The "VCR" programming feature is required to use with a non-Comcast DVR.
Uhm, no it isn't, at least with Tivos.
My series 2 had a separate IR controller that you put in front of the cable box and it sent the signal at the right time to change the channel, no messing with the cable box required.
The TivoHD (and Premiere) both support CableCard, so you don't need a separate box from the cable company.
1) Saying that census data will 'never be used against you' and 'are protected by US privacy laws' is nowhere near the same thing. 2) The NY Times article about Arab Americans in each ZIP code was using publicly available data from the census. As with medical records, the data used by DHS was deidentified.
So in the end, I have faith that the answers I give will stay private, though I understand that information that identify me as a community will be available - that's one of the points of the census!
I'm not an OS designer, so I'll admit to possibly being wrong.
Doesn't a microkernel split parts of the kernel into individual processes? In the case of a multicore system, different parts of the OS can be running on different cores at the same time. So inserting a CD doesn't cause the display to freeze, since each are running on a different core.
Why? Because it proves bias on the part of Breitbart. The entire argument that the Obama Administration is rejecting more FOIA requests than Bush is factually incorrect or at least in severe doubt when statistically, the Obama administration could only reject 2/3 of the requests for Fiscal 2009.
Are you really that dense? I'd expect that someone with as low a UID as you would be able to (a) understand reasoned argument and (b) have a bit thicker skin, but I guess I'm wrong on both counts. I'm sorry if I hurt your widdle feewings.
As for your other contention, you said that Breitbart is less biased than the NYT and go on to prove it by saying that Bretibart has AP reports, which isn't really an argument since the NYT also carries AP reports, which I already proved.
MA's health care solution (proposed by Mitt Romney, who has distance himself so far from it I think he's about to say he's never even visited the state) is still a big mess. It's causing a large number of budget issues, and I have friends who are still struggling to get and keep their insurance.
I think the goal is good, but it's currently a large expense on the state budget.
Still, what we have in MA is far better than what is currently being proposed in Congress.
I'll preface this by admitting that I worked for the VA in a coding capacity in the early 90s. I did spend a week at one of the local hospitals to see the various departments (this is a requirement when you're hired).
If what you contend is true and the VA were that bad, then why would veterans continue to use it? Many I know have medicare or private insurance already, so why not make use of either of those for their treatment rather than go to the VA?
If the VA were truly that bad (and I don't want to discount examples like Walter Reed, which isn't part of the VA), then that would imply that fewer people would go to the VA for care given they already have other options.
Re:A false choice, of course...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well, there was that one from yesterday about the Obama administration rejecting zillions of FOIA requests conveniently ignoring that the Obama administration didn't exist for 1/3 of the time they're alleging this happened.
In the absence of an actual argument, it's tempting to resort to ad hominem, but it really doesn't help your case.
Obviously, you tl;dr'd a very short reply from me, since I did give actual arguments. Which you address below.
The news pages [of the NYT] are far less slanted
Yes, but slanted they are, and consistently so, in both story selection and in the writing of the stories. And the news pages of Breitbart just aren't biased in terms of the writing of the stories (except insofar as the AP etc. are, which is significantly less than the NYT).
Wha?? One of the first thing you learn about the media is that all news is biased. Anyone who thinks that something like the AP is completely neutral and without bias is just kidding themselves. You contended that Bretibart is less biased than the NYT, so go ahead and prove it, chucklehead.
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT
I never implied otherwise, and this does not impact my point in any way. You apparently think I was saying ALL news stories in the NYT are original? Nope. As a former journalist for a daily newspaper who regularly worked with wire copy, that would be foolish.
What, anyone that gets wire copy is suddenly a journalist? Pretty low standards.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
Your point? Do you have one? If so I'd enjoy seeing it. But I doubt it.
And here is where the FAIL train arrives at its station.
Calendar year 2009 runs from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Hopefully you know this. Fiscal year 2009 doesn't follow the calendar year. It runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. I know it takes a bit of research to know these things, but I used to work for the federal government, so I'm as much an authority on this as you are on bias and newspapers.
The contention from the headline (and presumably the Bretibart article) was that the Obama Administration denied all the FOIA requests in Fiscal year 2009. Well, for almost 4 months of Fiscal year 2009 (Oct 1, 2008 - Jan 20, 2009), the Obama Administration DID NOT EXIST.
The editorial pages are intended to be biased, that's the point. The news pages are far less slanted but your blinders seem to be in the way.
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT...if only there were a way to prove it, but I guess we'll never know.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
I'll pay more to see a movie in true IMAX (and there are a few theaters in my area that do that), but the regular movie theater charges extra for the 3D glasses but doesn't list what the surcharge is. Last I asked, the surcharge was $5, or an increase of almost 50%. Not worth it for a pair of glasses.
One of the Command and Conquer games had James Earl Jones. It didn't cost $100. Now that I think about it, most of the games in that series had someone from TV or movies doing the cutscenes.
Wearing seat belts, eating healthy, and learning self defense is being prepared. Leaving loaded weapons around the house is a bit more than just being prepared.
You are the kind of gun owner that needs to have a (louder) voice in the NRA. Stay responsible with your firearms, and I won't feel the need to tell you (collectively) that you shouldn't have one.
Right. You obviously have no clue how economics works, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore trying to explain it to you. Go waste your money buying tickets from scalpers, I don't really care.
The scalpers are indeed causing a scarcity, since at the time they're in play, they're the only ones with tickets to sell. Had they not been in place, the tickets may still be available at list price.
If I win super bowl tickets, why should I be a scalper and go to jail for reselling them?
Because you don't understand economics? You're saying that a private individual selling tickets they legitimately acquired is the same as wholesale scooping of tickets (and price fixing) via fraud?
You're again ignoring the point - before scalpers got in and scooped up massive numbers of tickets and artificially inflated the price, regular fans were able to get tickets from the box office at a reasonable price for a longer period of time. Since scalpers were able to get large numbers of tickets, the pool of tickets has decreased, thus raising the price.
This isn't a matter of the tickets being initially priced out of their range, it's a matter of a limited supply being artificially manipulated.
Slashdot Mirror
The "VCR" programming feature is required to use with a non-Comcast DVR.
Uhm, no it isn't, at least with Tivos.
My series 2 had a separate IR controller that you put in front of the cable box and it sent the signal at the right time to change the channel, no messing with the cable box required.
The TivoHD (and Premiere) both support CableCard, so you don't need a separate box from the cable company.
Human is a species.
But:
1) Saying that census data will 'never be used against you' and 'are protected by US privacy laws' is nowhere near the same thing.
2) The NY Times article about Arab Americans in each ZIP code was using publicly available data from the census. As with medical records, the data used by DHS was deidentified.
So in the end, I have faith that the answers I give will stay private, though I understand that information that identify me as a community will be available - that's one of the points of the census!
I'm not an OS designer, so I'll admit to possibly being wrong.
Doesn't a microkernel split parts of the kernel into individual processes? In the case of a multicore system, different parts of the OS can be running on different cores at the same time. So inserting a CD doesn't cause the display to freeze, since each are running on a different core.
You're still contending that the AP is less biased. I provided proof of the bias. Therefore, you're still wrong.
Why? Because it proves bias on the part of Breitbart. The entire argument that the Obama Administration is rejecting more FOIA requests than Bush is factually incorrect or at least in severe doubt when statistically, the Obama administration could only reject 2/3 of the requests for Fiscal 2009.
Are you really that dense? I'd expect that someone with as low a UID as you would be able to (a) understand reasoned argument and (b) have a bit thicker skin, but I guess I'm wrong on both counts. I'm sorry if I hurt your widdle feewings.
As for your other contention, you said that Breitbart is less biased than the NYT and go on to prove it by saying that Bretibart has AP reports, which isn't really an argument since the NYT also carries AP reports, which I already proved.
MA's health care solution (proposed by Mitt Romney, who has distance himself so far from it I think he's about to say he's never even visited the state) is still a big mess. It's causing a large number of budget issues, and I have friends who are still struggling to get and keep their insurance.
I think the goal is good, but it's currently a large expense on the state budget.
Still, what we have in MA is far better than what is currently being proposed in Congress.
I'll preface this by admitting that I worked for the VA in a coding capacity in the early 90s. I did spend a week at one of the local hospitals to see the various departments (this is a requirement when you're hired).
If what you contend is true and the VA were that bad, then why would veterans continue to use it? Many I know have medicare or private insurance already, so why not make use of either of those for their treatment rather than go to the VA?
If the VA were truly that bad (and I don't want to discount examples like Walter Reed, which isn't part of the VA), then that would imply that fewer people would go to the VA for care given they already have other options.
Well, there was that one from yesterday about the Obama administration rejecting zillions of FOIA requests conveniently ignoring that the Obama administration didn't exist for 1/3 of the time they're alleging this happened.
*pat pat*
You just go on believing that.
In the absence of an actual argument, it's tempting to resort to ad hominem, but it really doesn't help your case.
Obviously, you tl;dr'd a very short reply from me, since I did give actual arguments. Which you address below.
The news pages [of the NYT] are far less slanted
Yes, but slanted they are, and consistently so, in both story selection and in the writing of the stories. And the news pages of Breitbart just aren't biased in terms of the writing of the stories (except insofar as the AP etc. are, which is significantly less than the NYT).
Wha?? One of the first thing you learn about the media is that all news is biased. Anyone who thinks that something like the AP is completely neutral and without bias is just kidding themselves. You contended that Bretibart is less biased than the NYT, so go ahead and prove it, chucklehead.
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT
I never implied otherwise, and this does not impact my point in any way. You apparently think I was saying ALL news stories in the NYT are original? Nope. As a former journalist for a daily newspaper who regularly worked with wire copy, that would be foolish.
What, anyone that gets wire copy is suddenly a journalist? Pretty low standards.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
Your point? Do you have one? If so I'd enjoy seeing it. But I doubt it.
And here is where the FAIL train arrives at its station.
Calendar year 2009 runs from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Hopefully you know this. Fiscal year 2009 doesn't follow the calendar year. It runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. I know it takes a bit of research to know these things, but I used to work for the federal government, so I'm as much an authority on this as you are on bias and newspapers.
The contention from the headline (and presumably the Bretibart article) was that the Obama Administration denied all the FOIA requests in Fiscal year 2009. Well, for almost 4 months of Fiscal year 2009 (Oct 1, 2008 - Jan 20, 2009), the Obama Administration DID NOT EXIST.
*pat pat*
You just go on believing that.
The editorial pages are intended to be biased, that's the point. The news pages are far less slanted but your blinders seem to be in the way.
As for the AP, they provide news to lots of people, including the NYT...if only there were a way to prove it, but I guess we'll never know.
Meanwhile, maybe you can spend some time addressing the discrepancy between Fiscal Year 2009 and Calendar Year 2009. You do realize they're different, right?
*pat pat*
how cute
A big 'ol pile of THIS. The Obama Administration didn't exist for the first four months of fiscal year 2009.
Are you really claiming that the NYT is as biased as Breitbart? Odd.
I'll pay more to see a movie in true IMAX (and there are a few theaters in my area that do that), but the regular movie theater charges extra for the 3D glasses but doesn't list what the surcharge is. Last I asked, the surcharge was $5, or an increase of almost 50%. Not worth it for a pair of glasses.
One of the Command and Conquer games had James Earl Jones. It didn't cost $100. Now that I think about it, most of the games in that series had someone from TV or movies doing the cutscenes.
Wearing seat belts, eating healthy, and learning self defense is being prepared. Leaving loaded weapons around the house is a bit more than just being prepared.
You are the kind of gun owner that needs to have a (louder) voice in the NRA. Stay responsible with your firearms, and I won't feel the need to tell you (collectively) that you shouldn't have one.
Wow. What's it like to be that scared of the world around you?
Right. You obviously have no clue how economics works, so I'm not going to waste my time anymore trying to explain it to you. Go waste your money buying tickets from scalpers, I don't really care.
I can indeed blame the scalpers for increasing the price. They're the ones setting the price by limiting supply.
The scalpers are indeed causing a scarcity, since at the time they're in play, they're the only ones with tickets to sell. Had they not been in place, the tickets may still be available at list price.
I'm not the one defining 'Before'. Go ask MrKaos.
That being said, how long do you think tickets would last if scalpers were in on it? 10 minutes? 5?
If I win super bowl tickets, why should I be a scalper and go to jail for reselling them?
Because you don't understand economics? You're saying that a private individual selling tickets they legitimately acquired is the same as wholesale scooping of tickets (and price fixing) via fraud?
You're again ignoring the point - before scalpers got in and scooped up massive numbers of tickets and artificially inflated the price, regular fans were able to get tickets from the box office at a reasonable price for a longer period of time. Since scalpers were able to get large numbers of tickets, the pool of tickets has decreased, thus raising the price.
This isn't a matter of the tickets being initially priced out of their range, it's a matter of a limited supply being artificially manipulated.