I noticed you bring up COICA and ACTA. The diplomatic cables have more to do with more pressing diplomatic matters, but it does offer clues on why you're a libertarian. Which brings me back to my previous point... Luckily for the rest of us, more people don't want a weak government just so commodore64_love can download and share copyrighted files.
You have a right to your opinion, and I apologize for making a comment that sounded like a personal attack.
Maybe because Amazon thought it was in their best financial interest to not give their largest target market (The Americans) the impression that they support the releasing of the diplomatic cables.
This shit is happening during the holiday shopping season, and Amazon can't afford to have their revenue diminish if American consumers started a boycott.
I believe in an open government too, but there are limits. Wikileaks has crossed that limit.
I don't give a fuck about what happens outside US territory.
Yes because we don't exist in a global economy. I guess the internet shouldn't exist outside of the US. Why do we put up with all those foreigners offering their opinion? Why do we reach out and provide disaster aid to foreign countries? Why should we care about Afghanistan?
We learned a lot from the Great Depression and World War II. 1) An economy can't grow with an isolationist agenda. 2) Global conflicts grow worse when we ignore the conflicts outside our borders.
What I want is a government that is weak w/ most of the power belonging to the people ("every man a king of his own domain").
I think we all aspire to some form of this government. Unfortunately what most people really mean is a "Government that is operated in a manner that *I* agree with". They tend to forget that there are over 307 million people who may want to see the government act in a different manner.
Secrecy of things like COICA (copyright/three-strike law) and ACTA (more copyright protection but on the global scale) that affect citizens is bullshit. It should be out in the open, not hidden, otherwise representative government Can Not work.
I agree all laws should be open since 1) How can our representatives act on our behalf if we don't know what's going on? 2) Secret laws are almost always secret because it's really a bad law.
I noticed you bring up COICA and ACTA. The diplomatic cables have more to do with more pressing diplomatic matters, but it does offer clues on why you're a libertarian. Which brings me back to my previous point... Luckily for the rest of us, more people don't want a weak government just so commodore64_love can download and share copyrighted files.
Instead of looking at the facts that PG may be violating some copyright, lets battle over the use of words and throw in a "granting freedom" BS while we're at it.
I'm interested in how PG will handle this. They may have documentation showing that the magazines granted them permission to republish their works. More likely they discovered that the magazine no longer exists, and the magazine is no longer capable of making copyright claims.
It's up to the authors to prove that they didn't turn over copyright ownership to the magazine. Personally, I think the authors should thank PG for bringing their work back from the dead.
After rereading the article, I see where I'm causing the confusion.
The fact that the offending app is a magazine is irrelevant. When I was referring to Android friendly magazines, I meant the blogs that linked to and reported the app rejection NOT the magazine app itself.
My point remains that an Android themed app was rejected and used to create fodder on the Android blogosphere. I'm not talking about the merits of the Android magazine itself, just the app that it produced to create this story.
But not necessarily friendly towards all Android devices. Are game magazines friendly towards all games?
Not necessarily. However, there are some publications that only publish favorable reviews. They do this as a editorial policy, since their real objective is to collect money from advertisers. That is beside the point, and alas we are now off-topic.
My original post was clarifying what the grand-parent post was asking, and I limited my opinion to the particular app in question and not blogs that linked to the article.
Blogs (and 'news' sites) regularly link to articles that are related in their subject specialization. I was referring to the creation of the app and its article describing the inevitable rejection as being linked to "magazines" and blogs that specialize in Android news.
Err, the magazine is about discussing Android platform news, reviews etc. It might even contain bad reviews about bad Android devices. How did you decide it was for solely promoting?
Err. Please read (From my original post):
This particular app appears to be designed to be rejected and create a story on Android friendly websites. I am being generous since we assume that this story is factual.
Emphasis mine. I didn't say anything about the linked magazine.
Anyway if the magazine is about discussing the Android platform, one would assume that, unless it was a front for Apple or Microsoft, it would be friendly towards the Android platform.
Another poster already pointed out that NeXT purchased all the rights for ObjC in 1995.
While any IP on ObjC 1.0 has most certainly expired, Apple continues to support the language (and seems the main supporter). Apple did a language refresh with v. 2.0 last year.
Bill Cox did invent the language but, according to his bio, has moved on to using XML, Java, Ruby, and Perl as his primary languages.
Apple also sells Microsoft software designed to run in OS X online and in their store. So what is your point?
I think the parent post was asking "Why would Apple want to sell an app in their store which is designed solely to promote a competing product?"
Personally, I find these "App Store Rejection Stories" being more about the app developer's desperation than Apple's. They didn't get accepted, and immediately cry about it in the blogosphere. This particular app appears to be designed to be rejected and create a story on Android friendly websites. I am being generous since we assume that this story is factual. This is propoganda press.
I know it sounds like a good idea but the Ubuntu releases also introduce some major feature or some behind the scene platform change. What new headache will each rolling release introduce to the user every day?
I think possible interference is a legitimate concern. I don't think requiring the device manufacturers to be FCC type accepted and requiring the repeaters to have variable output is not too much to ask. Hell just mandate the maximum amount of power that can be outputted by the device. I'm pretty sure most of these requirements already exist.
However getting the FCC to only allow the devices to be sold by the carriers or authorized by the carriers make no sense except to create another legal monopoly in repeater sales.
You're not costing the card companies any money. In fact you still are making them money since they get a cut of the fee that the merchant is charged for accepting your credit card transaction. Also, the financial institution is getting a great profile of how and where you spend your money. They can use this information to send targeted ads in your credit card statement that is mailed or emailed to you (They sell advertising).
The icing on the cake is that you have an active line of credit with them, and they wait for something to happen that causes you to carry a balance. It will happen and time is on their side. You have been warned.
Nothing wrong with cash. You remain anonymous and some merchants will give you a bigger discount if they allow haggling.
I use Ubuntu 10.10 on the EEE netbook, and for the most part I like it which isn't too surprising since I'm a unix guy anyway. However, I wouldn't just say that Adobe Flash was its weakest link. Hardware support is another area of concern.
Out of the box, Ubuntu supported everything on the Asus Netbook (1005ha) wifi, wire ethernet, and "trackpad". There is a little issue with the brightness control that irritates me which is the flickering. I assume it flickers due to power management, since I don't remember seeing the flicker while it's charging. If I could just tweak this driver a little, I'd would be happy with the netbook.
Windows 7 worked great while I was in Australia which was the main reason behind the purchase. Unfortunately after I gave it to my wife it began running slowly after she used it to play flash based games on the internet for 2 weeks. The issue went away when I switched the netbook to Ubuntu, which I would have done anyway but I bought the laptop on the way out the door to Australia.
Anyway the fact that Ubuntu doesn't have a high enough profile to be a target of most malware authors should be enough advantage to make up for some minor hardware inconveniences.
To be fair, sourcewatch.org is operated by the "Center for Media and Democracy" which was founded by John Stauber and currently led by Lisa Graves.
John Stauber is a liberal activist, and Lisa Graves worked for Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. And from her website "She previously served as the Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she led the ACLU’s lobbying efforts on national security issues affecting civil liberties, including the Patriot Act reauthorization debate."
I'm not saying that I disagree with Lisa Graves or John Stauber, nor do I believe that their work isn't important. However, I think it's funny that the parent called the NLPC a front organization by citing a website operated by liberals. Incidently the NLPC fully discloses that they are "conservative watchdog" group.
My point is that despite the political ideology of the activist group, sometimes they do bring up a valid point. I think it shows poor judgment on the part of the Democrats and especially the Obama administration for attending a Google CEO's fundraiser while the FTC had an open inquiry against Google. We condemn the Republicans for doing similar things, we should hold the Democrats to the same benchmark. I think the timing is even more unfortunate when the FTC end the inquiry in Google's favor within a week of the event. Obama should have known better and graciously declined the invitation.
I think you may be exaggerating the effect that uncertainty due to health care legislation or the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts has on hiring. I do not believe your fears are completely unjustified. I just think the level of uncertainty is low enough to that provisions can be made to make up for it.
Job growth will continue despite these "uncertainties" from the simple fact that when capacity for production is unable to meet demand, the employer would have no choice but to hire more workers.
The restaurant business is a little different since capacity is also defined by the seating capacity. If all the seats are full then if you managed your restaurant well you should have made a profit or enough to cover the expenses accrued during off-peak demand.
Manufacturers laid off workers because of excess inventory. When the excess is finally liquidated the manufactures will once again need labor to produce more goods.
There's no such thing as free healthcare. Someone has to pay somewhere along the line...
So? Let's call it government provided healthcare insurance with no deductible and no copay for hospitalization. Does that make you feel any better? I much rather have MY tax go toward universal health care than to defense contractors, farm subsidies, or corporate subsidies.
Medicare... you mean the insurance that people were force to pay into for maybe 50 years prior to receiving it?...
FICA was created to justify the existence of Social Security. The thinking was that if the average American thought that it was insurance instead of a handout then they would continue to support the program and be willing to be a recipient of it. The thinking goes in line with "I paid into it then I want it around so I can get the benefits too." Unfortunately FICA was designed to be seen on your payroll stub (it's one of the few itemized taxes on your check) therefore income from interest from savings, stock dividends, or capital gains is not subjected to FICA taxation. This is probably one reason it's currently underfunded.
I completely agree with your sentiment about social security, but I do question the accuracy of your numbers. If social security was operated like a real insurance program, the payouts wouldn't be so big and there would be lifetime limits on benefits. Social security is an entitlement program run amok and is the carrot for the elderly vote. It needs to placed under more control with means testing for the wealthy. Unfortunately you will not see this, since the elderly is a huge voting block. At least with universal health care, I would actually receive benefits for the taxes I pay unlike social security which you admitted may not be around when I need it.
What does irritate me is that people assume that I want socialized medicine.Do I agree with the current health care legislation? Not all of it. Do I want health care reform? Hell yes. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric coming from conservatives, our health care system is collapsing. We have unfunded mandates that jeopardize the operations of most hospitals. It's against the law for a hospital emergency room to refuse treatment of a life threatening injury, however there are no mechanisms in place to recoup the costs incurred. Don't even get me started on the reimbursement rate of doctors from Medicare.
Not to mention, every year employer subsidized insurance is not only getting more expensive (more pay deducted from your paycheck) but the benefits are actually decreasing (in higher deductibles and copays and limits on treatments). The current health care bill fixed some of what was wrong, but I'm genuinely worried about other stuff that may have been passed. Why? Because it was a combination of the Republicans refusing any sort of dialog on the subject, the Tea Party disrupting town hall meetings, and the Democrats having to make back room deals with other Democrats to ensure they had a filibuster proof majority to pass. However, the conservative base have nothing to complain about. The uncertainty that may exist in the current health care legislation is mostly their fault. What did you expect to happen when they become blatant obstructionists and disrupt town meetings with insults and just plain yelling without any concern about facts?
What did I want? Well I wanted a baseline health benefit package from the government that would provide emergency health care and hospitalization (this is currently the cheapest and least amount of benefits offered by current private insurance). This would keep someone from losing their house if they or someone in their household had to stay in a hospital overnight and have expensive procedures performed.
I wanted the option to purchase supplementary insurance to provide for regular doctor visits and preventive maintenance. I wanted no denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions, however I think
I used to work in an 36 floor office complex with elevators that had to be at least 30 years old at the time. I forgot the brand name (I'm leaning towards OTIS) but all the floor buttons were touch sensitive while the "open door" and "close door" were traditional buttons. Normally the "close door" button was ignored by the elevator controller, but every once in a while they would put one in "manually operated mode" for what I believe to be fire training. In fact in normal operation, we were more worried about keeping the doors open than trying to hurry up the elevator. It wasn't uncommon to occasionally get pinched by the door. The safety devices which were manual bumpers always kicked in, but it was never pleasant and always got something on your clothes.
Anyway, occasionally they would leave instructions taped on the control panel, and it read something like:
1. Place elevator in manual mode with key switch.
2. Press close door button.
3. Press number of floor.
4. After reaching floor and determining it's safe press open door button.
I assume the more modern elevators will automatically close the door when the number of floor button in pressed even in "manual mode". I always figured that it was cheaper to have the "close door" on a standard control panel and only connect it when a elevator controller actually used it. I didn't think the elevator companies intended it to be a placebo.
It's the insurance companies that pays for astroturfing that gives the appearance that we really don't want universal healthcare. What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.
The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?
Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.
Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.
Next thing you'll see is the government promising more jobs from exports by initiating free trade with a country whose growing economy is based on jobs being outsourced from the US. Oh wait it looks like Obama wants to announce something....
Slashdot Mirror
You have a right to your opinion, and I apologize for making a comment that sounded like a personal attack.
Maybe because Amazon thought it was in their best financial interest to not give their largest target market (The Americans) the impression that they support the releasing of the diplomatic cables.
This shit is happening during the holiday shopping season, and Amazon can't afford to have their revenue diminish if American consumers started a boycott.
I believe in an open government too, but there are limits. Wikileaks has crossed that limit.
Yes because we don't exist in a global economy. I guess the internet shouldn't exist outside of the US. Why do we put up with all those foreigners offering their opinion? Why do we reach out and provide disaster aid to foreign countries? Why should we care about Afghanistan?
We learned a lot from the Great Depression and World War II. 1) An economy can't grow with an isolationist agenda. 2) Global conflicts grow worse when we ignore the conflicts outside our borders.
I think we all aspire to some form of this government. Unfortunately what most people really mean is a "Government that is operated in a manner that *I* agree with". They tend to forget that there are over 307 million people who may want to see the government act in a different manner.
I agree all laws should be open since 1) How can our representatives act on our behalf if we don't know what's going on? 2) Secret laws are almost always secret because it's really a bad law.
I noticed you bring up COICA and ACTA. The diplomatic cables have more to do with more pressing diplomatic matters, but it does offer clues on why you're a libertarian. Which brings me back to my previous point... Luckily for the rest of us, more people don't want a weak government just so commodore64_love can download and share copyrighted files.
Yes lets focus on the hyperbole.
Instead of looking at the facts that PG may be violating some copyright, lets battle over the use of words and throw in a "granting freedom" BS while we're at it.
I'm interested in how PG will handle this. They may have documentation showing that the magazines granted them permission to republish their works. More likely they discovered that the magazine no longer exists, and the magazine is no longer capable of making copyright claims.
It's up to the authors to prove that they didn't turn over copyright ownership to the magazine. Personally, I think the authors should thank PG for bringing their work back from the dead.
They'll probably be grounded.
He couldn't help himself. The topic is conducive to such puns.
After rereading the article, I see where I'm causing the confusion.
The fact that the offending app is a magazine is irrelevant. When I was referring to Android friendly magazines, I meant the blogs that linked to and reported the app rejection NOT the magazine app itself.
My point remains that an Android themed app was rejected and used to create fodder on the Android blogosphere. I'm not talking about the merits of the Android magazine itself, just the app that it produced to create this story.
While we are at it, people will forget how to breath too.
Stop drinking the bong water.
Not only that, but most of the sensitive information was vetted.
Time's editor Keller says links were vetted to limit risks
Not necessarily. However, there are some publications that only publish favorable reviews. They do this as a editorial policy, since their real objective is to collect money from advertisers. That is beside the point, and alas we are now off-topic.
My original post was clarifying what the grand-parent post was asking, and I limited my opinion to the particular app in question and not blogs that linked to the article.
Blogs (and 'news' sites) regularly link to articles that are related in their subject specialization. I was referring to the creation of the app and its article describing the inevitable rejection as being linked to "magazines" and blogs that specialize in Android news.
Err. Please read (From my original post):
This particular app appears to be designed to be rejected and create a story on Android friendly websites. I am being generous since we assume that this story is factual.
Emphasis mine. I didn't say anything about the linked magazine.
Anyway if the magazine is about discussing the Android platform, one would assume that, unless it was a front for Apple or Microsoft, it would be friendly towards the Android platform.
Another poster already pointed out that NeXT purchased all the rights for ObjC in 1995.
While any IP on ObjC 1.0 has most certainly expired, Apple continues to support the language (and seems the main supporter). Apple did a language refresh with v. 2.0 last year.
Bill Cox did invent the language but, according to his bio, has moved on to using XML, Java, Ruby, and Perl as his primary languages.
Apple also sells Microsoft software designed to run in OS X online and in their store. So what is your point?
I think the parent post was asking "Why would Apple want to sell an app in their store which is designed solely to promote a competing product?"
Personally, I find these "App Store Rejection Stories" being more about the app developer's desperation than Apple's. They didn't get accepted, and immediately cry about it in the blogosphere. This particular app appears to be designed to be rejected and create a story on Android friendly websites. I am being generous since we assume that this story is factual. This is propoganda press.
Yawn...
Well actually they do, but they wanted it "open". Apple also owns the rights to Obj-C and they still support its inclusion in gcc.
Or the Engineering Director didn't get the memo...
I know it sounds like a good idea but the Ubuntu releases also introduce some major feature or some behind the scene platform change. What new headache will each rolling release introduce to the user every day?
I think possible interference is a legitimate concern. I don't think requiring the device manufacturers to be FCC type accepted and requiring the repeaters to have variable output is not too much to ask. Hell just mandate the maximum amount of power that can be outputted by the device. I'm pretty sure most of these requirements already exist.
However getting the FCC to only allow the devices to be sold by the carriers or authorized by the carriers make no sense except to create another legal monopoly in repeater sales.
You're not costing the card companies any money. In fact you still are making them money since they get a cut of the fee that the merchant is charged for accepting your credit card transaction. Also, the financial institution is getting a great profile of how and where you spend your money. They can use this information to send targeted ads in your credit card statement that is mailed or emailed to you (They sell advertising).
The icing on the cake is that you have an active line of credit with them, and they wait for something to happen that causes you to carry a balance. It will happen and time is on their side. You have been warned.
Nothing wrong with cash. You remain anonymous and some merchants will give you a bigger discount if they allow haggling.
I use Ubuntu 10.10 on the EEE netbook, and for the most part I like it which isn't too surprising since I'm a unix guy anyway. However, I wouldn't just say that Adobe Flash was its weakest link. Hardware support is another area of concern.
Out of the box, Ubuntu supported everything on the Asus Netbook (1005ha) wifi, wire ethernet, and "trackpad". There is a little issue with the brightness control that irritates me which is the flickering. I assume it flickers due to power management, since I don't remember seeing the flicker while it's charging. If I could just tweak this driver a little, I'd would be happy with the netbook.
Windows 7 worked great while I was in Australia which was the main reason behind the purchase. Unfortunately after I gave it to my wife it began running slowly after she used it to play flash based games on the internet for 2 weeks. The issue went away when I switched the netbook to Ubuntu, which I would have done anyway but I bought the laptop on the way out the door to Australia.
Anyway the fact that Ubuntu doesn't have a high enough profile to be a target of most malware authors should be enough advantage to make up for some minor hardware inconveniences.
To be fair, sourcewatch.org is operated by the "Center for Media and Democracy" which was founded by John Stauber and currently led by Lisa Graves.
John Stauber is a liberal activist, and Lisa Graves worked for Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. And from her website "She previously served as the Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she led the ACLU’s lobbying efforts on national security issues affecting civil liberties, including the Patriot Act reauthorization debate."
I'm not saying that I disagree with Lisa Graves or John Stauber, nor do I believe that their work isn't important. However, I think it's funny that the parent called the NLPC a front organization by citing a website operated by liberals. Incidently the NLPC fully discloses that they are "conservative watchdog" group.
My point is that despite the political ideology of the activist group, sometimes they do bring up a valid point. I think it shows poor judgment on the part of the Democrats and especially the Obama administration for attending a Google CEO's fundraiser while the FTC had an open inquiry against Google. We condemn the Republicans for doing similar things, we should hold the Democrats to the same benchmark. I think the timing is even more unfortunate when the FTC end the inquiry in Google's favor within a week of the event. Obama should have known better and graciously declined the invitation.
I think you may be exaggerating the effect that uncertainty due to health care legislation or the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts has on hiring. I do not believe your fears are completely unjustified. I just think the level of uncertainty is low enough to that provisions can be made to make up for it.
Job growth will continue despite these "uncertainties" from the simple fact that when capacity for production is unable to meet demand, the employer would have no choice but to hire more workers.
The restaurant business is a little different since capacity is also defined by the seating capacity. If all the seats are full then if you managed your restaurant well you should have made a profit or enough to cover the expenses accrued during off-peak demand.
Manufacturers laid off workers because of excess inventory. When the excess is finally liquidated the manufactures will once again need labor to produce more goods.
So? Let's call it government provided healthcare insurance with no deductible and no copay for hospitalization. Does that make you feel any better? I much rather have MY tax go toward universal health care than to defense contractors, farm subsidies, or corporate subsidies.
FICA was created to justify the existence of Social Security. The thinking was that if the average American thought that it was insurance instead of a handout then they would continue to support the program and be willing to be a recipient of it. The thinking goes in line with "I paid into it then I want it around so I can get the benefits too." Unfortunately FICA was designed to be seen on your payroll stub (it's one of the few itemized taxes on your check) therefore income from interest from savings, stock dividends, or capital gains is not subjected to FICA taxation. This is probably one reason it's currently underfunded.
I completely agree with your sentiment about social security, but I do question the accuracy of your numbers. If social security was operated like a real insurance program, the payouts wouldn't be so big and there would be lifetime limits on benefits. Social security is an entitlement program run amok and is the carrot for the elderly vote. It needs to placed under more control with means testing for the wealthy. Unfortunately you will not see this, since the elderly is a huge voting block. At least with universal health care, I would actually receive benefits for the taxes I pay unlike social security which you admitted may not be around when I need it.
What does irritate me is that people assume that I want socialized medicine.Do I agree with the current health care legislation? Not all of it. Do I want health care reform? Hell yes. Why? Because despite all the rhetoric coming from conservatives, our health care system is collapsing. We have unfunded mandates that jeopardize the operations of most hospitals. It's against the law for a hospital emergency room to refuse treatment of a life threatening injury, however there are no mechanisms in place to recoup the costs incurred. Don't even get me started on the reimbursement rate of doctors from Medicare.
Not to mention, every year employer subsidized insurance is not only getting more expensive (more pay deducted from your paycheck) but the benefits are actually decreasing (in higher deductibles and copays and limits on treatments). The current health care bill fixed some of what was wrong, but I'm genuinely worried about other stuff that may have been passed. Why? Because it was a combination of the Republicans refusing any sort of dialog on the subject, the Tea Party disrupting town hall meetings, and the Democrats having to make back room deals with other Democrats to ensure they had a filibuster proof majority to pass. However, the conservative base have nothing to complain about. The uncertainty that may exist in the current health care legislation is mostly their fault. What did you expect to happen when they become blatant obstructionists and disrupt town meetings with insults and just plain yelling without any concern about facts?
What did I want? Well I wanted a baseline health benefit package from the government that would provide emergency health care and hospitalization (this is currently the cheapest and least amount of benefits offered by current private insurance). This would keep someone from losing their house if they or someone in their household had to stay in a hospital overnight and have expensive procedures performed.
I wanted the option to purchase supplementary insurance to provide for regular doctor visits and preventive maintenance. I wanted no denial of health insurance due to preexisting conditions, however I think
I used to work in an 36 floor office complex with elevators that had to be at least 30 years old at the time. I forgot the brand name (I'm leaning towards OTIS) but all the floor buttons were touch sensitive while the "open door" and "close door" were traditional buttons. Normally the "close door" button was ignored by the elevator controller, but every once in a while they would put one in "manually operated mode" for what I believe to be fire training. In fact in normal operation, we were more worried about keeping the doors open than trying to hurry up the elevator. It wasn't uncommon to occasionally get pinched by the door. The safety devices which were manual bumpers always kicked in, but it was never pleasant and always got something on your clothes.
Anyway, occasionally they would leave instructions taped on the control panel, and it read something like:
1. Place elevator in manual mode with key switch.
2. Press close door button.
3. Press number of floor.
4. After reaching floor and determining it's safe press open door button.
I assume the more modern elevators will automatically close the door when the number of floor button in pressed even in "manual mode". I always figured that it was cheaper to have the "close door" on a standard control panel and only connect it when a elevator controller actually used it. I didn't think the elevator companies intended it to be a placebo.
We want free healthcare.
It's the insurance companies that pays for astroturfing that gives the appearance that we really don't want universal healthcare. What was really amazing was the number of medicare recipients protesting against universal healthcare.
The other amazing thing is how people believe that if we give tax cuts to the wealthy then jobs will magically appear. Never mind that we are talking about making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and not introducing new tax cuts. If the tax cuts were a panacea then why haven't they created new jobs in the past 3 years?
Mainstream media creates perceptions. Perceptions don't always reflect reality.
Also the US government always seem to do what is good for corporations and hardly anything good for consumers. They try to make it appear it was good for consumers. Take the current "Health Care Reforms" that the Democrats passed last year. It doesn't come close to making health care free, in fact it forces us to purchase health insurance. So on the surface it looks like the consumers are finally getting affordable healthcare, in reality the insurance corporations are getting customers who are forced to purchase insurance.
Next thing you'll see is the government promising more jobs from exports by initiating free trade with a country whose growing economy is based on jobs being outsourced from the US. Oh wait it looks like Obama wants to announce something....
By what logic?