Every time I read about a new attack on the Bill of Rights, I write to my Congressional representation. I also vote to replace my representation since clearly they aren't representing We, the People.
I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?
How about Windows 7? From what I remember about the steaming pile that was Vista, 7 looks very similar. Sure it's new, but if it looks the same that may be acceptable.
That is just one tiny example of why gov't shouldn't be regulating any businesses, why it shouldn't be involved in any projects, including infrastructure - no competition. If this law passes, it just gives the gov't established monopoly a special power to tax people because they have no competition. No competing grids, no competing roads, no competing water and sewer and garbage providers, etc.etc. This company COULD, in a free market, do the same thing: impose a fee like that. However if it did, people would have a choice to switch to another provider, however that would have been done, but we can't even KNOW at this point, because of gov't meddling, which gives monopolies to the most connected players.
While I generally agree that the marketplace should decide who wins and loses, there are some things that are impractical to leave to the market. Taking your example of roads: how would you picture a road system for a city that allows for multiple "road providers?" How would new players enter the market? I ask because I can't picture having multiple road grids in the same geographical area that doesn't end up with more roads than buildings (picture downtown Chicago with the local lanes and express lanes everywhere in the city).
Actually, the revolution will be bloodless and quiet. It will, shockingly enough, happen at the ballot box.
Maybe...but I have serious doubts. Have you seem the re-election rate of the incumbents, despite the record low approval ratings of the President and Congress?
I have this distant hope that gamers will learn the lesson taught to us by cable TV. Originally cable TV was ad-free on the basis that you were paying a fee for it. Then ads were introduced and for some reason, viewers tolerated it. They grabbed their ankles and took it just like they typically do, so cable TV ads became firmly entrenched.
That's why I limit myself to cable TV packages that only have the local OTA stations (digital reception sucks). I'm not going to pay the cable carrier to show me ads on channels supposedly funded by cable fees, especially when ads are slowly taking up more time (not to mention full-length "infomercials").
And yet the incumbents enjoy something like an 80-90% reelection rate. That's the part that I don't understand. If Congress is doing such a lousy job, how do any of them last beyond one term?
If your representation isn't doing a good job, don't reelect them, people! Do a little bit of research and don't be afraid to vote for an independent or third party candidate. If enough voters do this it won't be a "wasted" vote and maybe, just maybe, we would start towards a Congress that truly works for We the People instead of We the Big Campaign Donors.
When airplanes started to become more common, the number of crashes took off (no pun intended) simply because there were airplanes to crash.
The annual theft rate for automobiles was a perfect zero...until of course the automobile was invented.
It seems to me that accidents, crimes involving a particular technology, popular fashion item, etc. are naturally going to become a more significant portion of overall crime as they become popular. It reminds me of the sudden uptick in sneaker thefts when Air Jordans became popular.
Microsoft strips a small part of the functionality out of Windows, erects a walled garden around the system, dumps it onto an ARM-based tablet and, voila, a vile, loathed RT device that the critics lambast for being dumbed down and failing to run Excel macros.
A small part? I'd say the lack of ability to run anything except RT-specific software is much more than stripping a "small part of the functionality."
In a supposedly free country (yeah, I know, who am I kidding?), shouldn't we always err on the side of liberty instead of trying to "pre-regulate" criminal activity?
Precisely! That goes with a lot of issues lately...gun control, gay marriage, etc...why do so many look for ways to reduce liberty just because they disagree with something? That's a byproduct of freedom, get used to it.
Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear his or her jeans several sizes too large, so that the waist sits on his or her thighs?
Can you give me a legitimate reason why any intelligent, law-abiding person would constantly wear a baseball cap with the price tag or other stickers still on it solely to make it look like it was stolen?
Freedom of expression. Personal preference. Thanks to the Constitution, I don't need a legitimate reason to do these things if I so choose to do so.
Even microphones, which are specifically designed to be as efficient as possible in converting sound waves into electrical signals, usually require pre-amplification before you can do anything useful with the signal.
Usually, but not always. The Navy uses sound-powered (wired) phones on all the ships and subs, and they work quite well. Maybe slightly offtopic, but I thought I'd point it out.
I've taken to writing my state and Congressional representation every time I get one of these calls to ask when they will introduce legislation closing these loopholes. Curiously, I haven't received any replies. Hmm, I wonder why.
Visibility is only a part of defensive driving. As I stated previously, visibility helps in defensive driving, but it is not the be all and end all. I can compensate for the handling characteristics of the SUV by altering my driving habits. I think that would also come under "defensive" driving as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Every time I read about a new attack on the Bill of Rights, I write to my Congressional representation. I also vote to replace my representation since clearly they aren't representing We, the People.
I'm getting tired of writing these letters, yet I'll do it again and remind my "representation" of my position. Anybody else?
Most people don't need the flexibility and attendant hassles of PCs anymore. Just give them an iPad or Nexus and be done with it.
And how do you run MS Office on those? The poster specifically mentioned MS Office.
How about Windows 7? From what I remember about the steaming pile that was Vista, 7 looks very similar. Sure it's new, but if it looks the same that may be acceptable.
"You've just been erased..."
That is just one tiny example of why gov't shouldn't be regulating any businesses, why it shouldn't be involved in any projects, including infrastructure - no competition. If this law passes, it just gives the gov't established monopoly a special power to tax people because they have no competition. No competing grids, no competing roads, no competing water and sewer and garbage providers, etc.etc. This company COULD, in a free market, do the same thing: impose a fee like that. However if it did, people would have a choice to switch to another provider, however that would have been done, but we can't even KNOW at this point, because of gov't meddling, which gives monopolies to the most connected players.
While I generally agree that the marketplace should decide who wins and loses, there are some things that are impractical to leave to the market. Taking your example of roads: how would you picture a road system for a city that allows for multiple "road providers?" How would new players enter the market? I ask because I can't picture having multiple road grids in the same geographical area that doesn't end up with more roads than buildings (picture downtown Chicago with the local lanes and express lanes everywhere in the city).
Actually, it isn't necessarily illegal. It is definitely unconstitutional, which trumps legality in this country. Or should trump it, anyway.
If something is unconstitutional, it is also illegal, since the Constitution is the supposed to be the Supreme Law of the Land.
Actually, the revolution will be bloodless and quiet. It will, shockingly enough, happen at the ballot box.
Maybe...but I have serious doubts. Have you seem the re-election rate of the incumbents, despite the record low approval ratings of the President and Congress?
http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the_United_States
Will not buy.
Neither will I.
I have this distant hope that gamers will learn the lesson taught to us by cable TV. Originally cable TV was ad-free on the basis that you were paying a fee for it. Then ads were introduced and for some reason, viewers tolerated it. They grabbed their ankles and took it just like they typically do, so cable TV ads became firmly entrenched.
That's why I limit myself to cable TV packages that only have the local OTA stations (digital reception sucks). I'm not going to pay the cable carrier to show me ads on channels supposedly funded by cable fees, especially when ads are slowly taking up more time (not to mention full-length "infomercials").
And yet the incumbents enjoy something like an 80-90% reelection rate. That's the part that I don't understand. If Congress is doing such a lousy job, how do any of them last beyond one term?
If your representation isn't doing a good job, don't reelect them, people! Do a little bit of research and don't be afraid to vote for an independent or third party candidate. If enough voters do this it won't be a "wasted" vote and maybe, just maybe, we would start towards a Congress that truly works for We the People instead of We the Big Campaign Donors.
Darned mobile entry, posted before I was done...
That fragment should read:
Did Apple not make the right political donations?
Ok, so Apple took advantage of tax loopholes and routed income offshore. The real question is: was it illegal?
How many other companies do the same thing? Is Apple being targeted just because they're Apple? Did they not make the right p
When other international companies do the same thing?
When airplanes started to become more common, the number of crashes took off (no pun intended) simply because there were airplanes to crash.
The annual theft rate for automobiles was a perfect zero...until of course the automobile was invented.
It seems to me that accidents, crimes involving a particular technology, popular fashion item, etc. are naturally going to become a more significant portion of overall crime as they become popular. It reminds me of the sudden uptick in sneaker thefts when Air Jordans became popular.
Microsoft strips a small part of the functionality out of Windows, erects a walled garden around the system, dumps it onto an ARM-based tablet and, voila, a vile, loathed RT device that the critics lambast for being dumbed down and failing to run Excel macros.
A small part? I'd say the lack of ability to run anything except RT-specific software is much more than stripping a "small part of the functionality."
Yes, but in the past few years the voters also voted in favor of amending the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
How does a political exemption get the Do Not Call law past the Constitution? One's right to free speech doesn't obligate me to listen to it.
Hear hear!
Long gone are the days of civil disagreement, now it's "go against anything that my opponent is in favor of, even if I was in favor of it yesterday."
In a supposedly free country (yeah, I know, who am I kidding?), shouldn't we always err on the side of liberty instead of trying to "pre-regulate" criminal activity?
Precisely! That goes with a lot of issues lately...gun control, gay marriage, etc...why do so many look for ways to reduce liberty just because they disagree with something? That's a byproduct of freedom, get used to it.
Freedom of expression. Personal preference. Thanks to the Constitution, I don't need a legitimate reason to do these things if I so choose to do so.
I thought that was Senator William Proxmire.
Aren't SEC filings like this public documents?
Even microphones, which are specifically designed to be as efficient as possible in converting sound waves into electrical signals, usually require pre-amplification before you can do anything useful with the signal.
Usually, but not always. The Navy uses sound-powered (wired) phones on all the ships and subs, and they work quite well. Maybe slightly offtopic, but I thought I'd point it out.
Oh I like that. I'm going to shamelessly plagiarize it.
Yes, and that is why it's a bad design.
I've taken to writing my state and Congressional representation every time I get one of these calls to ask when they will introduce legislation closing these loopholes. Curiously, I haven't received any replies. Hmm, I wonder why.
The Do Not Call list worked pretty well.
I get politically-oriented robo calls to my cellphone. Political and charitable organizations are exempt from honoring the Do Not Call list.
So no, it does not work pretty well, even though it works as designed. A bad design is a bad design, no matter how well it works.
Visibility is only a part of defensive driving. As I stated previously, visibility helps in defensive driving, but it is not the be all and end all. I can compensate for the handling characteristics of the SUV by altering my driving habits. I think that would also come under "defensive" driving as well.