it's a lot easier to find people who are sympathetic, but want the law enforced.
someone please mod William Ager and his fantasy land into the ground.
It's quite easy to find Hispanics who are against illegal immigration. Of course, you won't find them on TV. Newscasts are borderline racist in their portrayal of Hispanics as one, big, massive stereotype. They display them as if they are all lemmings who follow whatever the liberal Hispanic "leaders" say.
If you want to know the truth, go to a place where Hispanics are the majority and live there for a few years. I live in such a place. My wife, daughter and best friend are all Hispanic. To be honest, Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanics.
It other words, you don't know WTF you are talking about, gringo.
You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070. It's anti-illegal-immigration.
I think you'll find that many native born Americans of Mexican descent and Mexicans who busted their ass to get here legally are vehemently opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. Those born here are sympathetic, but realistic. Those not born here but who are here legally tend to get pretty pissed off when they see someone skip all the hard work and long waiting they had to do get here. It really pisses them off when they are allowed to stay through some sort of amnesty program or get first class treatment in some sanctuary city.
While visiting my wife's family (native born Americans of Mexican descent) near the Texas/Mexico border, I hear the term "wetback" used in the same way us gringos use "illegal". Being a white guy who was raised to consider "wetback" the Mexican equivalent of the N-word (not nVidia) it burned my ears at first just as hearing the N-word does. I guess they were more used to the term.
If you didn't shout from the rooftops about it, no-one cared or cares. But "faggot!" has, until 30 years ago, been an excellent excuse to get rid of someone you don't like - just as "terrorist!" is used today. (Remember, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that the former is on your side.)
Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
"Freedom Fighters" do not try to invoke fear in a civilian population. Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations. Terrorists do both.
To get back on topic, Turing ended his life before his lifestyle was deemed acceptable. It is a real shame. If he could have stuck it out for a few more years, he could have been an example that who one likes to bed with has no effect on their professional competency.
Yes, I'm glad that defence contractors and the military are still pumping tons of money and research into these ridiculously expensive, fragile, and unwieldy toys while American families are increasingly going homeless and dying from third-world diseases because they can't get healthcare.
Well, I guess they'll be dying from third world diseases in jail because they'll HAVE to get health care by law under Obamacare.
Can you afford to lose ALL your word documents and spreadsheets COMPANY WIDE when the cloud crashes and they are lost?
Can you afford to lose ALL your word documents and spreadsheets COMPANY WIDE when the server crashes/get's-hacked and they are lost?
Of course, you could fire your incompetent IT guy that didn't make backups or know enough about security to prevent a security breach, but that won't get your docs back. You could even try to sue him, but you are certainly not going to make up your losses. You probably won't get enough to pay your lawyers. On the other hand, if a cloud provider loses all your data, you can sue them for ALL of the damages your company faced.
OTOH, who usually cleans up any messes that happens with it? Who gets blamed if the cloud provider has an outage?
Well, if you are using a cloud service provider and you data gets lost, or worse, hacked, you can sue the provider to make up for the damages. If you IT dept loses the data or gets hacked, you better have good insurance! It's not like you can sue an internal department of your own company. (That reminds me of a TV commercial where guys at Coca Cola wanted to sue the Coke Zero department for making a product that tastes exactly like Coca Cola)
So they'll "write a check" for the "cloud" service, but we are expected to provide whatever they want for free. I don't have a magic room where I keep equipment (and people) that I can pull out at the drop of a hat. Resources cost money, but they do not want to pay fr them wen the resources are internal, but can always find money to hire outsiders.
It is probably cheaper to rent storage in the cloud than it is to buy it in house and hire the people to maintain it. Businesses are going to be writing a check either way. That check to the cloud provider may be smaller.
Well, constitutionality is a reasonable requirement, I give you that - how does following the constitution correlate with size, though?
Maybe I should have said TOO big and TOO small. Size referring to the amount of power the government is wielding (I guess large and small would be more grammatically correct). A government that does more than they are allowed to do is using a "larger" amount of power than they should be, or is too big.
Sure, a government may be "large" in how they do things; large military, strict interstate regulations, high taxes, etc, but still be within the Constitutional limits. It may also stretch the limit of what may be Constitutional. For example, a government might say that the military needs educated soldiers, so paying for and regulating state run education has military implications. A real world example of this would be health care law recently passed. Supporters claim that the Commerce Clause allows it under the Constitution. The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce only so unless you are buying insurance from a company out of state, this law should have no effect on you. A government may also be too small, as in a weak military, no interstate regulations and still meet their Constitutional requirements.
But in the context spoken here, a big government uses more power than they should be allowed per the Constitution.
Q: "What about ending oil subsidies? Subsidies for oil companies. Where do you stand on that?"
Palin:.. "we're only talking about four billion dollars" [a year].. link
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a mouthpiece for the interests of the oil industry, has lashed out against the Democratic effort to roll back taxpayer subsidies for the Big Five oil companies.. The $21 billion in unneeded subsidies would go to reduce the federal deficit" link
You are missing something here. It is that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they receive in subsidies. What happens is that the government taxes the crap out of oil, not just as it's produced but at the pump as well. Then it gives a small portion back to the oil companies and then tells them what to do with it. If you eliminate the oil subsidies, you are actually going to lose some control over how oil companies operate. You will also increase the base price of fuel because the government is certainly not going to cut the taxes they charge for fuel.
Just out of interest - what is big government? What would be small government? At what point does small government become big government? Or is there an intermediate government in between?
Big government does more than the Constitution allows.
Small government doesn't do what the Constitution requires.
Just Right government follows the Constitution and does what the Constitution says it should do and nothing more as the 10th Amendment mandates. Anything else is reserved to the states or the people.
As an example, take marijuana laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the federal government to ban a substance. Therefor, it should be up to the states to decide whether they want to allow for the production and sale of marijuana. However, once that marijuana crosses state lines, it falls under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government regulate it as it sees fit.
If you think that a governor of a state only does business within their own state, you are either being ignorant or misleading.
Well, if Alaska's governor and my state's governor exchanged emails, then I should be able to have access to those emails from MY state governor's email. I, as a non-citizen of Alaska, have no business reading the email from the governor of Alaska.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that those who elect public officials should have access to their work emails. I do NOT feel they should be available to people who are not the constituents of those officials. In this case, I feel that any Alaskan citizen should be allowed to go to the local courthouse and gain complete access to the emails on government servers. However, they should not be able to leave with a copy. If a news outlet wants to do a story on something in the email, they may take a copy of the email and reference it in their story. If there is no story, a reporter may NOT take a copy of the email.
Fair enough?
As for my boss reading my email, I fully expect it. However, I do not expect my boss to share my email with management of other companies or even the managers of another department within my company unless they have a need to know. And even in the need to know case, only the relevant emails should be exchanged. Just because I'm doing training in QA, the QA manager should not have access to ALL my email. Now, if I'm up for a transfer to the QA department, then maybe.
Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.
If that research is funded by tax payer dollars or is used to form public policy, shouldn't those emails be public? Also, isn't science supposed to be open?
As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.
Are you saying that if you are not a citizen of Alaska, you have not business reading Sarah Palin's email?
If so, I agree. There is no reason for the governor of Alaska's email to be national news other than a classic smear campaign.
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know.. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
You obviously don't have kids. If you do, you are obviously not married to the woman who had them. That, or you just don't care about your kids.... or your wife. No. I think I'm gonna stick with the no kids.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn....
I don't think you read the comment. When the phones vibrated, we peeked into the purse to see what the alert was. It was never anything important enough to warrant a response. The phone never came out and no one was the wiser. The wait staff may have know, but they didn't say anything about it.
As for the "phone technology", my child is over four years old. The top of the line phone back then was the Palm Centro. That's what I had. My wife had a Razor. Don't comment on things you know little about.
BTW, do you notice the irony in your quote here:
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
This coming from a guy who says I shouldn't go out because I might disturb his evening. I'm so sorry. I thought I could take my wife out for an evening out. She had worked so hard raising our kid and I had worked so hard keeping us fed and clothed and insured that I thought we could spend a little money as a thank you to each other for all we mean to each other. How selfish of us to do so knowing that there was the most slightest chance that our muffled vibrating phone in the back row by the door that people walk in and out of might catch your attention and ruin YOUR evening. I'm so sorry. That was very self-centered, and inconsiderate of us. Next time we'll just stay home as to not risk disturbing you.
Neither the theater operators nor the patrons have any style. Best avoid the whole state.
You shouldn't speak of things you know nothing about.
Alamo has its own style. I haven't been since we've had kids, so it's been a while. You don't take kids to Alamo! The place is not like a normal theater. They serve real food and beer at reasonable prices. Not stale popcorn at what calculates out to $150/lb.
But, I don't remember seeing previews there. Before the movie, they show clips from old, terrible 70's B-movies. Usually the type that Quentin Tarantino tries to emulate, but worse. Or, maybe they'll show a comedian. I guess it really depends on the type of movie you are going to see. I remember seeing boobs during the "previews" when going to see American Pie at Alamo. This theater marches to the beat of its own drummer. It is different than anything I have ever experienced at a movie and can't wait to go back. Alamo certainly has a style that is all its own. Ask anyone who has ever been there.
Just because you can't understand the "style", doesn't mean that it's not there. It's probably just too far above you for you to see. By insulting that which you don't understand not makes you an idiot, but an asshole as well.
I admit it, I check email during a movie because I need to.
No you don't. A cinema isn't exactly a proper place to work.
yes, there are times when it is necessary to check any messages you may receive. For example, about six months after my wife and I had our first child, we finally got a break to go see a movie. Every time our phone vibrated, we had to check it to make sure our kid wasn't in the hospital or something.
Yes, we were paranoid. Yes, we didn't HAVE to go to the movie. Then again, you didn't HAVE to go either.
After six months of no sleep, changing diapers and not leaving the house with the kid because we know kids are annoying, we EARNED a night out, just the two of us. However, the first time you leave you child with a sitter, you keep your phone close. It's part of being a parent. We chose Alamo Draft House, enjoyed a burger and a few beers, sat on the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out. If we had received a message that needed our attention, we would have left the theater and gone to the lobby to answer it. So we were courteous and received no flack at all from the staff who were standing right behind us looking over the crowd for empties.
Don't say that no one ever needs to check for messages during a movie. Some people truly need to for things other than work. However, it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it.
Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated.
In her message she says she was using her phone as a flashlight to find her seat (one of the most annoying things you can do in a theater), so chances are she came in mid-movie and didn't see the trailers or the warnings.
She also said, "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be texting" (it's been a few days since I've heard it so the quote may not be accurate). Also, Alamo gave her multiple warnings. How many times did she need to find her seat?
The original & new Monkey Island series (including the remakes) are great if you want something graphical.
I'd second Monkey Island or anything from the "Quest for Glory" Series. It may be a bit dated as the first Quest for Glory game is over 20 years old, but the puzzles were neat and the humor kept me entertained enough to make up for the poor graphics. I remember one joke was about a comedian who had lost his ability to be funny. He would sit there and screw up the stupidest jokes throughout the game. Finally, at the end, you give him a "Good Humor" ice cream bar to cure him. He still told stupid jokes, but at least he told them correctly.
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Allow me to refer to the quote I offered earlier:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
The point of ringing bells and make a bunch of noise was to warn the British as much as it was to alert the militia, according to this historian. He has a point. If the goal was to only alert the militia, I'm sure they could have found a more stealthy method than ringing church bells. The fact that the argument has switched to "Paul Revere ringing bells" proves that the goal simply to show that Palin was wrong. That is a stretch and as I read up the posts, was your original complaint.
I brought up Obama as an example of gaffe that was made by then candidate Obama to show the double standard. It proves that this is not about correcting history as much as it is to provided evidence that your assumption that Sarah Palin is an idiot is a correct one. Again, it's a stretch.
Yes, I still place objects up my ass for pleasure. Not that often, because I have piles, but your mom's tongue is pretty soft and soothing.
Wow! Most of her customer's quit after his/her "operation". Glad to see you hung around.
You would really vote for a retarded quitter over Mr. Right Wing Big Business? That's pretty stupid, dude. Obama is more Republican than Nixon! Obama's favorite president was Reagan! Stop pretending you don't like the guy, he is everything Republicans love. Except for that one thing they hate...
You shouldn't assume that I "hate" President Obama. I actually like the guy and feel he's getting a bum wrap over the way Congress is screwing up the economy. Remember, unemployment was at 4.7% in Jan 2007 when Democrats took over Congress. That was after six years of Bush in office and twelve years of a Republican led Congress. In less than two years, the unemployment rate and nearly doubled and would by 2010. Fact is, the president has little effect over the economy. If you look at the ups and downs of the economy over the last 30 years, you'll see it goes up and down based on who controls congress, not who controls the White House. This is supported further by the fact that Congress usually changes sides during presidential mid-terms as happened to the first President Bush, President Clinton and the second President Bush.
But to relate this to your question about Palin as President. Yeah, I'd take her. All she can do is sign bills or veto them. What is more important is who is writing those bills and sending them her way. If it's a Democratic lead Congress, she can veto. If it's a Republican held Congress, she'll sign. That's about the same thing any Republican would do which is why they would get my vote over President Obama.
As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.
Apparently Palin learned nothing at any of the five colleges she attended.
This certainly gives us an entirely new point of view to consider when examining our nation’s founding.
While I had been led to believe that Revere’s historic ride was actually for the purpose of warning our forefathers that the British were coming, it turns out that his midnight ride, complete with ringing bells and warning shots, was really all about letting the English know that we were armed.
Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin has never been accused of being a brain surgeon, but her latest gaffe is another cautionary example of why she is, many say, unqualified to be a Presidential candidate: Paul Revere's ride was not to warn U.S. Revolutionary War patriots, but instead to warn the British.
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
Let me try to quote to make life easier:
“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
That's like saying I didn't post this message; my computer did. Fact is that bells were rung as a result of Paul Revere's ride. It is true that he did not ring the bells himself and it would have been more accurate if Ms. Palin had said, "“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by having those bells rung..." But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.
Although, as I understand it, the original complaint was not that Palin had said that Revere was ringing bells, but that she said he had warned the British. I'm not aware of anyone trying to update the Wikipedia page saying that Paul Revere was actually ringing bells. Truth is, he was probably trying to remain as stealthy as possible as he rode, notifying others to ring the church bells, fire guns or whatever local methods were agreed upon to signal that the British were coming.
* Obama said he had visited 57 states while campaigning. Of course, I'm sure he meant 47 and just slipped. Some people tried to make Obama look like an idiot over the statement, but no one took them seriously. To try to make it seem as if Palin truly believes that Paul Revere was riding around ringing a bell would be same as those saying that President Obama truly believes that there are 57+ states.
Slashdot Mirror
it's not worth noting.
and it's very hard to find those people.
it's a lot easier to find people who are sympathetic, but want the law enforced.
someone please mod William Ager and his fantasy land into the ground.
It's quite easy to find Hispanics who are against illegal immigration. Of course, you won't find them on TV. Newscasts are borderline racist in their portrayal of Hispanics as one, big, massive stereotype. They display them as if they are all lemmings who follow whatever the liberal Hispanic "leaders" say.
If you want to know the truth, go to a place where Hispanics are the majority and live there for a few years. I live in such a place. My wife, daughter and best friend are all Hispanic. To be honest, Hispanics are some of the most racist people I've met towards other Hispanics.
It other words, you don't know WTF you are talking about, gringo.
You really are stupid. I live in AZ. My immediate supervisor is 100% ethnic Mexican (and his grandfather immigrated here). His stance? Fully supports SB1070. It's anti-illegal-immigration.
I think you'll find that many native born Americans of Mexican descent and Mexicans who busted their ass to get here legally are vehemently opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. Those born here are sympathetic, but realistic. Those not born here but who are here legally tend to get pretty pissed off when they see someone skip all the hard work and long waiting they had to do get here. It really pisses them off when they are allowed to stay through some sort of amnesty program or get first class treatment in some sanctuary city.
While visiting my wife's family (native born Americans of Mexican descent) near the Texas/Mexico border, I hear the term "wetback" used in the same way us gringos use "illegal". Being a white guy who was raised to consider "wetback" the Mexican equivalent of the N-word (not nVidia) it burned my ears at first just as hearing the N-word does. I guess they were more used to the term.
If you didn't shout from the rooftops about it, no-one cared or cares. But "faggot!" has, until 30 years ago, been an excellent excuse to get rid of someone you don't like - just as "terrorist!" is used today. (Remember, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that the former is on your side.)
Terrorist: a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
"Freedom Fighters" do not try to invoke fear in a civilian population. Freedom Fighters do not target civilian populations. Terrorists do both.
To get back on topic, Turing ended his life before his lifestyle was deemed acceptable. It is a real shame. If he could have stuck it out for a few more years, he could have been an example that who one likes to bed with has no effect on their professional competency.
Yes, I'm glad that defence contractors and the military are still pumping tons of money and research into these ridiculously expensive, fragile, and unwieldy toys while American families are increasingly going homeless and dying from third-world diseases because they can't get healthcare.
Well, I guess they'll be dying from third world diseases in jail because they'll HAVE to get health care by law under Obamacare.
...cue litigation in ...1...2...3...
Countdown fail!
Can you afford to lose ALL your word documents and spreadsheets COMPANY WIDE when the cloud crashes and they are lost?
Can you afford to lose ALL your word documents and spreadsheets COMPANY WIDE when the server crashes/get's-hacked and they are lost?
Of course, you could fire your incompetent IT guy that didn't make backups or know enough about security to prevent a security breach, but that won't get your docs back. You could even try to sue him, but you are certainly not going to make up your losses. You probably won't get enough to pay your lawyers. On the other hand, if a cloud provider loses all your data, you can sue them for ALL of the damages your company faced.
Agreed...
OTOH, who usually cleans up any messes that happens with it? Who gets blamed if the cloud provider has an outage?
Well, if you are using a cloud service provider and you data gets lost, or worse, hacked, you can sue the provider to make up for the damages. If you IT dept loses the data or gets hacked, you better have good insurance! It's not like you can sue an internal department of your own company. (That reminds me of a TV commercial where guys at Coca Cola wanted to sue the Coke Zero department for making a product that tastes exactly like Coca Cola)
So they'll "write a check" for the "cloud" service, but we are expected to provide whatever they want for free. I don't have a magic room where I keep equipment (and people) that I can pull out at the drop of a hat. Resources cost money, but they do not want to pay fr them wen the resources are internal, but can always find money to hire outsiders.
It is probably cheaper to rent storage in the cloud than it is to buy it in house and hire the people to maintain it. Businesses are going to be writing a check either way. That check to the cloud provider may be smaller.
Well, constitutionality is a reasonable requirement, I give you that - how does following the constitution correlate with size, though?
Maybe I should have said TOO big and TOO small. Size referring to the amount of power the government is wielding (I guess large and small would be more grammatically correct). A government that does more than they are allowed to do is using a "larger" amount of power than they should be, or is too big.
Sure, a government may be "large" in how they do things; large military, strict interstate regulations, high taxes, etc, but still be within the Constitutional limits. It may also stretch the limit of what may be Constitutional. For example, a government might say that the military needs educated soldiers, so paying for and regulating state run education has military implications. A real world example of this would be health care law recently passed. Supporters claim that the Commerce Clause allows it under the Constitution. The Commerce Clause deals with interstate commerce only so unless you are buying insurance from a company out of state, this law should have no effect on you. A government may also be too small, as in a weak military, no interstate regulations and still meet their Constitutional requirements.
But in the context spoken here, a big government uses more power than they should be allowed per the Constitution.
McCain(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, Palin(R) opposes ethanol subsidies, neither oppose Big Oil subsidies.
Q: "What about ending oil subsidies? Subsidies for oil companies. Where do you stand on that?"
Palin: .. "we're only talking about four billion dollars" [a year] .. link
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, long a mouthpiece for the interests of the oil industry, has lashed out against the Democratic effort to roll back taxpayer subsidies for the Big Five oil companies .. The $21 billion in unneeded subsidies would go to reduce the federal deficit" link
You are missing something here. It is that oil companies pay much more in taxes than they receive in subsidies. What happens is that the government taxes the crap out of oil, not just as it's produced but at the pump as well. Then it gives a small portion back to the oil companies and then tells them what to do with it. If you eliminate the oil subsidies, you are actually going to lose some control over how oil companies operate. You will also increase the base price of fuel because the government is certainly not going to cut the taxes they charge for fuel.
Just out of interest - what is big government? What would be small government? At what point does small government become big government? Or is there an intermediate government in between?
Big government does more than the Constitution allows.
Small government doesn't do what the Constitution requires.
Just Right government follows the Constitution and does what the Constitution says it should do and nothing more as the 10th Amendment mandates. Anything else is reserved to the states or the people.
As an example, take marijuana laws. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the federal government to ban a substance. Therefor, it should be up to the states to decide whether they want to allow for the production and sale of marijuana. However, once that marijuana crosses state lines, it falls under the Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government regulate it as it sees fit.
If you think that a governor of a state only does business within their own state, you are either being ignorant or misleading.
Well, if Alaska's governor and my state's governor exchanged emails, then I should be able to have access to those emails from MY state governor's email. I, as a non-citizen of Alaska, have no business reading the email from the governor of Alaska.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that those who elect public officials should have access to their work emails. I do NOT feel they should be available to people who are not the constituents of those officials. In this case, I feel that any Alaskan citizen should be allowed to go to the local courthouse and gain complete access to the emails on government servers. However, they should not be able to leave with a copy. If a news outlet wants to do a story on something in the email, they may take a copy of the email and reference it in their story. If there is no story, a reporter may NOT take a copy of the email.
Fair enough?
As for my boss reading my email, I fully expect it. However, I do not expect my boss to share my email with management of other companies or even the managers of another department within my company unless they have a need to know. And even in the need to know case, only the relevant emails should be exchanged. Just because I'm doing training in QA, the QA manager should not have access to ALL my email. Now, if I'm up for a transfer to the QA department, then maybe.
Don't mind it. Remember that it is perfectly fine to have scientist's e-mails stolen by russian hackers and make up a completely random "Climategate" out of it. All peachy. But if the teabagger's favourite MILF has to comply to a FOIA, the libertards are supposed to get their panties in a twist. It's just natural.
If that research is funded by tax payer dollars or is used to form public policy, shouldn't those emails be public? Also, isn't science supposed to be open?
As long as they are elected public officials, I would have no problem with that at all. However, any non-public figures should have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their personal email. Would you expect to not have your work email read by your employer? Well, we are the employers of elected public figures, so their email is work property and not private property.
Are you saying that if you are not a citizen of Alaska, you have not business reading Sarah Palin's email?
If so, I agree. There is no reason for the governor of Alaska's email to be national news other than a classic smear campaign.
You want to hit blown-out, redneck vagina?
You must be new here.
When the only other option is the palm... yeah, I'd hit it.
So you admit that you didn't have to go see a movie, but you did anyway and don't see anything wrong with bothering anyone around you while you are paranoid about your kid. Ya know .. my phone vibrates differently for a text message and email than it does a phone call. One would think that if your kid got hurt, someone would CALL you. In fact, if I get a phone call and don't answer it, it vibrates for several seconds. Then, when a voice mail is left, it vibrates again. So I know if someone that just called me left a voice mail.
So NO ONE needs to check email or text messages during a movie. Tell someone if they really need to get hold of you to CALL YOU and leave a voice mail. NOW you know it's important and you can slip out, check your voice mail.
You obviously don't have kids. If you do, you are obviously not married to the woman who had them. That, or you just don't care about your kids.... or your wife. No. I think I'm gonna stick with the no kids.
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
At least if you are technologically ignorant about your phone, you can learn ....
I don't think you read the comment. When the phones vibrated, we peeked into the purse to see what the alert was. It was never anything important enough to warrant a response. The phone never came out and no one was the wiser. The wait staff may have know, but they didn't say anything about it.
As for the "phone technology", my child is over four years old. The top of the line phone back then was the Palm Centro. That's what I had. My wife had a Razor. Don't comment on things you know little about.
BTW, do you notice the irony in your quote here:
Your petty, self-centered excuses (along with others on this board) only show how inconsiderate, self centered, or technologically ignorant you are.
This coming from a guy who says I shouldn't go out because I might disturb his evening. I'm so sorry. I thought I could take my wife out for an evening out. She had worked so hard raising our kid and I had worked so hard keeping us fed and clothed and insured that I thought we could spend a little money as a thank you to each other for all we mean to each other. How selfish of us to do so knowing that there was the most slightest chance that our muffled vibrating phone in the back row by the door that people walk in and out of might catch your attention and ruin YOUR evening. I'm so sorry. That was very self-centered, and inconsiderate of us. Next time we'll just stay home as to not risk disturbing you.
Neither the theater operators nor the patrons have any style. Best avoid the whole state.
You shouldn't speak of things you know nothing about.
Alamo has its own style. I haven't been since we've had kids, so it's been a while. You don't take kids to Alamo! The place is not like a normal theater. They serve real food and beer at reasonable prices. Not stale popcorn at what calculates out to $150/lb.
But, I don't remember seeing previews there. Before the movie, they show clips from old, terrible 70's B-movies. Usually the type that Quentin Tarantino tries to emulate, but worse. Or, maybe they'll show a comedian. I guess it really depends on the type of movie you are going to see. I remember seeing boobs during the "previews" when going to see American Pie at Alamo. This theater marches to the beat of its own drummer. It is different than anything I have ever experienced at a movie and can't wait to go back. Alamo certainly has a style that is all its own. Ask anyone who has ever been there.
Just because you can't understand the "style", doesn't mean that it's not there. It's probably just too far above you for you to see. By insulting that which you don't understand not makes you an idiot, but an asshole as well.
No you don't. A cinema isn't exactly a proper place to work.
yes, there are times when it is necessary to check any messages you may receive. For example, about six months after my wife and I had our first child, we finally got a break to go see a movie. Every time our phone vibrated, we had to check it to make sure our kid wasn't in the hospital or something.
Yes, we were paranoid.
Yes, we didn't HAVE to go to the movie. Then again, you didn't HAVE to go either.
After six months of no sleep, changing diapers and not leaving the house with the kid because we know kids are annoying, we EARNED a night out, just the two of us. However, the first time you leave you child with a sitter, you keep your phone close. It's part of being a parent. We chose Alamo Draft House, enjoyed a burger and a few beers, sat on the very back row, kept our phones on silent mode and in my wife's purse so we could check by looking into the purse without actually taking the phones out. If we had received a message that needed our attention, we would have left the theater and gone to the lobby to answer it. So we were courteous and received no flack at all from the staff who were standing right behind us looking over the crowd for empties.
Don't say that no one ever needs to check for messages during a movie. Some people truly need to for things other than work. However, it is possible to do without anyone even knowing you are doing it.
Before the trailers there are multiple announcements (some quite amusing) that spell out very clearly that texting, talking, or using your bright-as-twenty-suns cellphone in any capacity are NOT tolerated.
In her message she says she was using her phone as a flashlight to find her seat (one of the most annoying things you can do in a theater), so chances are she came in mid-movie and didn't see the trailers or the warnings.
She also said, "I didn't know I wasn't supposed to be texting" (it's been a few days since I've heard it so the quote may not be accurate). Also, Alamo gave her multiple warnings. How many times did she need to find her seat?
I mean, we're talking tens of thousands of years here.
Only 7000, according to Rev. Camping.
Looking at pictures of Camping, I would believe him. He looks like he was there!
The original & new Monkey Island series (including the remakes) are great if you want something graphical.
I'd second Monkey Island or anything from the "Quest for Glory" Series. It may be a bit dated as the first Quest for Glory game is over 20 years old, but the puzzles were neat and the humor kept me entertained enough to make up for the poor graphics. I remember one joke was about a comedian who had lost his ability to be funny. He would sit there and screw up the stupidest jokes throughout the game. Finally, at the end, you give him a "Good Humor" ice cream bar to cure him. He still told stupid jokes, but at least he told them correctly.
Ahhhh. Good times.
You are really stretching now. The purpose of ringing the bells wasn't to warn the British and it was never his intention. He only warned the British because he got captured. If he had never been captured he never would have warned the British.
I really don't care about the Obama thing one way or the other. The topic is about Palin.
Allow me to refer to the quote I offered earlier:
Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”
The point of ringing bells and make a bunch of noise was to warn the British as much as it was to alert the militia, according to this historian. He has a point. If the goal was to only alert the militia, I'm sure they could have found a more stealthy method than ringing church bells. The fact that the argument has switched to "Paul Revere ringing bells" proves that the goal simply to show that Palin was wrong. That is a stretch and as I read up the posts, was your original complaint.
I brought up Obama as an example of gaffe that was made by then candidate Obama to show the double standard. It proves that this is not about correcting history as much as it is to provided evidence that your assumption that Sarah Palin is an idiot is a correct one. Again, it's a stretch.
Yes, I still place objects up my ass for pleasure. Not that often, because I have piles, but your mom's tongue is pretty soft and soothing.
Wow! Most of her customer's quit after his/her "operation". Glad to see you hung around.
You would really vote for a retarded quitter over Mr. Right Wing Big Business? That's pretty stupid, dude. Obama is more Republican than Nixon! Obama's favorite president was Reagan! Stop pretending you don't like the guy, he is everything Republicans love. Except for that one thing they hate...
You shouldn't assume that I "hate" President Obama. I actually like the guy and feel he's getting a bum wrap over the way Congress is screwing up the economy. Remember, unemployment was at 4.7% in Jan 2007 when Democrats took over Congress. That was after six years of Bush in office and twelve years of a Republican led Congress. In less than two years, the unemployment rate and nearly doubled and would by 2010. Fact is, the president has little effect over the economy. If you look at the ups and downs of the economy over the last 30 years, you'll see it goes up and down based on who controls congress, not who controls the White House. This is supported further by the fact that Congress usually changes sides during presidential mid-terms as happened to the first President Bush, President Clinton and the second President Bush.
But to relate this to your question about Palin as President. Yeah, I'd take her. All she can do is sign bills or veto them. What is more important is who is writing those bills and sending them her way. If it's a Democratic lead Congress, she can veto. If it's a Republican held Congress, she'll sign. That's about the same thing any Republican would do which is why they would get my vote over President Obama.
So.... Yes.
Actually, yeah. The original complaint was that she said that Paul Revere warned the British, which was fact. Here are some links:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-gaffe.htm
As any elementary school student can probably tell you, Paul Revere was not attempting to warn the British when he rode around crying, "The British are coming." Nor was he ringing bells and trying to protect gun rights.
Apparently Palin learned nothing at any of the five colleges she attended.
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/03/sarah-palin-paul-revere-warned-the-british/
This certainly gives us an entirely new point of view to consider when examining our nation’s founding.
While I had been led to believe that Revere’s historic ride was actually for the purpose of warning our forefathers that the British were coming, it turns out that his midnight ride, complete with ringing bells and warning shots, was really all about letting the English know that we were armed.
http://www.huliq.com/3257/sarah-palin-paul-reveres-midnight-ride-warned-brits
Former vice-presidential candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin has never been accused of being a brain surgeon, but her latest gaffe is another cautionary example of why she is, many say, unqualified to be a Presidential candidate: Paul Revere's ride was not to warn U.S. Revolutionary War patriots, but instead to warn the British.
Yeah for some reason the copy and pasting went to crap.
And I may not know more about history than the Ph.D. but obviously I can analyze things more independently and reasonably than he can. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered independent. I believe both sides are filled with idiots but right now the Republicans have the lead.
You cannot change what she said - she said that Paul Revere was shooting guns and ringing bells. That is not what happened. End of story.
Let me try to quote to make life easier:
“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he’s riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free.”
That's like saying I didn't post this message; my computer did. Fact is that bells were rung as a result of Paul Revere's ride. It is true that he did not ring the bells himself and it would have been more accurate if Ms. Palin had said, "“...warned the British that they weren’t going to be taking away our arms by having those bells rung..." But to call Sarah Palin a "moron" over this after Obama's "57 states"* comment is a bit one sided.
Although, as I understand it, the original complaint was not that Palin had said that Revere was ringing bells, but that she said he had warned the British. I'm not aware of anyone trying to update the Wikipedia page saying that Paul Revere was actually ringing bells. Truth is, he was probably trying to remain as stealthy as possible as he rode, notifying others to ring the church bells, fire guns or whatever local methods were agreed upon to signal that the British were coming.
* Obama said he had visited 57 states while campaigning. Of course, I'm sure he meant 47 and just slipped. Some people tried to make Obama look like an idiot over the statement, but no one took them seriously. To try to make it seem as if Palin truly believes that Paul Revere was riding around ringing a bell would be same as those saying that President Obama truly believes that there are 57+ states.