You don't pick your VP to match your views you pick your VP to fill in the blanks in your own personality.
And since Romney utterly lacks any detailed concrete policy positions, we can now look to the "Ryan Budget" as an example of the apocalypse that R&R have planned for the middle class.
And we need health care...
and welfare...
and food stamps...
and national defense...
and the space program is really important...
and drug rehabilitation programs...
and the FDA...
and the EPA...
and without the NEA our kids won't learn about art and learning about art has been shown a correlation with higher math and science scores...
and we need to protect our borders...
and did I mention healthcare??
Nearly everything our government does is important to someone but it's clear from our high taxes and massive deficit that we just can't afford it all. Cutting waste will help but it won't enough. Some programs that are good and useful need to be shrunk or eliminated too. Doing so is of course unpopular. Whether or not this particular program was the best one to cut, I'm glad Ryan has the guts to make the hard decisions that need to be made and deal with the political fallout.
Yep we do need all that, and I can think of three things that we don't need. We don't need to spend more than the rest of the planet combined on our military, we don't need a massively expensive police/surveillance state, and we don't need to have almost trivially small tax rates for the richest people. Imagine that! We could get rid of a handful of things we don't need and be able to pay for the things we do need!
It just so happens that it shifted Republicans from "we're willing to spend responsibly" to "we don't want to spend at all, cut cut cut!" and it shifted
Democrats from "we want to spend like hogs on speed" to "we're willing to spend responsibly".
You are suffering from a complete disconnect from reality. The last Republican President to spend responsibly was Nixon. Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all spent with complete irresponsibility. Reagan and Bush1 at least faced reality and tried to increase revenue to match the profligate spending. Clinton did a fair job at bring things back under control. Obama is doing a good job at doing the same but he is faced with the challenge of the worst economy since the 1930s. After the big stimulus of 2009 spending growth has slowed significantly. Look at the chart below.
As far as more stimulus is concerned... stimulus is the only thing that works at times like this. The great depression proved this. Our current debacle proves this. I'm all for i t
And he seems only willing to pay for it primarily through tax hikes, instead of budget cuts. That's hardly what I'd call "tried to reign in the deficit". Regardless, how can someone take you seriously when spend several trillion dollars in three years and then offer a plan to cut the deficit maybe 100-200 billion per year for the next 10 years?
Another disconnect from reality. Excluding the stimulus which was needed to prevent a complete collapse and needed to catch us from the disaster left by Bush2, spending has been nearly flat. Obama's budgets have had substantial spending cuts. Not as substantial as some republicans want. But remember that those republicans only favor such cuts when there is a democrat in the whitehouse. The debt went up about 5.24 trillion during Bush2 and he never made any plan for reigning that in. During Reagan/Bush1 the debt, which had remained stable since WW2, more than doubled from ~2 trillion to 5 trillion (all figures are in 2000 dollars). So exactly how are we supposed to take republican claims of fiscal responsibility seriously? Have they offered an alternative plan? Oh yeah the Ryan plan: raise taxes on the middle class, slash the budget for everything except the military, let the deficit run wild, all to pay for huge tax cuts for the richest of the rich. That seems... irresponsible but entirely typical.
Yes we are in a pickle but the debt is not our biggest problem. Our real problems are real unemployment of nearly 20% and a society that works it's ass off and benefits only the rich while the rest of us are left to fight over the scraps, all while the scraps get smaller.
This is infront of a jury.
"We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony"
"They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"
It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method.
And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.
Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.
As for aggressiveness, there is something wrong with your traffic system if anyone needs to drive aggressively just to keep moving.
What planet are you from? Of course there is something wrong with our traffic system. There are lots of things wrong. Something like 30,000 people in the US died in car accidents last year, and that is WAY down from what it used to be. The main thing wrong with our system is the idiot behind the wheel. But I digress. Of course there are times when you have to be more aggressive to get anywhere. Turning off my road onto the main drag in the morning often means using a large percentage of my cars acceleration capability. I'm talking just a bit short of spinning my wheels. Why? Well traffic is moving fast, the lights are timed such that there is always a steady flow of cars past my road and most people tailgate. You have to wait until you find a big enough gap and the you GO. I think that people are concerned that the automatic cars will have to be programmed to be so conservative that they would just sit there indefinitely like an old lady waiting for a huge gap to turn in to. BTW this does happen with human drivers too. There are about 8 houses and one apartment building on my street and on a few occasions about half the population of my street have been lined up waiting for some terrified idiot who couldn't find a gap big enough to pull out of.
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
Here in the Bay Area driving under the speed limit on the freeway is hazard to others. Traffic routinely moves substantially faster than the limit. A car lollygagging along at 54mph causes big backups and eventually someone will rear-end someone else. This is why the CHP stays off the freeways during the rush, they know that their presence causes more accidents that it prevents.
even more so once you consider that both parties are right wing by any sane standard...
By what standard? The far-left standard? Jeez, if you're to the right of Mao Zedong you get tarred and feathered these days.
How about by the standards of the right wing just a generation ago right here in the good ole USA.
Reagan's tax policies and Obama's are very close. Broad cuts (or in Obama's case extention in existing cuts) in rates and closing loopholes for the rich. Obama's signature bill was his medical insurance reform act, was a slight mod of the early '90's Republican health care alternative to Hilarycare. Obama has continued extra-judicial detentions of bush, the domestic surveillance of bush, the wars of bush, and has radically expanded the extra-judicial assasinations via drone strikes that bush started. A generation ago it was unthinkable for any politician left or right to attack social security or medicare. The democrats, while still getting some support from unions, have completely abandoned returning that support. Obama is pushing a trade deal with So. Korea that like NAFTA is based on looney right wing economic falderol. Obama and Clinton's supreme court nominations only appear liberal in comparison to the new conservative justices. Kagan and Sotomayor don't hold a candle to any of the great liberal justices of the mid-twentieth century. Recall that Nixon signed into law the EPA, OSHA, and the Endangered Species Act. Hell Nixon didn't just sign the EPA bill, he proposed it! Obama has been a big supporter of big oil and big military spending. Obama has also done nothing to restrict gun rights.
In fact with a few exceptions the Democrats of today look a lot like the Republicans of 20 or more years ago. Those exceptions obviously include social hot-button issues like abortion/women's right to choose, and gay marriage/protect marriage. The other big exception is that Obama after his continuation of big bailouts and stimulus started by bush to save the economy from the freefall we were in, has been that Obama has actually tried to reign in the deficit unlike his borrow and spend republican opponents.
The reason that the US seems so politically polarized today is that the Democrats have only strolled to the right during the last 30 years while the Republicans have been sprinting to the right, while the people who haven't been infected by fox etc have remained mostly in place.
Over in England, We have had the wettest April through June since our records began [BBC News]. Please send us some sunny weather!
Well we might not be able to send any sunny weather over, but we're making a pretty good effort at stalling the Atlantic thermohaline cycle. That'll stop your rain for you.
ically, people that tow-the-line on sustainability are often the first to fool themselves that taking from the rich isn't subject to the laws of sustainability either.
No, no, no. Killing the rich isn't sustainable. Taxing them certainly is sustainable. It's like selective logging versus clearcutting. In fact what is not sustainable is allowing the rich to twist the laws of our nations to allow them to accumulate wildly disproportionate wealth. That leads to massive poverty, societal instability, loss of liberty, and the waste of the talents of the overwhelming majority. Extremely high taxes on the richest just plain work. Look at the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Massive growth of the middle class, astonishing leaps of technology and amazing accomplishments. The best and longest reduction in poverty in our nation's history.
Anyone can sit down and write down license plate numbers. 1 Citizens have done this on their own when they have suspected a house on their block of drug trafficking. Very few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy. 2 Police officers routinely check license plates against a registry of stolen cars. Few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy. 3 If police placed a device on my car that told them where I was 24/7, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy. Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process. Where is the line? Is it the automation and efficiency? Would we be upset if automated systems were in place to catch stolen cars or those with outstanding warrants? Or is it storing of the data so that someone else can use the data later for a non-law enforcement type purpose? Would we have a problem with the system if it was incapable of storing the data?
Actually it seems to me that having enough scanners around would make your case 2 approach case 3. They know all your movements (everyone's) and make a database of everyone's movements. If the end result is the same, only the method different why would you consider one to be a violation of your privacy and the other not?
Hey we are talking about OSX here, not like we're talking about iphones. It's been a loooong time since I had to know where a program goes to install it on windows. Download the.exe or.msi and double click on it. And it's still a program.
And how much of the 10% you did watch did you lose in the switch?
Seriously who cares. There are tons of things on TV that I'm not even aware of. Anyone who actually watches anywhere near 10% of all the programming available on cable TV needs to check into a tubal detoxification clinic ASAP. My life is better because I am unaware of all those time wasters. I watch about 1 show a day, (lately Breaking Bad) and I find plenty on netflix to feed my small need for watching the screen. I may be missing shows, those shows may even be really good. If they are then someday I'll add them to my DVD queue. Life is just soooo much better without TV. No commercials, if my son is still falling asleep I can just wait another 15 minutes before I start the next episode of Breaking Bad.
In addition to making your own life better, getting rid of commercial driven tv is the best thing you can for your children's psychological and intellectual health. My 8 year old son is reading "A Wrinkle In Time" right now instead of watching some rot on TV. It almost brings a tear to my eye it makes me so happy.
When in fact they dont know the real context or the real truth of what was going on but people wont care because they WANT to see things in a bad light, they WANT to bitch about the police and they WANT to be outraged. They dont care about context at all.
Clearly you WANT to see police in the best light. Fine. Different people have different biases. If the police were subduing a violent criminal they'll be fine even if they do get recorded. I find that most people do care about context. You seem to. Aren't you a person?
American citizens dont always have the right to stick their nose into things dont involve them.
Actually it is quite clear that American Citizens DO have the right to monitor the activities of our employees. In fact in order to maintain our society as a free society, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to keep tabs on our government.
People fear the police and when people fear something they tend to hate it.
Many people do fear the police, but that fear comes from personal experience not TV or youtube. Perhaps you live in lillywhiteville and you get a free pass, but in most big cities the citizenry, particularly the poor have learned fear from generations of ill treatment.
They bitch the police dont do enough when something bad happens, but then the police then pull that person over for speeding and give them a ticket they bitch about the cops just for doing their job.
I do this. I bitch when police fail to deal with really bad stuff then spend tons of hours on fairly inconsequential stuff. I bitch when the police spend hours manning speed trap when there are hundreds of unsolved murders in the same city. I bitch when they run prostitution stings and harass the poor women when their pimps, just a block away go scott free, or when there is someone slinging crack or heroin on the same block.
If someone is doing something violent and the police respond in kind because its the only way to end it quickly before more damage is done then people blame the police instead of blaming the person who caused the whole situation.
I don't find this to be the case at all. People tend to be understanding about that. People don't tend to be understanding about when police get violent for no apparent reason, or when they get brutal or murderous. There is never justification for brutality, yet it happens frequently.
If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.
Careful! The recent court rulings holding up the rights of citizens to record police, require that the citizen be overt, not covert about it. If you were being secretive then the wiretap laws could still apply.
You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.
Verified.
Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code.
God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.
Seriously you would kill someone and "feel not guilt" to keep your cell phone? Either you are full of bluster or you are a dangerous sociopath.
Google failed me. I googled for "2002 concorde temperatre control schematics" and not a single result ha dthe word "schematics" in it. I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now, and "+schematics" still didn't return anything with that word.
Perhaps if you tried "2002 concorde temperature control wiring diagram" you might get better results. Sorry but google is an american company, chrysler is an american car company you'll get better results if you use american words and spelling. Using search engines well is a skill.
As a very anti-union person, I agree. Let's see the unions actually improve conditions for their workers, and I'll happily sign on. Let's see pressure for 4-day work weeks, now that automation can maintain production. Let's see minimum wage increases to something above 1960s levels. Let's see a reasonable way for union members to express their concern for current jobs, without their votes being overrun by more senior retirees worried mostly about their pension guarantees. Let's see open membership for anyone with a stake in the working conditions of an industry, rather than just those with a certain amount of experience (which must be earned in non-union shops). Let's see something more than pointless political maneuvers to "maintain leverage" and actually do something with that leverage.
Of course you are describing the history of the American labor movement up through the mid 1970s, when the push back became really organized and put Reagan in the Whitehouse. We can thank unions for: the weekend and 40 hour work week, labor regulations, OSHA, sick leave, the raised standard of living in the Post War period, and nearly every other bit of improvement for workers since the 1880s. You can't be anti-union and expect the unions to be effective for you. That's the whole point, through organization workers become strong enough to negotiate the terms of employment. Alone each person is insignificant to big corporations.
I hear lots of people here saying, "well if you're good you won't put up with this sort of abuse." That doesn't work when there is someone as good or nearly as good willing to work for less begging for your job.
From Solidarity Forever
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.
Fourthly, a virus on a smart meter? Good luck with that. They're nowhere near that smart...
Good to know. Though I do know they are networked and that the utility now has the ability to shut down and restore power without sending anyone to the actual site, so I will be surprised if we don't see exploits with bad results for people in the next few years.
No, there were plenty of British who wanted peace instead of a war with no end in sight. There had been a fight on the Continent, the British lost, it was all fair and square. Had the British not been led by one of history's greatest warmongers, Winston Churchill, peace would have broken out all over Europe in 1940. Plus, the bankers made a tidy profit from the war - the same bankers that OWS demonstrates against today. Nice failure to understand history beyond the "accepted narrative" of WWII though.
Actually during the "fight on the Continent" the British didn't loose so much as they had to retreat from Dunkirk in a rather disorderly fashion. In 1939 Poland lost and Czechoslovakia lost. During that year not only the British, but France, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany. In 1940 the year you strangely claim that "peace would have broken out all over Europe" Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Then they invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands on the same day that Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. I agree that Churchill was a world class bastard, but it would be hard to lay the blame at his feet for the seven invasions that took place prior to his becoming Prime Minister. Maybe you think that the war could have ended there? In addition to beginning the attacks on Britain in 1940 Germany invaded Romania and Italy invaded Greece, and British Somaliland in Africa. In 1941 the Nazis attacked Romania, Greece, and Yugoslavia, and then Russia despite there being a peace treaty between the two countries. So was England supposed to have made peace with this clearly trustworthy Germany? Would Germany have left Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Soviets alone if Churchill had made peace with Hitler? In 1941 the Nazis began the mass extermination of the Jews, Roma, and others. I don't suppose that felt very peaceful to the victims?
There are lots of alternative narratives to be found and listened to in history. But a narrative that has Hitler stopping his war machine in mid 1940 because he was able to make a treaty with the Brits, is a bit of a reach.
Just a few posts ago you stated, "Our client's data is their own" and you seemed to imply that hacking the smart meter data to record your own usage was a good way to verify that you are being billed correctly. Now you tell us that accessing the smart meter this way is likely to get you caught. I'm a bit confused.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't pick your VP to match your views you pick your VP to fill in the blanks in your own personality.
And since Romney utterly lacks any detailed concrete policy positions, we can now look to the "Ryan Budget" as an example of the apocalypse that R&R have planned for the middle class.
We NEED big science.
And we need health care... and welfare... and food stamps... and national defense... and the space program is really important... and drug rehabilitation programs... and the FDA... and the EPA... and without the NEA our kids won't learn about art and learning about art has been shown a correlation with higher math and science scores... and we need to protect our borders... and did I mention healthcare?? Nearly everything our government does is important to someone but it's clear from our high taxes and massive deficit that we just can't afford it all. Cutting waste will help but it won't enough. Some programs that are good and useful need to be shrunk or eliminated too. Doing so is of course unpopular. Whether or not this particular program was the best one to cut, I'm glad Ryan has the guts to make the hard decisions that need to be made and deal with the political fallout.
Yep we do need all that, and I can think of three things that we don't need. We don't need to spend more than the rest of the planet combined on our military, we don't need a massively expensive police/surveillance state, and we don't need to have almost trivially small tax rates for the richest people. Imagine that! We could get rid of a handful of things we don't need and be able to pay for the things we do need!
It just so happens that it shifted Republicans from "we're willing to spend responsibly" to "we don't want to spend at all, cut cut cut!" and it shifted
Democrats from "we want to spend like hogs on speed" to "we're willing to spend responsibly".
You are suffering from a complete disconnect from reality. The last Republican President to spend responsibly was Nixon. Reagan, Bush1, and Bush2 all spent with complete irresponsibility. Reagan and Bush1 at least faced reality and tried to increase revenue to match the profligate spending. Clinton did a fair job at bring things back under control. Obama is doing a good job at doing the same but he is faced with the challenge of the worst economy since the 1930s. After the big stimulus of 2009 spending growth has slowed significantly. Look at the chart below.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vd2xLvW0CHc/TsWZiTKb9YI/AAAAAAAAOg0/IeMyHyUuo-Q/s1600/DebtChart.jpg
As far as more stimulus is concerned... stimulus is the only thing that works at times like this. The great depression proved this. Our current debacle proves this. I'm all for i t
And he seems only willing to pay for it primarily through tax hikes, instead of budget cuts. That's hardly what I'd call "tried to reign in the deficit". Regardless, how can someone take you seriously when spend several trillion dollars in three years and then offer a plan to cut the deficit maybe 100-200 billion per year for the next 10 years?
Another disconnect from reality. Excluding the stimulus which was needed to prevent a complete collapse and needed to catch us from the disaster left by Bush2, spending has been nearly flat. Obama's budgets have had substantial spending cuts. Not as substantial as some republicans want. But remember that those republicans only favor such cuts when there is a democrat in the whitehouse. The debt went up about 5.24 trillion during Bush2 and he never made any plan for reigning that in. During Reagan/Bush1 the debt, which had remained stable since WW2, more than doubled from ~2 trillion to 5 trillion (all figures are in 2000 dollars). So exactly how are we supposed to take republican claims of fiscal responsibility seriously? Have they offered an alternative plan? Oh yeah the Ryan plan: raise taxes on the middle class, slash the budget for everything except the military, let the deficit run wild, all to pay for huge tax cuts for the richest of the rich. That seems... irresponsible but entirely typical.
Yes we are in a pickle but the debt is not our biggest problem. Our real problems are real unemployment of nearly 20% and a society that works it's ass off and benefits only the rich while the rest of us are left to fight over the scraps, all while the scraps get smaller.
This is infront of a jury. "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony" "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"
It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method. And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.
Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.
With a cost of 140 million dollars USD.
That's a nice complete sentence!
As for aggressiveness, there is something wrong with your traffic system if anyone needs to drive aggressively just to keep moving.
What planet are you from? Of course there is something wrong with our traffic system. There are lots of things wrong. Something like 30,000 people in the US died in car accidents last year, and that is WAY down from what it used to be. The main thing wrong with our system is the idiot behind the wheel. But I digress. Of course there are times when you have to be more aggressive to get anywhere. Turning off my road onto the main drag in the morning often means using a large percentage of my cars acceleration capability. I'm talking just a bit short of spinning my wheels. Why? Well traffic is moving fast, the lights are timed such that there is always a steady flow of cars past my road and most people tailgate. You have to wait until you find a big enough gap and the you GO. I think that people are concerned that the automatic cars will have to be programmed to be so conservative that they would just sit there indefinitely like an old lady waiting for a huge gap to turn in to. BTW this does happen with human drivers too. There are about 8 houses and one apartment building on my street and on a few occasions about half the population of my street have been lined up waiting for some terrified idiot who couldn't find a gap big enough to pull out of.
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
Here in the Bay Area driving under the speed limit on the freeway is hazard to others. Traffic routinely moves substantially faster than the limit. A car lollygagging along at 54mph causes big backups and eventually someone will rear-end someone else. This is why the CHP stays off the freeways during the rush, they know that their presence causes more accidents that it prevents.
even more so once you consider that both parties are right wing by any sane standard...
By what standard? The far-left standard? Jeez, if you're to the right of Mao Zedong you get tarred and feathered these days.
How about by the standards of the right wing just a generation ago right here in the good ole USA.
Reagan's tax policies and Obama's are very close. Broad cuts (or in Obama's case extention in existing cuts) in rates and closing loopholes for the rich. Obama's signature bill was his medical insurance reform act, was a slight mod of the early '90's Republican health care alternative to Hilarycare. Obama has continued extra-judicial detentions of bush, the domestic surveillance of bush, the wars of bush, and has radically expanded the extra-judicial assasinations via drone strikes that bush started. A generation ago it was unthinkable for any politician left or right to attack social security or medicare. The democrats, while still getting some support from unions, have completely abandoned returning that support. Obama is pushing a trade deal with So. Korea that like NAFTA is based on looney right wing economic falderol. Obama and Clinton's supreme court nominations only appear liberal in comparison to the new conservative justices. Kagan and Sotomayor don't hold a candle to any of the great liberal justices of the mid-twentieth century. Recall that Nixon signed into law the EPA, OSHA, and the Endangered Species Act. Hell Nixon didn't just sign the EPA bill, he proposed it! Obama has been a big supporter of big oil and big military spending. Obama has also done nothing to restrict gun rights.
In fact with a few exceptions the Democrats of today look a lot like the Republicans of 20 or more years ago. Those exceptions obviously include social hot-button issues like abortion/women's right to choose, and gay marriage/protect marriage. The other big exception is that Obama after his continuation of big bailouts and stimulus started by bush to save the economy from the freefall we were in, has been that Obama has actually tried to reign in the deficit unlike his borrow and spend republican opponents.
The reason that the US seems so politically polarized today is that the Democrats have only strolled to the right during the last 30 years while the Republicans have been sprinting to the right, while the people who haven't been infected by fox etc have remained mostly in place.
Over in England, We have had the wettest April through June since our records began [BBC News]. Please send us some sunny weather!
Well we might not be able to send any sunny weather over, but we're making a pretty good effort at stalling the Atlantic thermohaline cycle. That'll stop your rain for you.
It's the Surface Tablet Computer with Frickin' Lasers!
ically, people that tow-the-line on sustainability are often the first to fool themselves that taking from the rich isn't subject to the laws of sustainability either.
No, no, no. Killing the rich isn't sustainable. Taxing them certainly is sustainable. It's like selective logging versus clearcutting. In fact what is not sustainable is allowing the rich to twist the laws of our nations to allow them to accumulate wildly disproportionate wealth. That leads to massive poverty, societal instability, loss of liberty, and the waste of the talents of the overwhelming majority. Extremely high taxes on the richest just plain work. Look at the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Massive growth of the middle class, astonishing leaps of technology and amazing accomplishments. The best and longest reduction in poverty in our nation's history.
Anyone can sit down and write down license plate numbers.
1 Citizens have done this on their own when they have suspected a house on their block of drug trafficking. Very few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.
2 Police officers routinely check license plates against a registry of stolen cars. Few would consider this to be an invasion of privacy.
3 If police placed a device on my car that told them where I was 24/7, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.
Having traffic plate scanners all over the place seems like an extension of case #2 where the police are checking license plates on their own... but simply using technology to speed up the process. Where is the line? Is it the automation and efficiency? Would we be upset if automated systems were in place to catch stolen cars or those with outstanding warrants? Or is it storing of the data so that someone else can use the data later for a non-law enforcement type purpose? Would we have a problem with the system if it was incapable of storing the data?
Actually it seems to me that having enough scanners around would make your case 2 approach case 3. They know all your movements (everyone's) and make a database of everyone's movements. If the end result is the same, only the method different why would you consider one to be a violation of your privacy and the other not?
Hey we are talking about OSX here, not like we're talking about iphones. It's been a loooong time since I had to know where a program goes to install it on windows. Download the .exe or .msi and double click on it. And it's still a program.
Remember when "apps" were called "programs"?
And how much of the 10% you did watch did you lose in the switch?
Seriously who cares. There are tons of things on TV that I'm not even aware of. Anyone who actually watches anywhere near 10% of all the programming available on cable TV needs to check into a tubal detoxification clinic ASAP. My life is better because I am unaware of all those time wasters. I watch about 1 show a day, (lately Breaking Bad) and I find plenty on netflix to feed my small need for watching the screen. I may be missing shows, those shows may even be really good. If they are then someday I'll add them to my DVD queue. Life is just soooo much better without TV. No commercials, if my son is still falling asleep I can just wait another 15 minutes before I start the next episode of Breaking Bad.
In addition to making your own life better, getting rid of commercial driven tv is the best thing you can for your children's psychological and intellectual health. My 8 year old son is reading "A Wrinkle In Time" right now instead of watching some rot on TV. It almost brings a tear to my eye it makes me so happy.
Broadband $35/month
Netflix $14/month
Ability to watch my shows without commercials.... priceless
Nope, no guilt here. Bitch wanted to take my property. I took their life. Fuck them and their disregard for the law.
Yup. Sociopath.
When in fact they dont know the real context or the real truth of what was going on but people wont care because they WANT to see things in a bad light, they WANT to bitch about the police and they WANT to be outraged. They dont care about context at all.
Clearly you WANT to see police in the best light. Fine. Different people have different biases. If the police were subduing a violent criminal they'll be fine even if they do get recorded. I find that most people do care about context. You seem to. Aren't you a person?
American citizens dont always have the right to stick their nose into things dont involve them.
Actually it is quite clear that American Citizens DO have the right to monitor the activities of our employees. In fact in order to maintain our society as a free society, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to keep tabs on our government.
People fear the police and when people fear something they tend to hate it.
Many people do fear the police, but that fear comes from personal experience not TV or youtube. Perhaps you live in lillywhiteville and you get a free pass, but in most big cities the citizenry, particularly the poor have learned fear from generations of ill treatment.
They bitch the police dont do enough when something bad happens, but then the police then pull that person over for speeding and give them a ticket they bitch about the cops just for doing their job.
I do this. I bitch when police fail to deal with really bad stuff then spend tons of hours on fairly inconsequential stuff. I bitch when the police spend hours manning speed trap when there are hundreds of unsolved murders in the same city. I bitch when they run prostitution stings and harass the poor women when their pimps, just a block away go scott free, or when there is someone slinging crack or heroin on the same block.
If someone is doing something violent and the police respond in kind because its the only way to end it quickly before more damage is done then people blame the police instead of blaming the person who caused the whole situation.
I don't find this to be the case at all. People tend to be understanding about that. People don't tend to be understanding about when police get violent for no apparent reason, or when they get brutal or murderous. There is never justification for brutality, yet it happens frequently.
If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.
Careful! The recent court rulings holding up the rights of citizens to record police, require that the citizen be overt, not covert about it. If you were being secretive then the wiretap laws could still apply.
You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.
Verified. Please allow me to refer you to my post below, or perhaps the source of that info, or perhaps the actual code. God forbid the day should ever come when I actually need to shoot someone, but rest assured I will feel no guilt. Any lives ruined in the process will be the offenders fault. I didn't ask/tell them to put their life in jeopardy in order to rob a law-abiding armed citizen.
Seriously you would kill someone and "feel not guilt" to keep your cell phone? Either you are full of bluster or you are a dangerous sociopath.
Google failed me. I googled for "2002 concorde temperatre control schematics" and not a single result ha dthe word "schematics" in it. I was horrified that advanced search is GONE now, and "+schematics" still didn't return anything with that word.
Perhaps if you tried "2002 concorde temperature control wiring diagram" you might get better results. Sorry but google is an american company, chrysler is an american car company you'll get better results if you use american words and spelling. Using search engines well is a skill.
As a very anti-union person, I agree. Let's see the unions actually improve conditions for their workers, and I'll happily sign on. Let's see pressure for 4-day work weeks, now that automation can maintain production. Let's see minimum wage increases to something above 1960s levels. Let's see a reasonable way for union members to express their concern for current jobs, without their votes being overrun by more senior retirees worried mostly about their pension guarantees. Let's see open membership for anyone with a stake in the working conditions of an industry, rather than just those with a certain amount of experience (which must be earned in non-union shops). Let's see something more than pointless political maneuvers to "maintain leverage" and actually do something with that leverage.
Of course you are describing the history of the American labor movement up through the mid 1970s, when the push back became really organized and put Reagan in the Whitehouse. We can thank unions for: the weekend and 40 hour work week, labor regulations, OSHA, sick leave, the raised standard of living in the Post War period, and nearly every other bit of improvement for workers since the 1880s. You can't be anti-union and expect the unions to be effective for you. That's the whole point, through organization workers become strong enough to negotiate the terms of employment. Alone each person is insignificant to big corporations.
I hear lots of people here saying, "well if you're good you won't put up with this sort of abuse." That doesn't work when there is someone as good or nearly as good willing to work for less begging for your job.
From Solidarity Forever
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.
They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.
Fourthly, a virus on a smart meter? Good luck with that. They're nowhere near that smart...
Good to know. Though I do know they are networked and that the utility now has the ability to shut down and restore power without sending anyone to the actual site, so I will be surprised if we don't see exploits with bad results for people in the next few years.
No, there were plenty of British who wanted peace instead of a war with no end in sight. There had been a fight on the Continent, the British lost, it was all fair and square. Had the British not been led by one of history's greatest warmongers, Winston Churchill, peace would have broken out all over Europe in 1940. Plus, the bankers made a tidy profit from the war - the same bankers that OWS demonstrates against today. Nice failure to understand history beyond the "accepted narrative" of WWII though.
Actually during the "fight on the Continent" the British didn't loose so much as they had to retreat from Dunkirk in a rather disorderly fashion. In 1939 Poland lost and Czechoslovakia lost. During that year not only the British, but France, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany. In 1940 the year you strangely claim that "peace would have broken out all over Europe" Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Then they invaded France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands on the same day that Winston Churchill became Prime Minister. I agree that Churchill was a world class bastard, but it would be hard to lay the blame at his feet for the seven invasions that took place prior to his becoming Prime Minister. Maybe you think that the war could have ended there? In addition to beginning the attacks on Britain in 1940 Germany invaded Romania and Italy invaded Greece, and British Somaliland in Africa. In 1941 the Nazis attacked Romania, Greece, and Yugoslavia, and then Russia despite there being a peace treaty between the two countries. So was England supposed to have made peace with this clearly trustworthy Germany? Would Germany have left Romania, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Soviets alone if Churchill had made peace with Hitler? In 1941 the Nazis began the mass extermination of the Jews, Roma, and others. I don't suppose that felt very peaceful to the victims?
There are lots of alternative narratives to be found and listened to in history. But a narrative that has Hitler stopping his war machine in mid 1940 because he was able to make a treaty with the Brits, is a bit of a reach.
Just a few posts ago you stated, "Our client's data is their own" and you seemed to imply that hacking the smart meter data to record your own usage was a good way to verify that you are being billed correctly. Now you tell us that accessing the smart meter this way is likely to get you caught. I'm a bit confused.