In the long list of things that can and should make a country irrelevant, the cost of a phone plan is pretty much... not there.
To borrow Clinton's line about the economy...it's the rent-seeking, stupid.
Wireless carriers are but the tip of the capitalist iceberg. Other useless rent-seekers and middle men: banks, health insurance companies, university management, defense contractors....
hat was Bush, and by bringing him up to defend liberal heroes, you prove Bing's point that you are bought and paid for
Not even close.
It is interesting to note though, that Bill did say we should go in after Saddam, and invade Iraq.
If talking about something is the same thing as doing it (and killing thousands of Americans, a million Iraqis, and pissing away three trillion dollars), then listen to me talk about winning the Superbowl while owning Tesla, Google, and Apple. Do you guys never think through this talking point before using it?
Some of them may promote alternative energy sources, but the rest will protest against wind turbines killing birds and solar panels being environmentally unfriendly to produce. The Green movement isn't consistently for anything. They are only consistently against things.
But that's just more of the if-you-oppose-nuclear-power-you're-a-crazy-hippie-luddite caricaturing I was talking about. You're going to have a hard time finding an environmentalist that wouldn't trade all the damage done by mining coal and uranium, and the byproducts of turning them into electricity, for the (overblown) risk to birds from wind turbines. Maybe you're thinking of some of the nuttier members of the Audubon Society? You know, the minority of which tries to poison feral cats to protect songbirds.
Oh wait, I think I know the answer to that, macs4all. Never mind.
Nice sarcasm, but I don't see where it explains why you want binaries for other devices to take up space on your iPad. You're acting as if functionality is being stripped out when that's obviously not the case.
The Green movement has none of the power in Japan that it does in the US and Europe
If the Green movement had the power in the U.S. that nuke fans thought it did, all coal and nuclear power in the country would have been replaced with solar panels. In the Carter Administration.
After Fukushima, foreign Greens and their pet journalists swarmed in to fire up a mass movement like the ones in Western countries.
Greens didn't tell the Japanese that TEPCO was a habitual, corner cutting liar that put their employees and surrounding region at risk. TEPCO did that through their corruption and hubris.
But because there is no anti-technology movement in Japan, they will figure out how to do better next time.
Standard nuke fan storyline: if you oppose nuclear power, you're a luddite! Reality: you can be fascinated by the technology, but realize that nuclear power is the most expensive technology ever invented by man.
Let's pretend that the IAEA isn't as incestuous with the industry it's supposed to oversee as Treasury is with Goldman Sachs, and that there will never be a nuclear meltdown again, anywhere. Nuclear power is still completely unjustifiable, as no plant rolls the full cost of it's construction, operation, security, maintenance into the rates it charges much less storing the waste for hundreds of years.
Nuclear power == corporate pork and fluffing Tom Swift fanboys.
That being said, ALL energy sources have downsides and risks. Nuclear power risk/harm is not necessarily greater than the alternatives.
How is it not greater? Dr. Evil could use his Alan Parson's Project to blow up every dam on the planet, and while the loss of live would be tragic, it wouldn't still be effecting the Earth hundreds of years from now. As opposed to a nuclear meltdown, or an earthquake rupturing a waste containment center.
Do you really have such a terrible understanding of simple multiplication and numbers, not to mention scale.
I understand some people would rather engage in willfully obtuse pedantry to ignore the (obvious) point being made. Buy some pot, buy some prunes, and learn to relax.
Err no, they are the foremost expert on MANAGING nuclear energy.
In the same way that the Federal Reserve is the "foremost expert" on "managing" banks. When the Federal Reserve is run by the banks, for the banks, and staffed almost entirely with bankers.
The IAEA is run by the nuclear power industry, for the nuclear power industry, and almost entirely staffed by execs from the nuclear power industry.
99.99999999% of Americans were completely unaffected by 911. So it must not have made any impact on the nations consciousness or changed any policies, right?
Nuclear power has been a disaster and widespread adoption of clean, renewable energy can't come soon enough.
There have been multiple individual coal mining accidents that have killed more people than the entire nuclear industry has ever killed.
As you say, bullshit. Why is it that nuke fans push the false dichotomy of coal, even when replying to a post talking about clean, renewable energy?
And don't get me started on hydroelectrical dams. Dam breaches have killed more people than we could ever hope to kill with flawed nuclear reactor designs if we tried on purpose.
My favorite is when nuke fans include dam collapses from decades before the first nuclear power plant was ever built. Nevermind that if we had nuclear power in 1900, we would have had some more Chernobyl's and Fukishimas.
Every decision ever made to invest in nuclear instead of coal has been a life saving decision.
Fukishima was a once-in-a-thousand years disaster. If you replace thousands of coal plants around the word with nuclear power plants, you're going to see a lot more Fukishima's because more plants will be hit by once-in-a-thousand-years disasters just based on statistics.
but wind and solar will need to be paired with energy storage or long-range low-loss power distribution
Which can be done for a fraction of the cost of nuclear power, which costs billions to develop and maintain, and then store the waste for hundreds to thousands of years.
Ones that sign on the dotted line taking personal responsibility for the code they write. With self driving cars, robots, drones, etc. we need to be able to hold coders responsible, the same way we hold held civil and mechanical engineers responsible.
...so there is effective pushback when the company says "make X happy for Y dollars or you're fired", if it can't be made safely. No doubt that would inspired umbrage from some of the resident Randians on Slashdot, but....go fuck yourselves, guys. Seriously.
No employee should ever have to choose between getting fired or getting prosecuted when that bridge falls down. No, that's not made ok by finding employment elsewhere. Nor by having to wait months or years, and spending thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on a wrongful termination suit that has no guarantee of success.
With a couple of kegs of Hatorade? If all that stands between between a mediocre product line and a couple hundred billion in cash is a marketing campaign, why hasn't anyone else done it? Did Jobs station snipers along Madison Avenue as soon as he came back to Apple?
Yes - all the ECUs do this - and my informants tell me they all cheat - this is really about selective prosecution because VW is non UAW.
On some other planet where Republicans haven't held Congress since 2010 and would just love to bust the fuck out of a union? And slam Obama for bailing out a corrupt industry at the same time.
They do work. Just not in the way they say they do. In an interrogation if someone is nervous that their lies are going to be detected they will potentially show other visible signs in behavior or answering of questions, someone that goes out of their way to beat a polygraph in such an arena is also someone that needs some serious looking at, after all what are they so scared of that they are trying to ensure they don't raise alarm bells.
No. They don't work. At all. People are naturally nervous when being interrogated or otherwise threatened by "authority figures". Just ask the guy who was medially raped for hours on suspicion of carrying drugs in his colon, because he was "tense" and "clenched his buttocks", when he of course was innocent the entire time.
You mean you've run out of talking points, and have no response to the fact that government-funded research would come with a pro-fossil fuel bias, if there was any bias to be had.
Would you be throwing up word salads in response to Philip Morris funding think tanks, putting out "studies" they knew full well to be bullshit, claiming that smoking was perfectly safe for kids? In 2015?
Climate scientists have been caught out telling bald-faced lies for financial gain many times.
You mean, right-wing bald-faced lies about Mann. This zombie BS is no different from the deranged wingers insisting, to this day, that the Clinton's ordered dozens of people to be killed in Arkansas to protect their drug running empire. Repeating big Big Lies doesn't make them true, Fraggie, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
And reveals you haven't bothered to think about this for two nanoseconds, because anyone seeking to falsify results for money would be doing so for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. The entire budget for the top five hippie environmentalist groups wouldn't take up half the penny jar of Exxon or Koch Industries. And if government-funding came with some kind of bias, it would also be for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
The entirety of George W. Obama's policy on the Global War of Terror is centered around the world's gas station, otherwise known as the Middle East. The United States has successfully overthrown the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine to support the production and movement of fossil fuels, and is trying to do the same in Venezuela and Syria.
So, again, if government-funded research was going to have a bias one way or the other, it would be against AGW. Deal with it.
You think a product the government invents out of nothing that the government forces you to buy through a market the government forces you to use at prices the government sets... is a free market?
You mean....like health care reform based around a mandate to buy for-profit insurance, which was the cornerstone of right wing health care plans for 25 years until y'all lost your shit the second it was proposed by a Democrat?
You're a moron. No really. You're actually stupid. Kill yourself.
Awww, did wiidle baby wingnut have his mind blown by an epiphany? You're as much of a brain dead partisan troll as an Obamabot. The centrist way would be to phase out coal over ten years while building nuclear. The leftist way would be to take a cool trillion dollars out of the annual imperial budget, and spend it on wind, solar and mass transit. Which, by the way, would only lead to the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen due to the number of jobs created.
Carbon trading is a conservative, capitalist "solution" to climate change, and that's just a fact you're going to have fucking deal with.
1) Muslims aren't bombing countries on the other side of the planet from them, who are zero threat to them.
Um, 9/11?
Um, are you fucking kidding with that question?
1) Long before 911, the United States was busy bombing and occupying Muslim countries, overthrowing their governments, backing brutal dictatorships throughout the region, including but not limited to Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That means that of cooooourse the United States was a threat to Muslims.
2) You do know the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, right? Right? Not only is the U.S. not bombing the Saudis, it's selling billions of dollars worth of bombs to the Saudis.
This is what really bothers me about Muslims who live in the West . . . they blame the victim. Like I said in my original post. I would welcome it, if Muslims would condemn terrorism, and state that ISIL and Boko Haram do not represent Islam. But they don't.
But you're either stupid or lying, as Muslims have long condemned terrorism.
Isis? Created by Obama, Hillary and Kerry to fight Assad.
Is that you, Donald Trump . . . ?
What's that? I'm sorry, it's hard to hear you when your head is buried so far up your ass. That the United States has given weapons, money and training to the very "terrorists" you're complaining about, as long as they are supporting "regime change" in Syria, is as indisputable as the fact that Iraq had no WMD's and nothing to do with 911 prior to the 2003 invasion.
Timothy McVeigh had no religious affiliations.
Except Christianity. But that's to be expected from hypocritical, racist Islamophobes. Whenever someone who happens to be Muslim engages in violence, it's because he his Muslim. When people who are Christian engage in violence - whether it be the the IRA, dominionists in the U.S. military, or the KKK - it never has anything to do with their religion.
Muslims, or more honestly stated, a small fraction of them, are the new Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots and Idi Amins.
And, back to square one with the racist dumbfuckery: Muslims aren't flying drones over Mexico or Argentina, murdering people with impunity. Muslims haven't invaded Iceland and set up a puppet government. Muslims haven't run a world-wide kidnapping and torture program, nor are they continuing to hold people in Gitmo that have been cleared for release for a decade.
Watching American Exceptionalists whine about violent Muslims is like watching Zombie Ted Bundy lecture Chris Brown on his bad attitude towards women.
Slashdot Mirror
To borrow Clinton's line about the economy...it's the rent-seeking, stupid.
Wireless carriers are but the tip of the capitalist iceberg. Other useless rent-seekers and middle men: banks, health insurance companies, university management, defense contractors....
Not even close.
If talking about something is the same thing as doing it (and killing thousands of Americans, a million Iraqis, and pissing away three trillion dollars), then listen to me talk about winning the Superbowl while owning Tesla, Google, and Apple. Do you guys never think through this talking point before using it?
Except: the same pinhole vision was applied to everything Steve did since he returned to Apple.
The iMac doesn't have a serial or ADB port! They're screwing over their customers and forcing them to buy new devices !
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Don't Hold it Wrong!
And so on, and so on. SHDD (Same Hatorade, Different Day).
But that's just more of the if-you-oppose-nuclear-power-you're-a-crazy-hippie-luddite caricaturing I was talking about. You're going to have a hard time finding an environmentalist that wouldn't trade all the damage done by mining coal and uranium, and the byproducts of turning them into electricity, for the (overblown) risk to birds from wind turbines. Maybe you're thinking of some of the nuttier members of the Audubon Society? You know, the minority of which tries to poison feral cats to protect songbirds.
That's true of any "cloud" based software. This isn't one of those complaints that only one company, is it?
Nice sarcasm, but I don't see where it explains why you want binaries for other devices to take up space on your iPad. You're acting as if functionality is being stripped out when that's obviously not the case.
Could have been copied and pasted from a 20 year old John Dvorak article.
If the Green movement had the power in the U.S. that nuke fans thought it did, all coal and nuclear power in the country would have been replaced with solar panels. In the Carter Administration.
Greens didn't tell the Japanese that TEPCO was a habitual, corner cutting liar that put their employees and surrounding region at risk. TEPCO did that through their corruption and hubris.
Standard nuke fan storyline: if you oppose nuclear power, you're a luddite! Reality: you can be fascinated by the technology, but realize that nuclear power is the most expensive technology ever invented by man.
Let's pretend that the IAEA isn't as incestuous with the industry it's supposed to oversee as Treasury is with Goldman Sachs, and that there will never be a nuclear meltdown again, anywhere. Nuclear power is still completely unjustifiable, as no plant rolls the full cost of it's construction, operation, security, maintenance into the rates it charges much less storing the waste for hundreds of years.
Nuclear power == corporate pork and fluffing Tom Swift fanboys.
How is it not greater? Dr. Evil could use his Alan Parson's Project to blow up every dam on the planet, and while the loss of live would be tragic, it wouldn't still be effecting the Earth hundreds of years from now. As opposed to a nuclear meltdown, or an earthquake rupturing a waste containment center.
I understand some people would rather engage in willfully obtuse pedantry to ignore the (obvious) point being made. Buy some pot, buy some prunes, and learn to relax.
In the same way that the Federal Reserve is the "foremost expert" on "managing" banks. When the Federal Reserve is run by the banks, for the banks, and staffed almost entirely with bankers.
The IAEA is run by the nuclear power industry, for the nuclear power industry, and almost entirely staffed by execs from the nuclear power industry.
99.99999999% of Americans were completely unaffected by 911. So it must not have made any impact on the nations consciousness or changed any policies, right?
As you say, bullshit. Why is it that nuke fans push the false dichotomy of coal, even when replying to a post talking about clean, renewable energy?
My favorite is when nuke fans include dam collapses from decades before the first nuclear power plant was ever built. Nevermind that if we had nuclear power in 1900, we would have had some more Chernobyl's and Fukishimas.
Fukishima was a once-in-a-thousand years disaster. If you replace thousands of coal plants around the word with nuclear power plants, you're going to see a lot more Fukishima's because more plants will be hit by once-in-a-thousand-years disasters just based on statistics.
Which can be done for a fraction of the cost of nuclear power, which costs billions to develop and maintain, and then store the waste for hundreds to thousands of years.
The level of wankery in that comment just blew up the meter.
No employee should ever have to choose between getting fired or getting prosecuted when that bridge falls down. No, that's not made ok by finding employment elsewhere. Nor by having to wait months or years, and spending thousands to tens of thousands of dollars on a wrongful termination suit that has no guarantee of success.
Oooo, snobbery in an Apple story that's not aimed at people who buy Apple products! Zombie Jobs would commend your innovative spirit.
With a couple of kegs of Hatorade? If all that stands between between a mediocre product line and a couple hundred billion in cash is a marketing campaign, why hasn't anyone else done it? Did Jobs station snipers along Madison Avenue as soon as he came back to Apple?
On some other planet where Republicans haven't held Congress since 2010 and would just love to bust the fuck out of a union? And slam Obama for bailing out a corrupt industry at the same time.
Bitch. Please.
Ah hah you so funny!
Or the completely innocent person gives a false confession, just so the interrogation will end.
No. They don't work. At all. People are naturally nervous when being interrogated or otherwise threatened by "authority figures". Just ask the guy who was medially raped for hours on suspicion of carrying drugs in his colon, because he was "tense" and "clenched his buttocks", when he of course was innocent the entire time.
You mean you've run out of talking points, and have no response to the fact that government-funded research would come with a pro-fossil fuel bias, if there was any bias to be had.
Would you be throwing up word salads in response to Philip Morris funding think tanks, putting out "studies" they knew full well to be bullshit, claiming that smoking was perfectly safe for kids? In 2015?
If not, why not?
You mean, right-wing bald-faced lies about Mann. This zombie BS is no different from the deranged wingers insisting, to this day, that the Clinton's ordered dozens of people to be killed in Arkansas to protect their drug running empire. Repeating big Big Lies doesn't make them true, Fraggie, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
And reveals you haven't bothered to think about this for two nanoseconds, because anyone seeking to falsify results for money would be doing so for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. The entire budget for the top five hippie environmentalist groups wouldn't take up half the penny jar of Exxon or Koch Industries. And if government-funding came with some kind of bias, it would also be for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
The entirety of George W. Obama's policy on the Global War of Terror is centered around the world's gas station, otherwise known as the Middle East. The United States has successfully overthrown the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Ukraine to support the production and movement of fossil fuels, and is trying to do the same in Venezuela and Syria.
So, again, if government-funded research was going to have a bias one way or the other, it would be against AGW. Deal with it.
You mean....like health care reform based around a mandate to buy for-profit insurance, which was the cornerstone of right wing health care plans for 25 years until y'all lost your shit the second it was proposed by a Democrat?
Awww, did wiidle baby wingnut have his mind blown by an epiphany? You're as much of a brain dead partisan troll as an Obamabot. The centrist way would be to phase out coal over ten years while building nuclear. The leftist way would be to take a cool trillion dollars out of the annual imperial budget, and spend it on wind, solar and mass transit. Which, by the way, would only lead to the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen due to the number of jobs created.
Carbon trading is a conservative, capitalist "solution" to climate change, and that's just a fact you're going to have fucking deal with.
Um, are you fucking kidding with that question?
1) Long before 911, the United States was busy bombing and occupying Muslim countries, overthrowing their governments, backing brutal dictatorships throughout the region, including but not limited to Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That means that of cooooourse the United States was a threat to Muslims.
2) You do know the 911 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, right? Right? Not only is the U.S. not bombing the Saudis, it's selling billions of dollars worth of bombs to the Saudis.
But you're either stupid or lying, as Muslims have long condemned terrorism.
What's that? I'm sorry, it's hard to hear you when your head is buried so far up your ass. That the United States has given weapons, money and training to the very "terrorists" you're complaining about, as long as they are supporting "regime change" in Syria, is as indisputable as the fact that Iraq had no WMD's and nothing to do with 911 prior to the 2003 invasion.
Except Christianity. But that's to be expected from hypocritical, racist Islamophobes. Whenever someone who happens to be Muslim engages in violence, it's because he his Muslim. When people who are Christian engage in violence - whether it be the the IRA, dominionists in the U.S. military, or the KKK - it never has anything to do with their religion.
And, back to square one with the racist dumbfuckery: Muslims aren't flying drones over Mexico or Argentina, murdering people with impunity. Muslims haven't invaded Iceland and set up a puppet government. Muslims haven't run a world-wide kidnapping and torture program, nor are they continuing to hold people in Gitmo that have been cleared for release for a decade.
Watching American Exceptionalists whine about violent Muslims is like watching Zombie Ted Bundy lecture Chris Brown on his bad attitude towards women.