Lol.. And you linking to another biased and self serving site isn't more of the same accusations your making.
The bottom line is, two school officials were criminally charged for saying grace at a private function. The fact is, then even if they did do something wrong before this, this is on no way a government forced prayer and a judge exonerated them of it. The link I offered was just one from a google search so blame google for the biased-ness of the link as it was the first one I found with my search.
Like I said, if it was just government forced prayer, it would be one thing. However it isn't. There are countless examples like the guy suing over the pledge of allegiance and the ACLU supporting him. Or how about the forced removal of holiday images and depictions from town squares where the community supported them being there. We even have the boy scout case where the ACLU sued to deny them access to a public park in California that was donated to the city by the boy scouts under the conditions of a $1 per year lease to conduct their club activities periodical in the first place just because the boy scouts didn't accept atheist.
It was a value decision. Or should I say valuable decision. Without it, the US wouldn't have come together and history as we know it would have been completely different with perhaps slavery existing in it to this day. Values such as the freedom of speech that allowed abolitionist to convince people on the ending of slavery wouldn't have existed as the newly formed states may not have ever pact together or if they did, the union would have been much weaker.
Most of the rest of the modern world had outlawed slavery in their main countries with their insular possessions coming soon after about the same as the US walked into the civil war. Even while England had banned slavery by the 1700's, it was allowed in their colonies like India and places in Africa. Africa still has parts that allow slavery to this day.
I use brother printers for throw away personal printers in office environments. You can get a fast reliable printer that you can change out yearly or bi-annually and not have to worry to much about. The 1440 was a solid printer but it's out of production. I skipped the 1450 series and turned to 5370 or 2170.
I haven't really found a "quality" printer for under $150 to $200. That includes ink-jets. It seems like there is a junk line marketed to grandma's of the world who will print 3 times a year and then there is good enough for home office work lines. That's when you start reaching some of the better made printers but about anything under $250-$300 seems to go through drums quickly, can't be depended on for heavy print jobs and so on.
Anyways, I just want to stress that there is a hidden quality line within the pricing structure of printers. Or at least it seems like it to me. The older HP's, you could get roller kits to fix the jamming and so on but that was for the more expensive printers like the 1100. A good rule of thumb is to look at the document rating (pages per month-life, expected pages per toner-drum) and then look at a price structure that fits your needs through that. All the printers I buy are used in an office environment and I treat them as throw away printers I expect to only get a year or two of service from. For home use, they should last quite a bit longer as I have limped a few of them along at home for several years.
The last two dozen or so lawsuits over prayer in school revolved around students voluntarily praying and a principle saying grace or asking another teacher to at a after school private dinner. They were facing criminal charges for it. The only students present were members of the culinary program who volunteered to create the dinner and serve the food.
If it was just Government-forced prayer, it would be one thing. But having to defend against ACLU lawsuits because a teacher steps in with a group of kids already meeting at a flag pole for prayer or when a principle asks someone to bless the dinner at a private function is fucking ridiculous. It's fucking ridiculous when schools are abandoning learning the pledge of elegance because it mentions god in the wording. It's ridiculous when Christmas plays performed by the students that depict nothing more then the secular notion of Santa Clause or the singing of Christmas carols are banned because of a quasi connection to a religious holiday.
You are obviously either ignorant of what has happened and do not understand what they are considering government forced prayer (common, a school teacher at a private dinner function faced criminal charges for giving thanks for his meal) or your purposely misstating what is going on in some attempt to ignore the outrage over it.
Why, there were quite a few founding fathers that didn't want slavery. In fact, it seems that the original drafts of the constitution banned slavery and had to be changed in order to get a few of the southern states on board. They compromised by placing the ability to ban imports of slaves and to tax their possession and make slave ownership and sales impractical in the future.
The act of slavery is irrelevant to someone pulling out a founding fathers argument. It's like Criticizing Obama's health care plan or foreign policy because he never rode a Farris Wheel.
I guess my point was that it's impractical to consider a car charging as the same thing as a phone charging like the GP attempted to assert. I know I didn't pull it off well enough considering the other replies so I need to thank you for having the intellectual insight to see where I was going with that and pointing it out. If we were in grade school, you would have a gold star by your name. Good job!
I'm willing to bet that if you venture outside of the city, the outage rates are comparable.
As for oil lamps, that's not backwards at all. It's called preparation. You see, those flashlights need batteries and generally will not light up a room for several hours at a time. Those batteries start become scared when 100,000 people start attempting to replace theirs. Anyways, the economics are in favor of the oil lamps and candles. You can get some pretty decent candles that will last 2 or 3 nights at 4 or 5 hours a night for around 3 dollars. A 20 dollar oil lamp which will look pretty stylish on the fireplace mantel will burn a half pint to a pint of kerosene or Liquid Paraffin lamp oil that goes for between 5 and 7 dollars a gallon for about 7-8 hours. Considering that there are 8 pints in a gallon, it gets dark around 5 and you hit the sack around 10, that's about 11 days of emergency lighting for the costs of one or two sets of batteries. They can also be used to set the mood is you want to get naughty with the misses.
Anyways, it appears I'm not the only one who swears by oil lamps. I guess maybe you are just to inexperienced to be prepared.
Oh my, your just trying anything to shoot down critics of electric cars and their impracticality. Stop attempting to create a false dichotomy, those were just part of the issues I can see and not all of the possibilities.
What's so bad at recognizing the drawbacks of electric cars? I mean if you want to live with them, fine but why such the effort to force your opinion on people who do not? I don't like the color of green on a car either, are you going to find fault with that too?
For your example situation that hasn't happened to me in my lifetime, the longest time I've been powerless is during the 2003 north america blackout. I'm more worried about being attacked by ninja's than having regular power outages after 9hour drives such that it'd effect my life.
You have been lucky then. Well, that or you live in an area with a relatively timid climate.
2-5 days at a time is common??? I've been to place up north where bears and moose walk the streets and that would never happen
2-5 days at least once per winter. Generally it's during an ice storm but we have a lot of utility poles that travel through farm land and sometimes access to those lines is difficult. I remember last year, I had two bucket trucks and a bulldozer stuck on my property from where we got a heavy snow (about 5 inches) that turned to freezing rain which snapped the power lines, and then a warm up the very next day with about 40 degree F weather and rain for a week. It took a crane, another dozer and a crap load of steal cable and 02 stone to get them out.
There are probably years it doesn't happen but it's a reality enough to expect it.
Electric cars will likely roll out faster in 1st world conditions. I doubt wherever you live where you need candles and oil lamps.... has the electrical infrastructure to support electric cars. Seriously where do you live? 1920's Alaska?
I live in Central Ohio. But I live in the country about 6 miles to the nearest city. The electric utility is some local coop but when they are having problems the larger ones like AEP is too. Shit just gets messy here fast. Here is a link to an article about the wind storm we had last year. Basically it was the storm system of hurricane Ike that hit the gulf and somehow picked up steam around Ohio and gave us 75mph winds for a day or two.
I know places where there arent roads to and you have to take a helicopter to reach... and they would be insulted if you thought they used oil lamps, though their internet sucks which is almost as bad as not having flashlights yet.
Don't act like it's that bad of a deal. People along the gulf and southeaster seaboard are in the same situation much of the year. Oklahoma and tornado alley have the same problems. This type of infrastructure problem is more common in the US and first world countries then you might know. Here is a list of some of the larger outages as tracked by the government. It's only for 2009 and up to mid june. Here is last year. These aren't all of the power outages, just the larger ones where it was considered an emergency. Quite a bit of the US experiences those for various periods of time.
Consider this. Suppose it's the middle of winter, you come home from a trip like you described. I'm willing to say that most people will take longer then 9 hours on a trip that long because it's difficult to average 55-60 MPH and drive for 9 hours while remaining alert. Lets say the trip is business related. Ok, there was no places to charge your car along the way. Now your home and someone slides off the road taking a utility pole and your electric out.
Do you call off work, not go to the store for supplies, not go to a hotel where the heat is actually on, not go to family members houses to check up on them, or do your hit a gas station, fill up the tank and proceed as best as normal as possible considering the situation.
Where I live, it's not uncommon for the electric to go out for 2-5 days at a time during winter and with wind storms (it appears that trees grow ten times faster then the utility company can trim them around their lines. 7 days during an ice storm with nothing but a kerosene heater is the longest I've had in about 15 years. Anyways, when you do not have electricity, having gasoline at your disposal and the ability to use it can mean quite a bit in the survival arena. Heating just one or two rooms will cost you about 3 gallons of kerosene a day. Trips in town to refuel are a necessity. Trips in town for food, sanitation (well water so showering and shitting is a little difficult without electricity to run the pump), and general supplies like candles and oil for the lamps are a must when this happens. Sometimes you can be more prepared then others and need to rely less on it, but life is unpredictable to say the least. Sure, 99 percent of the time, it would be life as normal. That one fuck up is generally the one that counts though.
That's nice and all, but I carry spare batteries and have a cradle charger to charge the batteries without the phone at all.
The point is that regardless of how convenient the charging might be, there will be times when it isn't. Call it Murphy's law or whatever but it's just one of those realities.
Yea, and when you wake up in the middle of the night and need to take your mobile phone for a 50 mile drive because your server broke down, or you dad had a heart attack, or your kid thought someone was in her house and is scared shitless, or something, you are going to wish you could pull up to a gas pump and fill your mobile phone up in a matter of minutes and not have to worry about it.
An example would be the UN oil for food program and the UN sanctions on Iraq. UN parties exploited those (even the secretary general's family was involved) and made them completely ineffective at their intended goals. As a result, years more of Iraq's unverified disarmament and conditions that lead up to the US going to war with Iraq.
Now I'm not saying the oil for food corruption caused the Iraq war, but it prevented the clear satisfaction of several armistice agreements as well as resulting UN resolutions which created a condition that could later be exploited by Bush when going to war. It's not certain that the UN sanctions would have worked but exploiting them for personal gain is an act that taken the certainly undermined those efforts. When agreement is little more then opportunity to exploit, little good can come of it.
It would depend on how you classify damages. It may be that the cost of listing the item is the only damages. However, lets say something happened and the market value dropped during the time it was down. That loss is a damage that was originally covered by the DMCA protections that wouldn't be if they didn't honor the counter claim notice.
Listing software is a little difficult to explain on this provision. It's there but it also pertains to any copyrighted works so software would definitely be included. An example might be where you have a book for sale that is out of print and while the book was off line, the publisher announced a reprinting of the book and free distribution as some promotion to a sequel. Or lets say you were reselling a software program and the publisher announced an updated version for half the price. In both of these examples, if you can convince a judge or jury that your sale price was damaged by them taking the item off the web, you may be able to get Ebay to compensate you for the difference.
Another and more apt example, let say you made a fair use parody of some book or published your research on inorganic human elements or something. The hosting service takes your paper down because of a DMCA and they do not honor the counter claim. Before you can get another site up and running, a competitor publishes something comparable and takes the credit for your concept. IF you can convince a judge or jury that your work had value and that value was harmed by the service providers actions, then the service provider can become liable for that harm if they do not follow the counter notification procedures.
Another and probably a more obvious example might be, suppose you operated a pay site for rare information and leads in a database like environment. You use a Wikipedia type editing system so companies can add information and it can be shared between all subscribers of your service. Now suppose someone issues a DMCA take down notice because their database has similar information and they think yours is a copy of theirs. (forget the validity of the information for now). You file a counter notification but the ISP ignores it and maintains the disabled access and you can't even get to the information to port it to another network not to mention the costs of reprogramming all the client interfaces to access a different database store. The ISP is no longer protected from your loss of revenue or costs of changing the system over or reprogramming all the client connections. If they honor the counter claim, the law shields them from any of that. If they do no, then they have no legal shield.
Actually, most of them would have benefited from the Kyoto accord.
A way to get our from under your cap was to invest in other countries without a cap (shifting the problem) or to purchase credits from a country who has done that already. Europe has more then quadrupled their Imports from China and India (who do not have limits) and EU member nations attempt to get under their quotas. Spain almost wrecked their entire economy attempting to get in line with their guidelines.
Of the 180 some countries signed onto Kyoto, only 37 of them have reduction goals and caps. One country agreed to a limit it will not reach for another couple decades. It's been a while since I verified those numbers so they may be a little off- the effect is the same though. The idea behind Kyoto was to spur investment in both infrastructure and productivity more then reduce emissions. In the late 1980's early 90's, there was a global movement to get the western worlds to forgive or relax debt in the third world countries who leveraged the OPEC oil embargo for loans hoping to develop their own oil and sell to the US. This movement disappeared about the time Kyoto popped into play and you don't need too much of an imagination to figure out why.
Actually, if you get rid of homicides and deaths from recreational activities, the life span of Americans is much longer then in Europe. We take a hit from a reckless lifestyle and easy access to weapons and toys to do stupid things with.
In most areas of medicine, our disease survival rates are higher then Europe's. This covers things like Cancer, heart disease, aids and so on.
That's right! I have no clue why reforming health care isn't just fixing what it wrong with it.
They are attempting to convoluted it and take control of health care under some guise that being like other abhorrent systems in other countries is somehow better. Well, just fix what is being claimed as wrong with the system and be done with it. Most of the problems in the current system is because of Government involvement anyways. We didn't have these problems until the HMO act in the mid 60's. Congress screwed with it a little since then but the biggest factor was the states screwing with it. That's why you can find a decent plan at an affordable rate in some states with it costing 10 times or more in others.
Aside from what you mentioned, I suggest a buy-in plan be organized too where if someone finds themselves without coverage (for any reason) and has a problem, they can buy into a plan with a 5 or 10 year commitment contract and have their medical costs covered. The long term commitment will likely mean they never go off insurance again.
Actually, the UN is universally known for fucking things up. They don't do anything until it's too late then they exploit it for personal gain or react totally incorrectly. Hell, they put totalitarian dictators on the humans rights panel as if having a voice in your government isn't a human right.
I like your approach but don't like the UN as the solution. Maybe a league of 30 year old virgins still living in their parents basement across the world would be better. Perhaps they can use their WOW accounts to meet bi-monthly.
I do know a little something about hypocrisy though. It strikes me as ridiculously hypocritical that we are now in a situation of our government trying to put pressure on one country not to develop nuclear weapons, when they have neighbour that is known for being their enemy that has nuclear weapons already.
I think your hypocrisy meter is broken. Let me ask you something, is it ok to ban guns from convicted felons? Is it OK to ban people mentally unstable or clinically insane from owning guns? Are you perfectly fine with people who violently threaten others, have been caught committing a domestic violence acts, keeping and owning guns? Because you seem to think it's ok for them to do so with your hypocrisy concept. I mean is it hypocritical to not let perpetrators of domestic violence, people who threaten physical harm to another person, who are mentally incapacitated, convicted of felonies not have guns and weapons while you and I can live right next door to them and own the guns and weapons?
The problem with your position is that it doesn't take into consideration the past actions of Iran and statements made by it's leaders. Also, the entire enemy situation is brought about by Iran's belligerence. Israel could care less about Iran if Iran wasn't supplying terrorists attacking them and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
I see very little difference between Israel and Iran because both are countries that have a strongly intertwined notions of Religion and State, that makes me very nervous as I believe that governments should be religiously impartial. I believe this because I am completely atheist. I have no problem with other people being religious, but they should have no say in determining law or governmental policy based on the teachings of their religion.
Are you scared of the boogy man too? Religion does create anything you should be afraid of. It's the people who pervert religions for their own use you need to be afraid of. Those people can and will do that regardless of any separate of Church and state. As for the laws and religion, move to where that isn't the case. But don't use your own bigotry as some sort of moral high ground. It isn't.
In both Israel and Iran (and many other countries for that matter) people of different religions are treated differently, especially with regards to the Armed Forces. This makes me very nervous about these countries developing and possessing nuclear weapons.
Your just as likely to have a secular nutjob in power do something stupid. Saddam Husein admitted that he invaded Kuwait because a Kuwaiti official made a comment about Iraqi women being 2 or 10 dollar whores. WWII was a secular war and while WWI was started with a religious entity (ottoman empire), it's causes were primarily secular. In fact, Korea, Vietnam, the Civil war, all secular events. You need to drop the fear of the boogerman in religion and take a hard look at the people perpetrating the issues.
And the British justified this saying the revolutionaries were terrorists. Amazing huh?
No, they called them rebels and supporters of the rebellion. The British actually didn't do much justification outside of burning the supply line for the rebels. It's probably one of the biggest thing that drew support to the revolution. People who weren't normally subjected to the British injustice found themselves right in the middle of it with revolting as the best way out.
But they don't outnumber Jews in Israel by 20 to 1, which was the claim.
Actually, it is 15 to 1 or 30 for 2 as I stated it. However, I never claimed the Muslims outnumbered the jews 15-1 or even 30-2. I said they will kill 30 of their own to kill 2 jews. This has nothing to do with population counts or religious divides, it has to do with who is where at what time. About 3 years ago, a suicide bomber got on a work bus entering Israel. At the check station before entering from Palestine, the bomb was detonated killing 25 Palestinians, two IDF soldiers manning the station and took the arm off another IDF soldier. A couple of months before that, a suicide bomber (woman this time) went into a crowded market in Egypt hanging around around some Muslim vendors. When two Americans walked by, the bomb was detonated killing 30 or so Muslims, the two americans, and wounded a lot more people.
Your post was incorrect on a rather major point. Attacks in Israel aren't only killing two jews for every 40 Iranian jews. You can't be "overall acurate" when you have such a huge misstatement. I'm not saying Iran might not sponser terrorism, but your knowledge of the facts is very much in question.
Wow, is english your native language? I never said all attacks are that way. I said an attack was that way. I didn't even limit the attacks to being in Israel. Quit placing artificial boundaries on my post then claiming it didn't happen.
I do nit know why a floppy drive would mean something is outdated. I recently had to use one to install windows server on brand new hardware. In fact, I'm going to have to remove the one from the server I just built to place it in a new server for a fresh install. After their up and running, I can get buy on drive images though. But unless your buying everything from dell or something, floppies are still in use.
Actually, resale of copyrighted computer software is written in law. Title 17 section 117 even allows you to make copies of the software and sell them with the original software as part of the sale.
Personally, I think that software publishers should not be able to legally disallow first-sale like that. If they could, the same could be done with, for example, books, and resale could be completely prohibited just by saying "this book is licensed not sold; your license prohibits you from reselling the book."
The interesting thing here is that books are licensed in the same or similar way. When you buy it, you do not get any rights to the text or content, you simply get a copy of the thing. This is much the same as software outside of a EULA during the install. In the context of this story, the seller selling the media is the same as selling a book. He wouldn't have had to agree to any license in order to do that.
Ebay is setting itself up for a lawsuit. The DMCA protections require the service to restore the content on a counter claim in order to gain protections against damages from the copyrighted materials being removed.
They aren't obligated to restore it, but when they do not, they lose that protection. The idea is that if there is a challenge, then the courts and not the provider will work it out.
What you're now arguing is that white people killing other white people, such as WW1 or WW2, is "killing their own people." Tell me, when the French backed the US revolution, were they killing mostly French people by doing so?
The french in the revolutionary war as well as WWI and WWII were killing military objectives. The difference is that innocent civilians weren't targeted. The British targeted civilians and that is a large reason why the french aided the colonists.
In the context of Iranians, we are actually talking about religious Identity not ethnic makeup. There are Iranians living in Israel just as there are jews living in Iran.
You also seem to be confusing jewish people with muslium people. Palestinians are largely located in occupied West Bank and Gaza, and as far as Lebanese people go... Hezbollah is another muslim group, which fired rockets into (largely) jewish israel.
I'm not confusing anyone. Palestinians work in Israel and some live there too. about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab or Persian and about 18% of Israel is Muslim. About 1 million Palestinians cross into Israel for work each month.
None of that matches your assertion that 40 Iranians are killed in order to kill two or three other nationals. Logically, if that were to happen (you've yet to cite anything like that, either), it would take place within Iran.
Iran sponsors terrorism. They fund terrorist groups and supply them with weapons and training and to some degree, direct their activities. Regardless of you wanting to argue semantics or ignore the realities of the area, the statement is overall accurate and reflects the different between the US and Iran and why we should worried about one country getting Nuclear weapons and not so much about another who may already have them.
And why would we need to breed them? With Predator drones and cruise missiles blowing up whomever we decide is in league with "terrorists" is just a push of a button away. I'm not saying we target innocents intentionally, but we've certainly killed plenty of them in the crossfire with whichever groups we decided were naughty.
There is a difference between collateral damage on a legitimate military target verses targeting innocent civilians to achieve a military objective.
Your right, we wouldn't need to bread people to do that, however, we would have to start targeting civilians for the purpose of military objectives which we do not even pretend to do.
That said, Israel has every right to be a little xenophobic considering their neighbors have this endearing habit of trying to exterminate them. This crap has been going on long before Israel was a nation, it goes back to (at least) the 1930's when Britain was in control of the region.
I do not disagree expect that it goes back even further then that. The ottoman empire started marketing and selling land to the jews around the year 1100. They developed special taxes on them and basically profited from their tendency to retain wealth. The ottoman empire did this using the Qur'an citing Sura 9:29. The jews (and some christians) were considered dhimmi, or "people of the pact."
This eventually lead to other restrictions on the Dhimmi, against riding horses, building new or repairing old houses of worship, carrying weapons, public worship or parades, recruiting new members and building housing hirer then any Muslim house. The jews were also required to wear specific clothing so they could be identified as jews. This also helped create Zionism around 1200 or so. The original Zionism was supported by the ottoman empire for a few centuries and catered to it by selling off land in the Israel area marketed specifically to jews. In the mid 1800's it really kicked off with what is known as waves (Aliyah- this terms has another meaning but it lapses in my mind right now) of immigration sponsored by the growing hostile environments in Europe. Zionism created a sort of government council similar to the Vatican but with further reach on the jewish people. This Zionist government promoted the Aliyah too. The Ottoman empire saw it as little more then a way to increase it's wealth.
After it was clear that the ottoman empire never intended to allow them self rule, the jews started banding together only allowing jews to work for jews and so on in an attempt to keep their wealth within the community. This really pissed off a lot of the Muslims and I forget the name of the group, but it eventually caused violent clashes between them.
The second large wave of immigration came in about 1914-15 with the fall of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI. This was also promoted in part by the increased hostilities in Europe- in which Hitler eventually capitalized on. Shortly after this, Lord Balfour made his proclamation and the league of nations supported it with the British mandate for Palestine. Here some a really interesting part of Middle east history, the most troubled spots in the middle east come from a failed British and french occupation. (Vietnam was a failed French occupation/colony too.) Under the league of nations partition, most every country under the ottoman empire rule outside of the Palestine territory and Lebanon created their own self rule and satisfied their obligations to remove foreign oversight. Anyways, this second wave caused more problems with the Arabs and Muslims. From about the mid 1600, there were quite a few violent clashes based around cultural differences and attempt of superiority.
Now we are up to when England was in control of the area (at the end of WWI). The big thing is that a former government of the area sort of encouraged the idea of a Jewish homeland and the British propagation of the idea is more or less a continuation of this age old idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol.. And you linking to another biased and self serving site isn't more of the same accusations your making.
The bottom line is, two school officials were criminally charged for saying grace at a private function. The fact is, then even if they did do something wrong before this, this is on no way a government forced prayer and a judge exonerated them of it. The link I offered was just one from a google search so blame google for the biased-ness of the link as it was the first one I found with my search.
Like I said, if it was just government forced prayer, it would be one thing. However it isn't. There are countless examples like the guy suing over the pledge of allegiance and the ACLU supporting him. Or how about the forced removal of holiday images and depictions from town squares where the community supported them being there. We even have the boy scout case where the ACLU sued to deny them access to a public park in California that was donated to the city by the boy scouts under the conditions of a $1 per year lease to conduct their club activities periodical in the first place just because the boy scouts didn't accept atheist.
It was a value decision. Or should I say valuable decision. Without it, the US wouldn't have come together and history as we know it would have been completely different with perhaps slavery existing in it to this day. Values such as the freedom of speech that allowed abolitionist to convince people on the ending of slavery wouldn't have existed as the newly formed states may not have ever pact together or if they did, the union would have been much weaker.
Most of the rest of the modern world had outlawed slavery in their main countries with their insular possessions coming soon after about the same as the US walked into the civil war. Even while England had banned slavery by the 1700's, it was allowed in their colonies like India and places in Africa. Africa still has parts that allow slavery to this day.
I use brother printers for throw away personal printers in office environments. You can get a fast reliable printer that you can change out yearly or bi-annually and not have to worry to much about. The 1440 was a solid printer but it's out of production. I skipped the 1450 series and turned to 5370 or 2170.
I haven't really found a "quality" printer for under $150 to $200. That includes ink-jets. It seems like there is a junk line marketed to grandma's of the world who will print 3 times a year and then there is good enough for home office work lines. That's when you start reaching some of the better made printers but about anything under $250-$300 seems to go through drums quickly, can't be depended on for heavy print jobs and so on.
Anyways, I just want to stress that there is a hidden quality line within the pricing structure of printers. Or at least it seems like it to me. The older HP's, you could get roller kits to fix the jamming and so on but that was for the more expensive printers like the 1100. A good rule of thumb is to look at the document rating (pages per month-life, expected pages per toner-drum) and then look at a price structure that fits your needs through that. All the printers I buy are used in an office environment and I treat them as throw away printers I expect to only get a year or two of service from. For home use, they should last quite a bit longer as I have limped a few of them along at home for several years.
The last two dozen or so lawsuits over prayer in school revolved around students voluntarily praying and a principle saying grace or asking another teacher to at a after school private dinner. They were facing criminal charges for it. The only students present were members of the culinary program who volunteered to create the dinner and serve the food.
If it was just Government-forced prayer, it would be one thing. But having to defend against ACLU lawsuits because a teacher steps in with a group of kids already meeting at a flag pole for prayer or when a principle asks someone to bless the dinner at a private function is fucking ridiculous. It's fucking ridiculous when schools are abandoning learning the pledge of elegance because it mentions god in the wording. It's ridiculous when Christmas plays performed by the students that depict nothing more then the secular notion of Santa Clause or the singing of Christmas carols are banned because of a quasi connection to a religious holiday.
You are obviously either ignorant of what has happened and do not understand what they are considering government forced prayer (common, a school teacher at a private dinner function faced criminal charges for giving thanks for his meal) or your purposely misstating what is going on in some attempt to ignore the outrage over it.
Why, there were quite a few founding fathers that didn't want slavery. In fact, it seems that the original drafts of the constitution banned slavery and had to be changed in order to get a few of the southern states on board. They compromised by placing the ability to ban imports of slaves and to tax their possession and make slave ownership and sales impractical in the future.
The act of slavery is irrelevant to someone pulling out a founding fathers argument. It's like Criticizing Obama's health care plan or foreign policy because he never rode a Farris Wheel.
I guess my point was that it's impractical to consider a car charging as the same thing as a phone charging like the GP attempted to assert. I know I didn't pull it off well enough considering the other replies so I need to thank you for having the intellectual insight to see where I was going with that and pointing it out. If we were in grade school, you would have a gold star by your name. Good job!
I'm willing to bet that if you venture outside of the city, the outage rates are comparable.
As for oil lamps, that's not backwards at all. It's called preparation. You see, those flashlights need batteries and generally will not light up a room for several hours at a time. Those batteries start become scared when 100,000 people start attempting to replace theirs. Anyways, the economics are in favor of the oil lamps and candles. You can get some pretty decent candles that will last 2 or 3 nights at 4 or 5 hours a night for around 3 dollars. A 20 dollar oil lamp which will look pretty stylish on the fireplace mantel will burn a half pint to a pint of kerosene or Liquid Paraffin lamp oil that goes for between 5 and 7 dollars a gallon for about 7-8 hours. Considering that there are 8 pints in a gallon, it gets dark around 5 and you hit the sack around 10, that's about 11 days of emergency lighting for the costs of one or two sets of batteries. They can also be used to set the mood is you want to get naughty with the misses.
Anyways, it appears I'm not the only one who swears by oil lamps. I guess maybe you are just to inexperienced to be prepared.
Oh my, your just trying anything to shoot down critics of electric cars and their impracticality. Stop attempting to create a false dichotomy, those were just part of the issues I can see and not all of the possibilities.
What's so bad at recognizing the drawbacks of electric cars? I mean if you want to live with them, fine but why such the effort to force your opinion on people who do not? I don't like the color of green on a car either, are you going to find fault with that too?
You have been lucky then. Well, that or you live in an area with a relatively timid climate.
2-5 days at least once per winter. Generally it's during an ice storm but we have a lot of utility poles that travel through farm land and sometimes access to those lines is difficult. I remember last year, I had two bucket trucks and a bulldozer stuck on my property from where we got a heavy snow (about 5 inches) that turned to freezing rain which snapped the power lines, and then a warm up the very next day with about 40 degree F weather and rain for a week. It took a crane, another dozer and a crap load of steal cable and 02 stone to get them out.
There are probably years it doesn't happen but it's a reality enough to expect it.
I live in Central Ohio. But I live in the country about 6 miles to the nearest city. The electric utility is some local coop but when they are having problems the larger ones like AEP is too. Shit just gets messy here fast. Here is a link to an article about the wind storm we had last year. Basically it was the storm system of hurricane Ike that hit the gulf and somehow picked up steam around Ohio and gave us 75mph winds for a day or two.
Don't act like it's that bad of a deal. People along the gulf and southeaster seaboard are in the same situation much of the year. Oklahoma and tornado alley have the same problems. This type of infrastructure problem is more common in the US and first world countries then you might know. Here is a list of some of the larger outages as tracked by the government. It's only for 2009 and up to mid june. Here is last year. These aren't all of the power outages, just the larger ones where it was considered an emergency. Quite a bit of the US experiences those for various periods of time.
Consider this. Suppose it's the middle of winter, you come home from a trip like you described. I'm willing to say that most people will take longer then 9 hours on a trip that long because it's difficult to average 55-60 MPH and drive for 9 hours while remaining alert. Lets say the trip is business related. Ok, there was no places to charge your car along the way. Now your home and someone slides off the road taking a utility pole and your electric out.
Do you call off work, not go to the store for supplies, not go to a hotel where the heat is actually on, not go to family members houses to check up on them, or do your hit a gas station, fill up the tank and proceed as best as normal as possible considering the situation.
Where I live, it's not uncommon for the electric to go out for 2-5 days at a time during winter and with wind storms (it appears that trees grow ten times faster then the utility company can trim them around their lines. 7 days during an ice storm with nothing but a kerosene heater is the longest I've had in about 15 years. Anyways, when you do not have electricity, having gasoline at your disposal and the ability to use it can mean quite a bit in the survival arena. Heating just one or two rooms will cost you about 3 gallons of kerosene a day. Trips in town to refuel are a necessity. Trips in town for food, sanitation (well water so showering and shitting is a little difficult without electricity to run the pump), and general supplies like candles and oil for the lamps are a must when this happens. Sometimes you can be more prepared then others and need to rely less on it, but life is unpredictable to say the least. Sure, 99 percent of the time, it would be life as normal. That one fuck up is generally the one that counts though.
That's nice and all, but I carry spare batteries and have a cradle charger to charge the batteries without the phone at all.
The point is that regardless of how convenient the charging might be, there will be times when it isn't. Call it Murphy's law or whatever but it's just one of those realities.
Yea, and when you wake up in the middle of the night and need to take your mobile phone for a 50 mile drive because your server broke down, or you dad had a heart attack, or your kid thought someone was in her house and is scared shitless, or something, you are going to wish you could pull up to a gas pump and fill your mobile phone up in a matter of minutes and not have to worry about it.
An example would be the UN oil for food program and the UN sanctions on Iraq. UN parties exploited those (even the secretary general's family was involved) and made them completely ineffective at their intended goals. As a result, years more of Iraq's unverified disarmament and conditions that lead up to the US going to war with Iraq.
Now I'm not saying the oil for food corruption caused the Iraq war, but it prevented the clear satisfaction of several armistice agreements as well as resulting UN resolutions which created a condition that could later be exploited by Bush when going to war. It's not certain that the UN sanctions would have worked but exploiting them for personal gain is an act that taken the certainly undermined those efforts. When agreement is little more then opportunity to exploit, little good can come of it.
It would depend on how you classify damages. It may be that the cost of listing the item is the only damages. However, lets say something happened and the market value dropped during the time it was down. That loss is a damage that was originally covered by the DMCA protections that wouldn't be if they didn't honor the counter claim notice.
Listing software is a little difficult to explain on this provision. It's there but it also pertains to any copyrighted works so software would definitely be included. An example might be where you have a book for sale that is out of print and while the book was off line, the publisher announced a reprinting of the book and free distribution as some promotion to a sequel. Or lets say you were reselling a software program and the publisher announced an updated version for half the price. In both of these examples, if you can convince a judge or jury that your sale price was damaged by them taking the item off the web, you may be able to get Ebay to compensate you for the difference.
Another and more apt example, let say you made a fair use parody of some book or published your research on inorganic human elements or something. The hosting service takes your paper down because of a DMCA and they do not honor the counter claim. Before you can get another site up and running, a competitor publishes something comparable and takes the credit for your concept. IF you can convince a judge or jury that your work had value and that value was harmed by the service providers actions, then the service provider can become liable for that harm if they do not follow the counter notification procedures.
Another and probably a more obvious example might be, suppose you operated a pay site for rare information and leads in a database like environment. You use a Wikipedia type editing system so companies can add information and it can be shared between all subscribers of your service. Now suppose someone issues a DMCA take down notice because their database has similar information and they think yours is a copy of theirs. (forget the validity of the information for now). You file a counter notification but the ISP ignores it and maintains the disabled access and you can't even get to the information to port it to another network not to mention the costs of reprogramming all the client interfaces to access a different database store. The ISP is no longer protected from your loss of revenue or costs of changing the system over or reprogramming all the client connections. If they honor the counter claim, the law shields them from any of that. If they do no, then they have no legal shield.
Actually, most of them would have benefited from the Kyoto accord.
A way to get our from under your cap was to invest in other countries without a cap (shifting the problem) or to purchase credits from a country who has done that already. Europe has more then quadrupled their Imports from China and India (who do not have limits) and EU member nations attempt to get under their quotas. Spain almost wrecked their entire economy attempting to get in line with their guidelines.
Of the 180 some countries signed onto Kyoto, only 37 of them have reduction goals and caps. One country agreed to a limit it will not reach for another couple decades. It's been a while since I verified those numbers so they may be a little off- the effect is the same though. The idea behind Kyoto was to spur investment in both infrastructure and productivity more then reduce emissions. In the late 1980's early 90's, there was a global movement to get the western worlds to forgive or relax debt in the third world countries who leveraged the OPEC oil embargo for loans hoping to develop their own oil and sell to the US. This movement disappeared about the time Kyoto popped into play and you don't need too much of an imagination to figure out why.
Actually, if you get rid of homicides and deaths from recreational activities, the life span of Americans is much longer then in Europe. We take a hit from a reckless lifestyle and easy access to weapons and toys to do stupid things with.
In most areas of medicine, our disease survival rates are higher then Europe's. This covers things like Cancer, heart disease, aids and so on.
That's right! I have no clue why reforming health care isn't just fixing what it wrong with it.
They are attempting to convoluted it and take control of health care under some guise that being like other abhorrent systems in other countries is somehow better. Well, just fix what is being claimed as wrong with the system and be done with it. Most of the problems in the current system is because of Government involvement anyways. We didn't have these problems until the HMO act in the mid 60's. Congress screwed with it a little since then but the biggest factor was the states screwing with it. That's why you can find a decent plan at an affordable rate in some states with it costing 10 times or more in others.
Aside from what you mentioned, I suggest a buy-in plan be organized too where if someone finds themselves without coverage (for any reason) and has a problem, they can buy into a plan with a 5 or 10 year commitment contract and have their medical costs covered. The long term commitment will likely mean they never go off insurance again.
Actually, the UN is universally known for fucking things up. They don't do anything until it's too late then they exploit it for personal gain or react totally incorrectly. Hell, they put totalitarian dictators on the humans rights panel as if having a voice in your government isn't a human right.
I like your approach but don't like the UN as the solution. Maybe a league of 30 year old virgins still living in their parents basement across the world would be better. Perhaps they can use their WOW accounts to meet bi-monthly.
I think your hypocrisy meter is broken. Let me ask you something, is it ok to ban guns from convicted felons? Is it OK to ban people mentally unstable or clinically insane from owning guns? Are you perfectly fine with people who violently threaten others, have been caught committing a domestic violence acts, keeping and owning guns? Because you seem to think it's ok for them to do so with your hypocrisy concept. I mean is it hypocritical to not let perpetrators of domestic violence, people who threaten physical harm to another person, who are mentally incapacitated, convicted of felonies not have guns and weapons while you and I can live right next door to them and own the guns and weapons?
The problem with your position is that it doesn't take into consideration the past actions of Iran and statements made by it's leaders. Also, the entire enemy situation is brought about by Iran's belligerence. Israel could care less about Iran if Iran wasn't supplying terrorists attacking them and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Are you scared of the boogy man too? Religion does create anything you should be afraid of. It's the people who pervert religions for their own use you need to be afraid of. Those people can and will do that regardless of any separate of Church and state. As for the laws and religion, move to where that isn't the case. But don't use your own bigotry as some sort of moral high ground. It isn't.
Your just as likely to have a secular nutjob in power do something stupid. Saddam Husein admitted that he invaded Kuwait because a Kuwaiti official made a comment about Iraqi women being 2 or 10 dollar whores. WWII was a secular war and while WWI was started with a religious entity (ottoman empire), it's causes were primarily secular. In fact, Korea, Vietnam, the Civil war, all secular events. You need to drop the fear of the boogerman in religion and take a hard look at the people perpetrating the issues.
No, they called them rebels and supporters of the rebellion. The British actually didn't do much justification outside of burning the supply line for the rebels. It's probably one of the biggest thing that drew support to the revolution. People who weren't normally subjected to the British injustice found themselves right in the middle of it with revolting as the best way out.
Actually, it is 15 to 1 or 30 for 2 as I stated it. However, I never claimed the Muslims outnumbered the jews 15-1 or even 30-2. I said they will kill 30 of their own to kill 2 jews. This has nothing to do with population counts or religious divides, it has to do with who is where at what time. About 3 years ago, a suicide bomber got on a work bus entering Israel. At the check station before entering from Palestine, the bomb was detonated killing 25 Palestinians, two IDF soldiers manning the station and took the arm off another IDF soldier. A couple of months before that, a suicide bomber (woman this time) went into a crowded market in Egypt hanging around around some Muslim vendors. When two Americans walked by, the bomb was detonated killing 30 or so Muslims, the two americans, and wounded a lot more people.
Wow, is english your native language? I never said all attacks are that way. I said an attack was that way. I didn't even limit the attacks to being in Israel. Quit placing artificial boundaries on my post then claiming it didn't happen.
I do nit know why a floppy drive would mean something is outdated. I recently had to use one to install windows server on brand new hardware. In fact, I'm going to have to remove the one from the server I just built to place it in a new server for a fresh install. After their up and running, I can get buy on drive images though. But unless your buying everything from dell or something, floppies are still in use.
Actually, resale of copyrighted computer software is written in law. Title 17 section 117 even allows you to make copies of the software and sell them with the original software as part of the sale.
The interesting thing here is that books are licensed in the same or similar way. When you buy it, you do not get any rights to the text or content, you simply get a copy of the thing. This is much the same as software outside of a EULA during the install. In the context of this story, the seller selling the media is the same as selling a book. He wouldn't have had to agree to any license in order to do that.
Ebay is setting itself up for a lawsuit. The DMCA protections require the service to restore the content on a counter claim in order to gain protections against damages from the copyrighted materials being removed.
They aren't obligated to restore it, but when they do not, they lose that protection. The idea is that if there is a challenge, then the courts and not the provider will work it out.
The french in the revolutionary war as well as WWI and WWII were killing military objectives. The difference is that innocent civilians weren't targeted. The British targeted civilians and that is a large reason why the french aided the colonists.
In the context of Iranians, we are actually talking about religious Identity not ethnic makeup. There are Iranians living in Israel just as there are jews living in Iran.
I'm not confusing anyone. Palestinians work in Israel and some live there too. about 20% of the Israeli population is Arab or Persian and about 18% of Israel is Muslim. About 1 million Palestinians cross into Israel for work each month.
Iran sponsors terrorism. They fund terrorist groups and supply them with weapons and training and to some degree, direct their activities. Regardless of you wanting to argue semantics or ignore the realities of the area, the statement is overall accurate and reflects the different between the US and Iran and why we should worried about one country getting Nuclear weapons and not so much about another who may already have them.
There is a difference between collateral damage on a legitimate military target verses targeting innocent civilians to achieve a military objective.
Your right, we wouldn't need to bread people to do that, however, we would have to start targeting civilians for the purpose of military objectives which we do not even pretend to do.
I do not disagree expect that it goes back even further then that. The ottoman empire started marketing and selling land to the jews around the year 1100. They developed special taxes on them and basically profited from their tendency to retain wealth. The ottoman empire did this using the Qur'an citing Sura 9:29. The jews (and some christians) were considered dhimmi, or "people of the pact."
This eventually lead to other restrictions on the Dhimmi, against riding horses, building new or repairing old houses of worship, carrying weapons, public worship or parades, recruiting new members and building housing hirer then any Muslim house. The jews were also required to wear specific clothing so they could be identified as jews. This also helped create Zionism around 1200 or so. The original Zionism was supported by the ottoman empire for a few centuries and catered to it by selling off land in the Israel area marketed specifically to jews. In the mid 1800's it really kicked off with what is known as waves (Aliyah- this terms has another meaning but it lapses in my mind right now) of immigration sponsored by the growing hostile environments in Europe. Zionism created a sort of government council similar to the Vatican but with further reach on the jewish people. This Zionist government promoted the Aliyah too. The Ottoman empire saw it as little more then a way to increase it's wealth.
After it was clear that the ottoman empire never intended to allow them self rule, the jews started banding together only allowing jews to work for jews and so on in an attempt to keep their wealth within the community. This really pissed off a lot of the Muslims and I forget the name of the group, but it eventually caused violent clashes between them.
The second large wave of immigration came in about 1914-15 with the fall of the Ottoman empire at the end of WWI. This was also promoted in part by the increased hostilities in Europe- in which Hitler eventually capitalized on. Shortly after this, Lord Balfour made his proclamation and the league of nations supported it with the British mandate for Palestine. Here some a really interesting part of Middle east history, the most troubled spots in the middle east come from a failed British and french occupation. (Vietnam was a failed French occupation/colony too.) Under the league of nations partition, most every country under the ottoman empire rule outside of the Palestine territory and Lebanon created their own self rule and satisfied their obligations to remove foreign oversight. Anyways, this second wave caused more problems with the Arabs and Muslims. From about the mid 1600, there were quite a few violent clashes based around cultural differences and attempt of superiority.
Now we are up to when England was in control of the area (at the end of WWI). The big thing is that a former government of the area sort of encouraged the idea of a Jewish homeland and the British propagation of the idea is more or less a continuation of this age old idea.