Why should I be forced to pay more for the same hardware just because I don't want Windows?
If you buy hardware without Windows, then you are shortchanging MS where Bill Gates gets his money. Bill Gates is the founder of the Gates Foundation that donates money towards charitable causes in Africa.
Obviously, you're being charged more because you hate poor, sick, starving Africans you insensitive, non-compassionate clod!
Besides, people who want to buy a computer with no OS are just using linux/other OS's as an excuse to get a clean computer to install a pirate copy of Windows they all bought from either Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il.
Why do you hate the USA and freedom?
Don't think of it as the "Microsoft Tax", think of it as the "Clubbing Baby Seals Tax", as everyone knows that every lost MS sale causes a baby seal to die.
"-1 Flamebait"
You know, I thought about adding [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags to that post but thought; "Nah, nobody could possibly think that's anything but a joke! This is *Slashdot*!!".
Why should I be forced to pay more for the same hardware just because I don't want Windows?
If you buy hardware without Windows, then you are shortchanging MS where Bill Gates gets his money. Bill Gates is the founder of the Gates Foundation that donates money towards charitable causes in Africa.
Obviously, you're being charged more because you hate poor, sick, starving Africans you insensitive, non-compassionate clod!
Besides, people who want to buy a computer with no OS are just using linux/other OS's as an excuse to get a clean computer to install a pirate copy of Windows they all bought from either Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il.
Why do you hate the USA and freedom?
Don't think of it as the "Microsoft Tax", think of it as the "Clubbing Baby Seals Tax", as everyone knows that every lost MS sale causes a baby seal to die.
I had a set of home built speakers stolen from my car back in 1978, the police were very diligent in getting them back. That's their job, and with the triangulation it's the judges job to issue a warrant.
But, that was 1978. A lot has changed. Cops back then weren't getting successfully sued any time they sneezed wrong, and most local cops had a decent relationship with the individual people of the community and really cared. They also had a lower workload that allowed them time to investigate crimes that *didn't* make TV News.
If the "me" of 1978 were to be transported to now, I'd likely think I was in another country. I'd be right, too. This isn't the country it used to be, although sadly I'd probably be familiar with the behavior of our current President, as he seems to be going for "Jimmy Carter, Part Deux" in regards to foreign policy (and energy policy to a certain extent). He seems to be channeling his "inner Hillary" when it comes to Healthcare though.
I don't know what this Capitol Crime is, it must be an American thing, but to rephrase the GP's point, there is no such thing as a Capital Crime [thefreedictionary.com] in the UK.
And to rephrase *my* point, I am aware of this lack of a death penalty in the UK already and posted with that in mind and mentioned that situation specifically, which is why that point being made & re-made as if I had left it out is redundant.
I know I suffered a bit of Typonese, but am I writing with invisible ink too?:|
"Since suspects could be hiding evidence of a capitol crime, would that logic then dictate that the only way to make divulging that evidence more likely would be to make the punishment *worse* than the worst normally-legal punishment? Ie; a death sentence where life in prison is the most severe punishment for a capitol crime, or torture THEN death in places where the death sentence is already legal?"
See how I ever-so-cleverly included places that do and places that do not have a death sentence in just such a way as to trick people into believing I didn't mention it at all?
Darned slick if you ask me!:D
Depressingly, it seems Congress has caught on to using this technique also as bills like TARP, the "stimulus", and the health care bills would seem to demonstrate.
While I can see the arguments for and against permitting Section 49 sanctions, I want to know what the practical upshot is. Hypothetically, it may be worthwhile to a potential criminal to serve up to a couple of years in prison with a note on their record akin to "refused to assist in investigation" rather than face the potentially much more damaging convictions that their cooperation might incur.
My concern is that the law will be amended to reflect this, leading to much harsher sentencing in order to prevent this kind of cost-benefit decision being made by suspected criminals.
Since suspects could be hiding evidence of a capitol crime, would that logic then dictate that the only way to make divulging that evidence more likely would be to make the punishment *worse* than the worst normally-legal punishment? Ie; a death sentence where life in prison is the most severe punishment for a capitol crime, or torture THEN death in places where the death sentence is already legal?
Death by "snu-snu" maybe?
Well, I for one welcome our...
Ahh, forget it! That's just shooting fish in a barrel!
Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.
Haha. So rather than use a cheap natural solution it's better to get the expensive patented synthetic stuff. Riiiiiight... Now I see.
Of course! The pharma interests can't have people just willy-nilly feeling better without paying THEM!! Where would they be if people were just allowed to use naturally-occurring plants and herbs they could grow themselves for next to nothing to cure sickness and disease, and help them lead an enjoyable productive life?
There's a fellow in Canada that has done some amazing work and has gotten equally amazing results in curing cancer and many other illnesses using hemp oil extract. The pharma interests have completely ignored his work and the government is doing it's best to shut him down and keep it quiet.
It's no secret to smokers that smoking helps one to relax and improves concentration. I've been in the electronics field for over 30 years. All the very best technicians and engineers I've ever known were smokers.
Besides, this one is easy since it's already being demonized in the US and other Western countries. Can't have the proles doing anything they might enjoy. Sure, it shortens average lifespans, but if you're poor or lower-middle class, you're life expectancy is already going to be much shorter on average than the rich. Besides, why live so long if one can't enjoy themselves?
The anti-smoking zealots who always say that smoking costs the rest of us because government programs have to pay for smokers' healthcare won't consider NOT having government providing healthcare. To my thinking, government should not be involved in providing or paying for healthcare or healthcare insurance in the first place. It's yet another area where the government has perverted or totally ignored the Constitution.
If government didn't restrict the plans that health insurance companies could sell, where they could sell it, for what price, and to whom, then someone who is a non-smoker could buy a plan that would have the cost of others' smoking factored out because they'd be in a risk-pool with other non-smokers while smokers would pay for any extra risk and cost. Governments' only role should be establishing laws and regulations to provide a free and fair market for healthcare and healthcare insurance and prosecute fraud and abuse.
Now the progressives are proposing universal government-run single-payer healthcare and healthcare insurance, and planning on paying a large part of it with taxes on tobacco. But they're trying to get people to NOT smoke, so either it's a scam and they planned from the start to tax everyone, or they'll have to encourage smoking to pay for their healthcare and healthcare insurance plans.
Smokers won't be the only ones to be demonized though if universal healthcare comes to pass. It will be a politicians' wet dream come true as they'll have an open license to police lifestyles which will mean ever-more-intrusive government.
Your signature cites FOX NEWS. What...the...heck. I'm sorry, but that automatically disqualifies you from ever offering a political-related opinion ever again.
I'm sorry, but your automatic knee-jerk reaction, showing that you've bought into the "Fox News is teh Ebil!!!1ONE" bias without bothering to determine whether a reported fact may or may not be true in a particular instance simply because of the source disqualifies YOU from ever being taken seriously in ANY discussion on ANY topic.
Good DAY Sir!
Oh noes!! "-2 Troll"!!!
I'm sorry mighty/. mods, I will try hard to be more biased against Fox News in the future and not allow any of that independent thought stuff to interfere, I promise...OK?
Your signature cites FOX NEWS. What...the...heck. I'm sorry, but that automatically disqualifies you from ever offering a political-related opinion ever again.
I'm sorry, but your automatic knee-jerk reaction, showing that you've bought into the "Fox News is teh Ebil!!!1ONE" bias without bothering to determine whether a reported fact may or may not be true in a particular instance simply because of the source disqualifies YOU from ever being taken seriously in ANY discussion on ANY topic.
The current leaders in Congress have been saying for the last couple of weeks that it is unreasonable to expect Congressional Representatives to read the bills before they vote on them because they don't have the time and even if they did have the time, they couldn't understand them.
Well.... it is unreasonable to expect that.
Then they need to craft laws that they can understand, or resign and leave the job to someone who will (or who can comprehend the laws being proposed). If a legislator cannot understand a law that is put before him/her, that legislator should vote against it. If the bill is too big to read through before voting on it, the legislator should vote against it. If there isn't enough time to keep up with the legislation being put forward, then too much legislation is being put forward.
Oh, how I wish I had mod points to mod this up!
You are exactly right! This is one of the top reasons that government has gotten to be the incomprehensible, bloated, power-grabbing, corrupt monstrosity it has become, and why it will continue down this path until it either collapses under its' own weight or we as citizens tear it down by force.
I have to disagree with you... if Bank of America or some other bank of such stature were to fail, people would be crawling all over it. The senators alone would try to make brownie points with it. I'm already blanking while imagining the sheer boredom of the hearings:)
If BOA failed pre-TARP/stimulus and followed the old bankruptcy proceedings, I'd agree...especially with the sheer mind-numbing boredom of the proceedings of any hearings.:)
However, now that BOA has accepted TARP money with no strings attached regarding reporting where the money went, I doubt Congress would be eager to have the details of the results of their folly spread far & wide across the voter base. Congress would probably love for BOA to be absorbed by the Fed and would fully-back the Feds' refusal to make public any financial details...behind closed doors, of course...they'd probably make public noises of protest for appearances' sake.
There's simply too incestuous a relationship between the Fed and the very richest & most powerful in government (both ours and other nations to which the Fed has "loaned" money) and the private sector for them to allow any crack in the Feds' armor of secrecy, as too many skeletons would see daylight.
The banks unable to pay back (...the TARP funds...) end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.
Perhaps you're thinking about some other country? The US government is anything but transparent, notwithstanding any "Hope & Change" rhetoric to the contrary. It took an FOIA request and months to even be allowed to see the Air Force One Manhattan fly-over photos that everyone knew existed.
The chances of the books being opened would be particularly slim if the bank(s) end up being owned by the Federal Reserve. I know that politicians are currently making noise about publicly auditing the Fed, but that's all it will end up being...noise to placate the proles. Unless politicians suddenly start finding themselves losing elections en masse and/or finding themselves at the working end of pitchforks & shotguns.
A phone company might actually use this data for consumer friendly purposes such as offering increased incentives for the other members of the social network to stay such as any-network calling circles and lowering rates. The competitor might offer "Bring your friends" deals to the switcher. It would be idiotic for a telco to not allow you to have your friends number.
More likely IMHO would be them refusing to offer you anything but a long-term, locked-down, hard-to-leave contract based on the fact that you talk to people who have switched carriers often.
Unless you store it in battery packs/racks... Which a good number of zero or near-zero solar uses. Might encourage more people to engage in energy self-sufficiency and cut the cord to the grid if the Power Company gets too greedy.
Sorry, you can't disconnect from the power grid in most localities. Every place in every state/county/municipality I've lived in required by law that all residences be connected to the grid. If for some reason there is no grid connection, or the grid connection is removed, the property is condemned as unfit for habitation and any residents that refused to vacate would be removed by force by police/sheriffs.
Power companies may be required to credit consumers who push power back into the grid to be credited at the same kw/h rate, but that doesn't account for all the fees & taxes (some of which are actual government taxes, others of which are simply called taxes by the power company but are simply added fees by the company) paid by the consumer but not payed *to* the consumer when they sell power back.
From this months' electric bill:
Power supply cost recovery: $5.71
System access charge: $6.00
Electric distribution charge: $9.89
Delivery surcharges: $1.79
Electric interim surcharge: $4.40
Energy optimization surcharge: $0.49
Securitization charge: $0.51
Securitization tax charge $0.25
KW/H charge (my actual usage): $18.01
Total taxes, charges, etc etc: $29.07
I actually am paying more in various fees & taxes than I am for the power itself. These costs are not credited when power is pushed back into the grid.
How true do you reckon the arguments made by the likes of Courtney Cox about how the "gold ring" isn't such a great deal are, in general terms?
Here's a link I've posted before on this subject to a piece that explains the realities of the "biz" for bands and artists very well. Although it was written in the '80s, it's mostly still quite accurate.
You lie! Slashdot reliably informs me that it is fine to pirate music whenever I feel like it, because musicians should make their money from live performances yadda yadda Beethoven yadda yadda player piano lawsuits yadda yadda.
Now you're saying that doing live performances is very low-earning and doesn't provide a decent income unless you are famous enough to be already filling stadiums. That is just un-possible. Slashdot readers are famous for expertise in business management (which as we know is a lame activity done by jerks that is nowhere near as difficult or intellectual as installing software patches or writing v23332 of the companies timesheet software).
I know that you're being facetious, but I'll reply.
Live performances are still the best income-generators for most bands, signed or unsigned.
It's just that being signed opens up a whole new level of venues and opportunities that are out of reach for unsigned bands. Booking agents that handle the larger, more famous and lucrative venues won't touch an unsigned band/artist, regardless of how talented they may be.
Gigging as an unsigned band is much like living like a poorer college student. There's a lot of Ramen noodles in the diet.:)
The average signed act (not the top one-half of one percent of signed acts that become truly famous) still only makes $2K-$3K on average per performance. After expenses that go along with a top-shelf touring band, that still doesn't leave much.
I'd love to have my bands' CDs "pirated" across the world! The promotional value would be tremendous! Even if my band were to be signed, I still would be fine with people "pirating" our CDs as royalties after the Hollywood accounting used by labels means that CD sales would still only account for a very small percentage of income. This leaves live performances and merch sales as still being the lions'-share of a bands' income, whether they are signed with a label or not.
I view "pirating" of my bands' music to be an invaluable source of viral marketing, regardless of if we were signed or not.
How much does a billboard cost these days, anyway? or a radio ad? Do you really need to sign your life away to get these things?
Because it seems to me that all the labels really provide is the initial financing for advertising and studio time at usury rates.
It's not the labels that pay for the billboards, radio ads, etc to promote a performance. It's the venues and event promoters. However, those venues and event promoters won't spend the money on a non-signed act, nor book them to appear in the first place. Nor will booking agents that handle those type of higher-paying venues accept an unsigned act as a client.
For an average talented, but unsigned regional band to spend thousands on billboards, radio ads, newspaper ads, etc etc on promoting a gig at some average bar/club where they'd be making a few hundreds of dollars would be insane.
There is a sort of glass ceiling effect where unless a band is signed, many of the most-lucrative venues and opportunities are simply not available.
Why would an aspiring artist go to EMI and have a limited reach when he could as well go to some competitor and be sold also to customers of small music shops?
As a long-time musical artist & bandmember myself, I can tell you why. Most don't know any better. Most bands and artists are so desperate to "make it" that any label showing interest in them is considered as being offered the gold ring. They're sick and tired of playing dumpy bars and clubs and making $50-$75 a night, two or three nights a week, four sets a night. That's if they can actually stay booked steadily.
One of the things that being signed gets you is that it opens up a whole new level of venues to play, with a whole lot more money. A band goes from a few hundreds of dollars a show to two or three thousand. Billboards and radio ads go up ahead of their appearances, and crowds increase. Merch sales skyrocket.
The fact that the label that's offering them a contract doesn't distribute to independent record stores doesn't even enter the picture to their thinking.
Again, that's not all musicians/bands/artists, but most that I've encountered in my many years in "the biz".
Unless the plants in question are simply too difficult/expensive to upgrade, nobody should be decommissioning any nuclear power plants!
Cripes! Here we are looking at Cap & Tax legislation allegedly attempting to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and they want to decommission power plants that have among the lowest rates of CO2 emission?
Makes one wonder if the goal isn't so much to reduce CO2 emissions as it is to raise the cost of electricity and raise taxes, along with making certain politically-connected people and organizations tons of money from carbon credits while crippling the US private sector to make way for further government takeovers of the US economy.
"I don't want to run car companiH^H^H^H^H^ the nations' power generation."
Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Yes, and MS had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged shenanigans involving ISO certification of MS' OOXML "standard" either.
Honest.
MS would never do anything illegal, immoral, deceitful, or underhanded.
If you don't believe them, just ask them!
Strat
Oooo, -1 'Troll'!
Ahahaha!
The MS fanboy/shill moderators must be out in force!
Either that, or pointing out past patterns of bad behavior by MS as it relates to the likelihood of current denials of bad behavior being true is now considered a troll post??
Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Yes, and MS had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged shenanigans involving ISO certification of MS' OOXML "standard" either.
Honest.
MS would never do anything illegal, immoral, deceitful, or underhanded.
We have excellent data on global climate back about 850ky, good data back to 60mya, and some data back as far as bya
[citation needed]
I wasn't aware we had time-traveling climate researchers or time-traveling meteorological instrumentation to *accurately* measure all the various datapoints. My impression was that accurate & meaningful meteorological data wasn't recorded farther back than a couple of centuries, if that, and that many very-relevant measurements weren't even recorded for much of even that relatively-short (in terms of geologic time) span of time.
From what I've been able to gather, most of the ice-core and similar geologic records seemed to indicate that CO2 was a lagging factor in warming, not a leading factor. As in; it got warm, then CO2 went up, not the other way around.
The reluctance to release the data and the destruction of data is a red flag that something isn't kosher. They have to have known that doing this would only fuel the anti-climate change factions, so it would seem logical that what is being hidden must be pretty damning evidence that their current theories are bunk.
However, there's a ton of grant money to be had by the climate scientists and much power & control to be gained by government by promoting a climate crisis, so it isn't too surprising.
This is akin to the cops saying "We know you did it. Just tell us what happened and we'll try to work out some kind of deal". They are trying to scare the actual guilty into giving themselves up at the expense of harassing people who did no wrong. Unfortunately, it is your job as the accused to tell them to shove it up their ass.
And in the real world, telling cops to shove it up their asses will quickly result in any cameras being turned off/pointed away and the cops giving you a good working-over. It will also likely get you some additional unrelated charges (like assaulting a police officer, the "reason" the cops will give for why you were worked-over, and a nice CYA for the cops).
"I'm sorry, maybe it was all the pot smoke floating around back in the '60s and '70s"
Ships... not spaceships... when ships were used for exploration I think you'll have to go back a little further than 60s and 70s USA... think: how was America most recently discovered? By people, many considered 'expendable' (ie, would otherwise just be in prisons) on ships.
Say what you want about what we're learnt about the moon, but if we'd had to send people along, do you think we'd have made discoveries about the farthest reachest of out solar system as we have with the Voyagers, or know what we do about the composition of the gas planet's moons, or know what we do about Pluto? That's exploration, of the kind that we have made simply because we took sending humans along out of the equation.
Although there were significant discoveries made far in the past like the ancient Viking discovery of N. America, many more-modern discoveries were also made by famous explorers that were relatively well-funded, often by royal houses or shipping & trade companies.
The experienced sailors, captains, and the explorer themselves weren't considered "expendable". Sure, there would be finite cost to losing everyone and everything on an unlucky voyage, but the overall risk was deemed acceptable to the country/power funding the exploration as well as to the explorer, captain, and crew. That's not what *I* would take "being expendable" to mean.
As far as your argument make here:
Say what you want about what we're learnt about the moon, but if we'd had to send people along, do you think we'd have made discoveries about the farthest reachest of out solar system as we have with the Voyagers, or know what we do about the composition of the gas planet's moons, or know what we do about Pluto?
This is a false dichotomy, and/or a strawman. There's no "either-or" here. Both methods can and *should* be utilized together, in a balanced and sensible manner. There are only so many things robots can tell us. There's no way currently to be fully "telepresent" such that we are able to use all our senses, to get a "feel" for a place, and we thus render ourselves much, much less able to make intuitive judgments and gather subliminal data clues that can lead to "hunches" and leaps of logic, thereby greatly accelerating the pace of discovery and it's depth.
If the whole idea of space travel and exploration is simply an aside, an occasional commercial interest, an interesting scientific problem and data pool to occasionally delve into when it's convenient and leave alone when we get distracted, then robotic exploration is the sensible way to go.
If, however, mankind dreams of expanding and surviving, to reach out and explore all the universe holds, to gain the ultimate freedom from tyranny by people being able to leave when governments got too oppressive, to tap the infinite reserves of energy and materials, and become a new type of organism from Earth...spacefaring...and take the next step in our evolution, then robotics, although having it's place as a useful tool, is only that. A tool. Not the goal. A tool we should use to help the species grow, advance, and expand beyond our current boundaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I be forced to pay more for the same hardware just because I don't want Windows?
If you buy hardware without Windows, then you are shortchanging MS where Bill Gates gets his money. Bill Gates is the founder of the Gates Foundation that donates money towards charitable causes in Africa.
Obviously, you're being charged more because you hate poor, sick, starving Africans you insensitive, non-compassionate clod!
Besides, people who want to buy a computer with no OS are just using linux/other OS's as an excuse to get a clean computer to install a pirate copy of Windows they all bought from either Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il.
Why do you hate the USA and freedom?
Don't think of it as the "Microsoft Tax", think of it as the "Clubbing Baby Seals Tax", as everyone knows that every lost MS sale causes a baby seal to die.
"-1 Flamebait"
You know, I thought about adding [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags to that post but thought; "Nah, nobody could possibly think that's anything but a joke! This is *Slashdot*!!".
I forgot one thing, though.
This *is* Slashdot!
D'OHH!!
Strat
Why should I be forced to pay more for the same hardware just because I don't want Windows?
If you buy hardware without Windows, then you are shortchanging MS where Bill Gates gets his money. Bill Gates is the founder of the Gates Foundation that donates money towards charitable causes in Africa.
Obviously, you're being charged more because you hate poor, sick, starving Africans you insensitive, non-compassionate clod!
Besides, people who want to buy a computer with no OS are just using linux/other OS's as an excuse to get a clean computer to install a pirate copy of Windows they all bought from either Osama Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il.
Why do you hate the USA and freedom?
Don't think of it as the "Microsoft Tax", think of it as the "Clubbing Baby Seals Tax", as everyone knows that every lost MS sale causes a baby seal to die.
Strat
I had a set of home built speakers stolen from my car back in 1978, the police were very diligent in getting them back. That's their job, and with the triangulation it's the judges job to issue a warrant.
But, that was 1978. A lot has changed. Cops back then weren't getting successfully sued any time they sneezed wrong, and most local cops had a decent relationship with the individual people of the community and really cared. They also had a lower workload that allowed them time to investigate crimes that *didn't* make TV News.
If the "me" of 1978 were to be transported to now, I'd likely think I was in another country. I'd be right, too. This isn't the country it used to be, although sadly I'd probably be familiar with the behavior of our current President, as he seems to be going for "Jimmy Carter, Part Deux" in regards to foreign policy (and energy policy to a certain extent). He seems to be channeling his "inner Hillary" when it comes to Healthcare though.
Strat
I don't know what this Capitol Crime is, it must be an American thing, but to rephrase the GP's point, there is no such thing as a Capital Crime [thefreedictionary.com] in the UK.
And to rephrase *my* point, I am aware of this lack of a death penalty in the UK already and posted with that in mind and mentioned that situation specifically, which is why that point being made & re-made as if I had left it out is redundant.
I know I suffered a bit of Typonese, but am I writing with invisible ink too? :|
Strat
There is not a death sentence in the UK...
Which is why I specifically stated;
"Since suspects could be hiding evidence of a capitol crime, would that logic then dictate that the only way to make divulging that evidence more likely would be to make the punishment *worse* than the worst normally-legal punishment? Ie; a death sentence where life in prison is the most severe punishment for a capitol crime, or torture THEN death in places where the death sentence is already legal?"
See how I ever-so-cleverly included places that do and places that do not have a death sentence in just such a way as to trick people into believing I didn't mention it at all?
Darned slick if you ask me! :D
Depressingly, it seems Congress has caught on to using this technique also as bills like TARP, the "stimulus", and the health care bills would seem to demonstrate.
Strat
While I can see the arguments for and against permitting Section 49 sanctions, I want to know what the practical upshot is. Hypothetically, it may be worthwhile to a potential criminal to serve up to a couple of years in prison with a note on their record akin to "refused to assist in investigation" rather than face the potentially much more damaging convictions that their cooperation might incur.
My concern is that the law will be amended to reflect this, leading to much harsher sentencing in order to prevent this kind of cost-benefit decision being made by suspected criminals.
Since suspects could be hiding evidence of a capitol crime, would that logic then dictate that the only way to make divulging that evidence more likely would be to make the punishment *worse* than the worst normally-legal punishment? Ie; a death sentence where life in prison is the most severe punishment for a capitol crime, or torture THEN death in places where the death sentence is already legal?
Death by "snu-snu" maybe?
Well, I for one welcome our...
Ahh, forget it! That's just shooting fish in a barrel!
Strat
I guess the truth is a troll.
Welcome to Hope & Change.
Strat
Nicotine itself is unlikely to make an effective treatment, because of its side effects and addictive potential, but drugs known as nicotinic agonists, which target nicotine receptors in the brain, are front runners in the challenge to find an effective replacement.
Haha. So rather than use a cheap natural solution it's better to get the expensive patented synthetic stuff. Riiiiiight... Now I see.
Of course! The pharma interests can't have people just willy-nilly feeling better without paying THEM!! Where would they be if people were just allowed to use naturally-occurring plants and herbs they could grow themselves for next to nothing to cure sickness and disease, and help them lead an enjoyable productive life?
There's a fellow in Canada that has done some amazing work and has gotten equally amazing results in curing cancer and many other illnesses using hemp oil extract. The pharma interests have completely ignored his work and the government is doing it's best to shut him down and keep it quiet.
It's no secret to smokers that smoking helps one to relax and improves concentration. I've been in the electronics field for over 30 years. All the very best technicians and engineers I've ever known were smokers.
Besides, this one is easy since it's already being demonized in the US and other Western countries. Can't have the proles doing anything they might enjoy. Sure, it shortens average lifespans, but if you're poor or lower-middle class, you're life expectancy is already going to be much shorter on average than the rich. Besides, why live so long if one can't enjoy themselves?
The anti-smoking zealots who always say that smoking costs the rest of us because government programs have to pay for smokers' healthcare won't consider NOT having government providing healthcare. To my thinking, government should not be involved in providing or paying for healthcare or healthcare insurance in the first place. It's yet another area where the government has perverted or totally ignored the Constitution.
If government didn't restrict the plans that health insurance companies could sell, where they could sell it, for what price, and to whom, then someone who is a non-smoker could buy a plan that would have the cost of others' smoking factored out because they'd be in a risk-pool with other non-smokers while smokers would pay for any extra risk and cost. Governments' only role should be establishing laws and regulations to provide a free and fair market for healthcare and healthcare insurance and prosecute fraud and abuse.
Now the progressives are proposing universal government-run single-payer healthcare and healthcare insurance, and planning on paying a large part of it with taxes on tobacco. But they're trying to get people to NOT smoke, so either it's a scam and they planned from the start to tax everyone, or they'll have to encourage smoking to pay for their healthcare and healthcare insurance plans.
Smokers won't be the only ones to be demonized though if universal healthcare comes to pass. It will be a politicians' wet dream come true as they'll have an open license to police lifestyles which will mean ever-more-intrusive government.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em!
It's the patriotic thing to do!
Strat
Your signature cites FOX NEWS. What...the...heck. I'm sorry, but that automatically disqualifies you from ever offering a political-related opinion ever again.
I'm sorry, but your automatic knee-jerk reaction, showing that you've bought into the "Fox News is teh Ebil!!!1ONE" bias without bothering to determine whether a reported fact may or may not be true in a particular instance simply because of the source disqualifies YOU from ever being taken seriously in ANY discussion on ANY topic.
Good DAY Sir!
Oh noes!! "-2 Troll"!!!
I'm sorry mighty /. mods, I will try hard to be more biased against Fox News in the future and not allow any of that independent thought stuff to interfere, I promise...OK?
Fox News has always been Evil.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Winst...err, Strat
Your signature cites FOX NEWS. What...the...heck. I'm sorry, but that automatically disqualifies you from ever offering a political-related opinion ever again.
I'm sorry, but your automatic knee-jerk reaction, showing that you've bought into the "Fox News is teh Ebil!!!1ONE" bias without bothering to determine whether a reported fact may or may not be true in a particular instance simply because of the source disqualifies YOU from ever being taken seriously in ANY discussion on ANY topic.
Good DAY Sir!
The current leaders in Congress have been saying for the last couple of weeks that it is unreasonable to expect Congressional Representatives to read the bills before they vote on them because they don't have the time and even if they did have the time, they couldn't understand them.
Well.... it is unreasonable to expect that.
Then they need to craft laws that they can understand, or resign and leave the job to someone who will (or who can comprehend the laws being proposed).
If a legislator cannot understand a law that is put before him/her, that legislator should vote against it. If the bill is too big to read through before voting on it, the legislator should vote against it. If there isn't enough time to keep up with the legislation being put forward, then too much legislation is being put forward.
Oh, how I wish I had mod points to mod this up!
You are exactly right! This is one of the top reasons that government has gotten to be the incomprehensible, bloated, power-grabbing, corrupt monstrosity it has become, and why it will continue down this path until it either collapses under its' own weight or we as citizens tear it down by force.
Strat
I have to disagree with you... if Bank of America or some other bank of such stature were to fail, people would be crawling all over it. The senators alone would try to make brownie points with it. I'm already blanking while imagining the sheer boredom of the hearings :)
If BOA failed pre-TARP/stimulus and followed the old bankruptcy proceedings, I'd agree...especially with the sheer mind-numbing boredom of the proceedings of any hearings. :)
However, now that BOA has accepted TARP money with no strings attached regarding reporting where the money went, I doubt Congress would be eager to have the details of the results of their folly spread far & wide across the voter base. Congress would probably love for BOA to be absorbed by the Fed and would fully-back the Feds' refusal to make public any financial details...behind closed doors, of course...they'd probably make public noises of protest for appearances' sake.
There's simply too incestuous a relationship between the Fed and the very richest & most powerful in government (both ours and other nations to which the Fed has "loaned" money) and the private sector for them to allow any crack in the Feds' armor of secrecy, as too many skeletons would see daylight.
Strat
The banks unable to pay back (...the TARP funds...) end up being owned by the feds anyway, and then the books are wide open.
Perhaps you're thinking about some other country? The US government is anything but transparent, notwithstanding any "Hope & Change" rhetoric to the contrary. It took an FOIA request and months to even be allowed to see the Air Force One Manhattan fly-over photos that everyone knew existed.
The chances of the books being opened would be particularly slim if the bank(s) end up being owned by the Federal Reserve. I know that politicians are currently making noise about publicly auditing the Fed, but that's all it will end up being...noise to placate the proles. Unless politicians suddenly start finding themselves losing elections en masse and/or finding themselves at the working end of pitchforks & shotguns.
Strat
A phone company might actually use this data for consumer friendly purposes such as offering increased incentives for
the other members of the social network to stay such as any-network calling circles and lowering rates. The competitor
might offer "Bring your friends" deals to the switcher. It would be idiotic for a telco to not allow you to have your friends number.
More likely IMHO would be them refusing to offer you anything but a long-term, locked-down, hard-to-leave contract based on the fact that you talk to people who have switched carriers often.
Strat
Unless you store it in battery packs/racks... Which a good number of zero or near-zero solar uses. Might encourage more people to engage in energy self-sufficiency and cut the cord to the grid if the Power Company gets too greedy.
Sorry, you can't disconnect from the power grid in most localities. Every place in every state/county/municipality I've lived in required by law that all residences be connected to the grid. If for some reason there is no grid connection, or the grid connection is removed, the property is condemned as unfit for habitation and any residents that refused to vacate would be removed by force by police/sheriffs.
Power companies may be required to credit consumers who push power back into the grid to be credited at the same kw/h rate, but that doesn't account for all the fees & taxes (some of which are actual government taxes, others of which are simply called taxes by the power company but are simply added fees by the company) paid by the consumer but not payed *to* the consumer when they sell power back.
From this months' electric bill:
Power supply cost recovery: $5.71
System access charge: $6.00
Electric distribution charge: $9.89
Delivery surcharges: $1.79
Electric interim surcharge: $4.40
Energy optimization surcharge: $0.49
Securitization charge: $0.51
Securitization tax charge $0.25
KW/H charge (my actual usage): $18.01
Total taxes, charges, etc etc: $29.07
I actually am paying more in various fees & taxes than I am for the power itself. These costs are not credited when power is pushed back into the grid.
I call BS on this additional charge plan.
Strat
How true do you reckon the arguments made by the likes of Courtney Cox about how the "gold ring" isn't such a great deal are, in general terms?
Here's a link I've posted before on this subject to a piece that explains the realities of the "biz" for bands and artists very well. Although it was written in the '80s, it's mostly still quite accurate.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Strat
You lie! Slashdot reliably informs me that it is fine to pirate music whenever I feel like it, because musicians should make their money from live performances yadda yadda Beethoven yadda yadda player piano lawsuits yadda yadda.
Now you're saying that doing live performances is very low-earning and doesn't provide a decent income unless you are famous enough to be already filling stadiums. That is just un-possible. Slashdot readers are famous for expertise in business management (which as we know is a lame activity done by jerks that is nowhere near as difficult or intellectual as installing software patches or writing v23332 of the companies timesheet software).
I know that you're being facetious, but I'll reply.
Live performances are still the best income-generators for most bands, signed or unsigned.
It's just that being signed opens up a whole new level of venues and opportunities that are out of reach for unsigned bands. Booking agents that handle the larger, more famous and lucrative venues won't touch an unsigned band/artist, regardless of how talented they may be.
Gigging as an unsigned band is much like living like a poorer college student. There's a lot of Ramen noodles in the diet. :)
The average signed act (not the top one-half of one percent of signed acts that become truly famous) still only makes $2K-$3K on average per performance. After expenses that go along with a top-shelf touring band, that still doesn't leave much.
I'd love to have my bands' CDs "pirated" across the world! The promotional value would be tremendous! Even if my band were to be signed, I still would be fine with people "pirating" our CDs as royalties after the Hollywood accounting used by labels means that CD sales would still only account for a very small percentage of income. This leaves live performances and merch sales as still being the lions'-share of a bands' income, whether they are signed with a label or not.
I view "pirating" of my bands' music to be an invaluable source of viral marketing, regardless of if we were signed or not.
Strat
How much does a billboard cost these days, anyway? or a radio ad? Do you really need to sign your life away to get these things?
Because it seems to me that all the labels really provide is the initial financing for advertising and studio time at usury rates.
It's not the labels that pay for the billboards, radio ads, etc to promote a performance. It's the venues and event promoters. However, those venues and event promoters won't spend the money on a non-signed act, nor book them to appear in the first place. Nor will booking agents that handle those type of higher-paying venues accept an unsigned act as a client.
For an average talented, but unsigned regional band to spend thousands on billboards, radio ads, newspaper ads, etc etc on promoting a gig at some average bar/club where they'd be making a few hundreds of dollars would be insane.
There is a sort of glass ceiling effect where unless a band is signed, many of the most-lucrative venues and opportunities are simply not available.
Strat
Why would an aspiring artist go to EMI and have a limited reach when he could as well go to some competitor and be sold also to customers of small music shops?
As a long-time musical artist & bandmember myself, I can tell you why. Most don't know any better. Most bands and artists are so desperate to "make it" that any label showing interest in them is considered as being offered the gold ring. They're sick and tired of playing dumpy bars and clubs and making $50-$75 a night, two or three nights a week, four sets a night. That's if they can actually stay booked steadily.
One of the things that being signed gets you is that it opens up a whole new level of venues to play, with a whole lot more money. A band goes from a few hundreds of dollars a show to two or three thousand. Billboards and radio ads go up ahead of their appearances, and crowds increase. Merch sales skyrocket.
The fact that the label that's offering them a contract doesn't distribute to independent record stores doesn't even enter the picture to their thinking.
Again, that's not all musicians/bands/artists, but most that I've encountered in my many years in "the biz".
Strat
Unless the plants in question are simply too difficult/expensive to upgrade, nobody should be decommissioning any nuclear power plants!
Cripes! Here we are looking at Cap & Tax legislation allegedly attempting to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and they want to decommission power plants that have among the lowest rates of CO2 emission?
Makes one wonder if the goal isn't so much to reduce CO2 emissions as it is to raise the cost of electricity and raise taxes, along with making certain politically-connected people and organizations tons of money from carbon credits while crippling the US private sector to make way for further government takeovers of the US economy.
"I don't want to run car companiH^H^H^H^H^ the nations' power generation."
Strat
Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Yes, and MS had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged shenanigans involving ISO certification of MS' OOXML "standard" either.
Honest.
MS would never do anything illegal, immoral, deceitful, or underhanded.
If you don't believe them, just ask them!
Strat
Oooo, -1 'Troll'!
Ahahaha!
The MS fanboy/shill moderators must be out in force!
Either that, or pointing out past patterns of bad behavior by MS as it relates to the likelihood of current denials of bad behavior being true is now considered a troll post??
Strat
Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Yes, and MS had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged shenanigans involving ISO certification of MS' OOXML "standard" either.
Honest.
MS would never do anything illegal, immoral, deceitful, or underhanded.
If you don't believe them, just ask them!
Strat
We have excellent data on global climate back about 850ky, good data back to 60mya, and some data back as far as bya
[citation needed]
I wasn't aware we had time-traveling climate researchers or time-traveling meteorological instrumentation to *accurately* measure all the various datapoints. My impression was that accurate & meaningful meteorological data wasn't recorded farther back than a couple of centuries, if that, and that many very-relevant measurements weren't even recorded for much of even that relatively-short (in terms of geologic time) span of time.
From what I've been able to gather, most of the ice-core and similar geologic records seemed to indicate that CO2 was a lagging factor in warming, not a leading factor. As in; it got warm, then CO2 went up, not the other way around.
The reluctance to release the data and the destruction of data is a red flag that something isn't kosher. They have to have known that doing this would only fuel the anti-climate change factions, so it would seem logical that what is being hidden must be pretty damning evidence that their current theories are bunk.
However, there's a ton of grant money to be had by the climate scientists and much power & control to be gained by government by promoting a climate crisis, so it isn't too surprising.
Strat
This is akin to the cops saying "We know you did it. Just tell us what happened and we'll try to work out some kind of deal". They are trying to scare the actual guilty into giving themselves up at the expense of harassing people who did no wrong. Unfortunately, it is your job as the accused to tell them to shove it up their ass.
And in the real world, telling cops to shove it up their asses will quickly result in any cameras being turned off/pointed away and the cops giving you a good working-over. It will also likely get you some additional unrelated charges (like assaulting a police officer, the "reason" the cops will give for why you were worked-over, and a nice CYA for the cops).
Strat
"I'm sorry, maybe it was all the pot smoke floating around back in the '60s and '70s"
Ships... not spaceships... when ships were used for exploration I think you'll have to go back a little further than 60s and 70s USA... think: how was America most recently discovered? By people, many considered 'expendable' (ie, would otherwise just be in prisons) on ships.
Say what you want about what we're learnt about the moon, but if we'd had to send people along, do you think we'd have made discoveries about the farthest reachest of out solar system as we have with the Voyagers, or know what we do about the composition of the gas planet's moons, or know what we do about Pluto? That's exploration, of the kind that we have made simply because we took sending humans along out of the equation.
Although there were significant discoveries made far in the past like the ancient Viking discovery of N. America, many more-modern discoveries were also made by famous explorers that were relatively well-funded, often by royal houses or shipping & trade companies.
The experienced sailors, captains, and the explorer themselves weren't considered "expendable". Sure, there would be finite cost to losing everyone and everything on an unlucky voyage, but the overall risk was deemed acceptable to the country/power funding the exploration as well as to the explorer, captain, and crew. That's not what *I* would take "being expendable" to mean.
As far as your argument make here:
Say what you want about what we're learnt about the moon, but if we'd had to send people along, do you think we'd have made discoveries about the farthest reachest of out solar system as we have with the Voyagers, or know what we do about the composition of the gas planet's moons, or know what we do about Pluto?
This is a false dichotomy, and/or a strawman. There's no "either-or" here. Both methods can and *should* be utilized together, in a balanced and sensible manner. There are only so many things robots can tell us. There's no way currently to be fully "telepresent" such that we are able to use all our senses, to get a "feel" for a place, and we thus render ourselves much, much less able to make intuitive judgments and gather subliminal data clues that can lead to "hunches" and leaps of logic, thereby greatly accelerating the pace of discovery and it's depth.
If the whole idea of space travel and exploration is simply an aside, an occasional commercial interest, an interesting scientific problem and data pool to occasionally delve into when it's convenient and leave alone when we get distracted, then robotic exploration is the sensible way to go.
If, however, mankind dreams of expanding and surviving, to reach out and explore all the universe holds, to gain the ultimate freedom from tyranny by people being able to leave when governments got too oppressive, to tap the infinite reserves of energy and materials, and become a new type of organism from Earth...spacefaring...and take the next step in our evolution, then robotics, although having it's place as a useful tool, is only that. A tool. Not the goal. A tool we should use to help the species grow, advance, and expand beyond our current boundaries.
Strat