Yea, but you forget the huge loans that many of us accumulate after getting our degrees in engineering. It's just not easy t forget about it all and go hitchhiking across Europe. That said, once I do finish my loans I am going to do exactly that with a couple of friends.
I let my loans sit there accumulating vast amounts of interest, maybe not the wisest of moves but I certainly don't regret it. I will still be paying them off in my mid forties though.
The things is that if you put off going travelling until you have paid your loans you may well find that a wife and kids arrive on the scene before then as most womens biological bay clock starts to kick into high gear towards their mid twenties.
"If you're a young person, I think the very best thing you could do is get together with a group of friends and commit to a one year experiment in which the substantial part of your life will be focused on discovery and not be dedicated to wage work"
All that sounds nice but requires quite a bit amount of money! That kind of travels you can only do in your forties.
Rubbish. When you are young you can live much more freely on very little money as you are unlikely to have the dependants (children, wife) that you have in your forties. Also, most people in our generations will be working their asses off throughout their forties desperately trying to make sure they are not going to starve in old age. The idea that you can accumulate enough money in your thirties to take any long periods of absence from work in your forties is gone in the current climate. Take too long off at that age and you can forget coming back to a tech career, there is just too much ageism in our workplace.
In your twenties however you can do things like hitch across foreign countries doing bar work to earn money. Or you can teach english as a foreign language and get some decent life experience. You twenties are a time to go and do a job that will not make you rich, but will be great fun and make you a more rounded individual. You might not end up as fabulously rich as Bill Gates, or the Google Twins or whoever, but you were hardly likely to become them anyway as they are the outliers of society, not the norm. Instead, just concentrate on enjoying yourself.
Personally I worked as a balloon modeller and stilt walker for several years after I left uni entertaining kids. I never made any real money but I had more fun than most and you are always able to just start on your chosen career a little later. Most older geeks find young arrogant Bill Gates wannabes annoying as hell anyway so getting a few more years of live experience under your belt before starting work might actually help your career in the long run as you will be a more rounded person.
I would say, in my experience, no one has ever said they are from "America" when they are from another country on the American continents.
Did you look at the link I posted? If you were talking Spanish or Portuguese to someone in South America they describe you guys as "estadounidense" in Spanish or "estadunidense" in Portuguese. So it stands to reason they would translate that into English more literally and come up with something similar to USAian. They would then refer to all of you together as Americans even though you live in very different countries the same way as they may refer to me as a European.
Think about it. A lot of countries have called them the United States of something. Mexico is actually the "United States of Mexico" as the full name of their country. It would be just as bad for us to call ourselves United Statesians in that regard, and would make significantly less sense in usage.
Fair point, but someone needs to tell that to the countries in South America that call you exactly that.
Welcome to the club... my whole adult life has been an embarrassing time to be a USAian.
What the fuck is that? Did you mean American? B/c the name of the country is the United States of America thus, the appropriate term for someone from the United States of America is American. Or do you call people from Great Britain UKers?
Welcome to the club... my whole adult life has been an embarrassing time to be a USAian.
What the fuck is that? Did you mean American? B/c the name of the country is the United States of America thus, the appropriate term for someone from the United States of America is American. Or do you call people from Great Britain UKers?
Us in Britain do not have a several countries near us that call themselves part of South Britain though so it is not exactly a great comparison. Surely anyone who lives in South America can also call themselves an American? If they have to be called South Americans then why are you not North Americans too?
This is the difference between Britain and the USA: If I say just Britain you know exactly where I mean but if I say America I could mean the continent or the country, especially in other languages. Only you in the US pluralise America to The Americas when referring to the continent, in every other language the singular is often used to refer to the continent. I am guessing the original poster may have had south american parents and hence also spoken Spanish or Portuguese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Spanish_usage
This is not saying that USAian is not a crap term to refer to citizens of the USA, but by picking a country name that included the name of the continent the country was in you made things a bit more complicated than most other countries, and we have all dealt with it differently and maybe not the way you would like.
Hmm, I don't mean to sound horrible, but if you're finding Zend difficult then I'm not sure you're at a skill level high enough to give a useful answer to this question.
I was stuggling yesterday with the nested arrays that you need to build to use the default form decorators. Also, note someone elses comments below about the documentation, it sucks pretty badly.
If you are some sort of Zend expert can you recommend a decent book or two? I am a sucker for reading programming theory books on my way too and from work so an online option is not suitable for me as I live in london and travel on the tube (ie - underground railway with no phone signal) most days.
If you have an existing base of PHP and Ruby developers then Cake sounds like the way to go to meet them both in the middle so everyone can pick it up fairly quickly. Cake is based on many of the same concepts as Ruby on Rails so everyone should be fairly at home. It is still PHP though so it won't force all your dev team to write better code as much as RoR will. The flexibility of a PHP base can be a plus though unless it is put in the wrong hands.
Personally I am struggling through my first Zend Framework Project at the moment but I am not sure I would recommend it as it has caused me a few too many frustrations. I do worry that this will just knock all the other PHP Frameworks into the long grass though as it is by the same people as PHP. I am starting to see quite a few job offers coming my way now I have added Zend Framework to my CV so it does seem to be very popular for some reason.
I just noticed you also mention having a Python powered backend, this may change my advice above but it does bring about another question: Do you really need so many different technologies? Surely this must drive up your costs considerably as you need developers with a much wider skill set or more of them.
No, I am not for the reasons I shall outline below
You should be checking more often of course, but I think federal law went into place that allows you to change the policy with the bank so that they cannot bring your account negative. Basically, you can remove their discretion to approve charges that you can't cover. That makes overdraft fees impossible.
I live in the UK so any federal law will not apply to me.
Look up your state laws and read your banking agreement.
I had looked up my banking agreement recently as a result of the £125 charge they stung me with this month for going £40 over my agreed overdraft limit as a result of my credit card minimum payment coming out even though I had already paid a large chunk it off as a one off extra payment. I mistakenly assumed they would not take the minimum payment as I had already paid some money off this month. My banking agreement say this is perfectly acceptable so I have to swallow the charge (and then move to another bank who are slightly less evil if I can find one).
The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.
Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.
No the people who will be hit are people like me. They will take some money out of my account that I had not budgeted for, this will not be noticed immediately and may take until the end of the month depending on how often I check my account. Because I am not aware that my account is down by however much they donated I may then spend more than I have which results the bank charging me an exorbitant fee for exceeding my overdraft facility.
The bank will eventually refund the fraudulent use of my credit card but they will not refund the charges they applied to my account as they will just say I should have checked my account more often (which actually means before every large purchase in order to be 100% safe). Now you might say this is exactly the same as if some fraudster used my card without my permission to buy himself a new telly, to which I say you exactly right: It is no different what so ever as far as the person who is down an extra bank charge just because they were too busy to check their account before the rent or whatever came out of their account.
Remember, this money isn't replaced in a person's account the second they report a theft. It's usually 7-10 business days (read 2 weeks).
When a retailer accidentally put a credit card purchase through twice and hence double billed my account it actually would have taken 11 weeks for them to refund the money if the bank had done it. In the end I managed to get the retailer to refund the transaction more quickly but the bank take ages to refund fraudulent transactions.
Yep. This is why I will never get an Android device or use Google+. They want to spy, and they spy everything. On top of that, other companies will start to feel that it's ok to do. If the practice can continue without interruption, we will all lose privacy. It's funny how everyone always fights losing privacy to the government. Google, Carrier IQ and the companies are just middle hands for that!
But why single out Google? All smart phones are going to do crap like this so the only way to escape it is to only use products that are completely open and unlocked.
Bear in mind that this thread is not actually about anything Google can change, it is about some extra software that carriers (ie - AT&T, etc) are adding to android after google are done with it. There is very little you can do to avoid this as all the carriers are just as bad but you can at least not just blame google because they created an open phone platform that some other company wrote bad software for. Do you blame Apple for Mac IE5 being shit or Microsoft?
Not true. Subversives did things like blow up shipping docks to intimidate British merchants and military. Bombings and such were relatively rare because they were so hard to successfully carry out at the time, but they certainly did happen.
You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.
You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.
Actually most countries count terrorism to be just causing terror, they do not care if that was only aimed at people in the military. Not sure about US law but here in the UK you can be guilty of terrorism even if you only endangered members of our armed forces.
I think that the american founding fathers probably were guilty of terrorism, but they had no other way of getting out from under the yolk of colonial rule unless they were willing to wait a few hundred years. Look at how we treated peaceful resistance from Ghandi and his followers. Our empire was held to together by a very professional army who thought nothing of the odd massacre.
We in Britain have also been guilty of terrorism though in some peoples eyes. We quite happily sent people to the continent to fight Germany via clandestine means. We also thought nothing of attacking civilians, we levelled Dresden and Hamburg without a moments thought. Unless you think that declaring war means that people fighting for you cannot be terrorists even if they kill and maim civilians? I am not apologising to anyone for Britains conduct during the war, but you can be damn sure that if Germany had won then they would be calling the French resistance terrorists in history books.
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
Maybe if you can just take out infrastructure without hurting or endangering anyone you have a point. As soon as you do either of these things though you stray so far away from acceptable behaviour that causing terror is a pretty good definition.
By the way, I do also take this to the conclusion that police officers tear gassing peaceful protesters are also guilty of state sponsored and sanctioned terrorism. I would like to see them in the dock too, I would just give them a lesser sentence than someone who actually committed murder.
Legally that probably gets them off the hook on the fraud charges.
I would lump them in with the dry cleaners that have the sign We are not responsible for lost items.
That sign actually holds legal weight too in the UK providing it was clearly displayed where you could see it before you deposited the item. The only time it doesn't hold is if they try and disclaim liability for injuring you. But they can disclaim liability for losing your property while it was in their care and there is not a damn thing you can do about it apart from try and find a cleaner that does not display a similar sign.
But if you mean that both are shits then I entirely agree, but the law allows them to be shits in this manner.
I've used VGA on a 17" for years on an aging graphics card, and it never looked as bad as the Dell picture. If may be a bit more fuzzy, but I could still see individual pixels and there's really no reason why the colors would be that flat. Don't Dell TFT's have contrast/brightness settings?
Of course they do. This image has been knocked up in photoshop and they even tell you that on the image. The bit saying "images shown are for demonstrative purposes only" literally translates into "we knocked this shit up in photoshop" when you translate it from legalese marketing speak into plain english.
... using words like "misleading" and "unfair." It's fraud, plain and simple.
Apart from that test below the image saying: "Image for illustrative purposes only". Legally that probably gets them off the hook on the fraud charges.
Also under our retarded british legal system you have probably now libelled them and they can sue you for millions of pounds in lost revenue.
Why should a rich person that makes $1M pay $500,000 for the same services and protections from their country that a poor person that contributes absolutely nothing to society and receives $25,000?
Well one major reason is that if you are sitting on a big pile of money then you need the rule of law (ie: FBI, Secret Service, etc) and the military to keep someone else from stealing it. The rich have far more to lose that the poor so it is entirely appropriate they pay a little more for their increased need for protection. This is especially the case with regard to our armed forces as the very rich are often not the people who actually sign up to give their lives in our defence. Even the poor who do not serve their country directly still often suffer more emotionally as they are also more likely to see friends and family go off to war then never come home.
I am glad I no longer store credit card information with steam, and only used PayPal (and have an authentication card attached to my PP account.)
I have been meaning to update the credit cards I have stored on my steam account for ages. Both of them have been cancelled recently as they got cloned when I was visiting Prague.
Hope whoever stole the customer data has lots of fun when they try and use them:)
I would also point out that the British had a lot of success against the French sticking to the longbow which they had been using for years before the crossbow came along. Yes the cross bow had more range and did more damage per a shot, but in the time it takes to reload the long bow men could have run the distance and the next reload they would have got several shots off. Also the shortbow (basically shortened version of the longbow could be used from horseback).
The longbow is also much harder to learn. The reason us english used them well was something to do with the amount of legal encouragement we were given to use them. This apparently included crazy laws preventing us from doing anything else at certain times (on sundays or holidays) and making sure all practice ranges were over 220 yards long.
Also, your impression that longbow men moved is not accurate. The best plan was for the longbowman to sharpen a very big stick and plunge it into the ground next to him at 45 degrees. He then sharpened the other end too then stood just behind it. The stick had to be sturdy enough such that a horse charging it could not break it and close enough to the stick next to it that a horse could not get through the gap. He then just sat there and made arrows until the battle commenced and some fool walked in range.
Also, longbowman were not exactly useless when it came to close combat as the hammer they used for driving stakes into the ground was nasty if you clobbered someone with it. They also had a useful little short handled axe for making arrows. They were also unarmoured since they had no need for it so much more manoeuvrable than anyone who had survived walking through their hail of arrows.
I clicked on the first link and all I found was a bunch of crap links leading to the same powerturd blog that is not a reputable news source and one piece on a metro.us site where Mr Bloomberg was moaning that they did not report crimes to the police, instead they just stop them by themselves. Mr Bloomberg is not exactly an impartial source when being interviewed about Occupy either but if this is the best slur he can come up with then I have even more time for the people occupying the park than I thought.
On another note you might want to try throwing that lmgtfy scam site in the bin. If I wanted to use Google with adverts on the home page I would have stuck with Yahoo in the 90's
Read up on tyranny of the majority, and then you'll understand why your re-branded crowd-sourced democracy is the same thing and just as un-egalitarian.
It's funny, when I hear people cheering as the police thump the crap out of or mace protesters "tyranny of the majority" is the first thing that comes to my mind. I guess the system we live in does not protect us from it quite as well as you might think. The bit that was supposed to protect us from "tyranny of the majority" was the constitution but that is not doing as well as it could be in my opinion.
Witness the unsanitary conditions and crime in any of the camps.
You got any evidence to back this up or you just plucked it out of the air?
Also, it may be worth investigating the crime aspect to check if the crimes are actually being committed by undercover police or other right wingers looking to drive people away:
There have recently been a number of revelations here in the UK regarding Metropolitan Police officers who posed as political activists for long periods of time. They even helped organise demonstrations or other activities that may even have been illegal:
I also remember being on the fringes of a similar movement many years ago which suddenly became overrun with many homeless people who had serious drug problems. This was because the police were moving them on repeatedly from where ever they tried to sleep and telling they would continue to do so unless they descended on us. This is probably another reason for the squalor you describe if it did exist and was not based on a article written by the same agent provocateur who is mentioned above.
Part of many country problem is to give too much power to a very small group of people. I live in Switzerland, where proportional representation, direct democracy, constitutional initiative and referendum are in place since a long time.
Neither the UK nor the US will ever have proportional representation within our lifetime as it gives minority opinions representation as part of government. This is the first step in taking power pack from the lobbyists and corporations that currently have politicians in their pockets. As soon as you started lobbying for any sort of proportional representation then the vested media interests (like Fox News) and other companies with substantial amounts of money invested in our current politicians would unite against you telling everyone what a terrible idea PR is. The public would believe them and so we would stick with the status quo.
For an example of this go and read up on the recent "No to AV" campaign in the UK. This was not PR and this was another reason why it did not get as much public support, but the No campaign basically lied through their teeth and the media ran with it.
This is the real problem that faces democracy: that it can be derailed by the people in charge of providing information to the people. This is especially true in countries where the ownership of the media is concentrated in the hands of the few (Italy is a startling example of this).
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, but you forget the huge loans that many of us accumulate after getting our degrees in engineering. It's just not easy t forget about it all and go hitchhiking across Europe. That said, once I do finish my loans I am going to do exactly that with a couple of friends.
I let my loans sit there accumulating vast amounts of interest, maybe not the wisest of moves but I certainly don't regret it. I will still be paying them off in my mid forties though.
The things is that if you put off going travelling until you have paid your loans you may well find that a wife and kids arrive on the scene before then as most womens biological bay clock starts to kick into high gear towards their mid twenties.
"If you're a young person, I think the very best thing you could do is get together with a group of friends and commit to a one year experiment in which the substantial part of your life will be focused on discovery and not be dedicated to wage work"
All that sounds nice but requires quite a bit amount of money! That kind of travels you can only do in your forties.
Rubbish. When you are young you can live much more freely on very little money as you are unlikely to have the dependants (children, wife) that you have in your forties. Also, most people in our generations will be working their asses off throughout their forties desperately trying to make sure they are not going to starve in old age. The idea that you can accumulate enough money in your thirties to take any long periods of absence from work in your forties is gone in the current climate. Take too long off at that age and you can forget coming back to a tech career, there is just too much ageism in our workplace.
In your twenties however you can do things like hitch across foreign countries doing bar work to earn money. Or you can teach english as a foreign language and get some decent life experience. You twenties are a time to go and do a job that will not make you rich, but will be great fun and make you a more rounded individual. You might not end up as fabulously rich as Bill Gates, or the Google Twins or whoever, but you were hardly likely to become them anyway as they are the outliers of society, not the norm. Instead, just concentrate on enjoying yourself.
Personally I worked as a balloon modeller and stilt walker for several years after I left uni entertaining kids. I never made any real money but I had more fun than most and you are always able to just start on your chosen career a little later. Most older geeks find young arrogant Bill Gates wannabes annoying as hell anyway so getting a few more years of live experience under your belt before starting work might actually help your career in the long run as you will be a more rounded person.
I would say, in my experience, no one has ever said they are from "America" when they are from another country on the American continents.
Did you look at the link I posted? If you were talking Spanish or Portuguese to someone in South America they describe you guys as "estadounidense" in Spanish or "estadunidense" in Portuguese. So it stands to reason they would translate that into English more literally and come up with something similar to USAian. They would then refer to all of you together as Americans even though you live in very different countries the same way as they may refer to me as a European.
Think about it. A lot of countries have called them the United States of something. Mexico is actually the "United States of Mexico" as the full name of their country. It would be just as bad for us to call ourselves United Statesians in that regard, and would make significantly less sense in usage.
Fair point, but someone needs to tell that to the countries in South America that call you exactly that.
Welcome to the club... my whole adult life has been an embarrassing time to be a USAian.
What the fuck is that? Did you mean American? B/c the name of the country is the United States of America thus, the appropriate term for someone from the United States of America is American. Or do you call people from Great Britain UKers?
Welcome to the club... my whole adult life has been an embarrassing time to be a USAian.
What the fuck is that? Did you mean American? B/c the name of the country is the United States of America thus, the appropriate term for someone from the United States of America is American. Or do you call people from Great Britain UKers?
Us in Britain do not have a several countries near us that call themselves part of South Britain though so it is not exactly a great comparison. Surely anyone who lives in South America can also call themselves an American? If they have to be called South Americans then why are you not North Americans too?
This is the difference between Britain and the USA: If I say just Britain you know exactly where I mean but if I say America I could mean the continent or the country, especially in other languages. Only you in the US pluralise America to The Americas when referring to the continent, in every other language the singular is often used to refer to the continent. I am guessing the original poster may have had south american parents and hence also spoken Spanish or Portuguese: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Spanish_usage
This is not saying that USAian is not a crap term to refer to citizens of the USA, but by picking a country name that included the name of the continent the country was in you made things a bit more complicated than most other countries, and we have all dealt with it differently and maybe not the way you would like.
Hmm, I don't mean to sound horrible, but if you're finding Zend difficult then I'm not sure you're at a skill level high enough to give a useful answer to this question.
I was stuggling yesterday with the nested arrays that you need to build to use the default form decorators. Also, note someone elses comments below about the documentation, it sucks pretty badly.
If you are some sort of Zend expert can you recommend a decent book or two? I am a sucker for reading programming theory books on my way too and from work so an online option is not suitable for me as I live in london and travel on the tube (ie - underground railway with no phone signal) most days.
If you have an existing base of PHP and Ruby developers then Cake sounds like the way to go to meet them both in the middle so everyone can pick it up fairly quickly. Cake is based on many of the same concepts as Ruby on Rails so everyone should be fairly at home. It is still PHP though so it won't force all your dev team to write better code as much as RoR will. The flexibility of a PHP base can be a plus though unless it is put in the wrong hands.
http://cakephp.org/
Personally I am struggling through my first Zend Framework Project at the moment but I am not sure I would recommend it as it has caused me a few too many frustrations. I do worry that this will just knock all the other PHP Frameworks into the long grass though as it is by the same people as PHP. I am starting to see quite a few job offers coming my way now I have added Zend Framework to my CV so it does seem to be very popular for some reason.
I just noticed you also mention having a Python powered backend, this may change my advice above but it does bring about another question: Do you really need so many different technologies? Surely this must drive up your costs considerably as you need developers with a much wider skill set or more of them.
In the UK, Queen Lizzie enjoys the support of a large majority of the population
She is kind of easy to support, she does sweet FA and she costs us less than we give to most foreign countries in aid.
Obama (has the bad luck to be black, leading to morons disputing his legitimacy to be President)
Nice.
You're wrong.
No, I am not for the reasons I shall outline below
You should be checking more often of course, but I think federal law went into place that allows you to change the policy with the bank so that they cannot bring your account negative. Basically, you can remove their discretion to approve charges that you can't cover. That makes overdraft fees impossible.
I live in the UK so any federal law will not apply to me.
Look up your state laws and read your banking agreement.
I had looked up my banking agreement recently as a result of the £125 charge they stung me with this month for going £40 over my agreed overdraft limit as a result of my credit card minimum payment coming out even though I had already paid a large chunk it off as a one off extra payment. I mistakenly assumed they would not take the minimum payment as I had already paid some money off this month. My banking agreement say this is perfectly acceptable so I have to swallow the charge (and then move to another bank who are slightly less evil if I can find one).
Sure you can avoid it. Carriers can't add software to the iPhone.
But since Apple may have added it for them that doesn't seem to matter much:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/12/01/1418245/carrier-iq-software-may-be-in-ios-too
The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.
Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.
No the people who will be hit are people like me. They will take some money out of my account that I had not budgeted for, this will not be noticed immediately and may take until the end of the month depending on how often I check my account. Because I am not aware that my account is down by however much they donated I may then spend more than I have which results the bank charging me an exorbitant fee for exceeding my overdraft facility.
The bank will eventually refund the fraudulent use of my credit card but they will not refund the charges they applied to my account as they will just say I should have checked my account more often (which actually means before every large purchase in order to be 100% safe). Now you might say this is exactly the same as if some fraudster used my card without my permission to buy himself a new telly, to which I say you exactly right: It is no different what so ever as far as the person who is down an extra bank charge just because they were too busy to check their account before the rent or whatever came out of their account.
Remember, this money isn't replaced in a person's account the second they report a theft. It's usually 7-10 business days (read 2 weeks).
When a retailer accidentally put a credit card purchase through twice and hence double billed my account it actually would have taken 11 weeks for them to refund the money if the bank had done it. In the end I managed to get the retailer to refund the transaction more quickly but the bank take ages to refund fraudulent transactions.
Yep. This is why I will never get an Android device or use Google+. They want to spy, and they spy everything. On top of that, other companies will start to feel that it's ok to do. If the practice can continue without interruption, we will all lose privacy. It's funny how everyone always fights losing privacy to the government. Google, Carrier IQ and the companies are just middle hands for that!
But why single out Google? All smart phones are going to do crap like this so the only way to escape it is to only use products that are completely open and unlocked.
Bear in mind that this thread is not actually about anything Google can change, it is about some extra software that carriers (ie - AT&T, etc) are adding to android after google are done with it. There is very little you can do to avoid this as all the carriers are just as bad but you can at least not just blame google because they created an open phone platform that some other company wrote bad software for. Do you blame Apple for Mac IE5 being shit or Microsoft?
You seem to be overlooking a key characteristic of terrorism which is targeting of civilians. The American Revolutionary never purposely targeted civilians in order to incite terror. Subversives targeted shipping docks to impede the supply of munitions and reinforcements from Britain not to intimidate the merchants.
You have not made your case about the origins of the United States being related to terrorism. If anything, you proven that you may need to retake some history classes.
Actually most countries count terrorism to be just causing terror, they do not care if that was only aimed at people in the military. Not sure about US law but here in the UK you can be guilty of terrorism even if you only endangered members of our armed forces.
I think that the american founding fathers probably were guilty of terrorism, but they had no other way of getting out from under the yolk of colonial rule unless they were willing to wait a few hundred years. Look at how we treated peaceful resistance from Ghandi and his followers. Our empire was held to together by a very professional army who thought nothing of the odd massacre.
We in Britain have also been guilty of terrorism though in some peoples eyes. We quite happily sent people to the continent to fight Germany via clandestine means. We also thought nothing of attacking civilians, we levelled Dresden and Hamburg without a moments thought. Unless you think that declaring war means that people fighting for you cannot be terrorists even if they kill and maim civilians? I am not apologising to anyone for Britains conduct during the war, but you can be damn sure that if Germany had won then they would be calling the French resistance terrorists in history books.
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
Maybe if you can just take out infrastructure without hurting or endangering anyone you have a point. As soon as you do either of these things though you stray so far away from acceptable behaviour that causing terror is a pretty good definition.
By the way, I do also take this to the conclusion that police officers tear gassing peaceful protesters are also guilty of state sponsored and sanctioned terrorism. I would like to see them in the dock too, I would just give them a lesser sentence than someone who actually committed murder.
Legally that probably gets them off the hook on the fraud charges.
I would lump them in with the dry cleaners that have the sign We are not responsible for lost items.
That sign actually holds legal weight too in the UK providing it was clearly displayed where you could see it before you deposited the item. The only time it doesn't hold is if they try and disclaim liability for injuring you. But they can disclaim liability for losing your property while it was in their care and there is not a damn thing you can do about it apart from try and find a cleaner that does not display a similar sign.
But if you mean that both are shits then I entirely agree, but the law allows them to be shits in this manner.
I've used VGA on a 17" for years on an aging graphics card, and it never looked as bad as the Dell picture.
If may be a bit more fuzzy, but I could still see individual pixels and there's really no reason why the colors would be that flat.
Don't Dell TFT's have contrast/brightness settings?
Of course they do. This image has been knocked up in photoshop and they even tell you that on the image. The bit saying "images shown are for demonstrative purposes only" literally translates into "we knocked this shit up in photoshop" when you translate it from legalese marketing speak into plain english.
... using words like "misleading" and "unfair." It's fraud, plain and simple.
Apart from that test below the image saying: "Image for illustrative purposes only". Legally that probably gets them off the hook on the fraud charges.
Also under our retarded british legal system you have probably now libelled them and they can sue you for millions of pounds in lost revenue.
Anyone who thinks the rich isn't paying their fair share hasn't thought it through.
You should explain this to Warren Buffett or this fellow then I guess:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewcampione/2011/10/14/warren-buffetts-tax-return-and-what-congress-already-knew/
Why should a rich person that makes $1M pay $500,000 for the same services and protections from their country that a poor person that contributes absolutely nothing to society and receives $25,000?
Well one major reason is that if you are sitting on a big pile of money then you need the rule of law (ie: FBI, Secret Service, etc) and the military to keep someone else from stealing it. The rich have far more to lose that the poor so it is entirely appropriate they pay a little more for their increased need for protection. This is especially the case with regard to our armed forces as the very rich are often not the people who actually sign up to give their lives in our defence. Even the poor who do not serve their country directly still often suffer more emotionally as they are also more likely to see friends and family go off to war then never come home.
I am glad I no longer store credit card information with steam, and only used PayPal (and have an authentication card attached to my PP account.)
I have been meaning to update the credit cards I have stored on my steam account for ages. Both of them have been cancelled recently as they got cloned when I was visiting Prague.
Hope whoever stole the customer data has lots of fun when they try and use them :)
I would also point out that the British had a lot of success against the French sticking to the longbow which they had been using for years before the crossbow came along. Yes the cross bow had more range and did more damage per a shot, but in the time it takes to reload the long bow men could have run the distance and the next reload they would have got several shots off. Also the shortbow (basically shortened version of the longbow could be used from horseback).
The longbow is also much harder to learn. The reason us english used them well was something to do with the amount of legal encouragement we were given to use them. This apparently included crazy laws preventing us from doing anything else at certain times (on sundays or holidays) and making sure all practice ranges were over 220 yards long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
Also, your impression that longbow men moved is not accurate. The best plan was for the longbowman to sharpen a very big stick and plunge it into the ground next to him at 45 degrees. He then sharpened the other end too then stood just behind it. The stick had to be sturdy enough such that a horse charging it could not break it and close enough to the stick next to it that a horse could not get through the gap. He then just sat there and made arrows until the battle commenced and some fool walked in range.
Also, longbowman were not exactly useless when it came to close combat as the hammer they used for driving stakes into the ground was nasty if you clobbered someone with it. They also had a useful little short handled axe for making arrows. They were also unarmoured since they had no need for it so much more manoeuvrable than anyone who had survived walking through their hail of arrows.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=occupy+crime
http://www.lmgtfy.com?q=occupy+unsanitary
I clicked on the first link and all I found was a bunch of crap links leading to the same powerturd blog that is not a reputable news source and one piece on a metro.us site where Mr Bloomberg was moaning that they did not report crimes to the police, instead they just stop them by themselves. Mr Bloomberg is not exactly an impartial source when being interviewed about Occupy either but if this is the best slur he can come up with then I have even more time for the people occupying the park than I thought.
On another note you might want to try throwing that lmgtfy scam site in the bin. If I wanted to use Google with adverts on the home page I would have stuck with Yahoo in the 90's
Read up on tyranny of the majority, and then you'll understand why your re-branded crowd-sourced democracy is the same thing and just as un-egalitarian.
It's funny, when I hear people cheering as the police thump the crap out of or mace protesters "tyranny of the majority" is the first thing that comes to my mind. I guess the system we live in does not protect us from it quite as well as you might think. The bit that was supposed to protect us from "tyranny of the majority" was the constitution but that is not doing as well as it could be in my opinion.
Witness the unsanitary conditions and crime in any of the camps.
You got any evidence to back this up or you just plucked it out of the air?
Also, it may be worth investigating the crime aspect to check if the crimes are actually being committed by undercover police or other right wingers looking to drive people away:
http://theweek.com/article/index/220144/the-agent-provocateur-who-infiltrated-occupy-wall-street
There have recently been a number of revelations here in the UK regarding Metropolitan Police officers who posed as political activists for long periods of time. They even helped organise demonstrations or other activities that may even have been illegal:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8249734/Trial-against-environmental-activists-dropped-after-undercover-Met-police-officer-switches-sides.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kennedy_(police_officer)
I also remember being on the fringes of a similar movement many years ago which suddenly became overrun with many homeless people who had serious drug problems. This was because the police were moving them on repeatedly from where ever they tried to sleep and telling they would continue to do so unless they descended on us. This is probably another reason for the squalor you describe if it did exist and was not based on a article written by the same agent provocateur who is mentioned above.
Part of many country problem is to give too much power to a very small group of people. I live in Switzerland, where proportional representation, direct democracy, constitutional initiative and referendum are in place since a long time.
Neither the UK nor the US will ever have proportional representation within our lifetime as it gives minority opinions representation as part of government. This is the first step in taking power pack from the lobbyists and corporations that currently have politicians in their pockets. As soon as you started lobbying for any sort of proportional representation then the vested media interests (like Fox News) and other companies with substantial amounts of money invested in our current politicians would unite against you telling everyone what a terrible idea PR is. The public would believe them and so we would stick with the status quo.
For an example of this go and read up on the recent "No to AV" campaign in the UK. This was not PR and this was another reason why it did not get as much public support, but the No campaign basically lied through their teeth and the media ran with it.
This is the real problem that faces democracy: that it can be derailed by the people in charge of providing information to the people. This is especially true in countries where the ownership of the media is concentrated in the hands of the few (Italy is a startling example of this).
Can someone else pay for lock on my front door too? That seems to be a good analogy for this.