Amen, brother. I won't fly without my cell, but for God's sake don't make all of us listen to every idiot on the plane yelling into their effing phone. It's noisy and uncomfortable enough as it is.
No, a gun is a tool for expelling a projectile at high velocity. A gun is no more a "tool for efficiently killing people" than a car, a knife, an electrical outlet or an aircraft is. I use all of the above on a regular basis, and haven't killed anyone yet.
There is everything to be said for retaining the power to defend one's self. It is one of our most basic rights, not granted by anyone but our Creator. If we surrender it we are no more than cattle.
"No one in the US is allowed to sell fully automatic weapons. That has been the law for decades, and yet criminals still manage to get ahold of them."
Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Pretty much anyone who can legally own a gun can own a machine gun, at least from the BATFE's point of view. You need a $200 tax stamp for it, and there is of course a raft of paperwork involved. Your local laws may prevent you from owning one, but Federal law certainly doesn't. What probably WILL keep you from owning one is the cost -- a cheap full-auto will still cost you a few thousand; a Thompson or M16 will typically set you back about the cost of a new car. Manufacture and importation of NEW machine guns has been banned since '86, I believe, so the supply dwindles while demand goes up. They are actively bought and sold every day, though -- check out gunbroker.com. Hell, I can rent one at my local indoor range. Modifying an existing semi-auto for full auto use is strictly verboten, of course.
Honestly, outside of TV and movies I haven't heard of a criminal using a full auto weapon in years. Hollywood seems to think every dope dealer has a full-auto AK-47 or MP-whatever tucked under his coat, but it's simply not the case. The media typically doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to reporting anything gun related; they can't tell the difference between a BB gun and a Ma Deuce.
Hrmm, yes. Amazingly enough, antennas work exactly the same way today that they did before the advent of cable TV, satellite radio (which also needs an antenna, of course) and all the other modern "conveniences". Except, of course, they allow you to watch & listen to things for *free*.:)
The reason most of those "rich fucks" are in first class is that they put in their time in steerage. A damn lot of them aren't rich or even close to it, they got upgraded by flying LOTS of miles for their jobs. If they didn't know how crappy the tail end of the plane was, they wouldn't be in FC, now would they?
***STILL*** not genocide. Sorry, but thanks for playing. I'm in no way claiming that the bombing of civilian populations is a good idea, though it seems to have been pretty much the norm at that time. But it's not genocide. The intent was not to wipe out the entire ethnic Japanese population, but to cripple the industries supporting their war effort.
Wow... where to begin?
First, the most ridiculous point. The US didn't even come close to genocide during WWII. Wiping out a couple of cities != a campaign to kill every living person of Japanese ancestry. The Nazis were indeed trying to wipe out every living Jew, Gypsy and what have you. It's not the same thing.
The whole point to dropping nukes on Japan was to shorten that war and avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland - which would probably have cost more American lives than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost in Japanese lives. It worked, and worked well.
As for the "secret economic imperialism" bit, yeah, we've meddled in the affairs of other countries, ever since we got big enough and economically powerful enough to do so. It's what big, economically powerful countries do. Take a look at history... Britain, Spain, Portugal, Russia, France, Germany, Rome, Egypt, name a major world power throughout history and you'll be naming a country that has exerted influence, economic and otherwise, to its own benefit. You seem to think that this is a bad thing in every case, and that those poor little downtrodden folk in such would-be Utopian places like Vietnam, Nicaragua and Venezuela would be just fine if left to their own devices. OK, yeah, right. Left to their own devices, most of those places would (and many have) descended into hellish shitholes that the rest of the world would then be pissing and moaning that the US won't help to clean up.
Not totally, but all of Europe and North Africa would have ended up under German rule had the US not supplied millions of men and women along with billions of dollars in equipment and supplies to the effort. The post-war decades would most likely have ended up quite differently as well, had it not been for the concentration of US forces (and the assurance of US large scale support) in Europe.
I don't know who *you* think was primarily responsible for the Allied victories during WWII, but I'm quite sure it would be entertaining to hear. The French, perhaps? Maybe the mighty Canadian forces?
Yes, several... structural failure (aircraft breaks, rather than engine dies); wind shear or other weather related issue; unfortunate bird strike; I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of on my first cup of coffee.
Yes, we do. Mainly because so many other countries (like all of Europe, for example) have become so totally dependent upon US military power to keep them secure. Yes, it's our own fault; had we let the Nazis or the Soviets take over more of the world, we'd only have to worry about our own defense and wouldn't have to spend nearly as much covering everyone else's asses.
"but eventually we will run out of land to farm on"
Not to rain on your parade, but you've never actually *been* out to this part of the country, have you? We - meaning my farming bretheren covering this state and those adjoining - can keep your New York asses in tacos and burgers indefinitely. And it's never going to be anywhere near as expensive as growing the stuff in NYC, even if we have to pay newly-legal immigrants to carry it in rucksacks cross country.
I mean, seriously. I suppose if one were building a city of that size from scratch, with no financial or logistical realities to deal with, it could be done. Aside from that scenario, hey, if you think it's a great idea, go for it. I'll make the popcorn.
Not if you dry them promptly and thoroughly. You won't find much exposed iron or steel; nearly all exposed metal will be tinned or gold plated. Mounting hardware is generally brass or nickel plated. But in any case, if you dry it quickly and thoroughly, corrosion is not a problem.
So I guess a keyboard wouldn't be a big challenge.
I managed to spill a glass full of peach flavored iced tea on a running mobo one time. Of course it instantly crashed, screen black. I killed power and went to bed. By the next day it was dried and looked pretty scruffy, and of course wouldn't work. Since I had absolutely nothing to lose at that point I pulled it from the case and washed it in the sink with warm water, a little dishwashing soap and a soft brush. I rinsed it for a while with warm tap water (distilled or filtered would be better) and dried it in a warm but not hot oven - about 140 F - for an hour. After cooling it off it worked perfectly, and I used it for a couple more years without any failures. I've done it once since with a newer motherboard, as well as several other boards and devices.
Electronic components on the motherboard are not porous, and in fact part of the packaging spec is resistance to humidity and moisture absorption. Fan bearings & bushings are, or course, a completely different matter. The real enemy with spills or washing is contamination with crud, minerals, etc in the water that becomes conductive. Keyboards used to be tricker, since they used (long ago) electromechanical switches. Now most are capacitive or conductive-pad types; as long as you get all the crap and soap rinsed out and let them dry properly, you're good to go.
My prediction: They'll start advertising, AND raise subscription rates. Anyone who was around to see the advent of cable TV should be able to see it coming.
Doesn't matter. Given the choice between dropping ads on big stations with huge audiences, and dropping ads on the smaller stations with small audiences, which one do you think the ad buyer will do? Whether the indy station plays RIAA-controller music or not, they're going to be in trouble if this comes to pass - NOT the Clear Channels, Tribunes and Journals.
You'd love to think that, but it's not what would happen. Let's follow the money for a moment...
Clear Channel and the other huge companies could and would pay without even flinching, and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs (and then some, since they can now blame RIAA for pretty much ANY amount of rate increase). Big Media wins, makes more money, gets bigger.
Advertisers now have Big Media sucking up a larger chunk of their advertising budgets, so they have to make cuts somewhere. Since the smaller, independent stations (are there any left?) have to pay RIAA too, their costs go up. With smaller audience shares, they are now even less cost effective than before. Advertisers pull ads from small stations to pay for the ads on big stations, small stations are now in an even bigger hurt than before.
Because the FCC has been spreading its legs for media companies for so long - and Congress is too clueless to notice or care -- Big Media is now able to suck up even more smaller stations as their financial position becomes untenable. Big Media wins again, makes even MORE money, gets even bigger. Talk radio and NPR survive as the only alternative to what Clear Channel, Journal Broadcast and the other handful of winners want you to hear.
This would be a huge long term win for the handful of huge media companies that now control most of the market anyway. Unfortunately, I suspect it would be a Pyrrhic vistory. They've alreay driven millions to satellite radio, and this would probably drive nails into terrestrial broadcast radio's coffin at an even faster rate.
Once the sattelite channels are devoting as much time to advertising as they are to music, we're right back to where we started - buy now you're PAYING to listen to it, which works out far better for the media companies. You're not naieve enough to think THAT won't happen, are you?
Precisely. The media companies will never be happy until you pay them for every song you hear, every image you see, and I suspect ultimately every thought you have. Why do you think newspaper and magazine publishers are praying for the success of E-paper? No more skimming the paper or your favorite magazine while ignoring the ads; you'll be forced to view the ads *before* you read the content. And you'll pay by the view for the articles, not just once.
I'm old enough to remember heads that self-parked because the hydraulic pressure retracted the carriage assembly as power was dropped to the solenoids controlling the spool valves. Yeah, I'm not kidding. About a quart of hydraulic oil pressurized by a Cessna-manufactured pump. I miss the old 2314...
It's not *music* that does this. It's the *people* who choose to disconnect from those around them and isolate themselves from the world. In my experience music does more to draw people closer.
The iPod/MP3 player != music.
Nothing "got up my nose", but if you're thinking copyright law is going to change radically in our lifetimes to match what you think it should be, there must have been something expensive snorted up yours.
You obviously have NO clue about copyright law, period. Go ahead; start selling copies of, say, Windows 98. See how long you survive before being crushed by the Python-esque foot of Microsoft's legal department.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen, brother. I won't fly without my cell, but for God's sake don't make all of us listen to every idiot on the plane yelling into their effing phone. It's noisy and uncomfortable enough as it is.
There is everything to be said for retaining the power to defend one's self. It is one of our most basic rights, not granted by anyone but our Creator. If we surrender it we are no more than cattle.
"No one in the US is allowed to sell fully automatic weapons. That has been the law for decades, and yet criminals still manage to get ahold of them." Sorry, but that's simply not the case. Pretty much anyone who can legally own a gun can own a machine gun, at least from the BATFE's point of view. You need a $200 tax stamp for it, and there is of course a raft of paperwork involved. Your local laws may prevent you from owning one, but Federal law certainly doesn't. What probably WILL keep you from owning one is the cost -- a cheap full-auto will still cost you a few thousand; a Thompson or M16 will typically set you back about the cost of a new car. Manufacture and importation of NEW machine guns has been banned since '86, I believe, so the supply dwindles while demand goes up. They are actively bought and sold every day, though -- check out gunbroker.com. Hell, I can rent one at my local indoor range. Modifying an existing semi-auto for full auto use is strictly verboten, of course. Honestly, outside of TV and movies I haven't heard of a criminal using a full auto weapon in years. Hollywood seems to think every dope dealer has a full-auto AK-47 or MP-whatever tucked under his coat, but it's simply not the case. The media typically doesn't know shit from shinola when it comes to reporting anything gun related; they can't tell the difference between a BB gun and a Ma Deuce.
Why do I have to *need* a gun? Would you ask why I *need* a printing press?
It's been done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrice_Upon_a_Time before...
Hrmm, yes. Amazingly enough, antennas work exactly the same way today that they did before the advent of cable TV, satellite radio (which also needs an antenna, of course) and all the other modern "conveniences". Except, of course, they allow you to watch & listen to things for *free*. :)
The reason most of those "rich fucks" are in first class is that they put in their time in steerage. A damn lot of them aren't rich or even close to it, they got upgraded by flying LOTS of miles for their jobs. If they didn't know how crappy the tail end of the plane was, they wouldn't be in FC, now would they?
***STILL*** not genocide. Sorry, but thanks for playing. I'm in no way claiming that the bombing of civilian populations is a good idea, though it seems to have been pretty much the norm at that time. But it's not genocide. The intent was not to wipe out the entire ethnic Japanese population, but to cripple the industries supporting their war effort.
Wow... where to begin? First, the most ridiculous point. The US didn't even come close to genocide during WWII. Wiping out a couple of cities != a campaign to kill every living person of Japanese ancestry. The Nazis were indeed trying to wipe out every living Jew, Gypsy and what have you. It's not the same thing. The whole point to dropping nukes on Japan was to shorten that war and avoid an invasion of the Japanese mainland - which would probably have cost more American lives than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost in Japanese lives. It worked, and worked well. As for the "secret economic imperialism" bit, yeah, we've meddled in the affairs of other countries, ever since we got big enough and economically powerful enough to do so. It's what big, economically powerful countries do. Take a look at history... Britain, Spain, Portugal, Russia, France, Germany, Rome, Egypt, name a major world power throughout history and you'll be naming a country that has exerted influence, economic and otherwise, to its own benefit. You seem to think that this is a bad thing in every case, and that those poor little downtrodden folk in such would-be Utopian places like Vietnam, Nicaragua and Venezuela would be just fine if left to their own devices. OK, yeah, right. Left to their own devices, most of those places would (and many have) descended into hellish shitholes that the rest of the world would then be pissing and moaning that the US won't help to clean up.
Not totally, but all of Europe and North Africa would have ended up under German rule had the US not supplied millions of men and women along with billions of dollars in equipment and supplies to the effort. The post-war decades would most likely have ended up quite differently as well, had it not been for the concentration of US forces (and the assurance of US large scale support) in Europe. I don't know who *you* think was primarily responsible for the Allied victories during WWII, but I'm quite sure it would be entertaining to hear. The French, perhaps? Maybe the mighty Canadian forces?
Yes, several... structural failure (aircraft breaks, rather than engine dies); wind shear or other weather related issue; unfortunate bird strike; I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of on my first cup of coffee.
Yes, we do. Mainly because so many other countries (like all of Europe, for example) have become so totally dependent upon US military power to keep them secure. Yes, it's our own fault; had we let the Nazis or the Soviets take over more of the world, we'd only have to worry about our own defense and wouldn't have to spend nearly as much covering everyone else's asses.
Then obviously you're just not as smart. I had no trouble parsing it, you just have to read all the words.
"but eventually we will run out of land to farm on" Not to rain on your parade, but you've never actually *been* out to this part of the country, have you? We - meaning my farming bretheren covering this state and those adjoining - can keep your New York asses in tacos and burgers indefinitely. And it's never going to be anywhere near as expensive as growing the stuff in NYC, even if we have to pay newly-legal immigrants to carry it in rucksacks cross country. I mean, seriously. I suppose if one were building a city of that size from scratch, with no financial or logistical realities to deal with, it could be done. Aside from that scenario, hey, if you think it's a great idea, go for it. I'll make the popcorn.
Not if you dry them promptly and thoroughly. You won't find much exposed iron or steel; nearly all exposed metal will be tinned or gold plated. Mounting hardware is generally brass or nickel plated. But in any case, if you dry it quickly and thoroughly, corrosion is not a problem.
So I guess a keyboard wouldn't be a big challenge.
I managed to spill a glass full of peach flavored iced tea on a running mobo one time. Of course it instantly crashed, screen black. I killed power and went to bed. By the next day it was dried and looked pretty scruffy, and of course wouldn't work. Since I had absolutely nothing to lose at that point I pulled it from the case and washed it in the sink with warm water, a little dishwashing soap and a soft brush. I rinsed it for a while with warm tap water (distilled or filtered would be better) and dried it in a warm but not hot oven - about 140 F - for an hour. After cooling it off it worked perfectly, and I used it for a couple more years without any failures. I've done it once since with a newer motherboard, as well as several other boards and devices.
Electronic components on the motherboard are not porous, and in fact part of the packaging spec is resistance to humidity and moisture absorption. Fan bearings & bushings are, or course, a completely different matter. The real enemy with spills or washing is contamination with crud, minerals, etc in the water that becomes conductive. Keyboards used to be tricker, since they used (long ago) electromechanical switches. Now most are capacitive or conductive-pad types; as long as you get all the crap and soap rinsed out and let them dry properly, you're good to go.
My prediction: They'll start advertising, AND raise subscription rates. Anyone who was around to see the advent of cable TV should be able to see it coming.
Doesn't matter. Given the choice between dropping ads on big stations with huge audiences, and dropping ads on the smaller stations with small audiences, which one do you think the ad buyer will do? Whether the indy station plays RIAA-controller music or not, they're going to be in trouble if this comes to pass - NOT the Clear Channels, Tribunes and Journals.
Clear Channel and the other huge companies could and would pay without even flinching, and just jack up their ad rates to cover the increased costs (and then some, since they can now blame RIAA for pretty much ANY amount of rate increase). Big Media wins, makes more money, gets bigger.
Advertisers now have Big Media sucking up a larger chunk of their advertising budgets, so they have to make cuts somewhere. Since the smaller, independent stations (are there any left?) have to pay RIAA too, their costs go up. With smaller audience shares, they are now even less cost effective than before. Advertisers pull ads from small stations to pay for the ads on big stations, small stations are now in an even bigger hurt than before.
Because the FCC has been spreading its legs for media companies for so long - and Congress is too clueless to notice or care -- Big Media is now able to suck up even more smaller stations as their financial position becomes untenable. Big Media wins again, makes even MORE money, gets even bigger. Talk radio and NPR survive as the only alternative to what Clear Channel, Journal Broadcast and the other handful of winners want you to hear.
This would be a huge long term win for the handful of huge media companies that now control most of the market anyway. Unfortunately, I suspect it would be a Pyrrhic vistory. They've alreay driven millions to satellite radio, and this would probably drive nails into terrestrial broadcast radio's coffin at an even faster rate.
Once the sattelite channels are devoting as much time to advertising as they are to music, we're right back to where we started - buy now you're PAYING to listen to it, which works out far better for the media companies. You're not naieve enough to think THAT won't happen, are you?
Precisely. The media companies will never be happy until you pay them for every song you hear, every image you see, and I suspect ultimately every thought you have. Why do you think newspaper and magazine publishers are praying for the success of E-paper? No more skimming the paper or your favorite magazine while ignoring the ads; you'll be forced to view the ads *before* you read the content. And you'll pay by the view for the articles, not just once.
I'm old enough to remember heads that self-parked because the hydraulic pressure retracted the carriage assembly as power was dropped to the solenoids controlling the spool valves. Yeah, I'm not kidding. About a quart of hydraulic oil pressurized by a Cessna-manufactured pump. I miss the old 2314...
That extra little mechanical bit is a head lock - keeps them from flopping around while the drive's powered down.
It's not *music* that does this. It's the *people* who choose to disconnect from those around them and isolate themselves from the world. In my experience music does more to draw people closer. The iPod/MP3 player != music.
Nothing "got up my nose", but if you're thinking copyright law is going to change radically in our lifetimes to match what you think it should be, there must have been something expensive snorted up yours.
You obviously have NO clue about copyright law, period. Go ahead; start selling copies of, say, Windows 98. See how long you survive before being crushed by the Python-esque foot of Microsoft's legal department.