Herd immunity's importance cannot be understated because of this often forgotten point: Vaccines are NOT foolproof.
People can still on occasion get the disease (though it's usually in a weakened form), despite being innoculated, for various reasons (time passed since the innoculation/booster, etc.).
Example: My young son caught the mumps in early elementary school, only a few years after being vaccinated against it. Although the symptoms only lasted a brief time and were not severe, a Sonora Quest lab test verified that it was the mumps. Any other children there that hadn't been vaccinated may have been exposed and put in danger, and the school had to send notes home to all the parents to warn them. It was actually pretty embarrassing because I'm sure that most people thought we were "those" kind of selfish parents who ignorantly refuse vaccinations when in reality we'd done everything by the book.
If you're joking, no offense, but if you're even half-serious... Are you sure that she has ALL the pussy?
Seriously... To all married men who seriously buy into this crap: Grow a pair and take ultimate responsibility for your families, instead of lazily passing the buck.
In a marriage, the man is the patriarch/leader of the entire family. He must exercise the presiding powers of that position of authority when necessary and be the FINAL arbiter for their household. If a man's wife is clearly wrong on something, but the wife starts talking about how "she knows best for the kids," it's the man's responsibility to fix the problem and guide the family. If the man doesn't, then they've failed in their family role.
This vaccination issue is a clear example of when this hierarchy is necessary. If a man's wife is babbling about how dangerous vaccinations are, quoting some long-since disproven crap about vaccination "studies" they've read online somewhere, or maybe an idiot family member believes it and scares the wife at some family get-together, and then they're saying, "there's no way in hell you're vaccinating my children," then the man needs to set it straight. It's that simple - and it's the man's responsibility to protect his kids from something that's scientifically been proven dangerous.
Anyone that doesn't follow that set of roles is likely either 1) lazily shirking their responsibilities behind some modern axioms about equality ("hey - the kids are HER responsibility, not mine..."), or 2) proudly refusing to give up control.
BTW - If someone wants to chime in on how "equality" should rule, consider this: True equality can only be achieved by both people wanting to do the same, right thing. Otherwise, true equality can never exist, and at that point, the patriarch has to make the final decisions - and take total responsibility for those decisions when they're wrong.
(The "no kidding" caveat: The man must do this without being a dicKtator. He must show mercy/compassion, tempered with cold, hard justice and knowledge when presiding over the family. If he doesn't, then the wife has every right to blow him off and do what's best, but only when the husband is clearly in the wrong - just like in the military with a "broken" CO that needs to be removed.)
Right up until you piss off the... Mormons... by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."
I can't speak for $cientologists or Muslims, but I am LDS - and I call BS on your accusation that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - or individual members of the church - is suing anyone for "hate speech".
Can you cite an actual lawsuit (that doesn't involve what most non-Mormon Slashdot readers would say is real hate speech, and is just a form of tyrannical suppression of the freedom of expression)?
Bit of relevant trivia: There is a US precedent for eliminating a coin for being too small in currency. The US Half Cent was around until just before the Civil War. We ended that program without any major currency problem popping up.
Just like we tossed the half cent and rounded up or down, it's probably time to do the same with the penny. In a decade or two (or sooner, depending on the coming wave of inflation), the nickel should probably follow suit. I'll miss what you WERE, Mr. Penny, but I won't miss what you are today.
A question for the remaining defenders of the penny: Do you have a pile of pennies in your car or at home that you haven't touched or forgotten about for more than a month? If so, your own economic sensibilities should see the problem and want to eliminate it.
France banning multiple Muslim practices in public. The UK jailing someone for tweeting something offensive.
When did these allegedly enlightened, first world countries start taking cues about "freedom" from Myanmar? Or, did the freedom of expression ever really exist there in the first place, and the power of the Internet is more readily exposing their countries' lack of true freedom of expression?
Either way, this is a powerful lesson of how important the 1st Amendment truly is - and how important it is to protect it at all costs... even if you do "hate Illinois Nazis".
This does not apply to Islamic states... wiping out the Jews.
Wow - just... wow. This is an arrogant, ignorant and xenophobic rant, full of half-baked stereotypes and generalizations, all based on a broad and ignorant stereotype that has led to sporadic wars between Christian and Muslim cultures for over a millenium.
I suggest that you rent the movie Persepolis and watch it. It may remind you that 99.9% of the people living in Iran are not an "Islamic state". Instead, they're people just like us, with a nutjob regime that they need to get rid of by themselves. (I think we've proven without a doubt (again - until the next generation has forgotten our learned lessons) that nation building and preemptive strikes to change regimes is nothing more than a trillion dollar waste of resources and human lives.)
Instead of being passive aggressive with a jammer, just tell the person they're being really loud, and if really necessary to turn it down a bit. Sometimes they'll be total dicks in return, but other times they simply don't realize they're being that way and will change their behavior, and not be so loud next time they use the phone. If everyone did this, without fear and within reason, the problem would solve itself.
OTOH - If people are too afraid to speak up like that, then alternatives that have much worse side effects (like these jammers) will take their place. Just jamming everyone is the lazy, potentially dangerous - and quite frankly, the bush league - way to deal with the problem.
You know, that could be true if Florida. I've never been down there. In the Western US, however, especially here in AZ where most of its freeways are wide and relatively new (last 20 years or newer), and that 1% figure holds up. The only left side exits are carpool lane ramps at the occasional freeway transition. There is only one actual freeway exit in the Phoenix metro area I can think of (3rd St. in downtown Phoenix), and that's directly from a carpool lane.
Floating along in the left hand lane here - especially on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson - is a big-time no no. It could get you accidentally killed by other angry motorists. It's too bad too many people in the metro areas here don't show the same courtesy in the city that they show on those rural interstate drives.
People that come here usually comment on how different the freeways are - newer, wider and larger than back east - and how the flow of traffic is generally quicker here (they're usually from back east). It may be that the east and west coast cultures - and freeway designs - are just that much different.
Wrong. Not all left lanes are passing lanes. Plenty are turning lanes. Turning lanes, by definition can't be passing lanes, because the traffic patterns for turning vehicles kills any chance so safely passing anything.
The grandparent comment was clearly not talking about the uncommon scenarios you're describing above. They were talking about the 99%+ of average left lane scenarios, where a big or slow vehicle cruises along in wingman formation and makes no effort to be a polite driver and move if someone wants to get by. Many of these high lane drivers are simply making an honest mistake, usually oblivious to the pain they're causing behind them. Others, however, are as selfish as the faster drivers who dangerously tailgate, looking down their noses, buoyed up by, "I'M going below the speed limit. What's YOUR problem?"
Also, your gripes infer that people just aren't going as fast as you want to go.
Of course... It's not about rare exceptions for the left hand lane and their legal driving protocols, is it.. You just want people to "just slow down" and drive like you, and/or to leave you alone no matter what lane you occupy. You're "in the right" by going slower or "just going the speed limit, unlike you criminal speeders," right? Which one are you? The one who's oblivious of the trouble you cause others (speeders or not), or are you the vengeful, "screw you - I'm the righteous one" driver?
Yes, the core Scouting organizations could use online resources for organizational purposes or for some merit badges that could be done online.
However, most of the valuable experiences from scouting can only be gained in person - experiencing things in real life. Camping. Swimming. Hiking. Shooting. Meeting people in various fields and getting a real education about a topic (even if it is cursory), Etc.
However, online scouting would lose a lot of the value you get by interacting with live people who can share their experiences.
Well, if one knew exactly where the solar eclipse was going to be at the exact moment the storm struck, then THAT area - if they could disconnect from the rest of the world - would be safe. The rest of the world would still be hosed.
"because all of a sudden all that freedom, all that flexibility, you'll find it shipped away for one good reason after another,"
Eric Schmidt said that? Even if he's right, it's hard to take any wisdom/preaching from him about "freedom" when he has said the following, with a straight look on his face: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place..."
Based on that, he sounds like he only cares about freedom when it doesn't benefit him or his interests. I have to wonder what his real "Google" motive or angle is...
The UN definitely isn't the reason for no world wars - not even close. For the most part, the NYC-based org is nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare held together and run by the US and a few other vested interests.
The real reason there haven't been any World Wars since 1945 is that at least two of the world's biggest (and stable) powers/nations has had nuclear weapons (starting in 1947). Notice that the United States hasn't declared war on any country since then? Yes, the US has invaded a few countries in the name of "freedom", but we've never gone toe-to-toe with a nuclear power, and neither has any other nation. Us and the Soviets/Russians? Nope - just a lot of Cold War crap. India/Pakistan? Nothing major since they got into the nuclear club. China? Nothing since Korea (and subsequently getting nukes). Europe - a place of constant wars between first world nations for millenia - is now mostly silent, outside of the occasional, internal racial purge (Balkans, etc.).
Wars today are usually either over oil, religion, race, or about freedom - inside of small, punk regimes with crazy men at the helm.
Now if an UNSTABLE power ever obtained hydrogen bombs, that could change everything, but that's another story. And no UN action is going to stop THEM...
My only thought was that space combat in Earth orbit with physical weapons/craft would be a terrible idea, no matter what weapons were used. The remaining, kinetic energy filled space debris (used non-energy munitions, shards of spacecraft, a crewman's dead finger, etc.) would turn that area of space into a mess of flying death, one fleck of paint at a time.
Aren't there still pieces of debris from that Chinese anti-satellite test a while back?
Doesn't the military drive some science/research forward?
Yes, the military needs to be trimmed back SOME (including some overseas base closures that should've probably happened when The Wall Fell over 20 years ago, but the military should remain strong.
This whole cutting rinky dink Mars programs is a waste of time. The real issue is cutting back on the trillions going into social services (social security, medicare, etc.) while not raising revenue. The social programs were started when we had a huge industrial base, a middle class (especially after the Depression and WWII), and a top 1% that paid taxes at much higher rates. Now there are more sucking on the social services teat than ever, upwards of 50% of Americans pay zero taxes (many of which get refunds when they never actually had a penny withheld), the top tax rates have all fallen way down, and even the capital gains tax is at only 15%.
We can't have our cake and eat it too forever. Why won't a president just come out and say, "We're broke. We need to make real cuts," and be done with it? We're going to add ten TIMES the entire state budget of Arizona in interest only payment obligations forever, until it's paid back... and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
The "government" solution helps in the short term, but it only puts a band-aid on the real problem - moral decay of the society (cheat a little, lie a little, screw around a little, cheat a little more, lie a little more, etc.). Eventually, if it's not ripped off at some point, the government band-aid festers and the people become dependent on it, ultimately leading to the same type of problems of lying a little more, being lazy a little more, screwing around a little more.
The whole "less government vs. more government" is moot when too many of the people are liars, cheaters, adulterers, thieves, narcissists, etc... As long as people want to be morally corrupt, a free society of any makeup - whether it be pure capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, or any other -ism - cannot survive for the long haul. You can't be truly free to act any way you want and not suffer the consequences. Freedom REQUIRES moral responsibility to thrive - otherwise it dies a slow and painful death.
Yes, saying we're THERE is a little over the top. However, anyone who suggests that because the exact conditions that existed in 1984 don't exist today that the fear is all "hyperbole" is ignoring the underlying point of 1984 altogether. They - the government and any private entities with a way to make money off the surveillance - ARE watching us more and more everyday, and the growth of it is out of control - with little resistance from the government to stop it.
I appreciate Anonymous for going after who they perceive to be wronging people, but I can't really respect them because they're inconsistent. They lost my respect when they chickened out after they threatened to go after the drug gangs in northern Mexico.
Sure, Anonymous - standing up over digital rights is noble, but that's easy when the only threat to you is a lawyer. When human lives are on the line, however, and you have a chance to make a REAL difference in the world with something more web site rights, and show some real value to society, you - and a lot of your reputation, IMO - disappeared.
It was the one case where your group's name really fit your moves...
Yeah, IE9 is quite good, but there's still one huge problem with it: No XP interoperability.
It won't be as bad as it has been with IE6's extended death march, but it will still take an unnecessarily long time for IE7/8 and lower to die because of that limitation, and that sucks for web devs.
"and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance."
A big problem with debating this issue is the underlying, visceral hatred some people have for "the guy that cut them off last week". It clouds educated people's ability to objectively look at hard numbers and long-term consequences.
So - Please try to look past your bias towards the "bastards" to consider the following: If the yellow lights do the job of reducing accidents as well or even better than red light cameras (studies have shown this), then why put the revenue-driven devices up anywhere, thus allowing corruption (or the impression of impropriety) to take root and create doubt in the city or state government? More importantly, why allow the bottom line of camera companies and cash-strapped city councils to even be considered during the decision making process about how to BEST serve driver safety?
The best solution for the long-term viability of the city government while also protecting the safety of drivers: Lengthen yellow times and pull the red light cameras - which are the budding roots and/or platform for other automated (and profitable) law enforcement out.
Cities ABSOLUTELY cheat on yellow light timing - and they always will be because after they sign the contracts, they realize just how much money they HAVE to bring in just to pay the minimum monthly fees to the camera companies.
Case in point: In Paradise Valley, Arizona, they were caught red-handed by anti-camera activists intentionally shortening yellow lights going less than four seconds, which was a threshold they were never supposed to go under. The city claimed they weren't doing it, until this youtube video proved they were cheating at photo radar intersections.
After being caught red-handed, the city quietly and quickly - the very next day, in fact - changed the timing to match that minimum threshold.
In downtown Chandler, AZ, there was another well-known intersection with cameras with a shorter yellow time than the others, and it led to a majority of ALL of its camera "revenue".
Bottom line: There are a ton of revenue-desperate city councils out there full of dopes who aren't clever enough to see what the snake oil salesmen from camera companies are selling: "sin tax safety" AND revenue to boot, with a huge gotchas attached. It's going to take years to flush the system of these safety-neutral, revenue positive cameras.
BTW - Everyone should take notice that Los Angeles hasn't burned to the ground after turning off their cameras. It's safe to say that if LA can live without cameras, Denver (and any other major city in the United States) would probably avoid their own "carmageddon" as well...
I've seen a lot of TV ads recently pushing Chrome. That has to have made at least a little difference for many people who would've never considered Chrome before seeing a TV commercial for it, which probably actually adds credibility to the product.
OTOH, I've never once seen a TV ad for Firefox. FF's growth was all about word of mouth. (It doesn't help that FF's recent word of mouth has NOT been positive - including what's in the comments here - but that's another story.)
If Firefox had the same number of TV ads, it would probably still be adding new users, despite the core user backlash against the FF changes.
Google's views on privacy. Maybe my view is born of ignorance about what Chrome actually does track vs. doesn't track, but as of now I just can't trust them enough to use that browser all the time. I can't get past the, "Just don't do anything wrong..." comments by the Google leadership a while back.
It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
Herd immunity's importance cannot be understated because of this often forgotten point: Vaccines are NOT foolproof.
People can still on occasion get the disease (though it's usually in a weakened form), despite being innoculated, for various reasons (time passed since the innoculation/booster, etc.).
Example: My young son caught the mumps in early elementary school, only a few years after being vaccinated against it. Although the symptoms only lasted a brief time and were not severe, a Sonora Quest lab test verified that it was the mumps. Any other children there that hadn't been vaccinated may have been exposed and put in danger, and the school had to send notes home to all the parents to warn them. It was actually pretty embarrassing because I'm sure that most people thought we were "those" kind of selfish parents who ignorantly refuse vaccinations when in reality we'd done everything by the book.
Mom has half the money and all the pussy.
If you're joking, no offense, but if you're even half-serious... Are you sure that she has ALL the pussy?
Seriously... To all married men who seriously buy into this crap: Grow a pair and take ultimate responsibility for your families, instead of lazily passing the buck.
In a marriage, the man is the patriarch/leader of the entire family. He must exercise the presiding powers of that position of authority when necessary and be the FINAL arbiter for their household. If a man's wife is clearly wrong on something, but the wife starts talking about how "she knows best for the kids," it's the man's responsibility to fix the problem and guide the family. If the man doesn't, then they've failed in their family role.
This vaccination issue is a clear example of when this hierarchy is necessary. If a man's wife is babbling about how dangerous vaccinations are, quoting some long-since disproven crap about vaccination "studies" they've read online somewhere, or maybe an idiot family member believes it and scares the wife at some family get-together, and then they're saying, "there's no way in hell you're vaccinating my children," then the man needs to set it straight. It's that simple - and it's the man's responsibility to protect his kids from something that's scientifically been proven dangerous.
Anyone that doesn't follow that set of roles is likely either 1) lazily shirking their responsibilities behind some modern axioms about equality ("hey - the kids are HER responsibility, not mine..."), or 2) proudly refusing to give up control.
BTW - If someone wants to chime in on how "equality" should rule, consider this: True equality can only be achieved by both people wanting to do the same, right thing. Otherwise, true equality can never exist, and at that point, the patriarch has to make the final decisions - and take total responsibility for those decisions when they're wrong.
(The "no kidding" caveat: The man must do this without being a dicKtator. He must show mercy/compassion, tempered with cold, hard justice and knowledge when presiding over the family. If he doesn't, then the wife has every right to blow him off and do what's best, but only when the husband is clearly in the wrong - just like in the military with a "broken" CO that needs to be removed.)
While the rest of your post rings true...
Right up until you piss off the... Mormons... by saying something about their "prophet" that they interpret as derogatory (which you may well have intended as same) and they start to sue and harass you in court for "hate speech."
I can't speak for $cientologists or Muslims, but I am LDS - and I call BS on your accusation that the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - or individual members of the church - is suing anyone for "hate speech".
Can you cite an actual lawsuit (that doesn't involve what most non-Mormon Slashdot readers would say is real hate speech, and is just a form of tyrannical suppression of the freedom of expression)?
Bit of relevant trivia: There is a US precedent for eliminating a coin for being too small in currency. The US Half Cent was around until just before the Civil War. We ended that program without any major currency problem popping up.
Just like we tossed the half cent and rounded up or down, it's probably time to do the same with the penny. In a decade or two (or sooner, depending on the coming wave of inflation), the nickel should probably follow suit. I'll miss what you WERE, Mr. Penny, but I won't miss what you are today.
A question for the remaining defenders of the penny: Do you have a pile of pennies in your car or at home that you haven't touched or forgotten about for more than a month? If so, your own economic sensibilities should see the problem and want to eliminate it.
France banning multiple Muslim practices in public. The UK jailing someone for tweeting something offensive.
When did these allegedly enlightened, first world countries start taking cues about "freedom" from Myanmar? Or, did the freedom of expression ever really exist there in the first place, and the power of the Internet is more readily exposing their countries' lack of true freedom of expression?
Either way, this is a powerful lesson of how important the 1st Amendment truly is - and how important it is to protect it at all costs... even if you do "hate Illinois Nazis".
This does not apply to Islamic states... wiping out the Jews.
Wow - just... wow. This is an arrogant, ignorant and xenophobic rant, full of half-baked stereotypes and generalizations, all based on a broad and ignorant stereotype that has led to sporadic wars between Christian and Muslim cultures for over a millenium.
I suggest that you rent the movie Persepolis and watch it. It may remind you that 99.9% of the people living in Iran are not an "Islamic state". Instead, they're people just like us, with a nutjob regime that they need to get rid of by themselves. (I think we've proven without a doubt (again - until the next generation has forgotten our learned lessons) that nation building and preemptive strikes to change regimes is nothing more than a trillion dollar waste of resources and human lives.)
Instead of being passive aggressive with a jammer, just tell the person they're being really loud, and if really necessary to turn it down a bit. Sometimes they'll be total dicks in return, but other times they simply don't realize they're being that way and will change their behavior, and not be so loud next time they use the phone. If everyone did this, without fear and within reason, the problem would solve itself.
OTOH - If people are too afraid to speak up like that, then alternatives that have much worse side effects (like these jammers) will take their place. Just jamming everyone is the lazy, potentially dangerous - and quite frankly, the bush league - way to deal with the problem.
You know, that could be true if Florida. I've never been down there. In the Western US, however, especially here in AZ where most of its freeways are wide and relatively new (last 20 years or newer), and that 1% figure holds up. The only left side exits are carpool lane ramps at the occasional freeway transition. There is only one actual freeway exit in the Phoenix metro area I can think of (3rd St. in downtown Phoenix), and that's directly from a carpool lane.
Floating along in the left hand lane here - especially on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson - is a big-time no no. It could get you accidentally killed by other angry motorists. It's too bad too many people in the metro areas here don't show the same courtesy in the city that they show on those rural interstate drives.
People that come here usually comment on how different the freeways are - newer, wider and larger than back east - and how the flow of traffic is generally quicker here (they're usually from back east). It may be that the east and west coast cultures - and freeway designs - are just that much different.
Wrong. Not all left lanes are passing lanes. Plenty are turning lanes. Turning lanes, by definition can't be passing lanes, because the traffic patterns for turning vehicles kills any chance so safely passing anything.
The grandparent comment was clearly not talking about the uncommon scenarios you're describing above. They were talking about the 99%+ of average left lane scenarios, where a big or slow vehicle cruises along in wingman formation and makes no effort to be a polite driver and move if someone wants to get by. Many of these high lane drivers are simply making an honest mistake, usually oblivious to the pain they're causing behind them. Others, however, are as selfish as the faster drivers who dangerously tailgate, looking down their noses, buoyed up by, "I'M going below the speed limit. What's YOUR problem?"
Also, your gripes infer that people just aren't going as fast as you want to go.
Of course... It's not about rare exceptions for the left hand lane and their legal driving protocols, is it.. You just want people to "just slow down" and drive like you, and/or to leave you alone no matter what lane you occupy. You're "in the right" by going slower or "just going the speed limit, unlike you criminal speeders," right? Which one are you? The one who's oblivious of the trouble you cause others (speeders or not), or are you the vengeful, "screw you - I'm the righteous one" driver?
Are you sure that you aren't the problem?
Yes, the core Scouting organizations could use online resources for organizational purposes or for some merit badges that could be done online.
However, most of the valuable experiences from scouting can only be gained in person - experiencing things in real life. Camping. Swimming. Hiking. Shooting. Meeting people in various fields and getting a real education about a topic (even if it is cursory), Etc.
However, online scouting would lose a lot of the value you get by interacting with live people who can share their experiences.
Well, if one knew exactly where the solar eclipse was going to be at the exact moment the storm struck, then THAT area - if they could disconnect from the rest of the world - would be safe. The rest of the world would still be hosed.
A good time would be August 21, 2017, in the late morning - at least if you're in the continental United States... (or maybe May 20th of this year or Oct 14th, 2023, but those annulars wouldn't be as fun to watch)..
"because all of a sudden all that freedom, all that flexibility, you'll find it shipped away for one good reason after another,"
Eric Schmidt said that? Even if he's right, it's hard to take any wisdom/preaching from him about "freedom" when he has said the following, with a straight look on his face: "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place..."
Based on that, he sounds like he only cares about freedom when it doesn't benefit him or his interests. I have to wonder what his real "Google" motive or angle is...
The UN definitely isn't the reason for no world wars - not even close. For the most part, the NYC-based org is nothing more than a bureaucratic nightmare held together and run by the US and a few other vested interests.
The real reason there haven't been any World Wars since 1945 is that at least two of the world's biggest (and stable) powers/nations has had nuclear weapons (starting in 1947). Notice that the United States hasn't declared war on any country since then? Yes, the US has invaded a few countries in the name of "freedom", but we've never gone toe-to-toe with a nuclear power, and neither has any other nation. Us and the Soviets/Russians? Nope - just a lot of Cold War crap. India/Pakistan? Nothing major since they got into the nuclear club. China? Nothing since Korea (and subsequently getting nukes). Europe - a place of constant wars between first world nations for millenia - is now mostly silent, outside of the occasional, internal racial purge (Balkans, etc.).
Wars today are usually either over oil, religion, race, or about freedom - inside of small, punk regimes with crazy men at the helm.
Now if an UNSTABLE power ever obtained hydrogen bombs, that could change everything, but that's another story. And no UN action is going to stop THEM...
My only thought was that space combat in Earth orbit with physical weapons/craft would be a terrible idea, no matter what weapons were used. The remaining, kinetic energy filled space debris (used non-energy munitions, shards of spacecraft, a crewman's dead finger, etc.) would turn that area of space into a mess of flying death, one fleck of paint at a time.
Aren't there still pieces of debris from that Chinese anti-satellite test a while back?
Doesn't the military drive some science/research forward?
Yes, the military needs to be trimmed back SOME (including some overseas base closures that should've probably happened when The Wall Fell over 20 years ago, but the military should remain strong.
This whole cutting rinky dink Mars programs is a waste of time. The real issue is cutting back on the trillions going into social services (social security, medicare, etc.) while not raising revenue. The social programs were started when we had a huge industrial base, a middle class (especially after the Depression and WWII), and a top 1% that paid taxes at much higher rates. Now there are more sucking on the social services teat than ever, upwards of 50% of Americans pay zero taxes (many of which get refunds when they never actually had a penny withheld), the top tax rates have all fallen way down, and even the capital gains tax is at only 15%.
We can't have our cake and eat it too forever. Why won't a president just come out and say, "We're broke. We need to make real cuts," and be done with it? We're going to add ten TIMES the entire state budget of Arizona in interest only payment obligations forever, until it's paid back... and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
The "government" solution helps in the short term, but it only puts a band-aid on the real problem - moral decay of the society (cheat a little, lie a little, screw around a little, cheat a little more, lie a little more, etc.). Eventually, if it's not ripped off at some point, the government band-aid festers and the people become dependent on it, ultimately leading to the same type of problems of lying a little more, being lazy a little more, screwing around a little more. The whole "less government vs. more government" is moot when too many of the people are liars, cheaters, adulterers, thieves, narcissists, etc... As long as people want to be morally corrupt, a free society of any makeup - whether it be pure capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, or any other -ism - cannot survive for the long haul. You can't be truly free to act any way you want and not suffer the consequences. Freedom REQUIRES moral responsibility to thrive - otherwise it dies a slow and painful death.
Yes, saying we're THERE is a little over the top. However, anyone who suggests that because the exact conditions that existed in 1984 don't exist today that the fear is all "hyperbole" is ignoring the underlying point of 1984 altogether. They - the government and any private entities with a way to make money off the surveillance - ARE watching us more and more everyday, and the growth of it is out of control - with little resistance from the government to stop it.
I appreciate Anonymous for going after who they perceive to be wronging people, but I can't really respect them because they're inconsistent. They lost my respect when they chickened out after they threatened to go after the drug gangs in northern Mexico.
Sure, Anonymous - standing up over digital rights is noble, but that's easy when the only threat to you is a lawyer. When human lives are on the line, however, and you have a chance to make a REAL difference in the world with something more web site rights, and show some real value to society, you - and a lot of your reputation, IMO - disappeared.
It was the one case where your group's name really fit your moves...
Yeah, IE9 is quite good, but there's still one huge problem with it: No XP interoperability.
It won't be as bad as it has been with IE6's extended death march, but it will still take an unnecessarily long time for IE7/8 and lower to die because of that limitation, and that sucks for web devs.
"and red light cameras to catch the bastards who don't take that chance."
A big problem with debating this issue is the underlying, visceral hatred some people have for "the guy that cut them off last week". It clouds educated people's ability to objectively look at hard numbers and long-term consequences.
So - Please try to look past your bias towards the "bastards" to consider the following: If the yellow lights do the job of reducing accidents as well or even better than red light cameras (studies have shown this), then why put the revenue-driven devices up anywhere, thus allowing corruption (or the impression of impropriety) to take root and create doubt in the city or state government? More importantly, why allow the bottom line of camera companies and cash-strapped city councils to even be considered during the decision making process about how to BEST serve driver safety?
The best solution for the long-term viability of the city government while also protecting the safety of drivers: Lengthen yellow times and pull the red light cameras - which are the budding roots and/or platform for other automated (and profitable) law enforcement out.
Cities ABSOLUTELY cheat on yellow light timing - and they always will be because after they sign the contracts, they realize just how much money they HAVE to bring in just to pay the minimum monthly fees to the camera companies.
Case in point: In Paradise Valley, Arizona, they were caught red-handed by anti-camera activists intentionally shortening yellow lights going less than four seconds, which was a threshold they were never supposed to go under. The city claimed they weren't doing it, until this youtube video proved they were cheating at photo radar intersections.
After being caught red-handed, the city quietly and quickly - the very next day, in fact - changed the timing to match that minimum threshold.
In downtown Chandler, AZ, there was another well-known intersection with cameras with a shorter yellow time than the others, and it led to a majority of ALL of its camera "revenue".
Bottom line: There are a ton of revenue-desperate city councils out there full of dopes who aren't clever enough to see what the snake oil salesmen from camera companies are selling: "sin tax safety" AND revenue to boot, with a huge gotchas attached. It's going to take years to flush the system of these safety-neutral, revenue positive cameras.
BTW - Everyone should take notice that Los Angeles hasn't burned to the ground after turning off their cameras. It's safe to say that if LA can live without cameras, Denver (and any other major city in the United States) would probably avoid their own "carmageddon" as well...
I've seen a lot of TV ads recently pushing Chrome. That has to have made at least a little difference for many people who would've never considered Chrome before seeing a TV commercial for it, which probably actually adds credibility to the product.
OTOH, I've never once seen a TV ad for Firefox. FF's growth was all about word of mouth. (It doesn't help that FF's recent word of mouth has NOT been positive - including what's in the comments here - but that's another story.)
If Firefox had the same number of TV ads, it would probably still be adding new users, despite the core user backlash against the FF changes.
Google's views on privacy. Maybe my view is born of ignorance about what Chrome actually does track vs. doesn't track, but as of now I just can't trust them enough to use that browser all the time. I can't get past the, "Just don't do anything wrong..." comments by the Google leadership a while back.
Is there any way this could hold up?
It should, at least until Jan. 2013, when a GOP president is likely to be sitting in the White House (thanks to the economy not turning around), starting to actually act upon their own "regulations are killing us," campaign rhetoric.
"and 100,000 new teachers with majors in science, technology, engineering and math"
Good luck with that. A large majority with the skills to learn said fields is probably going to laugh at a teacher's salary.