widely available. To meet the criteria, if someone makes 1 gun for 10 million dollars, that only works 50% of the time, but offers it for sale, the state can declare that the criteria is met. The state gave themselves the authority to decide when something is "commercially available" The state sets up its own research institute. This institute now has produced something that will fail 10% of the time, but they will now claim it to be commercially available. I call shenanigans. I'm all for safer firearms, and more importantly, safer and more responsible gun owners. Let's compromise and say that all guns need to have this "smart" technology 3 years after the Police start using them.
I have personal experience with the damage they have caused; I have dealt with people in the embedded market who were avoiding embedded Linux because of "the lawsuit".
So I have a case against GM because I was thinking about buying one of their cars, but with the recalls, I just don't know...
I know there are a lot of Linux zealots here, but isn't this taking a bit far?
Yeah, knowing the history, any contract for WiFi will go to someone who is shoving huge dollars up the Mayor's ass. When he said during his campaign, "You have to pay to play" he wasn't kidding. Considering the Federal probe into almost every aspect of the Mayor's office and how certain contracts were awarded, I would not look for this to roll out anytime soon. I'm thinking by the time I retire in 20 or so years, it may be partially up and running. Of course by then, the Mayor will have retired to Florida and live in a 10 million dollar house from all the kickbacks he'll get.....
I was running a job in my old server (sitting on the basement floor of course) when my basement flooded during a hurricane about 3 years ago. I fully expected to return home to find the server dead, but to my surprise, it was still running. The surge suppressor it was plugged into (also on the floor) had sockets that were partially melted, but the server was ticking right along. There was still about a foot of water on the floor and it was lapping up against the MB. Go figure!
Oh, and NEVER try to insert the power supply cord for a hard drive reversed with the power running. You get a nice little arc and a dead hard drive.
More seriously, the decision was made by a Supreme Court containing individuals who - in any other court in the country would have had to abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Some of the Justices were nominateed by G.W.B.'s father, for Pete's sake.)
So the ENTIRE Supreme Court should have recused themselves since some were appointed by the Clinto/Gore team or other Democrat presidents right?
I don't think there is an easy pat answer to this. Both parties acted like spoiled 3 year olds throwing a temper tantrum. Each wanted thier own way. The best way to solve it? For better or worse, it has to go to the highest court in the land.
Slashdot Mirror
why should I pay the same for my internet service WITHOUT free WiFi as those who get free WiFi just because they run Windows?
So let me see if I follow your logic. Verizon offers something for FREE. No charge. Gratis. Since you can't take advantage of it, you expect a discount? So if you went to a bar offering free beer, would you ask for a discount on your beer since your kid isn't old enough to legally drink his free beer? Why would you expect a discount on free?
You can damn well bet I'll be calling every day and sending letters every day until I get a discounted rate for now being "allowed" to use all advertised features for some bunk reason.
So you again expect to get a discount for not being able to use an "advertised" feature, when the advertisement itself tells you the system requirments for use. So if I buy a game that says I need a high end graphics card and monitor to see the highest resolution, but I don't have one and don't want to pay for one, do I get a discount on the game?
Yes, it sucks it's only for Windows (for now I'd imagine) but it's not like they are hiding the fact. It's also not like you are losing money on the deal. It's FREE. I swear it's like the folks who pay no taxes bitching they didn't get a refund.
I'd say you've pretty much nailed it with that comment. A lot of the coverage of Obama was prompted by attacks that he was "pallin' around with terrorists" and whatnot. The press investigated, found that the concerns were baseless, and the result was what ammounts to a positive story for Obama.
I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!
The press investigated? The post says themselves that they didn't dig into Obama enough. Didn't research his undergrad years, his Harvard years, his past drug use. I read a lot of news and not even on Fox did I see anyone asking why Obama refused to release transcripts, co-workers names, where he lived, and with who, while at Columbia. Where did he get the money to pay for tuition? The press simply fell in love with a great "underdog" "first black president" "rags to riches" story and ran with that to the almost exclusion of anything that would even pass for actual reporting. Anyone who thinks they "know" Obama just from reading the papers is sadly deluding themselves.
Personally I hope the man does well. He has a lot of expectations to live up to, and I hope for our sake, he is able to do so. But please don't kid yourself into thinking that the press gave both sides a fair shake in their coverage. We know more about Palan's daughter's sex life then we know about Obama and his past.
Last year, you spent $1, 975 per-capita on medicare and medicaid. A number of countries provide universal healthcare for less than this.
Who's point are you trying to prove? Medicare and Medicaid ARE Gov't run programs. So we spend more on healthcare when the Gov't runs it. Isn't that what the point of the previous post was?
how is this news on a day when pervez musharraf has resigned anyway - get some priorities!!1
Unless Musharraf is resigning to work on some new computer technology his resignation isn't really relevant on this site now is it?
Steve Fossett, the first person to fly a plane around the world without refueling
In 1986 Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew in Voyager around the world without refueling. Fossett was the first to fly around the world without refueling solo
Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.
What he really meant to say was, "Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will be our puppet. We think Janet Reno should come back" Where were all the screaming Dems when Janet looked the other way at all the crap the Clinton administration pulled? Where were the Dems when Clinton fired all but 1 US attorney? Deafening silence from the left side of the aisle. I wish the regular folks in this country would wake up and realize that the only difference between the D's and the R's is who they promise stuff to. The regular folks get screwed no matter who is in power.
If you care do do a bit of research you'd find that Australian gun laws changed after the Port Arthur Massacre, and semi-automatic weapons were banned. The results? No mass shootings since 1995.
The Patriot Act was enacted October 26, 2001. The results? No terrorist strikes on US soil since 2001.
Just because the law was passed doesn't mean that is why there have been no mass shootings. Washington D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the US, but they always seem to be at the top or near the top of the gun related death heap.
It also means to the extent possible, the entire process must be observed by interested and neutral parties.
Aren't interested and neutral exclusionary in this case? By nature, anyone who has an interest in the outcome of an election cannot be neutral. I'd like to think that folks could at least hide their bias if they are working the polls, but that doesn't seem to be the way human nature works.
I find most of the issues that arise on projects are not so much that the developers are incompetent, but that no one sets realistic, or are not allowed to set realistic expectations. How many times does the business change the specs? How many times are the developers given more time to allow for the changes?
The last project I worked on had a hard deadline. We were in the UAT phase when the business decided it wanted a change. A big one. Despite the fact that we were mere days from production, we were expected to make the changes, test them, and still meet the schedule. IT managements take was as usual. The business pays the bills so the business gets what it wants.
Until IT management can stand up to the business side, software development will always suffer.
People voted for the Democrats because they want them to fix some things; especially the war in Iraq.
I have yet to hear any Dem actually propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include just tucking tail and running home. Of course I have yet to hear a Repub propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include the "stay the course" party line. There has to be a middle ground and since the Dems ran on a basic agenda of "vote for us, we aren't them" I'm not holding my breath that anyone will come up with anything new.
And since everything can be tied to your Google account, Google promises not to share any information gathered with the US Government. They will, however, send all your data to China.
So long as those calls are being made by a citizen of the United States within the United States, the Constitution must apply. We already have too many places where it does not apply (Guantanamo comes to mind),
So maybe you can explain to me exactly how our constitution applies to a non-citizen? Seriously, I've been wondering about this. If someone is picked up fighting for Al Queda, they are not technically a foreign soldier. They fight under no country's flag, wear no uniform, swear allegiance to no head of state. Under the Geneva convention, what category do they fall under? The answer is none. So if they are foreign nationals our Constitution does not apply. Obviously the Geneva convention does not apply. So what sort of obligation are we under to provide them with lawyers and such?
I was with the 82nd Airborne at the time of the accident. We were at a Army Reserve base in Michigan doing winter weather training. I had Charge of Quarters duty that day and stayed at the HQ building warm and toasty. Nothing much to do but watch TV and answer the phone occasionally. At least they had satellite TV to keep me occupied. I watched the launch and the aftermath. (Looked like an explosion to me, but then again, our eyes deceive us).
I just remember sitting there for the longest time not really being able to absorb what I had just seen. When the rest of the guys came back from the field I told them what happened. Most of them refused to believe it until they saw the replays fro themselves. A sad day to be sure.
At least not until we know for certain what's going to happen to their lens-system.
d ex.php/ that "Sony plans to use the Konica Minolta Maxxum/Dynax lens mount on these digital SLR cameras." It goes on to say that "Konica Minolta said the ability of existing customers to use their lenses with future cameras is one advantage of transferring the digital SLR work to Sony."
Here is an article that says, in part, http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/19/konica/in
I think you are safe buying from Sony since it seems that all the existing Minolta lenses will still work on Sony's camera bodies.
But, no matter who you are, you have to admit that the ACLU prevents you from losing anything that might be considered a civil liberty.
I'm guessing that you are not aware that the ACLU was founded by a hardcore communist whose basic ideology is that you have NO individual liberties. Just a thought.
I'm personally against the NSA wiretapping when they can easily get a FISA warrant to do so, but historically, presidents have had the authority to do so. Clinton and Gore did it, Reagan did it as have others. A Congressional subcommittee was informed several times of what was going on and gave it's approval...even the Dems on the committee approved it several times.
What's fishy is that when the Clinton/Gore team was doing this the ACLU could have cared less, but let a Republican president continue it and all hell breaks loose. Again, I'm not saying it's right no matter which party is in power, I just wish the ACLU would be consistant on what they get outraged about.
I don't listen to music or watch movies on my own PC's, I don't bother with souncards.
Doood, Mom cut off your allowance????
The only game I have played in the last 2 years is Doom3 on linux - onboard AC97 audio all the way.
Yep, definitely time to move out of the basement.
ABC News seemed to treat him as pretty psychologically stable.
And let's not forget how thoroughly the news agencies vet the information given them. Why I bet Dan Rather himself looked at this from every possible angle and gave it his personal blessing. Face it, you don't get the truth from either the government OR from the media any longer. Everyone has an agenda and will bend facts to suit their needs.
Same one that helped BushCo purge all those voters in 2000
IIRC, the purge was done at the request of a Democrat after a particularly nasty mayoral election. So do you mean to say that two democrats were paid off by Bush to demand a purge that would help Bush in a later election? My God man, break out your tinfoil hat!!!!
So our friends in the NJ legislature have tried to sue gun makers for the mere act of selling guns lawfully that happen to later on be stolen and used by a criminal, but I'll be they bend over backwards to shield those gun makers that use this technology from any and all liability when someone relies on one of these guns and it fails to fire....and it WILL fail.....
Let's be realistic. I go to the range all the time. At the range, in a controlled situation, I grip my gun the same way all the time. The one time I actually had to grab for my gun in an emergency, I'm sure I did not have a "range grip" on it. How is this new Dynamic Grip Recognition supposed to tell the difference? Will it think it's me having an emergency, or will it think it's Joe Thug who stole the gun and is trying to now ventilate Grandma?
Also keep in mind that the law in NJ says that ALL guns sold in the state must use smart technology within three years of it being "commercially" available. Read the fine print on that bill and you'll find that "commercially" available does NOT mean it has to work, be affordable, or widely available. To meet the criteria, if someone makes 1 gun for 10 million dollars, that only works 50% of the time, but offers it for sale, the state can declare that the criteria is met. The state gave themselves the authority to decide when something is "commercially available" The state sets up its own research institute. This institute now has produced something that will fail 10% of the time, but they will now claim it to be commercially available. I call shenanigans. I'm all for safer firearms, and more importantly, safer and more responsible gun owners. Let's compromise and say that all guns need to have this "smart" technology 3 years after the Police start using them.
Oh crap! It's that Belushi guy....no, not the dead one.....
I have personal experience with the damage they have caused; I have dealt with people in the embedded market who were avoiding embedded Linux because of "the lawsuit".
So I have a case against GM because I was thinking about buying one of their cars, but with the recalls, I just don't know...
I know there are a lot of Linux zealots here, but isn't this taking a bit far?
Sorry, when I read Gamers and Riot in the same sentence, all I can see is a giant slap fight breaking out. No, I'm not very PC.....
Knowing the history of Philadelphia
Yeah, knowing the history, any contract for WiFi will go to someone who is shoving huge dollars up the Mayor's ass. When he said during his campaign, "You have to pay to play" he wasn't kidding. Considering the Federal probe into almost every aspect of the Mayor's office and how certain contracts were awarded, I would not look for this to roll out anytime soon. I'm thinking by the time I retire in 20 or so years, it may be partially up and running. Of course by then, the Mayor will have retired to Florida and live in a 10 million dollar house from all the kickbacks he'll get.....
I was running a job in my old server (sitting on the basement floor of course) when my basement flooded during a hurricane about 3 years ago. I fully expected to return home to find the server dead, but to my surprise, it was still running. The surge suppressor it was plugged into (also on the floor) had sockets that were partially melted, but the server was ticking right along. There was still about a foot of water on the floor and it was lapping up against the MB. Go figure! Oh, and NEVER try to insert the power supply cord for a hard drive reversed with the power running. You get a nice little arc and a dead hard drive.
More seriously, the decision was made by a Supreme Court containing individuals who - in any other court in the country would have had to abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. (Some of the Justices were nominateed by G.W.B.'s father, for Pete's sake.)
So the ENTIRE Supreme Court should have recused themselves since some were appointed by the Clinto/Gore team or other Democrat presidents right? I don't think there is an easy pat answer to this. Both parties acted like spoiled 3 year olds throwing a temper tantrum. Each wanted thier own way. The best way to solve it? For better or worse, it has to go to the highest court in the land.