As I recall a homeless man recently got on the ballot with 10k signatures, and another in a different state managed to win enough votes in the primary to beat out the Republican or Democrat (forget which) favorite.
A drop in the budget bucket. Inexpensive entertainment. And if a homeless guy gets elected to congress now than that should be a wakeup call to the more serious political parties. Although I thought for most higher political offices, they had to own property as part of the eligibility requirements.
That said, of all approaches to campaign reform, this one is probably the safest-- except it completely fails to deal with "what about when a company wishes to express their opinion about candidate A in an on-air ad?"
right, because I happen to think citizens united got it wrong.
If i company wishes to express their opinion... tough. The individual shareholders can go door to door, meet with citizens, meet with candidates, attend meetings, but no they can't drop $20M on saturating the airwaves, because although its free speech its corrosive to representative democracy to let wealth so directly define the ability to get a political message out.
I disagree. Google and Facebook are advertising networks first and foremost. Microsoft is a software vendor first and foremost -- yes they datamine, but its not yet their core business model, and if you move to their paid options you have the option to self host your own servers, and they're happy to have you as a customer that just pays them for software licenses.
Google and Facebook abhor the idea that you might have some control over your own data.
I prefer Microsoft out of that list.
I've found Google Hangouts
Google Hangouts is Google+. Microsofts doesn't have a 'social network' on the level of google plus or hangouts. I don't disagree that hangouts is easy to use though -- I had used gtalk in the past.
But ditching skype for hangouts doesn't really seem like a step forward.
. I actually tried using XMPP/Jingle before this, but there are no good FOSS cross platform clients for it - you need to use different software under Windows and Linux, and good luck getting video to work under Windows.
Agreed. And its even messier when you've got mobiles you want to use with it too.
but I imagine SIP clients for those platforms would work
Then I need an SIP client that does contact management, online/offline/away status, im, group im, voice, and group voice in an integrated manner for each platform. If I'm on Jitsi in a group IM with 4 people what protocol is that going to be? XMPP/Jabber? Ok... and then if we decide to take it to voice? Any or all of the 4 of us could be at a desktop or on a tablet or smartphone -- so is there an xmpp/jabber client for each platform i listed that also has integrated sip voice support, that all works well? Jitsi covers the desktops... but doesn't do the mobiles...
I've looked at Jitsi in the past, but without a clear mobile solution for the group skype just makes more sense.
Honestly, audio quality is my primary pet peeve of skype.
Agreed its not perfect, but we don't get dropped calls much, or connected but with no audio. Additionally the latency and echo/noise haven't been problems for us either with skype.
Who still uses Skype? There are better alternatives now, and a lot more open, too.
Like what? I dislike skype and want to stop using it, and for the usage I do have, I -can- get the other people to switch.
However, switch to what is the question?
I need something that works x-platform: mac, pc, android, ios, and windows phone 8). Linux would be a bonus for me, but not a requirement. At least we don't need BB support.
It needs to do voice, group voice (at Least 5-6 people), IM chat, and group IM chat (unlimited people), and have contacts. Voice quality needs to be good, low latency, no echo, no breathing, no push-to-talk.
I'd like it to be open, but at the very least it HAS to be less privacy invasive than Skype. I'm not ditching skype for Google+ Hangouts or Facebook Messenger or something like that.
I'm actively looking for solutions but the VOIP stuff tends to be poor at the IM chat side, and everything else seems to suck at the voice or being cross platform enough.
I have had to attend a great many meetings in my day that were entirely irrelevant to me, my job, etc. There was no reason for me to be there, other than the fact that a manager wanted me to physically be there.
I have been to many such meetings as well, however, usually there was a reason for me to be there. I usually had a small role to play, even if just for a few minutes, or to be available to clarify or discuss a particular issue.
While they were largely a waste of my time, having me there was likely often worthwhile for the company. It would have been unwieldy to summon and dismiss me just for the small part I would play, especially if I'd need to be briefed on context first. Being there, even just half listening most of it, meant I was ready to contribute when needed.
On top of that, I can say that email and IM exchanges can run for days, between a dozen people and sometimes just getting everyone on the phone for 20-30 minutes with the purpose of making decision really is the best way of just getting shit done.
All that said, if I got a text during such a meeting, I'd probably read/respond.
But there are other meetings, where I'm the host, or a crucial part of it, where it would disrupt the meeting for me not to be paying attention at all times. And in those cases I wouldn't think of taking a text or looking at an email.
You may consider it impolite or disrespectful. I consider it disrespectful to make me waste an hour of my time because you feel the need to show your self-importance by calling unnecessary meetings and forcing people who have no need to go to them to be there.
Yeah, that happens too. There are meetings and some people who host meetings that require people who simply have no reason to be there to attend, but in my experience that's not the case... there usually is a good reason, at least for a minutes somewhere in the meeting for one to be there.
Because if the "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns" mantra wasn't it, then I'm genuinely curious what point you were making.
And if that mantra was the point, then my Murder example may be hyperbole, but the point is valid. Making anything illegal doesn't stop the criminals from doing it. It never has, and it never will.
It does however give society a chance to catch a murderer-to-be with gun prior to using it. Naturally, a determined would-be murderer has any number of other options from knives to knitting needles and we can't realistically ban all of them, and should not try to. But a ban on a weapon whose designed function is to kill or incapacitate lots of people at range quickly might save lives, if the weapon is detected before its used.
Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!
So is murder, so not only did he not use a gun, but he didn't kill anyone either, right?
So not only is 'gun control' moot since only criminals will have guns, but we may as well repeal murder laws since criminals will ignore those too, right? Indeed, why have laws at all, since it just means more things on the books for criminals to ignore?
Is that argument you are making? Because that's what it sounds like.
o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....
Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.
I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.
The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.
I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.
On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.
To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.
But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.
As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.
Which part of "equal parts for all candidates" means "equal parts for only those popular candidates I decide deserve it"?
Which part of "candidate" means random jackass who just wants money and isn't actually running of office -- e.g. isn't a candidate. If you are going to wallow around in pedantry so thick it prevents you from even being able to come up with a workable eligibility requirement for candidates, then there is nothing to discuss.
You are the sort of person who would be unable to pass a law against murder because you'd get too mired in trying to define what a person was, and would rather leave murder legal than have some weird edge case the law fails on.
Sugar coating a dung doughnut still leaves you with a dung doughnut.
Representative democracy is a dung donut. The solution we have in place now is worse.
You are paying for political speech you don't agree with now by having a portion of your cable bill go towards comcasts lobbying (bribing) to preserve the monopoly they have imposed on you with that very lobbying.
I'd rather fund the political speech i disagree with directly in a regulated and contained manner than the solution we have now.
If you have a better idea I'm all ears, but what we have now is worse.
So you're okay with people getting "free" money if they do some legwork, regardless of any other qualifications?
I'm open to hearing suggestions for other qualifications. Grade 12 perhaps? Citizenship? I'd be amenable to those. College degree? Maybe. Clean record -- torn here... as this could be abused to restrict candidates... what did you have in mind?
Let the parties pick their candidates on their own dime, and not on the public's dime.
Fine with that. I was talking about the funding during the ACTUAL election.
All other "collectives" (parties, unions, corporations, PACs etc) are an affront to our primary form of collective representation, and subvert the established process for collective representation.
I agree with this.
If you want your "other" collective to have a say in elections, then those collectives should pay for their own campaigns, separated and distinct from any other collective.
I don't want them to have a say at all. That's the problem, by paying for their own campaigns their money distorts the election, and he with the most money wins.
Publicly funded campaigns with a ban on private campaigns ensure that it doesn't get to where america is now.
So you're okay with people getting "free" money if they do some legwork, regardless of any other qualifications?
Coming back to this... if it's a straight choice, then yes. It's still better than billionaires deciding who our candidates are.
Yes they will, but just doing the legwork of getting the petitions is itself a barrier to frivolous candidates who just want free money.
And like I said, the money isn't free. You are still going to have to use that funding for an actual campaign otherwise you will be nailed for all kinds of fraud/theft/whatever the laws are for managing the use of the funds.
Its not free money. Its audited and accounted for.
And at the end of the day its still better for democracy or the republic or the federation of states or whatever you want to call it to fund a few pranksters and satirists running genuine but frivolous campaigns (I'd imagine Stephen Colbert would have a ball with it, for example) than it is to have the fundraising (bought-and-paid-for) candidates we have now.
5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.
Then we expect some expense reports for the funds, and remember we may audit those, and there's all sorts of felony stuff for misusing the funds. And you can't hide behind a corporation. This is on you.
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
1: the jumping through hoops is not required when using VLA version of Outlook (according to the GGP post) -- so it is a problem imposed by Outlook
Because click-to-run is a different deployment mode, it supports streaming download install and update, and uses a virtual filesystem, etc. Its different, not broken.
GoogleSync only appears to look for the outlook footprint the MSI installer leaves, so it doesn't 'see' outlook deployed via click-to-run. The "Installing the VLA version first" work around works, because then google sees it and allows itself to be installed. (Otherwise it just says it can't find outlook and aborts).
but distorted grotesquely by the lens of capitalistic greed.
Are we talking about the same halloween? A holiday that can be fully participated in by using Mom's makeup, some old clothes (hello zombies), and some bulk wrapped candies. A couple bucks will buy you a pumpkin to carve.
Halloween is the cheapest holiday going. I think this year is going to run me $30 bucks including candy ($15), costume stuff (reusing some parts from previous years, adding a cape $5, new vampire teeth $3, and fake blood $1), a couple pumpkins to carve (2 for $5). Hardly an orgy of consumerism.
Last year was maybe $50... one of the kids wanted to be some "monster high" character so we dropped $20 on it. The vampire this year is reusing half of that costume.)
I spend more on just the wine at Thanksgiving, or any of the other holidays where the family gets together.
Hell, we've got a bonfire day coming up nearby... BYOB... It'll probably run me more than $30-$50 for the drinks and snacks for that.
Get off my lawn. Clean up those eggs and toilet rolls.
Figure you should get plenty of eggs and toilet paper with a presentation like that.:)
Is there not some locally accepted convention to signal nothing here move on. Around here at least, if there's no outside lights, the place is either not participating or has run out of candy, and all but the dumbest kids just skip them.
Since it is possible (by jumping through hoops) to use Outlook, clearly the issue (the need to jump through hoops) exists in Outlook. So dump the root cause of the problem (Outlook).
One could just as easily argue that its possible without jumping through hoops to use Outlook with any other provider. Jumping through hoops is required only for Google. So clearly the issue, (the need to jump through hoops) exists with google. So dump the root cause of the problem (Google).
What's the difference?
In any case, the issue is known to be related to the difference between the click-to-run deployment vs the old 'traditional' deployment. Google's plugin is only able to detect/cope with the old style deployment -- and it seems probable to me at least, that the onus to fix is on google here.
Dumping outlook is not always desirable. The seamless calendar / contact / email sync is preferable to mail only imap options, and many users prefer Outlook to the alternatives.
Gmail has a 15 imap connection limit. Some clients use multiple imap connections. I know someone with an iphone, ipad, and laptop (mac using Apple Mail), and they run into the limit all the time.
Worse, apple mail doesn't merely just quietly 'fail' to sync until the connetions become available, it gives a general error message and prompts for username/password.
Re-Entering it doesn't help of course, because that's not the problem at all.
Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!
Outlook 2013 with Google Apps Sync is now a royal PITA. It works fine with the VLA office edition, but not the Click-to-Run. (which is how the majority of small business and soho's get outlook). The work around is is to install the VLA (technet or torrent etc), install google apps sync and setup the profile, install click to run, remove the vla version, possibly repair the click-to-run version, and then activate the click-to-run version.
Its unclear to me why it can't work with office 2013 home and business etc, without jumping through those hoops.
As for IMAP, I know people who run into the imap connection limit pretty quickly with gmail... between desktop, laptop, tablet, and smartphone. That gets them the too many simultaneous connections error, and then it fails. I know with apple mail, for example, instead of reporting a proper error it gives some generic login error message and prompts for the gmail password when this happens -- which is worse by far than just not getting the mail for a bit. Quitting mail, waiting a while and then trying again is a very UGLY workaround.
I'm not sure if the maximum IMAP connections a given client uses is easily configured.
As for pop3... its pop3... few people really want to use it. Local stored mail, with no sync is an ugly mess. And even grandma who only uses mail from one desktop is better off without pop3 because at least with imap she doesn't lose her mail when the computer inevitably dies.
However most people don't drive their "classic" car to and from work daily.
You are right of course that if you have a new Honda Civic, and a Camaro, and you put 12,000 miles on the honda year round, rain or shine or snow and 1200 miles on the Camaro on sunny sunday's in summer, then yes of course the odds of having a fatal accident in the Honda is higher, but that's not really a valid comparison of the cars relative safety.
If you just look at the trips you take in the "classic" car, and evaluate them against the same trips taken in a newer car, the newer car is still going to be safer to have an accident in statistically.
I have a theory for why people didn't tail gate as much in the past.
I'm going to go with a) fewer cars on the road, b) or be I'm not sure I accept the premise that tail gating has really gotten worse.
. People realized that if they rear-ended someone the chrome accents on the steering wheel would impale them like a Spartan dispatching a Persian.
Nice!
You've been able to get a points or electronic distributor for a Chevy small block for the last 50+ years, and will have no problem doing so for many decades. Finding an ECM for many cars is becoming questionable long term.
Yeah, some classics will be better supported than others. And likely some popular classics will have better long term support than some newer cars as they age. Already, there are parts for my 94 jetta that are impossible to get outside of a junkyard (interior and exterior trim parts mostly), while as you said parts for a 50's chevy has a thriving enthusiastic aftermarket and will for the future. But I had a 70s Triumph that was always difficult to get parts for.. even with the many clubs and such that celebrate those cars.
There really should be a hardware kill available somewhere. Disengages the batteries and fuel pump, etc.
Agreed, completely.
You've covered spark and fuel... that just leaves air. I'd complete the "trifecta of combusion prevention" and have something like a solenoid valve setup us as a "dead mans switch" to shut the air path too.
Cutting off the fuel and air with such emergency valves would work on diesels too.
I just want Mac book pro before they chased thiness to the oblivion of an ethernet connection.
Sturdy keyboards with standard 7-row layout (text nav 3x2 cluster, F key groupings, non-chiclet)
My desktop keyboard has 6 rows... including the function keys... what on earth are you putting on the 7th?
If its going to have a number pad and text nav area then yes, they need to be correct. But I don't necessarily want them, they force the keyboard part to the left, and make working on it less comfortable. I want the f to the left of the center of the screen, and the j to the right.
And one thing you didn't mention... I want, nay, DEMAND, that the slash/pipe be above a wider enter key, rather than besdie a double-high-narrow enter key. I will not buy a laptop with the latter arrangement. I just end up typing / evertime i want an enter.
- Stick mouse (clit mouse, whatever you want to call it) with actual buttons, not these bullshit buttons built into a trackpad
Hell no on both. I want the multitouch apple trackpad thanks. No buttons at all, no sticks, just a BIG FLAT trackpad space flush with the case. Build a logitech touchpad into the laptop... that's what I want.
- Understated, boxy designs (no flashy bullshit)
No cheap plastic. Nothing sticking out. And NO STICKERS. Thin is good, but an ethernet port is required so thinner than that isn't worth it. I think we generally agree here.
4:3 screens (or, at least, 5:4)
I'm fine with 16:10 is that what your 5:4 is supposed to be? I don't really want 4:3.The key is vertical resolution not aspect ration... classic 4:3 is 1024x768. So 1366x768 is an improvement but 1200x720 is NOT an upgrade. I'd like 1080p resolution or better.
On a Prius, you can hold the power button for a few seconds - or if you're in a rush, three quick taps will cut it as well.
Again, this is computer controlled; its not physically breaking the link and literally breaking a key circuit. It just says hey computer, shutdown please.
If it's decided to ignore that button's input then what?
I recall one of those out of control cars that wouldn't stop also was ignoring the 'off' commands.
And we've all seen laptops and phones that you couldn't power off, and had to physically pull the battery out to reset, or wait until it died of its own accord (yay apple).
No reason you can't design an emergency shutdown that doesn't rely on the main computer acknowledging a command; but there's no reason to assume your "pull the plug power button" is anything more than a polite request to a system that's already failed either.
Realistically, you are quite a bit more likely to die in your classic car than you are in a new car despite issues like this.
The new car brakes better, handles better, is an order of magnitude safer in a collision thanks to the crumple zones, airbags, and modern collision testing requirements. It also uses less fuel, and pollutes less.
I like classics too, but I don't have any illusions that they are generally safer or more reliable. I will give you that they are usually easier to fix (assuming they aren't so classic that parts are a problem) but that doesn't make them safer -- and safety was the underlying catalyst for this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall a homeless man recently got on the ballot with 10k signatures, and another in a different state managed to win enough votes in the primary to beat out the Republican or Democrat (forget which) favorite.
A drop in the budget bucket. Inexpensive entertainment. And if a homeless guy gets elected to congress now than that should be a wakeup call to the more serious political parties. Although I thought for most higher political offices, they had to own property as part of the eligibility requirements.
That said, of all approaches to campaign reform, this one is probably the safest-- except it completely fails to deal with "what about when a company wishes to express their opinion about candidate A in an on-air ad?"
right, because I happen to think citizens united got it wrong.
If i company wishes to express their opinion... tough. The individual shareholders can go door to door, meet with citizens, meet with candidates, attend meetings, but no they can't drop $20M on saturating the airwaves, because although its free speech its corrosive to representative democracy to let wealth so directly define the ability to get a political message out.
I disagree. Google and Facebook are advertising networks first and foremost. Microsoft is a software vendor first and foremost -- yes they datamine, but its not yet their core business model, and if you move to their paid options you have the option to self host your own servers, and they're happy to have you as a customer that just pays them for software licenses.
Google and Facebook abhor the idea that you might have some control over your own data.
I prefer Microsoft out of that list.
I've found Google Hangouts
Google Hangouts is Google+. Microsofts doesn't have a 'social network' on the level of google plus or hangouts. I don't disagree that hangouts is easy to use though -- I had used gtalk in the past.
But ditching skype for hangouts doesn't really seem like a step forward.
. I actually tried using XMPP/Jingle before this, but there are no good FOSS cross platform clients for it - you need to use different software under Windows and Linux, and good luck getting video to work under Windows.
Agreed. And its even messier when you've got mobiles you want to use with it too.
At least the ads would go away. But the cost of entry is a bit steep.
but I imagine SIP clients for those platforms would work
Then I need an SIP client that does contact management, online/offline/away status, im, group im, voice, and group voice in an integrated manner for each platform. If I'm on Jitsi in a group IM with 4 people what protocol is that going to be? XMPP/Jabber? Ok... and then if we decide to take it to voice? Any or all of the 4 of us could be at a desktop or on a tablet or smartphone -- so is there an xmpp/jabber client for each platform i listed that also has integrated sip voice support, that all works well? Jitsi covers the desktops... but doesn't do the mobiles...
I've looked at Jitsi in the past, but without a clear mobile solution for the group skype just makes more sense.
Honestly, audio quality is my primary pet peeve of skype.
Agreed its not perfect, but we don't get dropped calls much, or connected but with no audio. Additionally the latency and echo/noise haven't been problems for us either with skype.
Who still uses Skype? There are better alternatives now, and a lot more open, too.
Like what? I dislike skype and want to stop using it, and for the usage I do have, I -can- get the other people to switch.
However, switch to what is the question?
I need something that works x-platform: mac, pc, android, ios, and windows phone 8). Linux would be a bonus for me, but not a requirement. At least we don't need BB support.
It needs to do voice, group voice (at Least 5-6 people), IM chat, and group IM chat (unlimited people), and have contacts. Voice quality needs to be good, low latency, no echo, no breathing, no push-to-talk.
I'd like it to be open, but at the very least it HAS to be less privacy invasive than Skype. I'm not ditching skype for Google+ Hangouts or Facebook Messenger or something like that.
I'm actively looking for solutions but the VOIP stuff tends to be poor at the IM chat side, and everything else seems to suck at the voice or being cross platform enough.
I have had to attend a great many meetings in my day that were entirely irrelevant to me, my job, etc. There was no reason for me to be there, other than the fact that a manager wanted me to physically be there.
I have been to many such meetings as well, however, usually there was a reason for me to be there. I usually had a small role to play, even if just for a few minutes, or to be available to clarify or discuss a particular issue.
While they were largely a waste of my time, having me there was likely often worthwhile for the company. It would have been unwieldy to summon and dismiss me just for the small part I would play, especially if I'd need to be briefed on context first. Being there, even just half listening most of it, meant I was ready to contribute when needed.
On top of that, I can say that email and IM exchanges can run for days, between a dozen people and sometimes just getting everyone on the phone for 20-30 minutes with the purpose of making decision really is the best way of just getting shit done.
All that said, if I got a text during such a meeting, I'd probably read/respond.
But there are other meetings, where I'm the host, or a crucial part of it, where it would disrupt the meeting for me not to be paying attention at all times. And in those cases I wouldn't think of taking a text or looking at an email.
You may consider it impolite or disrespectful. I consider it disrespectful to make me waste an hour of my time because you feel the need to show your self-importance by calling unnecessary meetings and forcing people who have no need to go to them to be there.
Yeah, that happens too. There are meetings and some people who host meetings that require people who simply have no reason to be there to attend, but in my experience that's not the case... there usually is a good reason, at least for a minutes somewhere in the meeting for one to be there.
Take your straw man and go home
So, seriously then, what was your argument?
Because if the "if guns are criminalized, then only criminals will have guns" mantra wasn't it, then I'm genuinely curious what point you were making.
And if that mantra was the point, then my Murder example may be hyperbole, but the point is valid. Making anything illegal doesn't stop the criminals from doing it. It never has, and it never will.
It does however give society a chance to catch a murderer-to-be with gun prior to using it. Naturally, a determined would-be murderer has any number of other options from knives to knitting needles and we can't realistically ban all of them, and should not try to. But a ban on a weapon whose designed function is to kill or incapacitate lots of people at range quickly might save lives, if the weapon is detected before its used.
Assault rifles are illegal in California; therefore this could never have happened!
So is murder, so not only did he not use a gun, but he didn't kill anyone either, right?
So not only is 'gun control' moot since only criminals will have guns, but we may as well repeal murder laws since criminals will ignore those too, right? Indeed, why have laws at all, since it just means more things on the books for criminals to ignore?
Is that argument you are making? Because that's what it sounds like.
o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....
Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.
I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.
The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.
I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.
On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.
To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway ... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.
But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.
As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.
Which part of "equal parts for all candidates" means "equal parts for only those popular candidates I decide deserve it"?
Which part of "candidate" means random jackass who just wants money and isn't actually running of office -- e.g. isn't a candidate. If you are going to wallow around in pedantry so thick it prevents you from even being able to come up with a workable eligibility requirement for candidates, then there is nothing to discuss.
You are the sort of person who would be unable to pass a law against murder because you'd get too mired in trying to define what a person was, and would rather leave murder legal than have some weird edge case the law fails on.
Sugar coating a dung doughnut still leaves you with a dung doughnut.
Representative democracy is a dung donut. The solution we have in place now is worse.
You are paying for political speech you don't agree with now by having a portion of your cable bill go towards comcasts lobbying (bribing) to preserve the monopoly they have imposed on you with that very lobbying.
I'd rather fund the political speech i disagree with directly in a regulated and contained manner than the solution we have now.
If you have a better idea I'm all ears, but what we have now is worse.
So you're okay with people getting "free" money if they do some legwork, regardless of any other qualifications?
I'm open to hearing suggestions for other qualifications. Grade 12 perhaps? Citizenship? I'd be amenable to those. College degree? Maybe. Clean record -- torn here ... as this could be abused to restrict candidates... what did you have in mind?
Let the parties pick their candidates on their own dime, and not on the public's dime.
Fine with that. I was talking about the funding during the ACTUAL election.
All other "collectives" (parties, unions, corporations, PACs etc) are an affront to our primary form of collective representation, and subvert the established process for collective representation.
I agree with this.
If you want your "other" collective to have a say in elections, then those collectives should pay for their own campaigns, separated and distinct from any other collective.
I don't want them to have a say at all. That's the problem, by paying for their own campaigns their money distorts the election, and he with the most money wins.
Publicly funded campaigns with a ban on private campaigns ensure that it doesn't get to where america is now.
So you're okay with people getting "free" money if they do some legwork, regardless of any other qualifications?
Coming back to this... if it's a straight choice, then yes. It's still better than billionaires deciding who our candidates are.
Yes they will, but just doing the legwork of getting the petitions is itself a barrier to frivolous candidates who just want free money.
And like I said, the money isn't free. You are still going to have to use that funding for an actual campaign otherwise you will be nailed for all kinds of fraud/theft/whatever the laws are for managing the use of the funds.
Its not free money. Its audited and accounted for.
And at the end of the day its still better for democracy or the republic or the federation of states or whatever you want to call it to fund a few pranksters and satirists running genuine but frivolous campaigns (I'd imagine Stephen Colbert would have a ball with it, for example) than it is to have the fundraising (bought-and-paid-for) candidates we have now.
Funds, please.
5000 signatures first please, and remember we'll call a sampling of them, so they better be real.
Then we expect some expense reports for the funds, and remember we may audit those, and there's all sorts of felony stuff for misusing the funds. And you can't hide behind a corporation. This is on you.
What you thought you could say you were a candidate and then buy a boat?
1: the jumping through hoops is not required when using VLA version of Outlook (according to the GGP post) -- so it is a problem imposed by Outlook
Because click-to-run is a different deployment mode, it supports streaming download install and update, and uses a virtual filesystem, etc. Its different, not broken.
GoogleSync only appears to look for the outlook footprint the MSI installer leaves, so it doesn't 'see' outlook deployed via click-to-run. The "Installing the VLA version first" work around works, because then google sees it and allows itself to be installed. (Otherwise it just says it can't find outlook and aborts).
The defect is clearly with Google.
but distorted grotesquely by the lens of capitalistic greed.
Are we talking about the same halloween? A holiday that can be fully participated in by using Mom's makeup, some old clothes (hello zombies), and some bulk wrapped candies. A couple bucks will buy you a pumpkin to carve.
Halloween is the cheapest holiday going. I think this year is going to run me $30 bucks including candy ($15), costume stuff (reusing some parts from previous years, adding a cape $5, new vampire teeth $3, and fake blood $1), a couple pumpkins to carve (2 for $5). Hardly an orgy of consumerism.
Last year was maybe $50 ... one of the kids wanted to be some "monster high" character so we dropped $20 on it. The vampire this year is reusing half of that costume.)
I spend more on just the wine at Thanksgiving, or any of the other holidays where the family gets together.
Hell, we've got a bonfire day coming up nearby... BYOB... It'll probably run me more than $30-$50 for the drinks and snacks for that.
Get off my lawn. Clean up those eggs and toilet rolls.
Figure you should get plenty of eggs and toilet paper with a presentation like that. :)
Is there not some locally accepted convention to signal nothing here move on. Around here at least, if there's no outside lights, the place is either not participating or has run out of candy, and all but the dumbest kids just skip them.
Since it is possible (by jumping through hoops) to use Outlook, clearly the issue (the need to jump through hoops) exists in Outlook. So dump the root cause of the problem (Outlook).
One could just as easily argue that its possible without jumping through hoops to use Outlook with any other provider. Jumping through hoops is required only for Google. So clearly the issue, (the need to jump through hoops) exists with google. So dump the root cause of the problem (Google).
What's the difference?
In any case, the issue is known to be related to the difference between the click-to-run deployment vs the old 'traditional' deployment. Google's plugin is only able to detect/cope with the old style deployment -- and it seems probable to me at least, that the onus to fix is on google here.
Dumping outlook is not always desirable. The seamless calendar / contact / email sync is preferable to mail only imap options, and many users prefer Outlook to the alternatives.
Gmail has a 15 imap connection limit. Some clients use multiple imap connections. I know someone with an iphone, ipad, and laptop (mac using Apple Mail), and they run into the limit all the time.
Worse, apple mail doesn't merely just quietly 'fail' to sync until the connetions become available, it gives a general error message and prompts for username/password.
Re-Entering it doesn't help of course, because that's not the problem at all.
You have to quit apple mail, and wait a while.
Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!
Outlook 2013 with Google Apps Sync is now a royal PITA. It works fine with the VLA office edition, but not the Click-to-Run. (which is how the majority of small business and soho's get outlook). The work around is is to install the VLA (technet or torrent etc), install google apps sync and setup the profile, install click to run, remove the vla version, possibly repair the click-to-run version, and then activate the click-to-run version.
Its unclear to me why it can't work with office 2013 home and business etc, without jumping through those hoops.
As for IMAP, I know people who run into the imap connection limit pretty quickly with gmail ... between desktop, laptop, tablet, and smartphone. That gets them the too many simultaneous connections error, and then it fails. I know with apple mail, for example, instead of reporting a proper error it gives some generic login error message and prompts for the gmail password when this happens -- which is worse by far than just not getting the mail for a bit. Quitting mail, waiting a while and then trying again is a very UGLY workaround.
I'm not sure if the maximum IMAP connections a given client uses is easily configured.
As for pop3... its pop3... few people really want to use it. Local stored mail, with no sync is an ugly mess. And even grandma who only uses mail from one desktop is better off without pop3 because at least with imap she doesn't lose her mail when the computer inevitably dies.
However most people don't drive their "classic" car to and from work daily.
You are right of course that if you have a new Honda Civic, and a Camaro, and you put 12,000 miles on the honda year round, rain or shine or snow and 1200 miles on the Camaro on sunny sunday's in summer, then yes of course the odds of having a fatal accident in the Honda is higher, but that's not really a valid comparison of the cars relative safety.
If you just look at the trips you take in the "classic" car, and evaluate them against the same trips taken in a newer car, the newer car is still going to be safer to have an accident in statistically.
I have a theory for why people didn't tail gate as much in the past.
I'm going to go with a) fewer cars on the road, b) or be I'm not sure I accept the premise that tail gating has really gotten worse.
. People realized that if they rear-ended someone the chrome accents on the steering wheel would impale them like a Spartan dispatching a Persian.
Nice!
You've been able to get a points or electronic distributor for a Chevy small block for the last 50+ years, and will have no problem doing so for many decades. Finding an ECM for many cars is becoming questionable long term.
Yeah, some classics will be better supported than others. And likely some popular classics will have better long term support than some newer cars as they age. Already, there are parts for my 94 jetta that are impossible to get outside of a junkyard (interior and exterior trim parts mostly), while as you said parts for a 50's chevy has a thriving enthusiastic aftermarket and will for the future. But I had a 70s Triumph that was always difficult to get parts for .. even with the many clubs and such that celebrate those cars.
Subsidies are still costs. Someone has to pay it. If you don't know who is paying it, chances are it's you.
And probably with interest. :)
There really should be a hardware kill available somewhere. Disengages the batteries and fuel pump, etc.
Agreed, completely.
You've covered spark and fuel... that just leaves air. I'd complete the "trifecta of combusion prevention" and have something like a solenoid valve setup us as a "dead mans switch" to shut the air path too.
Cutting off the fuel and air with such emergency valves would work on diesels too.
We want:
I want some of that, but don't want it all.
Rock-solid build quality and screen hinges
I just want Mac book pro before they chased thiness to the oblivion of an ethernet connection.
Sturdy keyboards with standard 7-row layout (text nav 3x2 cluster, F key groupings, non-chiclet)
My desktop keyboard has 6 rows... including the function keys... what on earth are you putting on the 7th?
If its going to have a number pad and text nav area then yes, they need to be correct. But I don't necessarily want them, they force the keyboard part to the left, and make working on it less comfortable. I want the f to the left of the center of the screen, and the j to the right.
And one thing you didn't mention... I want, nay, DEMAND, that the slash/pipe be above a wider enter key, rather than besdie a double-high-narrow enter key. I will not buy a laptop with the latter arrangement. I just end up typing / evertime i want an enter.
- Stick mouse (clit mouse, whatever you want to call it) with actual buttons, not these bullshit buttons built into a trackpad
Hell no on both. I want the multitouch apple trackpad thanks. No buttons at all, no sticks, just a BIG FLAT trackpad space flush with the case. Build a logitech touchpad into the laptop... that's what I want.
- Understated, boxy designs (no flashy bullshit)
No cheap plastic. Nothing sticking out. And NO STICKERS. Thin is good, but an ethernet port is required so thinner than that isn't worth it. I think we generally agree here.
4:3 screens (or, at least, 5:4)
I'm fine with 16:10 is that what your 5:4 is supposed to be? I don't really want 4:3.The key is vertical resolution not aspect ration... classic 4:3 is 1024x768. So 1366x768 is an improvement but 1200x720 is NOT an upgrade. I'd like 1080p resolution or better.
On a Prius, you can hold the power button for a few seconds - or if you're in a rush, three quick taps will cut it as well.
Again, this is computer controlled; its not physically breaking the link and literally breaking a key circuit. It just says hey computer, shutdown please.
If it's decided to ignore that button's input then what?
I recall one of those out of control cars that wouldn't stop also was ignoring the 'off' commands.
And we've all seen laptops and phones that you couldn't power off, and had to physically pull the battery out to reset, or wait until it died of its own accord (yay apple).
No reason you can't design an emergency shutdown that doesn't rely on the main computer acknowledging a command; but there's no reason to assume your "pull the plug power button" is anything more than a polite request to a system that's already failed either.
Realistically, you are quite a bit more likely to die in your classic car than you are in a new car despite issues like this.
The new car brakes better, handles better, is an order of magnitude safer in a collision thanks to the crumple zones, airbags, and modern collision testing requirements. It also uses less fuel, and pollutes less.
I like classics too, but I don't have any illusions that they are generally safer or more reliable. I will give you that they are usually easier to fix (assuming they aren't so classic that parts are a problem) but that doesn't make them safer -- and safety was the underlying catalyst for this discussion.