This is insane. The edge of the plate travels 3km a minute:
Well, it certainly is fast for such a small platter, but I recall servicing the old HP7906 removable platter disks back in the early '80s. During one of our moments of boredom, we did the math, and came up with a figure somewhere around 170mph on the outer edge of the disk. Granted, those platters were huge in comparison. I tried to find some specs, but had no luck in my five min. search.
...but consider that it takes 250 hours to get the average character to 60.
Ok, I've played since open beta, and am working on my sixth main toon (and yes, they're all 60s). I know you can get to 60 in 250 hrs. However, the average is easily more double that. It's really only the powerlevelers, and those who are on a mission that get to 60 in under twenty days (480 hrs) of played time. I've been in some of the top guilds on several servers, and usually take just under 20 days, but then I'm trying to actually enjoy the game content rather than zoom by it all.
I've had an interview, was nervous but relieved when I got the job. Then shortly after saying I had the positions he said "you were the worst interviewee I've had in a long time, I almost didn't give you the job". I was completely crushed by that, especially considering it was a pretty crappy job (night filler at tescos) and it made me feel down for a long long time. It was just such a nasty thing to say to someone whether it was true or not (I'm extremely shy and introverted and that kinda thing does nothing for my confidence).
First of all: Tell people they haven't got the job, in a letter preferably. Nothing worse then not knowing. If you have critisism, disguise it and make it in regards to other candidates (the successfull applicant showed a much stronger knowledge of xyz). Chances are they know their skill shortcomings but occasionally they won't and you have to be sure that you don't critisize something so heavily it destroys them.
Ok, so the interviewer wasn't tactful, but in all honesty, he was doing you a favor by pointing out your weakness. Now you've got something to work on. Like it or not, the job market is competitive. And, it's not the function of an interviewer to coddle everyone that comes looking for work. If you can't compete, you'll end up staying at the bottom of the food chain. It's often those same skills that are necessary to ask for a raise. If you can't be convincing, and assertive, few employers are going to give you what you (may) deserve. Now that you've got the job, be happy that you've got a boss who will tell you where you stand. It's really much worse having one that won't, or who lies to you.
...that we've had all those missiles in Wyoming pointed at the USSR/Russia for decades, and they actually got the first strike. It used to be common practice for both sides to occasionally test the others reactions in various ways. So, having not RTFA, and putting on my tin foil hat, I wonder if this was truely debris, or could it have been been an "accident" to test our defenses?
7 lawyers making $100/hour working about 6 months (40 hours workweeks, no overtime) would account for it.
For those of you questioning the parents $100/hr. number, you've probably never been to an attorney. My divorce lawyer was billing $150/hr. ten years ago. Shit, my company bills more than that for my time, and I'm not getting anywhere near that. You need to realize that the figure isn't necessarily what the person is making, but what the firm charges. Wrapped into that figure are all the overhead charges that go along with running a business...cost of the office, electricity, phone bill, advertising, paying the staff, etc., etc.
Even if it's yelling fire in a theater (or similar action), or conspiracy to commit a crime, freedom of speech should never be inhibited publically.
There, fixed that for you.
There may be (civil) consequences if such speech causes someone harm through malice or negligence, but the speech itself must still be permitted. The 1st Amendment makes no provision for any exceptions: the government cannot legally act to prevent or punish any speech, regardless of the content or circumstances. If harm comes of the speech, the speaker may be held responsible for the harm, not the speech itself.
When speech is the direct cause of harm to others then it becomes criminal, not a civil issue. The govt. can, and the supreme court has ruled so, legally act to punish this type of speech. You're correct that there is no provision in the 1st Amendment, but you couldn't expect the founders to have thought of every contingency when writing the document.
Ok, as a lifelong conservative, I find the thought of limiting anyones freedom of speech morally offensive (note the sarcasm in my subject line). Unless it's yelling fire in a theater (or similar action), or conspiracy to commit a crime, freedom of speech should never be inhibited publically. I didn't RTFA, but Newt is off his rocker on this one (and a few others), though I'll defend his right to speak his mind.
``What we are learning about the Internet is that it reflects life and that the Internet is not -- contrary to what some people might think -- more sexual than people are in general.'' That might be the most insightful thing that I've read all week...
Well, we know that they couldn't have been polling the statistics for Slashdot readers...1% would be way more sex than we're getting.
I plan on going down to the local BB and talking to the person in the iPod Video department. The conversation with the clerk should go like this... ----------- Clerk: Welcome to Best Buy, Can I help you find something today? Me: Sure, I was looking at getting an iPod video that you have over here. Clerk: Were you looking at the 20GB or the 40GB? (Blah blah blah) Me: Well I was interested in the 40GB and I wanted to bring in my DVD movies for you to put on there. I have them in the car. Clerk: Sir, we are unable to put your DVD movies on the iPod at this time. blah blah blah Me: Oh, I was just over at Circuit City and they were willing to do it for $10 a movie. What would you charge? Clerk: Sir, we don't offer that service Me: Ok. Thanks for your help.
Nice try, but your typical sales dweeb isn't going to get this information passed back up the chain to anyone who can make a difference. And, unless several peeps do it to the same sales dweeb, it's unlikely to get any up-chain feedback at all. I'm not offering a better solution, but you need to somehow get the attention of the decision makers. Good luck (seriously).
I've actually had a conversations start with "Finally, someone in North America.", "Great, a Canadian. Better you than India." and many other anti-offshore statements.
These kind of comments aside, people are more likely expressing relief at being able to speak with someone that they can actually understand. Thick accents of any kind are a hinderance to communication, and isn't that the point of a customer service desk?
I've got my own feelings regarding outsourcing, however when I call a companies 800 number it's not normally what I'm thinking about unless I'm connected with someone that's difficult to talk to.
All these years I just figured I was lazy, but now I know that it's my employers fault for exposing me to all these computers.
But seriously now, anyone not living in a third world country (and even most of them) is exposed to electrical noise. How can anyone not look at this "study" in a skeptical light? We can probably expect the lawsuits to start any day now, along with the excuses...why yes officer, I did shoot my wife, but it was the electricity that made me do it.
There exists several legitimate ways to keep your web content out of google's indexes. They respect all of the following methods. Google even has a page titled "Google information for webmasters" which documents most of these. On what grounds does one have to sue?
Disclaimer: I'm not defending the lawsuit, just poking at the above.
Ok, I've seen this arguement several times, so I've gotta reply. You don't need to learn HTML to make content for a web page, so why do you expect every author to do so? Should they also have to go and look at every other search engines info for webmasters??? Having not RTFA, I'm now wondering if Google even existed when he published. Also, why should they have to opt-out...it's a good thing here, but a bad thing for spam??? And one last point...what legal standing do any of these hold...exactly none, right?...while, like it or not, copyright still does.
All that said, I am happy to see Google win this case.
Well, you can leave your cell phones on down south if you wish, but GPS is routinely used by Alaska airlines pilots to land under less than optimal (but distressingly typical) weather conditions.
So, they didn't make these landings prior to the availability of GPS?!? Gonna call bullshit on this one. And, FWIW, I've made a few precision approaches, without GPS myself.
I've heard the predictions for the end of Moore's Law, but haven't paid attention to the reasoning behind them. Is there some (sub)atomic barrier that is supposed to cause this? I was curious if further technological breakthroughs wouldn't prove these predictions incorrect. What would the predictions have been 20 or 30 years ago for our current tech? I doubt few, if any, were able to guess correctly.
From TFA: Previous studies have shown that people with high levels of education are less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease. The new study shows that the brains of more educated people can tolerate changes for longer periods of time, meaning signs of decreased mental agility typical of Alzheimer's disease appear later. When those signs do appear, the disease progresses faster than it does in less educated patients.
So, the more educated are actually less likely to have symptoms at the same age. I'm curious how they measured the drop off in ability, and the article doesn't say.
(Before you object to any of the above speculation, please convince me that at any given moment, a plane actually cannot be found for the Prime Minister of Anywhere, and it is more secure to be a known grounded sitting duck? Right. If so, fire your entire staff now please, your life is in grave danger...)
Disclaimer: I know nothing of the politics involved, and this is neither a pro or anti-Blair commentary.
Ok, so are you suggesting that the "Prime Minister of Anywhere" would be flying on just any plane? Wouldn't his normal transportation include communications suites, and electronic warefare equipment (to help defend it against SAMs, and air-to-air weapons)? Or, would you expect that they'd just rent an airliner for the day? Do you suppose that if he was already at some location, that security just might have already taken necessary precautions for his safety before he even arrived? Do you suppose that those same security folks just might have an escape plan or two in the event of a real emergency? Somehow, I'm doubting that he'd be a "sitting duck", though I do wonder if he's carrying his new ID card.
Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.
You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?
When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they're not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.
Having come from a rather large Catholic family, and having attended CCD and Catholic schools that were teaching "the one true religion" back in the 60s, I'm wondering when exactly it was that I became skeptical. Was it arrogant of me to not trust in the "experiences and knowledge of others"? I understand the point that you're trying to make, but there are numerous examples where blindly believing what everyone is saying ends up being simply wrong.
Heroin, Allen wrenches, and I think Spandex (Hence the new name Lycra) are all examples of this. There are many more, and there are plenty of companies that have trademarks that would appear to be in danger of "genericide" (the apparent legal term).
Also rumored to be on the list...aspirin (originally TM'ed by Bayer), kleenex, xerox, and ski-doo.
In the late 1980s I saw the same thing happen with a Hyundai. Motoring magazines reported on a really nice sporty little car they'd prototyped. It was really cute two door, a unique looking convertible that would have sold like hotcakes. Then as it got closer & closer to release it gained full rear seats instead of being a 2+2 layout. Then it got a bigger trunk for more luggage, a fatter roofline for more rear-seat passenger room. The "radical" front styling was softened, then it was given another two doors. In the end it was just another small four door hyundai, and when released was received so poorly it never made it out of Asia.
A press statement from Hyundai stated something along the lines of "market anticipation failed to convert to sales" when it was canned. That's because the beancounters, the conservative marketers massages the product into something virtually the antithesis of the original product the market built up its anticipation about.
Have you considered the possibility that the Hyundais of the late 80s were simply pieces of crap? I lived in Korea during those years, and the shit that Detroit was putting out looked like diamonds compared to Hyundai. The only thing they had going for them initially was the pricing, and the fact that most Americans didn't realize the difference between Japanese and Korean quality. It didn't take too long for Hyundai to improve though...by the early 90s, the quality (not safety though) of their vehicles improved dramatically.
You, sir (or ma'am), have captured the issue perfectly: the telcos charge a fixed rate for access to lines, and they want the freedom to jack up the rates on a case-by-case basis for those services that are enjoying enough success to be able to afford it.
Disclaimer: I haven't formed an opinion on this, I'm just raising the questions for debate...
At the risk of being off-topic, why do some people feel it's ok for the IRS to do virtually the same thing with tiered tax levels, instead of making everyone pay the same percentage? Should a small (less profitable) business get a break? Having not RTFA, I'm wondering if many of the posted opinions aren't based upon who the players are (beloved Google and evil Telco), rather than on the issues.
Well, then,you have a problem. Apparently you either don't understand or don't care that teh Republicans you vote for do exactly what Bush or other party leaders tell them to do. So if you oppose Bush, Patriot Act, etc., you have been voting against your own interests. Another possibility, I suppose, is that (like far too many people) you have some minor "hot button" issue and allow that one thing to bias your voting choices.
Well, then, you appear to be living in a black & white world, and not the one where there are a myriad of issues, and you won't agree with all of the positions taken by any given president. Yes, "teh Republicans" do vote for what their party leaders tell them, as do "the Democrats", because that's the way the political game is played. It doesn't mean that one can't work to get those "leaders" changed. Those of us that are more center leaning have tended to be less vocal, and that's definately a problem. One of the things that the party leadership doesn't seem to understand is that they really don't need to kiss the asses of the far right because they're going to vote party line no matter what. It's those in the middle that cause elections to be won and lost. When you say that I'm voting against my own interests, it's all a matter of which issues I feel are most important, and which candidate I think will do the most good (or least harm). I tend not to vote for candidates like Ted "Chappaquidock" Kennedy, Jessie "paternity" Jackson, Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Tom "finance fraud" Delay, or anyone that surrounds themselves with people like these, and holds them up as "leaders. I was taught that you can judge a person by the friends they keep, and if you think it's wrong to judge people then what exactly are you doing when you cast a vote?
It's not just their religious constituency that trumps science for the Republicans; they routinely intervene on behalf of their corporate benefactors, as well. Hence the constant interference in environmental and climate-related research.
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
I love all this sterotyping of Republicans. It truely shows that you have no concept of the meaning of the word, or the demographic. Just because I tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that I've got anything in common with Jessie Helms, or George Bush. How's this one for you...I don't go to church, I'm pro-choice, against the Patriot Act, and against wiretapping without getting the damn warrents...and, oh yeah, I like science.
This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party. It is unethical, incompatible with democracy, and illegal.
Ah, the slippery slope arguement. I'll agree that the action against the policemen would be all of those three, but don't see any linkage between that and this kind of case.
Sure the employee is free to believe and act however they wish outside of work, but only up to the point where it can have an affect on the business. If the customers find out that my employees are opposed to them, then the employee has become a liability, and must be terminated...nothing unethical, incompatible with democracy, or illegal about it.
Who ever said that getting the whole picture was easy or quick? It's your whole attitude of consulting some other "trusted" source, rather than investigating the matter on your own, which leads to people being easily manipulated.
Unfortunately, that happened to many Americans during the run-up to the ongoing war in Iraq. Most Americans didn't investigate the claims made by politicians and the media, and thus were ignorant to the fact that they were being seriously mislead.
A nice segway from on-topic to off. But, presuming that any normal individual had the time on his/her hands, how would you suggest that one accomplish such an investigation? Certainly, none of us want to be "easily manipulated". Please give some concrete examples of how the average American could have become enlightened when nearly all of our information comes from politicians and media. Now, I'm giving you shit here because there really was no way for that to happen.
At the time, I personally questioned the lack of evidence available to the public. When so much of that data is classified, we can only rely on our elected representatives. And, those individuals whose job it is to give oversight did a piss poor job of it. Heads should have rolled.
Slashdot Mirror
This is insane. The edge of the plate travels 3km a minute:
Well, it certainly is fast for such a small platter, but I recall servicing the old HP7906 removable platter disks back in the early '80s. During one of our moments of boredom, we did the math, and came up with a figure somewhere around 170mph on the outer edge of the disk. Granted, those platters were huge in comparison. I tried to find some specs, but had no luck in my five min. search.
...but consider that it takes 250 hours to get the average character to 60.
Ok, I've played since open beta, and am working on my sixth main toon (and yes, they're all 60s). I know you can get to 60 in 250 hrs. However, the average is easily more double that. It's really only the powerlevelers, and those who are on a mission that get to 60 in under twenty days (480 hrs) of played time. I've been in some of the top guilds on several servers, and usually take just under 20 days, but then I'm trying to actually enjoy the game content rather than zoom by it all.
I've had an interview, was nervous but relieved when I got the job. Then shortly after saying I had the positions he said "you were the worst interviewee I've had in a long time, I almost didn't give you the job". I was completely crushed by that, especially considering it was a pretty crappy job (night filler at tescos) and it made me feel down for a long long time. It was just such a nasty thing to say to someone whether it was true or not (I'm extremely shy and introverted and that kinda thing does nothing for my confidence).
First of all: Tell people they haven't got the job, in a letter preferably. Nothing worse then not knowing. If you have critisism, disguise it and make it in regards to other candidates (the successfull applicant showed a much stronger knowledge of xyz). Chances are they know their skill shortcomings but occasionally they won't and you have to be sure that you don't critisize something so heavily it destroys them.
Ok, so the interviewer wasn't tactful, but in all honesty, he was doing you a favor by pointing out your weakness. Now you've got something to work on. Like it or not, the job market is competitive. And, it's not the function of an interviewer to coddle everyone that comes looking for work. If you can't compete, you'll end up staying at the bottom of the food chain. It's often those same skills that are necessary to ask for a raise. If you can't be convincing, and assertive, few employers are going to give you what you (may) deserve. Now that you've got the job, be happy that you've got a boss who will tell you where you stand. It's really much worse having one that won't, or who lies to you.
...that we've had all those missiles in Wyoming pointed at the USSR/Russia for decades, and they actually got the first strike. It used to be common practice for both sides to occasionally test the others reactions in various ways. So, having not RTFA, and putting on my tin foil hat, I wonder if this was truely debris, or could it have been been an "accident" to test our defenses?
c ekeeper/Peacekeeper_Missile_Home_Page.htm
Related link: http://www.strategic-air-command.com/missiles/Pea
7 lawyers making $100/hour working about 6 months (40 hours workweeks, no overtime) would account for it.
For those of you questioning the parents $100/hr. number, you've probably never been to an attorney. My divorce lawyer was billing $150/hr. ten years ago. Shit, my company bills more than that for my time, and I'm not getting anywhere near that. You need to realize that the figure isn't necessarily what the person is making, but what the firm charges. Wrapped into that figure are all the overhead charges that go along with running a business...cost of the office, electricity, phone bill, advertising, paying the staff, etc., etc.
Even if it's yelling fire in a theater (or similar action), or conspiracy to commit a crime, freedom of speech should never be inhibited publically.
There, fixed that for you.
There may be (civil) consequences if such speech causes someone harm through malice or negligence, but the speech itself must still be permitted. The 1st Amendment makes no provision for any exceptions: the government cannot legally act to prevent or punish any speech, regardless of the content or circumstances. If harm comes of the speech, the speaker may be held responsible for the harm, not the speech itself.
When speech is the direct cause of harm to others then it becomes criminal, not a civil issue. The govt. can, and the supreme court has ruled so, legally act to punish this type of speech. You're correct that there is no provision in the 1st Amendment, but you couldn't expect the founders to have thought of every contingency when writing the document.
Ok, as a lifelong conservative, I find the thought of limiting anyones freedom of speech morally offensive (note the sarcasm in my subject line). Unless it's yelling fire in a theater (or similar action), or conspiracy to commit a crime, freedom of speech should never be inhibited publically. I didn't RTFA, but Newt is off his rocker on this one (and a few others), though I'll defend his right to speak his mind.
``What we are learning about the Internet is that it reflects life and that the Internet is not -- contrary to what some people might think -- more sexual than people are in general.''
That might be the most insightful thing that I've read all week...
Well, we know that they couldn't have been polling the statistics for Slashdot readers...1% would be way more sex than we're getting.
And another thing... goldfish jump out of their bowls and *die*. Yep, self destructing is sure a smart thing to do. NOT!
And what do you suppose the suicide rate for slashdotters is? Posts like this make me want to slit my wrists!
I plan on going down to the local BB and talking to the person in the iPod Video department.
The conversation with the clerk should go like this...
-----------
Clerk: Welcome to Best Buy, Can I help you find something today?
Me: Sure, I was looking at getting an iPod video that you have over here.
Clerk: Were you looking at the 20GB or the 40GB? (Blah blah blah)
Me: Well I was interested in the 40GB and I wanted to bring in my DVD movies for you to put on there. I have them in the car.
Clerk: Sir, we are unable to put your DVD movies on the iPod at this time. blah blah blah
Me: Oh, I was just over at Circuit City and they were willing to do it for $10 a movie. What would you charge?
Clerk: Sir, we don't offer that service
Me: Ok. Thanks for your help.
Nice try, but your typical sales dweeb isn't going to get this information passed back up the chain to anyone who can make a difference. And, unless several peeps do it to the same sales dweeb, it's unlikely to get any up-chain feedback at all. I'm not offering a better solution, but you need to somehow get the attention of the decision makers. Good luck (seriously).
I've actually had a conversations start with "Finally, someone in North America.", "Great, a Canadian. Better you than India." and many other anti-offshore statements.
These kind of comments aside, people are more likely expressing relief at being able to speak with someone that they can actually understand. Thick accents of any kind are a hinderance to communication, and isn't that the point of a customer service desk?
I've got my own feelings regarding outsourcing, however when I call a companies 800 number it's not normally what I'm thinking about unless I'm connected with someone that's difficult to talk to.
All these years I just figured I was lazy, but now I know that it's my employers fault for exposing me to all these computers.
But seriously now, anyone not living in a third world country (and even most of them) is exposed to electrical noise. How can anyone not look at this "study" in a skeptical light? We can probably expect the lawsuits to start any day now, along with the excuses...why yes officer, I did shoot my wife, but it was the electricity that made me do it.
There exists several legitimate ways to keep your web content out of google's indexes. They respect all of the following methods. Google even has a page titled "Google information for webmasters" which documents most of these. On what grounds does one have to sue?
Disclaimer: I'm not defending the lawsuit, just poking at the above.
Ok, I've seen this arguement several times, so I've gotta reply. You don't need to learn HTML to make content for a web page, so why do you expect every author to do so? Should they also have to go and look at every other search engines info for webmasters??? Having not RTFA, I'm now wondering if Google even existed when he published. Also, why should they have to opt-out...it's a good thing here, but a bad thing for spam??? And one last point...what legal standing do any of these hold...exactly none, right?...while, like it or not, copyright still does.
All that said, I am happy to see Google win this case.
Well, you can leave your cell phones on down south if you wish, but GPS is routinely used by Alaska airlines pilots to land under less than optimal (but distressingly typical) weather conditions.
So, they didn't make these landings prior to the availability of GPS?!? Gonna call bullshit on this one. And, FWIW, I've made a few precision approaches, without GPS myself.
I've heard the predictions for the end of Moore's Law, but haven't paid attention to the reasoning behind them. Is there some (sub)atomic barrier that is supposed to cause this? I was curious if further technological breakthroughs wouldn't prove these predictions incorrect. What would the predictions have been 20 or 30 years ago for our current tech? I doubt few, if any, were able to guess correctly.
From TFA:
Previous studies have shown that people with high levels of education are less likely to develop Alzheimer's disease. The new study shows that the brains of more educated people can tolerate changes for longer periods of time, meaning signs of decreased mental agility typical of Alzheimer's disease appear later. When those signs do appear, the disease progresses faster than it does in less educated patients.
So, the more educated are actually less likely to have symptoms at the same age. I'm curious how they measured the drop off in ability, and the article doesn't say.
(Before you object to any of the above speculation, please convince me that at any given moment, a plane actually cannot be found for the Prime Minister of Anywhere, and it is more secure to be a known grounded sitting duck? Right. If so, fire your entire staff now please, your life is in grave danger...)
Disclaimer: I know nothing of the politics involved, and this is neither a pro or anti-Blair commentary.
Ok, so are you suggesting that the "Prime Minister of Anywhere" would be flying on just any plane? Wouldn't his normal transportation include communications suites, and electronic warefare equipment (to help defend it against SAMs, and air-to-air weapons)? Or, would you expect that they'd just rent an airliner for the day? Do you suppose that if he was already at some location, that security just might have already taken necessary precautions for his safety before he even arrived? Do you suppose that those same security folks just might have an escape plan or two in the event of a real emergency? Somehow, I'm doubting that he'd be a "sitting duck", though I do wonder if he's carrying his new ID card.
Absolute skepticism is arrogance, or at least an utter lack of trust in the experiences and knowledge of others.
You hear something from a friend, but you're skeptical, so you go look it up. You find ten other people that agree with what your friend said, but you're skeptical of them. Where does it end?
When people say absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain, they're not lying; it is impossible. Eventually you have to give in to trust.
Having come from a rather large Catholic family, and having attended CCD and Catholic schools that were teaching "the one true religion" back in the 60s, I'm wondering when exactly it was that I became skeptical. Was it arrogant of me to not trust in the "experiences and knowledge of others"? I understand the point that you're trying to make, but there are numerous examples where blindly believing what everyone is saying ends up being simply wrong.
Heroin, Allen wrenches, and I think Spandex (Hence the new name Lycra) are all examples of this. There are many more, and there are plenty of companies that have trademarks that would appear to be in danger of "genericide" (the apparent legal term).
Also rumored to be on the list...aspirin (originally TM'ed by Bayer), kleenex, xerox, and ski-doo.
In the late 1980s I saw the same thing happen with a Hyundai. Motoring magazines reported on a really nice sporty little car they'd prototyped. It was really cute two door, a unique looking convertible that would have sold like hotcakes. Then as it got closer & closer to release it gained full rear seats instead of being a 2+2 layout. Then it got a bigger trunk for more luggage, a fatter roofline for more rear-seat passenger room. The "radical" front styling was softened, then it was given another two doors. In the end it was just another small four door hyundai, and when released was received so poorly it never made it out of Asia.
A press statement from Hyundai stated something along the lines of "market anticipation failed to convert to sales" when it was canned. That's because the beancounters, the conservative marketers massages the product into something virtually the antithesis of the original product the market built up its anticipation about.
Have you considered the possibility that the Hyundais of the late 80s were simply pieces of crap? I lived in Korea during those years, and the shit that Detroit was putting out looked like diamonds compared to Hyundai. The only thing they had going for them initially was the pricing, and the fact that most Americans didn't realize the difference between Japanese and Korean quality. It didn't take too long for Hyundai to improve though...by the early 90s, the quality (not safety though) of their vehicles improved dramatically.
You, sir (or ma'am), have captured the issue perfectly: the telcos charge a fixed rate for access to lines, and they want the freedom to jack up the rates on a case-by-case basis for those services that are enjoying enough success to be able to afford it.
Disclaimer: I haven't formed an opinion on this, I'm just raising the questions for debate...
At the risk of being off-topic, why do some people feel it's ok for the IRS to do virtually the same thing with tiered tax levels, instead of making everyone pay the same percentage? Should a small (less profitable) business get a break? Having not RTFA, I'm wondering if many of the posted opinions aren't based upon who the players are (beloved Google and evil Telco), rather than on the issues.
Well, then,you have a problem. Apparently you either don't understand or don't care that teh Republicans you vote for do exactly what Bush or other party leaders tell them to do. So if you oppose Bush, Patriot Act, etc., you have been voting against your own interests.
Another possibility, I suppose, is that (like far too many people) you have some minor "hot button" issue and allow that one thing to bias your voting choices.
Well, then, you appear to be living in a black & white world, and not the one where there are a myriad of issues, and you won't agree with all of the positions taken by any given president. Yes, "teh Republicans" do vote for what their party leaders tell them, as do "the Democrats", because that's the way the political game is played. It doesn't mean that one can't work to get those "leaders" changed. Those of us that are more center leaning have tended to be less vocal, and that's definately a problem. One of the things that the party leadership doesn't seem to understand is that they really don't need to kiss the asses of the far right because they're going to vote party line no matter what. It's those in the middle that cause elections to be won and lost. When you say that I'm voting against my own interests, it's all a matter of which issues I feel are most important, and which candidate I think will do the most good (or least harm). I tend not to vote for candidates like Ted "Chappaquidock" Kennedy, Jessie "paternity" Jackson, Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton, Tom "finance fraud" Delay, or anyone that surrounds themselves with people like these, and holds them up as "leaders. I was taught that you can judge a person by the friends they keep, and if you think it's wrong to judge people then what exactly are you doing when you cast a vote?
It's not just their religious constituency that trumps science for the Republicans; they routinely intervene on behalf of their corporate benefactors, as well. Hence the constant interference in environmental and climate-related research.
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
I love all this sterotyping of Republicans. It truely shows that you have no concept of the meaning of the word, or the demographic. Just because I tend to vote Republican doesn't mean that I've got anything in common with Jessie Helms, or George Bush. How's this one for you...I don't go to church, I'm pro-choice, against the Patriot Act, and against wiretapping without getting the damn warrents...and, oh yeah, I like science.
This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party. It is unethical, incompatible with democracy, and illegal.
Ah, the slippery slope arguement. I'll agree that the action against the policemen would be all of those three, but don't see any linkage between that and this kind of case.
Sure the employee is free to believe and act however they wish outside of work, but only up to the point where it can have an affect on the business. If the customers find out that my employees are opposed to them, then the employee has become a liability, and must be terminated...nothing unethical, incompatible with democracy, or illegal about it.
Who ever said that getting the whole picture was easy or quick? It's your whole attitude of consulting some other "trusted" source, rather than investigating the matter on your own, which leads to people being easily manipulated.
Unfortunately, that happened to many Americans during the run-up to the ongoing war in Iraq. Most Americans didn't investigate the claims made by politicians and the media, and thus were ignorant to the fact that they were being seriously mislead.
A nice segway from on-topic to off. But, presuming that any normal individual had the time on his/her hands, how would you suggest that one accomplish such an investigation? Certainly, none of us want to be "easily manipulated". Please give some concrete examples of how the average American could have become enlightened when nearly all of our information comes from politicians and media. Now, I'm giving you shit here because there really was no way for that to happen.
At the time, I personally questioned the lack of evidence available to the public. When so much of that data is classified, we can only rely on our elected representatives. And, those individuals whose job it is to give oversight did a piss poor job of it. Heads should have rolled.