Really? The media consistently shows us that their are 2 parties and never even talks about the other parties out there. Maybe if they did they would become what you refer to as "legitimate." I suppose Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate? The media wrote him off and treated him as a joke long before the primaries were over. The media presents 2 parties that are almost identical and calls it "Americas Choice $YEAR". They perpetuate the NO choice system that Americans live in today.
A previous poster said it well, "supporting either of these candidates makes one part of the problem in this country." I would have to agree really. If people really want to see our government run the way it was designed, with a return to personal liberty and responsibility, then we have to get away from the 2 parties. It really is that simple. The question is how do we get the media to stop presenting the 2 parties as the only choices?
I tend to agree with you, but evidently those who run the site think it's stuff that matters. Although I have to admit that I like reading all the political banter on/. Gives me some good laughs occasionally.
How about remove all gun laws except two.
1. No one is allowed to sell/purchase/trade any firearms at all in the US.
2. You may build whatever you want without restriction.
This way, if your mad, at least it will take a good bit of work to pull off your maniacal plan.
Your dad was an asshole too huh? Well it appears far more prevalent than society would like to admit, or seem to care to admit anyways. Just be patient as one day he will be helpless and you will be in your prime. I am waiting I can assure you.
Right. Turn the amps up, and drive them. Sure, at low volumes modeling/transistor amps sound great. Turn them up and drive the amp during a side by side comparison. Many a great engineer has attempted to recreate the tube effect in solid state and failed.
Longitudinal waves. Standing Waves. Scalar Waves. All names of the same thing. A guy named Eric Dollard in CA did research on Tesla and evidently created the same single wire, ground, and air energy transmission system that Tesla did. He has displayed this publicly and as far as I know he attributes all of it to Tesla. I have read about this a bit, and there are groups who are actively pursuing this technology as well as the theory behind it, as it falls outside of classical EM theory. As far as E. Dollard, the displays are understood to be real and what Tesla discovered also real. History has been unkind to the man.
whatever,.com is a bad habit after this many years. I don't spend much time at *.gov...
Maybe so... Most of them are downloading LOIC and joining in the fun. They are not hackers or crackers or anything. They are, if anything, protesters. The ones who are rooting and dropping the real dox aren't talking and that is the point.
I don't think you get it. Of course you brag when you DDOS the CIA's servers and take down cia.com.
You will never hear a word about them rooting all their servers though. Maybe one day but that's only because they have to do a release of information.
Now, if blood were shed, they'd either immediately give up or take up arms. Now, if the US were India and had a Gandhi or another Martin Luther King standing up...
We will never know if a MLK or a Gandhi has stood up or is standing up, as long as the media mocks movements like OWS. For all anyone knows the next great leader is standing right in front of us. Too bad all we do is make fun of them for wanting something different than what there is.
I am not ignoring it. I get it. My last reply was pointing out that a la carte programming would destroy the economics of the industry. But I don't care about their industry. In the current setup, yes it would cost me more to get what I want. I completely understand that and am not ignoring it. I also stated that if the price was too high then I would decide at that point if it was worth it. I do not agree that because the economics of some industry may be disrupted that I have to continue to support it and should not seek other options. I am certain that others would agree with me. Maybe not you...
I don't care if you agree with me though, and don't bold the letters like I am some retard. It's condescending.
I don't have a problem with tuning in at a specific time. They can broadcast online and sell me access. That's not that hard. Same as traditional TV just online. I think they should keep cable and do that anyways. CBS can charge $20 per month to watch their network online. Like MLB.tv.
I don't get why all of you are so opposed to the idea. The FCC was for a la carte programming. I understand that it can really hurt the economics of the TV industry, but I also think that if the home shopping network can't sell enough junk to stay on the air that's their problem. I shouldn't have to pay for something I don't want. I am about to just disconnect it anyways. The negative far outweighs any benefits of paying for a bunch of crap channels I never watch.
Isn't that assuming that the show would only stream from one location? Certainly we have technologies that allow 75Tb not not be true. Multicast? Just sayin...
Well, if the case was a specific channel costs more, then I would consider at that time how much I really want it. I have the basic package now. No add ons.
I have 3 kids and they watch 2 channels. I watch probably 2. Whale wars and science shows sometimes. I just think the networks or whatever should stream the content and charge a monthly fee. Cut out the middle man all together. Then Google TV would be worth something. So would Roku and all the others.
Shutup. Dickhead. I would prefer not to even have a damn TV. I wonder how many kids you have? I bet you watch TV every day. The topic is about Google TV. I don't think any of them are worth anything.
However, why exactly are you coming to a discussion about television and telling everyone to go fuck themselves? If you don't like the fact that people have opinions about technology and its delivery in the first world, then move to a fucking hut in a village and stop reading websites about technology. Got it?
All I want to know is when I can buy a device that will allow me to stream the channels I want? I am willing to pay a monthly fee for those stations. I just want the live stream of the station.
Don't say cable. I want to stream the channels I want. Not 150 other channels I don't want. I would even pay up to 2 or 3 dollars a month for the channels I do want. And I will watch their damn ads too. I say 2 or 3 dollars because 150 / $65 = $2.30. Rough guess anyways...
Roku cannot do it. Even with playon and adding my own channel with streams or whatever. I still cannot get the 6 or 7 channels I want. Will Google solve that problem with their device? I doubt it.
Whoever solves that problem is going to be the winner of the internet TV device streaming app thingamajig war.
Does the fact that they teach you how to write a script in Hollywood have anything to do with it? I mean the studios expect scripts to be written a certain way to even be considered. So they teach people how to write them the right way. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy no? I mean, looking for originality would mean they have to think, or hire people to think. The quality of movies I see would lead me to believe there isn't much of that happening in Hollywood. But I am just a lowly consumer. What do I know...
Their goals and desired outcomes are plain to see and they are achieving them.
Statements like this from Charles Schumer show that the Dems in Congress are paying attention to the middle class and the 99% even if they aren't attributing it to the OWS movement directly. Income inequality, being a point taken up by Dems now, is also one of the main points by OWS. I think their not having a "list of demands" is perfect.
They are changing the conversation. That is their goal. I do not fear them being taken over.
From Huffington Post...
The memo, written by pollster Geoff Garin for Democratic policymaker Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), argues that while the 2010 election was a referendum dominated by anti-tax Tea Party rage against Democratic leadership, the 2012 election will be different because Republicans now share control of the federal government and their policies are increasingly seen as favoring the rich.
"The Republican/Tea Party narrative about the economy has been superseded by a different narrative -- one that emphasizes the need to address the growing gap between those at the very top of the economic ladder and the rest of the country," Garin wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the glare on my glasses? Or do I have to wear contacts?
So you're that guy I have been hearing about. I thought it was a big joke really but I guess not...
Really? The media consistently shows us that their are 2 parties and never even talks about the other parties out there. Maybe if they did they would become what you refer to as "legitimate." I suppose Ron Paul is not a legitimate candidate? The media wrote him off and treated him as a joke long before the primaries were over. The media presents 2 parties that are almost identical and calls it "Americas Choice $YEAR". They perpetuate the NO choice system that Americans live in today.
A previous poster said it well, "supporting either of these candidates makes one part of the problem in this country." I would have to agree really. If people really want to see our government run the way it was designed, with a return to personal liberty and responsibility, then we have to get away from the 2 parties. It really is that simple. The question is how do we get the media to stop presenting the 2 parties as the only choices?
I tend to agree with you, but evidently those who run the site think it's stuff that matters. Although I have to admit that I like reading all the political banter on /. Gives me some good laughs occasionally.
Stuff that matters? enough said...
Sensible gun laws? Like what?
How about remove all gun laws except two.
1. No one is allowed to sell/purchase/trade any firearms at all in the US.
2. You may build whatever you want without restriction.
This way, if your mad, at least it will take a good bit of work to pull off your maniacal plan.
Your dad was an asshole too huh? Well it appears far more prevalent than society would like to admit, or seem to care to admit anyways. Just be patient as one day he will be helpless and you will be in your prime. I am waiting I can assure you.
Right. Turn the amps up, and drive them. Sure, at low volumes modeling/transistor amps sound great. Turn them up and drive the amp during a side by side comparison. Many a great engineer has attempted to recreate the tube effect in solid state and failed.
Longitudinal waves. Standing Waves. Scalar Waves. All names of the same thing. A guy named Eric Dollard in CA did research on Tesla and evidently created the same single wire, ground, and air energy transmission system that Tesla did. He has displayed this publicly and as far as I know he attributes all of it to Tesla. I have read about this a bit, and there are groups who are actively pursuing this technology as well as the theory behind it, as it falls outside of classical EM theory. As far as E. Dollard, the displays are understood to be real and what Tesla discovered also real. History has been unkind to the man.
We'll get low on resources eventually. Then we will be out there looking for some. And I don't mean manufactured scarcity.
whatever, .com is a bad habit after this many years. I don't spend much time at *.gov...
Maybe so... Most of them are downloading LOIC and joining in the fun. They are not hackers or crackers or anything. They are, if anything, protesters. The ones who are rooting and dropping the real dox aren't talking and that is the point.
I don't think you get it. Of course you brag when you DDOS the CIA's servers and take down cia.com.
You will never hear a word about them rooting all their servers though. Maybe one day but that's only because they have to do a release of information.
We will never know if a MLK or a Gandhi has stood up or is standing up, as long as the media mocks movements like OWS. For all anyone knows the next great leader is standing right in front of us. Too bad all we do is make fun of them for wanting something different than what there is.
Call me a tin foil hat wearing loony all you want. It's like that for a reason.
Firm grasp of the obvious huh?
I am not ignoring it. I get it. My last reply was pointing out that a la carte programming would destroy the economics of the industry. But I don't care about their industry. In the current setup, yes it would cost me more to get what I want. I completely understand that and am not ignoring it. I also stated that if the price was too high then I would decide at that point if it was worth it. I do not agree that because the economics of some industry may be disrupted that I have to continue to support it and should not seek other options. I am certain that others would agree with me. Maybe not you...
I don't care if you agree with me though, and don't bold the letters like I am some retard. It's condescending.
I don't have a problem with tuning in at a specific time. They can broadcast online and sell me access. That's not that hard. Same as traditional TV just online. I think they should keep cable and do that anyways. CBS can charge $20 per month to watch their network online. Like MLB.tv.
I don't get why all of you are so opposed to the idea. The FCC was for a la carte programming. I understand that it can really hurt the economics of the TV industry, but I also think that if the home shopping network can't sell enough junk to stay on the air that's their problem. I shouldn't have to pay for something I don't want. I am about to just disconnect it anyways. The negative far outweighs any benefits of paying for a bunch of crap channels I never watch.
Isn't that assuming that the show would only stream from one location? Certainly we have technologies that allow 75Tb not not be true. Multicast? Just sayin...
Well, if the case was a specific channel costs more, then I would consider at that time how much I really want it. I have the basic package now. No add ons. I have 3 kids and they watch 2 channels. I watch probably 2. Whale wars and science shows sometimes. I just think the networks or whatever should stream the content and charge a monthly fee. Cut out the middle man all together. Then Google TV would be worth something. So would Roku and all the others.
Shutup. Dickhead. I would prefer not to even have a damn TV. I wonder how many kids you have? I bet you watch TV every day. The topic is about Google TV. I don't think any of them are worth anything.
However, why exactly are you coming to a discussion about television and telling everyone to go fuck themselves? If you don't like the fact that people have opinions about technology and its delivery in the first world, then move to a fucking hut in a village and stop reading websites about technology. Got it?
Sorry. You lose. Blocking manually means I am still receiving them.
All I want to know is when I can buy a device that will allow me to stream the channels I want? I am willing to pay a monthly fee for those stations. I just want the live stream of the station.
Don't say cable. I want to stream the channels I want. Not 150 other channels I don't want. I would even pay up to 2 or 3 dollars a month for the channels I do want. And I will watch their damn ads too. I say 2 or 3 dollars because 150 / $65 = $2.30. Rough guess anyways...
Roku cannot do it. Even with playon and adding my own channel with streams or whatever. I still cannot get the 6 or 7 channels I want. Will Google solve that problem with their device? I doubt it.
Whoever solves that problem is going to be the winner of the internet TV device streaming app thingamajig war.
Does the fact that they teach you how to write a script in Hollywood have anything to do with it? I mean the studios expect scripts to be written a certain way to even be considered. So they teach people how to write them the right way. Sort of a self fulfilling prophecy no? I mean, looking for originality would mean they have to think, or hire people to think. The quality of movies I see would lead me to believe there isn't much of that happening in Hollywood. But I am just a lowly consumer. What do I know...
Statements like this from Charles Schumer show that the Dems in Congress are paying attention to the middle class and the 99% even if they aren't attributing it to the OWS movement directly. Income inequality, being a point taken up by Dems now, is also one of the main points by OWS. I think their not having a "list of demands" is perfect. They are changing the conversation. That is their goal. I do not fear them being taken over.
From Huffington Post...
The memo, written by pollster Geoff Garin for Democratic policymaker Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), argues that while the 2010 election was a referendum dominated by anti-tax Tea Party rage against Democratic leadership, the 2012 election will be different because Republicans now share control of the federal government and their policies are increasingly seen as favoring the rich.
"The Republican/Tea Party narrative about the economy has been superseded by a different narrative -- one that emphasizes the need to address the growing gap between those at the very top of the economic ladder and the rest of the country," Garin wrote.