I don't know how long Slashdot lets us post, either. This thread is getting long and deep. We have strayed off the topic of Georgy anyway. Better forums for general political discussion are powervacuum.org (slash) and poliglut.org (phpnuke). I hope to start one of my own in the future (also based on slash), but I have no idea when that will be. Indeed we have strayed. And I should really be do something different now. When you start your own site, lett me know. I was thinking in similar lines, but that will take at least another 5 years. Thanks for the links.
I will reflect (again) on the recieved comments in a few days, and perhaps we'll talk again.
last note: TJ, I think it was. You're right. you can make those ads. I might not like it, but I should defend you freedom to make them. I forgot that, sorry.
You said (and say again later in this message) that there is no need for private funding. Spending money myself is private funding. So are you for or against privately funded campaigns?
I regard private funding has handing your money over to to candidates, so that they decides what happens with your money. So what is the difference between that and having the Gov. give it? You don't have it and you have no control over it. They can do with it whatever they can, within the bounds of the law. (this is about how you spend it, not how much you get. And all laws apply equally.)
The campaign process is part of the electoral process. Whether you like it, or not. Yes, you are right. I like this popularity contest no more than you.
For me the steam is the idea's they have, not the money they can spend on spreading them. (read: spreading as people knowing and being aware of them)
Control of politics? You have no control of politics. The only thing you can do is either run or vote. When you run, you are at the mercy of the moneydonators and when you vote, you are at the mercy of whoever has the most money. Or do you believe that everyone is interested in politics as we are? Do you think that the majority of the voters do research into their candidates? They just watch TV. And regardless of any debate, ads have major influence. Weather you admit that influence or not. And more money = more ads.
Yes the system is fucked up, and private funding is part of it. Perhaps you find limiting private funding anti-freedom. Then perhaps you find that Europe is not democratic?
I don't know how long we can keep this up. How long before submitting new comments is shut down on/.
It's also unlikely that I will be able to continue this today or tomorrow, due to other obligations. However I am enjoying this debate. Perhaps you can point me to a suitable place to continue this or similar topics.
Would a "serious" candidate like Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamente get more than a joke candidate like Gary Coleman? again: everyone the same. The voter decides who is serious and who is not, not the gov.
In this current race for instance would you give the same government funds to all 115 certified candidates? To all 247 that tried to get certified?
I can not comment on the system for certification, since I don't know it. But 115 candidates seems excessive.
Besides the fact that I have indeed a very bad memory. (don't laugh, it aint funny) I don't know what you are talking about, I am not all that familiar with your history. I know about your first amendment, but I never studied it in great detail. Neither do I know the motivations/justifications/arguments of your founding fathers or what kinds of free speech your are reffering too. My lousy english should have told you that I am not american. Offcourse I support/defend freedom of speech.
Anyway, I don't regard advertising as free speech. Sure you can make ads, can you also make one for the KKK? Or for the Nazi-party? Or for the Apartheids-regime? Or one in support of Saddam? Or one that says that all arabs should commit acts of terror in or against the USA?
No? I thought so. So where is your freedom of speech?
Ads, in my view are simply trying to alter your behavior. The try to suduce you. They are not means of information, but of manipulation.
What you do with your money is your own matter. Where I live, TV/radio is supposed to be independent due to their enormous influence. So there organise shows/debates where all the majors parties (about 7) get their share of attention. Offcourse some always compline. Newspapers on the other hand are free to write whatever they want.
...of challengers all with the same amount of money and the same ability to be heard with no chance for one to eclipse the others by spending more.
If the only way you can distance yourself from your opponents is by spending more money, then more then ever do I pity your democracy. If spending money is the only way to get elected, pfff...
I prefer a good debate. I prefer one with a good plan for the future, one with good idea's
I always try to ignore political ads. I listen to the debates on TV and radio. (hell, I even asked a question once). I try to go to debates. I try to vote for those who are capable.
Yes, those in office have an advantage. But that advantage doesn't go away, when you lett everyone take what they can.
I did not say that you, yourself could not spend your money into organizing a debate.
Getting elected should not be about making the most publicity, being the most liked person or being the most known or popular person.
It should be about idea's, about capabilities, about honour and truth. Okay, perhaps with the last I am expecting too much.
If you give every candidate enough money so that they can share their idea's, goals,... with the voters, then there is no need for private funding. And by sharing idea's, I don't mean a lame TV-ad with saying; "Vote for me". I mean more about handing out leaflets, creating a website, writing and spreading a book, going to debates (both local (schools, community house) as on TV/radio.
If a person whole-heartedly supports a canidate, they should still have ways of promoting their campaign.
Vote for the candidate?
Okay, perhaps you can help with the campaign. You can try to discuss with your friends and try to change their vote through arguments/facts.
I have supported my choice by changing the vote of family members. i was indeed able to change their mind. I think they rather have your vote, then your money.
Join the party.
Support != (always) giving money
...that government would favor those politicians that are closeer to their political views.
Everyone that runs gets money. Not just those who are liked by the current administration.
Actually such a practise is closer to the Soviet Politburea where the "elected government" choosed thoose that should replace them.
Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I said that candidates get money from the gov so they can run their campaign. i did not say that the gov handpick the candidates.
Your system is not an open system. Popular people get more attention and more thus more money. The more money they have, the more publicity they can make, thus getting even more popular and more money. Name recognition goes a long way to start this cycle. Also, if you get private money, you might want to more from the same. So you start to kiss ass. You have, in effect been bought.
Democraty is not about giving and recieving money. It's about saying and defending your idea's It's about the voter who wants to see the person in office who can represent that voter. If everyone gives what he can, then you get a democracy of the rich.
Good for business is not always good for the people or for the country.
I see your campaign contributions as one of the greatest flaws of your democracy, besides the fact that the USA is a one-party country.
The right to receive contributions is for everyone, whatever policy they have.
If the government gives every candidate the same amount of money, and at the same time forbid the acceptance of contributions or use of personal money. Than every person - poor or rich - has the same means to get elected.
Campaign contributions are NOT a natural part of democracy. They are rather a threat for democracy, and should be avoided at all costs.
The voters are just a collection of people and don't have to answer to parliament (european or otherwise), just ourselves. Don't feel bad that you have no legal recourse to stop us from voting for or against you, you silly electee, it's like we care what you say in parliament. Just keep being a good little servant of us.
Ask the accountant how much he saved.:)
You can indeed say that there's a 50% enhancement. But money saved means to me, money not spend. So I stick to my 1/3.
Percentages are notoriously misleading
Indeed percentages can be tricky. I try not to use them. I just hope you are not working on the next Mars Lander. no, thanks. I'll stick to fusion. I'll try to stay away numbers or percentages, though.:)
From the article: "If you can keep a machine running at acceptable levels of performance for three years rather than two, you've just saved 50% on hardware costs," McNutt says.
Consider a time span of 6 years. That is 2 linux computers or 3 windows computers.
I'd say that you've just saved 1/3 on hardware costs.
If mac os x doesn't work, you get your money back.
If windows doesn't work, you get a blue screen.
Not only that, with MS you can't even buy a computer without windows. Ever tried to buy a portable without windows because you wanted to use linux? Good luck.
Yes, you can't buy Apple without mac os x. But MS does not sell computers, as Apple does.
BTW, I bought a apple both for the hardware and for the OS. And I love it.
Suppose that the machine crashes only four times.
So what if half are caused by MS. Four crashes aren't that bad.
Indeed, the above is meaningless, as is saying half of the crashes are caused by MS.
At the very least, at least tell how many times it crashed in how many years.
Two crashes a day is worst then a 500 crashes in 10 years.
Or perhaps the/. crowd thinks that windows should be crashfree.
I am not much of a computer nerd and I don't know the reason why my machines crashes when they do. But Windows, mac os x and linux have crashed under my hands. I don't expect a computer to be crashfree - in the far future perhaps - so I like to know too; how many times in how many years.
You seem to think that I think that there are people who work more then 100 hours a week. I don't.
I do think that there are people that work more than 40 or 50 hours a week. I even know some. If you find that working 40 or 50 hours a week is acceptable, then I ask you this simple question.
Do you live to work, or do you work to live.
Because when you have to work that much, then I don't think that there is much time left for you, your family or any hobby.
But then again I live in social europe.
Of-course in some cases it could be justified. Perhaps when you want to get your own business of the ground. But it isn't when you just get a salary.
How many hours a week do you find acceptable?
Do you know people that work more then that or less then that?
Do you work more or less then that?
If you answer, I'll explain my question.
Don't you work to live, instead of living to work?
To be honest. I am a european student with absolutely no job experience. But I do hope, that I never end up in that kind of a situation. I am willing to do with less, if it means working less. I hope that by the time I do have to get a job, europe still have some kind of social laws. I guess that in bad economic times, I too would do almost everything to keep my job. But surely, there are limits.
Besides which, I'm sure you'd find if you visited that the Indian middle class is pretty comfortable by American standards as well. Smaller homes, maybe, perhaps one car instead of two, and maybe a few less gadgets, but they're far from starving, or having to work 16 hours a day seven days a week
Hmm? If you buy a smaller house instead a big one and only one car instead of two and a few gadgets less. Would you still have to work 16 hours a day, seven a week?
As a non-american, can someone explain how this recall works? Why it should be implemented? I don't mean the reason for this occurrence, but why recall at all is a possibility.
In belgium, we elect the parliament or city/town council. Those in power are those who have the majority in parliament/city/town. When they lose that support, everyone/that one person is send packing. Depending on the government level (city council,...,state, country) there can be early elections.
Please enlighten me. Thanks
In Belgium we are experimenting with this.
This is how it works in Belgium.
The government announces new elections.
Everyone gets by mail a voter-card. Voting is obligatorily.
Everyday people are selected to chair a voting-house/place. (sorry, don't know all the english words). They summon others, or ask friends to assist them in their task.
The city/town where you live provides the place and necessary equipment.
Voting-day
You go with your voting-card to the voting-house.
You give your voting-card and your national ID card (yep, scream hell./. we have national ID cards. wooheoo, scary...) to the person sitting there.
Two persons check their list with names (every person is assigned a voting-house, you don't get to choose where you vote) and tag your name.
Another person gives you the actual voting-card (different from the one you got at home. That one was a piece of paper. This new is some kind of smart-card)
You go to the vote-booth.
you insert the card into the voting-machine
you vote (it's impossibly to make mistakes. You can vote white space/blank)
You take your voting-card.
you go out of your vote-booth
you insert the card in a big recipientbox, which also counts the votes for faster and easier processing
Now remember tinfoil head wearing/.ers The smart-card was given to you randomly. It doesn't hold information relation to you. They are no camera's mounted that watch into the voting-booth. They are several people voting at the same time.
You go to the next person, who gives back your national id card and your voting-card. There is now a stamp on it, and it's your proof that you have voted.
Now the voting-house is closed.
The box containing the smart-cards is sealed and send to the countinghouse.
The countinghouse also is staffed by people from the people. Belgium is the only place in the world - so I was told - where the elections are completely held by the people. Yes, most people try to dodge serving, but every time enough people are found.
The machines give their numbers - if necessary you recount the smart-cards.
all votes are counted, the parliament is elected.
Now in the voting-house and countinghouse, there are always representatives from the parties present.
Foreigners are also present, to watch/control the elections. They, or the party reps can always raise hell, if something goes wrong. This has happened. Some districts even had to go vote again. Yes, you see. We don't fight it out in court, we revote.
Now you go home, and visit the site of the government and go over the code used. (try: www.belgium.be)
Now with all systems, digital, paper or otherwise. Trust and confidence in the system is needed. I, for one, have more confidence in the belgium system then in the american one.
After you voted, you can re-enter the card in the machine and see if it has registered you vote correctly. Changing it is impossible. If a smart-card is malfunctioning, you are entitled to a new one.
In the last election there was a trial-system. After voting, the machine would print you vote on a piece of paper.
this piece of paper, not containing any personal information, would also be collected and counted. To verify the electronic votes. Don't know what happened with that. The elections where right before the exams.
Now, this can't seem al that difficult to your technological high american society. Hey, you can build precision bombs, and find WMD with a sat.
Yeah, I know. the last few lines is trolling, but I just can't resist.
As a frequent bookreader, I can't imagine either reader a book on a computerscreen or a pda, or whatever.
But I am trying to hold back on my buying habits, because I hope that digital books (made out of digital paper) will come around soon.
I don't mind buying books, but they do take up a lot of space. And taking several books with you is also not very interesting.
So I am hoping that I can buy that digital book soon, and buy, download, store on HD, load up in digital book all those books I want to read sooner rather then later.
I went from a big phone (old model) to a new phone (a lot smaller in comparison) this year. The first thing I noticed was that the mic was further away from my mouth. This resulted in me having to talk louder for people to understand me.
Now, when I look at the pics of these things, I noticed that the mic is even further away from the mouth.
Do you have to scream to make yourself understand, or what?
How smaller can these things get? I mean the distance between ear and mouth isn't subject to Moore's law.
didn't even know the USN was running Linux on front-line ships.
Do you think that the rest of the world would fear the USA military so much if their front-line troops were running windows?
You don't need a huge penis, you need one that's bigger then that of your neighbours. That way, all the women around will come to you and with you.
Therefor spam will never stop, someone is always going to want a bigger one. ...
Oh, btw, no insult intended to the/. crowd here.
It would be a guess, but I think you're american.
Reading 30 year old - hugely out of date - books in a building whose fate is to make a small earthquake.
So sad.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how long Slashdot lets us post, either. This thread is getting long and deep. We have strayed off the topic of Georgy anyway. Better forums for general political discussion are powervacuum.org (slash) and poliglut.org (phpnuke). I hope to start one of my own in the future (also based on slash), but I have no idea when that will be.
Indeed we have strayed. And I should really be do something different now. When you start your own site, lett me know. I was thinking in similar lines, but that will take at least another 5 years. Thanks for the links.
I will reflect (again) on the recieved comments in a few days, and perhaps we'll talk again.
last note: TJ, I think it was. You're right. you can make those ads. I might not like it, but I should defend you freedom to make them. I forgot that, sorry.
I regard private funding has handing your money over to to candidates, so that they decides what happens with your money. So what is the difference between that and having the Gov. give it? You don't have it and you have no control over it. They can do with it whatever they can, within the bounds of the law. (this is about how you spend it, not how much you get. And all laws apply equally.)
The campaign process is part of the electoral process. Whether you like it, or not.
Yes, you are right. I like this popularity contest no more than you.
For me the steam is the idea's they have, not the money they can spend on spreading them. (read: spreading as people knowing and being aware of them)
Control of politics? You have no control of politics. The only thing you can do is either run or vote. When you run, you are at the mercy of the moneydonators and when you vote, you are at the mercy of whoever has the most money. Or do you believe that everyone is interested in politics as we are? Do you think that the majority of the voters do research into their candidates? They just watch TV. And regardless of any debate, ads have major influence. Weather you admit that influence or not. And more money = more ads.
Yes the system is fucked up, and private funding is part of it. Perhaps you find limiting private funding anti-freedom. Then perhaps you find that Europe is not democratic?
I don't know how long we can keep this up. How long before submitting new comments is shut down on
It's also unlikely that I will be able to continue this today or tomorrow, due to other obligations. However I am enjoying this debate. Perhaps you can point me to a suitable place to continue this or similar topics.
again: everyone the same. The voter decides who is serious and who is not, not the gov.
In this current race for instance would you give the same government funds to all 115 certified candidates? To all 247 that tried to get certified?
I can not comment on the system for certification, since I don't know it. But 115 candidates seems excessive.
Besides the fact that I have indeed a very bad memory. (don't laugh, it aint funny) I don't know what you are talking about, I am not all that familiar with your history. I know about your first amendment, but I never studied it in great detail. Neither do I know the motivations/justifications/arguments of your founding fathers or what kinds of free speech your are reffering too. My lousy english should have told you that I am not american. Offcourse I support/defend freedom of speech.
Anyway, I don't regard advertising as free speech. Sure you can make ads, can you also make one for the KKK? Or for the Nazi-party? Or for the Apartheids-regime? Or one in support of Saddam? Or one that says that all arabs should commit acts of terror in or against the USA?
No? I thought so. So where is your freedom of speech?
Ads, in my view are simply trying to alter your behavior. The try to suduce you. They are not means of information, but of manipulation.
What you do with your money is your own matter. Where I live, TV/radio is supposed to be independent due to their enormous influence. So there organise shows/debates where all the majors parties (about 7) get their share of attention. Offcourse some always compline. Newspapers on the other hand are free to write whatever they want.
If the only way you can distance yourself from your opponents is by spending more money, then more then ever do I pity your democracy. If spending money is the only way to get elected, pfff...
I prefer a good debate. I prefer one with a good plan for the future, one with good idea's
I always try to ignore political ads. I listen to the debates on TV and radio. (hell, I even asked a question once). I try to go to debates. I try to vote for those who are capable.
Yes, those in office have an advantage. But that advantage doesn't go away, when you lett everyone take what they can.
I did not say that you, yourself could not spend your money into organizing a debate.
Getting elected should not be about making the most publicity, being the most liked person or being the most known or popular person.
It should be about idea's, about capabilities, about honour and truth. Okay, perhaps with the last I am expecting too much.
If you give every candidate enough money so that they can share their idea's, goals,... with the voters, then there is no need for private funding. And by sharing idea's, I don't mean a lame TV-ad with saying; "Vote for me". I mean more about handing out leaflets, creating a website, writing and spreading a book, going to debates (both local (schools, community house) as on TV/radio.
If a person whole-heartedly supports a canidate, they should still have ways of promoting their campaign.
Vote for the candidate?
Okay, perhaps you can help with the campaign. You can try to discuss with your friends and try to change their vote through arguments/facts.
I have supported my choice by changing the vote of family members. i was indeed able to change their mind.
I think they rather have your vote, then your money.
Join the party.
Support != (always) giving money
Everyone that runs gets money. Not just those who are liked by the current administration.
Actually such a practise is closer to the Soviet Politburea where the "elected government" choosed thoose that should replace them.
Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I said that candidates get money from the gov so they can run their campaign. i did not say that the gov handpick the candidates.
Your system is not an open system. Popular people get more attention and more thus more money. The more money they have, the more publicity they can make, thus getting even more popular and more money. Name recognition goes a long way to start this cycle.
Also, if you get private money, you might want to more from the same. So you start to kiss ass. You have, in effect been bought.
Democraty is not about giving and recieving money. It's about saying and defending your idea's It's about the voter who wants to see the person in office who can represent that voter. If everyone gives what he can, then you get a democracy of the rich.
Good for business is not always good for the people or for the country.
I see your campaign contributions as one of the greatest flaws of your democracy, besides the fact that the USA is a one-party country.
If the government gives every candidate the same amount of money, and at the same time forbid the acceptance of contributions or use of personal money. Than every person - poor or rich - has the same means to get elected.
Campaign contributions are NOT a natural part of democracy. They are rather a threat for democracy, and should be avoided at all costs.
The voters are just a collection of people and don't have to answer to parliament (european or otherwise), just ourselves. Don't feel bad that you have no legal recourse to stop us from voting for or against you, you silly electee, it's like we care what you say in parliament. Just keep being a good little servant of us.
You can indeed say that there's a 50% enhancement. But money saved means to me, money not spend. So I stick to my 1/3.
Percentages are notoriously misleading :)
Indeed percentages can be tricky. I try not to use them.
I just hope you are not working on the next Mars Lander.
no, thanks. I'll stick to fusion. I'll try to stay away numbers or percentages, though.
Consider a time span of 6 years. That is 2 linux computers or 3 windows computers.
I'd say that you've just saved 1/3 on hardware costs.
If mac os x doesn't work, you get your money back.
If windows doesn't work, you get a blue screen.
Not only that, with MS you can't even buy a computer without windows. Ever tried to buy a portable without windows because you wanted to use linux? Good luck.
Yes, you can't buy Apple without mac os x. But MS does not sell computers, as Apple does.
BTW, I bought a apple both for the hardware and for the OS. And I love it.
So what if half are caused by MS. Four crashes aren't that bad.
Indeed, the above is meaningless, as is saying half of the crashes are caused by MS.
/. crowd thinks that windows should be crashfree.
At the very least, at least tell how many times it crashed in how many years.
Two crashes a day is worst then a 500 crashes in 10 years.
Or perhaps the
I am not much of a computer nerd and I don't know the reason why my machines crashes when they do. But Windows, mac os x and linux have crashed under my hands. I don't expect a computer to be crashfree - in the far future perhaps - so I like to know too; how many times in how many years.
You seem to think that I think that there are people who work more then 100 hours a week. I don't. I do think that there are people that work more than 40 or 50 hours a week. I even know some. If you find that working 40 or 50 hours a week is acceptable, then I ask you this simple question.
Do you live to work, or do you work to live.
Because when you have to work that much, then I don't think that there is much time left for you, your family or any hobby.
But then again I live in social europe.
Of-course in some cases it could be justified. Perhaps when you want to get your own business of the ground. But it isn't when you just get a salary.
How many hours a week do you find acceptable?
Do you know people that work more then that or less then that?
Do you work more or less then that?
If you answer, I'll explain my question.
Don't you work to live, instead of living to work?
To be honest. I am a european student with absolutely no job experience. But I do hope, that I never end up in that kind of a situation. I am willing to do with less, if it means working less. I hope that by the time I do have to get a job, europe still have some kind of social laws.
I guess that in bad economic times, I too would do almost everything to keep my job. But surely, there are limits.
Hmm? If you buy a smaller house instead a big one and only one car instead of two and a few gadgets less. Would you still have to work 16 hours a day, seven a week?
As a non-american, can someone explain how this recall works?
Why it should be implemented? I don't mean the reason for this occurrence, but why recall at all is a possibility.
In belgium, we elect the parliament or city/town council. Those in power are those who have the majority in parliament/city/town. When they lose that support, everyone/that one person is send packing. Depending on the government level (city council,...,state, country) there can be early elections.
Please enlighten me. Thanks
This is how it works in Belgium.
The government announces new elections.
Everyone gets by mail a voter-card. Voting is obligatorily.
Everyday people are selected to chair a voting-house/place. (sorry, don't know all the english words). They summon others, or ask friends to assist them in their task.
The city/town where you live provides the place and necessary equipment.
Voting-day
You go with your voting-card to the voting-house.
You give your voting-card and your national ID card (yep, scream hell. /. we have national ID cards. wooheoo, scary...) to the person sitting there.
Two persons check their list with names (every person is assigned a voting-house, you don't get to choose where you vote) and tag your name.
Another person gives you the actual voting-card (different from the one you got at home. That one was a piece of paper. This new is some kind of smart-card)
You go to the vote-booth.
you insert the card into the voting-machine
you vote (it's impossibly to make mistakes. You can vote white space/blank)
You take your voting-card.
you go out of your vote-booth
you insert the card in a big recipientbox, which also counts the votes for faster and easier processing
Now remember tinfoil head wearing /.ers The smart-card was given to you randomly. It doesn't hold information relation to you. They are no camera's mounted that watch into the voting-booth. They are several people voting at the same time.
You go to the next person, who gives back your national id card and your voting-card. There is now a stamp on it, and it's your proof that you have voted.
Now the voting-house is closed.
The box containing the smart-cards is sealed and send to the countinghouse.
The countinghouse also is staffed by people from the people. Belgium is the only place in the world - so I was told - where the elections are completely held by the people. Yes, most people try to dodge serving, but every time enough people are found.
The machines give their numbers - if necessary you recount the smart-cards.
all votes are counted, the parliament is elected.
Now in the voting-house and countinghouse, there are always representatives from the parties present.
Foreigners are also present, to watch/control the elections. They, or the party reps can always raise hell, if something goes wrong. This has happened. Some districts even had to go vote again. Yes, you see. We don't fight it out in court, we revote.
Now you go home, and visit the site of the government and go over the code used. (try: www.belgium.be)
Now with all systems, digital, paper or otherwise. Trust and confidence in the system is needed. I, for one, have more confidence in the belgium system then in the american one.
After you voted, you can re-enter the card in the machine and see if it has registered you vote correctly. Changing it is impossible. If a smart-card is malfunctioning, you are entitled to a new one.
In the last election there was a trial-system. After voting, the machine would print you vote on a piece of paper.
this piece of paper, not containing any personal information, would also be collected and counted. To verify the electronic votes. Don't know what happened with that. The elections where right before the exams.
Now, this can't seem al that difficult to your technological high american society. Hey, you can build precision bombs, and find WMD with a sat.
Yeah, I know. the last few lines is trolling, but I just can't resist.
Who says they want it back?
With the possibility of a bush getting elected, I doubt it.
But I am trying to hold back on my buying habits, because I hope that digital books (made out of digital paper) will come around soon.
I don't mind buying books, but they do take up a lot of space. And taking several books with you is also not very interesting.
So I am hoping that I can buy that digital book soon, and buy, download, store on HD, load up in digital book all those books I want to read sooner rather then later.
i will not be held responsible for anything, even my own actions :)
If you murder someone, will this hold up in court?
I went from a big phone (old model) to a new phone (a lot smaller in comparison) this year. The first thing I noticed was that the mic was further away from my mouth. This resulted in me having to talk louder for people to understand me.
Now, when I look at the pics of these things, I noticed that the mic is even further away from the mouth.
Do you have to scream to make yourself understand, or what?
How smaller can these things get? I mean the distance between ear and mouth isn't subject to Moore's law.
didn't even know the USN was running Linux on front-line ships.
Do you think that the rest of the world would fear the USA military so much if their front-line troops were running windows?
You don't need a huge penis, you need one that's bigger then that of your neighbours. That way, all the women around will come to you and with you.
...
/. crowd here.
Therefor spam will never stop, someone is always going to want a bigger one.
Oh, btw, no insult intended to the
It would be a guess, but I think you're american.
Reading 30 year old - hugely out of date - books in a building whose fate is to make a small earthquake.
So sad.