If the federal reserve system was nationalized, and the Department of the Treasury could issue debt-free "greenbacks"
Actually, no I don't think they can. The government is given the power (in the Constitution) to "Coin" money, not to issue fiat money. The founders were very aware of the dangers of fiat money to destabilizing and destroying economies and countries and specifically avoided granting that power to the federal government. They were, however, given the power to borrow money. The Federal Reserve (not a branch/department of the Federal Government, but a private organization) was created as an end-run around the Constitution, in order to establish fiat currency in the US and give all power/control over to the International Banking Cartel. The Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency (not the Federal Government) and the Federal Government borrows it. This beholdens the government, the corporations, and the people to the independent Banking Cartel for any issue dealing with money. Effectively granting them control of the entire country.
The only solution (and it is a tough one), is to eliminate the Federal Reserve, seize all of it's and its member's assets, and issuing a new currency backed by wealth (i.e. gold/silver) and not by debt.
If a corporation is a person for legal purposes, it should be a person for taxation purposes.
Actually, you have that backwards. Income (as defined by the IRS) is corporate profit. So, for taxation purposes, people are treated as corporations (although with far less deductible expenses).
Yeah but due to licensing, any blu-ray player you buy, gives money to Sony. Any Blu-Ray disc you buy, gives money to them. And that is only one example. The parent (grand parent or whatever) is right; it's very hard to boycott large corporations, the larger the corporation, the harder it is.
So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.
Also, the answer the second question is "No". The plaintiff got fired due to his actions not because someone reported them. If the University had found out some other way, the Plaintiff would still have been fired and for the same reason.
Juries are typically told that they MUST decide only on the facts, not on the law or on the fairness of the punishment.
Yes, Juries are lied to all the time. The judge will never tell the jury that they have the right (and obligation) to find a defendant not guilty of any crime that they believe is unjust. If they jurist does not believe the action the defendant took (and for the reason he took it). should not be illegal (or punishable in civil cases) they are required to vote "not guilty". It is called Jury Nullification, it is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is why it is everyone right to be tried in front of a jury of their peers. It was inconceivable to the writers of the constitution that 12 of your peers would support punishing a person via an immoral or unjust law which is why they gave the people the sole power to convict.
if you compare their salaries and benefits to those of folks in the private sector doing the same thing.
Citation please? I know you're going to be hard-pressed to find comparisons for jobs that don't exist in the private sector; Legislative 'runners', Congressmen, Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Aides, etc. Not to mention the people who qualify for full pensions. There pretty much are no pensions in the private sector anymore, so anyone with one in the public sector is, by definition, overpaid.
The problem with government jobs is that government doesn't produce anything, doesn't sell anything and isn't even attempting to break even let alone turn a profit. Because of this, there is no real control on wages. There is no one looking at the bottom line and making the hard choices in terms of pay cuts, layoffs, etc. On the Federal level, there is the mentality that the government cannot run out of money, that there is nothing that the government can't afford to pay and it is that mentality that is destroying this country. I remember listening to some Congressmen say, when asked about the $50 billion in cash that was sent to Iraq and was lost and mismanaged, that "$50 billion dollars isn't a lot of money, so what are you worrying about?" He should of been shot and in another time, he probably would of been.
If 'the money' is owned by 'the people' then it is not YOUR money
Yes, it is no longer MY money but I still have a say in how it should be spent. Saying it's the government's money and it's none of my business how they spend it, is just wrong.
Teachers make crap money. Government workers make crap money.
Please define "crap money" because I don't think it means what you think it means. Do they make the millions some CEO's make? No. Do they make more then what their responsibilities are worth? Arguably, yes, way more. The other thing to remember is that there are a lot more Teachers and Government workers then there are CEO's.
It isn't your money.... You exchanged the money for your citizenship rights
No, that is not correct. I don't pay taxes in exchange for rights. I was born with inalienable rights and I, along with many others, constructed and now fund a government whose sole purpose is to protect those rights. The government is not separate from the people, it is made of the people, given power by the people, and it's whole purpose is to do the people's will. So any money the government has does not belong to it, it belongs to the people as a whole (rather than to the people individually). The idea that the money belongs to the government, is owed to the government came from politicians who would like to turn the government into something that it is not. This idea is false and should be derided, denied, and argued every time it is mentioned.
The rest of your comment was good but I had to comment on this little piece because you work in the financial sector. You need a six-figure salary to pay a $450/month loan comfortably? Really? That's funny because I have a well under six-figure salary and pay about $1500/month total in debt-service. It's not comfortable by any means but I would dream of only having to pay $450 for 65k in debt....
Aside from the other issues I have, the article goes into a lot of detail about how the US might try and convict Assange regarding the publications of these leaks but it misses a very key point. Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he on US soil when the leaks were published, therefore he is not subject to any US laws. Period - End of Story. The person this article should have been written about is apparently Bradley Manning who allegedly leaked the info in the first place. That is the comparison that should be make - Leaker to Leaker. Not Leaker to Publisher. The publisher (Wikileaks the organization as opposed to Assange the person) did nothing wrong, they published info that was provided to them which goes right along with their mission statement. It is not the job nor the obligation of every single person on earth to ensure that US secrets are kept secret. That obligation lies with those who want it kept secret and the people they entrust with it. But the buck stops there.
As far as I know, Obama didn't vote against them either.
then along came the banking crisis due to unchecked, rampant capitalism that Fox and Republicans praise so much.
Are you sure that was all of it? I could of swore the Democrat enacted laws that required the banks to make loans without credit checks, to people who could not afford to pay them back was a big part of the banking crises. You know when those federally-backed loans started to default.
And all of this while juggling the tremendous deficit and two wars that Obama inherited from his precursor, and an economic crisis sparked by just these wealthy allmighties which the taxpayer had to step in for.
First off, are you talking about the budget deficit or the national debt? If you are talking about the budget deficit, then know this. The president doesn't make the budget, he can only sign or not sign it. Congress sets the budget. Obama was a congressman before becoming president (for however short a time) and voted for the budget he inherited - so he inherited it from himself in a manner of speaking. If you are talking about the National Debt, then every President has inherited it, but only Obama doubled it in a matter of two years. with the aim of doubling it again in another 8 (I think). That's right, he doubled the debt it took this country over 200 years to accumulate in a just couple of years and plans to double it again. You wonder why we are so spiteful and disapproving? This is why. He is bankrupting this country.
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
And this is bad because??? There is controversy on this issue, about whether it is happening or not. Making it clear, each and every time it is mentioned that it is not yet a universally accepted fact is good, unbiased journalism.
or to use the phrase "government option" instead of "public option" when reporting about the health care plan, because more people react negatively to the former.
I didn't follow the link but was the because included in the memo or are you inserting that yourself. To me saying "Government Option" is more correct, that's exactly what it is. "Public Option" is misleading.
This model has seen health care cost increase significantly faster than any other cost in modern life.
You had a very well thought-out argument until right here. There are other factors that add significantly to the costs of health care which have little to do with individual health insurance plans. The big one is litigation against doctor's and hospitals and the insurance they have to pay to cover that. This is rarely mentioned as a contributor to health care costs but it is a significant expense for all doctors & hospitals. The other thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it is the insurance system itself that allows health care costs to spiral upward. It is the pooling of money, the healthy paying for the sick, that allow doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, etc. to charge more and more than an individual could ever afford to pay. If everyone had to pay their own way, costs would have to come down as no one could afford them. If it had remained that way to begin with, we would not be seeing the price gouging we are seeing today. Seriously, hospitals charge what, $20-$30 for an aspirin? Why? because the insurance is going to pay for it, not some poor soul who could never afford it.
Looking at the list of questions that Fox News viewers were supposedly misinformed on, I can't really see a single cut-and-dried, easily verifiable fact in the list. They are all in a gray-area as to what is true. For example:
* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
What does this question even mean? It could mean was the stimulus legislation directly responsible for lost jobs or it could mean were jobs lost despite the stimulus legislation. The latter I believe is true. It would have to be for unemployment to remain at close to 10% and for jobless claims to rise before, during, and after the stimulus.
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
Won't it? They say it won't but then again they said the Big Dig would only cost a fraction of what it actually did, so there estimates can not be 100% relied upon. We won't know until afterwards who was right and who was wrong. This isn't a verifiable fact yet because it hasn't happened.
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
First off, define "The Economy". Second define "Getter better" and "getting worse". You can't. The economy is amorphous entity conjured up as both the cause of great pain and the bringer endless happiness. People only really understand their own personal economies, their own personal finances and for most of them they are worse off now then they were before and it doesn't look like its getting any better.
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
And what percentage of expert scientists believe this as well? This is not a concluded fact, it is a controversial issue that has experts on both sides contradicting each other. Both sides firmly believe they are right, and since there is lots of money to be had on either side of the issue (the question is who gets it) ulterior motives are highly suspected as they should be.
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
State or Federal? In Massachusetts income taxes have gone up. For who? people making more or less than $250,000? Taxes are such a complex web of crap that even full-time accountants and compliance officers probably don't know for sure one way or the other whether this is true. One example: Did taxes go up? No, but deductions went down.
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
Probably because the tax cuts included were invisible to most people. Sure they got what $500 evenly divided across all paychecks for the year. Who would have noticed this or even spent a whole lot of time talking about it?
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
Well he did call for the firing of the CEO and get a lot of face-time and credit for sealing the deal. Didn't GM and Chrysler initiate it though?
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
Define "Most Republicans". The elected ones, the members of the party, or all who registered as Republicans? Besides that happened years ago, with all the fighting back and forth who can remember that? Not most people. Besides I doubt any news outlet clearly said most Party-X agree, most Party-Y disagree.
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
When was this made clear? I must of missed it. He has vehemently fought any attempt to make his birth certificate available to the public or his school transcripts for that matter. He has spent millions of dollars suppressing this. Why? What does he have to hide? If it's not that he wasn't born in the US then what is it? What would be worth all the money, time and aggravation? This is what makes it unclear to people who don't believe everything they hear. And as far as history goes, I think it is unprecedented. For a US President
Who the hell said Super Mario Bros - The Movie was appalling? Out of all the video game movies made, this is one of the best, right up there with Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Prince of Persia. Don't forget it was meant to be a kid's movie and when I saw it as a kid I thoroughly enjoyed it. Now Alone in the Dark and Doom were appalling movies.
What you're suggesting is that the telephone company should give person A a free telephone line because person B wants to receive the call. No, that's not how it works.
Yes, they both need access to the physical line that the call is routed over and both have to pay for it. This parallels Comcast/Level 3 - Level 3 pays Comcast for the physical connection to Comcast's network, this is fine. Where your analogy breaks-down is where this conversation started - (cell phones aside) the caller is the one who pays for the call, not the receiver. Only one side pays for the usage of the line, the side that initiated the call. In the Level 3/Comcast scenario, Comcast's customers are initiating the data transfer and are the ones responsible for increasing the traffic on Comcast's network and adding to Comcasts costs and therefore they should be the ones who pay for it. It's not Level 3's fault Comcast promised unlimited Internet to their customers and their customers are finally taking advantage of it, that's Comcast's problem. To be clear, I have no problem with Level 3 having to pay for bandwidth for data that goes through Comcast's network but doesn't terminate there, that is perfectly reasonable. I just have a problem with the way Comcast frames this argument - they say it like Level 3 is just pushing this traffic onto their network, unsolicited when it is Comcast's customers (basically Comcast itself) that is requesting the data be sent. I mean come on, if Comcast wins this, they can just sit there and request data from Level 3 all day everyday and just bill Level 3 for it! How does that make any sense at all????
. Now Level 3 is sending significantly more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending back
Yes, but they are sending it to Comcast's customers who requested it. It's not like the traffic is just being funneled through Comcast's network as a shortcut, Comcast is the end-point. It is their customers who are causing the increase in traffic, not Netflix/Level 3 - they are just the source. So instead of charging their customers more for their increased demand, Comcast is trying to charge Level 3 more for having data their customers desire. From my perspective it just seems backwards. Why should Level 3 have to pay Comcast to provide the data that Comcast's customers want and are paying Comcast to deliver? It's double-dipping, burning the candle from both ends, or however you want to put it and wrong.
First, as many others have pointed out, why does there need to be an Android magazine app, as opposed to a web page and RSS feed?
Because people are attracted to shiny things and fads. An iPhone App is more interesting than a boring old web page, even if all the app does is display the web page. It's in an app so its better.
Second, who in their right mind thinks that the market for an Android magazine app on the iPhone is large enough to justify (any) development effort?
Apparently, some one did.
But seriously, does Apple really have an ethical obligation to approve an app that nobody will want anyway?
Yep, they sure do. Let the people decide what they do or do not want.
I also have this game and am about 70 hours into my first play-through. The game has crashed a total of 2 times. The minor bugs I've experienced have not affected the game play at all, they have only made the situation look weird (for instance a guy that was locked in a cell appearing behind me later on). The only other bug had to do with Autosaves and the steam cloud service so I'm not really sure who's at fault for that one but it caused me zero problems. The game is awesome as well as huge. I have been playing for 70+ hours and still have a whole list of quests to complete as well as places I haven't even been to yet. This guy must of rushed through the main story and skipped half or more of the map to finish in 35. I can see why there are still bugs, the game is massive.
Only if one can go back-in-time and not buy a game that they have discovered (after buying) has bugs. This will of course not let the software company know that the sale was lost due to buggy software rather than an unappealing concept/marketing.
Ahhh, Insurance. The only industry that can still legally discriminate based on just about whatever they want (namely gender & age, tho I wouldn't doubt race is one as well).
and by extension, the distance between the object and the two conductors must also me taken into account so you must know what both a kilogram and a meter is to determine an ampere, not to mention what a second is. Sounds like quite the fine mess we have gotten ourselves into as we try attempt to work with things with finer and finer precision.
Slashdot Mirror
If the federal reserve system was nationalized, and the Department of the Treasury could issue debt-free "greenbacks"
Actually, no I don't think they can. The government is given the power (in the Constitution) to "Coin" money, not to issue fiat money. The founders were very aware of the dangers of fiat money to destabilizing and destroying economies and countries and specifically avoided granting that power to the federal government. They were, however, given the power to borrow money. The Federal Reserve (not a branch/department of the Federal Government, but a private organization) was created as an end-run around the Constitution, in order to establish fiat currency in the US and give all power/control over to the International Banking Cartel. The Federal Reserve prints the fiat currency (not the Federal Government) and the Federal Government borrows it. This beholdens the government, the corporations, and the people to the independent Banking Cartel for any issue dealing with money. Effectively granting them control of the entire country.
The only solution (and it is a tough one), is to eliminate the Federal Reserve, seize all of it's and its member's assets, and issuing a new currency backed by wealth (i.e. gold/silver) and not by debt.
If a corporation is a person for legal purposes, it should be a person for taxation purposes.
Actually, you have that backwards. Income (as defined by the IRS) is corporate profit. So, for taxation purposes, people are treated as corporations (although with far less deductible expenses).
Well the way I understand it, in DC circuits the resistance of the wire increases as the distance of it increases. In AC, this is not true.
Yeah but due to licensing, any blu-ray player you buy, gives money to Sony. Any Blu-Ray disc you buy, gives money to them. And that is only one example. The parent (grand parent or whatever) is right; it's very hard to boycott large corporations, the larger the corporation, the harder it is.
So, did he make the posting: yes. Did the plaintiff get fired as a result: yes. Did he lose income as a result: yes.
Also, the answer the second question is "No". The plaintiff got fired due to his actions not because someone reported them. If the University had found out some other way, the Plaintiff would still have been fired and for the same reason.
Juries are typically told that they MUST decide only on the facts, not on the law or on the fairness of the punishment.
Yes, Juries are lied to all the time. The judge will never tell the jury that they have the right (and obligation) to find a defendant not guilty of any crime that they believe is unjust. If they jurist does not believe the action the defendant took (and for the reason he took it). should not be illegal (or punishable in civil cases) they are required to vote "not guilty". It is called Jury Nullification, it is the last line of defense against a tyrannical government which is why it is everyone right to be tried in front of a jury of their peers. It was inconceivable to the writers of the constitution that 12 of your peers would support punishing a person via an immoral or unjust law which is why they gave the people the sole power to convict.
if you compare their salaries and benefits to those of folks in the private sector doing the same thing.
Citation please? I know you're going to be hard-pressed to find comparisons for jobs that don't exist in the private sector; Legislative 'runners', Congressmen, Teachers, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Aides, etc. Not to mention the people who qualify for full pensions. There pretty much are no pensions in the private sector anymore, so anyone with one in the public sector is, by definition, overpaid.
The problem with government jobs is that government doesn't produce anything, doesn't sell anything and isn't even attempting to break even let alone turn a profit. Because of this, there is no real control on wages. There is no one looking at the bottom line and making the hard choices in terms of pay cuts, layoffs, etc. On the Federal level, there is the mentality that the government cannot run out of money, that there is nothing that the government can't afford to pay and it is that mentality that is destroying this country. I remember listening to some Congressmen say, when asked about the $50 billion in cash that was sent to Iraq and was lost and mismanaged, that "$50 billion dollars isn't a lot of money, so what are you worrying about?" He should of been shot and in another time, he probably would of been.
If 'the money' is owned by 'the people' then it is not YOUR money
Yes, it is no longer MY money but I still have a say in how it should be spent. Saying it's the government's money and it's none of my business how they spend it, is just wrong.
Teachers make crap money. Government workers make crap money.
Please define "crap money" because I don't think it means what you think it means. Do they make the millions some CEO's make? No. Do they make more then what their responsibilities are worth? Arguably, yes, way more. The other thing to remember is that there are a lot more Teachers and Government workers then there are CEO's.
It isn't your money .... You exchanged the money for your citizenship rights
No, that is not correct. I don't pay taxes in exchange for rights. I was born with inalienable rights and I, along with many others, constructed and now fund a government whose sole purpose is to protect those rights. The government is not separate from the people, it is made of the people, given power by the people, and it's whole purpose is to do the people's will. So any money the government has does not belong to it, it belongs to the people as a whole (rather than to the people individually). The idea that the money belongs to the government, is owed to the government came from politicians who would like to turn the government into something that it is not. This idea is false and should be derided, denied, and argued every time it is mentioned.
The rest of your comment was good but I had to comment on this little piece because you work in the financial sector. You need a six-figure salary to pay a $450/month loan comfortably? Really? That's funny because I have a well under six-figure salary and pay about $1500/month total in debt-service. It's not comfortable by any means but I would dream of only having to pay $450 for 65k in debt....
I agree. What most people forget is this; a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Either vote for good or don't vote at all.
That thoughts create and manifest themselves in the physical world.
Aside from the other issues I have, the article goes into a lot of detail about how the US might try and convict Assange regarding the publications of these leaks but it misses a very key point. Assange is not a US citizen, nor was he on US soil when the leaks were published, therefore he is not subject to any US laws. Period - End of Story. The person this article should have been written about is apparently Bradley Manning who allegedly leaked the info in the first place. That is the comparison that should be make - Leaker to Leaker. Not Leaker to Publisher. The publisher (Wikileaks the organization as opposed to Assange the person) did nothing wrong, they published info that was provided to them which goes right along with their mission statement. It is not the job nor the obligation of every single person on earth to ensure that US secrets are kept secret. That obligation lies with those who want it kept secret and the people they entrust with it. But the buck stops there.
then along came the banking crisis due to unchecked, rampant capitalism that Fox and Republicans praise so much.
Are you sure that was all of it? I could of swore the Democrat enacted laws that required the banks to make loans without credit checks, to people who could not afford to pay them back was a big part of the banking crises. You know when those federally-backed loans started to default.
And all of this while juggling the tremendous deficit and two wars that Obama inherited from his precursor, and an economic crisis sparked by just these wealthy allmighties which the taxpayer had to step in for.
First off, are you talking about the budget deficit or the national debt? If you are talking about the budget deficit, then know this. The president doesn't make the budget, he can only sign or not sign it. Congress sets the budget. Obama was a congressman before becoming president (for however short a time) and voted for the budget he inherited - so he inherited it from himself in a manner of speaking. If you are talking about the National Debt, then every President has inherited it, but only Obama doubled it in a matter of two years. with the aim of doubling it again in another 8 (I think). That's right, he doubled the debt it took this country over 200 years to accumulate in a just couple of years and plans to double it again. You wonder why we are so spiteful and disapproving? This is why. He is bankrupting this country.
"refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
And this is bad because??? There is controversy on this issue, about whether it is happening or not. Making it clear, each and every time it is mentioned that it is not yet a universally accepted fact is good, unbiased journalism.
or to use the phrase "government option" instead of "public option" when reporting about the health care plan, because more people react negatively to the former.
I didn't follow the link but was the because included in the memo or are you inserting that yourself. To me saying "Government Option" is more correct, that's exactly what it is. "Public Option" is misleading.
This model has seen health care cost increase significantly faster than any other cost in modern life.
You had a very well thought-out argument until right here. There are other factors that add significantly to the costs of health care which have little to do with individual health insurance plans. The big one is litigation against doctor's and hospitals and the insurance they have to pay to cover that. This is rarely mentioned as a contributor to health care costs but it is a significant expense for all doctors & hospitals. The other thing that is rarely mentioned is the fact that it is the insurance system itself that allows health care costs to spiral upward. It is the pooling of money, the healthy paying for the sick, that allow doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, etc. to charge more and more than an individual could ever afford to pay. If everyone had to pay their own way, costs would have to come down as no one could afford them. If it had remained that way to begin with, we would not be seeing the price gouging we are seeing today. Seriously, hospitals charge what, $20-$30 for an aspirin? Why? because the insurance is going to pay for it, not some poor soul who could never afford it.
* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
What does this question even mean? It could mean was the stimulus legislation directly responsible for lost jobs or it could mean were jobs lost despite the stimulus legislation. The latter I believe is true. It would have to be for unemployment to remain at close to 10% and for jobless claims to rise before, during, and after the stimulus.
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
Won't it? They say it won't but then again they said the Big Dig would only cost a fraction of what it actually did, so there estimates can not be 100% relied upon. We won't know until afterwards who was right and who was wrong. This isn't a verifiable fact yet because it hasn't happened.
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
First off, define "The Economy". Second define "Getter better" and "getting worse". You can't. The economy is amorphous entity conjured up as both the cause of great pain and the bringer endless happiness. People only really understand their own personal economies, their own personal finances and for most of them they are worse off now then they were before and it doesn't look like its getting any better.
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
And what percentage of expert scientists believe this as well? This is not a concluded fact, it is a controversial issue that has experts on both sides contradicting each other. Both sides firmly believe they are right, and since there is lots of money to be had on either side of the issue (the question is who gets it) ulterior motives are highly suspected as they should be.
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
State or Federal? In Massachusetts income taxes have gone up. For who? people making more or less than $250,000? Taxes are such a complex web of crap that even full-time accountants and compliance officers probably don't know for sure one way or the other whether this is true. One example: Did taxes go up? No, but deductions went down.
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
Probably because the tax cuts included were invisible to most people. Sure they got what $500 evenly divided across all paychecks for the year. Who would have noticed this or even spent a whole lot of time talking about it?
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
Well he did call for the firing of the CEO and get a lot of face-time and credit for sealing the deal. Didn't GM and Chrysler initiate it though?
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
Define "Most Republicans". The elected ones, the members of the party, or all who registered as Republicans? Besides that happened years ago, with all the fighting back and forth who can remember that? Not most people. Besides I doubt any news outlet clearly said most Party-X agree, most Party-Y disagree.
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
When was this made clear? I must of missed it. He has vehemently fought any attempt to make his birth certificate available to the public or his school transcripts for that matter. He has spent millions of dollars suppressing this. Why? What does he have to hide? If it's not that he wasn't born in the US then what is it? What would be worth all the money, time and aggravation? This is what makes it unclear to people who don't believe everything they hear. And as far as history goes, I think it is unprecedented. For a US President
Who the hell said Super Mario Bros - The Movie was appalling? Out of all the video game movies made, this is one of the best, right up there with Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Prince of Persia. Don't forget it was meant to be a kid's movie and when I saw it as a kid I thoroughly enjoyed it. Now Alone in the Dark and Doom were appalling movies.
What you're suggesting is that the telephone company should give person A a free telephone line because person B wants to receive the call. No, that's not how it works.
Yes, they both need access to the physical line that the call is routed over and both have to pay for it. This parallels Comcast/Level 3 - Level 3 pays Comcast for the physical connection to Comcast's network, this is fine.
Where your analogy breaks-down is where this conversation started - (cell phones aside) the caller is the one who pays for the call, not the receiver. Only one side pays for the usage of the line, the side that initiated the call. In the Level 3/Comcast scenario, Comcast's customers are initiating the data transfer and are the ones responsible for increasing the traffic on Comcast's network and adding to Comcasts costs and therefore they should be the ones who pay for it. It's not Level 3's fault Comcast promised unlimited Internet to their customers and their customers are finally taking advantage of it, that's Comcast's problem. To be clear, I have no problem with Level 3 having to pay for bandwidth for data that goes through Comcast's network but doesn't terminate there, that is perfectly reasonable. I just have a problem with the way Comcast frames this argument - they say it like Level 3 is just pushing this traffic onto their network, unsolicited when it is Comcast's customers (basically Comcast itself) that is requesting the data be sent. I mean come on, if Comcast wins this, they can just sit there and request data from Level 3 all day everyday and just bill Level 3 for it! How does that make any sense at all????
. Now Level 3 is sending significantly more traffic to Comcast than Comcast is sending back
Yes, but they are sending it to Comcast's customers who requested it. It's not like the traffic is just being funneled through Comcast's network as a shortcut, Comcast is the end-point. It is their customers who are causing the increase in traffic, not Netflix/Level 3 - they are just the source. So instead of charging their customers more for their increased demand, Comcast is trying to charge Level 3 more for having data their customers desire. From my perspective it just seems backwards. Why should Level 3 have to pay Comcast to provide the data that Comcast's customers want and are paying Comcast to deliver? It's double-dipping, burning the candle from both ends, or however you want to put it and wrong.
First, as many others have pointed out, why does there need to be an Android magazine app, as opposed to a web page and RSS feed?
Because people are attracted to shiny things and fads. An iPhone App is more interesting than a boring old web page, even if all the app does is display the web page. It's in an app so its better.
Second, who in their right mind thinks that the market for an Android magazine app on the iPhone is large enough to justify (any) development effort?
Apparently, some one did.
But seriously, does Apple really have an ethical obligation to approve an app that nobody will want anyway?
Yep, they sure do. Let the people decide what they do or do not want.
I also have this game and am about 70 hours into my first play-through. The game has crashed a total of 2 times. The minor bugs I've experienced have not affected the game play at all, they have only made the situation look weird (for instance a guy that was locked in a cell appearing behind me later on). The only other bug had to do with Autosaves and the steam cloud service so I'm not really sure who's at fault for that one but it caused me zero problems. The game is awesome as well as huge. I have been playing for 70+ hours and still have a whole list of quests to complete as well as places I haven't even been to yet. This guy must of rushed through the main story and skipped half or more of the map to finish in 35. I can see why there are still bugs, the game is massive.
Only if one can go back-in-time and not buy a game that they have discovered (after buying) has bugs. This will of course not let the software company know that the sale was lost due to buggy software rather than an unappealing concept/marketing.
Ahhh, Insurance. The only industry that can still legally discriminate based on just about whatever they want (namely gender & age, tho I wouldn't doubt race is one as well).
and by extension, the distance between the object and the two conductors must also me taken into account so you must know what both a kilogram and a meter is to determine an ampere, not to mention what a second is. Sounds like quite the fine mess we have gotten ourselves into as we try attempt to work with things with finer and finer precision.
I liked my way better.