States don't all get the same number of electoral votes. California currently has 55 electoral votes. Here is the electoral map by county for the most recent presidential elections: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... Etc. Yet all of California's votes went for the Democrat. People living in eastern California haven't voted for the Democrat since 1968. Do they feel represented or do they feel like the bastard stepchild of L.A. and San Francisco?
The assumption is that money buys votes. It doesn't. It buys advertising on a lot of levels along with all the people who are needed to promote a given candidate. By requiring everybody to vote, candidates would have to spend even more money to be sure that they reach the half of the voting population that doesn't vote.
What we really need is to get rid of the winner-take-all for state electoral votes. Imagine you live in a county that regularly has a majority vote for one party but because a little more than half of the rest of the counties in the state regularly voted for the other party. Your votes no longer count because the electoral votes got flipped. What if this happens over and over? How represented would you feel?
The build envelope looks tiny. Let me know when I can make large custom electronics enclosures. And what about reliability and durability of the results? When these things can consistently survive the all-corners, all-edges, all-sides drop test, then I'll be impressed.
Many document submission sites of the US Federal Government not only require you to use Windows but also require you to use Internet Explorer. If that isn't bad enough, some require you to fill out forms using this godawful IBM/Lotus form editor.
Apple has never been a commodity computer company. Herd mentality always seems to head in the direction of the cheapest tech out there even though there are far superior offerings out there. Just look at how VHS won out over Beta. That's video tape for those of you too young to know or care how we got where we are.
Things were so much simpler 25 years ago. If you knew C, C++, and/or Pascal and were willing to relocate, you could find a job fairly easily. Nowadays, there are so many niche tools, APIs, and languages that universities can't teach a broad enough curriculum to allow graduates options.
Puhleeze.... With all the money they government takes in in legal settlements for violation of the do-not-call list, they can surely afford a few million dollars.
There's an interesting article in today's WSJ (03/06/15) about a current DARPA contest involving humanoid robots. A Tokyo-based company lead the early trial run. That company was just bought by Google who then withdrew that robot from the competition. Google has been quietly acquiring similar companies including Boston Dynamics. It appears that Google is trying to flex some moral muscle to keep robots out of military hands. Sure, there will be other companies that will fill the void but I'd venture to say that Google is going to try to sue them all for patent infringement.
It means that the company gets screwed for millions of dollars all of which magically disappears into the black hole of the federal government general fund. Meanwhile, you, dear victim, will get discount coupons for cellphone accessories for obsolete phones. It's a little bit like the government promising you a tax "credit" in return for actual money paid by some private entity. You can only make use of this "credit" if you meet certain specific criteria e.g. tax bracket and taxes owed combined with astrological sign and body mass index which most people don't meet.
With the rapidly increasing volume of 3D printers, all that's needed is for somebody to come up with an extruder and latex filament. Which sounds dirty but I didn't mean it that way.
Switching from "first to invent" to "first to file" makes no sense to me. If you're working on something for several years and some asshat hacks your computer, copies all the data, then files the patent, why should they get credit for it? Beyond that, I don't understand how some filers seem to be able to get patents in a few months while others take YEARS to even get reviewed. Something doesn't smell right here. And then there's the patent troll problem. Why has nobody put forth legislation that requires the patent holder to also be the applier of the technology? Nobody likes campers in a MMO game. IMHO, if you own a patent, you should be required to create a real product with it and sell it in order to benefit from the patent protection.
Yellow journalism has infected most of media these days particularly in Hollywood who has figured out that they have a one-side, one-directional soapbox from which to preach their beliefs. I'm not just talking about what passes for a documentary these days but even in screenwriting for fictional shows. The writer or rather whoever ends up creating the dialog that a character utters or whoever comes up with the plot has the ability to make statements knowing that there is no opportunity for debate. Quite often, once the hero character of a series has won the hearts and minds of the audience, that character is used as the conduit. People believe it because of their adoration of the character.
Drug companies pretty much expect to get sued by the likes of the law offices of James Suck-a-glove and lose every penny they made thanks to a jury in east Texas. And it doesn't matter that the side effect warnings are well disclosed. Take a look at pretty much every drug ad on TV. They basically say, "If you have such-and-such condition, ask your doctor about Fartseeguh. Meanwhile, here's a 45-second long list of things that might happen to you even if you didn't take this drug because we're expecting to get sued even if you don't take this drug." At a certain point, the drug company is looking a the upfront costs as well as the potential legal costs and deciding that there is too much risk. The FDA is no help because they insist on all this testing beforehand and when the lawsuits come they are notably untouchable. Aren't they supposed to protect the public from dangerous drugs? If they approved it, shouldn't they be held liable too?
Whatever ANYONE says about it other than the FCC voting members is pure conjecture at this point. If you know ANY fact, prove it. Post the link. Today, before it's voted on.
Wrong...again. There is a 300+ page document that is being withheld from public viewing which is what they are going to be voting on. I don't know what's in it and neither do you. You are ASSUMING that this is simply going to be a reclassification under Title II which would take a one-page memo to accomplish. You have ZERO facts upon which to make your statements. It amazes me that you are willing to simply accept a sweeping change based on no facts and only what you believe will happen. How the hell can you be opposed to a public comment period on the contents of the proposed rules? Are you that gullible? If so, I've got a little document called a Power of Attorney that I'd like you to sign. You'll just have to trust me that I know what I'm doing and it'll all be for your own good.
Slashdot Mirror
States don't all get the same number of electoral votes. California currently has 55 electoral votes.
Here is the electoral map by county for the most recent presidential elections: http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Etc.
Yet all of California's votes went for the Democrat. People living in eastern California haven't voted for the Democrat since 1968. Do they feel represented or do they feel like the bastard stepchild of L.A. and San Francisco?
The assumption is that money buys votes. It doesn't. It buys advertising on a lot of levels along with all the people who are needed to promote a given candidate. By requiring everybody to vote, candidates would have to spend even more money to be sure that they reach the half of the voting population that doesn't vote.
What we really need is to get rid of the winner-take-all for state electoral votes. Imagine you live in a county that regularly has a majority vote for one party but because a little more than half of the rest of the counties in the state regularly voted for the other party. Your votes no longer count because the electoral votes got flipped. What if this happens over and over? How represented would you feel?
The build envelope looks tiny. Let me know when I can make large custom electronics enclosures. And what about reliability and durability of the results? When these things can consistently survive the all-corners, all-edges, all-sides drop test, then I'll be impressed.
Many document submission sites of the US Federal Government not only require you to use Windows but also require you to use Internet Explorer. If that isn't bad enough, some require you to fill out forms using this godawful IBM/Lotus form editor.
I mean, who wouldn't want to be able to choose one? That opens up all kinds of possibilities.
And the huge volumes of crappy code upon which the entire shaky foundation of internet is built.
People would still want to know how it all works so they aren't stuck going to the dealer for service. So how do you reconcile the two?
One fragment leaves.
Apple has never been a commodity computer company. Herd mentality always seems to head in the direction of the cheapest tech out there even though there are far superior offerings out there. Just look at how VHS won out over Beta. That's video tape for those of you too young to know or care how we got where we are.
Things were so much simpler 25 years ago. If you knew C, C++, and/or Pascal and were willing to relocate, you could find a job fairly easily. Nowadays, there are so many niche tools, APIs, and languages that universities can't teach a broad enough curriculum to allow graduates options.
It's all the hot air coming out of Sacramento. Ironically, they keep yammering on about climate change so they really only have themselves to blame.
At least western sci-fi writers make a little effort to conceal their socialistic beliefs.
Puhleeze.... With all the money they government takes in in legal settlements for violation of the do-not-call list, they can surely afford a few million dollars.
Should be mandatory reading for...well...everyone.
There's an interesting article in today's WSJ (03/06/15) about a current DARPA contest involving humanoid robots. A Tokyo-based company lead the early trial run. That company was just bought by Google who then withdrew that robot from the competition. Google has been quietly acquiring similar companies including Boston Dynamics. It appears that Google is trying to flex some moral muscle to keep robots out of military hands. Sure, there will be other companies that will fill the void but I'd venture to say that Google is going to try to sue them all for patent infringement.
It means that the company gets screwed for millions of dollars all of which magically disappears into the black hole of the federal government general fund. Meanwhile, you, dear victim, will get discount coupons for cellphone accessories for obsolete phones. It's a little bit like the government promising you a tax "credit" in return for actual money paid by some private entity. You can only make use of this "credit" if you meet certain specific criteria e.g. tax bracket and taxes owed combined with astrological sign and body mass index which most people don't meet.
With the rapidly increasing volume of 3D printers, all that's needed is for somebody to come up with an extruder and latex filament. Which sounds dirty but I didn't mean it that way.
Switching from "first to invent" to "first to file" makes no sense to me. If you're working on something for several years and some asshat hacks your computer, copies all the data, then files the patent, why should they get credit for it? Beyond that, I don't understand how some filers seem to be able to get patents in a few months while others take YEARS to even get reviewed. Something doesn't smell right here. And then there's the patent troll problem. Why has nobody put forth legislation that requires the patent holder to also be the applier of the technology? Nobody likes campers in a MMO game. IMHO, if you own a patent, you should be required to create a real product with it and sell it in order to benefit from the patent protection.
Yellow journalism has infected most of media these days particularly in Hollywood who has figured out that they have a one-side, one-directional soapbox from which to preach their beliefs. I'm not just talking about what passes for a documentary these days but even in screenwriting for fictional shows. The writer or rather whoever ends up creating the dialog that a character utters or whoever comes up with the plot has the ability to make statements knowing that there is no opportunity for debate. Quite often, once the hero character of a series has won the hearts and minds of the audience, that character is used as the conduit. People believe it because of their adoration of the character.
I've never seen any of this directors movies. What make him qualified to work on this?
Drug companies pretty much expect to get sued by the likes of the law offices of James Suck-a-glove and lose every penny they made thanks to a jury in east Texas. And it doesn't matter that the side effect warnings are well disclosed. Take a look at pretty much every drug ad on TV. They basically say, "If you have such-and-such condition, ask your doctor about Fartseeguh. Meanwhile, here's a 45-second long list of things that might happen to you even if you didn't take this drug because we're expecting to get sued even if you don't take this drug." At a certain point, the drug company is looking a the upfront costs as well as the potential legal costs and deciding that there is too much risk. The FDA is no help because they insist on all this testing beforehand and when the lawsuits come they are notably untouchable. Aren't they supposed to protect the public from dangerous drugs? If they approved it, shouldn't they be held liable too?
Whatever ANYONE says about it other than the FCC voting members is pure conjecture at this point. If you know ANY fact, prove it. Post the link. Today, before it's voted on.
Prove it. Post the link. Today, not tomorrow after it's been voted on.
Wrong...again. There is a 300+ page document that is being withheld from public viewing which is what they are going to be voting on. I don't know what's in it and neither do you. You are ASSUMING that this is simply going to be a reclassification under Title II which would take a one-page memo to accomplish. You have ZERO facts upon which to make your statements. It amazes me that you are willing to simply accept a sweeping change based on no facts and only what you believe will happen. How the hell can you be opposed to a public comment period on the contents of the proposed rules? Are you that gullible? If so, I've got a little document called a Power of Attorney that I'd like you to sign. You'll just have to trust me that I know what I'm doing and it'll all be for your own good.
who bought...*cough* I mean "named" a star after someone at the "international star registry." What a sh*tty gift.