Looks like you failed to rebut the fact that phone calls being "international at one end only" are NOT allowed to be spied upon by the NSA without a warrant, and the Bush administration has admitted to doing so.
How convenient.
You said it yourself in a previous post that it has always been know that the phones could be tapped with a secret warrant, so why would "the evil terrorists" assume this as well?
Why has the Bush administration decided that it doesn't need to apply for secret, after-the-fact warrants for ANY of it's taps? Declaring Wartime Powers does not mean a free-for-all for the executive branch! Laws still apply and those that break them belong in jail.
You need to read up on what it means to have a Public Domain when it comes to creative works and why IP laws were invented to begin with. You realise that creative content WAS still made before there was any protection at all, right? If it went away tomorrow, it would STILL be made, maybe not by Disney though.
A house is physical property. IP is not. If I could duplicate my house for free and give one to every person in the world, at no cost to me, I sure as hell would! The day we figure out how to copy physical property with no resource usage will be a happy day indeed.
I don't feel a 2-year contract is anywhere near as good of a deal as you can get in Europe or Japan, especially considering the fact that any phone you get from T-Mobile is 2 years old on the world market. A "mid-range" phone is even older.
Now I readily admit that the model phone you get is a completely different argument, but this is still a worse deal than what I understand people go through in other parts of the world, and this point is always brought up by those that live outside the USA whenever a mobile phone discussion comes up, so I have a feeling it's probably true.
And don't even get me started about data plan prices, 10 cents per text message (T-Mobile recently raised their rates to this if you aren't using pre-paid text messaging or go over your limit),
carriers crippling all the useful features on the phones they "sell" you, and the fact we pay for INCOMING calls as well as outgoing. Why don't I have to pay for incoming landline calls?
There are great mobile deals to be had in the U.S., but they require you to shop around, and they require you to sign contracts.
My current deal?
I just signed up with T-mobile for a Motorola V330. The phone was free, and they paid me a $100 sign-up bonus (Amazon.com). I'm on a $45.99 a month contract, with 1500 minutes included, nights/weekends free, and T-mobile to T-mobile free.
What you mean to say is there's one single good deal and it is not open to everyone.
Let's count the ways that the above is not nearly the same as walking into a store and buying a phone for that price:
1. You used the ONLY online store that I know of that offers such attractive rebates. If Amazon stops the rebates, your deal doesn't exist.
2. The rebates require you to open a NEW T-Mobile account. I have had T-Mobile for 2 years, so your tip doesn't help me or anyone with an existing T-Mobile account.
3.The 1500 minutes plan for $39.99 was just recently started by T-Mobile. What were you paying BEFORE this plan was introduded?
As I understand it, in other parts of the world you pick ANY phone, ANY service, and ANY plan, no matter what your current situation is, and the only downside is you most likely pay retail price on the phone. That seems to be quite a bit better than what you just described.
"A law making it illegal to mention a candidate by name under certain conditions."
I see nothing wrong with making it illegal to mention the candidate by name. It's harder to sling mud (for example) and affects everyone equally. How could that be bad?
"Which doesn't apply to the incumbent, because he can always get into the news by proposing some legislation."
And you blame this on CFR? CFR had no effect on this fact one way or another.
I agree that it was not a perfect law--Hardly any law is. But if you are against the very idea of the law, which is stopping the rich and corporately-sponsored from being the only ones that can compete, then by default you are FOR the Golden Rule.
In this case it seems that you are saying he didn't succeed well enough, so therefore it's better to not have tried at all. That seems absurd to me and is hardly a solid reason to dislike a candidate altogether.
I can't figure out why Microsoft charges for Xbox Live AND why people don't seem to have a problem paying for it?
I don't have to pay a monthly for playing my Nintendo DS online.
I don't have to pay to play Quake 4 online (or any Quake before it)
I don't have to pay to visit Microsoft.com, and download numerous massive files. (Something that I'm convinced takes many more servers and is generally a much higher expense to the company than some game servers.)
I am already paying $45/mo for the connection.
So why is it that people don't even bring up the fact that it costs $20/mo additional to any media costs, hardware costs, and even connection costs just to use Xbox Live?
He is saying "Cetainly no Iraqi or Afghani would agree" that Giuliani had more of an effect on the world than Bin Laden.
"Then why are they turning out in droves to vote?"
So, you think because they are voting in the elections, they automatically agree that Giuliani changed the world more than Bin Laden did? That's an incredible opinion if I've ever seen one. I guess Giuliani's leadership had more effect on the world than over 30,000 people dying!
Please list something you dislike about Feingold's political history. And calling him "far left" is not a political action.
I'll list two things I like about him:
Campaign finance reform and voting against the Patriot Act TWICE (the only senator that can say that).
I don't think he'll ever be elected as there are too many uninformed people out there and Feingold isn't one to be bought out by corporations like most of the other candidates. I think that alone makes him the LEAST likely senator to be called a tool.
I truely believe that if all the facts were on the table and everyone was well informed of the candidates histories and actions, Russ would win in a fucking landslide against any opposition.
Sadly, most people are not well informed, and the only thing laid out well is the mud slinging and distortion of the truth.
Most large software rollouts need to be customized for each specific company. That is what you are being paid for. Then you release your changes back to the project so everyone gains. Eventually all the free software becomes better and better because no one has to write anything from scratch and everyone is helping everyone.
I don't know that it's fair to say that charitable organizations shouldn't compensate executive officers well. They are in charge of multi-gagillion dollar companies after all and if they're not paid a market level salary, they'll only be able to get below-market level quality people in the job.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's fair either, but one way I think about it is, aren't there any CEO caliber people out there that are charitable enough that they don't have to be paid $400k a year to run a *charity*? I believe there are plenty of people that would do an excellent job for 1/3 the pay. Heck a supreme court justice makes $200k and that's a pretty damn important job. Even the president makes $200k, but he doesn't really have any expenses either, so that's not a fair comparison.
It's a proven fact that wal-mart uses price leaders placed at the end of the aisle while many other things are actually MORE expensive.
Write down some prices of normal items that aren't at the end of the aisle or in a special location and then go to Target and compare. I bet you'll be surprised. I was. I can get things for the same price AND not have the nasty warehouse feel of wal-mart.
...Don't worry. They have set up an experimental 30 Mbps DV multicast stream, complete with it's own free DVTS player so you can catch all this incredibly FAST paced action, as it happens!
1 GB CF $50
1 GB MS $100
I think that pretty much sums it up right there. And that price difference only gets worse (or the MS is nonexistant) for larger sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the same "civil" past where people had shoot-outs in the streets, weekly bank robbings, and attended hangings on the weekends?
Looks like you failed to rebut the fact that phone calls being "international at one end only" are NOT allowed to be spied upon by the NSA without a warrant, and the Bush administration has admitted to doing so.
How convenient.
You said it yourself in a previous post that it has always been know that the phones could be tapped with a secret warrant, so why would "the evil terrorists" assume this as well?
Why has the Bush administration decided that it doesn't need to apply for secret, after-the-fact warrants for ANY of it's taps? Declaring Wartime Powers does not mean a free-for-all for the executive branch! Laws still apply and those that break them belong in jail.
You need to read up on what it means to have a Public Domain when it comes to creative works and why IP laws were invented to begin with. You realise that creative content WAS still made before there was any protection at all, right? If it went away tomorrow, it would STILL be made, maybe not by Disney though.
A house is physical property. IP is not. If I could duplicate my house for free and give one to every person in the world, at no cost to me, I sure as hell would! The day we figure out how to copy physical property with no resource usage will be a happy day indeed.
I don't feel a 2-year contract is anywhere near as good of a deal as you can get in Europe or Japan, especially considering the fact that any phone you get from T-Mobile is 2 years old on the world market. A "mid-range" phone is even older.
Now I readily admit that the model phone you get is a completely different argument, but this is still a worse deal than what I understand people go through in other parts of the world, and this point is always brought up by those that live outside the USA whenever a mobile phone discussion comes up, so I have a feeling it's probably true.
And don't even get me started about data plan prices, 10 cents per text message (T-Mobile recently raised their rates to this if you aren't using pre-paid text messaging or go over your limit), carriers crippling all the useful features on the phones they "sell" you, and the fact we pay for INCOMING calls as well as outgoing. Why don't I have to pay for incoming landline calls?
McAfee Antivirus - it seemed worth paying for this.
You had me going until this one slipped in there.
There are great mobile deals to be had in the U.S., but they require you to shop around, and they require you to sign contracts.
My current deal?
I just signed up with T-mobile for a Motorola V330. The phone was free, and they paid me a $100 sign-up bonus (Amazon.com). I'm on a $45.99 a month contract, with 1500 minutes included, nights/weekends free, and T-mobile to T-mobile free.
What you mean to say is there's one single good deal and it is not open to everyone.
Let's count the ways that the above is not nearly the same as walking into a store and buying a phone for that price:
1. You used the ONLY online store that I know of that offers such attractive rebates. If Amazon stops the rebates, your deal doesn't exist.
2. The rebates require you to open a NEW T-Mobile account. I have had T-Mobile for 2 years, so your tip doesn't help me or anyone with an existing T-Mobile account.
3.The 1500 minutes plan for $39.99 was just recently started by T-Mobile. What were you paying BEFORE this plan was introduded?
As I understand it, in other parts of the world you pick ANY phone, ANY service, and ANY plan, no matter what your current situation is, and the only downside is you most likely pay retail price on the phone. That seems to be quite a bit better than what you just described.
That's fine if you can tolerate TimeWarner's horrific software.
"A law making it illegal to mention a candidate by name under certain conditions."
I see nothing wrong with making it illegal to mention the candidate by name. It's harder to sling mud (for example) and affects everyone equally. How could that be bad?
"Which doesn't apply to the incumbent, because he can always get into the news by proposing some legislation."
And you blame this on CFR? CFR had no effect on this fact one way or another.
I agree that it was not a perfect law--Hardly any law is. But if you are against the very idea of the law, which is stopping the rich and corporately-sponsored from being the only ones that can compete, then by default you are FOR the Golden Rule.
In this case it seems that you are saying he didn't succeed well enough, so therefore it's better to not have tried at all. That seems absurd to me and is hardly a solid reason to dislike a candidate altogether.
So why is it that people don't even bring up the fact that it costs $20/mo additional to any media costs, hardware costs, and even connection costs just to use Xbox Live?
So what your saying is, it was necessary to break the law?
...And isn't that the very reason for the SECRET FISA court? To be able to do this without breaking that law?
Then I guess you believe in the Golden Rule: Those that have the gold, make the rules.
So you don't agree with our system of checks and balances then? I suppose a monarchy would be more to your liking?
He is saying "Cetainly no Iraqi or Afghani would agree" that Giuliani had more of an effect on the world than Bin Laden.
"Then why are they turning out in droves to vote?"
So, you think because they are voting in the elections, they automatically agree that Giuliani changed the world more than Bin Laden did? That's an incredible opinion if I've ever seen one. I guess Giuliani's leadership had more effect on the world than over 30,000 people dying!
Please list something you dislike about Feingold's political history. And calling him "far left" is not a political action.
I'll list two things I like about him: Campaign finance reform and voting against the Patriot Act TWICE (the only senator that can say that).
I don't think he'll ever be elected as there are too many uninformed people out there and Feingold isn't one to be bought out by corporations like most of the other candidates. I think that alone makes him the LEAST likely senator to be called a tool.
I truely believe that if all the facts were on the table and everyone was well informed of the candidates histories and actions, Russ would win in a fucking landslide against any opposition.
Sadly, most people are not well informed, and the only thing laid out well is the mud slinging and distortion of the truth.
-sigh-
Those SHOULD be free. I'm thinking along the lines of things like Sendmail, Samba, Apache, OpenVPN, etc. Systems software.
"The problem is how do I pay my bills?"
Most large software rollouts need to be customized for each specific company. That is what you are being paid for. Then you release your changes back to the project so everyone gains. Eventually all the free software becomes better and better because no one has to write anything from scratch and everyone is helping everyone.
It was hardly used, but the Gamecube has a broadband adapter. That's no more or less than Microsoft or Sony offered.
Nope, I'm serious. My first PC was an 8086.
By that token my father has 16 years of "computer experience" simply because he's used an ADP terminal at his dealership for that long.
There's a difference between "end user" and "technician."
I don't know that it's fair to say that charitable organizations shouldn't compensate executive officers well. They are in charge of multi-gagillion dollar companies after all and if they're not paid a market level salary, they'll only be able to get below-market level quality people in the job.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's fair either, but one way I think about it is, aren't there any CEO caliber people out there that are charitable enough that they don't have to be paid $400k a year to run a *charity*? I believe there are plenty of people that would do an excellent job for 1/3 the pay. Heck a supreme court justice makes $200k and that's a pretty damn important job. Even the president makes $200k, but he doesn't really have any expenses either, so that's not a fair comparison.
What about United Way? I've heard their CEO makes something like $400k a year.
It's a proven fact that wal-mart uses price leaders placed at the end of the aisle while many other things are actually MORE expensive.
Write down some prices of normal items that aren't at the end of the aisle or in a special location and then go to Target and compare. I bet you'll be surprised. I was. I can get things for the same price AND not have the nasty warehouse feel of wal-mart.
And SBC isn't a terrible, ruthless, pig-headed monopoly just like every major government-mandated cable monopoly?
Please.
For those of you who can't stand your piddly little 384 kbps stream
...and are feeling unfulfilled by your 1.5 Mbps stream
...Don't worry. They have set up an experimental 30 Mbps DV multicast stream , complete with it's own free DVTS player so you can catch all this incredibly FAST paced action, as it happens!
1 GB CF $50 1 GB MS $100 I think that pretty much sums it up right there. And that price difference only gets worse (or the MS is nonexistant) for larger sizes.