"There is this strange theory, widely accepted in certain circles, that using machines to handle mundane, tedious, or otherwise undesirable tasks is a good thing. Having a machine handle transmission shifting seems to fall into the same vein as having a machine handle most of my floating point math."
I suppose that would be true if you never owned anything but "mundane" and "tedious" cars.
I've only owned 2-seater sports cars (ok, technically the 911 Turbo was a 4 seater, but, you couldn't really fit one whole person back there)...and it would be a shame to have gotten any performance car in an 'auto'. Heck, if nothing else, it generally kills resale value too.
Yeah, if you drive nothing but boring cars sure, get an automatic. But if you enjoy driving something that is a pleasure to take out on the road every time you fire it up...go manual transmission.
"Ever start your car in temperatures below -40? And that's not counting wind chill. Your engine will not like it if you jump in, start and go with zero warm up time. That being said, 30 seconds to 2 minutes is all the time needed to get the juices flowing."
Damn...and I thought "I" had it bad this morning in the upper 40's, with slight fog, and heavy condensation on my windows.
I said to myself, "Hell, this is just not gonna be a morning for putting the top down on the car and driving into work."
"My girlfriend has a Mac because it is easy to use. She figured it out. (Except now she needs WinXP for law exam software) "
Well, no need to buy a 2nd computer...just get Parallels or VMWare..run windows within OSX and voila! You now have the ability to keep one computer but still run all your applications no matter what platform they're on.
Frankly, I'm saving up for a loaded out Macbook Pro...just for the ability to consolidate to one good laptop, from which I can run OSX, Linux and even the few Windows applications I need.
"They exist and are pretty common [uslegal.com], unfortunately. I really hate them; you'll find them a lot in gated communities and subdivisions. Live and let live I say."
Wow...that blows.
And people in general really go along with this type thing??
Hmm...you know, when I've driven through some newer neighborhoods in some places..I've started commenting that all the houses look exactly the same as each other, nothing unique, no character. Maybe these types of restrictions are the reason?
"Any good residential neighborhood should have contractual obligations placed on its residents as a prerequisite to moving in. Don't like the rules, live somewhere else."
Sign a contract before I move into a house somewhere?!?!
I've never heard of such a thing...I see a house I like, I look at it...I buy it.
Aside from the loan agreement..how can someone force you to sign a contract of behavior on your own land/home you own? What mention sounds discriminatory to me...
"So the press must cease all coverage of political races during election season, instead airing only paid advertising? Debates would be paid advertising from the candidates budgets. All politically themed Internet sites, bloggers, mailing lists, etc. not paid for by a candidate would be go silent during campaign season."
No...quite the opposite. I said in the next paragraph after what you quoted...that any group or organization or private individual could put out any information, opinion or ad they wanted..so long as it was documented right up front explicity who was funding that particular message.
I was saying that no money could be donated directly to the parties or the candidates campaign directly...that all would be publicly funded.
And things like debates and all...aren't they currently put on by organizations (Women's League of Voters, etc), and televised for free? I don't think the current system makes the party's or campaigns pay for those debates.
The campaigns get enough money for the candidates to travel to speak to people...and the party's enough for conventions...and that's about it. Let private monies put up whatever ads they want and express their free speech all they want.
I'd also expect some mandates for the public airwaves to be given for free equally for the candidates to speak to the nation and to each other...
Just some ideas...my main point is to try to do something that keeps special interests from giving to politicians in order to curry favor when elected...and to keep politicians from having to seek out funding, and end up beholden to the large donation givers.
"I'd like to object to the entire premise behind your inane argument. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Think about it. Yes President Obama set a record haul of a billion dollars in the '08 campaign but so freaking what. Just means my team is going to have to up its fundraising game next time if we want to compete. Nike spent 1.7 billion in marketing for shows and otherwise ordinary apparel except for a swoosh logo. The argument over who leads the free world is at least as important as the question of which shoes to wear.
Money == speech. Any restriction of one implies a restriction on the other. With unlimited contributions, paired with solid disclosure (an idea which the SCOTUS upheld today) laws, perhaps candidates would need to spend less time whoring at endless fundraisers and more time campaigning and/or reading the bills they are voting on."
Well, the way it sets up now...it makes those candidates beholden to the largest money donators, rather than the people that elect them.
Why not have it this way...by constitutional amendment. The funding for the political candidates (parties and all) are strictly from a fixed public funding scheme. That keeps them equal in everything but planning how best to use the funds and what they have to say.
The people, corps, organizations can exercise their free speech all they want, by funding everything they want to get their opinions out...but it doesn't ever touch the candidates directly...somehow (I've not worked the details out in my head yet). But if they want to put commercials out....buy ads, etc, let them express their views till they turn blue in the face and/or run out of money. Just that they have to make sure and label exactly who it is spending the money for that ad...no shell corporations, etc. Any subsidary used...then the top company of that chain is the one that is reported. We do also I think, have a right to know who it is making the speech, no?
Let's band together to put a fix in for the money that is taking over (strike that HAS taken over) our federal government.
1. Lets roll back the one that let senators be elected directly by the people rather than be appointed by the state. This will take the money out of Senate elections.
2. Let's define who can or cannot give money to a candidate/party. Or, let's just mandate that elected officials campaigns are strictly funded by public funding, and mandate possible that during an election season a minimum of X hours are available on all networks for debates, commercials...by the candidates.
While it is a bitch to get an amendment through (and rightly so), it appears this is the only way We The People can tame this beast.
"I find adverts the most annoying "feature", and it's not just because they are adverts.
If you're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube, the advert flashes up. Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls, but the audio carries on playing. "
What are these ads you and others keep mentioning. I've never seen and ad on YouTube...??
"BS - Capitol-ism and charity are mutually exclusive values; spending money doesn't have any Karma value.
Given the current economic structure in the US how much of the average vacation expenditure do you really think goes back into the economy?! Do you really going to wallmart and to stock up for your vacation (buying goods made in china) and then then filling your non-American car with gas and taking off for a week to stay at holiday inn and sip on Budweiser puts money back into the US economy, you might want to find out where those dollars are really going...."
Who needs "karma" value? If doing something makes you feel good..do it....
Frankly, I don't shop at Walmart...I frankly don't understand the appeal. Last time I went to one was for some windshield wipers and only because they were closer than any auto shop I knew of, and I needed them pretty quick with a storm coming.
I dunno...I'd say traveling somewhere in the US, spending $$ for lodging, dining out (tipping well too), buying stuff from the locals...I'd say pretty much all of that money is going back into the local economy.
While I 'do' think of myself first when it comes down to survival....I do in my regular time, take care of friends and family. I find there is PLENTY there to be done to satisfy any "giving" or societal needs I have. I'd assume most people could find the same, which is why I told the original person to save their money and take time for themselves. That is just as important too!! Life is too short not to enjoy the majority of what you work for.
As for solitude? Well, depends on the person. I've known guys that could NOT stand to not be married. I never understood why they could not seem to live for any spell of time alone.
I'm generally the opposite. I really ENJOY my solitude to do what I please...to come and go...etc. I've had long term relationships, even lived with a chick once, and while all good experiences...often I would find it a little confining usually due to the women being clingy and wanting to spend EVERY freakin' minute with you.
Fortunately, I've finding some women out there, as I get older...that feel much the way I do. Sure, I like companionship...someone around to do things with, and let's face it...someone to fuck. But I want...and demand my own time too which is not an insignificant amount at times. I want them to be as independent as I am. We do things together...we do things apart.
No, it isn't for everyone...but, it isn't bad either. Two ways of living...each with its pluses and minuses...but nothing wrong with either one.
". It's as if they think that people have bought newspapers because they want the cheap, cruddy paper, and the news printed on it is just incidental decoration."
Well, to be honest...the newspaper has uses after it has been used for ready. I imagine pretty much everyone here who has ever moved and packed their stuff themselves....has used old newspapers to wrap their posessions before stuffing in a box.
I use it to pack things I mail to others.
What else am I gonna use for my chimney starter for my charcoal grill? I ain't switching to gas grills....no flavor that way.
Small things..sure, but, at least for packing, I imagine most everyone has used a newspaper for that or other uses after the reading was finished.
"But they're too big to fail! How will people live without their news!
If this move fails, its time for a bailout.
"
Interesting show I saw on PBS this weekend, had these two guys who had a book out regarding the demise of journalism in the US.. They made one point that really stuck out at me..that when we lose so many independent sources of true, investigative journalism, that we risk becoming a propaganda society, where what news outlest are out there, are merely parrot what the administration/govt. feeds them as news releases.
I think we can safely say that we already see a great deal of this. The 24/7 TV news outlets take what is given to them mostly, and hash out an opinion piece on it. I really don't see anywhere the type of investigative journalism of the likes of the Woodward and Bernstein that helped bring down Watergate. Where are the journalists today that are out there fact finding, holding the current govt's feet to the fire?
I think one of the things the founding fathers wanted with respect to the free press, was a press that the govt was afraid of....today it seems we have the other way around, they either don't disagree with the government in order to not lose 'access'...or they just agree with it and promote the views which to me...is more propaganda than news.
These guys on the PBS spot...advocated that the US govt. 'funds' an independent news...which mostly sounds a bad edea to me, one automatically thinks of govt. influence, but, they did have one possible scenario that was at least interesting..in that every US citizen got either a voucher or tax credit of say, $200....that they could give to any non-profit news entity the wished.
Regardless of your opinions of the current state of reporting at the NYT and other news papers...I think most anyone could agree that the shrinking number of news outlets that have paid staff dedicated to dissecting our current leaders' every moves is not necessarily a good thing for keeping the politicians in check, nor allowing for an informed populace that votes.
So, to have fun and really 'skew' the system's profiles...we should all be doing "Silly Walks", wearing shades at all times....panting, and I'm not sure right now what to try to 'smell' like....
"Well, when it comes to nationalized healthcare, at least there are countries where you can point to and say "look, that's what it's gonna be like"."
I am doing that...and like most people I know...we are wanting to run screaming away from such a beast, yet the current administration seems hell bent on shoving this travesty of a bill through...and taking over about 1/6 of our economy. And yet...their track record on govt. run healthcare sucks...ie Medicare/Medicade with corruption, overruns and going bankrupt.
"Nothing wrong with distilling beer except that the result is crap. you can produce a certain amount of hard liquor for personal use every year. got to the batf websites if you want specifics."
Depends on where you live...certainly NOT legal in the US. Unless something has changed recently and I missed it...it is illegal in MOST of the world to distill your own spirits. You can finally legally brew beer in the US...I forget the amounts but it is more barrels than even "I" can consume in a year. But, unless you get a permit from the govt (mostly for tax purposes) it is illegal to distill liquor even for small personal use in the US.
I remember looking a few years ago, at one of the few places (outside the US I think) that sold pre-built stills...they had to emphasize that they were ONLY for use with oils and the like. Pretty much like they can only sell bongs and other smoking paraphernalia in most of the US if they list it as a tobacco smoking device.
"Prime example: RDP and VNC clients. There's about a dozen or so out there, and I've tried them all. All but one of them suck ass, whether it's sluggish performance, lack of configurability, or in one case I was expected to register all my usernames and passwords to a 3rd party so the app could sign in to their web service, just to give me back my logins. They also don't come cheap, $9.99 up to $24.99 for some of these stinkers. Am I really expected to spend $100 trying all these things, just to settle on the one that is indeed everything I want it to be ? Is it fair to the one good app, that all the others got paid anyway ? I think not. That one great developer deserves compensation and praise, the other 10 deserve a kick in the nuts and a chargeback fee."
Would you mind posting which one(s) you thought were the best? I'm also looking to buy a good app for ssh'ing into my boxes at home..not sure which out of the bunch to get.
"Alcohol harmless? I don't think there's any drug that does as much damage as alcohol. Pot is very benign in comparison to alcohol and even nicotine."
I'd say alcohol is pretty harmless...it is as harmless as almost any recreational chemical if it isn't abused, and that is the choice of the individual choosing to partake of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose that would be true if you never owned anything but "mundane" and "tedious" cars.
I've only owned 2-seater sports cars (ok, technically the 911 Turbo was a 4 seater, but, you couldn't really fit one whole person back there)...and it would be a shame to have gotten any performance car in an 'auto'. Heck, if nothing else, it generally kills resale value too.
Yeah, if you drive nothing but boring cars sure, get an automatic. But if you enjoy driving something that is a pleasure to take out on the road every time you fire it up...go manual transmission.
Damn...and I thought "I" had it bad this morning in the upper 40's, with slight fog, and heavy condensation on my windows.
I said to myself, "Hell, this is just not gonna be a morning for putting the top down on the car and driving into work."
Well, no need to buy a 2nd computer...just get Parallels or VMWare..run windows within OSX and voila! You now have the ability to keep one computer but still run all your applications no matter what platform they're on.
Frankly, I'm saving up for a loaded out Macbook Pro...just for the ability to consolidate to one good laptop, from which I can run OSX, Linux and even the few Windows applications I need.
It's true.
All it takes is a couple of strong strawberry daiquiris to 'push them over the edge' so to speak.
Just remember to have a video camera nearby...
Wow...that blows.
And people in general really go along with this type thing??
Hmm...you know, when I've driven through some newer neighborhoods in some places..I've started commenting that all the houses look exactly the same as each other, nothing unique, no character. Maybe these types of restrictions are the reason?
Sign a contract before I move into a house somewhere?!?!
I've never heard of such a thing...I see a house I like, I look at it...I buy it.
Aside from the loan agreement..how can someone force you to sign a contract of behavior on your own land/home you own? What mention sounds discriminatory to me...
I seem to recall it would do ok with multiple people at the same time?
No...quite the opposite. I said in the next paragraph after what you quoted...that any group or organization or private individual could put out any information, opinion or ad they wanted..so long as it was documented right up front explicity who was funding that particular message.
I was saying that no money could be donated directly to the parties or the candidates campaign directly...that all would be publicly funded.
And things like debates and all...aren't they currently put on by organizations (Women's League of Voters, etc), and televised for free? I don't think the current system makes the party's or campaigns pay for those debates.
The campaigns get enough money for the candidates to travel to speak to people...and the party's enough for conventions...and that's about it. Let private monies put up whatever ads they want and express their free speech all they want.
I'd also expect some mandates for the public airwaves to be given for free equally for the candidates to speak to the nation and to each other...
Just some ideas...my main point is to try to do something that keeps special interests from giving to politicians in order to curry favor when elected...and to keep politicians from having to seek out funding, and end up beholden to the large donation givers.
After reading the article...why not just use Skype or Ustream as they mentioned?
Money == speech. Any restriction of one implies a restriction on the other. With unlimited contributions, paired with solid disclosure (an idea which the SCOTUS upheld today) laws, perhaps candidates would need to spend less time whoring at endless fundraisers and more time campaigning and/or reading the bills they are voting on."
Well, the way it sets up now...it makes those candidates beholden to the largest money donators, rather than the people that elect them.
Why not have it this way...by constitutional amendment. The funding for the political candidates (parties and all) are strictly from a fixed public funding scheme. That keeps them equal in everything but planning how best to use the funds and what they have to say.
The people, corps, organizations can exercise their free speech all they want, by funding everything they want to get their opinions out...but it doesn't ever touch the candidates directly...somehow (I've not worked the details out in my head yet). But if they want to put commercials out....buy ads, etc, let them express their views till they turn blue in the face and/or run out of money. Just that they have to make sure and label exactly who it is spending the money for that ad...no shell corporations, etc. Any subsidary used...then the top company of that chain is the one that is reported. We do also I think, have a right to know who it is making the speech, no?
Let's band together to put a fix in for the money that is taking over (strike that HAS taken over) our federal government.
1. Lets roll back the one that let senators be elected directly by the people rather than be appointed by the state. This will take the money out of Senate elections.
2. Let's define who can or cannot give money to a candidate/party. Or, let's just mandate that elected officials campaigns are strictly funded by public funding, and mandate possible that during an election season a minimum of X hours are available on all networks for debates, commercials...by the candidates.
While it is a bitch to get an amendment through (and rightly so), it appears this is the only way We The People can tame this beast.
If you're watching a video in full screen mode in Youtube, the advert flashes up. Move your mouse to kill the ad and the video stalls, but the audio carries on playing. "
What are these ads you and others keep mentioning. I've never seen and ad on YouTube...??
Who needs "karma" value? If doing something makes you feel good..do it....
Frankly, I don't shop at Walmart...I frankly don't understand the appeal. Last time I went to one was for some windshield wipers and only because they were closer than any auto shop I knew of, and I needed them pretty quick with a storm coming.
I dunno...I'd say traveling somewhere in the US, spending $$ for lodging, dining out (tipping well too), buying stuff from the locals...I'd say pretty much all of that money is going back into the local economy.
While I 'do' think of myself first when it comes down to survival....I do in my regular time, take care of friends and family. I find there is PLENTY there to be done to satisfy any "giving" or societal needs I have. I'd assume most people could find the same, which is why I told the original person to save their money and take time for themselves. That is just as important too!! Life is too short not to enjoy the majority of what you work for.
As for solitude? Well, depends on the person. I've known guys that could NOT stand to not be married. I never understood why they could not seem to live for any spell of time alone.
I'm generally the opposite. I really ENJOY my solitude to do what I please...to come and go...etc. I've had long term relationships, even lived with a chick once, and while all good experiences...often I would find it a little confining usually due to the women being clingy and wanting to spend EVERY freakin' minute with you.
Fortunately, I've finding some women out there, as I get older...that feel much the way I do. Sure, I like companionship...someone around to do things with, and let's face it...someone to fuck. But I want...and demand my own time too which is not an insignificant amount at times. I want them to be as independent as I am. We do things together...we do things apart.
No, it isn't for everyone...but, it isn't bad either. Two ways of living...each with its pluses and minuses...but nothing wrong with either one.
There's tons of people in the US that would need some help...
And if vacationing...spending your $$'s within the US helps out the local economy, and Lord knows we need all the help we can get here in these times.
Yet a 3rd choice...
Keep your money for yourself, and go somewhere NICE for a tan.
The Simpsons Pinball game is fantastic!!
Well, to be honest...the newspaper has uses after it has been used for ready. I imagine pretty much everyone here who has ever moved and packed their stuff themselves....has used old newspapers to wrap their posessions before stuffing in a box.
I use it to pack things I mail to others.
What else am I gonna use for my chimney starter for my charcoal grill? I ain't switching to gas grills....no flavor that way.
Small things..sure, but, at least for packing, I imagine most everyone has used a newspaper for that or other uses after the reading was finished.
You can't do that with a Kindle....
If this move fails, its time for a bailout. "
Interesting show I saw on PBS this weekend, had these two guys who had a book out regarding the demise of journalism in the US.. They made one point that really stuck out at me..that when we lose so many independent sources of true, investigative journalism, that we risk becoming a propaganda society, where what news outlest are out there, are merely parrot what the administration/govt. feeds them as news releases.
I think we can safely say that we already see a great deal of this. The 24/7 TV news outlets take what is given to them mostly, and hash out an opinion piece on it. I really don't see anywhere the type of investigative journalism of the likes of the Woodward and Bernstein that helped bring down Watergate. Where are the journalists today that are out there fact finding, holding the current govt's feet to the fire?
I think one of the things the founding fathers wanted with respect to the free press, was a press that the govt was afraid of....today it seems we have the other way around, they either don't disagree with the government in order to not lose 'access'...or they just agree with it and promote the views which to me...is more propaganda than news.
These guys on the PBS spot...advocated that the US govt. 'funds' an independent news...which mostly sounds a bad edea to me, one automatically thinks of govt. influence, but, they did have one possible scenario that was at least interesting..in that every US citizen got either a voucher or tax credit of say, $200....that they could give to any non-profit news entity the wished.
Regardless of your opinions of the current state of reporting at the NYT and other news papers...I think most anyone could agree that the shrinking number of news outlets that have paid staff dedicated to dissecting our current leaders' every moves is not necessarily a good thing for keeping the politicians in check, nor allowing for an informed populace that votes.
So, to have fun and really 'skew' the system's profiles...we should all be doing "Silly Walks", wearing shades at all times....panting, and I'm not sure right now what to try to 'smell' like....
I am doing that...and like most people I know...we are wanting to run screaming away from such a beast, yet the current administration seems hell bent on shoving this travesty of a bill through...and taking over about 1/6 of our economy. And yet...their track record on govt. run healthcare sucks...ie Medicare/Medicade with corruption, overruns and going bankrupt.
Depends on where you live...certainly NOT legal in the US. Unless something has changed recently and I missed it...it is illegal in MOST of the world to distill your own spirits. You can finally legally brew beer in the US...I forget the amounts but it is more barrels than even "I" can consume in a year. But, unless you get a permit from the govt (mostly for tax purposes) it is illegal to distill liquor even for small personal use in the US.
I remember looking a few years ago, at one of the few places (outside the US I think) that sold pre-built stills...they had to emphasize that they were ONLY for use with oils and the like. Pretty much like they can only sell bongs and other smoking paraphernalia in most of the US if they list it as a tobacco smoking device.
Would you mind posting which one(s) you thought were the best? I'm also looking to buy a good app for ssh'ing into my boxes at home..not sure which out of the bunch to get.
Actually at least two of them...NBC regular...pretty left leaning. MSNBC? That is WAY out there...they definitely balance out Fox News.
I'd say alcohol is pretty harmless...it is as harmless as almost any recreational chemical if it isn't abused, and that is the choice of the individual choosing to partake of it.