Nothing I've yet discovered is as flexible, reliable, and controllable. every digital attempt I've seen/tried has been inferior. You might try recording the lectures as you go in case you need to go back for context at some point, especially if you go back and type them later.
You're absolutely right. The problem is, every time I back off, someone thinks it's an invitation and fills the gap. Incidentally, I'm also being tailgated and can't get into the next lane because it suffers from the same problem.
That's the unfortunate nature of driving on freeways here in Dallas/Fort Worth.
but even moreso, I hate to see all that innovation being justifiably attributed to one man. Steve Jobs wasn't the idea man. Steve Jobs was the man who let the ideas happen. The results came from having people who could innovate being bolstered by someone who could actually see it through to market from a corporate and marketing level.
It's like a guitarist who tries to sound like Brian May or a singer who wants to sound like Freddie Mercury. They might get all the notes right, but it will never be the same. I share Larry's doubts as to whether the company can survive without it.
the VA is a whole can of worms of its own. The C-123 fleet, as you have said, has been a problem, but even so, the military has vehemently fought claims related to this despite even obvious documented evidence.
More than anything else, I've been arguing for years that the biggest problem we have in our representative republic is our single-vote system. What we need is an instant runoff voting system to replace our single-vote ballot. I'm tired of the debates over Perot's role in 1992 every time a party needs to drum up support for an unpopular candidate, the debates over how to dethrone current party establishments without splitting the vote and thus forefitting to the other major party among Democrats and Republicans (well, mostly spoken of by Republicans actually), Libertarians and Greens voting for R and D candidates because their own party "can't win", and so on.
The only two ways to dethrone our two same-result-different-rhetoric parties are either to challenge the establishment in primaries (which occasionally works, but more often seems not to work) or to effectively end the monopoly they have on the ballot box by eliminating this idiotic idea that a third-party vote is thrown away. Instant runoff means no vote is wasted, no matter how unlikely a voter's highest-ranked candidate's victory seems.
Example: I know a lot of people who hated Romney and Obama as candidates, and would have liked to have selected someone else, but were so terrified of one or the other that they voted for the one who was most likely to defeat the one who scared them most. That's no way to elect a leader. Similarly, we could have used this process during the primaries to avoid similar problems in candidate selection. Especially states with early primaries, where it could be used to correct for candidates dropping out before the conventions. Though to be fair, most people are unaware that they elect delegates, not candidates.
The whole issue of picking candidates based not on merit but on "electability" is poison to a healthy democratic election.
i use it because I like my bandwidth to only be used for what I actually want to see. So even then, I won't consider ads acceptable use of my bandwidth.
It probably did occur to them, and then when they finished laughing and picked themselves up off the floor, they started considering serious ideas again.
War is necessarily an imperfect business. I'd rather devote resources to the MIA soldiers from Vietnam and locating our lost submarines from WWII than worrying about what happened to documents about Iraq and Afghanistan. People have to come first. Leave no document behind ranks way below leaving no man behind.
Pure nonsense. You've contradicted yourself in your fist two sentences. A secret court is by its very nature unaccountable to the public as well as being incompatible with civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed public due process.
You've just illustrated why the warrants are invalid under the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment is precisely intended both to prevent secret courts, and to guarantee numerous rights inconsistent with being able to actually use anything found using warrants issued by secret courts in the event of a trial.
I'm not talking about fully replacing roads, simply with having a reasonable and useful system of rail that actually goes places. In many areas, passenger trains have only a token presence of extremely limited utility.
As far as the license plate scanning database issue, I reject its usage (and that of similar usage) entirely no matter what the underlying technology.
If there's one thing I've come to understand about government agencies, it's that once mission creep sets in, the only recourse is to eliminate the entire program or agency. And replace it with something brand new if it's still needed. Otherwise, it just looks for new ways to subvert the change in an attempt to regain what power it has lost.
Agreed! And that goes in routes that make sense. To go from Dallas to San Francisco (well, Oakland, really) by passenger rail, they essentially wanted to send me hundreds of miles south, all across the Mexican border to LA, and then up the coast.
It ended up being both faster and more economical to drive from early morning to about lunchtime in my car from Dallas to Albuquerque, park at the airport, hop a cab to the train station, get on the train, and still wait like 8 hours for my transfer in LA. And my understanding is that to go from Dallas to Denver, my route would have been basically the same with an extra change in Sacramento or so, or a similarly contrived detour through Chicago or something. It's ridiculous.
Personally, I'm against the automation of roads precisely because of the privacy concerns. I'm already concerned enough with simple license plate scanning databases.
As far as your safety argument, I reject the idea of giving up privacy and freedoms for safety. If we really need to argue as if safety were the real reason for this, we'd be building quality rail that actually goes places instead of building robocars.
FISA courts are not sixth-amendment compliant. Please examine the sixth amendment and explain to me exactly how FISA courts meet all the criteria therein. FISA courts obviously violate almost every one of these.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I'm not sure you understand that the FISA courts are incompatible with civil liberties AND with our safety. There is much more to safety than just whether we might be at the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack. Terrorists are the least of our worries, ranking way below automotive collisions, falling in the shower, and getting poor service at our favourite restaurant.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but you'd be hard-pressed to get the hair right!
Nothing I've yet discovered is as flexible, reliable, and controllable. every digital attempt I've seen/tried has been inferior. You might try recording the lectures as you go in case you need to go back for context at some point, especially if you go back and type them later.
You're absolutely right. The problem is, every time I back off, someone thinks it's an invitation and fills the gap. Incidentally, I'm also being tailgated and can't get into the next lane because it suffers from the same problem.
That's the unfortunate nature of driving on freeways here in Dallas/Fort Worth.
Yes, but without all those great ideas, the company is doomed!
I'll be fair and preface this by saying I've never liked iTunes. However, I think what it is now is far, far worse than it ever was under Jobs.
but even moreso, I hate to see all that innovation being justifiably attributed to one man. Steve Jobs wasn't the idea man. Steve Jobs was the man who let the ideas happen. The results came from having people who could innovate being bolstered by someone who could actually see it through to market from a corporate and marketing level.
It's like a guitarist who tries to sound like Brian May or a singer who wants to sound like Freddie Mercury. They might get all the notes right, but it will never be the same. I share Larry's doubts as to whether the company can survive without it.
the VA is a whole can of worms of its own. The C-123 fleet, as you have said, has been a problem, but even so, the military has vehemently fought claims related to this despite even obvious documented evidence.
More than anything else, I've been arguing for years that the biggest problem we have in our representative republic is our single-vote system. What we need is an instant runoff voting system to replace our single-vote ballot. I'm tired of the debates over Perot's role in 1992 every time a party needs to drum up support for an unpopular candidate, the debates over how to dethrone current party establishments without splitting the vote and thus forefitting to the other major party among Democrats and Republicans (well, mostly spoken of by Republicans actually), Libertarians and Greens voting for R and D candidates because their own party "can't win", and so on.
The only two ways to dethrone our two same-result-different-rhetoric parties are either to challenge the establishment in primaries (which occasionally works, but more often seems not to work) or to effectively end the monopoly they have on the ballot box by eliminating this idiotic idea that a third-party vote is thrown away. Instant runoff means no vote is wasted, no matter how unlikely a voter's highest-ranked candidate's victory seems.
Example: I know a lot of people who hated Romney and Obama as candidates, and would have liked to have selected someone else, but were so terrified of one or the other that they voted for the one who was most likely to defeat the one who scared them most. That's no way to elect a leader. Similarly, we could have used this process during the primaries to avoid similar problems in candidate selection. Especially states with early primaries, where it could be used to correct for candidates dropping out before the conventions. Though to be fair, most people are unaware that they elect delegates, not candidates.
The whole issue of picking candidates based not on merit but on "electability" is poison to a healthy democratic election.
i use it because I like my bandwidth to only be used for what I actually want to see. So even then, I won't consider ads acceptable use of my bandwidth.
It probably did occur to them, and then when they finished laughing and picked themselves up off the floor, they started considering serious ideas again.
War is necessarily an imperfect business. I'd rather devote resources to the MIA soldiers from Vietnam and locating our lost submarines from WWII than worrying about what happened to documents about Iraq and Afghanistan. People have to come first. Leave no document behind ranks way below leaving no man behind.
Pure nonsense. You've contradicted yourself in your fist two sentences. A secret court is by its very nature unaccountable to the public as well as being incompatible with civil liberties and constitutionally guaranteed public due process.
You've just illustrated why the warrants are invalid under the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment is precisely intended both to prevent secret courts, and to guarantee numerous rights inconsistent with being able to actually use anything found using warrants issued by secret courts in the event of a trial.
I'm not talking about fully replacing roads, simply with having a reasonable and useful system of rail that actually goes places. In many areas, passenger trains have only a token presence of extremely limited utility.
As far as the license plate scanning database issue, I reject its usage (and that of similar usage) entirely no matter what the underlying technology.
Even then, it would be subject to appeal.
If there's one thing I've come to understand about government agencies, it's that once mission creep sets in, the only recourse is to eliminate the entire program or agency. And replace it with something brand new if it's still needed. Otherwise, it just looks for new ways to subvert the change in an attempt to regain what power it has lost.
Agreed! And that goes in routes that make sense. To go from Dallas to San Francisco (well, Oakland, really) by passenger rail, they essentially wanted to send me hundreds of miles south, all across the Mexican border to LA, and then up the coast.
It ended up being both faster and more economical to drive from early morning to about lunchtime in my car from Dallas to Albuquerque, park at the airport, hop a cab to the train station, get on the train, and still wait like 8 hours for my transfer in LA. And my understanding is that to go from Dallas to Denver, my route would have been basically the same with an extra change in Sacramento or so, or a similarly contrived detour through Chicago or something. It's ridiculous.
I think you're missing the fact that I actually agree with you. I'm exposing government logic, not endorsing it.
Personally, I'm against the automation of roads precisely because of the privacy concerns. I'm already concerned enough with simple license plate scanning databases.
As far as your safety argument, I reject the idea of giving up privacy and freedoms for safety. If we really need to argue as if safety were the real reason for this, we'd be building quality rail that actually goes places instead of building robocars.
I'm not sure preaching to the choir will help, but I'm glad you agree!
Your wit deserves credit for its dryness.
FISA courts are not sixth-amendment compliant. Please examine the sixth amendment and explain to me exactly how FISA courts meet all the criteria therein. FISA courts obviously violate almost every one of these.
I'm not sure you understand that the FISA courts are incompatible with civil liberties AND with our safety. There is much more to safety than just whether we might be at the minuscule risk of a terrorist attack. Terrorists are the least of our worries, ranking way below automotive collisions, falling in the shower, and getting poor service at our favourite restaurant.
I'm not sure you understand the term "win" here.
Entrenchment is no excuse for giving up. If it were, we'd still be British subjects.