The only thing of importance that their downloader does is to move the.mp3 files into the "Automatically Add to iTunes" folder.
Being added to iTunes was a very small part of the discussion about DRM, I think. The importance is that the MP3s don't have DRM.
Now, a relevant question is whether the Amazon cloud player or mp3 downloader can make use of an "Automatically Remove from iTunes" API, or a "remove from Winamp playlist" or other API, to take back the mp3 content at will. I think the answer to that is 'no'.
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Primarily, with a controlled study comparing an exposed population with an unexposed population.
Is there another option?
No, I think the point of the question was that you cannot prove that something is absolutely safe, only that it doesn't immediately kill the test subjects. Whether it is ultimately "safe" is a question that can only be answered after decades of use by millions of people, and even then you may get the wrong answer. Your "controlled study" has given us things like Thalidomide and Celebrex and "vaginal mesh implants" (a current target of online lawyers seeking class action suit participants).
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Regulatory capture and biased media coverage, mostly.
Perhaps you missed the point that it is the rest of the world whose FDA equivalents are working under the "prove it is safe" paradigm. Are you truly aiming your snark at non-US governments and claiming that those non-US agencies are victims of "regulatory capture" and "biased media" and that's how they're proving that things are safe? And then, by extension, that since the FDA does not try to prove chemicals are safe they are not subject to regulatory capture and biased media? If so, what an unexpected turn in the/. environment.
The correct, non-snarky, non-political answer to the question is, of course, that one cannot prove the lack of any possible negative consequences to any chemical under FDA review. I.e., you can't prove something is safe, only that it doesn't immediately kill a large percentage of the test subjects.
Just a lot of conjecture and theory posturing as fact.
And all they're offering as proof is their "honor and good name",
And they've admitted the mistake and fixed it. It was even reported as fixed BEFORE it wound up in the Guardian.
Be warned: They have designed their products to allow them to arbitrarily remove things that you have already purchased. Now ask yourself why.
I already know why. Because they face a legal liability from the true copyright holder if they sell something that they shouldn't have and need a means of mitigating the damage. Example? '1984'. The vendor who put '1984' on Amazon didn't have rights to do so so there could be no legal sales. When that mistake was discovered Amazon pulled the material that they didn't have the right to sell and refunded the money. I know you'd rather see Amazon sued by the heirs to Orwell's estate, but they weren't willing to break copyright law to make a point on your behalf.
And people mock me for still buying physical CDs from Amazon (usually used)...
If you are doing so only because you fear they will pull the music from your warm, living hands, then yes, you should be mocked.
A year or so ago I bought my first 99 cent MP3 from the Amazon monster. They wanted me to download and install an MP3 downloader to get it. I figured I would have to jump through some hoops, maybe find some DRM stripper to use the music where I wanted it, but I went ahead and bought it as an experiment.
I was amazed to find that the song downloaded and was imported into iTunes almost automatically. I copied the file from the My Amazon MP3 directory onto my phone and it played with no problem at all. Not only that, but many of the CDs I had bought through the years from Amazon showed up in the "download me" list, and I could download DRM-free copies of that music even though I had purchased only the physical CD version.
So, if you're unhappy that Amazon has too much DRM on the music it sells, well, "none" is a pretty small amount, but I'll happily sell you a program that will strip it off of the music. It's called "cp" or "copy", and it's only $3.99 in the Google Play store for Android.
(in this case I realize now that Amazon says they had a glitch, now whether they discovered the glitch before or after complaints is unknown).
What difference does that make? They fixed the problem after admitting it happened. Who cares if they found the problem all by themselves (unlikely) or someone had to tell them about it?
I've written lots of code that I don't find the bugs in myself, it takes someone complaining before I know they exist. Am I now an unethical slob because I didn't discover every bug myself and fix them before anyone said anything?
And NEITHER of them actually asked Amazon about it, they just took the word of a user, who took the word of a random customer care person.
And the "random customer care person" didn't actually say that the problem would be fixed in July, that was the "in other words" of an angry user who was posting on a site intended to rake big corporations over the coals for DRM policies they don't like. It would be unthinkable that an angry user might use hyperbole to make a tenuous claim into a mountain, yes?
He admitted that purchased content can and has been blacked out at any time without warning.
Well, yes, the '1984' incident should have told you that. But "can" is not "will be", and in this case Amazon has already stated that it was a mistake that has been rectified.
The '1984' problem was that the vendor who was selling through Amazon couldn't legally sell the book, so Amazon couldn't legally sell the book. They retracted the content and then refunded the money. The current kerfluffle is about a sale that was legal and Amazon made a mistake in not allowing access to something they've already sold. They've admitted that and claim to have fixed it.
If you think the issue is that Disney has pulled the content from the Amazon shelves, well, the copyright holder has that right, and you really don't have a right to demand that they keep selling it.
No sign of temporary mentioned.
Not here either.
In fact it's only the Guardian that mentions the words "temporary" and "accidentally".
Yeah, it's only in the headline of the only reference for the summary, after all.
It's in my nature to believe what a company first tells a single angry customer over what they try to say in a PR backpedal.
You quoted what they told "a single angry customer." I'll repeat it: 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.' That's the end of the quote. The rest of the comment from "customer" is "in other words", which means "not a quote""
Of course Disney can "pull" a product from the Amazon shelves at any time they want. They've done this before with DVD content. They release certain movies for a limited time to help drive up demand, and then stop selling them. But that doesn't mean they can pull it from your shelf once you've bought it, and Amazon has already said that. And, according to the Guardian article, has already fixed that problem.
Yes, 1984 was a precedent that woke people up. The difference is that the copies of 1984 that Amazon sold were done so without the copyright owner's permission and thus Amazon could not legally sell them in the first place. They refunded the money. In this case, Disney is the copyright holder, Disney approved the original sale, and Amazon is not taking back the content.
The only safe path to the outside world that can be used in flight is the sewage dump system, and the entry to it is only so big...
The pressurization control system in a large modern aircraft is a system-controlled hole at the back end of the plane. Considering the pressure differential, throwing someone up against that hole, perhaps headfirst top make things more like the birth process, would result in the desired consequences. It would also provide a reminder to others of the penalty involved as their ears popped during the short burst of extra air pressure, and then the sudden release.
It is blatantly obvious which issue every patriotic American (or indeed, every less-than-treasonous-himself American -- there is no 'no true Scotsman' fallacy happening here) should be more concerned about!
Well, it is blatantly obvious which issue YOU think they should be more concerned about. I think it is just as blatantly obvious which issue they actually ARE more concerned about. That's the issue that has a direct visible impact on their daily lives. The NSA "outrage" isn't costing them money out of pocket every month and isn't forcing them to select less comprehensive insurance plans to protect themselves and their families.
As for "unconstitutional", many people still think Obamacare is an obvious, direct example of that. Yet you claim that nobody should be talking about that issue.
I think the extent of their dereliction of their journalistic duty is so huge as to be figuratively criminal.
So you fail to see the hypocrisy of calling someone who doesn't talk about exactly what you want him to talk and only what you want him to talk about about a totalitarian.
I think you are a perfect example of why those talk show hosts you denounce don't express your viewpoints and your viewpoints alone on-air. If any of them made the asinine claim that someone who wasn't outraged by the NSA activities was committing treason their audience would vanish. I, for one, don't listen to Michael Savage because of his strident tone and arrogant attitude, and you, sir, are well beyond Michael Savage in both.
I haven't read TFA, but someone else posted that 6 ran the entire building for 2% of the peak day.
Then THEY didn't RTFA either. Quoting from it:
The benefits may only be slight--Nissan says it cuts peak-hour electricity use by about 2.5 percent--
"Cut electricity use by 2.5%" is NOT "provided all electricity for 2.5% of the day". Pick a number for peak use. Take 97.5% of that. That's how much you're still using from the grid.
So 6 can run the entire building, but not for long.
For those six cars to be able to provide full service to the building for ANY part of the day, the use at that time would have to be 0.025 times the peak use. One fortieth of the peak. I don't know the ratios between peak use and minimum use for normal office buildings, but I'm guessing with data centers that run 24/7 the ratio doesn't make it to 1/40.
One poster went into a long discussion about how businesses pay for electricity to try to support the numbers, but since the article uses the 2.5% number referring to quantity and not total cost, that explanation falls flat.
You don't even need to RTFA to see what the actual claim was. Simply RTFS.
The other problem is what happens in the event of an emergency (wife goes into labor, kid gets suspended at school, etc) and you don't have a full charge due to the building syphoning power off intending to put it back by the end of the day.
Implement something like this. Of course, since the company benefits from the employee it should be the one paying for the taxi instead of the taxpayers, but the concept is the same. Depending on the government involved, it would probably still be the taxpayer picking up the tab anyway.
At any rate, there is absolutely zero chance of any of them giving NSA spying the attention it deserves (which means "completely drowning out any Obamacare issues," among other things).
I would have FTFY'd the quote, but I left it. You mean the attention YOU think it deserves.
Lets contrast the two issues. One issue has direct and immediate impact upon millions of people, increasing costs by upwards of a thousand dollars a year and reducing coverage while forcing many of them to change doctors and accept much higher chances of paying thousands of dollars more if they need care. The other issue has no direct impact on them, they never saw it happen, and it costs them nothing. The government got information that they didn't care about.
Here's what the man on the street would have to say about the two issues. "You mean the NSA listened in on my call to Aunt Millie last week and knew I made it from my car? You mean when I was telling her about the new health insurance the government forced me to buy because my existing plan that was everything I needed was not legal anymore, and now I'm paying twice as much per month for a plan that has ten times the deductible. And I won't be able to get THAT coverage until March because the website I need to use to sign up isn't working yet. Can they do anything about it?"
The only possible explanation for their criminal levels of omission is that they're all totalitarian asshats too.
I'm sorry, you think it is a criminal act for a radio talk show host not to talk about what you want him to talk about and express only your opinions, and you are calling THEM "totalitarian assholes"?
I think a much simpler explanation is that radio talk show hosts have audiences that don't care about what you think is most critical but do care about things that have direct and visible impact on their daily lives. That those "totalitarian assholes" know that those audiences will tune out if all they do is rant about the NSA because most people simply do not care about NSA.
Don't tell that to some of the people on here who will immediately whine,
And don't tell that to folks like Yahoo. They've been bugging me for months to upgrade to a Firefox that is optimized for Yahoo (not a Firefox that Yahoo has been optimized to work with), and to select a theme, every time I go to Yahoo mail.
Today a user told me that the usual "continue anyway" link was no longer working. So Yahoo demands upgrades...
Just because something's new doesn't make it better.
And quite often the 'new' is significantly worse. Like 'neo'.
...you'll soon start seeing promoted tweets that are chosen based on websites you've visited in the past.
No,I won't. I stopped looking at twitter when they started creating fake tweets from advertisers that I couldn't shut off or stop "following", in twitspeak.
And Yahoo Groups has started mixing advertisements in with the group messages as if they were part of the group content.
Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?
For the same reason/. keeps recycling old news. This tempest in a teapot has already been beaten to death here, months ago I think. At least the original date of the blog from easyDNS is dated back in September.
The summary is: the City of London police cover a small area in London, dealing often with IP and financial issues. They asked a DNS provider to look over their AUP concerning a certain website to see if action was appropriate. They asked the DNS provider, if they thought an AUP issue merited action, to please do certain things that would protect the ability to bring the matter to justice in a court (freeze DNS records to prove ownership, etc.) They left the decision up to the DNS provider. They then dared to ask the DNS provider to respond either way.
This is, of course, on/., an attempt at censoring the global internet. Just as I've attempted to censor the global internet by reporting spam factories to their DNS hosts/ISP to deal with.
I will reiterate: No one shackles god and forces them to do anything. Men are in control of the definition of god and god's will.
You can reiterate all you like, but when you claim that man controls God then yes, that is saying that God is forced to do man's will, not God's. That's what "control" means.
It has been established many times that any meddling that any god might do is far below any level of statistical significance.
Who established this? Man? You've defined the answer you want when you ask the question. You assume that because He has not done so that He cannot. I haven't gone skydiving yet; nothing stops me other than my failure to want to do this. If you accept that there is a God, then it is by definition that He could make Himself known beyond any statistical whitewash. That's why He would be called God and not man. If you could put Him in a little box and limit His power to what you want him to have, then he is not God.
It does not matter if I understand you, control you or even that you exist at all. If I tell people what you do and what you want and they believe me then I have defined you.
You are green and eat small children for lunch. You want to read comic books all day, and play PS4 well into the night. There, I've just defined you. Does my ridiculous claim as to your nature and will change the truth? Would it matter if anyone believed me, or would your true nature and will be the same either way?
That it is not the truth is entirely my point.
That it is not the truth does not put you in control, nor does it demonstrate that you fully understand anything. You honestly believe that whatever lies you come up with control God because He doesn't immediately strike you dead? What utter nonsense.
It is apparent, as I said once before, that our worldviews are too far apart to communicate. You think that your definition of something controls what that something is. I think that something can exist without and outside of my limited ability to define it. You think that if you tell a lie and someone believes you it becomes the truth. I think truth exists whether I lie about it or not. Your up is my green. That's how far apart in philosophy we are.
Sigh, fine. Man controls god because man creates god.
It is clear that our worldviews differ so much that no common ground will ever be found. Your religion clearly does have a god that man controls and fully understands because apparently you have created him, but please don't assume that they all do.
Any god created by a man who controls and fully understands that god is by definition not a god. It is a slave; a toy.
Anyone can claim to know the will of god. They do that and they have to. Without some belief in what a god wants what is the point in the belief of a god?
This is much different than controlling or fully understanding God. And as I said before, the fact that some people claim to control or fully understand Him does not make it true.
"Some belief" falls far far short of your original claim. As I already pointed out, you can know that I want an ice cream cone, but that doesn't mean you control or fully understand me. If you cannot control something as insignificant as another human being by understanding one thing it wants, then how do you imagine you would control a God?
Whether or not your god exists he seems unwilling to meddle in our affairs in any meaningful sense.
And this proves exactly what? That you are willing to dismiss any "meddling" as just random chance? It certainly does not prove that man controls God -- if he did, then there would absolutely be irrefutable evidence because man would have ordered it to exist. When man controls God, then God must obey. The fact that proof sufficient to convince you does not exist is proof that man cannot be the controlling being. It would certainly end the endless debates and surprise a lot of atheists were God's followers able to order upon demand a convincing demonstration of His existence, and it would demonstrate a significant amount of arrogance to think the one could do that to start with.
The control comes when people are convinced they will go to hell if they don't get you that ice cream cone.
I'm sorry, what? I am under some control by others if I have been able to convince them of some bad fate if they don't bring me an ice cream cone? That sounds to me like I have some control over them, not the other way around.
A more earthly analogy would be the owner of a dance club that says tonight you must bring two items of non-perishable food to donate if you want to get into the club. If you choose not to participate, is that his fault or yours? Do you assume some right to enter the club without following the owner's rules? Are you controlling the owner of the club when you either choose to bring the items or choose not to? I think not.
Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this?
He has already "weighed-in on this", so I don't feel a strong need to correct him. As for trying to explain why God does or does not do something to the hypothetical blow-hard, that's where I do not pretend to fully understand God. That's the point I was making to you about your claim that every religion has a god that people can control and fully understand. Your argument seems to be that because you cannot fully explain God or understand Him that He is under man's control and is fully understood by him.
I can refute your claim much more easily, in fewer words. If a religion has a God that man can control and fully understand, then it isn't a God, by definition.
Basically followers say god believes whatever they do.
Do you say the sky is blue because you told it to be blue, or do you say the sky is blue because you observe that the sky is blue? I don't attempt to tell God what to believe, but perhaps your god allows you to do that.
They define their god's beliefs because there is no one else to correct them.
Perhaps because you are not interested in theological debates you do not observe them taking place. I can assure you, there are often debates about what God believes, and there are any number of people ready and willing to "correct" those who expound incorrect ideas.
I assure you that there is a whole lot of contradictory assertions about what the Christian god wants.
So you DO know about the theological debates and that there are "a whole lot" of people willing to correct others when they have defined their own beliefs in place of God's.
My response to you was not an attempt to evangelize you, it was to correct your patently absurd claim that every religion has a God that man can control and fully understand. Trying to argue that the existence of people who try is proof that God is actually that limited is a fallacy, just as the existence of people who claim the world is flat make it truly so.
In which religion can you control or even fully understand your god?
All of them.
No. Not in mine. Perhaps in your religion you have a God that you can control and fully understand, but Christianity doesn't.
Ever notice how there is always someone telling you what god wants?
You are confused. You can know what a God wants without fully understanding Him or being able to control him. I want an ice cream cone. Does that mean you now control or fully understand me? I am much easier to control and understand than any God; yet you are able to do neither based on knowing that simple want. Why do you imagine a God would be as easy to control or fully understand? You believing you can would be like the fish in my fishtank believing it understands why it sees me pushing on small square stones with my oddly shaped fins (typing with my fingers on a keyboard).
That's the gist of it. Although Amazon has a ton of third party sellers, they're still the main vendor. eBay, however, is built to facilitate third party sellers.
That's the primary difference between the fantasy world of eBay and the drone of Amazon. I seriously doubt that the orders from third party fulfillment processors for Amazon will ever be part of the drone system. Most of Amazon's processing (and probably their desired method of operation) is from their own warehouses. Most of eBay's operation (and their desired method) is the seller goes to the local UPS store and ships it himself.
Now, someday, after Amazon creates the system, UPS and FedEx may adopt it, too. UPS already uses USPS for delivery, so why wouldn't they want to cut out the last mile human operation altogether?
If I order from eBay, there's an excellent chance it's coming from across the planet.
FTFY. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine the country of origin for anything you by from eBay. I was looking at the Baofeng radios and saw one listing that claimed a US vendor but the comments talked about shipping from China.
Slashdot Mirror
The only thing of importance that their downloader does is to move the .mp3 files into the "Automatically Add to iTunes" folder.
Being added to iTunes was a very small part of the discussion about DRM, I think. The importance is that the MP3s don't have DRM.
Now, a relevant question is whether the Amazon cloud player or mp3 downloader can make use of an "Automatically Remove from iTunes" API, or a "remove from Winamp playlist" or other API, to take back the mp3 content at will. I think the answer to that is 'no'.
I was going for "you can't, you can only show it's safe under a large range of likely circumstances
Next time you want to say "you can't" don't talk about how it is done. Talk about how it can't be done.
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Primarily, with a controlled study comparing an exposed population with an unexposed population. Is there another option?
No, I think the point of the question was that you cannot prove that something is absolutely safe, only that it doesn't immediately kill the test subjects. Whether it is ultimately "safe" is a question that can only be answered after decades of use by millions of people, and even then you may get the wrong answer. Your "controlled study" has given us things like Thalidomide and Celebrex and "vaginal mesh implants" (a current target of online lawyers seeking class action suit participants).
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Regulatory capture and biased media coverage, mostly.
Perhaps you missed the point that it is the rest of the world whose FDA equivalents are working under the "prove it is safe" paradigm. Are you truly aiming your snark at non-US governments and claiming that those non-US agencies are victims of "regulatory capture" and "biased media" and that's how they're proving that things are safe? And then, by extension, that since the FDA does not try to prove chemicals are safe they are not subject to regulatory capture and biased media? If so, what an unexpected turn in the /. environment.
The correct, non-snarky, non-political answer to the question is, of course, that one cannot prove the lack of any possible negative consequences to any chemical under FDA review. I.e., you can't prove something is safe, only that it doesn't immediately kill a large percentage of the test subjects.
... but I don't have any proof.
Just a lot of conjecture and theory posturing as fact.
And all they're offering as proof is their "honor and good name",
And they've admitted the mistake and fixed it. It was even reported as fixed BEFORE it wound up in the Guardian.
Be warned: They have designed their products to allow them to arbitrarily remove things that you have already purchased. Now ask yourself why.
I already know why. Because they face a legal liability from the true copyright holder if they sell something that they shouldn't have and need a means of mitigating the damage. Example? '1984'. The vendor who put '1984' on Amazon didn't have rights to do so so there could be no legal sales. When that mistake was discovered Amazon pulled the material that they didn't have the right to sell and refunded the money. I know you'd rather see Amazon sued by the heirs to Orwell's estate, but they weren't willing to break copyright law to make a point on your behalf.
And people mock me for still buying physical CDs from Amazon (usually used)...
If you are doing so only because you fear they will pull the music from your warm, living hands, then yes, you should be mocked.
A year or so ago I bought my first 99 cent MP3 from the Amazon monster. They wanted me to download and install an MP3 downloader to get it. I figured I would have to jump through some hoops, maybe find some DRM stripper to use the music where I wanted it, but I went ahead and bought it as an experiment.
I was amazed to find that the song downloaded and was imported into iTunes almost automatically. I copied the file from the My Amazon MP3 directory onto my phone and it played with no problem at all. Not only that, but many of the CDs I had bought through the years from Amazon showed up in the "download me" list, and I could download DRM-free copies of that music even though I had purchased only the physical CD version.
So, if you're unhappy that Amazon has too much DRM on the music it sells, well, "none" is a pretty small amount, but I'll happily sell you a program that will strip it off of the music. It's called "cp" or "copy", and it's only $3.99 in the Google Play store for Android.
(in this case I realize now that Amazon says they had a glitch, now whether they discovered the glitch before or after complaints is unknown).
What difference does that make? They fixed the problem after admitting it happened. Who cares if they found the problem all by themselves (unlikely) or someone had to tell them about it?
I've written lots of code that I don't find the bugs in myself, it takes someone complaining before I know they exist. Am I now an unethical slob because I didn't discover every bug myself and fix them before anyone said anything?
And NEITHER of them actually asked Amazon about it, they just took the word of a user, who took the word of a random customer care person.
And the "random customer care person" didn't actually say that the problem would be fixed in July, that was the "in other words" of an angry user who was posting on a site intended to rake big corporations over the coals for DRM policies they don't like. It would be unthinkable that an angry user might use hyperbole to make a tenuous claim into a mountain, yes?
He admitted that purchased content can and has been blacked out at any time without warning.
Well, yes, the '1984' incident should have told you that. But "can" is not "will be", and in this case Amazon has already stated that it was a mistake that has been rectified.
The '1984' problem was that the vendor who was selling through Amazon couldn't legally sell the book, so Amazon couldn't legally sell the book. They retracted the content and then refunded the money. The current kerfluffle is about a sale that was legal and Amazon made a mistake in not allowing access to something they've already sold. They've admitted that and claim to have fixed it.
If you think the issue is that Disney has pulled the content from the Amazon shelves, well, the copyright holder has that right, and you really don't have a right to demand that they keep selling it.
No sign of temporary mentioned. Not here either. In fact it's only the Guardian that mentions the words "temporary" and "accidentally".
Yeah, it's only in the headline of the only reference for the summary, after all.
It's in my nature to believe what a company first tells a single angry customer over what they try to say in a PR backpedal.
You quoted what they told "a single angry customer." I'll repeat it: 'at this time they've pulled that show for exclusivity on their own channel.' That's the end of the quote. The rest of the comment from "customer" is "in other words", which means "not a quote""
Of course Disney can "pull" a product from the Amazon shelves at any time they want. They've done this before with DVD content. They release certain movies for a limited time to help drive up demand, and then stop selling them. But that doesn't mean they can pull it from your shelf once you've bought it, and Amazon has already said that. And, according to the Guardian article, has already fixed that problem.
Yes, 1984 was a precedent that woke people up. The difference is that the copies of 1984 that Amazon sold were done so without the copyright owner's permission and thus Amazon could not legally sell them in the first place. They refunded the money. In this case, Disney is the copyright holder, Disney approved the original sale, and Amazon is not taking back the content.
The only safe path to the outside world that can be used in flight is the sewage dump system, and the entry to it is only so big...
The pressurization control system in a large modern aircraft is a system-controlled hole at the back end of the plane. Considering the pressure differential, throwing someone up against that hole, perhaps headfirst top make things more like the birth process, would result in the desired consequences. It would also provide a reminder to others of the penalty involved as their ears popped during the short burst of extra air pressure, and then the sudden release.
It is blatantly obvious which issue every patriotic American (or indeed, every less-than-treasonous-himself American -- there is no 'no true Scotsman' fallacy happening here) should be more concerned about!
Well, it is blatantly obvious which issue YOU think they should be more concerned about. I think it is just as blatantly obvious which issue they actually ARE more concerned about. That's the issue that has a direct visible impact on their daily lives. The NSA "outrage" isn't costing them money out of pocket every month and isn't forcing them to select less comprehensive insurance plans to protect themselves and their families.
As for "unconstitutional", many people still think Obamacare is an obvious, direct example of that. Yet you claim that nobody should be talking about that issue.
I think the extent of their dereliction of their journalistic duty is so huge as to be figuratively criminal.
So you fail to see the hypocrisy of calling someone who doesn't talk about exactly what you want him to talk and only what you want him to talk about about a totalitarian.
I think you are a perfect example of why those talk show hosts you denounce don't express your viewpoints and your viewpoints alone on-air. If any of them made the asinine claim that someone who wasn't outraged by the NSA activities was committing treason their audience would vanish. I, for one, don't listen to Michael Savage because of his strident tone and arrogant attitude, and you, sir, are well beyond Michael Savage in both.
I haven't read TFA, but someone else posted that 6 ran the entire building for 2% of the peak day.
Then THEY didn't RTFA either. Quoting from it:
"Cut electricity use by 2.5%" is NOT "provided all electricity for 2.5% of the day". Pick a number for peak use. Take 97.5% of that. That's how much you're still using from the grid.
So 6 can run the entire building, but not for long.
For those six cars to be able to provide full service to the building for ANY part of the day, the use at that time would have to be 0.025 times the peak use. One fortieth of the peak. I don't know the ratios between peak use and minimum use for normal office buildings, but I'm guessing with data centers that run 24/7 the ratio doesn't make it to 1/40.
One poster went into a long discussion about how businesses pay for electricity to try to support the numbers, but since the article uses the 2.5% number referring to quantity and not total cost, that explanation falls flat.
You don't even need to RTFA to see what the actual claim was. Simply RTFS.
The other problem is what happens in the event of an emergency (wife goes into labor, kid gets suspended at school, etc) and you don't have a full charge due to the building syphoning power off intending to put it back by the end of the day.
Implement something like this. Of course, since the company benefits from the employee it should be the one paying for the taxi instead of the taxpayers, but the concept is the same. Depending on the government involved, it would probably still be the taxpayer picking up the tab anyway.
At any rate, there is absolutely zero chance of any of them giving NSA spying the attention it deserves (which means "completely drowning out any Obamacare issues," among other things).
I would have FTFY'd the quote, but I left it. You mean the attention YOU think it deserves.
Lets contrast the two issues. One issue has direct and immediate impact upon millions of people, increasing costs by upwards of a thousand dollars a year and reducing coverage while forcing many of them to change doctors and accept much higher chances of paying thousands of dollars more if they need care. The other issue has no direct impact on them, they never saw it happen, and it costs them nothing. The government got information that they didn't care about.
Here's what the man on the street would have to say about the two issues. "You mean the NSA listened in on my call to Aunt Millie last week and knew I made it from my car? You mean when I was telling her about the new health insurance the government forced me to buy because my existing plan that was everything I needed was not legal anymore, and now I'm paying twice as much per month for a plan that has ten times the deductible. And I won't be able to get THAT coverage until March because the website I need to use to sign up isn't working yet. Can they do anything about it?"
The only possible explanation for their criminal levels of omission is that they're all totalitarian asshats too.
I'm sorry, you think it is a criminal act for a radio talk show host not to talk about what you want him to talk about and express only your opinions, and you are calling THEM "totalitarian assholes"?
I think a much simpler explanation is that radio talk show hosts have audiences that don't care about what you think is most critical but do care about things that have direct and visible impact on their daily lives. That those "totalitarian assholes" know that those audiences will tune out if all they do is rant about the NSA because most people simply do not care about NSA.
Don't tell that to some of the people on here who will immediately whine,
And don't tell that to folks like Yahoo. They've been bugging me for months to upgrade to a Firefox that is optimized for Yahoo (not a Firefox that Yahoo has been optimized to work with), and to select a theme, every time I go to Yahoo mail.
Today a user told me that the usual "continue anyway" link was no longer working. So Yahoo demands upgrades...
Just because something's new doesn't make it better.
And quite often the 'new' is significantly worse. Like 'neo'.
...you'll soon start seeing promoted tweets that are chosen based on websites you've visited in the past.
No,I won't. I stopped looking at twitter when they started creating fake tweets from advertisers that I couldn't shut off or stop "following", in twitspeak.
And Yahoo Groups has started mixing advertisements in with the group messages as if they were part of the group content.
Can you explain why this paleolithic institution is allowed to survive? Are the British people daft?
For the same reason /. keeps recycling old news. This tempest in a teapot has already been beaten to death here, months ago I think. At least the original date of the blog from easyDNS is dated back in September.
The summary is: the City of London police cover a small area in London, dealing often with IP and financial issues. They asked a DNS provider to look over their AUP concerning a certain website to see if action was appropriate. They asked the DNS provider, if they thought an AUP issue merited action, to please do certain things that would protect the ability to bring the matter to justice in a court (freeze DNS records to prove ownership, etc.) They left the decision up to the DNS provider. They then dared to ask the DNS provider to respond either way.
This is, of course, on /., an attempt at censoring the global internet. Just as I've attempted to censor the global internet by reporting spam factories to their DNS hosts/ISP to deal with.
Must be a slow news day.
In this case, you don't actually want an ice cream cone.
I see what you did there.
I will reiterate: No one shackles god and forces them to do anything. Men are in control of the definition of god and god's will.
You can reiterate all you like, but when you claim that man controls God then yes, that is saying that God is forced to do man's will, not God's. That's what "control" means.
It has been established many times that any meddling that any god might do is far below any level of statistical significance.
Who established this? Man? You've defined the answer you want when you ask the question. You assume that because He has not done so that He cannot. I haven't gone skydiving yet; nothing stops me other than my failure to want to do this. If you accept that there is a God, then it is by definition that He could make Himself known beyond any statistical whitewash. That's why He would be called God and not man. If you could put Him in a little box and limit His power to what you want him to have, then he is not God.
It does not matter if I understand you, control you or even that you exist at all. If I tell people what you do and what you want and they believe me then I have defined you.
You are green and eat small children for lunch. You want to read comic books all day, and play PS4 well into the night. There, I've just defined you. Does my ridiculous claim as to your nature and will change the truth? Would it matter if anyone believed me, or would your true nature and will be the same either way?
That it is not the truth is entirely my point.
That it is not the truth does not put you in control, nor does it demonstrate that you fully understand anything. You honestly believe that whatever lies you come up with control God because He doesn't immediately strike you dead? What utter nonsense.
It is apparent, as I said once before, that our worldviews are too far apart to communicate. You think that your definition of something controls what that something is. I think that something can exist without and outside of my limited ability to define it. You think that if you tell a lie and someone believes you it becomes the truth. I think truth exists whether I lie about it or not. Your up is my green. That's how far apart in philosophy we are.
Sigh, fine. Man controls god because man creates god.
It is clear that our worldviews differ so much that no common ground will ever be found. Your religion clearly does have a god that man controls and fully understands because apparently you have created him, but please don't assume that they all do.
Any god created by a man who controls and fully understands that god is by definition not a god. It is a slave; a toy.
Anyone can claim to know the will of god. They do that and they have to. Without some belief in what a god wants what is the point in the belief of a god?
This is much different than controlling or fully understanding God. And as I said before, the fact that some people claim to control or fully understand Him does not make it true.
"Some belief" falls far far short of your original claim. As I already pointed out, you can know that I want an ice cream cone, but that doesn't mean you control or fully understand me. If you cannot control something as insignificant as another human being by understanding one thing it wants, then how do you imagine you would control a God?
Whether or not your god exists he seems unwilling to meddle in our affairs in any meaningful sense.
And this proves exactly what? That you are willing to dismiss any "meddling" as just random chance? It certainly does not prove that man controls God -- if he did, then there would absolutely be irrefutable evidence because man would have ordered it to exist. When man controls God, then God must obey. The fact that proof sufficient to convince you does not exist is proof that man cannot be the controlling being. It would certainly end the endless debates and surprise a lot of atheists were God's followers able to order upon demand a convincing demonstration of His existence, and it would demonstrate a significant amount of arrogance to think the one could do that to start with.
The control comes when people are convinced they will go to hell if they don't get you that ice cream cone.
I'm sorry, what? I am under some control by others if I have been able to convince them of some bad fate if they don't bring me an ice cream cone? That sounds to me like I have some control over them, not the other way around.
A more earthly analogy would be the owner of a dance club that says tonight you must bring two items of non-perishable food to donate if you want to get into the club. If you choose not to participate, is that his fault or yours? Do you assume some right to enter the club without following the owner's rules? Are you controlling the owner of the club when you either choose to bring the items or choose not to? I think not.
Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this?
He has already "weighed-in on this", so I don't feel a strong need to correct him. As for trying to explain why God does or does not do something to the hypothetical blow-hard, that's where I do not pretend to fully understand God. That's the point I was making to you about your claim that every religion has a god that people can control and fully understand. Your argument seems to be that because you cannot fully explain God or understand Him that He is under man's control and is fully understood by him.
I can refute your claim much more easily, in fewer words. If a religion has a God that man can control and fully understand, then it isn't a God, by definition.
Basically followers say god believes whatever they do.
Do you say the sky is blue because you told it to be blue, or do you say the sky is blue because you observe that the sky is blue? I don't attempt to tell God what to believe, but perhaps your god allows you to do that.
They define their god's beliefs because there is no one else to correct them.
Perhaps because you are not interested in theological debates you do not observe them taking place. I can assure you, there are often debates about what God believes, and there are any number of people ready and willing to "correct" those who expound incorrect ideas.
I assure you that there is a whole lot of contradictory assertions about what the Christian god wants.
So you DO know about the theological debates and that there are "a whole lot" of people willing to correct others when they have defined their own beliefs in place of God's.
My response to you was not an attempt to evangelize you, it was to correct your patently absurd claim that every religion has a God that man can control and fully understand. Trying to argue that the existence of people who try is proof that God is actually that limited is a fallacy, just as the existence of people who claim the world is flat make it truly so.
In which religion can you control or even fully understand your god?
All of them.
No. Not in mine. Perhaps in your religion you have a God that you can control and fully understand, but Christianity doesn't.
Ever notice how there is always someone telling you what god wants?
You are confused. You can know what a God wants without fully understanding Him or being able to control him. I want an ice cream cone. Does that mean you now control or fully understand me? I am much easier to control and understand than any God; yet you are able to do neither based on knowing that simple want. Why do you imagine a God would be as easy to control or fully understand? You believing you can would be like the fish in my fishtank believing it understands why it sees me pushing on small square stones with my oddly shaped fins (typing with my fingers on a keyboard).
That's the gist of it. Although Amazon has a ton of third party sellers, they're still the main vendor. eBay, however, is built to facilitate third party sellers.
That's the primary difference between the fantasy world of eBay and the drone of Amazon. I seriously doubt that the orders from third party fulfillment processors for Amazon will ever be part of the drone system. Most of Amazon's processing (and probably their desired method of operation) is from their own warehouses. Most of eBay's operation (and their desired method) is the seller goes to the local UPS store and ships it himself.
Now, someday, after Amazon creates the system, UPS and FedEx may adopt it, too. UPS already uses USPS for delivery, so why wouldn't they want to cut out the last mile human operation altogether?
If I order from eBay, there's an excellent chance it's coming from across the planet.
FTFY. It is becoming increasingly difficult to determine the country of origin for anything you by from eBay. I was looking at the Baofeng radios and saw one listing that claimed a US vendor but the comments talked about shipping from China.