Actually, I'm old enough to remember rotary phones with cords that got tangled to the point of having to dangle the handset so it would unwind properly. Hell, I even vacationed in a place that had a party line. Technology always has a light side and a dark side. In this case, the light side is the phone is a life-saving tool (as a member of search & rescue, I can attest to that). The dark side is some dumbass recording a concert with crappy audio and mediocre (though improving) video.
Sorry, but my safety overrules your greed. If terrorists start shooting up the place and I can't call for help (because I'm not allowed defend myself), don't be surprised that I don't spend my hard-earned money on your crappy show.
What was wrong with the mechanical voting machines? They can't be hacked externally and there is no risk of mail-in ballots getting tossed or rejected because somebody supposedly didn't color in the square completely. And you have to sign the voter registry so there's no chance of somebody voting twice. All that would need to happen, and probably should happen is election day should be a national holiday. If you can't spare an hour of your time to go to a polling place, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
Reminds me of a scene in "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe":
"What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project." "Ah," said the marketing girl, "Well, we're having a little difficulty there." "Difficulty?" exclaimed Ford. "Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!" The marketing girl soured him with a look. "Alright, Mr. Wiseguy," she said, "if you're so clever, you tell us what colour it should be."
I wish Nielson tracked when people use the mute button because I mute every presidential TV ad, every drug ad, and every ad for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.
Given that Baby Boomers are retiring and approaching retirement, can the researchers honestly say they have evaluated them objectively? Did they evaluate them 20, 30, 40 years ago when they were in their prime?
I don't want a joke unless I specifically as for it. Case in point: last year I was driving from AZ to CA on I-8 and my speedometer cable broke so I couldn't tell how fast I was going. I thought, "My phone has GPS which can give me my speed so I'll ask Siri." "Hey, Siri, how fast am I going?" She responded, "I've been wondering that for a while." Great, thanks for nothing, smartass.
Blaming the Russians for screwing the pooch is the Cold War boogie man version of blaming a YouTube video for the death of Americans in Benghazi. There is zero evidence to support either claim but plenty of people believe it. Trump may be crude and boorish but Clinton is conniving and has been that way as long as Trump has been crude and boorish. Which one is more dangerous to the American people is the question you should be asking yourself.
My point is that many folks on the left want to bestow power to words where there is none. Take for example the desire to criminalize so-called hate speech. There can be no equal protection under the law because those words are only offensive to one group of people. That's why free speech must exist. As to the perceived power of words over actions, how many times have we seen some political leader telling a government that they're being naughty and we will punish the if they don't cut it out. Invariably, that government effectively says, "Yeah? What are you gonna do about it?" and the aforementioned political leader says, "I mean it! I'm gonna count to ten." The rogue government says, "Go eff yourself." Recall the League of Nations telling Hitler to cut it out. Didn't work worth a damn. There are plenty of political leaders who are surprised by the fact that their words are powerless. Nobody cares about intentions, which are the equivalent of pontificating. Results are what counts and results come from actions.
Because it transfers power from government to the individual. For example, my mother grew up in soviet Russia during Stalin's rule. If you were caught talking smack about Stalin, you were arrested and sent to Siberia. No trial, at least not one that wasn't just for show. No appeal. And most who were sent to Siberia were never seen again. And they would invent things to charge you with such as having old paper money (which couldn't be used, btw, so who the hell would care if you had any). By contrast, in this country, you can write a screenplay for a film depicting the assassination of Bush 43 and get it produced and nobody has the power to do anything about it. That said, these days, if you are on the right, are an executive of a large corporation, and you donate money to a political cause that the left disagrees with, you lose your job. No due process whatsoever. That's not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech not only gives the individual the power to say whatever they want but it also prevents those in power from exacting revenge on you for it.
It's a general observation. Political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, red lines in the sand, personal pronouns, etc. All words, not actions, yet some people believe they have magical powers like witchcraft spells. They only have power if you believe that they do.
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
Came here to ask this exact question. Taking and posting photos cost next to nothing these days. Hell, they can even be geotagged to show precisely where they were taken to prove their case. Instead, they take a photo of some jetsam on the airport ramp. Seriously? That's almost as bad as giving people lab coats to wear for a political photo op claiming doctors support socialized medicine.
Not pro coal/gas but rather militant luddite. Reservoirs and hydro power are a great way to store energy. If you are hell bent on using solar and wind at the expense of all other forms of energy, you have to find a way to store it so that it's available when you need it. Using the excess energy to pump water up into a reservoir is a great way to do this. The fact that there are people who want to bork this only goes to show that those people would be happier living 200 years ago. Ironically, these people won't move somewhere where the living is still that primitive.
The Part 107 rules STILL leave out the use-case of volunteer non-profit search & rescue operations. By definition, commercial means that you are being compensated. The FAA's own example of accepting ball game tickets as a gift for flying illustrates this. Volunteer non-profit SAR groups aren't compensated for their work. Therefore, one would think that Part 107 doesn't apply yet many people believe that it does. SAR also doesn't have the luxury of waiting any length of time to look for someone nor do they have the luxury of waiting until daylight.
Given that the US pays more money to the UN than 185 other countries combined, I say "Screw the UN and give the money to NASA or private space companies." Giving the bulk of the money to the UN for this and letting the rest of the world have an equal say is like hosting a kegger and letting the people who didn't buy the keg decide how much beer everyone gets and what kind of music can be played. Oh, and they would also get to decide who does and doesn't get laid that night.
Say the government wins or Palantir settles. Who gets the money? The aforementioned harmed Asians? Highly doubtful. The government has become an extortion racket.
Cutting down pollution is fine as long as everybody has to do it. Pouring oil down the drain in one place isn't less polluting than in another place because there is a law on the books in that place and not in the other. The point being that so-called developing countries don't get a pass on emissions just because they are developing countries. To do so is nothing more than fascist economics. When China and India have to meet precisely the same standards at precisely the same time, then I will believe that climate change is something other than wealth redistribution and a basis for non-productive individuals to attain power.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I'm old enough to remember rotary phones with cords that got tangled to the point of having to dangle the handset so it would unwind properly.
Hell, I even vacationed in a place that had a party line. Technology always has a light side and a dark side. In this case, the light side is the phone is a life-saving tool (as a member of search & rescue, I can attest to that). The dark side is some dumbass recording a concert with crappy audio and mediocre (though improving) video.
Sorry, but my safety overrules your greed. If terrorists start shooting up the place and I can't call for help (because I'm not allowed defend myself), don't be surprised that I don't spend my hard-earned money on your crappy show.
Ah, but the "seriousness of the charge" only works on Republicans.
Yeah, it may be unlimited on your end but it'll be throttled to ISDN speeds.
What was wrong with the mechanical voting machines? They can't be hacked externally and there is no risk of mail-in ballots getting tossed or rejected because somebody supposedly didn't color in the square completely. And you have to sign the voter registry so there's no chance of somebody voting twice. All that would need to happen, and probably should happen is election day should be a national holiday. If you can't spare an hour of your time to go to a polling place, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
Reminds me of a scene in "The Restaurant at the end of the Universe":
"What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project."
"Ah," said the marketing girl, "Well, we're having a little difficulty there."
"Difficulty?" exclaimed Ford. "Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It's the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!"
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
"Alright, Mr. Wiseguy," she said, "if you're so clever, you tell us what colour it should be."
I wish Nielson tracked when people use the mute button because I mute every presidential TV ad, every drug ad, and every ad for Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.
Given that Baby Boomers are retiring and approaching retirement, can the researchers honestly say they have evaluated them objectively? Did they evaluate them 20, 30, 40 years ago when they were in their prime?
I don't want a joke unless I specifically as for it. Case in point: last year I was driving from AZ to CA on I-8 and my speedometer cable broke so I couldn't tell how fast I was going. I thought, "My phone has GPS which can give me my speed so I'll ask Siri." "Hey, Siri, how fast am I going?" She responded, "I've been wondering that for a while." Great, thanks for nothing, smartass.
Blaming the Russians for screwing the pooch is the Cold War boogie man version of blaming a YouTube video for the death of Americans in Benghazi. There is zero evidence to support either claim but plenty of people believe it. Trump may be crude and boorish but Clinton is conniving and has been that way as long as Trump has been crude and boorish. Which one is more dangerous to the American people is the question you should be asking yourself.
My point is that many folks on the left want to bestow power to words where there is none. Take for example the desire to criminalize so-called hate speech. There can be no equal protection under the law because those words are only offensive to one group of people. That's why free speech must exist. As to the perceived power of words over actions, how many times have we seen some political leader telling a government that they're being naughty and we will punish the if they don't cut it out. Invariably, that government effectively says, "Yeah? What are you gonna do about it?" and the aforementioned political leader says, "I mean it! I'm gonna count to ten." The rogue government says, "Go eff yourself." Recall the League of Nations telling Hitler to cut it out. Didn't work worth a damn. There are plenty of political leaders who are surprised by the fact that their words are powerless. Nobody cares about intentions, which are the equivalent of pontificating. Results are what counts and results come from actions.
Because it transfers power from government to the individual. For example, my mother grew up in soviet Russia during Stalin's rule. If you were caught talking smack about Stalin, you were arrested and sent to Siberia. No trial, at least not one that wasn't just for show. No appeal. And most who were sent to Siberia were never seen again. And they would invent things to charge you with such as having old paper money (which couldn't be used, btw, so who the hell would care if you had any). By contrast, in this country, you can write a screenplay for a film depicting the assassination of Bush 43 and get it produced and nobody has the power to do anything about it. That said, these days, if you are on the right, are an executive of a large corporation, and you donate money to a political cause that the left disagrees with, you lose your job. No due process whatsoever. That's not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech not only gives the individual the power to say whatever they want but it also prevents those in power from exacting revenge on you for it.
It's a general observation. Political correctness, trigger warnings, safe spaces, red lines in the sand, personal pronouns, etc. All words, not actions, yet some people believe they have magical powers like witchcraft spells. They only have power if you believe that they do.
"The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me."
I find it interesting how the left seems to bestow a great deal of power on words alone while totally dismissing the power of actions.
They probably guess sex 50% of the time and "get your hands off me you damn dirty human" the other 50%.
This would make for an interesting thriller movie premise. There's a murderer among the ride-out team picking off the other members one by one.
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
Came here to ask this exact question. Taking and posting photos cost next to nothing these days. Hell, they can even be geotagged to show precisely where they were taken to prove their case. Instead, they take a photo of some jetsam on the airport ramp. Seriously? That's almost as bad as giving people lab coats to wear for a political photo op claiming doctors support socialized medicine.
Not pro coal/gas but rather militant luddite. Reservoirs and hydro power are a great way to store energy. If you are hell bent on using solar and wind at the expense of all other forms of energy, you have to find a way to store it so that it's available when you need it. Using the excess energy to pump water up into a reservoir is a great way to do this. The fact that there are people who want to bork this only goes to show that those people would be happier living 200 years ago. Ironically, these people won't move somewhere where the living is still that primitive.
The Part 107 rules STILL leave out the use-case of volunteer non-profit search & rescue operations. By definition, commercial means that you are being compensated. The FAA's own example of accepting ball game tickets as a gift for flying illustrates this. Volunteer non-profit SAR groups aren't compensated for their work. Therefore, one would think that Part 107 doesn't apply yet many people believe that it does. SAR also doesn't have the luxury of waiting any length of time to look for someone nor do they have the luxury of waiting until daylight.
Given that the US pays more money to the UN than 185 other countries combined, I say "Screw the UN and give the money to NASA or private space companies."
Giving the bulk of the money to the UN for this and letting the rest of the world have an equal say is like hosting a kegger and letting the people who didn't buy the keg decide how much beer everyone gets and what kind of music can be played. Oh, and they would also get to decide who does and doesn't get laid that night.
Say the government wins or Palantir settles. Who gets the money? The aforementioned harmed Asians? Highly doubtful. The government has become an extortion racket.
I'll need a whole lot of unrestricted grant funding to develop a machine to measure the size of the sh*t I do not give.
Cutting down pollution is fine as long as everybody has to do it. Pouring oil down the drain in one place isn't less polluting than in another place because there is a law on the books in that place and not in the other. The point being that so-called developing countries don't get a pass on emissions just because they are developing countries. To do so is nothing more than fascist economics. When China and India have to meet precisely the same standards at precisely the same time, then I will believe that climate change is something other than wealth redistribution and a basis for non-productive individuals to attain power.