I'm wondering if they actually believe that there are just so many Google buses clogging up traffic that they MUST do something about it, or if it's all in their head and they simply don't like paying rent.
I mean jesus, the paint that they had to use to make those bus stop markers must have been REALLY expensive to warrant Google now paying for free bus tickets for students.
How is it a free market when the law doesn't allow it to be? A free market would be Tesla being allowed to sell how they choose instead of being forced to go through third parties. A free market would be being allowed to pump your own gas instead of being forced to pay some tard to do it and then expecting a tip for something you may have preferred to do yourself instead of just sitting in your car doing nothing at all.
Speaking as somebody who no longer has cable and thus doesn't watch any of those, I can call out what I've observed:
NBC has been caught in deliberate lies when they want to alter a story to fit their narrative. See the George Zimmerman 911 tape editing job they did, for example. If that isn't blatant lying, I don't know what is, yet for whatever reason you don't see any sites like foxnewsboycott.com target them.
CBS -- remember memogate? The investigator behind the story, Mary Mapes, actually found that Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam but was declined by one of his officers, but that tidbit was never revealed until a year or so after Rather was already fired. Instead they chose to broadcast some memo which they were unable to (and I think never did?) authenticate. But both of these are neither here nor there; what I find more disturbing is that the whole point of all of this was to derail an election, and actual "news" had nothing to do with it (I mean honestly, who gives a fuck about a service term that happened some 35ish years prior and was otherwise unremarkable?)
The best (worst?) argument I've seen against Fox actually didn't involve Fox News, rather it involved an entirely separate news organization that happened to be a Fox affiliated broadcaster. The common argument goes something to the effect of "Fox sued for the right to lie" but when you dig further, you actually find that the plaintiff (not Fox or the local affiliate) was suing for the right to lie, namely the local broadcaster didn't want to air the piece unless they had both sides of the particular story (something involving Monsanto, I don't recall) but the plaintiff refused, instead only wanting to push what amounted to a one sided hit-piece. How that got twisted into "Fox sued for the right to lie" I'll never quite understand, especially given that the Fox affiliate didn't even initiate the lawsuit.
Here's an interesting issue though: We already know that most species cannot survive without the ecosystem that lives inside of them (the so called "good bacteria.") Do the bacterial strains that they needed to survive still live? If not, do we need to clone those as well or will something else suffice? If we need to clone those, then you might run into problems.
That's fine and all, except those tiny speakers simply aren't big enough to move enough air that you'd actually feel resonating in your body, which is the only benefit you'd gain in the undertones. It's just not happening. When it comes to sound, you either hear it or you feel it (or both,) and headphones aren't big enough to allow you to feel tones that you are incapable of hearing, making them worthless for that purpose.
There is definitely merit to keeping the undertones though. Although you can't hear them, you certainly CAN feel them if you have the right equipment. It wouldn't be useful for a portable player (I strongly doubt you'd get anything useful from a pair of earbuds or even some really uber expensive headphones) but audio formats shouldn't discard them.
If that is the case, then what is the point of causing sudden mass disruption of the global economy in the ways that the green movement often advocates? We've already seen multiple times where poor economic choices have lead to mass famine, yet we haven't (yet at least) seen a single case where climate change has lead to the same thing on even remotely the same scale.
Funny thing though, when it comes to talk about cutting these subsidies, the "big oil" boyz are all against it. Sure, they're against green energy subsidies, but if you want to cut their subsidies, all of a sudden you're threatening the "lifeblood" of the American Way[tm].
Of course they are. Wouldn't you be opposed to somebody wanting to take away your free money? I'm a free market capitalist myself, and am not in any way part of the green movement (see my previous post for an explanation) but I really hate energy subsidies. But I also hate things like food stamps as well. Yet try taking even those away, you'll get people bitching and moaning about it.
I was actually on EBT once. When I started school later that year, they took it away (my income didn't increase, but my expenses did; they just have a rule that if you go to school full time then you are ineligible unless you meet some additional requirements.) Know what I did after they took it away? I just made due with what I had. The world didn't end and I didn't just suddenly starve, and anybody who thinks people will starve without food stamps is really ignorant.
Likewise, I can apply the same argument towards energy subsidies and any excuses that there are for keeping them, but getting rid of them would be like pulling teeth.
Or to be more precisely, how alternative goods/resources work.
If you take away 37% of the supply of electricity, it will need to be replaced. This means that alternatives to coal will go up in price, and your electricity costs will go up with them. These hipsters might talk all day about saving the rainforest, but in reality they'll never go a day without their ipads and a working espresso machine.
That would actually be a great opportunity for nuclear, however I have a feeling that these guys would hate nuclear even more than coal (I know it's stereotyping, but their type usually does and you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.)
Kind of a side rant, but I'm not sure what the ultimate purpose of preventing man-made global warming is supposed to be. The best argument I've heard is to prevent the loss of landmass to rising sea water, but that's already going to happen anyways (less than 100k years ago Los Angeles was under water, and no matter what we do it will one day again be under water.) Higher global temperatures have historically resulted in more arable land rather than simple increased droughts. If you want more physical landmass, then you'll need to drop the climate to ice age levels where biodiversity actually tends to suffer. During the age of dinosaurs, the carbon dioxidie PPM was 18 times higher than it is now, biodiversity was at one of its peaks, the overall climate was 8C warmer, and plantlife was more abundant than ever. In other words, history has shown that a warmer planet is literally a more green one.
So what kind of disaster is anti-climate change supposed to avert again?
Honestly I get annoyed with password requirements that want you to have a special character, number, mixed case, etc. I just like to use really long but simple passwords; mathematically speaking, they're more secure than this mixed content bullshit while being easier to remember.
I have a bitcoin asic that does 8 billion sha256 hashes per second, and it is a cheap asic. Why not just throw each password+salt through a sha256 hash 1 million times? The requirement for brute force guessing it would be insane even with a really expensive asic, yet simple authentication if you already had the right password would be cheap. Just flat out forget about trying to do it with a regular CPU or GPU.
Well, look at the areas he wants to deregulate. It's been pretty well established recently that regulation is what is causing broadband prices to go up. Take for example the laws that forbid municipal broadband - that is a regulation. Google Fiber has been able to do what it does because they've been able to convince local governments to throw out regulation. That city called Overland Park tried to pull up some red tape, so Google left them, and now their politicians likely aren't going to last another election as a result.
He's right: We need more local governments to remove legislative barriers to broadband deployment.
How so? Google knows people get it this way, and people distribute it this way out in the open, and google hasn't once threatened them with a lawsuit (unless they distribute it with a ROM, in which case they will do so.)
Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%. I'm still trying to figure out why the government finds it necessary to make a cell phone so expensive to have, even if your income is shit.
That isn't true at all, actually. You as an individual can download and install Google's Play Services yourself if you'd like. What you can't do however is sell a device commercially that includes Google's Play Services unless you follow their terms.
New York living is expensive, Yes, but it comes with a free bonus if New York is where you want to be
Uh...."free" bonus? Yeah right, it's expensive as hell to live there. I get annoyed when groups like OWS complain because standard wages in most of the US, or even considered pretty high for most of the US, aren't enough to afford to live there. You can't expect to live among the world's elite yet expect to not pay like you're living among the world's elite. Dumbasses, all of them.
But you love that New York Living right? So you gotta live there anyways right? Good, then expect to pay for it.
No, that wouldn't work at all. All that does is put the domestic economy at a big disadvantage. People who ask for trade barriers don't understand that domestic production and imports rise and fall with one another. This is why Smoot-Hawley was so destructive on the economy; the politicians thought it would be a genius idea, and while it did slow imports, it also did the same to domestic production, which ultimately lead to the 20% unemployment. The stock market crash alone had little to do with that (the numbers post-crash were about what they are now until Smoot-Hawley passed, then it took a huge nose-dive.)
Trade wars are neither destructive or expensive unless either party starts adding either trade barriers like you just suggested or trade subsidies. Comparative advantage actually tends to work out as a mutual advantage. You are effectively arguing in favor of a monopoly by claiming the opposite.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm wondering if they actually believe that there are just so many Google buses clogging up traffic that they MUST do something about it, or if it's all in their head and they simply don't like paying rent.
I mean jesus, the paint that they had to use to make those bus stop markers must have been REALLY expensive to warrant Google now paying for free bus tickets for students.
How is it a free market when the law doesn't allow it to be? A free market would be Tesla being allowed to sell how they choose instead of being forced to go through third parties. A free market would be being allowed to pump your own gas instead of being forced to pay some tard to do it and then expecting a tip for something you may have preferred to do yourself instead of just sitting in your car doing nothing at all.
Speaking as somebody who no longer has cable and thus doesn't watch any of those, I can call out what I've observed:
NBC has been caught in deliberate lies when they want to alter a story to fit their narrative. See the George Zimmerman 911 tape editing job they did, for example. If that isn't blatant lying, I don't know what is, yet for whatever reason you don't see any sites like foxnewsboycott.com target them.
CBS -- remember memogate? The investigator behind the story, Mary Mapes, actually found that Bush volunteered for service in Vietnam but was declined by one of his officers, but that tidbit was never revealed until a year or so after Rather was already fired. Instead they chose to broadcast some memo which they were unable to (and I think never did?) authenticate. But both of these are neither here nor there; what I find more disturbing is that the whole point of all of this was to derail an election, and actual "news" had nothing to do with it (I mean honestly, who gives a fuck about a service term that happened some 35ish years prior and was otherwise unremarkable?)
The best (worst?) argument I've seen against Fox actually didn't involve Fox News, rather it involved an entirely separate news organization that happened to be a Fox affiliated broadcaster. The common argument goes something to the effect of "Fox sued for the right to lie" but when you dig further, you actually find that the plaintiff (not Fox or the local affiliate) was suing for the right to lie, namely the local broadcaster didn't want to air the piece unless they had both sides of the particular story (something involving Monsanto, I don't recall) but the plaintiff refused, instead only wanting to push what amounted to a one sided hit-piece. How that got twisted into "Fox sued for the right to lie" I'll never quite understand, especially given that the Fox affiliate didn't even initiate the lawsuit.
Here's an interesting issue though: We already know that most species cannot survive without the ecosystem that lives inside of them (the so called "good bacteria.") Do the bacterial strains that they needed to survive still live? If not, do we need to clone those as well or will something else suffice? If we need to clone those, then you might run into problems.
That's fine and all, except those tiny speakers simply aren't big enough to move enough air that you'd actually feel resonating in your body, which is the only benefit you'd gain in the undertones. It's just not happening. When it comes to sound, you either hear it or you feel it (or both,) and headphones aren't big enough to allow you to feel tones that you are incapable of hearing, making them worthless for that purpose.
"This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,"
Did they have to roll it around in flour to find out? Just wondering.
There is definitely merit to keeping the undertones though. Although you can't hear them, you certainly CAN feel them if you have the right equipment. It wouldn't be useful for a portable player (I strongly doubt you'd get anything useful from a pair of earbuds or even some really uber expensive headphones) but audio formats shouldn't discard them.
The rate of change is a potential problem.
If that is the case, then what is the point of causing sudden mass disruption of the global economy in the ways that the green movement often advocates? We've already seen multiple times where poor economic choices have lead to mass famine, yet we haven't (yet at least) seen a single case where climate change has lead to the same thing on even remotely the same scale.
Denying what, exactly?
s/precisely/precise
Funny thing though, when it comes to talk about cutting these subsidies, the "big oil" boyz are all against it. Sure, they're against green energy subsidies, but if you want to cut their subsidies, all of a sudden you're threatening the "lifeblood" of the American Way[tm].
Of course they are. Wouldn't you be opposed to somebody wanting to take away your free money? I'm a free market capitalist myself, and am not in any way part of the green movement (see my previous post for an explanation) but I really hate energy subsidies. But I also hate things like food stamps as well. Yet try taking even those away, you'll get people bitching and moaning about it.
I was actually on EBT once. When I started school later that year, they took it away (my income didn't increase, but my expenses did; they just have a rule that if you go to school full time then you are ineligible unless you meet some additional requirements.) Know what I did after they took it away? I just made due with what I had. The world didn't end and I didn't just suddenly starve, and anybody who thinks people will starve without food stamps is really ignorant.
Likewise, I can apply the same argument towards energy subsidies and any excuses that there are for keeping them, but getting rid of them would be like pulling teeth.
Or to be more precisely, how alternative goods/resources work.
If you take away 37% of the supply of electricity, it will need to be replaced. This means that alternatives to coal will go up in price, and your electricity costs will go up with them. These hipsters might talk all day about saving the rainforest, but in reality they'll never go a day without their ipads and a working espresso machine.
That would actually be a great opportunity for nuclear, however I have a feeling that these guys would hate nuclear even more than coal (I know it's stereotyping, but their type usually does and you'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise.)
Kind of a side rant, but I'm not sure what the ultimate purpose of preventing man-made global warming is supposed to be. The best argument I've heard is to prevent the loss of landmass to rising sea water, but that's already going to happen anyways (less than 100k years ago Los Angeles was under water, and no matter what we do it will one day again be under water.) Higher global temperatures have historically resulted in more arable land rather than simple increased droughts. If you want more physical landmass, then you'll need to drop the climate to ice age levels where biodiversity actually tends to suffer. During the age of dinosaurs, the carbon dioxidie PPM was 18 times higher than it is now, biodiversity was at one of its peaks, the overall climate was 8C warmer, and plantlife was more abundant than ever. In other words, history has shown that a warmer planet is literally a more green one.
So what kind of disaster is anti-climate change supposed to avert again?
Football fields IMO.
Honestly I get annoyed with password requirements that want you to have a special character, number, mixed case, etc. I just like to use really long but simple passwords; mathematically speaking, they're more secure than this mixed content bullshit while being easier to remember.
If you get a 404 not found, then you aren't having a DNS problem.
I have a bitcoin asic that does 8 billion sha256 hashes per second, and it is a cheap asic. Why not just throw each password+salt through a sha256 hash 1 million times? The requirement for brute force guessing it would be insane even with a really expensive asic, yet simple authentication if you already had the right password would be cheap. Just flat out forget about trying to do it with a regular CPU or GPU.
Wouldn't Walter White count as a chemical engineer?
Well, look at the areas he wants to deregulate. It's been pretty well established recently that regulation is what is causing broadband prices to go up. Take for example the laws that forbid municipal broadband - that is a regulation. Google Fiber has been able to do what it does because they've been able to convince local governments to throw out regulation. That city called Overland Park tried to pull up some red tape, so Google left them, and now their politicians likely aren't going to last another election as a result.
He's right: We need more local governments to remove legislative barriers to broadband deployment.
How so? Google knows people get it this way, and people distribute it this way out in the open, and google hasn't once threatened them with a lawsuit (unless they distribute it with a ROM, in which case they will do so.)
Trouble with this is the carriers won't be able to run national ads with their pricing. Instead the price will have to be concealed until you're about to sign up. Some states (Nevada) you pay around 7%, whereas others (I think NY?) it's 25%. I'm still trying to figure out why the government finds it necessary to make a cell phone so expensive to have, even if your income is shit.
I get tmobile for $23 a month per phone ($114 a month for 5 lines.) Everything is unlimited too.
That isn't true at all, actually. You as an individual can download and install Google's Play Services yourself if you'd like. What you can't do however is sell a device commercially that includes Google's Play Services unless you follow their terms.
More information here:
http://wiki.rootzwiki.com/Goog...
Hold on a sec we don't know if they're dead yet. I mean they could have been abducted by aliens you know.
I like best how the article states this:
New York living is expensive, Yes, but it comes with a free bonus if New York is where you want to be
Uh...."free" bonus? Yeah right, it's expensive as hell to live there. I get annoyed when groups like OWS complain because standard wages in most of the US, or even considered pretty high for most of the US, aren't enough to afford to live there. You can't expect to live among the world's elite yet expect to not pay like you're living among the world's elite. Dumbasses, all of them.
But you love that New York Living right? So you gotta live there anyways right? Good, then expect to pay for it.
No, that wouldn't work at all. All that does is put the domestic economy at a big disadvantage. People who ask for trade barriers don't understand that domestic production and imports rise and fall with one another. This is why Smoot-Hawley was so destructive on the economy; the politicians thought it would be a genius idea, and while it did slow imports, it also did the same to domestic production, which ultimately lead to the 20% unemployment. The stock market crash alone had little to do with that (the numbers post-crash were about what they are now until Smoot-Hawley passed, then it took a huge nose-dive.)
Trade wars are neither destructive or expensive unless either party starts adding either trade barriers like you just suggested or trade subsidies. Comparative advantage actually tends to work out as a mutual advantage. You are effectively arguing in favor of a monopoly by claiming the opposite.