On the other hand, no clothing at all would be bad for the profits of the fe-male clothing industry. What were those Ferengi thinking? There's a huge market there!
I think that there was an episode where Quark's mom pointed that out to the Nagus.
I don't get it. Are you citing that as an example of how AT&T is worse than Comcast? Because it isn't -- I've had send complaints to regulators to get Comcast to do shit too.
What's my upload? I'd rather not upload one goddamned thing. How does my upload matter? I don't give a shit.
Upload speed matters in the sense that the Internet was supposed to be a democratized peer-to-peer infrastructure that would enable global dialogue, while you're apparently content for it to be "just another entertainment service" dominated by oligarchic commercial interests.
Do you report the results to F-Droid, and/or upload your "clean" version of the program? It'd be nice if you did, and I get the impression that the F-Droid repository maintainers care about stuff like that (so they'd welcome your contribution).
Indeed. I, too, grew up in the '90s, and remember (briefly, in elementary school) the library still having an actual [paper] card catalog instead of an electronic database. Does that make me somehow not a "digital native?"
I even used DOS when it really was DOS (on my first computer, a Tandy 286 with DeskMate). In fact, I think I was learning to use the computer at the same time I was learning to use the card catalog...
I can see self-driving technology, but all-electric powertrains? Other than aircraft, long-haul trucks seem to me to be the hardest things to run off batteries. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even the future of "green" trucking is standard Diesel engines running on biodiesel or synthetic diesel, not electricity.
A microwave users much less power than a conventional oven, that's part of the point. A 1kW (electrical power) microwave should be fine for most households and you only use it for a few minutes at a time.
Wait, are you suggesting to replace an oven with a microwave? You do realize that an oven can do things microwaves can't, right?
I have one word -- just one word -- that renders your entire argument moot. You want to know what it is? Alright, here it comes:
EUROPE.
Somehow, the police in Europe manage to deal with the same kinds of crime we have here, yet manage to do it without killing nearly as many people as our police do. One statistic I've heard is that American police killed more people in March than the UK police have since 1900. That's one month vs. more than a century. (And I don't care that the US population is higher; it doesn't matter -- we're talking orders of magnitude here!) There is no explanation, other than American police having a SYSTEMIC problem of incompetence, corruption, and needless brutality.
Also note that, while bad cops are bad cops, "good" cops that cover for bad cops are bad cops too. The problem in Ferguson and Baltimore is not that one bad cop fucked up, it's that one bad cop fucked up and all the other bad cops -- namely, the vast majority of the cops in those jurisdictions -- defended him!
In other words, it's "only" 99% of cops who make the rest look bad.
That's not true: the President is perfectly free to veto all spending until Congress is willing to give him a sane budget (or 2/3 of it is insane enough to override him).
If Baltimore's police wasn't made up of murderous, jackbooted thugs, then there wouldn't be any riots in the first place.
Compare and contrast Baltimore or Ferguson to Charleston and how the latter city handled the Walter Scott murder. Whereas the governments of Ferguson and Baltimore (until recently) dug in their heels against their own citizens in defense of their corrupt police, Charleston's leadership had the basic decency to prosecute a blatantly obvious crime without trying to spin or weasel their way out of it. As a direct consequence, there have been no riots in Charleston.
The lesson for government here is simple: if you don't want riots, then respect the citizens' rights!
No, I mean like how the old, old AT&T (before the monopoly was broken up) used to only allow "approved devices" on its landline network, gave you exactly one choice of phone (the Model 500), and had to send a technician out to hard-wire it, using screw terminals, to the phone network (i.e., this was before RJ-11).
My bank can and do notify me when there is 'odd spending' happening on my credit card.
The key phrase there is "credit card." Your bank does that precisely because it is the one liable for fraudulent charges. If you were the one liable -- is is the case with debit cards, or phone bills (as per this article) -- then they wouldn't give a shit.
My Comcast bill is autopaid... using my bank's system, where the payment is "pushed" (not "pulled") only if it conforms to the rules that I set (namely, that it is not more expensive than usual). In fact, I got an email a few days ago saying that my most recent payment was not sent because Comcast tried to increase the rate by almost double. It's time to negotiate again... Google Fiber can't come soon enough!
You missed the GP's point: the problem is not that true negatives were found; the problem is that they were not published. Because they were not published, future researchers might waste more effort re-discovering them.
The answer to both of those issues ("green" fuels for aviation and trucking) is biofuel or synthetic (hydrocarbon) fuel. (FYI, we had an article here about the latter just a few days ago.)
Nobody said we need to be "carbon-less;" it's sufficient to be "carbon-neutral."
Excuse me; let me clarify: I'm talking about laws restricting people's ability to get on the ballot as a candidate (especially when said candidate lacks affiliation with the Democrat or Republican Party).
Having laws restricting who can vote is a different issue.
Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:
Both parties love the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping and Gitmo.
Both parties think corporate "rights" -- particularly "imaginary property" -- are more important than the real property rights of actual people.
Both parties love pork and wealth redistribution (albeit not necessarily to the same groups).
Both parties love Federal control, and hate Federalism (i.e., separation of powers between the Federal government and the States).
Both parties abuse the Commerce Clause and the Elastic Clause.
Both parties feel free to ignore various parts of the Bill of Rights.
Both parties are big fans of restrictive ballot access laws, gerrymandering and first-past-the-post voting systems (to hamstring third parties).
And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.
If the science can be discredited, should the federal government really be using it to impose burdensome regulations onto the public?
There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.
In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.
You are right, but my -rhetoric- question was about this "transition from a hardware-dependent business to [...] services" - i am almost sure that IBM has stoped being a "hardware-dependent business" a long time ago!
They did, but they're not "agile" enough to have realized it yet!
That's why such groups used to be called "special interest groups," to highlight the fact that their point of view is distinct and different from the general interest of society.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that there was an episode where Quark's mom pointed that out to the Nagus.
I don't get it. Are you citing that as an example of how AT&T is worse than Comcast? Because it isn't -- I've had send complaints to regulators to get Comcast to do shit too.
Upload speed matters in the sense that the Internet was supposed to be a democratized peer-to-peer infrastructure that would enable global dialogue, while you're apparently content for it to be "just another entertainment service" dominated by oligarchic commercial interests.
Do you report the results to F-Droid, and/or upload your "clean" version of the program? It'd be nice if you did, and I get the impression that the F-Droid repository maintainers care about stuff like that (so they'd welcome your contribution).
Indeed. I, too, grew up in the '90s, and remember (briefly, in elementary school) the library still having an actual [paper] card catalog instead of an electronic database. Does that make me somehow not a "digital native?"
I even used DOS when it really was DOS (on my first computer, a Tandy 286 with DeskMate). In fact, I think I was learning to use the computer at the same time I was learning to use the card catalog...
I can see self-driving technology, but all-electric powertrains? Other than aircraft, long-haul trucks seem to me to be the hardest things to run off batteries. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that even the future of "green" trucking is standard Diesel engines running on biodiesel or synthetic diesel, not electricity.
Wait, are you suggesting to replace an oven with a microwave? You do realize that an oven can do things microwaves can't, right?
Blah, blah, blah.
I have one word -- just one word -- that renders your entire argument moot. You want to know what it is? Alright, here it comes:
EUROPE.
Somehow, the police in Europe manage to deal with the same kinds of crime we have here, yet manage to do it without killing nearly as many people as our police do. One statistic I've heard is that American police killed more people in March than the UK police have since 1900. That's one month vs. more than a century. (And I don't care that the US population is higher; it doesn't matter -- we're talking orders of magnitude here!) There is no explanation, other than American police having a SYSTEMIC problem of incompetence, corruption, and needless brutality.
Also note that, while bad cops are bad cops, "good" cops that cover for bad cops are bad cops too. The problem in Ferguson and Baltimore is not that one bad cop fucked up, it's that one bad cop fucked up and all the other bad cops -- namely, the vast majority of the cops in those jurisdictions -- defended him!
In other words, it's "only" 99% of cops who make the rest look bad.
Apparently, Mr. Aleynikov's real mistake is that his behavior wasn't profitably illegal...
That's not true: the President is perfectly free to veto all spending until Congress is willing to give him a sane budget (or 2/3 of it is insane enough to override him).
The city fucking deserves what it got!
If Baltimore's police wasn't made up of murderous, jackbooted thugs, then there wouldn't be any riots in the first place.
Compare and contrast Baltimore or Ferguson to Charleston and how the latter city handled the Walter Scott murder. Whereas the governments of Ferguson and Baltimore (until recently) dug in their heels against their own citizens in defense of their corrupt police, Charleston's leadership had the basic decency to prosecute a blatantly obvious crime without trying to spin or weasel their way out of it. As a direct consequence, there have been no riots in Charleston.
The lesson for government here is simple: if you don't want riots, then respect the citizens' rights!
No, I mean like how the old, old AT&T (before the monopoly was broken up) used to only allow "approved devices" on its landline network, gave you exactly one choice of phone (the Model 500), and had to send a technician out to hard-wire it, using screw terminals, to the phone network (i.e., this was before RJ-11).
The key phrase there is "credit card." Your bank does that precisely because it is the one liable for fraudulent charges. If you were the one liable -- is is the case with debit cards, or phone bills (as per this article) -- then they wouldn't give a shit.
That sort of thing happens with old people. When my grandmother died (in the '90s), we found out that she had still been renting her phone!
My Comcast bill is autopaid... using my bank's system, where the payment is "pushed" (not "pulled") only if it conforms to the rules that I set (namely, that it is not more expensive than usual). In fact, I got an email a few days ago saying that my most recent payment was not sent because Comcast tried to increase the rate by almost double. It's time to negotiate again... Google Fiber can't come soon enough!
Hey, it could be possible on planes flying the Tripoli - Mogadishu - Kabul route!
The words "engineer," "architect," and "developer" have been rendered meaningless by all title inflation (especially bullshit like "sales engineers").
Here's a newsflash for HR and others who hire workers:
IF THE JOB DOES NOT CONSIST MOSTLY OF DOING MATH AND REQUIRE THE WORKER TO BE LICENSED BY THE STATE, IT IS WRONG TO TITLE IT "ENGINEER!"
You missed the GP's point: the problem is not that true negatives were found; the problem is that they were not published. Because they were not published, future researchers might waste more effort re-discovering them.
Of course. But if I'm going to use an antenna, then what the fuck would I be paying the cable company for?!
More to the point, I think the situation violates at least the spirit (if not the letter) of the FCC's must-carry rules.
The answer to both of those issues ("green" fuels for aviation and trucking) is biofuel or synthetic (hydrocarbon) fuel. (FYI, we had an article here about the latter just a few days ago.)
Nobody said we need to be "carbon-less;" it's sufficient to be "carbon-neutral."
Excuse me; let me clarify: I'm talking about laws restricting people's ability to get on the ballot as a candidate (especially when said candidate lacks affiliation with the Democrat or Republican Party).
Having laws restricting who can vote is a different issue.
Only the ones that don't matter, but make for good sound bites. On the actual important topics, both halves of our oligarchic regime enthusiastically agree:
And that's just off the top of my head, not anywhere close to a complete list.
There's a difference between "actually discredited, according to a reasonable person's opinion" and "'discredited' as an excuse for a biased person to ignore it." With this law, we're talking about the latter situation.
In particular, the Republican goal is to make the burden of proof for climate change so high -- by eliminating consideration of "non-reproducible" data, like all historical climate records -- that in order to be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the EPA would have to construct two full-scale artificial Earths, build a civilization's worth of polluting industry on one, and wait 100 years to see what happens.
They did, but they're not "agile" enough to have realized it yet!
That's why such groups used to be called "special interest groups," to highlight the fact that their point of view is distinct and different from the general interest of society.