Even if it were possible, it would be cheaper to just pay for new planes that had a separate entrance to the cockpit. If there is no door between the cockpit and the passenger section, you don't even have to rely on the pilots to keep the door locked.
The fact that the third party wouldn't win is a perfectly good reason for you to vote for him. You don't like either party, so voting for either of them is throwing away you vote. The two parties know that party line voters will generally not change their votes, so if you vote party line, you are throwing away your vote.
Voting third party is the only way to get your vote counted. Not by getting the guy you voted for elected, but by making it clear to the existing two parties that if they want to close that 3% gap they have with their opponent, they are going to have to adopt the policies that would convince the third party voters to come to their side. They know that they won't convince the party line voters. Those people only care about the team, not the policies.
The Clinton/Bush/Perot is a poster child for this. Yes, Perot had a huge smear campaign waged against him. No, there really was no hope of him winning due to him being a third party. BUT, he heavily shaped the Clinton presidency by getting voters voices heard.
Joe and Mike are hanging out in the subway. They see a little old lady, and no one else around. They smoked their last rock 6 or 7 hours ago, and could use some more dope. So, they decide that mugging the little old lady would be an easy way to get enough money for another rock. They approach the little old lady, and demand her wallet. She reaches into her purse, only instead of a wallet, she pulls out a gun and shoots Joe in the face. Mike looks in horror as he sees his pal bleeding to death on the subway station floor. He runs away, hearing the little old lady's taunts... daring him to come back and take her wallet.
Jump ahead 6 months. Mike is hanging out in a multistory parking garage with his new girlfriend Ann. They are getting high, and having a good time. Ann notices a little old lady unlocking her car door. She nudges Mike with her elbow, and nods over at the lady. She leans over to Mike and suggests... "Hey, lets 'borrow' her car." Mike, remembering the bloody subway floor, and the bits of brain he had to wash out of his hair 6 month earlier, looks at Ann and tells her "Don't be such a bitch. It's just a little old lady."
That is how a concealed carry reduces crime. The little old lady in the parking garage doesn't even need to own a gun to be protected by it. The mere fact that she can and SOMEONE does provides just as much protection as actually having it. One of the big 'statistic' lies that anti-gun folks use is that they only count times that the gun is fired when counting how often the gun protects a person. Generally, a gun used for protection doesn't need to be fired. Frequently it doesn't even need to exist. The only thing necessary is that the gun MIGHT exist, and this MIGHT be the person that will pull the trigger. Concealed carrying makes the practice of skipping the person with a gun and targeting the unarmed impossible.
I would say that it is more than likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation in this case. Why because when someone is prosecuted for something that is done by virtually every member of society, and the prosecution is just picking out one of those members to get money from, it is just as easy for them to pick one of the millions of people that actually did it than it is for them to fabricate false evidence against someone else for performing the common every day activity. It is easier to randomly arrest someone on the street than it is to arrest a random person in their home and fabricate that they were on the street.
I did mean to say "Smaller" in regard to the green plus button. You are right, complaining that a green plus makes something bigger would be silly, as a green plus symbol means go and add irrelevant of computers.
The trash can to eject disks has been in MacOS in every version. Yes, in OSX they now swap the icon when you grab a disk, but you are still dropping the disk onto the same spot that just seconds ago had a trash can. Clearly this was done because Apple doesn't want to admit just how incredibly bad that major UI decision was. So, they have tweaked it slightly to try to claim that it isn't so bad instead of actually fixing it. So, now it is only really bad instead of horrendously broken.
Yes, the battery remark, was a kind of a cheap shot. The engineering reasons given by Apple are total BS, and a competent engineer could easily have designed a battery door and replaceable battery in the iPhone/iPods form factor. Heck, the iPad doesn't have a replaceable battery, and there is no way any sane person could claim that there wasn't enough space for a battery in that. So, Apple's claim that they were incapable of making these devices with replaceable batteries is a claim of incompetence. Yes, we all know that it is really just an excuse because Apple doesn't want to admit that it was to screw their customers, but if they are going to claim incompetence, who am I to argue.
Ok, maybe good software developers, but a UI designer that puts a green plus on the UI that makes the window bigger, and has you put your disk in the trash to take it with you simply cannot be called good UI designers. That, and an engineer that cannot figure out how to put a battery door on an MP3 player or phone cannot be called a good engineer. Actually, after using iTunes, you can't say they have good software developers either.
Apple has good advertising, and a willingness to be an early adopter on new trends. Everything else is pretty mediocre.
Well, sure, it is more likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation. Heck, it is more likely that the Judge, every juror, and all the lawyers have committed copyright violations also. Given that I have never met one single person over the age of 5, and very few over the age of 3 that have not committed copyright violation, the mere fact that this person exists means that there is a preponderance of evidence that the commented a copyright violation.
That is the truth that neither side of the argument wants to talk about. Its like allowing huge civil suits over nose picking. If you could be financially ruined for picking your nose, you would deny it to the bitter end when confronted in a courtroom. You would try to find any loophole that would get you out of it. It wouldn't change the fact, that at some time or another everyone has done it. It also wouldn't change the fact that some people take it overboard. And it wouldn't change the fact that just existing would be enough to be a perponderance of evidence that they had picked their nose.
This facts of this case are just a question of WHICH bugger the defendant pulled out.
I wouldn't suggest that this will get us 100% attendance at for jury duty. I do think that the the cost is a major factor in people not wanting to do jury duty. It sounds like it is a major factor for you. If we could get even 50% of the people who currently try to get out of it to actually show up, we would greatly improve the processes.
I suggest this as an improvement, perhaps enough of an improvement that the jury duty becomes useful instead of it being the travesty that it is today.
I presume you are a contractor. For you, you would be in the exact same situation you are today, so no loss for you.
How is this possible if regular citizens cannot or do not understand the law, as so many lawyers like to point out? Don't say that the judge or lawyers will explain it, that would be having a sinecured magistrat who have the power to dictate what the law means to fit the facts of the case when they don't or to color the definition of the law in a way that a dozen average people would find untrue.
By having the court TELL juries how to vote, they circumvent the system. It is the lawyers job to try to convince the jury through reasoned argument, and it is the judges job to make sure that everything runs in an orderly manner.
I can say that it horrifies me any time I hear about a judge 'instructing juries how to vote.'
Honestly, I have always felt that as a society, we should consider requiring employers to pay employees when they serve on juries. The biggest problem is that for many jobs, it could lead to VERY long jury deliberations. Think Polly Shore in 'Jury Duty'. Maybe if pay them 75% of their salary... Enough that you won't bankrupt anyone, but a big enough cut that it would encourage them to get through the process in a reasonable amount of time.
I know that some will say that people should just save enough money themselves, but having each and every person save enough money for a jury duty catastrophe, as well as a rainy day fund for everything else, is a huge waste of resources. Jury duty for individuals is pretty rare, so for an individual, it is a large reserve of money for a very infrequent situation. For a business, it is a small reserve for a semi-infrequent occurrence. Think of it like insurance. Homeowners insurance, not health payment plans referred to as insurance. A home burglary is very rare for an individual. It doesn't make sense to keep enough money to replace all of your belongings in your savings.
Of course, maybe there should be a 'Jury Insurance'. So that being called for jury duty doesn't bankrupt people. I'm not sure that we want the public thinking of jury duty as a disaster that requires insurance though.
Either way, Good for your employer. They are being good citizens and should sleep better at night for knowing that their compensation plan not only helps their employees, but all of our society.
Being sarcastic still doesn't make you right. Although, the fact that you gain personal income from a teaching career (through your wife) makes your unethical behavior more clear.
No wonder you immediately resorted to profane insults, and admittedly will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students", even if they are lying.
Given the new information you have now made available, I can honestly say you are a complete and utter scumbag. You are not just an enabler, you and your kind are directly part of the problem.
Seriously, your household directly receive money from the public education system, and you don't disclose that when advocating for it? You, not "all teachers", not "the group you belong to", not any way that you want to put it to try to take focus away from you... You are an unethical dirtbag. You personally. Your wife and children should be ashamed to be associated with you, after the the way you behaved in this thread. Your wife should know that if her job gets harder, it is because YOU convinced people that you can't trust people advocating for teachers.
I'm sorry, I can't have an honest conversation with someone who only wants to point fingers.
So, yourself. Well, that rules you out of having ANY honest conversations. Ok.
I am a staunch defender of public education. Not of our current public education system, necessarily. However, the parts of it that people say are 'broken' are no grounds for tearing down the entire system. Why amputate when all that's needed are some band-aids?
This is a strawman argument, and used by people who don't want to have an honest conversation on the subject. Of course, you have already stated that you cannot have an honest conversation.
I also think it's ridiculous to blame the public education system for its failings, when people are not willing to support it financially. If people think that public education is expensive, I want to see the looks on their faces when they see the cost of sending every child in this country to private schools...
Ahh... the finger pointing that you say makes it impossible for you to have an honest conversation.
And I'm sorry you disagree, but I will always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students.
That pretty well sums up my point nicely. You don't care if the teacher is lying. You don't care if the teacher is incompetent. You don't care if they make a good salary. You are going to side with the teacher unless they are negligent towards the student. You are an enabler.
And sorry, someone screaming "LIAR, LIAR!" on Slashdot does not constitute proof.
I never screamed. And it is the teachers own words that are proof. Are you claiming that this teacher really works in a school does not give them lunches, or forces them to stand during their lunches? Because that is what this teacher claimed. Are you going to stand by this teacher claim that another teacher that they have never met is lazy and incompetent because they don't work 12 hours a day? Because that is also what this teacher claimed. This teacher lied. It was HIS words that is proof. Not mine. But then, you have already stated that you don't care if he lies. You will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students."
Just so you know, I have not seen any response from the teacher in question here that gives any indication that he's lied about anything at all.
start teaching at 9 and stand straight through to 4:20 (except for my planning period, which is taken up by meetings)
I guarantee that he gets a lunch break.
1) Your math teacher was lazy and most of the students who left his/her class never "got" math.
Given than I can guarantee that he has not met my high school math teachers students, we know that he made that up. He was lying.
In fact, all I've learned so far from this conversation is that you clearly don't know anything about teaching nor about how the public education system works. You have some obvious bitterness toward teachers and public education that makes it impossible for you to have an honest discussion about this subject with anyone.
Being able to do basic math on time, and understanding basic logic means that I don't know anything about teaching not about how the public education system works? Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. Besides, you have already stated taht you cannot have honest conversations that you are involved in, and you will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students", so you don't really have a lot of credibility.
On the other hand, I'm more than open to talk about solutions to the known problems, but
I never understood why this concept was so hard. Seriously, have you never had a dream where a person was one person, yet they were someone else? How about one where you were one place, but it was also another?
There is nothing to dilute. The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.
I can define the cloud for you.
Cloud (noun) : The symbol used to indicate parts of the network that you have no knowledge of. Frequently used by people to describe external computer resources as a new concept when their knowledge of computers only extends back to 1998.
The highest death toll of any airplane crash in history that didn't include the pilot flying into something was Flight 123 on Japan Air Lines. it had a death toll of 520. Barely a blip on the public's radar.
You would have to surpass the death toll of of the worst non-pilot caused plane crash 5 times to get anywhere near the trade tower death toll.
So, the question comes back to you. What about underwear bombers?
Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.
Absolutely believable. Much of the public didn't realize that heterosexual people could catch AIDS until Magic Johnson caught it, and much of the public didn't realize that there was such a thing as DNA until the OJ Simpson trial. My favorite quote was from the manager of the Bakery where I worked at the time. "It's not a gay disease anymore. If Magic Johnson can get it, any of us can." I have to say, I was simply astonished.
If you are paying extra to have not have the features because having the features and ignoring them is some kind of problem, then, yes, you are a technophobe.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it were possible, it would be cheaper to just pay for new planes that had a separate entrance to the cockpit. If there is no door between the cockpit and the passenger section, you don't even have to rely on the pilots to keep the door locked.
The fact that the third party wouldn't win is a perfectly good reason for you to vote for him. You don't like either party, so voting for either of them is throwing away you vote. The two parties know that party line voters will generally not change their votes, so if you vote party line, you are throwing away your vote.
Voting third party is the only way to get your vote counted. Not by getting the guy you voted for elected, but by making it clear to the existing two parties that if they want to close that 3% gap they have with their opponent, they are going to have to adopt the policies that would convince the third party voters to come to their side. They know that they won't convince the party line voters. Those people only care about the team, not the policies.
The Clinton/Bush/Perot is a poster child for this. Yes, Perot had a huge smear campaign waged against him. No, there really was no hope of him winning due to him being a third party. BUT, he heavily shaped the Clinton presidency by getting voters voices heard.
Joe and Mike are hanging out in the subway. They see a little old lady, and no one else around. They smoked their last rock 6 or 7 hours ago, and could use some more dope. So, they decide that mugging the little old lady would be an easy way to get enough money for another rock. They approach the little old lady, and demand her wallet. She reaches into her purse, only instead of a wallet, she pulls out a gun and shoots Joe in the face. Mike looks in horror as he sees his pal bleeding to death on the subway station floor. He runs away, hearing the little old lady's taunts... daring him to come back and take her wallet.
Jump ahead 6 months. Mike is hanging out in a multistory parking garage with his new girlfriend Ann. They are getting high, and having a good time. Ann notices a little old lady unlocking her car door. She nudges Mike with her elbow, and nods over at the lady. She leans over to Mike and suggests... "Hey, lets 'borrow' her car." Mike, remembering the bloody subway floor, and the bits of brain he had to wash out of his hair 6 month earlier, looks at Ann and tells her "Don't be such a bitch. It's just a little old lady."
That is how a concealed carry reduces crime. The little old lady in the parking garage doesn't even need to own a gun to be protected by it. The mere fact that she can and SOMEONE does provides just as much protection as actually having it. One of the big 'statistic' lies that anti-gun folks use is that they only count times that the gun is fired when counting how often the gun protects a person. Generally, a gun used for protection doesn't need to be fired. Frequently it doesn't even need to exist. The only thing necessary is that the gun MIGHT exist, and this MIGHT be the person that will pull the trigger. Concealed carrying makes the practice of skipping the person with a gun and targeting the unarmed impossible.
Your inviting the wrong guests.
I'm making a wild guess that is is naked pictures of people taken at the airport.
I would say that it is more than likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation in this case. Why because when someone is prosecuted for something that is done by virtually every member of society, and the prosecution is just picking out one of those members to get money from, it is just as easy for them to pick one of the millions of people that actually did it than it is for them to fabricate false evidence against someone else for performing the common every day activity. It is easier to randomly arrest someone on the street than it is to arrest a random person in their home and fabricate that they were on the street.
I did mean to say "Smaller" in regard to the green plus button. You are right, complaining that a green plus makes something bigger would be silly, as a green plus symbol means go and add irrelevant of computers.
The trash can to eject disks has been in MacOS in every version. Yes, in OSX they now swap the icon when you grab a disk, but you are still dropping the disk onto the same spot that just seconds ago had a trash can. Clearly this was done because Apple doesn't want to admit just how incredibly bad that major UI decision was. So, they have tweaked it slightly to try to claim that it isn't so bad instead of actually fixing it. So, now it is only really bad instead of horrendously broken.
Yes, the battery remark, was a kind of a cheap shot. The engineering reasons given by Apple are total BS, and a competent engineer could easily have designed a battery door and replaceable battery in the iPhone/iPods form factor. Heck, the iPad doesn't have a replaceable battery, and there is no way any sane person could claim that there wasn't enough space for a battery in that. So, Apple's claim that they were incapable of making these devices with replaceable batteries is a claim of incompetence. Yes, we all know that it is really just an excuse because Apple doesn't want to admit that it was to screw their customers, but if they are going to claim incompetence, who am I to argue.
That is our current system, and the it has failed.
Ok, maybe good software developers, but a UI designer that puts a green plus on the UI that makes the window bigger, and has you put your disk in the trash to take it with you simply cannot be called good UI designers. That, and an engineer that cannot figure out how to put a battery door on an MP3 player or phone cannot be called a good engineer. Actually, after using iTunes, you can't say they have good software developers either.
Apple has good advertising, and a willingness to be an early adopter on new trends. Everything else is pretty mediocre.
Well, sure, it is more likely that the defendant has committed a copyright violation. Heck, it is more likely that the Judge, every juror, and all the lawyers have committed copyright violations also. Given that I have never met one single person over the age of 5, and very few over the age of 3 that have not committed copyright violation, the mere fact that this person exists means that there is a preponderance of evidence that the commented a copyright violation.
That is the truth that neither side of the argument wants to talk about. Its like allowing huge civil suits over nose picking. If you could be financially ruined for picking your nose, you would deny it to the bitter end when confronted in a courtroom. You would try to find any loophole that would get you out of it. It wouldn't change the fact, that at some time or another everyone has done it. It also wouldn't change the fact that some people take it overboard. And it wouldn't change the fact that just existing would be enough to be a perponderance of evidence that they had picked their nose.
This facts of this case are just a question of WHICH bugger the defendant pulled out.
I wouldn't suggest that this will get us 100% attendance at for jury duty. I do think that the the cost is a major factor in people not wanting to do jury duty. It sounds like it is a major factor for you. If we could get even 50% of the people who currently try to get out of it to actually show up, we would greatly improve the processes.
I suggest this as an improvement, perhaps enough of an improvement that the jury duty becomes useful instead of it being the travesty that it is today.
I presume you are a contractor. For you, you would be in the exact same situation you are today, so no loss for you.
It is if your still having three ways with the two of them...
Oh, wait... What were we talking about again???
How is this possible if regular citizens cannot or do not understand the law, as so many lawyers like to point out? Don't say that the judge or lawyers will explain it, that would be having a sinecured magistrat who have the power to dictate what the law means to fit the facts of the case when they don't or to color the definition of the law in a way that a dozen average people would find untrue.
By having the court TELL juries how to vote, they circumvent the system. It is the lawyers job to try to convince the jury through reasoned argument, and it is the judges job to make sure that everything runs in an orderly manner.
I can say that it horrifies me any time I hear about a judge 'instructing juries how to vote.'
Honestly, I have always felt that as a society, we should consider requiring employers to pay employees when they serve on juries. The biggest problem is that for many jobs, it could lead to VERY long jury deliberations. Think Polly Shore in 'Jury Duty'. Maybe if pay them 75% of their salary... Enough that you won't bankrupt anyone, but a big enough cut that it would encourage them to get through the process in a reasonable amount of time.
I know that some will say that people should just save enough money themselves, but having each and every person save enough money for a jury duty catastrophe, as well as a rainy day fund for everything else, is a huge waste of resources. Jury duty for individuals is pretty rare, so for an individual, it is a large reserve of money for a very infrequent situation. For a business, it is a small reserve for a semi-infrequent occurrence. Think of it like insurance. Homeowners insurance, not health payment plans referred to as insurance. A home burglary is very rare for an individual. It doesn't make sense to keep enough money to replace all of your belongings in your savings.
Of course, maybe there should be a 'Jury Insurance'. So that being called for jury duty doesn't bankrupt people. I'm not sure that we want the public thinking of jury duty as a disaster that requires insurance though.
Either way, Good for your employer. They are being good citizens and should sleep better at night for knowing that their compensation plan not only helps their employees, but all of our society.
Being sarcastic still doesn't make you right. Although, the fact that you gain personal income from a teaching career (through your wife) makes your unethical behavior more clear.
No wonder you immediately resorted to profane insults, and admittedly will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students", even if they are lying.
Given the new information you have now made available, I can honestly say you are a complete and utter scumbag. You are not just an enabler, you and your kind are directly part of the problem. Seriously, your household directly receive money from the public education system, and you don't disclose that when advocating for it? You, not "all teachers", not "the group you belong to", not any way that you want to put it to try to take focus away from you... You are an unethical dirtbag. You personally. Your wife and children should be ashamed to be associated with you, after the the way you behaved in this thread. Your wife should know that if her job gets harder, it is because YOU convinced people that you can't trust people advocating for teachers.
I was thinking more along the lines of a child molester telling others how to use the internet.
Are you saying that I lied when I claimed to have beatent Pac-Man?
Exactly. Myst was so bad it took down the whole genre.
I'm sorry, I can't have an honest conversation with someone who only wants to point fingers.
So, yourself. Well, that rules you out of having ANY honest conversations. Ok.
I am a staunch defender of public education. Not of our current public education system, necessarily. However, the parts of it that people say are 'broken' are no grounds for tearing down the entire system. Why amputate when all that's needed are some band-aids?
This is a strawman argument, and used by people who don't want to have an honest conversation on the subject. Of course, you have already stated that you cannot have an honest conversation.
I also think it's ridiculous to blame the public education system for its failings, when people are not willing to support it financially. If people think that public education is expensive, I want to see the looks on their faces when they see the cost of sending every child in this country to private schools...
Ahh... the finger pointing that you say makes it impossible for you to have an honest conversation.
And I'm sorry you disagree, but I will always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students.
That pretty well sums up my point nicely. You don't care if the teacher is lying. You don't care if the teacher is incompetent. You don't care if they make a good salary. You are going to side with the teacher unless they are negligent towards the student. You are an enabler.
And sorry, someone screaming "LIAR, LIAR!" on Slashdot does not constitute proof.
I never screamed. And it is the teachers own words that are proof. Are you claiming that this teacher really works in a school does not give them lunches, or forces them to stand during their lunches? Because that is what this teacher claimed. Are you going to stand by this teacher claim that another teacher that they have never met is lazy and incompetent because they don't work 12 hours a day? Because that is also what this teacher claimed. This teacher lied. It was HIS words that is proof. Not mine. But then, you have already stated that you don't care if he lies. You will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students."
Just so you know, I have not seen any response from the teacher in question here that gives any indication that he's lied about anything at all.
start teaching at 9 and stand straight through to 4:20 (except for my planning period, which is taken up by meetings)
I guarantee that he gets a lunch break.
1) Your math teacher was lazy and most of the students who left his/her class never "got" math.
Given than I can guarantee that he has not met my high school math teachers students, we know that he made that up. He was lying.
In fact, all I've learned so far from this conversation is that you clearly don't know anything about teaching nor about how the public education system works. You have some obvious bitterness toward teachers and public education that makes it impossible for you to have an honest discussion about this subject with anyone.
Being able to do basic math on time, and understanding basic logic means that I don't know anything about teaching not about how the public education system works? Sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean I don't know what I am talking about. Besides, you have already stated taht you cannot have honest conversations that you are involved in, and you will "always side with the teachers UNLESS there is undeniable proof that they are neglectful of their students", so you don't really have a lot of credibility.
On the other hand, I'm more than open to talk about solutions to the known problems, but
I never understood why this concept was so hard. Seriously, have you never had a dream where a person was one person, yet they were someone else? How about one where you were one place, but it was also another?
There is nothing to dilute. The cloud is the symbol used in network diagrams to symbolize parts of the network that you have not knowledge or control of. That is why it is called "cloud". Because it is not clear.
I can define the cloud for you. Cloud (noun) : The symbol used to indicate parts of the network that you have no knowledge of. Frequently used by people to describe external computer resources as a new concept when their knowledge of computers only extends back to 1998.
The highest death toll of any airplane crash in history that didn't include the pilot flying into something was Flight 123 on Japan Air Lines. it had a death toll of 520. Barely a blip on the public's radar.
You would have to surpass the death toll of of the worst non-pilot caused plane crash 5 times to get anywhere near the trade tower death toll.
So, the question comes back to you. What about underwear bombers?
Sociological note: scientists realized that the atom bomb was a real possibility many years before one was actually built and exploded, and then the public was totally surprised and amazed. On the other hand, the public somehow anticipates the antimatter bomb, but we have known for a long time that it cannot be realized in practice.
Absolutely believable. Much of the public didn't realize that heterosexual people could catch AIDS until Magic Johnson caught it, and much of the public didn't realize that there was such a thing as DNA until the OJ Simpson trial. My favorite quote was from the manager of the Bakery where I worked at the time. "It's not a gay disease anymore. If Magic Johnson can get it, any of us can." I have to say, I was simply astonished.
If you are paying extra to have not have the features because having the features and ignoring them is some kind of problem, then, yes, you are a technophobe.