Yes - Fox did everything they could to sabotage the show, including but not limited to musical timeslots. airing shows out of order, placing it in timeslots where it would be preempted by sports or political speeches, and so on. They went out of their way to kill the show, justifying their cancelling it due to low ratings which were due in large part to the musical timeslots and preempting and delaying of broadcast, and yet it STILL became an astounding success upon DVD release and reruns on cable networks have been strong as well. So yes, it enjoys a cult following.
I'd like to see "No Ordinary Family" and "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" be continued as well. Also, Firefly, I would second, providing the writers pretend "Serenity" never happened (It was a really shitty ending and we never did learn much about Shepherd's backstory and why at times he enjoyed a VIP get out of jail free card) and just pick up where the series originally left off.
Re:Unfortunate
on
Occupy Flash?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Really? What is OWS's stated goal? To be a nuisance? To institution a communist system like the Soviets had, where you get paid even if you don't show up to work, can't get fired, but also no one (except elitist tyrants) can afford anything, and there is nothing in the stores to buy anyhow?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances with capitalism where a combination of work, ingenuity and luck can result in accumulation of wealth.
3) Substantially better System Requirements compared to Minecraft (Minecraft has to use fog to prevent rendering too many cubes whereas Minetest can render all cubes in line of site above 30fps when taking a birds eye view of the map http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=40468. Also it can run on ancient P4 era hardware whereas Minecraft is completely unplayable).
Good point there; I have a Quadro card (FX-2700M) and it struggles to display Minecraft with the Dell-supplied drivers. If I use current or beta NVIDIA-supplied drivers the game displays fine, but then I lose DisplayPort/HDMI audio in the process. So, if I use DisplayPort, I need to juggle drivers.:-(
Or, go to your account options, go to the Discussions "tab" and for "Retrieve [ ] Messages" option select "Many" then it will retrieve all of them providing you are logged in.
I plan on developing Minecraft until it's a finished complete game, with a downloadable client (with fullscreen mode), custom key re mappings and possibly modding support.
For as long as people enjoy and purchase the game, I will develop extensions after the game is done.
Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source. I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL, nor do I believe the other licenses have much merit other than to boost the egos of the original authors, so I might just possibly release it all as public domain.
Whether or not Notch follows through with releasing it under an open source license remains to be seen, but even if he doesn't the game is a good buy.:)
It's kind of sad that you so much bad things to say about Linux,
Oh, there is plenty good to say about Linux - stability, uptime, etc. on the server side, and functionality in KDE makes for an unmatched powerhouse of a desktop for development and sysadmin, without being difficult for novices to learn. When you have stable packages performance and responsiveness are incredible, with the system being completely absent of windows/registry rot and other Windows baggage to slow the whole environment down - and remote access? For all of its drawbacks, the X protocol is unmatched for its flexibility. Whether you want to access a full desktop environment or just shoot an app screen over to a remote desktop, it is amazingly capable..
But, this article is not about the benefits of Linux. There are some severe drawbacks to Linux, which are major advantages of Windows, and that is what this discussion is about; hence, my mentioning of Linux failures without mentioning the positive aspects.
I've been running Linux off and on ever since it was installed from seven floppy disks. For production servers at my own office I try to avoid running Windows at all cost but for workstations I am back to Windows. I ran Linux exclusively for almost ten years on workstations but what brought me back to Windows was hardware support, plus the constant pain of dependency hell that comes with every distribution, plus the disappearance/abandonment of some of the best OSS GUI options out there (Compiz-Fusion+Emerald), plus some of the apps I run are Windows-only.
Hardware support:
Camera support on Linux still lags. When I bought a newly-released DSLR, I had to go back to Windows because it was unsupported by Linux, and the software which shipped with the Canon supported it of course, but DPP doesn't run under WINE, nor does the Canon EOS utility, Plus, I run LightRoom and Adobe CS - the latter will run under wine with some pain, but the former will not run with full functionality. I could use the Linux suites but they suck by comparison, and Photoshop and Inkscape suck in comparison to the Adobe counterparts, with a ton of functionality missing. Don't get me wrong, I like Gimp a lot, but with pspi being largely abandoned, leaving me unable to run my Photoshop plugins in Gimp 2.7+, I'd have to stick with Gimp 2.6.x until the end of time. No thanks.
Embroidery machine: I have an embroidery machine, and it is supported ONLY on Windows. Third-party embroidery design software I run is Windows-only. Neither runs under Wine nor Crossover at all.
WiFi: I have a wifi card that is Linux-compatible (I swapped out the mini-PCI card with an Intel 5300 card to make the process easier) but even though it is compatible, unless I want to go through the command line or any given distro's system utilities to configure it, it's more painful than Windows, and network manager is still very unstable even after years of development.
I'd like to go back to Linux, but I just don't see it happening any time soon, given the ongoing lack of hardware support - or lagging hardware support at minimum.
Now, for the bigger picture: why is Linux adoption lacking, aside from esoteric/exotic hardware support? Perception, support, and licensing. I'll address licensing first.
Licensing: vendors are afraid to support Linux. How can they release Linux drivers when GPL taints everything, or unless they want to implement hacks like open sourcing their kernel modules and talking to the drivers over tcp/ip through localhost, introducing lag? Also, for PC vendors who want to ship complete systems, what happens when the component suppliers ship proprietary drivers (such as NVIDIA)? Can they legally ship machines with NVIDIA drivers preinstalled? Can they legally take the wifi firmware from the Windows drivers and install them in Linux with the NDIS wrapper? Whether you want to admit it or not, GPL taints everything in reality if only through perceptioni, even if it would be legally in the clear.
Support costs Do they want to take on the cost of supporting the user in their attempt to get the oft-extremely-broken network manager working in the user's distro of choice? Who owns support for distro upgrades; the PC vendor or the distro vendor? Do they really want to walk the user through rebuilding the NVIDIA driver every time the distro updates patch X.org, or worse, walk the user through downloading the latest beta driver from NVIDIA's web site using Lynx/Links? Also, what do you do when a needed project is abandoned, or dealing with project developers or maintainers who are elitist bastards who tell you after you ask about documentation "it's open source, document it yourself" or when you report a bug or make an architectural suggestion "It's open source, fix it yourself" or asking how to do something they tell you "RTFM" (when there is no FM to R)? The year of the Linux desktop will not ever arrive as long as developers keep their cavalier or ego-maniacal attitudes.
Oracle has been messing up everything else they have acquired that they haven't had time to get around to Virtualbox yet. Don't worry, they'll eventually get around to it - they are fucking up the products in the order of most users to fewest users.;)
The compressor in some hybrids is electrically-driven so you don't need the engine full time, although it does run more often. However, a pure electric vehicle is pointless until they resolve practicality issues. I'd love to see how the highest-end Tesla holds up in AZ when you need the AC pretty much year round, and how it holds up in the north when you hit subzero temps, sometimes for a week or two straight, requiring heat full blast full time.
I have a better idea for recharging for people who need to drive more than 60 miles with heat, AC, headlights, lights, and so on: how about implementing an electric car which is capable of converting chemicals with a very high energy density into heat energy, which can be harnessed as mechanical energy to turn a generator which could be used to recharge the battery, and perhaps even transmit power directly to the wheels in tandem with the electric motors on demand when more power is required? Ideally, such a system would be able to create the required heat from a number of different chemical compounds, ranging from hydrogen to LNG, from propane to diesel, kerosene, or gasoline. I guess we shall forever be stuck with impractical battery-powered vehicles which drop stone cold dead somewhere between 60 and 230 miles, and never attain a practical-yet-economical long-distance driving range.
If only there were a practical solution which already exists today. One can dream, though. One can dream.;)
In all seriousness, right now hybrids are practical. Small turbocharged engines are practical. Hybrids with flex fuel capability are practical. Those all give you what is practically unlimited range, good economy, and if you do happen to pull a boneheaded move and run out of energy, you can get a couple gallons (or small compressed tank) of fuel and be on your way, without having to wait hours for a recharge (or "only" 1-2 hours for a high-current rapid charge which accelerates degradation of the cells). The Prius has a great system (in principle), as does the Limited Hybrid, and even the Chevy Volt. You can achieve a practically unlimited range given the existent fuel distribution infrastructure, and not having to wait half a day to recharge the battery every 60-230 miles. I'd love to see someone drive a production car electric car cross-country with the AC running, on a typical vacation schedule. How long would it take to drive to a popular destination like, say, Disney World, or the Grand Canyon from where you live in a hybrid or gasoline/diesel powered car, vs, an electric car (assuming you have recharge stations on the way)? Driving the speed limit, hitting traffic jams, etc. on the way, I can get to Orlando in 22 hours. Via electric car, it would require six recharges (that is being optimistic on the range - more likely 12 with A/C, radio, etc. running). So, 22 hours of driving plus (6*48) to (12*48) hours for recharge cycles., That's longer than most people get for vacation. Or, if you want to drastically reduce the lifetime of your battery packs and you happen to find rapid charge stations along the way, you're still charging at a 56mi/hr rate (Tesla's best-case rating), which would put you at just under two hours to make it the next 224 miles (assuming you would actually achieve that range in traffic with the AC or heat going, wipers, headlamps, etc). - contrast that to refilling a fuel tank, which normally takes under five minutes. Ten if you have a really slow pump, and you have to also answer a nature call and then buy a snack in the store, etc.
From the wikipedia article:
Charging times vary depending on the ESS's state-of-charge, the available voltage, and the available circuit breaker amp rating (current). In a best case scenario using a 240V charger on a 90A circuit breaker, Tesla documents a recharging rate of 56 miles (90 km)-of-range for each hour charging; a complete recharge from empty would require just under 4 hours. The slowest charging rate using a 120V outlet on a 15A circuit breaker would add 5 miles (8.0 km)-of-range for each hour charging; a complete recharge from empty would require 48 hours.
Okay, so the amendment ought to be added to the Constitution to allow the murder of an unborn baby, overriding anti-murder laws. I see no problem there. Good luck getting it passed though. But if you do, I'm sure Ron Paul would enforce the law as it is written.:)
that prayer in public schools should be legal
Note there is a distinction between prayer being legal, and prayer being required. Per the first amendment, student-initiated prayer is always, always legal in school. Staff/faculty-initiated prayer and religious events though, may not be, especially if it is compulsory for students to attend.
and flag desecration should be illegal
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't but it's not outlawed by the Constitution, so if he says it should be illegal as the law stands now, I would say he is incorrect on that point, and if he feels strongly about it, he should getting Congress to pass an amendment banning flag desecration. So you are right on that point, but honestly that is really picking a tiny nit in the scheme of things in a world where we are engaged in illegal wars, illegal searches of US citizens, illegal harassment of protestors, illegal taxation, wasting of taxpayer funds on foreign aid, questionable subsidies for agriculture, banking, and pharmaceutical industries, and on and on.
Or, you know, his direct opposition to net neutrality.
Where does the Constitution give authorization for the government to enforce net neutrality? I suppose this is one area where the Commerce clause of the Constitution would apply, but that is iffy at best. Again, such modernization would require an amendment to the Constitution to legally achieve.
And, what is wrong with sticking to laws? We have become a lawless nation with our politicians operating by the seat of the pants, ignoring the law on whim, and relying on layer upon layer of "case law" (basically, eloquent hand-waving in court) to justify their claims. It's all bullshit and needs to be swept away with, because it has led us to bankruptcy as a nation.
"Excuse me. Mr. Romney, but with all of that bullshit that just spewed out of your mouth I fail to recognize even a smidgen of an answer to the question. Could you please answer the question now, minus any bullshit?"
Because the constitution is a living document and changes with the ages, I think is the standard answer.
It's a bullshit answer designed for skirting the Constitution, when there is already a mechanism which allows for changing with the times as needed:
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
And furthermore, that the US Constitution is itself a flawed document, containing provisions which are no longer supportable or even ethical in the modern age (most notably, the three-fifths of a man compromise).
Nice straw man, but that was addressed when slavery was abolished using lawful means, i.e., a constitutional amendment. Let's see, shall we?
Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Um, comparing a third-party firmware for the original Nook with the stock features of this new one isn't valid.
In the case of an Android-compatible tablet, it is valid. I want one of the new tablets. I don't want it for the sake of the OEM build. I want it for the sake of alternate Android builds, and if I can just so happen to access the Amazon store and content (such as Prime, books, etc.) then so much the better. What I really want to be honest, is an iPad + a flash player, but an Android tablet would be the next best thing.
In all fairness, that's because he is radical and crazy.
If by "radical and crazy" you mean believing the Constitution means what it says and restricting government's role to that which is proscribed by the Constitutional, then you're right.
But then, when you live in an insane world and you yourself are sane, it means you are insane, if the working (as opposed to dictionary) definition "sane" is "the status quo"
. . . when his only fault is believing the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. He is the only candidate so far who considers our legal framework to be more valuable than toilet paper.
Why do you disagree with Ron Paul's approach of restricting government's role to what is proscribed by our legal framework (the Constitution), and why do you insist on violating the Constitution when a remedy exists in the form of constitutional amendments?
Isn't that the point of the aircraft?
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
Still, Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month the U.S. may not be able to afford three variants, for the Air Force, Navy aircraft carriers, and the Marine Corps.
Um, wasn't the whole point of cancelling F-22 orders in favor of the F-35? I.e., going with the cheaper F-35 (with reduced capabilities) so that the same basic airframe could be tailored to a specific variant for specific branch requirements, The F-35 was a budget-cutting decision, because it trades off performance as an interceptor or bomber to be a jack of all trades. Killing the F-22 in favor of the more capable F-35 was strategically a boneheaded move, and killing both off is the epitome of stupidity.
Want to balance the budget? It's more simple than the Obama administration (and Congress) are making it: let's stop being the world's policeman, and only get involved if treaties with allies requires us to by law. Reverse the war powers act and enforce the Constitution, giving sole responsibility of the declaration of war (or equivalent) to Congress alone, which is the way it is supposed to be in the first place. Don't cut off investment in defense; cut off wasting money on fighting everyone else's battles. Stop giving hundreds of billions of dollars (which we have to borrow) in foreign aid to other nations. Stop bailing out irresponsible banks, carmakers, "green" power manufacturers, and so on.
Fix welfare; and by "fix" I mean "nuke from orbit" and start over from scratch. Welfare is hopelessly broken, because it is no longer the temporary assistance program it was intended to be but has become a system which ensures people remain a slave to it. I know multiple people who are struggling financially and are receiving assistance, want to get off it but because their industries are dead, or are unable to perform their old jobs, have sought alternate work, but taking a lower-paying job as a temporary stepping stone results in losing all assistance, including food stamps, which leaves them in a worse predicament than they started out in. How would I fix it? I would make it temporary, and I would make it kick in before people lose everything and reach the point where they become entrapped by the system.
Fix illegal invasion of our borders by kicking illegal aliens out, starting with Obama's relatives: Meanwhile, illegal aliens who invade our borders openly flaunt paid-for-by-us housing, tuition, food, clothing, health care, and even cars in some cases, as they work under the table and not pay so much as a dime into the system).
Fix health care: by "fix" I mean nuke RomneyCare (and its demon spawn ObamaCare) from orbit, and focus on the following: regulate the pharmaceutical companies (as in pricing) for any companies which receive any form of subsidy or grant, I would introduce tort reform, and also heavily regulate the insurance companies, to make sure they cover what they say they will cover, provide preventive care instead of engaging in HMO-like "do nothing until it's too late" practices. Tort reform would significantly lower malpractice insurance, and regulating the pharmaceutical companies (and yanking ALL federal and state funding for pharmaceutical companies in violation of regulations AND slapping HEAVY fines upon them) that violate pricing policies. I'm all for charging a profitable fee for drugs, but not when the R&D and even advertising for them is heavily subsidized, and you charge >10x more for the drug domestically than you do overseas.
Taxes: eliminate the tax system as it currently exists; property taxes have pretty much eliminated private ownership of property, sales and excise and inventory taxes place an undue burden on businesses and increase prices for consumers, and death/inheritance taxes are unethical at best because they are taxing money which has already been taxed (which is what excise taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth do as well). I'd implement a flat tax
The problem is not the curriculum, but the realization that engineering and science requires a mountain of work up front for a rapidly diminishing after graduation. Why put in all that time and effort if one can make several times more money doing less up-front work (indeed, less work overall) as an MBA or attorney? Engineering and sciences have been under-valued in the USA for ages, and with all of the good manufacturing jobs shipped overseas, and engineering jobs following suit, and science having been under-appreciated since at least the late 1960s (before most of us were born) what the hell is the point of making the huge investment in time, money, and hard work studying for a field where one's livelihood is questionable?
Sure, I know some of you idealists will say "Well, you do it for the love of the job" but you're wrong. You work to pay your mortgage, for your cars, your XBox Live subscription, and if you're married, to support your family. You don't work for the love of it, and if you say you do, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Some of us try to, but when the price of an item in a local shop is 3x what it is online, or when the selection at local stores sucks, or if you simply can't find the item locally, what do you do?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes - Fox did everything they could to sabotage the show, including but not limited to musical timeslots. airing shows out of order, placing it in timeslots where it would be preempted by sports or political speeches, and so on. They went out of their way to kill the show, justifying their cancelling it due to low ratings which were due in large part to the musical timeslots and preempting and delaying of broadcast, and yet it STILL became an astounding success upon DVD release and reruns on cable networks have been strong as well. So yes, it enjoys a cult following.
I'd like to see "No Ordinary Family" and "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" be continued as well. Also, Firefly, I would second, providing the writers pretend "Serenity" never happened (It was a really shitty ending and we never did learn much about Shepherd's backstory and why at times he enjoyed a VIP get out of jail free card) and just pick up where the series originally left off.
or very small rocks, or a duck.
Really? What is OWS's stated goal? To be a nuisance? To institution a communist system like the Soviets had, where you get paid even if you don't show up to work, can't get fired, but also no one (except elitist tyrants) can afford anything, and there is nothing in the stores to buy anyhow?
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll take my chances with capitalism where a combination of work, ingenuity and luck can result in accumulation of wealth.
Good point there; I have a Quadro card (FX-2700M) and it struggles to display Minecraft with the Dell-supplied drivers. If I use current or beta NVIDIA-supplied drivers the game displays fine, but then I lose DisplayPort/HDMI audio in the process. So, if I use DisplayPort, I need to juggle drivers. :-(
Or, go to your account options, go to the Discussions "tab" and for "Retrieve [ ] Messages" option select "Many" then it will retrieve all of them providing you are logged in.
Why? Minecraft is great, reasonably priced,cross-platform, and will eventually be open sourced. Check this out:
http://www.minecraft.net/game
Whether or not Notch follows through with releasing it under an open source license remains to be seen, but even if he doesn't the game is a good buy. :)
I guess now we know what mystery meat is. :-)
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with lamb, cow, bison, goat, and other natural meat sources. Animals are tasty! :)
Oh, there is plenty good to say about Linux - stability, uptime, etc. on the server side, and functionality in KDE makes for an unmatched powerhouse of a desktop for development and sysadmin, without being difficult for novices to learn. When you have stable packages performance and responsiveness are incredible, with the system being completely absent of windows/registry rot and other Windows baggage to slow the whole environment down - and remote access? For all of its drawbacks, the X protocol is unmatched for its flexibility. Whether you want to access a full desktop environment or just shoot an app screen over to a remote desktop, it is amazingly capable..
But, this article is not about the benefits of Linux. There are some severe drawbacks to Linux, which are major advantages of Windows, and that is what this discussion is about; hence, my mentioning of Linux failures without mentioning the positive aspects.
I've been running Linux off and on ever since it was installed from seven floppy disks. For production servers at my own office I try to avoid running Windows at all cost but for workstations I am back to Windows. I ran Linux exclusively for almost ten years on workstations but what brought me back to Windows was hardware support, plus the constant pain of dependency hell that comes with every distribution, plus the disappearance/abandonment of some of the best OSS GUI options out there (Compiz-Fusion+Emerald), plus some of the apps I run are Windows-only.
Hardware support:
Camera support on Linux still lags. When I bought a newly-released DSLR, I had to go back to Windows because it was unsupported by Linux, and the software which shipped with the Canon supported it of course, but DPP doesn't run under WINE, nor does the Canon EOS utility, Plus, I run LightRoom and Adobe CS - the latter will run under wine with some pain, but the former will not run with full functionality. I could use the Linux suites but they suck by comparison, and Photoshop and Inkscape suck in comparison to the Adobe counterparts, with a ton of functionality missing. Don't get me wrong, I like Gimp a lot, but with pspi being largely abandoned, leaving me unable to run my Photoshop plugins in Gimp 2.7+, I'd have to stick with Gimp 2.6.x until the end of time. No thanks.
Embroidery machine: I have an embroidery machine, and it is supported ONLY on Windows. Third-party embroidery design software I run is Windows-only. Neither runs under Wine nor Crossover at all.
WiFi: I have a wifi card that is Linux-compatible (I swapped out the mini-PCI card with an Intel 5300 card to make the process easier) but even though it is compatible, unless I want to go through the command line or any given distro's system utilities to configure it, it's more painful than Windows, and network manager is still very unstable even after years of development.
I'd like to go back to Linux, but I just don't see it happening any time soon, given the ongoing lack of hardware support - or lagging hardware support at minimum.
Now, for the bigger picture: why is Linux adoption lacking, aside from esoteric/exotic hardware support? Perception, support, and licensing. I'll address licensing first.
Licensing: vendors are afraid to support Linux. How can they release Linux drivers when GPL taints everything, or unless they want to implement hacks like open sourcing their kernel modules and talking to the drivers over tcp/ip through localhost, introducing lag? Also, for PC vendors who want to ship complete systems, what happens when the component suppliers ship proprietary drivers (such as NVIDIA)? Can they legally ship machines with NVIDIA drivers preinstalled? Can they legally take the wifi firmware from the Windows drivers and install them in Linux with the NDIS wrapper? Whether you want to admit it or not, GPL taints everything in reality if only through perceptioni, even if it would be legally in the clear.
Support costs Do they want to take on the cost of supporting the user in their attempt to get the oft-extremely-broken network manager working in the user's distro of choice? Who owns support for distro upgrades; the PC vendor or the distro vendor? Do they really want to walk the user through rebuilding the NVIDIA driver every time the distro updates patch X.org, or worse, walk the user through downloading the latest beta driver from NVIDIA's web site using Lynx/Links? Also, what do you do when a needed project is abandoned, or dealing with project developers or maintainers who are elitist bastards who tell you after you ask about documentation "it's open source, document it yourself" or when you report a bug or make an architectural suggestion "It's open source, fix it yourself" or asking how to do something they tell you "RTFM" (when there is no FM to R)? The year of the Linux desktop will not ever arrive as long as developers keep their cavalier or ego-maniacal attitudes.
Also, for small bus
No, that would not be "terminated for cause."
Oracle has been messing up everything else they have acquired that they haven't had time to get around to Virtualbox yet. Don't worry, they'll eventually get around to it - they are fucking up the products in the order of most users to fewest users. ;)
The compressor in some hybrids is electrically-driven so you don't need the engine full time, although it does run more often. However, a pure electric vehicle is pointless until they resolve practicality issues. I'd love to see how the highest-end Tesla holds up in AZ when you need the AC pretty much year round, and how it holds up in the north when you hit subzero temps, sometimes for a week or two straight, requiring heat full blast full time.
I have a better idea for recharging for people who need to drive more than 60 miles with heat, AC, headlights, lights, and so on: how about implementing an electric car which is capable of converting chemicals with a very high energy density into heat energy, which can be harnessed as mechanical energy to turn a generator which could be used to recharge the battery, and perhaps even transmit power directly to the wheels in tandem with the electric motors on demand when more power is required? Ideally, such a system would be able to create the required heat from a number of different chemical compounds, ranging from hydrogen to LNG, from propane to diesel, kerosene, or gasoline. I guess we shall forever be stuck with impractical battery-powered vehicles which drop stone cold dead somewhere between 60 and 230 miles, and never attain a practical-yet-economical long-distance driving range.
If only there were a practical solution which already exists today. One can dream, though. One can dream. ;)
In all seriousness, right now hybrids are practical. Small turbocharged engines are practical. Hybrids with flex fuel capability are practical. Those all give you what is practically unlimited range, good economy, and if you do happen to pull a boneheaded move and run out of energy, you can get a couple gallons (or small compressed tank) of fuel and be on your way, without having to wait hours for a recharge (or "only" 1-2 hours for a high-current rapid charge which accelerates degradation of the cells). The Prius has a great system (in principle), as does the Limited Hybrid, and even the Chevy Volt. You can achieve a practically unlimited range given the existent fuel distribution infrastructure, and not having to wait half a day to recharge the battery every 60-230 miles. I'd love to see someone drive a production car electric car cross-country with the AC running, on a typical vacation schedule. How long would it take to drive to a popular destination like, say, Disney World, or the Grand Canyon from where you live in a hybrid or gasoline/diesel powered car, vs, an electric car (assuming you have recharge stations on the way)? Driving the speed limit, hitting traffic jams, etc. on the way, I can get to Orlando in 22 hours. Via electric car, it would require six recharges (that is being optimistic on the range - more likely 12 with A/C, radio, etc. running). So, 22 hours of driving plus (6*48) to (12*48) hours for recharge cycles., That's longer than most people get for vacation. Or, if you want to drastically reduce the lifetime of your battery packs and you happen to find rapid charge stations along the way, you're still charging at a 56mi/hr rate (Tesla's best-case rating), which would put you at just under two hours to make it the next 224 miles (assuming you would actually achieve that range in traffic with the AC or heat going, wipers, headlamps, etc). - contrast that to refilling a fuel tank, which normally takes under five minutes. Ten if you have a really slow pump, and you have to also answer a nature call and then buy a snack in the store, etc.
From the wikipedia article:
Again, there is a mechanism for fixing what is broken: pass and ratify a Constitutional Amendment. It really is that easy!
Okay, so the amendment ought to be added to the Constitution to allow the murder of an unborn baby, overriding anti-murder laws. I see no problem there. Good luck getting it passed though. But if you do, I'm sure Ron Paul would enforce the law as it is written. :)
Note there is a distinction between prayer being legal, and prayer being required. Per the first amendment, student-initiated prayer is always, always legal in school. Staff/faculty-initiated prayer and religious events though, may not be, especially if it is compulsory for students to attend.
Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't but it's not outlawed by the Constitution, so if he says it should be illegal as the law stands now, I would say he is incorrect on that point, and if he feels strongly about it, he should getting Congress to pass an amendment banning flag desecration. So you are right on that point, but honestly that is really picking a tiny nit in the scheme of things in a world where we are engaged in illegal wars, illegal searches of US citizens, illegal harassment of protestors, illegal taxation, wasting of taxpayer funds on foreign aid, questionable subsidies for agriculture, banking, and pharmaceutical industries, and on and on.
Where does the Constitution give authorization for the government to enforce net neutrality? I suppose this is one area where the Commerce clause of the Constitution would apply, but that is iffy at best. Again, such modernization would require an amendment to the Constitution to legally achieve.
And, what is wrong with sticking to laws? We have become a lawless nation with our politicians operating by the seat of the pants, ignoring the law on whim, and relying on layer upon layer of "case law" (basically, eloquent hand-waving in court) to justify their claims. It's all bullshit and needs to be swept away with, because it has led us to bankruptcy as a nation.
Oh, I love this one! :)
"Excuse me. Mr. Romney, but with all of that bullshit that just spewed out of your mouth I fail to recognize even a smidgen of an answer to the question. Could you please answer the question now, minus any bullshit?"
It's a bullshit answer designed for skirting the Constitution, when there is already a mechanism which allows for changing with the times as needed:
Nice straw man, but that was addressed when slavery was abolished using lawful means, i.e., a constitutional amendment. Let's see, shall we?
In the case of an Android-compatible tablet, it is valid. I want one of the new tablets. I don't want it for the sake of the OEM build. I want it for the sake of alternate Android builds, and if I can just so happen to access the Amazon store and content (such as Prime, books, etc.) then so much the better. What I really want to be honest, is an iPad + a flash player, but an Android tablet would be the next best thing.
If by "radical and crazy" you mean believing the Constitution means what it says and restricting government's role to that which is proscribed by the Constitutional, then you're right.
But then, when you live in an insane world and you yourself are sane, it means you are insane, if the working (as opposed to dictionary) definition "sane" is "the status quo"
. . . when his only fault is believing the Constitution means what it says and says what it means. He is the only candidate so far who considers our legal framework to be more valuable than toilet paper.
I'd ask this of all/any candidates:
Why do you disagree with Ron Paul's approach of restricting government's role to what is proscribed by our legal framework (the Constitution), and why do you insist on violating the Constitution when a remedy exists in the form of constitutional amendments?
Um, wasn't the whole point of cancelling F-22 orders in favor of the F-35? I.e., going with the cheaper F-35 (with reduced capabilities) so that the same basic airframe could be tailored to a specific variant for specific branch requirements, The F-35 was a budget-cutting decision, because it trades off performance as an interceptor or bomber to be a jack of all trades. Killing the F-22 in favor of the more capable F-35 was strategically a boneheaded move, and killing both off is the epitome of stupidity.
Want to balance the budget? It's more simple than the Obama administration (and Congress) are making it: let's stop being the world's policeman, and only get involved if treaties with allies requires us to by law. Reverse the war powers act and enforce the Constitution, giving sole responsibility of the declaration of war (or equivalent) to Congress alone, which is the way it is supposed to be in the first place. Don't cut off investment in defense; cut off wasting money on fighting everyone else's battles. Stop giving hundreds of billions of dollars (which we have to borrow) in foreign aid to other nations. Stop bailing out irresponsible banks, carmakers, "green" power manufacturers, and so on.
Fix welfare; and by "fix" I mean "nuke from orbit" and start over from scratch. Welfare is hopelessly broken, because it is no longer the temporary assistance program it was intended to be but has become a system which ensures people remain a slave to it. I know multiple people who are struggling financially and are receiving assistance, want to get off it but because their industries are dead, or are unable to perform their old jobs, have sought alternate work, but taking a lower-paying job as a temporary stepping stone results in losing all assistance, including food stamps, which leaves them in a worse predicament than they started out in. How would I fix it? I would make it temporary, and I would make it kick in before people lose everything and reach the point where they become entrapped by the system.
Fix illegal invasion of our borders by kicking illegal aliens out, starting with Obama's relatives: Meanwhile, illegal aliens who invade our borders openly flaunt paid-for-by-us housing, tuition, food, clothing, health care, and even cars in some cases, as they work under the table and not pay so much as a dime into the system).
Fix health care: by "fix" I mean nuke RomneyCare (and its demon spawn ObamaCare) from orbit, and focus on the following: regulate the pharmaceutical companies (as in pricing) for any companies which receive any form of subsidy or grant, I would introduce tort reform, and also heavily regulate the insurance companies, to make sure they cover what they say they will cover, provide preventive care instead of engaging in HMO-like "do nothing until it's too late" practices. Tort reform would significantly lower malpractice insurance, and regulating the pharmaceutical companies (and yanking ALL federal and state funding for pharmaceutical companies in violation of regulations AND slapping HEAVY fines upon them) that violate pricing policies. I'm all for charging a profitable fee for drugs, but not when the R&D and even advertising for them is heavily subsidized, and you charge >10x more for the drug domestically than you do overseas.
Taxes: eliminate the tax system as it currently exists; property taxes have pretty much eliminated private ownership of property, sales and excise and inventory taxes place an undue burden on businesses and increase prices for consumers, and death/inheritance taxes are unethical at best because they are taxing money which has already been taxed (which is what excise taxes, inventory taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, and so forth do as well). I'd implement a flat tax
The problem is not the curriculum, but the realization that engineering and science requires a mountain of work up front for a rapidly diminishing after graduation. Why put in all that time and effort if one can make several times more money doing less up-front work (indeed, less work overall) as an MBA or attorney? Engineering and sciences have been under-valued in the USA for ages, and with all of the good manufacturing jobs shipped overseas, and engineering jobs following suit, and science having been under-appreciated since at least the late 1960s (before most of us were born) what the hell is the point of making the huge investment in time, money, and hard work studying for a field where one's livelihood is questionable?
Sure, I know some of you idealists will say "Well, you do it for the love of the job" but you're wrong. You work to pay your mortgage, for your cars, your XBox Live subscription, and if you're married, to support your family. You don't work for the love of it, and if you say you do, the only one you are fooling is yourself.
Some of us try to, but when the price of an item in a local shop is 3x what it is online, or when the selection at local stores sucks, or if you simply can't find the item locally, what do you do?