Large Super Bowl gatherings around big-screen sets outside of homes shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue, McCarthy said.
So, would the NFL be willing to allow churches to have the party, provided they tell their congregation to be SURE to turn their TVs on Fox before leaving for the party? And just HOW stupid is that! (And not very 'green', either, btw)
Also, can anyone imagine why there's a loophole for bars? Gee, it wouldn't happen to be because of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of beer advertisements during the Superbowl, would it? And the fact that if people stayed at home to watch the game, they're not as likely to drink as much beer, than if they were in a bar. Is the NFL really more inclined to promote drunk driving than non-alcoholic superbowl parties?
So, one way churches could fight this would be to have that Superbowl party at the local pub. With enough churches doing this, and enough pub owners getting mad about those non-beer drinking patrons taking up valuable space in their taverns - the NFL would get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I like beer as much as the next guy, but this is crazy insane and unfair.
A safe would be a good investment, most are fire proof which is important too.
Yes, IFF the safe is super heavy (>300lbs), or is bolted to the floor. I made the mistake of thinking that thieves would not bother dragging my 120lb. safe out of my house. The truth is, once thieves find a safe, (and they know to look in your bedroom closets), they forget just about everything else. The thieves that took mine went to great effort to drag it off. By the way, thieves often work in groups, so don't assume it'll be just one thief that enters your house. They get in and out in just a few minutes, because they know how long it typically takes the police to get to the scene . So even with an alarm system, you're stuff is not necessarily secure.
Anyway, if you have one of these "closet" safes, either bolt it to the floor, or get rid of it. Instead of keeping my important stuff "safe", it made them decidedly target-rich. With a fire station just down the street from me, I've decided my important docs are safer in a filing cabinet. A safe deposit box is beginning to look like it's worth the annual fee. I have DVD backups of my important data at work.
We have unfortunately just purchased 21 BlackBerry 8800s to our road warriors, here. All of them are now saying they want an iPhone. Their biggest complaint? Web browsing on a BlackBerry SUCKS!
Only thing is, has Google ever been down, that you can remember? With thousands of linux boxes and connections to several redundant internet trunks, it's not likely to happen. What's more likely is that the user's connection will go down. In this case, it's a dependence on the internet, not Google per se, that's the problem.
Is that these documents will be made available on iTunes for $0.99 at roughly 80% digital accuracy and for $1.29 at around 92% digital accuracy. If you want 100% digital accuracy, just get a Library of Congress card, check it out, and copy it yourself.
Hmmm. So, the best way to prevent alcoholism is to drink. "Honest, ociffer. I was just trying to umberstand the emeny!"
I understand your point, and on the surface, it seems agreeable. It fails the reality test, though. What about those who are predisposed to addictions? Alcoholism, for example, can run in families, often skipping generations, due to the fallout of one generations' excesses. Many Native Americans and their descendants are known to be predisposed to alcoholism. For _some_ people, ONE drink is all it takes to make them an addict. The same goes for many drugs, even pot.
Your point seems to be "everything in moderation". Let's think about that. Sex, even in moderation can prove life-changing. It only takes one time to get an STD or create a life - even if you're practicing "safe" sex. Murder in moderation is still murder. Lying in moderation is still lying. etc. etc. So, no, exposure to immoral acts doesn't prevent further or more severe immoral acts. If anything, it encourages it. What changes, instead, is one's view of the act itself. Once you've done it, it's suddenly easier to rationalize.
Also, I think there's another explanation to all the televangelists/priests, etc. Yes, certainly abstinence makes the temptation of the unknown greater. But consider that some priests/televangelists/whatever became "religious" in part to isolate themselves from their temptations - like an alcoholic moving to a dry county.
Furthermore, it's only the extraordinary which make the news. For every pedophile preacher, there are thousands of decent ones.
Re:'Javas slow decline in favor of...' oh please
on
2007 Java Predictions
·
· Score: 1
Why didn't you throw COBOL into this mix? There's still quite a demand for this, too.
I think the point that should be made here is that it's possible that you're both missing something. The fact that a state may be a net consumer or a net contributor may not at all be an indicater that its population is (as a whole) is productive or not. You cannot equate productivity with pay. Teachers, for example, are very productive, yet on the whole don't make a lot of money. Michael Jordon, on the other hand, scores points in a basketball game and made (and still makes) millions. Until we become a completely socialist society, you can rule out any notion of "fairness" in pay. And thank God for that.
However, those who make more pay more, do they not? Perhaps there are more jobs and better paying jobs in cities? (Duh.) The states with big cities are net providers, are they not? Does that mean therefore that the population of primarily rural states are therefore lazy leaches - or that the inhabitants of large cities are all contributing members of society? Of course not. While I will agree that it's a big waste of money to subsidize farmers, I'm going to stop well short of calling them leaches. The fact that our politicians try to win our favor with pork projects is not, after all, our fault. What is our fault is that we reward them for it. But, we'd be left thinking that some other state would get that money if we didn't. So blame local, rather than national thinking. It's human nature, and an unfortunate cause of big government waste.
Another thing, while we're at it. Big cities make politicians happy. Why? Because that's where the most voters are. And that's where their pork dollars have the greatest affect. Can you say Big Dig? (Boston) The fact is, more pork projects are in big cities than anywhere else.
Perhaps it's waste in government spending as a whole that you two need to argue about, not total dollars spent, or which states are the biggest winners and losers.
It seems odd to me that most everyone posting here who lives in a big city is "green", whereas the small-towners are, well, less so. Shouldn't that be the other way around? What really pisses me off is when these self-righteous city dwellers inform us "small-towners" of how inefficient/uneducated/(fill in pompous, condescending adjective of your choice) that we are. It would appear that those who live among so many others are concerned about "efficiencies" (BTUs per square foot in an apartment, MPGs per person to work, etc.) and the rest of us aren't concerned at all about efficiency. Hell, we're just uneducated, redneck Republicans.
Here's a possible explanation. In Alabama, we have the benefit of many rivers, which drive hydroelectric turbines, which helps to provide us with energy that costs 15% _below_ the national averagehttp://www.southernco.com/alpower/about/about.asp. So, forgive us, if we couldn't give a flying flip about wasting a few dollars heating and cooling our oversized, inexpensive homes. Fact is, with the exception of our very hot summers, we export a fair amount of electricity throughout the year.
Secondly, because we have open spaces, rivers, woods, etc, we don't miss it as much as, say a city person would. That might explain why there are so many tree huggers in big cities. Unfortunately, these tree huggers tend to be liberal - expecting government to make everything right. Here in the south, we're more self-reliant, and, dare I say, more practical. We're also more likely to cry foul when 14.6 billion dollars of mostly federal tax money is spent (in Boston) to put the interstates below ground in order to free up more of the downtown area for parks. What a big fat waste if ever there was one! Want more trees? Either move to the south, move to the burbs, or take more vacations. No, that wouldn't be efficient or convenient for you, would it?:-(
On a side note, we in the south have lots of open land which is being put to waste (literally). We have more than our share of waste dumps and land fills. Ironically, they tend to house all the garbage that comes out of your big "efficient" cities. So be glad we're not quite the tree huggers that you city folk seem to be, or we might make you keep that garbage. BTW, my family recycles too. Go figure.
-------------
Live long, live right, and shoot the lawyer on your way out, would you?
Ubuntu wouldn't be BROWN.
The penguin would sport a dinner jacket, bow tie and cuff links.
Standard distributions wouldn't come with more than three games - Tetris, Solitaire and Mine.
Everything would just be - classier!
There is a distinction, they're just not going to tell what it is.;-)
The government behaving irtrationally is an indication that everything is normal. Go about your business. Nothing to see here.
RE: (In theory the TV is supposed to be off unless the vehicle is in park, but the safety switch is easy to disable and many ethically challenged auto shops will do it for you.) How any sane government could have let this pass regulations just blows my mind.
Problem is, we shouldn't BE depending on government regulations to save us. The government can't pass out common sense, like blankets after a hurricane. What makes you think a regulation will be effective? If they have a TV on while driving, don't you think they'd know to place them where a passing police car couldn't see them? (Which, by the way, is _further away_ from where they need to be looking.) And if they have an accident, don't you think they'd know to turn the TV off before the officer shows up next to their window?
Maybe introduce the equivalent of a broadcast flag - for when the tires are turning. Yeah, that's it. Make all small, flat-screen TVs come with a motion sensor that automatically disables them. I'd love to see Apple sell a video iPod after that move. Just gotta love those regulations.
If common sense doesn't prevail, maybe Darwin will. If Darwin doesn't, maybe a little selective road rage will. Don't worry. There won't be any witnesses if they're all watching TV instead of the road.
And at the same time, most motherboards (Intel included?) still include parallel ports and floppy connectors - even on micro-ATX motherboards, where space is at a premium. (???)
How are you so sure that signal was from 45 million miles away? That's awfully good aim. Suppose the neighbor's kid was playing with his Dad's radar gun at the time?;-)
RE: And I saw a guy in the Apple Store today with a Wall Street edition Powerbook (read: under 300 MHz) and the tech was stunned to see how responsive and usable Tiger is on it.
Umm. Tiger won't install on a Wall Street. In fact, it doesn't support any Mac without built-in Firewire, according to Apple. I know, because I have one (292 Mhz, I think). I haven't tried XPostFacto, but it says it's supported "for the sake of Panther", whatever that means.
You must have seen a Lombard or newer PowerMac.
Slashdot Mirror
Large Super Bowl gatherings around big-screen sets outside of homes shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue, McCarthy said.
So, would the NFL be willing to allow churches to have the party, provided they tell their congregation to be SURE to turn their TVs on Fox before leaving for the party? And just HOW stupid is that! (And not very 'green', either, btw)
Also, can anyone imagine why there's a loophole for bars? Gee, it wouldn't happen to be because of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of beer advertisements during the Superbowl, would it? And the fact that if people stayed at home to watch the game, they're not as likely to drink as much beer, than if they were in a bar. Is the NFL really more inclined to promote drunk driving than non-alcoholic superbowl parties?
So, one way churches could fight this would be to have that Superbowl party at the local pub. With enough churches doing this, and enough pub owners getting mad about those non-beer drinking patrons taking up valuable space in their taverns - the NFL would get the message.
Don't get me wrong. I like beer as much as the next guy, but this is crazy insane and unfair.
Of course not. MythTV is not a time-warping device. It just bends it a little, then allows it to snap back into place.
Yeah, like when Allah made the 911 terrorists sleep with 72 virgins.
Genie: All the power of the internet... in an itty-bitty living space.
Yes, IFF the safe is super heavy (>300lbs), or is bolted to the floor. I made the mistake of thinking that thieves would not bother dragging my 120lb. safe out of my house. The truth is, once thieves find a safe, (and they know to look in your bedroom closets), they forget just about everything else. The thieves that took mine went to great effort to drag it off. By the way, thieves often work in groups, so don't assume it'll be just one thief that enters your house. They get in and out in just a few minutes, because they know how long it typically takes the police to get to the scene . So even with an alarm system, you're stuff is not necessarily secure.
Anyway, if you have one of these "closet" safes, either bolt it to the floor, or get rid of it. Instead of keeping my important stuff "safe", it made them decidedly target-rich. With a fire station just down the street from me, I've decided my important docs are safer in a filing cabinet. A safe deposit box is beginning to look like it's worth the annual fee. I have DVD backups of my important data at work.
--...it just doesn't make sense that a civilization advanced enough to cross interstellar space would crash in New Mexico
Like us, they probably have not evolved beyond hiring the lowest bidder.
We have unfortunately just purchased 21 BlackBerry 8800s to our road warriors, here. All of them are now saying they want an iPhone. Their biggest complaint? Web browsing on a BlackBerry SUCKS!
Only thing is, has Google ever been down, that you can remember? With thousands of linux boxes and connections to several redundant internet trunks, it's not likely to happen. What's more likely is that the user's connection will go down. In this case, it's a dependence on the internet, not Google per se, that's the problem.
Is that these documents will be made available on iTunes for $0.99 at roughly 80% digital accuracy and for $1.29 at around 92% digital accuracy. If you want 100% digital accuracy, just get a Library of Congress card, check it out, and copy it yourself.
That all depends on your definition of "is".
Hmmm. So, the best way to prevent alcoholism is to drink. "Honest, ociffer. I was just trying to umberstand the emeny!"
I understand your point, and on the surface, it seems agreeable. It fails the reality test, though. What about those who are predisposed to addictions? Alcoholism, for example, can run in families, often skipping generations, due to the fallout of one generations' excesses. Many Native Americans and their descendants are known to be predisposed to alcoholism. For _some_ people, ONE drink is all it takes to make them an addict. The same goes for many drugs, even pot.
Your point seems to be "everything in moderation". Let's think about that. Sex, even in moderation can prove life-changing. It only takes one time to get an STD or create a life - even if you're practicing "safe" sex. Murder in moderation is still murder. Lying in moderation is still lying. etc. etc. So, no, exposure to immoral acts doesn't prevent further or more severe immoral acts. If anything, it encourages it. What changes, instead, is one's view of the act itself. Once you've done it, it's suddenly easier to rationalize.
Also, I think there's another explanation to all the televangelists/priests, etc. Yes, certainly abstinence makes the temptation of the unknown greater. But consider that some priests/televangelists/whatever became "religious" in part to isolate themselves from their temptations - like an alcoholic moving to a dry county.
Furthermore, it's only the extraordinary which make the news. For every pedophile preacher, there are thousands of decent ones.
Why didn't you throw COBOL into this mix? There's still quite a demand for this, too.
Damn. I knew I should have forked over the additional $1500 for a MacBook _PRO_.
However, those who make more pay more, do they not? Perhaps there are more jobs and better paying jobs in cities? (Duh.) The states with big cities are net providers, are they not? Does that mean therefore that the population of primarily rural states are therefore lazy leaches - or that the inhabitants of large cities are all contributing members of society? Of course not. While I will agree that it's a big waste of money to subsidize farmers, I'm going to stop well short of calling them leaches. The fact that our politicians try to win our favor with pork projects is not, after all, our fault. What is our fault is that we reward them for it. But, we'd be left thinking that some other state would get that money if we didn't. So blame local, rather than national thinking. It's human nature, and an unfortunate cause of big government waste.
Another thing, while we're at it. Big cities make politicians happy. Why? Because that's where the most voters are. And that's where their pork dollars have the greatest affect. Can you say Big Dig? (Boston) The fact is, more pork projects are in big cities than anywhere else.
Perhaps it's waste in government spending as a whole that you two need to argue about, not total dollars spent, or which states are the biggest winners and losers.
Here's a possible explanation. In Alabama, we have the benefit of many rivers, which drive hydroelectric turbines, which helps to provide us with energy that costs 15% _below_ the national average http://www.southernco.com/alpower/about/about.asp. So, forgive us, if we couldn't give a flying flip about wasting a few dollars heating and cooling our oversized, inexpensive homes. Fact is, with the exception of our very hot summers, we export a fair amount of electricity throughout the year.
Secondly, because we have open spaces, rivers, woods, etc, we don't miss it as much as, say a city person would. That might explain why there are so many tree huggers in big cities. Unfortunately, these tree huggers tend to be liberal - expecting government to make everything right. Here in the south, we're more self-reliant, and, dare I say, more practical. We're also more likely to cry foul when 14.6 billion dollars of mostly federal tax money is spent (in Boston) to put the interstates below ground in order to free up more of the downtown area for parks. What a big fat waste if ever there was one! Want more trees? Either move to the south, move to the burbs, or take more vacations. No, that wouldn't be efficient or convenient for you, would it? :-(
On a side note, we in the south have lots of open land which is being put to waste (literally). We have more than our share of waste dumps and land fills. Ironically, they tend to house all the garbage that comes out of your big "efficient" cities. So be glad we're not quite the tree huggers that you city folk seem to be, or we might make you keep that garbage. BTW, my family recycles too. Go figure.
-------------
Live long, live right, and shoot the lawyer on your way out, would you?
Ubuntu wouldn't be BROWN. The penguin would sport a dinner jacket, bow tie and cuff links. Standard distributions wouldn't come with more than three games - Tetris, Solitaire and Mine. Everything would just be - classier!
There is a distinction, they're just not going to tell what it is. ;-)
The government behaving irtrationally is an indication that everything is normal. Go about your business. Nothing to see here.
We have airplanes. Why climb Everest?
RE: (In theory the TV is supposed to be off unless the vehicle is in park, but the safety switch is easy to disable and many ethically challenged auto shops will do it for you.) How any sane government could have let this pass regulations just blows my mind.
Problem is, we shouldn't BE depending on government regulations to save us. The government can't pass out common sense, like blankets after a hurricane. What makes you think a regulation will be effective? If they have a TV on while driving, don't you think they'd know to place them where a passing police car couldn't see them? (Which, by the way, is _further away_ from where they need to be looking.) And if they have an accident, don't you think they'd know to turn the TV off before the officer shows up next to their window?
Maybe introduce the equivalent of a broadcast flag - for when the tires are turning. Yeah, that's it. Make all small, flat-screen TVs come with a motion sensor that automatically disables them. I'd love to see Apple sell a video iPod after that move. Just gotta love those regulations.
If common sense doesn't prevail, maybe Darwin will. If Darwin doesn't, maybe a little selective road rage will. Don't worry. There won't be any witnesses if they're all watching TV instead of the road.
And at the same time, most motherboards (Intel included?) still include parallel ports and floppy connectors - even on micro-ATX motherboards, where space is at a premium. (???)
How are you so sure that signal was from 45 million miles away? That's awfully good aim. Suppose the neighbor's kid was playing with his Dad's radar gun at the time? ;-)
RE: And I saw a guy in the Apple Store today with a Wall Street edition Powerbook (read: under 300 MHz) and the tech was stunned to see how responsive and usable Tiger is on it. Umm. Tiger won't install on a Wall Street. In fact, it doesn't support any Mac without built-in Firewire, according to Apple. I know, because I have one (292 Mhz, I think). I haven't tried XPostFacto, but it says it's supported "for the sake of Panther", whatever that means. You must have seen a Lombard or newer PowerMac.
Clearing PRAM now takes 3 minutes. ;-)