I do realize dog waste is an environmental hazard. (Although I'm not familiar with the landscape in Israel, so I don't know what effect not scooping has.)
I do question any government doing this.
Who is going to pay for it? Will it be taxpayers, or will it be fully funded through the use of fines?
If by fines, what happens when everyone complies? If the program is dropped, problem solved. If the program keeps going ahead, is money somehow saved compared to current situation?
Maybe I'm just a bit annoyed at how some local governments can be so wasteful in terms of throwing money at things.
I am still a bit curious about how any money America gives Israel affects other things they're doing. (I'm not trolling about this either. Maybe I could have been more clear with what I said.)
Correct. My intention wasn't to troll. I remember learning that America gives billions to Israel for military purposes each year. But money is money, and who isn't to say that if they didn't get this money, they wouldn't be having to pool money from elsewhere to cover their military operations?
Poor analogy: A hypothetical household gets $30k/year. Family has a burglar alarm costing $1k/year. What if a portion of that $30k/year is "free" money given to the family from another family? What if that money is cut off? Would they drop their burglar alarm service, or would they drop other "non-essential" things first in order to maintain their burglar alarm service?
An Israeli city is doing this. But don't Americans tend to give billions to Israeli each year? So, does this mean American taxpayers are in a sense funding this?
A storm comes in. And storms can happen in a variety of areas. Storm knocks out cable lines. Maybe a tree falls on it. Residents wish to remain informed. So they either hook up an antenna to their TV, or pull out a small one, to watch an over-the-air broadcast of their local news.
I don't understand your grammar. Are you referring to the issue of analog migration for cable television?
[Where certain cable TV providers slowly move the analog channels to digital on their system, thus requiring a "box" if they want to view those "upper" channels.]
My post was suppose to be on the humour side. I am surprised it was moderated as interesting. More importantly, if people had some random characters in their e-mail addresses, there would be a less likely chance of getting hit by those using dictionary-based attacks.
Think about it. Microsoft could have did stuff like this. Thankfully, they didn't.
Change the homepage to Microsoft's website, perhaps a page about Windows XP and piracy.
Have Clippit pop up in the corner of Windows XP, saying, "It looks like you're using a pirated copy of Windows. Would you like to purchase one now?"
Slow one's Internet connection to 56kbps speed, except when doing Windows Updates.
Disable any and all video capabilities.
Limit the display to 800 x 600 at 8-bit colour.
Disable accessing certain file types, such as video files, music files, etc. (Jokingly, because if you pirate Windows, you might be pirating other things as well.)
One idea, which I read on a message board, would be to throttle the download speeds based how much someone has downloaded in the month so far. So the more you download, the slower your connection gets.
Now, can someone explain to me what someone is doing downloading so much? Even with streaming video, or downloading ISO updates, I cannot imagine a person, or family, using up so much bandwidth just in 30 days. (Now, I haven't factored in video chat.)
Maybe it depends on what it is. If it is a "value" issue, or a "trivial" issue.
A value issue would be something to do with big versus small government, Constitutionality, etc.
A trivial issue might be taxing methods, etc.
But still, I'd be hesitant to vote for someone that would implement policies I don't want implemented, even if those policies have no chance of getting implemented. For if I vote for a candidate that has "no chance of winning", and said candidate has policies in which with I disagree, who isn't to say that Congress and the like doesn't end up following suit?
1. Barr has "no chance" of winning. 2. If Barr gets elected, someone with "no chance" of winning actually won. 3. If someone with "no chance" of winning actually wins, who isn't to say those policies, which have "no chance" of being passed by Congress, don't get passed?
Of course, I'm arguing the safe route. If I vote my heart, I'm voting for someone that if elected, is someone that I'm okay with implementing their policies.
Voting for someone you don't support is just as bad as voting for someone you don't support. Oh wait.
Voting for Obama would be voting for someone you don't support because of the FISA issue.
Voting for Barr would be voting for someone you don't support because you don't agree with his platform. Assuming that Congress will remain the same, or vote against things Barr would propose to them, cannot be rightfully assumed. What if things don't go as planned?
I find voting for a candidate one doesn't agree with is just a bad idea. But that's my thoughts. If voters compromised their values on for whom to vote, Congress and the President would retain the status quo, correct?
I wish more people understood that. We don't see in "3D". We see in 2D, which is then translated to 3D. We're essentially seeing two somewhat flat planes of information, then interpretting it.
I think what is most important in a candidate is being able to logically think about things.
This means listening to opposing opinions, thinking things through, and not bending one's values in compromise votes, if the issue is important (like Constitutionality).
Some programming blocks on some channels are nice enough to only cut the half hour block in half. One example is Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, where they tend to show like 11 minutes, then a few minutes of commercials, then the other 11 minutes, then five minutes or so of commercials.
Basically... 11 minutes show 3 minutes break 11 minutes show 5 minutes break
But I figure what is worst, is when some networks, which I won't mention, have pop-ups during the show advertising other shows on their network. And these are video pop-ups.
What do you mean by "bad laws"? Do you mean unjust laws, or laws that happen to be a bad idea (yet, are technically justful)?
Because, if a law happens to be unjust, it can be invalidated in a court, correct?
If a law is bad, to not enforce the law is a slap in the face concerning the concept of the system we have. It would be better to enforce a bad law (one that is justful) than to ignore it, which breaks the system. Because the system does allow for us to change a bad law into a good law.
So, is it the paragraph directly above that you are saying, more or less?
Slashdot Mirror
I do realize dog waste is an environmental hazard. (Although I'm not familiar with the landscape in Israel, so I don't know what effect not scooping has.)
I do question any government doing this.
Who is going to pay for it? Will it be taxpayers, or will it be fully funded through the use of fines?
If by fines, what happens when everyone complies? If the program is dropped, problem solved. If the program keeps going ahead, is money somehow saved compared to current situation?
Maybe I'm just a bit annoyed at how some local governments can be so wasteful in terms of throwing money at things.
I am still a bit curious about how any money America gives Israel affects other things they're doing. (I'm not trolling about this either. Maybe I could have been more clear with what I said.)
Correct. My intention wasn't to troll. I remember learning that America gives billions to Israel for military purposes each year. But money is money, and who isn't to say that if they didn't get this money, they wouldn't be having to pool money from elsewhere to cover their military operations?
Poor analogy: A hypothetical household gets $30k/year. Family has a burglar alarm costing $1k/year. What if a portion of that $30k/year is "free" money given to the family from another family? What if that money is cut off? Would they drop their burglar alarm service, or would they drop other "non-essential" things first in order to maintain their burglar alarm service?
Or am I wrong to think like this?
An Israeli city is doing this. But don't Americans tend to give billions to Israeli each year? So, does this mean American taxpayers are in a sense funding this?
It's in the American public's best interest to let corporations buy up the spectrum in order to sell services to us. *cough*
Imagine this...
A storm comes in. And storms can happen in a variety of areas.
Storm knocks out cable lines. Maybe a tree falls on it.
Residents wish to remain informed.
So they either hook up an antenna to their TV, or pull out a small one, to watch an over-the-air broadcast of their local news.
I don't understand your grammar. Are you referring to the issue of analog migration for cable television?
[Where certain cable TV providers slowly move the analog channels to digital on their system, thus requiring a "box" if they want to view those "upper" channels.]
Aren't Macs personal computers too?
Aren't Macs using the same x86 architecture as PCs?
What's the difference between a Mac and PC besides the operating system?
To buy, yeah, sure. Because that is the going rate on another website to purchase the video, although laced with DRM I believed.
However, $2 to rent a 22.5 minute episode? NO WAY! How about $0.99? That is something for which I'd be willing to pay.
You must be joking or something. I said: zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com
I did register it. I can log into it. I see someone has already sent me spam, but I dare not click it.
I like that idea. Connection "slowed" after the cap is hit. It's better than charging or cutting someone off completely.
My post was suppose to be on the humour side. I am surprised it was moderated as interesting. More importantly, if people had some random characters in their e-mail addresses, there would be a less likely chance of getting hit by those using dictionary-based attacks.
As of right now, no mail has came in.
I just created the e-mail address zh80lukgwggok4kko0kcbrhjm@hotmail.com (yes, seriously)
Now, let's see if that holds true.
People don't do this already? Keep track of their bank account balance on paper (or in a text file on their computer)?
My original post was meant to be on the humourous side anyways. It would definitely be a PR disaster.
I just thought of another. "Disabled mouse. Keyboard only."
Think about it. Microsoft could have did stuff like this. Thankfully, they didn't.
Change the homepage to Microsoft's website, perhaps a page about Windows XP and piracy.
Have Clippit pop up in the corner of Windows XP, saying, "It looks like you're using a pirated copy of Windows. Would you like to purchase one now?"
Slow one's Internet connection to 56kbps speed, except when doing Windows Updates.
Disable any and all video capabilities.
Limit the display to 800 x 600 at 8-bit colour.
Disable accessing certain file types, such as video files, music files, etc. (Jokingly, because if you pirate Windows, you might be pirating other things as well.)
One idea, which I read on a message board, would be to throttle the download speeds based how much someone has downloaded in the month so far. So the more you download, the slower your connection gets.
Now, can someone explain to me what someone is doing downloading so much? Even with streaming video, or downloading ISO updates, I cannot imagine a person, or family, using up so much bandwidth just in 30 days. (Now, I haven't factored in video chat.)
Maybe it depends on what it is. If it is a "value" issue, or a "trivial" issue.
A value issue would be something to do with big versus small government, Constitutionality, etc.
A trivial issue might be taxing methods, etc.
But still, I'd be hesitant to vote for someone that would implement policies I don't want implemented, even if those policies have no chance of getting implemented. For if I vote for a candidate that has "no chance of winning", and said candidate has policies in which with I disagree, who isn't to say that Congress and the like doesn't end up following suit?
1. Barr has "no chance" of winning.
2. If Barr gets elected, someone with "no chance" of winning actually won.
3. If someone with "no chance" of winning actually wins, who isn't to say those policies, which have "no chance" of being passed by Congress, don't get passed?
Of course, I'm arguing the safe route. If I vote my heart, I'm voting for someone that if elected, is someone that I'm okay with implementing their policies.
Voting for someone you don't support is just as bad as voting for someone you don't support. Oh wait.
Voting for Obama would be voting for someone you don't support because of the FISA issue.
Voting for Barr would be voting for someone you don't support because you don't agree with his platform. Assuming that Congress will remain the same, or vote against things Barr would propose to them, cannot be rightfully assumed. What if things don't go as planned?
I find voting for a candidate one doesn't agree with is just a bad idea. But that's my thoughts. If voters compromised their values on for whom to vote, Congress and the President would retain the status quo, correct?
I wish more people understood that. We don't see in "3D". We see in 2D, which is then translated to 3D. We're essentially seeing two somewhat flat planes of information, then interpretting it.
What ISP would voluntarily charge their customers more? How would they compete with ISPs who don't participate in this "scheme"?
And no chance the government would do something so stupid it would cause an uproar.
But isn't Vista suppose to be virus-proof? Just like the Titanic was suppose to be unsinkable.
I think what is most important in a candidate is being able to logically think about things.
This means listening to opposing opinions, thinking things through, and not bending one's values in compromise votes, if the issue is important (like Constitutionality).
Some programming blocks on some channels are nice enough to only cut the half hour block in half. One example is Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, where they tend to show like 11 minutes, then a few minutes of commercials, then the other 11 minutes, then five minutes or so of commercials.
Basically...
11 minutes show
3 minutes break
11 minutes show
5 minutes break
But I figure what is worst, is when some networks, which I won't mention, have pop-ups during the show advertising other shows on their network. And these are video pop-ups.
Just block the referrer field using a firewall (assuming it has that option).
What do you mean by "bad laws"? Do you mean unjust laws, or laws that happen to be a bad idea (yet, are technically justful)?
Because, if a law happens to be unjust, it can be invalidated in a court, correct?
If a law is bad, to not enforce the law is a slap in the face concerning the concept of the system we have. It would be better to enforce a bad law (one that is justful) than to ignore it, which breaks the system. Because the system does allow for us to change a bad law into a good law.
So, is it the paragraph directly above that you are saying, more or less?