Isn't it interesting that we now can take for granted that the government is spying on us? When I was a boy, one of the great things about this country, and one of the things that distinguished us from other countries, was that we didn't have to worry about that. In fact we took it for granted that the government wasn't watching what we did and listening to what we said.
Then some people flew some planes into some buildings and we all lost our collective shit. It seems everyone, from the media to politicians to businesses to defense contractors and intelligence agencies, has an interest in keeping the American people cowered in fear. And cower we do! We would never have put up with the wars and the invasions of our rights and privacy 12 years ago. But once people have the shit scared out of them, they will accept a lot of stuff they wouldn't have before. There are people know and count on this.
People, 9/11 was a one-off event. It was horrifying and disturbing, but it isn't going to happen again. In the meantime, there have been no significant terrorist attacks in this country. Sure, we've had the shoe-bomber and then the underwear-bomber (both of whom evaded security). But are those guys worth all this? There is no terrorist threat! Yes, there are those few who think violence will get them what they want, but that has always been true. There is no threat that warrants this overreaction, and shifting of the fundamental character of this country.
But now everyone is afraid, and are kept that way by the entities mentioned above, who see self-interest in our fear. They are not interested in actually protecting you (as if you needed to be protected), they are lining their pockets and building power structures. It's a shame, because it seems that at the end of the day, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is just a line in a song.
There you go DHS (or NSA, or FBI, or CIA, or NRO), put me on your list.
It's a good thing you posted AC. Because if you think those people are not being foreclosed on because the banks are being nice and fair, you really don't understand what's going on here. The banks are not foreclosing because they don't want to book the loss, or because they can't get their paperwork in order because all of this "slicing and dicing" of mortgage debt.
And I believe that evolution occurs, but evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.
I honestly would not be surprised if cars start coming out with sealed up hoods and a "Warranty Void if Removed" sticker on the seam within 10 years.
I have great memories from when I was a kid helping my dad work on his various cars over the years. Such a shame...I open the hood of my car today and I don't even know wear to begin, it's such a tangled mess of shit everywhere. My dad used to be able to damn near stand inside the engine compartment back in those days...
Seriously, cars are not that different than they were. You just need to update your knowledge, just like at your job. I used to be pretty good with Windows 95, but that knowledge is largely useless to me now. That doesn't mean I can't work on computers.
is the fact that most new cars are very difficult for the owner to repair themselves, given that many are highly integrated with computer systems. Shade-tree mechanics are going to disappear.
That and the fact that every new car seems to be built on the principle that repair costs are no obstacle, so if a car gets hit, its highly damaged, extremely expensive to repair, and much more likely to be a write off - meaning you need to buy a replacement.
As a sort-of shade tree mechanic, I have to disagree. I think OBDII is a great thing. You just need a code reader and the car will tell you approximately what's wrong. I have replaced my car's exhaust system, done suspension work, replaced a bad oxygen sensor, and done brakes and oil changes. Sure, the car has coil packs instead of a distributor, and the engine is electronically controlled, but so what?
Try a Subaru. Great quality, and great in the snow, and they make nice wagons if you need the room. If you get a turbo model, they're also a blast to drive.
I think Americans need to fall back in love with station wagons. Actually, maybe they are, they just call them "crossovers"; aka station wagons with big wheels. My wagon is great for hauling stuff and gets 28 MPG on the highway (all wheel drive sucks gas), and puts out 315 HP! I've got it all!;-)
Humans require meat and animal products, milk and eggs at a minimum, for a healthy diet. No plant natively contains all the essential amino acids required for human nutrition.
And bacon. I needs me some bacon.
Humans do not in any way require meat, milk or eggs for a healthy diet. Avocado, quinoa, and soybeans each contain all of the essential amino acids the body needs. Besides that, combining vegetarian foods can supply one with plenty of essential amino acids; like the famous beans and rice, or peanut butter on whole wheat bread. Saying we need milk is a little silly, considering it is produced by a completely different species for its own young. If you think about it, drinking milk is actually a little strange; ours is the only species that drinks the milk of other species. Although, I completely agree about the bacon. We do need bacon.
Full disclosure: I am an omnivore, and eat meat, eggs and dairy. I just recognize that I do it for reasons of convenience, taste and culture, not necessity.
Pure libertarianism: somebody owns that underground water. Somebody else starts fracking and chemicals get into the water. The owner of the water then sues the fracker and 0wns him in court. (Possibly literally; if the damages are high enough, the fracker might wind up indentured to the party he wronged.)
Alternative scenario. The fracker and the water owner are the same person. Now he can eat the cost of the fracking (can't sell the water anymore; it's polluted); or he can keep selling the water to his customers, in which case his customers sue him for selling tainted water, and they 0wn him in court.
This sounds okay, except for one thing: Where does one get the resources to sue, and what if the offending fracker has $Texas. We have seen many instances of deep pocketed corporations winning cases by attrition. I don't mind the idea of everyone being free until someone sues. But we would have to level the field somehow or the richest would usually win, just like now.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the biggest result will be that people who are actual criminals will take pains to either turn off their cell phones, use stolen phones or just go without any time they are doing something criminal.
Meanwhile all the regular people are now even more at risk of the government or anyone else with access to this information like ex-boyfriends at the telco using this information against them.
That's a good point. It's almost as if the point is massive surveillance for myriad purposes, rather than catching particular criminals.
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
This. I have little patience for people who are all about Capitalism and the Free Market one minute, and the next minute clutching their pearls over a company exploiting an opportunity to make more profit. What did people think they were advocating; profit until it offends someone's delicate sensibilities? Please. It's like the Americans who are all for bombing other countries, and then get all upset over wartime atrocities. Well, what did you think was going to happen? The naiveté is astounding.
If it's not pertinent to the case, why was it asked, let alone answered?
Um, I'm pretty sure KingSkippus addressed that in his post. Wait, let me go back and check... Yep, it's right here: "It was character assassination, pure and simple. Hell, they knew they didn't have the votes to actually find him guilty, so the end goal wasn't really to remove him from office, either. The point was to get Ken Starr's report out to the public and put all of the salacious details on people's televisions; to distract the public from REAL issues."
This was moderated Informative? Clinton was impeached because his political opponents saw an opportunity and were willing to stop at nothing to remove him from office. They damaged the political culture and shot themselves in the foot doing it, but they got him... sort of.
To the non-USian poster above, the American people do not decide what is important to report about a candidate. The news media do that. They report whatever they think will get and keep people watching. Many people are gossips and busy-bodies, and they eat up any salacious details that can be dug up about candidates. Actually, it's any public figure in government, entertainment, etc. It's like a "reality" show. So the news media will serve it up! Because it's not about conveying useful information, it's about selling ad time. It's just one more way that money infects our politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link to the blog. Very interesting reading.
Isn't it interesting that we now can take for granted that the government is spying on us? When I was a boy, one of the great things about this country, and one of the things that distinguished us from other countries, was that we didn't have to worry about that. In fact we took it for granted that the government wasn't watching what we did and listening to what we said.
Then some people flew some planes into some buildings and we all lost our collective shit. It seems everyone, from the media to politicians to businesses to defense contractors and intelligence agencies, has an interest in keeping the American people cowered in fear. And cower we do! We would never have put up with the wars and the invasions of our rights and privacy 12 years ago. But once people have the shit scared out of them, they will accept a lot of stuff they wouldn't have before. There are people know and count on this.
People, 9/11 was a one-off event. It was horrifying and disturbing, but it isn't going to happen again. In the meantime, there have been no significant terrorist attacks in this country. Sure, we've had the shoe-bomber and then the underwear-bomber (both of whom evaded security). But are those guys worth all this? There is no terrorist threat! Yes, there are those few who think violence will get them what they want, but that has always been true. There is no threat that warrants this overreaction, and shifting of the fundamental character of this country.
But now everyone is afraid, and are kept that way by the entities mentioned above, who see self-interest in our fear. They are not interested in actually protecting you (as if you needed to be protected), they are lining their pockets and building power structures. It's a shame, because it seems that at the end of the day, "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is just a line in a song.
There you go DHS (or NSA, or FBI, or CIA, or NRO), put me on your list.
It's a good thing you posted AC. Because if you think those people are not being foreclosed on because the banks are being nice and fair, you really don't understand what's going on here. The banks are not foreclosing because they don't want to book the loss, or because they can't get their paperwork in order because all of this "slicing and dicing" of mortgage debt.
I thought it was a democratic congress that approved the TSA, and as we now know, it is the fault of whoever runs congress.
The .01%?
You clearly have too much time on your hands.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
And I believe that evolution occurs, but evolution doesn't explain what happened before the beginning of time, or where all the mass in the universe came from in the first place.
Does the Bible?
Maybe if you didn't post as AC you'd get mod points. They're even better than Like buttons.
I honestly would not be surprised if cars start coming out with sealed up hoods and a "Warranty Void if Removed" sticker on the seam within 10 years.
I have great memories from when I was a kid helping my dad work on his various cars over the years. Such a shame...I open the hood of my car today and I don't even know wear to begin, it's such a tangled mess of shit everywhere. My dad used to be able to damn near stand inside the engine compartment back in those days...
Seriously, cars are not that different than they were. You just need to update your knowledge, just like at your job. I used to be pretty good with Windows 95, but that knowledge is largely useless to me now. That doesn't mean I can't work on computers.
is the fact that most new cars are very difficult for the owner to repair themselves, given that many are highly integrated with computer systems. Shade-tree mechanics are going to disappear. That and the fact that every new car seems to be built on the principle that repair costs are no obstacle, so if a car gets hit, its highly damaged, extremely expensive to repair, and much more likely to be a write off - meaning you need to buy a replacement.
As a sort-of shade tree mechanic, I have to disagree. I think OBDII is a great thing. You just need a code reader and the car will tell you approximately what's wrong. I have replaced my car's exhaust system, done suspension work, replaced a bad oxygen sensor, and done brakes and oil changes. Sure, the car has coil packs instead of a distributor, and the engine is electronically controlled, but so what?
Try a Subaru. Great quality, and great in the snow, and they make nice wagons if you need the room. If you get a turbo model, they're also a blast to drive.
I think Americans need to fall back in love with station wagons. Actually, maybe they are, they just call them "crossovers"; aka station wagons with big wheels. My wagon is great for hauling stuff and gets 28 MPG on the highway (all wheel drive sucks gas), and puts out 315 HP! I've got it all! ;-)
Humans require meat and animal products, milk and eggs at a minimum, for a healthy diet. No plant natively contains all the essential amino acids required for human nutrition.
And bacon. I needs me some bacon.
Humans do not in any way require meat, milk or eggs for a healthy diet. Avocado, quinoa, and soybeans each contain all of the essential amino acids the body needs. Besides that, combining vegetarian foods can supply one with plenty of essential amino acids; like the famous beans and rice, or peanut butter on whole wheat bread. Saying we need milk is a little silly, considering it is produced by a completely different species for its own young. If you think about it, drinking milk is actually a little strange; ours is the only species that drinks the milk of other species. Although, I completely agree about the bacon. We do need bacon.
Full disclosure: I am an omnivore, and eat meat, eggs and dairy. I just recognize that I do it for reasons of convenience, taste and culture, not necessity.
Pure libertarianism: somebody owns that underground water. Somebody else starts fracking and chemicals get into the water. The owner of the water then sues the fracker and 0wns him in court. (Possibly literally; if the damages are high enough, the fracker might wind up indentured to the party he wronged.)
Alternative scenario. The fracker and the water owner are the same person. Now he can eat the cost of the fracking (can't sell the water anymore; it's polluted); or he can keep selling the water to his customers, in which case his customers sue him for selling tainted water, and they 0wn him in court.
This sounds okay, except for one thing: Where does one get the resources to sue, and what if the offending fracker has $Texas. We have seen many instances of deep pocketed corporations winning cases by attrition. I don't mind the idea of everyone being free until someone sues. But we would have to level the field somehow or the richest would usually win, just like now.
I'm not sure how faster data processing leads to more optimal decisions.
Seems pretty obvious to me that the biggest result will be that people who are actual criminals will take pains to either turn off their cell phones, use stolen phones or just go without any time they are doing something criminal.
Meanwhile all the regular people are now even more at risk of the government or anyone else with access to this information like ex-boyfriends at the telco using this information against them.
That's a good point. It's almost as if the point is massive surveillance for myriad purposes, rather than catching particular criminals.
Sony is a profit-oriented corporation
Their mission is to make profit
Whitney Houston's death was a chance for Sony to make more money, so they took it
I really can't blame Sony for doing such a thing, even when it's kind of bad taste
This. I have little patience for people who are all about Capitalism and the Free Market one minute, and the next minute clutching their pearls over a company exploiting an opportunity to make more profit. What did people think they were advocating; profit until it offends someone's delicate sensibilities? Please. It's like the Americans who are all for bombing other countries, and then get all upset over wartime atrocities. Well, what did you think was going to happen? The naiveté is astounding.
We had music before the days of big corporations, and we'll still have music if they go.
This is what everyone needs to keep in mind. Thanks!
It's a boxing ring. Rinks are for skating. That is all, carry on...
Considering that the President gets special, temporary powers during wartime, this is an important question.
Why don't you look up correlation and causation?
But everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads!
If it's not pertinent to the case, why was it asked, let alone answered?
Um, I'm pretty sure KingSkippus addressed that in his post. Wait, let me go back and check... Yep, it's right here: "It was character assassination, pure and simple. Hell, they knew they didn't have the votes to actually find him guilty, so the end goal wasn't really to remove him from office, either. The point was to get Ken Starr's report out to the public and put all of the salacious details on people's televisions; to distract the public from REAL issues."
This was moderated Informative? Clinton was impeached because his political opponents saw an opportunity and were willing to stop at nothing to remove him from office. They damaged the political culture and shot themselves in the foot doing it, but they got him... sort of.
To the non-USian poster above, the American people do not decide what is important to report about a candidate. The news media do that. They report whatever they think will get and keep people watching. Many people are gossips and busy-bodies, and they eat up any salacious details that can be dug up about candidates. Actually, it's any public figure in government, entertainment, etc. It's like a "reality" show. So the news media will serve it up! Because it's not about conveying useful information, it's about selling ad time. It's just one more way that money infects our politics.
It's too bad you were modded down, because you are absolutely correct.