It's been a few years since I tried T-Mob, so although my experience wasnt good I will say good luck and mean it.
Personally I went to Sprint. The prices arent the lowest but I get good coverage and true unlimited - no throttling. They do 'offer' a monthly fee based tethering plan for those that dont know how to root their phones, but I just rooted the phone and installed tethering for free, they know, they dont care.
Don't cripple these poor folks by teaching them some deviant flavour that does everything differently. Give them real linux - slackware linux - so they can learn linux - not your pet distro - please.
Every individual response to a drug is individual, yes, so it's entirely possible that for you personally there is a benefit. But for the larger population - not so much. The typical Vyanse patient (according to a doctor friend who was ranting about this subject recently) is an adderall patient who was happy with adderall until it got too hard to find. For those patients, Vyanse adds absolutely nothing.
Perhaps my language could have been slightly less strenuous, but I have no doubt the basic gist of it is correct. At least for most patients, there is no advantage other than availability in the more expensive, still patented drug.
Vyvanse offers nothing over adderall to the patient. It has the same affects, good and bad, and is prescribed for the same symptoms. The only difference is that it has a slightly different formula which gives a new patent and results in much higher prices for the drug company.
In addition, Hamas (a terrorist organization) won an election in Palestine.
Hamas, like the Mullahs, must pray everyday in thanks for the inept moves of the US and Israel that keep bolstering their popularity. I am not asking you to like them, just to manage to think through the reality of the system in terms more complicated than those of a comic-book morality tale.
Furthermore, Muslim Brotherhood won majority of seats in the Egyptian parliament.
And the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to terrorism how, exactly? Are you just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick?
A few years ago when the Irish were still blowing each other up over religion one might have made a similar statements about Catholics and Protestants, or religious people in general. Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them. Only when the underlying reasons for the violence are addressed does it tend to get better - quite independent of the rise or fall of religion.
FFS quit coming back here and telling me I'm wrong open up Black's Law and read it yourself.
Nonetheless "An individual is "under arrest" when a reasonable person in the subject's shoes would feel like they were not free to leave under the circumstances." this is good precedent and reflects a court unwilling to let a simple word game convert a prohibited action into an immunised one.
The Constitutional prohibition clearly did not intend to split that hair and make it legal to do all the things it makes it illegal to do by 'arrest' through the simple semantic expedient of 'detaining' instead. If you think I ever said that go back and reread cause I didnt. The clear intent was to immunise CongressCritters in their travels, and the idea that the more limited power of detention could be used to pierce that immunity when the stronger power of arrest cannot is farcical on its face.
In fact, these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world, and both Kaczynski and McVeigh were seen by some in the western world as somewhat sympathetic in either philosophy or grievances, if still utterly irredeemable in their tactics - which is how large parts of the muslim world seem to view AQ. So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum a more accurate appraisal would seem to be that they are, indeed, somewhat comparable.
Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me, and I would characterise it as hate speech. I do still defend your right to say it, along with my right to condemn it. But it's exactly the sort of thing that a person really should be shamed for even thinking let alone speaking in public. That's the sort of thinking that makes Hell on Earth.
Legally there is a difference. Arrest is a subset of detention. Any time you are under arrest you are being detained - however it is possible and sometimes to permissable to detain without arresting.
To arrest someone is to detain them specifically to answer for a crime or charge.
A Terry stop, or questioning a non-suspect witness of a crime, are examples of lawful detention without arrest. In the second case the citizen is not a suspect, simply a witness, but nonetheless is subject to detention insofar as it is necessary to obtain that testimony. In the first, even if pulled for a traffic infraction, there is no authorisation to arrest for a simple infraction. The detention is for a short time and ends when the ticket is served.
His position is emotively pro-life, but still against any federal interference. Left at a state level, even if a few states pass stupid laws, others will not, and damage is limited. So he's vastly preferable to any "mainstream" pro-life candidate that is happy to ignore the constitution and try to legislate morality on the federal level.
So yes, keeping in mind that no one is perfect, and that these two want to end all the racist wars both overseas and at home, repeal PATRIOT act and restore the 4th amendment (and all the others too) - they can have that relatively small imperfection and still be sincere and even exemplary civil-libertarians.
I am glad you decided to rephrase because the first version was offensive and valueless.
The second is more nuanced and thus offers value without being offensive. It is a huge improvement. However I still think it is a mistaken impression. I cannot think of a single issue where they actually advocate the kind of impractical idealism you impute to them - quite to the contrary in fact.
As to the screenings for congresscritters, this is one of the areas I have been watching carefully since the TSA started, knowing it is one of the likely trouble areas. In theory, the constitutional immunity of a congresscritter doesnt permit them to be treated like this. The TSA also, in theory, manages to be exempt from all civil liberties protections based on its hybrid government/private nature allowing it to escape the rules it would be under were it one or the other (much like the "Federal" Reserve,) but I dont think that has seen its final challenge in court yet.
In theory, courts rule on the facts of the case regardless of the identity of the parties, but in practice, they are much more likely to have the stones to tell one part of the government what it is doing is illegal if the opposing party is another part of the government, rather than a private person or civil liberties group. So the ideal situation for all of us is for someone like Rand to be the test case.
Keep spinning, keep spinning. This isnt detainment in the same sense that bombing the crap out of Libya didnt constitute 'hostilities' and it all depends on what the meaning of is is right?
This is great, the TSA just detained a sitting US Senator in direct violation of the US Constitution. I've been wondering if they would do it. They have humiliated and made examples of other critics, and he is surely near the top of that list. But would they really feel secure enough in their own above the law status to flaunt it so brazenly? I wasnt sure they would, but now we see.
As a pro-choice libertarian I definitely understand where you are coming from, but the implication of racism is unfair and untrue. Like it or not a huge portion of the population of this country believes in logical contradictions such as 'undead corpse' and 'unborn child' and if you believe there is such a thing as an undead corpse it is obvious such things need to be destroyed, just as if you believe in such a thing as an unborn child it becomes obvious that such things need to be protected.
In reality they are both far too committed to the Constitution to even attempt to outlaw abortion on the federal level, and 'pro-life' label stuck on them doesnt matter, they will still coalition with pro-choice to prevent federal interference if it comes to that. And they are currently serving in/running for Federal office, not State.
I would definitely find it harder to vote for either one at the state level, but despite the fundamental disagreement we have on that one issue, it's not a practical problem as long as it's a federal office. And I would certainly rather see one or two states try to outlaw abortion again (and demonstrate for the others why not to follow that example) than to risk seeing it criminalised federally.
The fact is that censorship requires government force to accomplish. This case is clearly censorship, and clearly does not contradict that general rule - the big corporations involved may be pseudo-private but they are working hand-in-claw with government power here, and would not be able to perform this censorship without their aid.
The indictment appears to be the product of someone with a rich fantasy life.
In reality, I rather suspect the move is really a reaction to MegaUploads current lawsuit against Universal. That suit was shaping up to be quite damaging to Universal, but now with MegaUploads assets seized, they are no longer in a position to pursue it. How convenient.
the short answer is that it's a file hash, meaning there's no centralized server; just a description of the file that can be downloaded automatically from various decentralized file sharing networks.
Oversubscription is likely to kill performance even before you hit your cap as well. One of their satellites can service roughly 6k subscribers simultaneously at advertised rates. They are talking in the neighborhood of a million subscribers.
No, I meant ketchup. You may be a little too young to remember the issue, but I chose my words carefully. And you are correct - ketchup is not a vegetable, and no amount of partisan political sleight-of-hand was able to make it a vegetable.
The theme in the article does, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, go back and forth just as the OP you were replying to said it does - talking about 'pollution' and then changing the subject completely to talk about CO2, then talking about pollution again, as if the author were under the influence of some bad drugs or something. CO2 is a natural, non-poisonous component of the atmosphere, it is not pollution. CO, on the other hand, is a genuine pollutant (and there is a very long list of other substances in that category) - yet no information is to be found in the article in relation to CO or any other pollutant.
I know the standards for 'popular' science articles are ridiculously low but this is even worse than expected. It's nothing but political propaganda dressed up (badly) as science.
No, it's actual air pollution. You know, that means elements that are NOT natural parts of the atmosphere. Things like CFCs, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and industrial particulates. Those things are pollution.
CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. It may well be harmful in large enough quantities, but that doesnt make it pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been a few years since I tried T-Mob, so although my experience wasnt good I will say good luck and mean it.
Personally I went to Sprint. The prices arent the lowest but I get good coverage and true unlimited - no throttling. They do 'offer' a monthly fee based tethering plan for those that dont know how to root their phones, but I just rooted the phone and installed tethering for free, they know, they dont care.
LFS is more work and easy to screw up.
Don't cripple these poor folks by teaching them some deviant flavour that does everything differently. Give them real linux - slackware linux - so they can learn linux - not your pet distro - please.
Every individual response to a drug is individual, yes, so it's entirely possible that for you personally there is a benefit. But for the larger population - not so much. The typical Vyanse patient (according to a doctor friend who was ranting about this subject recently) is an adderall patient who was happy with adderall until it got too hard to find. For those patients, Vyanse adds absolutely nothing. Perhaps my language could have been slightly less strenuous, but I have no doubt the basic gist of it is correct. At least for most patients, there is no advantage other than availability in the more expensive, still patented drug.
Vyvanse offers nothing over adderall to the patient. It has the same affects, good and bad, and is prescribed for the same symptoms. The only difference is that it has a slightly different formula which gives a new patent and results in much higher prices for the drug company.
I dont today but the fine gentleman above deserves a +5 insightful.
It's really not.
Hamas, like the Mullahs, must pray everyday in thanks for the inept moves of the US and Israel that keep bolstering their popularity. I am not asking you to like them, just to manage to think through the reality of the system in terms more complicated than those of a comic-book morality tale.
And the Muslim Brotherhood is linked to terrorism how, exactly? Are you just throwing everything at the wall hoping something will stick?
A few years ago when the Irish were still blowing each other up over religion one might have made a similar statements about Catholics and Protestants, or religious people in general. Religion can complicate violent struggles, but it doesnt actually tend to cause them. Only when the underlying reasons for the violence are addressed does it tend to get better - quite independent of the rise or fall of religion.
FFS quit coming back here and telling me I'm wrong open up Black's Law and read it yourself.
Nonetheless "An individual is "under arrest" when a reasonable person in the subject's shoes would feel like they were not free to leave under the circumstances." this is good precedent and reflects a court unwilling to let a simple word game convert a prohibited action into an immunised one.
The Constitutional prohibition clearly did not intend to split that hair and make it legal to do all the things it makes it illegal to do by 'arrest' through the simple semantic expedient of 'detaining' instead. If you think I ever said that go back and reread cause I didnt. The clear intent was to immunise CongressCritters in their travels, and the idea that the more limited power of detention could be used to pierce that immunity when the stronger power of arrest cannot is farcical on its face.
Contrary to what you may have heard, the "Federal" Reserve is not one of the Branches of Government.
In fact, these people actions were and are roundly condemned by the bulk of the muslim world, and both Kaczynski and McVeigh were seen by some in the western world as somewhat sympathetic in either philosophy or grievances, if still utterly irredeemable in their tactics - which is how large parts of the muslim world seem to view AQ. So where you want to paint two situations on opposite ends of the spectrum a more accurate appraisal would seem to be that they are, indeed, somewhat comparable.
Referring to other human beings as 'flies' who must be swatted is offensive to me, and I would characterise it as hate speech. I do still defend your right to say it, along with my right to condemn it. But it's exactly the sort of thing that a person really should be shamed for even thinking let alone speaking in public. That's the sort of thinking that makes Hell on Earth.
Legally there is a difference. Arrest is a subset of detention. Any time you are under arrest you are being detained - however it is possible and sometimes to permissable to detain without arresting.
To arrest someone is to detain them specifically to answer for a crime or charge.
A Terry stop, or questioning a non-suspect witness of a crime, are examples of lawful detention without arrest. In the second case the citizen is not a suspect, simply a witness, but nonetheless is subject to detention insofar as it is necessary to obtain that testimony. In the first, even if pulled for a traffic infraction, there is no authorisation to arrest for a simple infraction. The detention is for a short time and ends when the ticket is served.
His position is emotively pro-life, but still against any federal interference. Left at a state level, even if a few states pass stupid laws, others will not, and damage is limited. So he's vastly preferable to any "mainstream" pro-life candidate that is happy to ignore the constitution and try to legislate morality on the federal level. So yes, keeping in mind that no one is perfect, and that these two want to end all the racist wars both overseas and at home, repeal PATRIOT act and restore the 4th amendment (and all the others too) - they can have that relatively small imperfection and still be sincere and even exemplary civil-libertarians.
You made a slight mistake. The traffic stop is not an arrest. It is, however, a detention.
I am glad you decided to rephrase because the first version was offensive and valueless.
The second is more nuanced and thus offers value without being offensive. It is a huge improvement. However I still think it is a mistaken impression. I cannot think of a single issue where they actually advocate the kind of impractical idealism you impute to them - quite to the contrary in fact.
As to the screenings for congresscritters, this is one of the areas I have been watching carefully since the TSA started, knowing it is one of the likely trouble areas. In theory, the constitutional immunity of a congresscritter doesnt permit them to be treated like this. The TSA also, in theory, manages to be exempt from all civil liberties protections based on its hybrid government/private nature allowing it to escape the rules it would be under were it one or the other (much like the "Federal" Reserve,) but I dont think that has seen its final challenge in court yet.
In theory, courts rule on the facts of the case regardless of the identity of the parties, but in practice, they are much more likely to have the stones to tell one part of the government what it is doing is illegal if the opposing party is another part of the government, rather than a private person or civil liberties group. So the ideal situation for all of us is for someone like Rand to be the test case.
Keep spinning, keep spinning. This isnt detainment in the same sense that bombing the crap out of Libya didnt constitute 'hostilities' and it all depends on what the meaning of is is right?
This is great, the TSA just detained a sitting US Senator in direct violation of the US Constitution. I've been wondering if they would do it. They have humiliated and made examples of other critics, and he is surely near the top of that list. But would they really feel secure enough in their own above the law status to flaunt it so brazenly? I wasnt sure they would, but now we see.
They should fry for this.
As a pro-choice libertarian I definitely understand where you are coming from, but the implication of racism is unfair and untrue. Like it or not a huge portion of the population of this country believes in logical contradictions such as 'undead corpse' and 'unborn child' and if you believe there is such a thing as an undead corpse it is obvious such things need to be destroyed, just as if you believe in such a thing as an unborn child it becomes obvious that such things need to be protected.
In reality they are both far too committed to the Constitution to even attempt to outlaw abortion on the federal level, and 'pro-life' label stuck on them doesnt matter, they will still coalition with pro-choice to prevent federal interference if it comes to that. And they are currently serving in/running for Federal office, not State.
I would definitely find it harder to vote for either one at the state level, but despite the fundamental disagreement we have on that one issue, it's not a practical problem as long as it's a federal office. And I would certainly rather see one or two states try to outlaw abortion again (and demonstrate for the others why not to follow that example) than to risk seeing it criminalised federally.
Libertard, eh? Thanks, I guess.
The fact is that censorship requires government force to accomplish. This case is clearly censorship, and clearly does not contradict that general rule - the big corporations involved may be pseudo-private but they are working hand-in-claw with government power here, and would not be able to perform this censorship without their aid.
Right here. The system is so corrupt people dont even get outraged anymore.
The indictment appears to be the product of someone with a rich fantasy life.
In reality, I rather suspect the move is really a reaction to MegaUploads current lawsuit against Universal. That suit was shaping up to be quite damaging to Universal, but now with MegaUploads assets seized, they are no longer in a position to pursue it. How convenient.
You mean they reinvented emule?
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
Bandwidth is capped, and capped hard.
Oversubscription is likely to kill performance even before you hit your cap as well. One of their satellites can service roughly 6k subscribers simultaneously at advertised rates. They are talking in the neighborhood of a million subscribers.
No, I meant ketchup. You may be a little too young to remember the issue, but I chose my words carefully. And you are correct - ketchup is not a vegetable, and no amount of partisan political sleight-of-hand was able to make it a vegetable.
The theme in the article does, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, go back and forth just as the OP you were replying to said it does - talking about 'pollution' and then changing the subject completely to talk about CO2, then talking about pollution again, as if the author were under the influence of some bad drugs or something. CO2 is a natural, non-poisonous component of the atmosphere, it is not pollution. CO, on the other hand, is a genuine pollutant (and there is a very long list of other substances in that category) - yet no information is to be found in the article in relation to CO or any other pollutant.
I know the standards for 'popular' science articles are ridiculously low but this is even worse than expected. It's nothing but political propaganda dressed up (badly) as science.
Some people consider ketchup a vegetable too, but it doesnt make it so.
No, it's actual air pollution. You know, that means elements that are NOT natural parts of the atmosphere. Things like CFCs, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and industrial particulates. Those things are pollution.
CO2 is a natural component of the atmosphere. It may well be harmful in large enough quantities, but that doesnt make it pollution.