"We might manage to find some more oil if we all stick our heads far enough into the sand, that is basically where it lives..."
I disagree - if that were true we would be able find more gas if we stuck our heads up our asses, and since the US Capitol has not exploded from a methane buildup, res ipsa loquiter
"Come to think of it, I can't remember any instance where the US had the moral high ground since its revolution. Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?"
Well, it's a relative high ground. Historically the US has been knee deep in the filth of corruption and double dealing. But during that same time Europe was in so deep I'm surprised they didn't drown. The whole arena is a swamp - some hillocks are just higher than others.
My problem is that somehow the US has decided they want to e in the filth too, and europe is pretending they aren't in as deep by climbing up our backs and saying "Look at me! I'm clean!"
"US regulations suck for consumers, whereas the EC attempts to work for the consumer. "
Not exactly. The GE-Honeywell merger was rejected SPECIFICALLY because it might hurt Airbus. There was actually decent evidence that prices to the consumer would go down, but the EC decided that it was more important to maintain a robust European airplane manufacturer.
"Obama is required to present evidence *to the election officials*. "
And to the best of my knowledge he has not done so. THAT's my problem with it.
And no, the governor of Hawaii, AFTER the election, doesn't count. He's neither a federal, nor a state, election official.
Everyone keeps responding saying "What he did was sufficient." But when I point out that it would not be sufficient if I did it, the name calling starts. Why?
"I believe Obama already presented the official documentation to election officials. "
That is the crux of our disagreement - to the best of my knowledge, he did not do so.
You are also missing my initial point - it's not about using a DL as ID, it's about having to produce, in my posession, and actual, certified document in order to GET my driver's license. Or a passport. Or an SSN. Or enroll in grade school. Or play on a youth soccer team. Sure, if I CAN'T produce it, there are official ways around it. But Obama did produce it when he got his driver's license, enrolled in school, etc. But to prove his eligibility to be POTUS he can produce a photocopy, 2 random guys who saw his copy and said "It's ok", and a statement from a state official that says that THEIR copy is good, but can't issue a certified copy.
As for your bringing up the parties, think a bit. He made his assertion after the election. What person in his right mind would assert at that point that Obama wasn't qualified? He may be republican, but Hawaii is as blue as they come. Would you commit career suicide over a done deal? Didn't think so.
No. He produced a facsimile of his birth certificate. When I got my driver's license, I had to produce the real thing - a certified copy from the state of my birth. I had to do it again when I got my passport. I was not allowed to present a photocopy, nor was I allowed to have the county clerk call up and tell the official that the clerk has seen it and it's genuine.
As for who would review, a quote from the Washington Post:
"But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision."
So it looks like there is an authority to decide it. As for who he-'s shown it to, "everybody" appears to be 2 people from a website.
I'm not the one subjecting him to special treatment. If I were held to the same standard, I could have gotten my license with a photocopy and a phone call from a county clerk. Guess what - I can't, and neither can anyone else in the country. So who's getting special treatment?
Links, please. Because I've only ever seen a scan of 1 document. I'd like to see the rest of them.
At what point in those 2 sentences is any reference made to Obama's status as a natural born citizen? The GGP said that Obama has shown "plenty" of documentation. I have only ever "seen" (i.e. the reciprocal of "shown")one document, which does not fit the definition of "plenty of documentation". I asked for the GGP to provide the links where I might see the rest of the documentation he claimed exists. I did not call him a liar, nor did I dispute the veracity of the document in question (the one to which you linked).
So either you are illiterate, or an asshole. Don't bother to answer - I have a pretty good idea which one it is.
The document presented is prima facia evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.That is what the Hawaii state seal on the document and the signature of the state official on the document attest to.
My driver's license is prima facie evidence of my birthdate. But if it looks funny, it won't be accepted. The only legally definitive proof of my age is an official copy of my birth certificate, and I need to produce. Sending a scan won't do, and only showing it to a few people in an unofficial capacity won't do either. Yes, it's a private document, but I STILL to produce the thing itself.
The republican governor of Hawaii and the Hawaii state officials responsible for maintaining those records have both publicly confirmed that they have reviewed the documents that are in state custody and those documents also prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
You have GOT to be joking. "A politician/government employee says it's good, so that's it." Great. Lets get rid of Wikileaks, the Pentagon Papers, and the rest. Don't put the government budget on line, and trash the sunshine laws."
The noise from the birthers is just denial."
A statement that only reinforces the concerns of ANYBODY who doesn't toe the line. It's not possible to disagree or find fault with Obama, or his administration, or his policies. Give them a ridiculous name (teabaggers, birthers), and just yell it out when you want to shut someone up.
FWIW, I don't care one way or another where he was born. What I care about is that I have to produce an official birth certificate, on paper, and submit it for review by a government official in order to get an SSN, or a driver's license, etc. EVERYBODY is subject to this, privacy or no, in order to verify that one qualifies to receive a certain status from the government. And if that document is challenged, I need to back it up.
Barack Obama is exempt from the same requirements. Why?
"The problem is that if this becomes "discoverable", you can't simply do a dump of memory, you have to actually prepare it in a manageable, readable way. Otherwise, eager $500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you. At your own costs.
Merill Lynch did a "here you go" when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes. The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $."
Not exactly. You need to provide it in a usable format IF that format is something you would use regularly. So, handing over an encrypted USB key when the request was for a paper document wouldn't fly. However, you are NOT required to process that data to the prosecution'e advantage. So if the document is 12000 pages of logs, you don't have to sort through it to find what the prosecution wants, but only as narrow as the court orders. Also, I'm pretty sure that one is not required to create data extraction methods. That's why the RAM ruling was so bogus - Sure, you could produce reams and reams of binary, but how is that supposed to be processed into a log of meaningful information?
While I applaud the ruling, I believe your example - specifically, the Obama birth certificate - is a red herring.
Lets look at this hypothetical situation.
Big Company HR Dept: "Well, Mr. R2.0, we'd like to offer you a job here at Big Company. If you accept, please send a copy of your college transcript along with your acceptance." Me: "Why do you need that?" BCHRD: "Just to verify you're a graduate of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain." Me: "But I already said I was on my resume - I shouldn't have to produce a document." BCHRD: "Well, it is a formality, as we're sure you did graduate, but we do need to verify it, as the position requires a bachelors degree." Me: "I shouldn't have to prove anything - I already told you I have a degree If you don't like that, ask my references. You're making me jump through these hoops to prove this because you are prejudiced against people with decimal points in their names!"
Now lets pause. In the real world, the conversation would stop here, with "Sorry Mr. R2.0, we'll be withdrawing our offer." But lets continue with the example.
BCHRD: "We're sorry you believe that, but your situation is not unique. We request, and generally receive, transcripts from ALL our applicants. It has never been an issue before. May we ask why you do not wish to provide one? It's really a very simple process." Me: "But it's unnecessary. I've stated I have a degree, my references have confirmed it, and continuing to ask me can only eb explained by your punctuation bias." BCHRD: "Okaaaayyy. I'll need to talk to my superiors"
A few weeks pass.
BCHRD: "Well, I've heard back from my supervisors. Most are willing to accept your word; some even stated that they don't care if you don't have a degree, your resume is so impressive. But there is a very staunch group that takes the requirements very seriously, and are uncomfortable with your refusal to provide the documentation. I'll admit these people are NOT in favor of hiring you, that some of them unfortunately seem to be prejudiced against the punctuation-enabled, but the fact remains that the rules are very clear, and it would take 3/4 off all the company divisions to agree to change them." Me: "See, I told you bias was the only reason for this! But in the spirit of cooperation, I'll send the appropriate documents".
Couple of days pass.
BCHRD: "Mr. R2.0, we've received the scan of your document, and have some questions." Me: "What now - I thought this was over." BCHRD: "The problem is with the fact that you sent a scan of the document, and not an original." Me: "So - isn't that good enough for you?" BCHRD: "Normally it would be, but we have some problems. First, due to your previous objections to forwarding the document, some of the supervisors are INSISTING that a hard copy be produced. Second, we have some graduates of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain, and they state that the document doesn't look exactly like theirs. And finally, you scanned a copy of your course schedule and credits earned. While it contains much of the same information, it is NOT a transcript, and does NOT say if you actually received a degree." Me: "This is punctuationism! That's a private document - I'm not going to just hand it over! As far as I'm concerned, I've complied, and I'm showing up to work in January regardless of what you think your policy says. But again, to show how reasonable I am, I'll allow one or two of your supervisors to examine the original."
More time.
Me: "See, it's been examined and they say everything is OK." BCHRD: "Not exactly. The 2 supervisors who examined the documents happened to be very suportive of your employment hers, and all they will say is that the document is genuine. When asked about specific characteristics, they generally reflected that the questioner must be biased because they were questioning the examiner's motives." Me: "Well, here's the deal.
"unless somebody doesn't actually know that troll and trawl do mean exactly the same thing in this case?"
Incorrect. Trawling is done using a net, typically in the open ocean. It scoops up a lot of different crap, as the fishermen found out.
Trolling is done with a hook and lure/bait. The slow forward motion of the boat makes the lure or bait appear to be alive, or the movement attracts the fish's eye.
"Um.. It's a free service, and collecting user data (most of which is anonymized) is a core feature of their ad services. Why exactly does Google need to hobble its business model again?"
Because not only do people believe they are entitled to benefits with no cost to them, they want others, including the government, to mandate it.
"I'd like to thank all the commenters in the original article that insinuated that the technical requirements were impossible and/or that making a GUI to configure such complex things is a waste of time. I read every one and I wouldn't have made it such an obsession otherwise!""
This is the place they like to call the "Berkeley of the East". It's so liberal it's almost a parody. I think the MD Democratic Party keeps it around as a pure strain in a petri dish so that they can pretend they are also liberal.
It also means that if Takoma Park thinks it's a good idea, everyone else in MD will think it's a joke and ignore it.
Oh, I won't deny that the UK system is better engineered, but it is so not because of some inherent superiority in British engineers but the fact that Britain effectively had to rebuild their electrical system after the war. 1940's engineering vs. late 19th century. Think Ford Anglia versus a Duryea Motor Wagon.
And I certainly wasn't offended by the tone of the article - I figured that someone whose tongue is jammed that firmly in his cheek must have some kind of congenital defect.
I've been hit by 120 a couple of times and REALLY didn't like it. But an electrician I worked with described getting hit with 208 (2 legs of a 3 phase system) - there is simply no comparison.
"As a British person living in the USA I notice that the majority of my sockets outside kitchen and bathroom are not GFI protected (either at the socket or the fuse panel) and that most appliances do not use an Earth Pin."
I actually doubt most British circuits are GFI protected, but I could be wrong about that. Remember, though - GFI is more than a breaker or fuse. Also, per the National Electrical Code, all electrical devices without a ground plug must be double insulated - insulation on the wiring and the casing. Finally, in a 110v circuit, one of the legs IS earthed - they tie in at the panel.
"I also am in awe that socket adapters are legally sold that convert non earthed sockets into earthed sockets and light bulb sockets into earthed sockets, the safety implications are huge. I think it is a fair assessment to use 110V non earth sockets as many home have them."
Already addressed. If they get misused and a fire starts, it's the owner's fault.
"I also notice that no appliance I own in the USA uses insulation on the live pins of the plug to prevent accidental shocks when the plug is slightly out of the socket, none of the sockets contain safety shutters"
Both are available, just not mandated. If you don't have kids, why do you need the safety shutters?
" and that 110V cords to high wattage appliances such as vacuum cleaners get warm" Something to do with Ohm's law, I think. Warm? BFD - so does British wiring, just not as much.
" and the lights change brightness when I switch such appliances on and off."
That's the house wiring, not the system wiring.
The British took the Nanny state route, and the US hasn't caught up yet. I'm not shedding any tears.
So there seems to be a bit of human factors here as well - "Assume that the user will use the least complex combination, and check that first". Correct?
"Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits."
This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement, and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies. Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime, there's a practical matter - small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition, and always has been. This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.
Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing: Winchester, Smith and Wesson, Remington, Colt, Marlin, Harrington & Richardson, etc. The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point, or multiple times, or been bought out under financial duress. Ruger is a notable exception, but it's not like they make money hand over fist. Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines, and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection. One of the best handgun designs of all time, the Colt model 1911, is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by dozens of companies. Profit margins are slim, to say the least.
The second failure is the nature of the product. The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure, or by hiding the risks in using a product. But with firearms, that is being turned on it's head - the makers are being sued, not because their products fail, but because they succeed. When a firearm works correctly, someone or something is damaged - it's just not the user. And, as much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner. So the gun manufacturer's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to. Can people use them for illegal means? Sure - they can also use VCR's for copyright infringement. Sony put paid to that, and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits. So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted (again), Congress stepped in.
The third failure is connected with the first two, in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers. First, you have the True Believers. The product is bad, and should be banned. But not being able to achieve an outright ban, they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business, in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well. The problem is that the company is not the product!. If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said "Fuck it - we quit", that wouldn't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes. The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company, WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies, and people just keep smoking. Same with guns. The second group I'll call "The Pragmatists". These people believe that an outright ban isn't going to happen, so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute, and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace. For Tobacco, they seem to have succeeded: tobacco companies still exist, and cigarettes still exist, but now they are regulated under a "regime" that's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed, not being allowed to use certain advertisements, while the "settlement" money has been pissed away by the complainants.
The Pragmatists had another "success" with the gun lawsuits, although I'm not sure they'd call it that. Smith & Wesson, under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition, settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation, ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product (hint - NONE of S&W's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea.) In return, they were prom
That's similar to the argument that Craftsman tools are as good as other professional lines because of the lifetime warrantee. Yeah, you won't lose money replacing the tool, but you WILL lose money on the time it takes to replace a broken tool, or having to do without.
Alternately, the original Chrysler 5/50 warranty - it may have been the "best warranty in the business", but they were still total pieces of crap. And the knowledge that the fix may be free isn't very comforting at 2:00 AM on the side of teh road.
Slashdot Mirror
"We might manage to find some more oil if we all stick our heads far enough into the sand, that is basically where it lives..."
I disagree - if that were true we would be able find more gas if we stuck our heads up our asses, and since the US Capitol has not exploded from a methane buildup, res ipsa loquiter
"Come to think of it, I can't remember any instance where the US had the moral high ground since its revolution. Sure, if you compare it to the Soviet Union, it had the moral high ground, but that's not much of a comparison, is it?"
Well, it's a relative high ground. Historically the US has been knee deep in the filth of corruption and double dealing. But during that same time Europe was in so deep I'm surprised they didn't drown. The whole arena is a swamp - some hillocks are just higher than others.
My problem is that somehow the US has decided they want to e in the filth too, and europe is pretending they aren't in as deep by climbing up our backs and saying "Look at me! I'm clean!"
"US regulations suck for consumers, whereas the EC attempts to work for the consumer. "
Not exactly. The GE-Honeywell merger was rejected SPECIFICALLY because it might hurt Airbus. There was actually decent evidence that prices to the consumer would go down, but the EC decided that it was more important to maintain a robust European airplane manufacturer.
"Obama is required to present evidence *to the election officials*. "
And to the best of my knowledge he has not done so. THAT's my problem with it.
And no, the governor of Hawaii, AFTER the election, doesn't count. He's neither a federal, nor a state, election official.
Everyone keeps responding saying "What he did was sufficient." But when I point out that it would not be sufficient if I did it, the name calling starts. Why?
"I believe Obama already presented the official documentation to election officials. "
That is the crux of our disagreement - to the best of my knowledge, he did not do so.
You are also missing my initial point - it's not about using a DL as ID, it's about having to produce, in my posession, and actual, certified document in order to GET my driver's license. Or a passport. Or an SSN. Or enroll in grade school. Or play on a youth soccer team. Sure, if I CAN'T produce it, there are official ways around it. But Obama did produce it when he got his driver's license, enrolled in school, etc. But to prove his eligibility to be POTUS he can produce a photocopy, 2 random guys who saw his copy and said "It's ok", and a statement from a state official that says that THEIR copy is good, but can't issue a certified copy.
As for your bringing up the parties, think a bit. He made his assertion after the election. What person in his right mind would assert at that point that Obama wasn't qualified? He may be republican, but Hawaii is as blue as they come. Would you commit career suicide over a done deal? Didn't think so.
No. He produced a facsimile of his birth certificate. When I got my driver's license, I had to produce the real thing - a certified copy from the state of my birth. I had to do it again when I got my passport. I was not allowed to present a photocopy, nor was I allowed to have the county clerk call up and tell the official that the clerk has seen it and it's genuine.
As for who would review, a quote from the Washington Post:
"But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision."
So it looks like there is an authority to decide it. As for who he-'s shown it to, "everybody" appears to be 2 people from a website.
I'm not the one subjecting him to special treatment. If I were held to the same standard, I could have gotten my license with a photocopy and a phone call from a county clerk. Guess what - I can't, and neither can anyone else in the country. So who's getting special treatment?
At what point in those 2 sentences is any reference made to Obama's status as a natural born citizen? The GGP said that Obama has shown "plenty" of documentation. I have only ever "seen" (i.e. the reciprocal of "shown")one document, which does not fit the definition of "plenty of documentation". I asked for the GGP to provide the links where I might see the rest of the documentation he claimed exists. I did not call him a liar, nor did I dispute the veracity of the document in question (the one to which you linked).
So either you are illiterate, or an asshole. Don't bother to answer - I have a pretty good idea which one it is.
Fox news works for the Republicans; CBS works for the shareholders.
The Washington Times is owned by Sun Yung Moon, the Post is owned by shareholders.
I won't for one minute claim that Fox or the Times is fair; on the other hand, I know the direction from which the shit is being flung.
My driver's license is prima facie evidence of my birthdate. But if it looks funny, it won't be accepted. The only legally definitive proof of my age is an official copy of my birth certificate, and I need to produce. Sending a scan won't do, and only showing it to a few people in an unofficial capacity won't do either. Yes, it's a private document, but I STILL to produce the thing itself.
You have GOT to be joking. "A politician/government employee says it's good, so that's it." Great. Lets get rid of Wikileaks, the Pentagon Papers, and the rest. Don't put the government budget on line, and trash the sunshine laws."
A statement that only reinforces the concerns of ANYBODY who doesn't toe the line. It's not possible to disagree or find fault with Obama, or his administration, or his policies. Give them a ridiculous name (teabaggers, birthers), and just yell it out when you want to shut someone up.
FWIW, I don't care one way or another where he was born. What I care about is that I have to produce an official birth certificate, on paper, and submit it for review by a government official in order to get an SSN, or a driver's license, etc. EVERYBODY is subject to this, privacy or no, in order to verify that one qualifies to receive a certain status from the government. And if that document is challenged, I need to back it up.
Barack Obama is exempt from the same requirements. Why?
"Obama has shown plenty of documentation."
Links, please. Because I've only ever seen a scan of 1 document. I'd like to see the rest of them.
"The problem is that if this becomes "discoverable", you can't simply do a dump of memory, you have to actually prepare it in
a manageable, readable way. Otherwise, eager $500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you. At your own costs.
Merill Lynch did a "here you go" when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes. The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $."
Not exactly. You need to provide it in a usable format IF that format is something you would use regularly. So, handing over an encrypted USB key when the request was for a paper document wouldn't fly. However, you are NOT required to process that data to the prosecution'e advantage. So if the document is 12000 pages of logs, you don't have to sort through it to find what the prosecution wants, but only as narrow as the court orders. Also, I'm pretty sure that one is not required to create data extraction methods. That's why the RAM ruling was so bogus - Sure, you could produce reams and reams of binary, but how is that supposed to be processed into a log of meaningful information?
While I applaud the ruling, I believe your example - specifically, the Obama birth certificate - is a red herring.
Lets look at this hypothetical situation.
Big Company HR Dept: "Well, Mr. R2.0, we'd like to offer you a job here at Big Company. If you accept, please send a copy of your college transcript along with your acceptance."
Me: "Why do you need that?"
BCHRD: "Just to verify you're a graduate of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain."
Me: "But I already said I was on my resume - I shouldn't have to produce a document."
BCHRD: "Well, it is a formality, as we're sure you did graduate, but we do need to verify it, as the position requires a bachelors degree."
Me: "I shouldn't have to prove anything - I already told you I have a degree If you don't like that, ask my references. You're making me jump through these hoops to prove this because you are prejudiced against people with decimal points in their names!"
Now lets pause. In the real world, the conversation would stop here, with "Sorry Mr. R2.0, we'll be withdrawing our offer." But lets continue with the example.
BCHRD: "We're sorry you believe that, but your situation is not unique. We request, and generally receive, transcripts from ALL our applicants. It has never been an issue before. May we ask why you do not wish to provide one? It's really a very simple process."
Me: "But it's unnecessary. I've stated I have a degree, my references have confirmed it, and continuing to ask me can only eb explained by your punctuation bias."
BCHRD: "Okaaaayyy. I'll need to talk to my superiors"
A few weeks pass.
BCHRD: "Well, I've heard back from my supervisors. Most are willing to accept your word; some even stated that they don't care if you don't have a degree, your resume is so impressive. But there is a very staunch group that takes the requirements very seriously, and are uncomfortable with your refusal to provide the documentation. I'll admit these people are NOT in favor of hiring you, that some of them unfortunately seem to be prejudiced against the punctuation-enabled, but the fact remains that the rules are very clear, and it would take 3/4 off all the company divisions to agree to change them."
Me: "See, I told you bias was the only reason for this! But in the spirit of cooperation, I'll send the appropriate documents".
Couple of days pass.
BCHRD: "Mr. R2.0, we've received the scan of your document, and have some questions."
Me: "What now - I thought this was over."
BCHRD: "The problem is with the fact that you sent a scan of the document, and not an original."
Me: "So - isn't that good enough for you?"
BCHRD: "Normally it would be, but we have some problems. First, due to your previous objections to forwarding the document, some of the supervisors are INSISTING that a hard copy be produced. Second, we have some graduates of Engineering School on the Side of a Frikkin Mountain, and they state that the document doesn't look exactly like theirs. And finally, you scanned a copy of your course schedule and credits earned. While it contains much of the same information, it is NOT a transcript, and does NOT say if you actually received a degree."
Me: "This is punctuationism! That's a private document - I'm not going to just hand it over! As far as I'm concerned, I've complied, and I'm showing up to work in January regardless of what you think your policy says. But again, to show how reasonable I am, I'll allow one or two of your supervisors to examine the original."
More time.
Me: "See, it's been examined and they say everything is OK."
BCHRD: "Not exactly. The 2 supervisors who examined the documents happened to be very suportive of your employment hers, and all they will say is that the document is genuine. When asked about specific characteristics, they generally reflected that the questioner must be biased because they were questioning the examiner's motives."
Me: "Well, here's the deal.
"unless somebody doesn't actually know that troll and trawl do mean exactly the same thing in this case?"
Incorrect. Trawling is done using a net, typically in the open ocean. It scoops up a lot of different crap, as the fishermen found out.
Trolling is done with a hook and lure/bait. The slow forward motion of the boat makes the lure or bait appear to be alive, or the movement attracts the fish's eye.
Just a fun fact.
"Um.. It's a free service, and collecting user data (most of which is anonymized) is a core feature of their ad services. Why exactly does Google need to hobble its business model again?"
Because not only do people believe they are entitled to benefits with no cost to them, they want others, including the government, to mandate it.
"Can you think of Internet without using Google's Services?"
You are aware that the Internet existed prior to Google's "services"? Really, it wasn't that long ago that Google was just search.
"I'd like to thank all the commenters in the original article that insinuated that the technical requirements were impossible and/or that making a GUI to configure such complex things is a waste of time. I read every one and I wouldn't have made it such an obsession otherwise!""
Ummm - you're welcome?
This is the place they like to call the "Berkeley of the East". It's so liberal it's almost a parody. I think the MD Democratic Party keeps it around as a pure strain in a petri dish so that they can pretend they are also liberal.
It also means that if Takoma Park thinks it's a good idea, everyone else in MD will think it's a joke and ignore it.
Oh, I won't deny that the UK system is better engineered, but it is so not because of some inherent superiority in British engineers but the fact that Britain effectively had to rebuild their electrical system after the war. 1940's engineering vs. late 19th century. Think Ford Anglia versus a Duryea Motor Wagon.
And I certainly wasn't offended by the tone of the article - I figured that someone whose tongue is jammed that firmly in his cheek must have some kind of congenital defect.
I've been hit by 120 a couple of times and REALLY didn't like it. But an electrician I worked with described getting hit with 208 (2 legs of a 3 phase system) - there is simply no comparison.
Here we have an election yesterday and already Cuomo is running for Governor.
Where to begin?
"As a British person living in the USA I notice that the majority of my sockets outside kitchen and bathroom are not GFI protected (either at the socket or the fuse panel) and that most appliances do not use an Earth Pin."
I actually doubt most British circuits are GFI protected, but I could be wrong about that. Remember, though - GFI is more than a breaker or fuse. Also, per the National Electrical Code, all electrical devices without a ground plug must be double insulated - insulation on the wiring and the casing. Finally, in a 110v circuit, one of the legs IS earthed - they tie in at the panel.
"I also am in awe that socket adapters are legally sold that convert non earthed sockets into earthed sockets and light bulb sockets into earthed sockets, the safety implications are huge. I think it is a fair assessment to use 110V non earth sockets as many home have them."
Already addressed. If they get misused and a fire starts, it's the owner's fault.
"I also notice that no appliance I own in the USA uses insulation on the live pins of the plug to prevent accidental shocks when the plug is slightly out of the socket, none of the sockets contain safety shutters"
Both are available, just not mandated. If you don't have kids, why do you need the safety shutters?
" and that 110V cords to high wattage appliances such as vacuum cleaners get warm"
Something to do with Ohm's law, I think. Warm? BFD - so does British wiring, just not as much.
" and the lights change brightness when I switch such appliances on and off."
That's the house wiring, not the system wiring.
The British took the Nanny state route, and the US hasn't caught up yet. I'm not shedding any tears.
From TFA:
"We do have some things going for us though. Our health system means if we get ill, we get treated -- and our power plugs are excellent. "
Right under the picture of a NEMA 5-15R.
So there seems to be a bit of human factors here as well - "Assume that the user will use the least complex combination, and check that first". Correct?
"Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits."
This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement, and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies. Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime, there's a practical matter - small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition, and always has been. This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.
Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing: Winchester, Smith and Wesson, Remington, Colt, Marlin, Harrington & Richardson, etc. The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point, or multiple times, or been bought out under financial duress. Ruger is a notable exception, but it's not like they make money hand over fist. Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines, and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection. One of the best handgun designs of all time, the Colt model 1911, is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by dozens of companies. Profit margins are slim, to say the least.
The second failure is the nature of the product. The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure, or by hiding the risks in using a product. But with firearms, that is being turned on it's head - the makers are being sued, not because their products fail, but because they succeed. When a firearm works correctly, someone or something is damaged - it's just not the user. And, as much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner. So the gun manufacturer's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to. Can people use them for illegal means? Sure - they can also use VCR's for copyright infringement. Sony put paid to that, and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits. So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted (again), Congress stepped in.
The third failure is connected with the first two, in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers. First, you have the True Believers. The product is bad, and should be banned. But not being able to achieve an outright ban, they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business, in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well. The problem is that the company is not the product!. If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said "Fuck it - we quit", that wouldn't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes. The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company, WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies, and people just keep smoking. Same with guns. The second group I'll call "The Pragmatists". These people believe that an outright ban isn't going to happen, so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute, and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace. For Tobacco, they seem to have succeeded: tobacco companies still exist, and cigarettes still exist, but now they are regulated under a "regime" that's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed, not being allowed to use certain advertisements, while the "settlement" money has been pissed away by the complainants.
The Pragmatists had another "success" with the gun lawsuits, although I'm not sure they'd call it that. Smith & Wesson, under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition, settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation, ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product (hint - NONE of S&W's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea.) In return, they were prom
That's similar to the argument that Craftsman tools are as good as other professional lines because of the lifetime warrantee. Yeah, you won't lose money replacing the tool, but you WILL lose money on the time it takes to replace a broken tool, or having to do without.
Alternately, the original Chrysler 5/50 warranty - it may have been the "best warranty in the business", but they were still total pieces of crap. And the knowledge that the fix may be free isn't very comforting at 2:00 AM on the side of teh road.