Where are you getting your info? I live in fla, usa. Comcast for 12/4 unlimited is $25 per month.
Is that for real? I live in a Time Warner area in Ohio and 12/1 (I think) is something like $50 a month. I have AT&T, 12/1 is $48 ($30 first 12 months, +$100 for their hardware and $150 if you need it installed), 250GB cap. "Unlimited" is not really unlimited with Comcast, is it? Don't they throttle?
IMO, Romney is, intellectually and experientially, the most qualified candidate for US president that we've seen in the last two centuries. I'm not sure what kind of president he'll end up being, but he is certainly qualified for the role and infinitely more qualified than the current US president.
So you think Romney is at a higher intellectual level than James Madison, Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, William Taft, Barrack Obama, Benjamin Harrison, and FDR? And has a better record of experience than EVERY candidate (which includes losers not elected) in the last 200 years? SERIOUSLY? Are you a victim of his spooky Mormon voodoo or did he give you a million bucks out of his back pocket? Even Gingrich (who I detest) is miles ahead of Romney intellectually, and I fail to see how Mitt's experience is significantly greater than anyone else's. Are you sure didn't mean to say he has bigger bank accounts and IRAs?
This all seems a bit silly, comparing our distaste and distrust for Romney with how we feel about robots, so I'll give you a few other reasons people are not comfortable with him:
1. He's a Mormon. Most folks know little about Mormonism other than rumors and salacious details about other people who irrelevant, but there is a genuine distrust of Mormons by other Christians, right or wrong.
2. He's very rich. His wealth dwarfs that of Obama, Bush and Clinton. (Combined even? Not sure, but I think I heard that, which is what matters here.) Casual, spur-of-the-moment $10,000 bet, anyone? Seen pics of the guy's mansions?
3. Early on, he was hesitant to take a position on anything, and his RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare distinction is shaky.
4. Negative ads and attacks. Maybe he is better qualified than Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, or whomever, maybe not, but he has spent far more time cutting down the field than building himself up. None of those others are evil people who hate America, but Romney would tell you they are if he thought it would help him and he could get away with it. Negative, negative, negative. Again, maybe he has a point to some of it, but it is hard to listen to over and over. Where are HIS solutions?
5. Foreign policy, or more correctly a lack of foreign policy. Once the smoke clears, and after everyone else's ideas are shrugged off, what is his strategy? Is there one? Militarily, Bush wanted us to flex our muscles and take the fight to whomever wanted it as a deterrent. Obama has shown more of a desire for closure than ongoing wars, but has had some big scores as well. Both talked tough with Iran but wisely had some restraint, neither showed a lot of interest in commiting the resources necessary to close the border with Mexico, both handled China delicately, and both struggled with budgeting, debt, jobs, and our trade deficit. Romney's policies thus far have been vague at best, with no meat or potatoes.
6. Business as usual/Business first politician. Made tons of money with Bain, a company that was in business to make tons and tons of money, not save jobs, as he seems to think people will believe now. Does not "get" poor people, thinks it is okay (it is legal, but is it right?) that he pays a tax rate of 15% while people struggling to pay for one modest home pay 30%, was a Governor, ran for US Senate, and ran for president before but claims to be markedly different or a political outsider.
7. The guy is stiff. Not quite John McCain physically stiff and actually moving like a robot, but despite his presidential appearance he just doesn't come across like a guy you could sit down and chat with over a beer. Wherever you stand politically, you can not deny that many people think Obama, W., Clinton, George I, Reagan, and even Carter were all brilliant conversationalists or at least had a real charm that comforted people. Romney, on the other hand, is simply looked at as the best chance to beat Obama, out of a field of uncompelling candidates, or the shiniest turd. Would anyone just want to hang out with the guy and pick his brain, unless you enjoy talking about hedge funds or something?
I think there are enough reasons not to look at Mitt Romney as our next best hope to lead the world's lone superpower, without having to actually compare him to a fictionalized robot.
The WSJ is all about business, and caters to big business, so of course they say there is nothing to worry about and we should keep burning fossils fuels like mad. Continue business as usual, so the rich can keep getting richer! Afterall, even if all this "science" baloney turns out to be true, the fat cats will have enough wealth to be able to deal with it. They don't care about Vietnam, Brazil, The Philipines, or isolated islanders now, and they won't have to care about them in the future if those places are ruined for their poor residents, who will continue to be poor and largely irrelevant. It is in the interest of the WSJ to deny the threat of climate change, whether it is real or not.
So we shouldn't worry since all the ice melting at the North Pole or Antarctic ice shelves won't result in a rise in global sea levels? As if that ice can all melt without vast glaciers and ice sheets covering Greenland and other places meeting the same fate? Lots of ice is melting in many places, so although you are correct, your point doesn't matter worth a damn when it comes to fears of sea levels rising.
Okay, maybe it was indeed a "good bit" warmer at various times in the past. And maybe our current warming trend (which some still say doesn't even exist) would happen without us. What is really most concerning to some of us is the rate of climate change. Sure, there have definitely been warmer times, but it looks to us like the planet is warming up at an unprecedented rate, which is much faster than could be accounted for by any similar natural warming trend in the past.
My insticnt is to label you a troll and move on. but I love food and find meals with friends and family, and variety in cuisine, to be central to my life, so... Cheddar is certainly a "real" cheese, and is not (or should not be) artificial. Sorry if it doesn't smell like feet. Perhaps if you think American food is nothing but junk you should try visiting and purchasing your food somewhere other than McDonalds or a gas station. The WORLD eats processed food quite often now, not just Americans. At least we drink milk that has to be refrigerated, unlike the Parmalat products so popular in many places. Bah, stereotypes.
If you want to be ignorant, paint everything with a broad brush and call American cuisine all "junk," then English cuisine is nothing but pie & mash, bangers, and fried fish & chips, French is all cheese that smells like feet or else raw or undercooked, Italian is pasta and tomatoes topped with mozzarella, Japanese is sushi or vending machine fare, Indian gives you painful diarrhea, Mexican is cheap meat, refried beans and various chili peppers, Canada has bacon bacon eh, Thai=ginger, the Irish subsist on nothing but potatoes, cabbage and stout, it is amazing that Scotland has is inhabited since they have no food other than haggis, Aussies won't eat it if wasn't cooked on the barbie, Ethiopians don't have a delicious cuisine of their own because they have no food, Chinese means egg rolls and fried rice, and everyone in the Middle East eats falafel or camel daily. And that is leaving out crap like Marmite, Nutella, and any local delicacies that churn stomachs everywhere else. Ridiculous, no?
I take pity on you if you have not had the chance to sample Carolina BBQ (or Kansas City BBQ!), a good, thick, fresh hamburger, a nice New York strip steak with a hot baked potato, a fresh Maine lobster, or New England clam chowder made and served right next to a marina. We have a lot more than McDonald's or twinkies, including more fresh veggies (often local, when in season - I grow my own) than you can even imagine.
No one goes out for American food? Really? In the USA we do. Maybe we don't say "American," but that's just because American food is so varied but widely eaten by Americans, so we say "steak," "a burger" or mention a specific reataurant by name. I think American cuisine includes burgers (now a worldwide phenomenon) , hotdogs, BBQ, steaks, any other sort of grilled meat (pork chops), all sorts of seafood (especially in coastal areas), salads that always include cheese and tomatoes, and even pizza (since anyone who is Italian or has been to Italy for 3 days is all too happy to tell you that American pizza is not "real" pizza). And that's just dinner, and without going into other distinctively American adaptions of other cuisine, like Tex-Mex, Cajun, Creole and Soul food. Americans eat breakfast like no one else, as you have seen if you've ever been to Denny's or IHOP on a Sunday, which contrasts drastically with what you've seen if you've stayed at non-American hotels in Europe or Asia.
I'd say American cuisine is pretty well developed and loved, considering the country hasn't existed for 250 years. Sorry we don't have enough of a history as a culture to have invented everything that had already been done! Unfortunately my understanding of Canadian cuisine is simply that it is like American but without seasoning (everything is so bland!), minus any Mexican influence and with more of a French influence in the East.
This is why we have zoning - to protect residential neighborhoods. It makes absolutely no difference whether a commercial or industrial building looks like a "mansion," it should not be allowed in a residential zone, period. Electricity usage, the necessary data lines, traffic and parking are all legitimate considerations.
The've already rewritten the bill and renamed it the I LOVE AMERICA Act. Other than the name, the rest is exactly the same, word for word. I predict it passes unanimously, as no one will be willing to vote "no" on America and risk losing the next election.
The last time someone tried to break up the Union, there was a bloody war. I would not be okay with California simply leaving! That is, unless I get 20 acres of prime land in Napa. Or near San Luis Obispo, I'm not picky!
If you substitute the term "life" for something like "Earth-like life," all of the quibbling goes away. There absolutely, certainly could somewhere be life that is not at all like the life we know of on Earth, but we have no idea what that would look like or how to detect it for the first time, so it makes no sense to look for it right now. We know what life on Earth looks like, and how to recognize it (or the conditions that it requires and in which it is found everywhere on Earth), so it doesn't make sense, at this moment, to look for anything else, or not to look for conditions that favor Earth-like life. Hopefully someday we'll be cognizant of non carbon-based life forms, or life that does not rely on water (or watery conditions that for whatever reason do not support life), but for now they're doing things right and acting prudently rather than wasting precious resources on wild goose chases.
Of course you don't have any evidence. It's funny how conspiracy-theorists are just as faith-based as any religion.
Right, because corporate espionage among multi billion dollar corporations, government corruption, greed, and the existence of the CIA, the Mossad, the KGB, and terrorist groups are all just figments of our over-active imaginations. I suggest that most mishaps are not a result of wide-ranging conspiracies (government-perpetrated or otherwise), but such conspiracies do pop up on occasion. And you have to consider that the most successful conspiracies are the few that are never uncovered as such. So don't take anyone who ever cries conspiracy and automatically lump them together with steadfast creationists who ignore huge bodies of evidence.
Not really. The majority of people (in the US, Canada, and all of Europe, at least) do leave in a metropolitan area. Maybe it isn't a huge majority (I don't know), but not as many people live in Wyoming, North Dakota, or BFE New Mexico as live along the eastern seaboard, in California, or within less than an hour drive from a major city. Population is centered around cities - not everyone lives there, but it is statistically correct to say that modern Western society is not rural as a majority. So it follows that 20-somethings do generally live in metropolitan areas. But of course that does not diminish the importance of rural communities and people who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, or their desire for faster internet connections. Hell, if you compare our average bandwidth here to what folks in Japan and South Korea, it is obvious that we are doing something wrong, in both rural and urban/suburban areas.
Um, yeah... shouldn't they have tested for the effects of any potentially dangerous radiation BEFORE implementing the technology now in question? Or am I being Anti-American for even questioning the necessary and prudent security practices of our great nation, affording comfort to terrorists? Screw science, we need to search more kids and grandmas. For AMERICA!
While it is FAR from settled that fracking "only affects an area within a few hundred feet of the well" (I seriously doubt it) I do thank you for pointing out the distinction between disposal wells and fracking. There is fracking going on in NE Ohio in the Youngstown area, but the main well in question was a brine disposal well, not an attempt to extract oil.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are you getting your info? I live in fla, usa. Comcast for 12/4 unlimited is $25 per month.
Is that for real? I live in a Time Warner area in Ohio and 12/1 (I think) is something like $50 a month. I have AT&T, 12/1 is $48 ($30 first 12 months, +$100 for their hardware and $150 if you need it installed), 250GB cap. "Unlimited" is not really unlimited with Comcast, is it? Don't they throttle?
IMO, Romney is, intellectually and experientially, the most qualified candidate for US president that we've seen in the last two centuries. I'm not sure what kind of president he'll end up being, but he is certainly qualified for the role and infinitely more qualified than the current US president.
So you think Romney is at a higher intellectual level than James Madison, Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, William Taft, Barrack Obama, Benjamin Harrison, and FDR? And has a better record of experience than EVERY candidate (which includes losers not elected) in the last 200 years? SERIOUSLY? Are you a victim of his spooky Mormon voodoo or did he give you a million bucks out of his back pocket? Even Gingrich (who I detest) is miles ahead of Romney intellectually, and I fail to see how Mitt's experience is significantly greater than anyone else's. Are you sure didn't mean to say he has bigger bank accounts and IRAs?
Mitt cannot harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to be harmed.
Hmm, I guess Mitt's firmware must have been updated after he left Bain then?
This all seems a bit silly, comparing our distaste and distrust for Romney with how we feel about robots, so I'll give you a few other reasons people are not comfortable with him:
1. He's a Mormon. Most folks know little about Mormonism other than rumors and salacious details about other people who irrelevant, but there is a genuine distrust of Mormons by other Christians, right or wrong.
2. He's very rich. His wealth dwarfs that of Obama, Bush and Clinton. (Combined even? Not sure, but I think I heard that, which is what matters here.) Casual, spur-of-the-moment $10,000 bet, anyone? Seen pics of the guy's mansions?
3. Early on, he was hesitant to take a position on anything, and his RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare distinction is shaky.
4. Negative ads and attacks. Maybe he is better qualified than Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, or whomever, maybe not, but he has spent far more time cutting down the field than building himself up. None of those others are evil people who hate America, but Romney would tell you they are if he thought it would help him and he could get away with it. Negative, negative, negative. Again, maybe he has a point to some of it, but it is hard to listen to over and over. Where are HIS solutions?
5. Foreign policy, or more correctly a lack of foreign policy. Once the smoke clears, and after everyone else's ideas are shrugged off, what is his strategy? Is there one? Militarily, Bush wanted us to flex our muscles and take the fight to whomever wanted it as a deterrent. Obama has shown more of a desire for closure than ongoing wars, but has had some big scores as well. Both talked tough with Iran but wisely had some restraint, neither showed a lot of interest in commiting the resources necessary to close the border with Mexico, both handled China delicately, and both struggled with budgeting, debt, jobs, and our trade deficit. Romney's policies thus far have been vague at best, with no meat or potatoes.
6. Business as usual/Business first politician. Made tons of money with Bain, a company that was in business to make tons and tons of money, not save jobs, as he seems to think people will believe now. Does not "get" poor people, thinks it is okay (it is legal, but is it right?) that he pays a tax rate of 15% while people struggling to pay for one modest home pay 30%, was a Governor, ran for US Senate, and ran for president before but claims to be markedly different or a political outsider.
7. The guy is stiff. Not quite John McCain physically stiff and actually moving like a robot, but despite his presidential appearance he just doesn't come across like a guy you could sit down and chat with over a beer. Wherever you stand politically, you can not deny that many people think Obama, W., Clinton, George I, Reagan, and even Carter were all brilliant conversationalists or at least had a real charm that comforted people. Romney, on the other hand, is simply looked at as the best chance to beat Obama, out of a field of uncompelling candidates, or the shiniest turd. Would anyone just want to hang out with the guy and pick his brain, unless you enjoy talking about hedge funds or something?
I think there are enough reasons not to look at Mitt Romney as our next best hope to lead the world's lone superpower, without having to actually compare him to a fictionalized robot.
The WSJ is all about business, and caters to big business, so of course they say there is nothing to worry about and we should keep burning fossils fuels like mad. Continue business as usual, so the rich can keep getting richer! Afterall, even if all this "science" baloney turns out to be true, the fat cats will have enough wealth to be able to deal with it. They don't care about Vietnam, Brazil, The Philipines, or isolated islanders now, and they won't have to care about them in the future if those places are ruined for their poor residents, who will continue to be poor and largely irrelevant. It is in the interest of the WSJ to deny the threat of climate change, whether it is real or not.
So we shouldn't worry since all the ice melting at the North Pole or Antarctic ice shelves won't result in a rise in global sea levels? As if that ice can all melt without vast glaciers and ice sheets covering Greenland and other places meeting the same fate? Lots of ice is melting in many places, so although you are correct, your point doesn't matter worth a damn when it comes to fears of sea levels rising.
Okay, maybe it was indeed a "good bit" warmer at various times in the past. And maybe our current warming trend (which some still say doesn't even exist) would happen without us. What is really most concerning to some of us is the rate of climate change. Sure, there have definitely been warmer times, but it looks to us like the planet is warming up at an unprecedented rate, which is much faster than could be accounted for by any similar natural warming trend in the past.
There is more to it than that; we're more socialist, and less warlike.
That's only because you have no money and no aircraft carriers.
My insticnt is to label you a troll and move on. but I love food and find meals with friends and family, and variety in cuisine, to be central to my life, so... Cheddar is certainly a "real" cheese, and is not (or should not be) artificial. Sorry if it doesn't smell like feet. Perhaps if you think American food is nothing but junk you should try visiting and purchasing your food somewhere other than McDonalds or a gas station. The WORLD eats processed food quite often now, not just Americans. At least we drink milk that has to be refrigerated, unlike the Parmalat products so popular in many places. Bah, stereotypes.
If you want to be ignorant, paint everything with a broad brush and call American cuisine all "junk," then English cuisine is nothing but pie & mash, bangers, and fried fish & chips, French is all cheese that smells like feet or else raw or undercooked, Italian is pasta and tomatoes topped with mozzarella, Japanese is sushi or vending machine fare, Indian gives you painful diarrhea, Mexican is cheap meat, refried beans and various chili peppers, Canada has bacon bacon eh, Thai=ginger, the Irish subsist on nothing but potatoes, cabbage and stout, it is amazing that Scotland has is inhabited since they have no food other than haggis, Aussies won't eat it if wasn't cooked on the barbie, Ethiopians don't have a delicious cuisine of their own because they have no food, Chinese means egg rolls and fried rice, and everyone in the Middle East eats falafel or camel daily. And that is leaving out crap like Marmite, Nutella, and any local delicacies that churn stomachs everywhere else. Ridiculous, no?
I take pity on you if you have not had the chance to sample Carolina BBQ (or Kansas City BBQ!), a good, thick, fresh hamburger, a nice New York strip steak with a hot baked potato, a fresh Maine lobster, or New England clam chowder made and served right next to a marina. We have a lot more than McDonald's or twinkies, including more fresh veggies (often local, when in season - I grow my own) than you can even imagine.
No one goes out for American food? Really? In the USA we do. Maybe we don't say "American," but that's just because American food is so varied but widely eaten by Americans, so we say "steak," "a burger" or mention a specific reataurant by name. I think American cuisine includes burgers (now a worldwide phenomenon) , hotdogs, BBQ, steaks, any other sort of grilled meat (pork chops), all sorts of seafood (especially in coastal areas), salads that always include cheese and tomatoes, and even pizza (since anyone who is Italian or has been to Italy for 3 days is all too happy to tell you that American pizza is not "real" pizza). And that's just dinner, and without going into other distinctively American adaptions of other cuisine, like Tex-Mex, Cajun, Creole and Soul food. Americans eat breakfast like no one else, as you have seen if you've ever been to Denny's or IHOP on a Sunday, which contrasts drastically with what you've seen if you've stayed at non-American hotels in Europe or Asia.
I'd say American cuisine is pretty well developed and loved, considering the country hasn't existed for 250 years. Sorry we don't have enough of a history as a culture to have invented everything that had already been done! Unfortunately my understanding of Canadian cuisine is simply that it is like American but without seasoning (everything is so bland!), minus any Mexican influence and with more of a French influence in the East.
This is why we have zoning - to protect residential neighborhoods. It makes absolutely no difference whether a commercial or industrial building looks like a "mansion," it should not be allowed in a residential zone, period. Electricity usage, the necessary data lines, traffic and parking are all legitimate considerations.
I hear she really earned it, and don't tell me you wouldn't want to find out if the name fits!
How can you not support AMERICA!!!!
I just want the damn flying car and the robot butler I was supposed to get before the year 2000.
The last time someone tried to break up the Union, there was a bloody war. I would not be okay with California simply leaving! That is, unless I get 20 acres of prime land in Napa. Or near San Luis Obispo, I'm not picky!
If you substitute the term "life" for something like "Earth-like life," all of the quibbling goes away. There absolutely, certainly could somewhere be life that is not at all like the life we know of on Earth, but we have no idea what that would look like or how to detect it for the first time, so it makes no sense to look for it right now. We know what life on Earth looks like, and how to recognize it (or the conditions that it requires and in which it is found everywhere on Earth), so it doesn't make sense, at this moment, to look for anything else, or not to look for conditions that favor Earth-like life. Hopefully someday we'll be cognizant of non carbon-based life forms, or life that does not rely on water (or watery conditions that for whatever reason do not support life), but for now they're doing things right and acting prudently rather than wasting precious resources on wild goose chases.
Of course you don't have any evidence. It's funny how conspiracy-theorists are just as faith-based as any religion.
Right, because corporate espionage among multi billion dollar corporations, government corruption, greed, and the existence of the CIA, the Mossad, the KGB, and terrorist groups are all just figments of our over-active imaginations. I suggest that most mishaps are not a result of wide-ranging conspiracies (government-perpetrated or otherwise), but such conspiracies do pop up on occasion. And you have to consider that the most successful conspiracies are the few that are never uncovered as such. So don't take anyone who ever cries conspiracy and automatically lump them together with steadfast creationists who ignore huge bodies of evidence.
We've still got PLENTY of reasons to bash Apple. Don't hold your breath, this was not our hoax.
Haha, Apple, RIM, Nokia, Slashdot, and others got Punk'd.
Not really. The majority of people (in the US, Canada, and all of Europe, at least) do leave in a metropolitan area. Maybe it isn't a huge majority (I don't know), but not as many people live in Wyoming, North Dakota, or BFE New Mexico as live along the eastern seaboard, in California, or within less than an hour drive from a major city. Population is centered around cities - not everyone lives there, but it is statistically correct to say that modern Western society is not rural as a majority. So it follows that 20-somethings do generally live in metropolitan areas. But of course that does not diminish the importance of rural communities and people who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, or their desire for faster internet connections. Hell, if you compare our average bandwidth here to what folks in Japan and South Korea, it is obvious that we are doing something wrong, in both rural and urban/suburban areas.
Um, yeah... shouldn't they have tested for the effects of any potentially dangerous radiation BEFORE implementing the technology now in question? Or am I being Anti-American for even questioning the necessary and prudent security practices of our great nation, affording comfort to terrorists? Screw science, we need to search more kids and grandmas. For AMERICA!
So the best way to Windows is to use a very old version, and linux. I love it!
It would be shot down by communist China, not lobbyists.
Yes, sort of sometimes. But that is a little bit difficult and expensive if your salt water is in Ohio.
While it is FAR from settled that fracking "only affects an area within a few hundred feet of the well" (I seriously doubt it) I do thank you for pointing out the distinction between disposal wells and fracking. There is fracking going on in NE Ohio in the Youngstown area, but the main well in question was a brine disposal well, not an attempt to extract oil.