One semester I used it for my homework. Lots of.tex and.m files. I could do a problem, commit. Push go to a completely separate computer, pull and continue working.
A public account? What happens when someone from your class steals it and turns it in? I know where I went to school if two people turned in the same work, they both got an F.
The professors said they had tools for determining if code had been copied (supposedly which could see through easy stuff like variable name and comment changes). Who knows though. It never concerned me because I wrote my own code and didn't distribute it to others in my class.
1. Cleanliness of the phone. Phones get dirty in pockets. Screens get smudged with grease. Pocket lint gets inside screen protectors and cases. Ever clean your phone and then love how "new" it feels? Ever take off a beat-up old case?
2. Age of the OS. I don't have an iPhone, but it stands to reason that a fresh install will be more responsive than the one in your pocket that's been collecting pictures, emails, etc for a year. I know my old Android phone (HTC Magic with 2.2) behaves like this.
I remember back in 1992 my Kenwood TH-28 was only a dual band and didn't have a general coverage receiver on it like my little Yaesu.
I have one of those (TH-28A) on the desk behind me right now. The 28 is dual-band receive, transmit on 2m only. I think it was a great radio then, and still is now. Sure there's stuff better, but what I love about radio (as opposed to phones and computers) is that the one I bought in the 90s still works just as well now as it did then. While there are better radios now, the goalpost is in the same position as it was back then (hitting the repeater, talking on the same modes, etc).
If you simply look at the total debt, you can see more clearly. A lot of the debt Obama incurred was actually due to continuing GW policies. (Medicaid Part D, tax cuts for the wealth, unfunded wars), and a retraction of the economy (means less federal revenue).
This graph is much more descriptive: federal debt 1901-2010 [wikipedia.org].
That's total debt as it relates to GDP. That's not deficit, and deficit in dollars is what we were talking about. Obama's deficits are huge, there's no getting around it.
Anyway, it looks like you're willing to generate whatever belief it takes to avoid thinking critically about the GOP.
Really? We were having a civil debate, or so I thought. I _am_ critical of the GOP, and I think my other comments have easily shown that. Both parties have spent way too much money. Both talk a good game in abstract terms about doing something about it. Neither have. In recent history, the Democrats though have been much much worse in this department.
Yet the congressional budget office has to fill in the gaps [In the Ryan budget] themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Analysis of spending and its ramifications is their job.
And now Romney/Ryan are simply saying "trust us, we'll tell you how we'll pay for it when we're in office."
While that's exaggeration, I _still_ find it more palatable than the more-of-the-same talk that we're getting from the other side.
How much did Bush spend, and why? Don't forget to account for the tax cuts, and also the projected future cost of Medicaid Part D. How much did Obama spend, and why? Don't forget to include the actual justification of the spending.
Are you in favor of eliminating Medicare part D? I think it was in the wrong direction, similar to all Obama's talk about rising health care costs. Instead of figuring out what's at the root of the problem, his solution is just to have the government pay for it.
[T]he dems have a credible plan to reduce the deficit. The GOP doesn't have the type of plan where you can add up the figures; however, they do want to cut more taxes and give the military $2 trillion more than they asked for.
How about the Ryan plan from the other year? I think that had figures you could add up.
Oh, btw, Art Laffer is for a carbon tax [youtube.com]. In his own worlds. Bet you didn't know that.
I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration of what's presented in that video. He's for a carbon tax if and only if it replaces some other tax which is more harmful to the economy.
Only the Dems have a history of fiscal responsibility.
At the current level of spending, that's hard to take seriously. Bush spent a lot of money. Obama has spent more. Forgetting the stimulus for a minute, why do we now spend so much money every single year?
The reason for the recent rise in the deficit is three-fold: the economy shrank, and GOP would not let revenues rise, and the dems employed fiscal stimulus.
So if the rise in deficits now is because the economy shrank, then was Bill Clinton's surplus because of the then-bubble we were on?* It can't be had both ways.
most economists (but not all) believe that [fiscal stimulus] is the right thing to do. Those economies that did not employ stimulus during the global recession shrank.
And our economy is in great shape? But you're no doubt saying it would have been worse if we _hadn't_ spent trillions of dollars we don't have. The thing about debt, interest rates, and spending is that they _can_ be carefully used to manipulate the economy (to turn around negative trends), but only in the short term. The window of that short term ended last decade, and because we did nothing to try to bring those numbers back into line, we're now stuck at record spending with near-zero percent interest rates, and with all the inflation that comes with it**.
What we are doing is unsustainable. Dems (and xkcd) like to make fun of that word, but it's the truth. It should be obvious that we can't just spend more than we take in perpetually. At some point, this nation is going to have to eat our vegetables fiscally. Neither party has shown the real backbone to do it in recent years. President Obama made it clear in his speech that he has no intention of making us do it, where Romney and Ryan have.***
Simply taxing the rich will _not_ pay for the deficits we currently have. Bill Clinton should check his arithmetic on this one. Laffer Curve aside****, it's simply an issue of magnitude. We should be able to significantly cut spending with taxes exactly where they are right now.
* I contend it partly was, and don't forget he was also forced into it by government shutdowns by the GOP. ** Anyone who says we don't have inflation is lying. The government has changed the way inflation is calculated. People's largest expenses off food, oil, and housing, don't count in the new calculation. The whole modern inflation figure a lie. *** Although they aren't proposing nearly enough, in my opinion. Paul Ryan's budget last year still didn't balance after 10 years. We'll see what they actually do. It's easy to criticize from outside power. **** When Bush lowered taxes for _all_ brackets (not just the rich, as is often quipped), revenue went up. I've looked at the numbers myself. Plenty on the left make excuses for why that happened, but the facts are the facts on that one.
Heck, the Dems can't get the GOP to vote in favour of their own policies from a few years back.
Thankfully, that's true. Many of their own policies from a few years back were terrible. We spent way too much money back then. GWB spent more than anyone before him. On the other hand, BHO has spent more than anyone before him (including GWB)*.
Thankfully legislators on the right have woken up (to some extent). Hopefully next year we can stop the bleeding.
* And have you seen any of this money? You'd think it'd be visible somewhere. You'd think one would be able to point at something and say "that's what we got for spending all that money."
But the GOP simply filibustered constantly. Without a filibuster proof 60 votes, the dems couldn't get anything done. The Dems only had 4 months of a filibuster proof congress.
Maybe the Dems should start trying to work on some bipartisanship, like Pelosi promised us in 2006*. You act as though it's impossible to get anything done unless your party has the house, a filibuster-proof senate, and the presidency. That's insane. Ask Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. They managed to get plenty done by working together. George W. Bush _never_ had a filibuster-proof senate, and back during his presidency we actually were able to make budgets**. Senate Democrats have not wanted to include the minority in anything, and this is what they have gotten. Sure the base will always just blame the GOP, but others know better.
* yes I know she's from the other chamber, but they were all talking like that at the time. ** Why make a budget now when we can just have a perpetual continuing resolution on the largest budget we've ever seen, with over 1.5T in deficit every single year.
The real mendacious claim here is that the Democrats weren't given and fumbled a huge opportunity on a silver platter.
Look into the claim. Try and find which specific dates the democrats had 60 seats in congress.
When you have the presidency, 50 seats is a majority in the senate, not 60. "Democrat Congress" means both houses controlled by Democrats, which is what we had for two years. It may have only been filibuster-proof for 4 months, but it doesn't change the fact that the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were controlled by a single party for two (2) years*.
* minus two weeks since the house and senate members are sworn in before the president.
I'm with you. When the most valuable company in the world, EVER, goes whining to the courts because another company has phones with "pinch zooming" and "rubber-band scrolling", I cannot respect that company and will avoid their products. I mean really, how many iPhone purchases honestly didn't happen because Samsung had these features?
I think the better way to think about it is how many Samsung purchases wouldn't have happened if they had not had those features. Pinch-to-zoom is a pretty dang big deal, and IMO fundamental to the way people use mobile devices. Just go look at the reviews of the early Android devices that didn't have it.
I think rubber-banding is a significant innovation as well. When you see it the first time, it's immediately intuitive. There's no questioning what it means. I don't think it's a deal-breaker for anyone though.
I'm in the same boat as you are on currently-owned Apple products though. For a laptop, at least when I bought mine, it was either buy a Windows PC or buy a Mac.
Show me the free iphone WITHOUT a contract. A contract phone is not free because you end up paying more for service than on a MTM plan.
So over two years, the free phone costs 239.76.
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter to most people because most people don't care what anything actually costs; they just care how much per month it costs, and even that doesn't mater (in this case) because many of those people can't afford to shell out for a phone outright, at least for their definition of the word "afford."
I'd like to see the google-style model of cell phone purchasing take off and get us as a society off this contract business, but if the current product offerings are any indication, that's not what the majority of people want. It's sad really. Most people are perfectly happy for "free" to mean "you pay more every month for 24 months."
Why do we need 100% leaders? I've been in groups where everyone wanted to be the leader (and had some vague qualification claim for leadership). Let me tell you, that mix is a ticket for 100% politics and 0% action.
I think that statement misses the distinction between being named the leader and having leadership skills.
We don't need 100% of people to be named the leader (or try to claim the lead), but having more people with leadership skills is a good thing. One of the more important aspects of leadership is knowing when it is appropriate to lead and when it is appropriate to follow (and being a good follower). Leadership is not just taking charge of people, but it's taking charge of situations. It's also doing what needs done without requiring specific direction from someone else.
As to "100% politics and 0% action," that's the result of too many people being named a leader and too few actually possessing or exercising good leadership skills, and I'd agree, that's what we currently have too much of and it doesn't really do anyone any good.
You went to school on what happened to be a testing day and were shocked that all the kids were taking a test? Go back on a more normal day and get back to us.
If Android is really an open operating system. we shouldn't have to rely on the device manufacturers and network carriers to get software updates for it.
If Android was GPL, that's _exactly_ what you'd have. Instead, Android, with it's "permissive" license is Open Source to the handset manufacturer, and then, most of the time, closed source from the handset manufacturer to you the end consumer, because the handset maker is not _required_ to give you the source. The end result is a phone with software that you can't modify and that you can't update.
The only way around it is to buy a Google-branded phone like one in the Nexus line which is supported by the stock Android source code from Google. Even then, you don't get updates forever. The Nexus One for example is not supported by Android 4.0.
Explain to me again how the sliver of legal protection offered by ZT isn't idiocy compared to these awful, stupid outcomes?
ZT is implemented because many people believe that public school administrators (and most government employees) should not be allowed to use their own judgment in any situation. When actual use of judgment is suggested, anecdotal examples of selective enforcement are brought forth, and things like ZT are sold as ways to prevent favoritism for people like athletes. The people in the examples you mention are then sacrificed to the greater good of the many, because it's better in their mind that 10 first grade cub scouts be punished than it is that one athlete go free.
It seems that our judicial system and process was based on the opposite, but maybe I'm just old school.
The same thing happens when the teachers' unions want "objective" rules about compensation and review, and they assert that having any other kind of system subjects teachers to the biases of the principal (of course they then fight any type of objective metrics like test scores as well, because they're unfair (and to an extent I agree[1])). The result? Teacher benefits are based on years on the job, because that's the only thing about a teacher that can actually be objectively measured. Have the principal write an actual review of each teacher? No way! How do we know his buddies won't get the best reviews? It's better in their minds that many good teachers get the shaft than it is that one bad teacher get a raise because of favoritism. Is it any wonder there's a shortage of good teachers?
So that's why schools in the US are headed down the toilet. No judgment allowed from the people in charge, and no accountability for those below.
[1] I agree to the extent that test scores alone are a bad metric. What we need are good metrics, but I don't know what those look like. The day we have good metrics, I believe we should use them to evaluate teacher compensation.
Hmm. I know quite a few rich people, because part of my job is working with donors to my University.
Seems like selection bias to me. The rich people you know are the ones who have the time to go get schmoozed by university officials like you, not the ones who work really hard and long hours.
In Amsterdam, where they use the L3 scanner, and have the image shown to the security guy right on the back side of the scanner (where I could see it as well), the metal I had on me (coins I forgot in my pocket), and the papers I had in my shirt pocket showed up as bright yellow, over a white image of the person being scanned, and a black background.
I opt out everywhere I'm selected for the scanner in the US. This was not possible in Amsterdam. In fact, they weren't even familiar with the concept of opting out. The security woman there said to me, when I asked to opt out, "whataya got a big d*** or something?" (Yes, she seriously said that).
Last time I opted out in San Francisco (2 weeks ago), I whistled "My Country 'Tis of Thee" during the pat down. No reaction from the patter-downer. My brother did the same in Tennessee and heard one of the TSA guys say to another, "this is turning into a religion...."
In Salt Lake City, they had one line for the scanner (the others went to metal detectors, and a second body scanner was not in use at all), and I heard the guy say "if you don't want to go through the scanner, go into one of the other lines." I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe someone can confirm or correct me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's why. Freedom of speech doesn't mean only when it's convenient for _you_.
Wow, you certainly put a lot of words in my mouth, and did some name-calling to boot! Let's go through it.
Typical scumbag response. So as long as you turn a profit it's all ok, right?
I said, profit is not inherently bad. I didn't say that all profit is good.
Clearly you don't get the point. Sometimes it's NOT about the profits. Sometimes it's about doing what's right and not taking advantage of others to pad your own wallet.
I think _you_ don't get the point. Thrift and second-hand stores are _not_ entirely about poor people. Some are for-profit businesses. Most are selling donated merchandise to raise money for their organization (Hospice, etc). Turns out, it _is_ all about profit for _them_. It's about how much money they can make from the stuff that was donated while spending the least amount of money to do it. I resubmit my argument that if there was any real money in selling books on Amazon, the thrift stores would do it themselves, because thrift stores _are_ in the business of profit.
Yes, there are plenty of people in plenty of professions that have no issues with doing it. Doesn't mean it's right or that they're nice people. Just bottom-feeding scumbags.
Agreed. No argument there. There are scumbags in every line of work. It doesn't mean that everyone who cares about profit is a scumbag.
And really, he does this "work" because ultimately it's easier than getting a real job.
Are you saying that it's bad to do a job which is easier than to do a job which is harder? By your logic, everyone not working road construction is a "scumbag" because anyone doing anything "easier" is doing it because "ultimately it's easier than getting a real job." Clearly that kind of logic is faulty. Jobs are easy and hard in different ways.
And maybe the thrift store owner isn't interested in selling his books online and prefers to deal with people in person, pricing his wares according to what his patrons can afford. Not because it's "work" but because it's not the kind of business he wants to run.
I want to run a business where people come to my house and hand me dollar bills. Turns out though, that people don't want to come hand me cash. The point is, you don't get to stay in business just because you run a the kind of business you want to run. To stay in business, you have to do something that people _want_. Because of the internet and Amazon, what people _want_ in the book-buying world is changing. A business owner can either get on board, or go out of business pining for the good old days.
I bet you're the kind of guy that would have no problems taking food from a food pantry and reselling it. Hey, it's just free market capitalism, right? Money makes the world go round, right?
I never said any of that. But that's quite an accusation. A food pantry is different from a thrift store. A food pantry has food that has been donated by individuals to be given to the poor, free of charge. Taking food from a pantry if you don't need it is clearly wrong. Thrift stores on the other hand (well, most anyway) have items which have been donated by individuals so that they can be _sold_ to raise money for the organization running the store.
Buying books from a thrift store and selling them on Amazon for a small profit is a lot different than taking food from a food pantry.
Yes. This particular incident comes from the fact that the majority of people (according to polls) do agree that equality is a good thing and that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
Tithing is also talked about in Malachi 3, starting at verse 8:
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.
" 'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?' concludes Savitz."
Because it makes you a bottom-feeder. And no one likes bottom-feeders. You're taking the generosity and good will of others who are trying to help the less fortunate and turning it into your own personal profit machine.
What's wrong with profit? If it weren't for profit, nobody would do anything. That's what makes capitalism and the free market strong. People want to make profit, so they find something to do which will generate a profit, which corresponds to making things people want/need or providing services people want/need. Oh yeah, that takes _work_, and lots of it.
Buying items in a thrift store doesn't take advantage of anybody's generosity. You're buying items for the price they are marked. Do you go into stores and pay more than what they are asking? If a thrift store thought they could be making more money on Amazon, they would hire their own person with a barcode scanner to scan the books in their store, then post them on Amazon, then ship them to customers if and when they sell for a dollar or two more than their sticker price in the thrift store to begin with. Why don't they do this? Because this process takes _work_ and hiring people to do work is expensive. The reason people do this on their own is because it's something they enjoy doing on their off time. And if they make a couple of bucks off all the effort they put into it, then so be it, good for them. Have you considered also that maybe the thrift store is selling books that they might not otherwise sell (at least sell soon)?
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe you could get all that stuff for "free" and have to pay more for your ticket. Would that make you happier?
One semester I used it for my homework. Lots of .tex and .m files. I could do a problem, commit. Push go to a completely separate computer, pull and continue working.
A public account? What happens when someone from your class steals it and turns it in? I know where I went to school if two people turned in the same work, they both got an F.
The professors said they had tools for determining if code had been copied (supposedly which could see through easy stuff like variable name and comment changes). Who knows though. It never concerned me because I wrote my own code and didn't distribute it to others in my class.
Two things come to mind:
1. Cleanliness of the phone. Phones get dirty in pockets. Screens get smudged with grease. Pocket lint gets inside screen protectors and cases. Ever clean your phone and then love how "new" it feels? Ever take off a beat-up old case?
2. Age of the OS. I don't have an iPhone, but it stands to reason that a fresh install will be more responsive than the one in your pocket that's been collecting pictures, emails, etc for a year. I know my old Android phone (HTC Magic with 2.2) behaves like this.
I remember back in 1992 my Kenwood TH-28 was only a dual band and didn't have a general coverage receiver on it like my little Yaesu.
I have one of those (TH-28A) on the desk behind me right now. The 28 is dual-band receive, transmit on 2m only. I think it was a great radio then, and still is now. Sure there's stuff better, but what I love about radio (as opposed to phones and computers) is that the one I bought in the 90s still works just as well now as it did then. While there are better radios now, the goalpost is in the same position as it was back then (hitting the repeater, talking on the same modes, etc).
If you simply look at the total debt, you can see more clearly. A lot of the debt Obama incurred was actually due to continuing GW policies. (Medicaid Part D, tax cuts for the wealth, unfunded wars), and a retraction of the economy (means less federal revenue).
This graph is much more descriptive: federal debt 1901-2010 [wikipedia.org].
That's total debt as it relates to GDP. That's not deficit, and deficit in dollars is what we were talking about. Obama's deficits are huge, there's no getting around it.
Further, the revenue has been off (some), but not by enough to make the current deficits not able to be owned by the current people in power:
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/growth-federal-spending-revenue
Anyway, it looks like you're willing to generate whatever belief it takes to avoid thinking critically about the GOP.
Really? We were having a civil debate, or so I thought. I _am_ critical of the GOP, and I think my other comments have easily shown that. Both parties have spent way too much money. Both talk a good game in abstract terms about doing something about it. Neither have. In recent history, the Democrats though have been much much worse in this department.
Yet the congressional budget office has to fill in the gaps [In the Ryan budget] themselves.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Analysis of spending and its ramifications is their job.
And now Romney/Ryan are simply saying "trust us, we'll tell you how we'll pay for it when we're in office."
While that's exaggeration, I _still_ find it more palatable than the more-of-the-same talk that we're getting from the other side.
How much did Bush spend, and why? Don't forget to account for the tax cuts, and also the projected future cost of Medicaid Part D.
How much did Obama spend, and why? Don't forget to include the actual justification of the spending.
I didn't know I'd be assigned homework :)
I think this chart pretty much sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png
Are you in favor of eliminating Medicare part D? I think it was in the wrong direction, similar to all Obama's talk about rising health care costs. Instead of figuring out what's at the root of the problem, his solution is just to have the government pay for it.
[T]he dems have a credible plan to reduce the deficit. The GOP doesn't have the type of plan where you can add up the figures; however, they do want to cut more taxes and give the military $2 trillion more than they asked for.
How about the Ryan plan from the other year? I think that had figures you could add up.
Oh, btw, Art Laffer is for a carbon tax [youtube.com]. In his own worlds. Bet you didn't know that.
I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration of what's presented in that video. He's for a carbon tax if and only if it replaces some other tax which is more harmful to the economy.
Only the Dems have a history of fiscal responsibility.
At the current level of spending, that's hard to take seriously. Bush spent a lot of money. Obama has spent more. Forgetting the stimulus for a minute, why do we now spend so much money every single year?
The reason for the recent rise in the deficit is three-fold: the economy shrank, and GOP would not let revenues rise, and the dems employed fiscal stimulus.
So if the rise in deficits now is because the economy shrank, then was Bill Clinton's surplus because of the then-bubble we were on?* It can't be had both ways.
most economists (but not all) believe that [fiscal stimulus] is the right thing to do. Those economies that did not employ stimulus during the global recession shrank.
And our economy is in great shape? But you're no doubt saying it would have been worse if we _hadn't_ spent trillions of dollars we don't have. The thing about debt, interest rates, and spending is that they _can_ be carefully used to manipulate the economy (to turn around negative trends), but only in the short term. The window of that short term ended last decade, and because we did nothing to try to bring those numbers back into line, we're now stuck at record spending with near-zero percent interest rates, and with all the inflation that comes with it**.
What we are doing is unsustainable. Dems (and xkcd) like to make fun of that word, but it's the truth. It should be obvious that we can't just spend more than we take in perpetually. At some point, this nation is going to have to eat our vegetables fiscally. Neither party has shown the real backbone to do it in recent years. President Obama made it clear in his speech that he has no intention of making us do it, where Romney and Ryan have.***
Simply taxing the rich will _not_ pay for the deficits we currently have. Bill Clinton should check his arithmetic on this one. Laffer Curve aside****, it's simply an issue of magnitude. We should be able to significantly cut spending with taxes exactly where they are right now.
* I contend it partly was, and don't forget he was also forced into it by government shutdowns by the GOP.
** Anyone who says we don't have inflation is lying. The government has changed the way inflation is calculated. People's largest expenses off food, oil, and housing, don't count in the new calculation. The whole modern inflation figure a lie.
*** Although they aren't proposing nearly enough, in my opinion. Paul Ryan's budget last year still didn't balance after 10 years. We'll see what they actually do. It's easy to criticize from outside power.
**** When Bush lowered taxes for _all_ brackets (not just the rich, as is often quipped), revenue went up. I've looked at the numbers myself. Plenty on the left make excuses for why that happened, but the facts are the facts on that one.
Heck, the Dems can't get the GOP to vote in favour of their own policies from a few years back.
Thankfully, that's true. Many of their own policies from a few years back were terrible. We spent way too much money back then. GWB spent more than anyone before him. On the other hand, BHO has spent more than anyone before him (including GWB)*.
Thankfully legislators on the right have woken up (to some extent). Hopefully next year we can stop the bleeding.
* And have you seen any of this money? You'd think it'd be visible somewhere. You'd think one would be able to point at something and say "that's what we got for spending all that money."
But the GOP simply filibustered constantly. Without a filibuster proof 60 votes, the dems couldn't get anything done. The Dems only had 4 months of a filibuster proof congress.
Maybe the Dems should start trying to work on some bipartisanship, like Pelosi promised us in 2006*. You act as though it's impossible to get anything done unless your party has the house, a filibuster-proof senate, and the presidency. That's insane. Ask Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton. They managed to get plenty done by working together. George W. Bush _never_ had a filibuster-proof senate, and back during his presidency we actually were able to make budgets**. Senate Democrats have not wanted to include the minority in anything, and this is what they have gotten. Sure the base will always just blame the GOP, but others know better.
* yes I know she's from the other chamber, but they were all talking like that at the time.
** Why make a budget now when we can just have a perpetual continuing resolution on the largest budget we've ever seen, with over 1.5T in deficit every single year.
The real mendacious claim here is that the Democrats weren't given and fumbled a huge opportunity on a silver platter.
Look into the claim. Try and find which specific dates the democrats had 60 seats in congress.
When you have the presidency, 50 seats is a majority in the senate, not 60. "Democrat Congress" means both houses controlled by Democrats, which is what we had for two years. It may have only been filibuster-proof for 4 months, but it doesn't change the fact that the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were controlled by a single party for two (2) years*.
* minus two weeks since the house and senate members are sworn in before the president.
I'm with you. When the most valuable company in the world, EVER, goes whining to the courts because another company has phones with "pinch zooming" and "rubber-band scrolling", I cannot respect that company and will avoid their products. I mean really, how many iPhone purchases honestly didn't happen because Samsung had these features?
I think the better way to think about it is how many Samsung purchases wouldn't have happened if they had not had those features. Pinch-to-zoom is a pretty dang big deal, and IMO fundamental to the way people use mobile devices. Just go look at the reviews of the early Android devices that didn't have it.
I think rubber-banding is a significant innovation as well. When you see it the first time, it's immediately intuitive. There's no questioning what it means. I don't think it's a deal-breaker for anyone though.
I'm in the same boat as you are on currently-owned Apple products though. For a laptop, at least when I bought mine, it was either buy a Windows PC or buy a Mac.
Show me the free iphone WITHOUT a contract. A contract phone is not free because you end up paying more for service than on a MTM plan.
So over two years, the free phone costs 239.76.
Unfortunately, that doesn't matter to most people because most people don't care what anything actually costs; they just care how much per month it costs, and even that doesn't mater (in this case) because many of those people can't afford to shell out for a phone outright, at least for their definition of the word "afford."
I'd like to see the google-style model of cell phone purchasing take off and get us as a society off this contract business, but if the current product offerings are any indication, that's not what the majority of people want. It's sad really. Most people are perfectly happy for "free" to mean "you pay more every month for 24 months."
Seems the easiest way to get those numbers is:
1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16
5^2 = 25
6^2 = 36
Why do we need 100% leaders? I've been in groups where everyone wanted to be the leader (and had some vague qualification claim for leadership). Let me tell you, that mix is a ticket for 100% politics and 0% action.
I think that statement misses the distinction between being named the leader and having leadership skills.
We don't need 100% of people to be named the leader (or try to claim the lead), but having more people with leadership skills is a good thing. One of the more important aspects of leadership is knowing when it is appropriate to lead and when it is appropriate to follow (and being a good follower). Leadership is not just taking charge of people, but it's taking charge of situations. It's also doing what needs done without requiring specific direction from someone else.
As to "100% politics and 0% action," that's the result of too many people being named a leader and too few actually possessing or exercising good leadership skills, and I'd agree, that's what we currently have too much of and it doesn't really do anyone any good.
I wish new standards could be adopted more quickly. In Visual Studio it wasn't until 2010 that I could even get basic C99 headers like stdint.h.
You went to school on what happened to be a testing day and were shocked that all the kids were taking a test? Go back on a more normal day and get back to us.
Editors: Seriously?
If Android is really an open operating system. we shouldn't have to rely on the device manufacturers and network carriers to get software updates for it.
If Android was GPL, that's _exactly_ what you'd have. Instead, Android, with it's "permissive" license is Open Source to the handset manufacturer, and then, most of the time, closed source from the handset manufacturer to you the end consumer, because the handset maker is not _required_ to give you the source. The end result is a phone with software that you can't modify and that you can't update.
The only way around it is to buy a Google-branded phone like one in the Nexus line which is supported by the stock Android source code from Google. Even then, you don't get updates forever. The Nexus One for example is not supported by Android 4.0.
Explain to me again how the sliver of legal protection offered by ZT isn't idiocy compared to these awful, stupid outcomes?
ZT is implemented because many people believe that public school administrators (and most government employees) should not be allowed to use their own judgment in any situation. When actual use of judgment is suggested, anecdotal examples of selective enforcement are brought forth, and things like ZT are sold as ways to prevent favoritism for people like athletes. The people in the examples you mention are then sacrificed to the greater good of the many, because it's better in their mind that 10 first grade cub scouts be punished than it is that one athlete go free.
It seems that our judicial system and process was based on the opposite, but maybe I'm just old school.
The same thing happens when the teachers' unions want "objective" rules about compensation and review, and they assert that having any other kind of system subjects teachers to the biases of the principal (of course they then fight any type of objective metrics like test scores as well, because they're unfair (and to an extent I agree[1])). The result? Teacher benefits are based on years on the job, because that's the only thing about a teacher that can actually be objectively measured. Have the principal write an actual review of each teacher? No way! How do we know his buddies won't get the best reviews? It's better in their minds that many good teachers get the shaft than it is that one bad teacher get a raise because of favoritism. Is it any wonder there's a shortage of good teachers?
So that's why schools in the US are headed down the toilet. No judgment allowed from the people in charge, and no accountability for those below.
[1] I agree to the extent that test scores alone are a bad metric. What we need are good metrics, but I don't know what those look like. The day we have good metrics, I believe we should use them to evaluate teacher compensation.
Hmm. I know quite a few rich people, because part of my job is working with donors to my University.
Seems like selection bias to me. The rich people you know are the ones who have the time to go get schmoozed by university officials like you, not the ones who work really hard and long hours.
In Amsterdam, where they use the L3 scanner, and have the image shown to the security guy right on the back side of the scanner (where I could see it as well), the metal I had on me (coins I forgot in my pocket), and the papers I had in my shirt pocket showed up as bright yellow, over a white image of the person being scanned, and a black background.
I opt out everywhere I'm selected for the scanner in the US. This was not possible in Amsterdam. In fact, they weren't even familiar with the concept of opting out. The security woman there said to me, when I asked to opt out, "whataya got a big d*** or something?" (Yes, she seriously said that).
Last time I opted out in San Francisco (2 weeks ago), I whistled "My Country 'Tis of Thee" during the pat down. No reaction from the patter-downer. My brother did the same in Tennessee and heard one of the TSA guys say to another, "this is turning into a religion...."
In Salt Lake City, they had one line for the scanner (the others went to metal detectors, and a second body scanner was not in use at all), and I heard the guy say "if you don't want to go through the scanner, go into one of the other lines." I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe someone can confirm or correct me.
At least in the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's why. Freedom of speech doesn't mean only when it's convenient for _you_.
Wow, you certainly put a lot of words in my mouth, and did some name-calling to boot! Let's go through it.
Typical scumbag response. So as long as you turn a profit it's all ok, right?
I said, profit is not inherently bad. I didn't say that all profit is good.
Clearly you don't get the point. Sometimes it's NOT about the profits. Sometimes it's about doing what's right and not taking advantage of others to pad your own wallet.
I think _you_ don't get the point. Thrift and second-hand stores are _not_ entirely about poor people. Some are for-profit businesses. Most are selling donated merchandise to raise money for their organization (Hospice, etc). Turns out, it _is_ all about profit for _them_. It's about how much money they can make from the stuff that was donated while spending the least amount of money to do it. I resubmit my argument that if there was any real money in selling books on Amazon, the thrift stores would do it themselves, because thrift stores _are_ in the business of profit.
Yes, there are plenty of people in plenty of professions that have no issues with doing it. Doesn't mean it's right or that they're nice people. Just bottom-feeding scumbags.
Agreed. No argument there. There are scumbags in every line of work. It doesn't mean that everyone who cares about profit is a scumbag.
And really, he does this "work" because ultimately it's easier than getting a real job.
Are you saying that it's bad to do a job which is easier than to do a job which is harder? By your logic, everyone not working road construction is a "scumbag" because anyone doing anything "easier" is doing it because "ultimately it's easier than getting a real job." Clearly that kind of logic is faulty. Jobs are easy and hard in different ways.
And maybe the thrift store owner isn't interested in selling his books online and prefers to deal with people in person, pricing his wares according to what his patrons can afford. Not because it's "work" but because it's not the kind of business he wants to run.
I want to run a business where people come to my house and hand me dollar bills. Turns out though, that people don't want to come hand me cash. The point is, you don't get to stay in business just because you run a the kind of business you want to run. To stay in business, you have to do something that people _want_. Because of the internet and Amazon, what people _want_ in the book-buying world is changing. A business owner can either get on board, or go out of business pining for the good old days.
I bet you're the kind of guy that would have no problems taking food from a food pantry and reselling it. Hey, it's just free market capitalism, right? Money makes the world go round, right?
I never said any of that. But that's quite an accusation. A food pantry is different from a thrift store. A food pantry has food that has been donated by individuals to be given to the poor, free of charge. Taking food from a pantry if you don't need it is clearly wrong. Thrift stores on the other hand (well, most anyway) have items which have been donated by individuals so that they can be _sold_ to raise money for the organization running the store.
Buying books from a thrift store and selling them on Amazon for a small profit is a lot different than taking food from a food pantry.
Yes. This particular incident comes from the fact that the majority of people (according to polls) do agree that equality is a good thing and that gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
[citation needed]
Tithing is also talked about in Malachi 3, starting at verse 8:
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.
" 'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?' concludes Savitz."
Because it makes you a bottom-feeder. And no one likes bottom-feeders. You're taking the generosity and good will of others who are trying to help the less fortunate and turning it into your own personal profit machine.
What's wrong with profit? If it weren't for profit, nobody would do anything. That's what makes capitalism and the free market strong. People want to make profit, so they find something to do which will generate a profit, which corresponds to making things people want/need or providing services people want/need. Oh yeah, that takes _work_, and lots of it.
Buying items in a thrift store doesn't take advantage of anybody's generosity. You're buying items for the price they are marked. Do you go into stores and pay more than what they are asking? If a thrift store thought they could be making more money on Amazon, they would hire their own person with a barcode scanner to scan the books in their store, then post them on Amazon, then ship them to customers if and when they sell for a dollar or two more than their sticker price in the thrift store to begin with. Why don't they do this? Because this process takes _work_ and hiring people to do work is expensive. The reason people do this on their own is because it's something they enjoy doing on their off time. And if they make a couple of bucks off all the effort they put into it, then so be it, good for them. Have you considered also that maybe the thrift store is selling books that they might not otherwise sell (at least sell soon)?