I thought that was only if you're banking with the money, not simply possessing it.. i.e., to withdraw, transfer or deposit $10,000, the gov't gets involved.
IIRC, beating the large board in 45 seconds would be faster than what is currently listed as the fastest time.. the fastest claimed expert time I've seen is around 65 seconds.
States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it
Ha! I invite you to come on down to New Jersey, where each municipality gets to write their own zoning and planning laws. Yeah, it sounds great.. the local people get to decide what they want their town to be, blah blah.
In reality, it means there are 600+ different sets of regulations that can vary wildly. And this is just New Jersey. Multiply that across 50 states. You haven't reduced ANY red tape.
Furthermore, especially in North Jersey the municipalities are so small that a town may not actually have control over their own town! If, for instance, the neighboring towns don't want to limit development, but a main throughfare passes through the town, they're going to have the increased traffic from the development of the surrounding towns, despite the fact that they have limited development in their own town specifically to avoid this.
I'm not saying local rule should be eliminated. I'm saying that it is not the panacea that it's made out to be. Centralized government avoids these games that municipalities and states play against each other. Take tax breaks.. after 9/11, Citibank was going to move their HQ out of NYC (not due to 9/11.. it was just the timing). To combat this, Bloomberg gave them massive tax breaks. So, the residents of NJ or CT or elsewhere are hurt because Citibank doesn't move (as might have happened with a freer market). The residents of NYC are hurt because not only are they losing the tax revenue (which they would have lost anyway if Citibank left), but they keep the burden of Citibank on their infrastructure! It's a Lose/Lose/Lose situation. Except for Citibank, of course. Some people speculate that Citibank was never going to move and that they hinted at it just to get the tax breaks from the city.
Yawn. A Coulter-ish rant filled with generalizations and putting words in my mouth. You've gotta try harder than that. No where did I ever say that war can always be avoided. My post addressed the question "Why do some people hold America to a higher standard". In case you forgot, most democrats and liberals support the effort in Afghanistan and wish it hadn't been abandoned for the stupidity that is the Iraq war.
The fact that you had to resort to the "rape rooms" meme, and then you call my post "non-thinking, biased, partisan propagandist drivel".. that was rich. Keep it up!
Your response boils down to "So what? Other people did it too, and worse!" It's typical GOP apologism, and I AM SICK OF IT.
Do you know why we hold America to a higher standard? Because what America does IS IN OUR NAME.
What the USSR did WAS NOT IN MY NAME.
What France does IS NOT IN MY NAME.
I am an AMERICAN and goddamn it this country should start acting like the paragon of liberty, virtue and justice that our mythical history books claim it is.
Rationalize it however you want. I really don't know why some people have this overriding need to express their displeasure of activities that others enjoy. No one says you have to like it, but if you don't, then don't browse to anime articles. It's that simple. You don't need to come here and say stupid shit like "Am I the only one who can't stand anime?" IHBT. HAND.
No, you're just one of the many who feels the need to hate something that others enjoy. For some people it's American Idol, for some it's sports.. for you it's anime.
Because that would be communism, duh! How the hell are companies like Monsanto and ADM supposed to make billions of dollars if the gov't owns the farms? Sheesh.
I don't know enough about the situation you describe to say for sure, but it's certainly possible that the "only petroleum based chemicals" was MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), which is way worse than ethanol because it leeches out of the shitty USTs used by service stations and gets into the groundwater. Ethanolized gasoline is usually only 5-10% ethanol.. so ethanol is not a "big ingredient" in the gas.
There is currently a lawsuit from several States pending against MTBE manufacturers because they knew about MTBE's ability to contaminate groundwater but lied to the governments and claimed it would not.
However, MTBE blends are not "much cleaner" than ethanol blends. Also, iirc (and i work in environmental air regulations), the federal government does not have the authority to specify what methods the States will use to meet air quality goals, unless there is a pressing health and safety issue. I question your story and would like you to provide a source.
What it doesn't say is that a LOT of Ethanol produced in the Aggro states run on power grids that get most of their power from dams/windmills.
I have to call bs on this one. A vast majority of our power comes from oil/gas and coal. The rest is made up mostly of nuclear. According to this diagram, only ~6% of our energy comes from renewable sources (which includes wood, hydro, wind, solar, ethanolized gasoline (hah!), and geo).
What's with the astroturfing for sparks? IMO, it's pretty general. It's basically a red bull malt liquor, and it tastes like cough syrup. It's an OK way to start the evening, but I was warned when I purchased a case to not drink more than 3 in a day (it contains taurine, among other things). I'll stick to PBR.
First of all, most or all mass transit systems are heavily subsidized, so it's arguable how much cheaper they are (I'm sure somewhat, due to scale, but this should be considered).
Since everyone pays these taxes, this shouldn't be considered in a cost comparison if we're talking end-user cost. Furthermore, in many places, mass transit is partially funded by gas tax, so mass transit users aren't actually paying all of the subsidy.
1) BREVITY: You don't have to think about when the next car comes.
In areas where the population actually uses mass transit, this isn't a problem. Most of the NYC subways run 24/7, and you never think about when the next train is coming, because it's rarely more than 5-10 minutes during the day/evening. Same goes for many buses. I'm about to move to DC, and when I was recently down there looking for apartments, it was never more than 10 minutes for the metro (unfortunately DC metro isnt 24/7).
2) COMFORT: You won't sit next to some guy who talks too much and smells bad.
Don't have much for this one. If you're that anti-social, you're going to have a problem not only with mass transit, but with life in general. It won't kill you to talk to someone who looks different than you.
3) SPEED: You drive 35 the whole way, instead of just 1 block at a time.
This one is just hilarious. I guess traffic doesn't exist in your world?
4) PARKING: You park where you want to, instead of 6 blocks away.
Again, laughable. In sprawlsville, yes, you always park right next to where you're going. In a city, this is not always the case. And many times, especially in a city, parking is no where near free.
5) AVAILABILITY: Buses only go certain places. You can't take a bus (easily/cheaply) to the next town, or to a remote state park.
True. It's only $30 to rent a car. This seems like a lot, but if you're not going to use a car much, it is more cost effective to rent or use zipcars or even taxis than it is to keep and maintain a vehicle.
6) CAPACITY: You can't launch a boat with a bus. You can't haul more than a few bags of groceries with a bus. Ever try throwing a lawn mower, big-screen TV, kayak, or couch into the back of a bus? (without 30 people glaring at you?)
Using a delivery service or renting a truck for transporting large items is more cost effective than maintaining and fueling a vehicle whose capacity you might use three times a year. If you live within walking distance of your grocery store, then you don't need to haul home a lot from the grocery store. You make smaller, more frequent, trips.
7) SCHEDULE: You can't be late for a bus. If you're 5 minutes late, the car's still in the garage...
See my response to number one.
Public transportation just doesnt' solve well for the needs of the average US citizen. It works better in Europe or Japan because of much higher population density.
That's because the average US citizen lives in sprawlsville. It's not about population density, it's about proper planning. I live in NJ, where we have the highest population density of any state. However, most of the state has poor or no mass transit coverage. It isn't because the population isn't dense enough. It is because things are all planned around the automobile.
But what was so inferior about MD? It caught on in Japan.. so it would seem like there is some marketing or cultural, not technical, difference that caused this. To my knowledge, MD was used by radio stations for liners, beds, etc.. Similar to how beta continued to be used by TV broadcasters.
While that's certainly a unique way of doing things, it doesn't sound like it's worth the effort to me. From your description, it sounds like there's a lot to keep track of. It's an mp3, it's a lecture, it's in a group of lectures. You can open to edit, open to transcribe, open to view.. Is all of this association done automatically? You indicate that some of the context comes from the file extension, but how does the system know it's a 'lecture'?
At least for military, they are their to protect you.
Yes, that is part of their duties. However, when they are used to wage an offensive war that has done the exact opposite of protecting us, I just don't get that warm fuzzy feeling.
Education and responsibility on the part of citizens would subsequently mean that commercial entities were similarly educated and responsible, since they are ultimately made up of citizens. So I suppose I don't disagree with your premise.
However, given that people tend to act radically different between their personal and business personas, my statement above is quite naieve. I'm not completely sure how education and responsibility on the part of citizens would eliminate the need for 99% of regulations.
In short, we have many of our regulations because of one problem: greed. I'm not sure that's something that can be easily changed.
If "not getting your own way" means "getting your hand cut off in a thresher", then call me a crybaby.
My post did not discuss regulation of the Internet, but regulation in general. If you don't think that there is a need for regulation in general, please pick up a fucking history book.
Unfortunately in a free society people like you are allowed to remain completely ignorant of the past and the efforts of our ancestors that paid in blood to get us where we are now.
Call us cowboys, but a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms, and would be more than happy to stop them for all of us.
Oh please. This is just ridiculous.
Look. Americans aren't special. We just aren't. I know that we were raised to think that we are somehow so much better than the rest of the world, but it simply isn't true. People do outrageous things that we would never consider just to try and get into this country. To say that "a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms" is pathetic.
You know, there's an alternative to regulation. It's called education and responsibility.
That's correct. However, history has taught us that responsibility is severly lacking in many places, notably commercial entities. Thus, the need for regulation.
Who said the Supremes don't use email? I don't know for sure that they do, but Justice Stevens (or Breyer?) has been criticized by the right wing for using the Internet for research.
Just because people are old doesn't mean that they don't use tech. It's pure ageism.
Not really. I don't go around copying slashdot pages and reposting them somewhere. I come to slashdot. It works that way for.. oh maybe 100% of the sites I go to. (Yes, I know I'm 'copying' the page to my cache. I'm talking about non-transient and persistent copying and redistribution)
trying to apply meatspace rules to the Web, where costs of replication and distribution are vastly different from meatspace, just doesn't make sense.
Why should a content creator's rights change because of the ease/cost of copying and distribution? Because I choose a medium that's cheap, that means I essentially give up my copyright? I don't think so. Trying to apply the "it's easy, so it should be legal" principle is what doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
He probably has said something. The problem for Lieberman is that no one listens to him anymore.
I thought that was only if you're banking with the money, not simply possessing it.. i.e., to withdraw, transfer or deposit $10,000, the gov't gets involved.
So, basically what you're saying is that the 40 gb hard drive I have now will be filled up with advertisements?
No, that's not what they're saying. What's ridiculous is your hyperbole.
Does it suck? Yes. Do you have to take it? No. If you don't like it, don't play the games with ads.
IIRC, beating the large board in 45 seconds would be faster than what is currently listed as the fastest time.. the fastest claimed expert time I've seen is around 65 seconds.
States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it
Ha! I invite you to come on down to New Jersey, where each municipality gets to write their own zoning and planning laws. Yeah, it sounds great.. the local people get to decide what they want their town to be, blah blah.
In reality, it means there are 600+ different sets of regulations that can vary wildly. And this is just New Jersey. Multiply that across 50 states. You haven't reduced ANY red tape.
Furthermore, especially in North Jersey the municipalities are so small that a town may not actually have control over their own town! If, for instance, the neighboring towns don't want to limit development, but a main throughfare passes through the town, they're going to have the increased traffic from the development of the surrounding towns, despite the fact that they have limited development in their own town specifically to avoid this.
I'm not saying local rule should be eliminated. I'm saying that it is not the panacea that it's made out to be. Centralized government avoids these games that municipalities and states play against each other. Take tax breaks.. after 9/11, Citibank was going to move their HQ out of NYC (not due to 9/11.. it was just the timing). To combat this, Bloomberg gave them massive tax breaks. So, the residents of NJ or CT or elsewhere are hurt because Citibank doesn't move (as might have happened with a freer market). The residents of NYC are hurt because not only are they losing the tax revenue (which they would have lost anyway if Citibank left), but they keep the burden of Citibank on their infrastructure! It's a Lose/Lose/Lose situation. Except for Citibank, of course. Some people speculate that Citibank was never going to move and that they hinted at it just to get the tax breaks from the city.
Yawn. A Coulter-ish rant filled with generalizations and putting words in my mouth. You've gotta try harder than that. No where did I ever say that war can always be avoided. My post addressed the question "Why do some people hold America to a higher standard". In case you forgot, most democrats and liberals support the effort in Afghanistan and wish it hadn't been abandoned for the stupidity that is the Iraq war.
The fact that you had to resort to the "rape rooms" meme, and then you call my post "non-thinking, biased, partisan propagandist drivel".. that was rich. Keep it up!
Your response boils down to "So what? Other people did it too, and worse!" It's typical GOP apologism, and I AM SICK OF IT.
Do you know why we hold America to a higher standard? Because what America does IS IN OUR NAME.
What the USSR did WAS NOT IN MY NAME.
What France does IS NOT IN MY NAME.
I am an AMERICAN and goddamn it this country should start acting like the paragon of liberty, virtue and justice that our mythical history books claim it is.
NOT IN MY NAME. NOT NOW. NOT EVER.
Rationalize it however you want. I really don't know why some people have this overriding need to express their displeasure of activities that others enjoy. No one says you have to like it, but if you don't, then don't browse to anime articles. It's that simple. You don't need to come here and say stupid shit like "Am I the only one who can't stand anime?" IHBT. HAND.
No, you're just one of the many who feels the need to hate something that others enjoy. For some people it's American Idol, for some it's sports.. for you it's anime.
Music videos are not even popular enough to support a cable network channel ("MTV" is almost entirely crap "reality" shows these days)
Right, but other channels have spawned to fill the void: MTV2, The Box, etc.
Because that would be communism, duh! How the hell are companies like Monsanto and ADM supposed to make billions of dollars if the gov't owns the farms? Sheesh.
I don't know enough about the situation you describe to say for sure, but it's certainly possible that the "only petroleum based chemicals" was MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), which is way worse than ethanol because it leeches out of the shitty USTs used by service stations and gets into the groundwater. Ethanolized gasoline is usually only 5-10% ethanol.. so ethanol is not a "big ingredient" in the gas.
There is currently a lawsuit from several States pending against MTBE manufacturers because they knew about MTBE's ability to contaminate groundwater but lied to the governments and claimed it would not.
However, MTBE blends are not "much cleaner" than ethanol blends. Also, iirc (and i work in environmental air regulations), the federal government does not have the authority to specify what methods the States will use to meet air quality goals, unless there is a pressing health and safety issue. I question your story and would like you to provide a source.
What it doesn't say is that a LOT of Ethanol produced in the Aggro states run on power grids that get most of their power from dams/windmills.
I have to call bs on this one. A vast majority of our power comes from oil/gas and coal. The rest is made up mostly of nuclear. According to this diagram, only ~6% of our energy comes from renewable sources (which includes wood, hydro, wind, solar, ethanolized gasoline (hah!), and geo).
What's with the astroturfing for sparks? IMO, it's pretty general. It's basically a red bull malt liquor, and it tastes like cough syrup. It's an OK way to start the evening, but I was warned when I purchased a case to not drink more than 3 in a day (it contains taurine, among other things). I'll stick to PBR.
First of all, most or all mass transit systems are heavily subsidized, so it's arguable how much cheaper they are (I'm sure somewhat, due to scale, but this should be considered).
Since everyone pays these taxes, this shouldn't be considered in a cost comparison if we're talking end-user cost. Furthermore, in many places, mass transit is partially funded by gas tax, so mass transit users aren't actually paying all of the subsidy.
1) BREVITY: You don't have to think about when the next car comes.
In areas where the population actually uses mass transit, this isn't a problem. Most of the NYC subways run 24/7, and you never think about when the next train is coming, because it's rarely more than 5-10 minutes during the day/evening. Same goes for many buses. I'm about to move to DC, and when I was recently down there looking for apartments, it was never more than 10 minutes for the metro (unfortunately DC metro isnt 24/7).
2) COMFORT: You won't sit next to some guy who talks too much and smells bad.
Don't have much for this one. If you're that anti-social, you're going to have a problem not only with mass transit, but with life in general. It won't kill you to talk to someone who looks different than you.
3) SPEED: You drive 35 the whole way, instead of just 1 block at a time.
This one is just hilarious. I guess traffic doesn't exist in your world?
4) PARKING: You park where you want to, instead of 6 blocks away.
Again, laughable. In sprawlsville, yes, you always park right next to where you're going. In a city, this is not always the case. And many times, especially in a city, parking is no where near free.
5) AVAILABILITY: Buses only go certain places. You can't take a bus (easily/cheaply) to the next town, or to a remote state park.
True. It's only $30 to rent a car. This seems like a lot, but if you're not going to use a car much, it is more cost effective to rent or use zipcars or even taxis than it is to keep and maintain a vehicle.
6) CAPACITY: You can't launch a boat with a bus. You can't haul more than a few bags of groceries with a bus. Ever try throwing a lawn mower, big-screen TV, kayak, or couch into the back of a bus? (without 30 people glaring at you?)
Using a delivery service or renting a truck for transporting large items is more cost effective than maintaining and fueling a vehicle whose capacity you might use three times a year. If you live within walking distance of your grocery store, then you don't need to haul home a lot from the grocery store. You make smaller, more frequent, trips.
7) SCHEDULE: You can't be late for a bus. If you're 5 minutes late, the car's still in the garage...
See my response to number one.
Public transportation just doesnt' solve well for the needs of the average US citizen. It works better in Europe or Japan because of much higher population density.
That's because the average US citizen lives in sprawlsville. It's not about population density, it's about proper planning. I live in NJ, where we have the highest population density of any state. However, most of the state has poor or no mass transit coverage. It isn't because the population isn't dense enough. It is because things are all planned around the automobile.
But what was so inferior about MD? It caught on in Japan.. so it would seem like there is some marketing or cultural, not technical, difference that caused this. To my knowledge, MD was used by radio stations for liners, beds, etc.. Similar to how beta continued to be used by TV broadcasters.
While that's certainly a unique way of doing things, it doesn't sound like it's worth the effort to me. From your description, it sounds like there's a lot to keep track of. It's an mp3, it's a lecture, it's in a group of lectures. You can open to edit, open to transcribe, open to view.. Is all of this association done automatically? You indicate that some of the context comes from the file extension, but how does the system know it's a 'lecture'?
At least for military, they are their to protect you.
Yes, that is part of their duties. However, when they are used to wage an offensive war that has done the exact opposite of protecting us, I just don't get that warm fuzzy feeling.
Education and responsibility on the part of citizens would subsequently mean that commercial entities were similarly educated and responsible, since they are ultimately made up of citizens. So I suppose I don't disagree with your premise.
However, given that people tend to act radically different between their personal and business personas, my statement above is quite naieve. I'm not completely sure how education and responsibility on the part of citizens would eliminate the need for 99% of regulations.
In short, we have many of our regulations because of one problem: greed. I'm not sure that's something that can be easily changed.
If "not getting your own way" means "getting your hand cut off in a thresher", then call me a crybaby.
My post did not discuss regulation of the Internet, but regulation in general. If you don't think that there is a need for regulation in general, please pick up a fucking history book.
Unfortunately in a free society people like you are allowed to remain completely ignorant of the past and the efforts of our ancestors that paid in blood to get us where we are now.
Call us cowboys, but a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms, and would be more than happy to stop them for all of us.
Oh please. This is just ridiculous.
Look. Americans aren't special. We just aren't. I know that we were raised to think that we are somehow so much better than the rest of the world, but it simply isn't true. People do outrageous things that we would never consider just to try and get into this country. To say that "a lot of the world doesn't want our freedoms" is pathetic.
You know, there's an alternative to regulation. It's called education and responsibility.
That's correct. However, history has taught us that responsibility is severly lacking in many places, notably commercial entities. Thus, the need for regulation.
Who said the Supremes don't use email? I don't know for sure that they do, but Justice Stevens (or Breyer?) has been criticized by the right wing for using the Internet for research.
Just because people are old doesn't mean that they don't use tech. It's pure ageism.
Because that's just how the Web *works*
Not really. I don't go around copying slashdot pages and reposting them somewhere. I come to slashdot. It works that way for.. oh maybe 100% of the sites I go to. (Yes, I know I'm 'copying' the page to my cache. I'm talking about non-transient and persistent copying and redistribution)
trying to apply meatspace rules to the Web, where costs of replication and distribution are vastly different from meatspace, just doesn't make sense.
Why should a content creator's rights change because of the ease/cost of copying and distribution? Because I choose a medium that's cheap, that means I essentially give up my copyright? I don't think so. Trying to apply the "it's easy, so it should be legal" principle is what doesn't make sense.