It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
I know for a fact that I was reading Slashdot as early as 1998. I don't think I bothered registering until 2002ish when I was working at the PSU computer labs and dreadfully bored during the 12am-8am shifts.
Sounds like somebody's been reading a little too much of The Register [theregister.co.uk] lately.
I don't read The Register anymore because of that practice. It's damned annoying to see that term used so often. I understand that it is a colloquialism, but few get me as annoyed as 'boffins'. I suppose a bit of my problem is that it is not precise. There are many instances in which it gets used and you have to wonder, "Did they mean physicists, astronomers... Geologists or biologists or paleontologists?)
Oh, with that speed it might do a bit more than that. (You probably just got your numbers off a bit, but I thought it would be a bit of fun with a 'what if')
To avoid dealing with imaginary numbers, I'll reduce it's speed so it is 1 m/s LESS than 300 x 10^6. (in this case, I'll approximate c to 3.0e8 m/s) 20 meters in diameter. 4/3*3.14*100 = 419 m^3 or 419,000,000 cm^3 assume it's not very dense, maybe at water so 1g/cm3 so it will weigh in at 419,000kg
The lorentz factor is approximately 12246
So the result is 419,000*3.0e16*12246 = 4.62e26 Joules.
Or about 1% of the energy that would result if you were to place the Earth directly in the path of the Moon. If it were made of iron that number would go up to about 3%.
I did a simulation on that a few years back. Just subtract about 4 meters due to ablation, that's what you'll have left if it hits.
That's a wildly simplistic assumption. Are you assuming that it will remove 4 meters from the radius(diamter)? Or an amount of mass equivalent to reducing a spherical asteroid by 4 meters?
Is it a rocky asteroid? Metallic? Aggregate?
A perfectly uniform sphere of sand might behave like a perfectly uniform metallic asteroid, but any abberations from perfect will result in it likely being ripped apart in the atmosphere, with the surface area increased, the transfer of energy will be increased.
The Fifth Element is infinitely better than Armageddon. I've seen Armageddon once, and I'll never get that hours back. If Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay are anywhere near a given movie I don't bother.
Number one rule for any science fiction or fantasy story: Stick to the rules you define in your universe. Tell a story in that framework.
It's essentially like following a DnD rulebook. We don't need to know how magic works in THAT universe by trying to explain it with the rules from OUR universe. Attempting to do so either removes the magic (bad) or doesn't make sense (handwaving).
Star Wars worked when you didn't try to explain light sabers, the force, or much of their technology. The prequels and other mistakes fell into the trap of trying to explain it to us in terms of our own universe's rules:
Miticlorians Kessel Run etc.
Write a story, stick a dragon in it. Call it magic.
Don't try to explain that the dragon eats a certain type of rock, and instead of burping stores the hydrogen gas inside of airbladders that make it buoyant in air. The problem isn't that you are wrong (it's your universe) but when you define yourself by OUR physical rules, it means that the characters in YOUR universe now have to conform to that set of rules.
So why would that be a problem?
We are VERY good at understanding our own universe's rules instinctively. Once defined as following our rules, we will wonder why your characters didn't just.... or why they haven't invented... and why did he try that when...
Purely from an entertainment perspective, it's fun and enjoyable (Tiny Lister alone makes it worth watching.) When you start focusing on scientific inaccuracy is when it starts to suck.
You don't need to focus much if the object in your field of view is the size of King Kong. Gatling cannon on a lunar rover. Fully loaded with ammunition as well.
And that was the least scientifically inaccurate thing in the movie.
Sounds perfect for pickpockets. "Hey, I'm paying attention to my electronic gizmo and both of my hands are occupied, so one isn't resting on my wallet pocket!"
Don't do that. You'll get robbed.
I'm fat, my wallet is hard enough for ME to get out of my pants.
And here you thought the truffle shuffle was just a trendy dance move.
You obviously don't ride public transport then. A HUGE advantage of tablets over netbooks for people that do is that you can actually use the tablet standing up. You aren't going to be typing a novel on it, but it is in fact usable. Just try to use a netbook while standing up, my guess is that you won't be making very many friends.
I ride the metro (DC) and typically you can get a seat within one or two stops on the busiest of days, and if I'm going a shorter distance than that, I can survive for the 2 minutes.
You DO have a point, and I use a nook or my iphone on the metro all the time. But I couldn't stand having it up and and exposed to everyone. It would make a VERY attractive snatch and run target. And even from a non malicious front, someone could bump into me and knock it out of my hands, or a sudden jerk could cause me to bump into someone else or fall (not using my hands to hold onto the railings).
It might just be the DC metro, but I just find it easier to wait for a seat. If only so I can angle myself so I don't get people reading over my shoulder.
Keyloggers still work, phishing scams still work, and social engineering still works.
Except that this DOES address those issues, it doesn't make them impossible, but you are missing some advantages here.
Let's say you maintain passwords with 10 different services (not unlikely anymore). Does the typical person know the practices of each of those services? Do they keep track of when those practices change? No, of course they don't.
But let's say you reduce that to one service. All of a sudden you CAN expect people, if demonstrated to them and repeated, that KEYLOGINSERVICE will only contact them by this method (FedEx?, etc) will NEVER ask for ANY information if they are calling you (or may NOT call you). Our website will look like THIS exactly, and here are several ways to verify that.
You know, all the 'standard' verification methods that are used by all the sites we use now (or some, none?) but this time you only have to remember it for ONE site, instead of a variety of methods employed by a variety of sites. When people get in the habit of realizing that the keyservice will NEVER call them, will only do things a certain way, it WILL help combat phishing, social engineering, etc.
Whether that's good or bad for it is left up to contention. If a creature is perfectly built for a location, then it will eventually become the least evolved creature.
But still the best!
It is a shame that you posted as an AC, because that is a fairly insightful post.
People seem to confuse evolution with something that rewards the 'peaks' with survival, yet what it actually does is reward the most efficient with respect to that system. Any trends with regard to evolution, are those that progress toward efficiencies.
Ironically, it also means that some of the 'best' species for a system tend to be vulnerable to changes in that system. In evolving towards being the most efficient for a given system, like a finely tuned machine, disturbances will quickly throw the balance off. This is mostly true with physically isolated systems.
Consider the islands of Hawaii and Madagascar. Each island developed highly specialized species of birds. Yet the introduction of an instability (in the form of snakes) caused the balance of Madagascar's system to shift suddenly and its specialized bird population dwindled rapidly, unable to cope with the change in the system. Hawaii, being slightly more isolated, provides an interesting control which allows us to compare the effects of the shift in balance.
Throw a handful of grit into the axel of a Conestoga wagon, and wear will increase, but it will likely continue to work with little impact. Toss that same handful of grit into the axel of one of the contenders to break the land-speed records and the impact will be much more severe.
The one with the greatest genetic drift would be considered to have evolved more.
One of the issues with this is that we do not know the 'in between'. It is possible that a species may have evolved to a middle phase, but then evolved back to something which appears to be similar to the original.
Of course such a claim requires evidence, and you can find instances of this in species today. Consider chickens. There is a gene, which if activated, will cause the chicken to grow teeth, much like we expect their distant ancestors to have had. But even further back, their ancestor's ancestors may not have had teeth at all.
Of course, the distant ancestor's ancestors genetic code likely did not have the code for teeth in the first place, and you could look at that as evidence for your 'more evolved' Yet it is possible that some genes were evolved and discarded in a manner so that there is no trace that they were there in the first place. Color vision in mammals is another trait that is suspected to have been evolved, discarded, and lately reintroduced.
Yet ignoring all that, if we WERE to base the concept of 'more evolved' on genetic drift from the source, then the concept that plants are 'more evolved' seems to be false given that plants tend to be much more genetically 'stable' than animals. We find very similar relatives to today's plants in the fossilized remains, yet if we were to compare todays animals with those found before the dinosaurs, one could only conclude that 'more' evolution (in the form of genetic drift) occured in animals than plants.
That said, I still stand by my original statement that when it comes to evolution, it is nearly pointless to try and classify levels or extent of evolution as if it were some sort of race.
No but many are more evolved then us. Plants have been around evolving on land much longer then the first bug left the oceans. They are quite adapted to their environment. Now humans and mammals are not so evolved but our evolutionary path took a different way where a more organized central nervice system took presendance over energy gathering.
That's not quite the best description of evolution. It isn't a race to some endpoint, there really isn't much that can be classified as 'less evolved or more evolved' unless you slice the requirements so thin that only one organism could survive based on such criteria and therefore make the whole concept of evolution meaningless. Let's say a landslide washes a very niche species of plant into the ocean where the saline content promptly kills the entire species. Does that make a salmon more evolved since it didn't die?
And for that matter, unless we assume some multiple genesis theory for life on Earth, every species today has been subject to evolutionary forces for the exact length of time as any other species.
It also must make life very easy for organised crime.
Yeah, that makes sense, because organized crime is all about following the rules. Tell me, what keeps them from carrying a concealed weapon while they are committing their crimes?
While there may be some for the PS3, it's definitely not a multi-purpose device.
One could say the same thing about an unjailbroken iPhone. Especially before the third party scene forced Apple to implement some obviously missing features.
The PS3 is only not a multi-purpose device because Sony keeps trying to force it to be that way.
You're right to ask, because in a purely mathematical sense it is limited. A vehicle on pedestrian accident at 100mph will cause 100% fatalities. AT 200 mph it's still 100%.
Maybe pedestrians should stay the hell off major highways and interstates?
Can I buy a pass to temporarily raise the legal blood alcohol limit?
Why not just raise the legal blood alcohol limit? For the level of punishment involved,.08 is low. When originally asked to determine a BAC threshold where an intoxicated driver becomes dangerous, they said.15
Why?
Because it wasn't a political topic then. These days, drunk drivers are a bit outdated though. The new scare words are Pedophile and Child Porn. You know, the current boogey man to get all of your authoritarian laws passed with a minimum of rational thought.
What good is concealed carry to anybody apart from undercover police (who have other permits to cover it anyway) and organised crime?
It keeps people from overreacting. I prefer concealed carry primarily for that reason. They don't panic if I'm carrying a razor sharp hunting knife because that too is in a sheath in my pocket or under my jacket (because I don't want it getting caught on something and falling out) The firearm for similar reasons: I don't want it to get caught on a door handle, or have some goofball reach for it, or make people uncomfortable.
People overreact to firearms. Consider in terms of physical danger, most men will think nothing of going to a barber, who will take a razor sharp blade and press it against your neck.
Yep--I also disagree with those too. The government has no authority to 'grant' me permission to hunt for food to feed my family. I don't have to pay them to harvest food from my garden.
I don't agree with licenses to drive in their current form, which is just there to give the government an excuse for further violating your rights. "Normally we couldn't do this, but by you exercising your right to travel, we are now claiming that you gave us implicit consent to do things to you that we would not normally be allowed to do. Just ignore the fact that it is impossible to live in 95% of the US if you aren't allowed to drive".
Hunting licenses are a different issue in that there is a limited resource which is consumed by the process of hunting. While you could argue that your garden plot is consuming limited resources in the soil, the level of consumption is orders of magnitude less.
Concealed weapons permits and other registration or attempts to license firearms? I disagree with them tremendously in their current form. The exercise of a right should not require payment of fees to the government (If it is a right, it is at your will to exercise it, and it is a responsibility of the government to support that right regardless of how often or if one desires to exercise that right)
Of course you have a choice. Cancel your cable service and throw away the cable box.
That isn't a choice. It simply isn't possible to convince enough people to cancel cable based on that reason. If every single person that was noticably impacted cancelled PLUS 10% on top of that due to word of mouth, you might see 50 people cancel per cable company.
I AGREE with you in general, but I'd much rather not bash my head against a concrete wall in order to build a tunnel. I file FTC and FCC complaints once per billing cycle.
Don't bother trying to convince me to cancel, for a variety of reasons canceling is not an acceptable option for me. And believe me, I'm the type of person who will go through a lot of hardship to stand up for what I believe in. I was pissed at my mortgage company so I pulled together $65k and paid off my mortgage in full just so they wouldn't get any additional interest from me.
I put my money where my mouth is if it's an option. Cancelling just isn't an option when the requirement is "Shall include cable television service".
So far, I have had light success with the following iTunes alternatives:
Winamp - Various plugins seem to work, then not work depending on iOS versions. Sharepod turned out much easier, then later I discovered MediaMonkey.
SharePod - Originally for iPods, but seems to support iPhones fairly well. Last I checked, you DO need to have iTunes installed. It's been flaky from time to time, but is good for providing a drag-n-drop interface for the iPhone.
MediaMonkey - This one I think is going to be big for me in the future for as long as I keep my iPhone (Perhaps not too much longer). It seems to integrate very easily with my iPhone, and provides a relatively simple interface.
Now, I'm in the process of building all of my CDs to FLAC, and from what I understand the paid version of MediaMonkey will convert FLAC to MP3 (or other formats) on the fly as it copies it over to my iPhone. Having the ability to not need a MP3 library and a FLAC library might be nice.
The only thing that I wish MediaMonkey would do (and I think the next version gets it) is handle video files for the iPhone.
Oh my main point: it seems like even the most poorly written and feature limited versions of iTunes alternative software is lightyears better than iTunes itself.
It is so freaking annoying trying to keep my computers 'updated' to Apples preferred setup. 9 times out of 10, each time I hook up my iPhone to my computer it will tell me it needs to erase my phone before it can even think of managing it. I'm sorry, but I'm not surrendering to the Apple method of letting them manage every aspect of my data and would prefer to just do it the way that has worked for me since 1994.
Looks like you reformated your computer: Let me erase your phone Looks like you altered your library: let me erase your phone Looks like you updated your phone from your laptop: let me erase your phone.
Yeah, I'm sure that there is some way that I can avoid iTunes caring about how my phone is managed, but if it does it even 1 time out of ten, that's one too many.
Slashdot Mirror
It also doesn't account for the people who lurked with an attitude of "read and learn" prior to finally registering an account. The UID alone doesn't give you any indication of this.
I know for a fact that I was reading Slashdot as early as 1998. I don't think I bothered registering until 2002ish when I was working at the PSU computer labs and dreadfully bored during the 12am-8am shifts.
if you have physical access to the box, all bets are off.
you must be new here...
I bet you can make it too expensive to be worthwhile.
Sounds like somebody's been reading a little too much of The Register [theregister.co.uk] lately.
I don't read The Register anymore because of that practice. It's damned annoying to see that term used so often. I understand that it is a colloquialism, but few get me as annoyed as 'boffins'. I suppose a bit of my problem is that it is not precise. There are many instances in which it gets used and you have to wonder, "Did they mean physicists, astronomers... Geologists or biologists or paleontologists?)
Nope, boffins did it.
Hmm.
Axe versus ironwood tree.
Axe versus punk tree.
Axe versus young poplar grove with 10,000 sub finger diameter ramets.
Axe versus grass.
Perhaps a different tool?
An Axe will work on all of those. It wouldn't be the best tool, but it would work.
In fact, a form of an axe is VERY useful for harvesting sod.
Oh, with that speed it might do a bit more than that.
(You probably just got your numbers off a bit, but I thought it would be a bit of fun with a 'what if')
To avoid dealing with imaginary numbers, I'll reduce it's speed so it is 1 m/s LESS than 300 x 10^6. (in this case, I'll approximate c to 3.0e8 m/s) 20 meters in diameter. 4/3*3.14*100 = 419 m^3 or 419,000,000 cm^3 assume it's not very dense, maybe at water so 1g/cm3 so it will weigh in at 419,000kg
The lorentz factor is approximately 12246
So the result is 419,000*3.0e16*12246 = 4.62e26 Joules.
Or about 1% of the energy that would result if you were to place the Earth directly in the path of the Moon. If it were made of iron that number would go up to about 3%.
I did a simulation on that a few years back. Just subtract about 4 meters due to ablation, that's what you'll have left if it hits.
That's a wildly simplistic assumption. Are you assuming that it will remove 4 meters from the radius(diamter)? Or an amount of mass equivalent to reducing a spherical asteroid by 4 meters?
Is it a rocky asteroid? Metallic? Aggregate?
A perfectly uniform sphere of sand might behave like a perfectly uniform metallic asteroid, but any abberations from perfect will result in it likely being ripped apart in the atmosphere, with the surface area increased, the transfer of energy will be increased.
The Fifth Element is infinitely better than Armageddon. I've seen Armageddon once, and I'll never get that hours back. If Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay are anywhere near a given movie I don't bother.
Number one rule for any science fiction or fantasy story: Stick to the rules you define in your universe. Tell a story in that framework.
It's essentially like following a DnD rulebook. We don't need to know how magic works in THAT universe by trying to explain it with the rules from OUR universe. Attempting to do so either removes the magic (bad) or doesn't make sense (handwaving).
Star Wars worked when you didn't try to explain light sabers, the force, or much of their technology. The prequels and other mistakes fell into the trap of trying to explain it to us in terms of our own universe's rules:
Miticlorians
Kessel Run
etc.
Write a story, stick a dragon in it. Call it magic.
Don't try to explain that the dragon eats a certain type of rock, and instead of burping stores the hydrogen gas inside of airbladders that make it buoyant in air. The problem isn't that you are wrong (it's your universe) but when you define yourself by OUR physical rules, it means that the characters in YOUR universe now have to conform to that set of rules.
So why would that be a problem?
We are VERY good at understanding our own universe's rules instinctively. Once defined as following our rules, we will wonder why your characters didn't just.... or why they haven't invented... and why did he try that when...
Purely from an entertainment perspective, it's fun and enjoyable (Tiny Lister alone makes it worth watching.) When you start focusing on scientific inaccuracy is when it starts to suck.
You don't need to focus much if the object in your field of view is the size of King Kong.
Gatling cannon on a lunar rover. Fully loaded with ammunition as well.
And that was the least scientifically inaccurate thing in the movie.
Sounds perfect for pickpockets. "Hey, I'm paying attention to my electronic gizmo and both of my hands are occupied, so one isn't resting on my wallet pocket!"
Don't do that. You'll get robbed.
I'm fat, my wallet is hard enough for ME to get out of my pants.
And here you thought the truffle shuffle was just a trendy dance move.
You obviously don't ride public transport then. A HUGE advantage of tablets over netbooks for people that do is that you can actually use the tablet standing up. You aren't going to be typing a novel on it, but it is in fact usable. Just try to use a netbook while standing up, my guess is that you won't be making very many friends.
I ride the metro (DC) and typically you can get a seat within one or two stops on the busiest of days, and if I'm going a shorter distance than that, I can survive for the 2 minutes.
You DO have a point, and I use a nook or my iphone on the metro all the time. But I couldn't stand having it up and and exposed to everyone. It would make a VERY attractive snatch and run target. And even from a non malicious front, someone could bump into me and knock it out of my hands, or a sudden jerk could cause me to bump into someone else or fall (not using my hands to hold onto the railings).
It might just be the DC metro, but I just find it easier to wait for a seat. If only so I can angle myself so I don't get people reading over my shoulder.
Keyloggers still work, phishing scams still work, and social engineering still works.
Except that this DOES address those issues, it doesn't make them impossible, but you are missing some advantages here.
Let's say you maintain passwords with 10 different services (not unlikely anymore). Does the typical person know the practices of each of those services? Do they keep track of when those practices change? No, of course they don't.
But let's say you reduce that to one service. All of a sudden you CAN expect people, if demonstrated to them and repeated, that KEYLOGINSERVICE will only contact them by this method (FedEx?, etc) will NEVER ask for ANY information if they are calling you (or may NOT call you). Our website will look like THIS exactly, and here are several ways to verify that.
You know, all the 'standard' verification methods that are used by all the sites we use now (or some, none?) but this time you only have to remember it for ONE site, instead of a variety of methods employed by a variety of sites. When people get in the habit of realizing that the keyservice will NEVER call them, will only do things a certain way, it WILL help combat phishing, social engineering, etc.
Whether that's good or bad for it is left up to contention. If a creature is perfectly built for a location, then it will eventually become the least evolved creature.
But still the best!
It is a shame that you posted as an AC, because that is a fairly insightful post.
People seem to confuse evolution with something that rewards the 'peaks' with survival, yet what it actually does is reward the most efficient with respect to that system. Any trends with regard to evolution, are those that progress toward efficiencies.
Ironically, it also means that some of the 'best' species for a system tend to be vulnerable to changes in that system. In evolving towards being the most efficient for a given system, like a finely tuned machine, disturbances will quickly throw the balance off. This is mostly true with physically isolated systems.
Consider the islands of Hawaii and Madagascar. Each island developed highly specialized species of birds. Yet the introduction of an instability (in the form of snakes) caused the balance of Madagascar's system to shift suddenly and its specialized bird population dwindled rapidly, unable to cope with the change in the system. Hawaii, being slightly more isolated, provides an interesting control which allows us to compare the effects of the shift in balance.
Throw a handful of grit into the axel of a Conestoga wagon, and wear will increase, but it will likely continue to work with little impact. Toss that same handful of grit into the axel of one of the contenders to break the land-speed records and the impact will be much more severe.
The one with the greatest genetic drift would be considered to have evolved more.
One of the issues with this is that we do not know the 'in between'. It is possible that a species may have evolved to a middle phase, but then evolved back to something which appears to be similar to the original.
Of course such a claim requires evidence, and you can find instances of this in species today. Consider chickens. There is a gene, which if activated, will cause the chicken to grow teeth, much like we expect their distant ancestors to have had. But even further back, their ancestor's ancestors may not have had teeth at all.
Of course, the distant ancestor's ancestors genetic code likely did not have the code for teeth in the first place, and you could look at that as evidence for your 'more evolved' Yet it is possible that some genes were evolved and discarded in a manner so that there is no trace that they were there in the first place. Color vision in mammals is another trait that is suspected to have been evolved, discarded, and lately reintroduced.
Yet ignoring all that, if we WERE to base the concept of 'more evolved' on genetic drift from the source, then the concept that plants are 'more evolved' seems to be false given that plants tend to be much more genetically 'stable' than animals. We find very similar relatives to today's plants in the fossilized remains, yet if we were to compare todays animals with those found before the dinosaurs, one could only conclude that 'more' evolution (in the form of genetic drift) occured in animals than plants.
That said, I still stand by my original statement that when it comes to evolution, it is nearly pointless to try and classify levels or extent of evolution as if it were some sort of race.
No but many are more evolved then us. Plants have been around evolving on land much longer then the first bug left the oceans. They are quite adapted to their environment. Now humans and mammals are not so evolved but our evolutionary path took a different way where a more organized central nervice system took presendance over energy gathering.
That's not quite the best description of evolution. It isn't a race to some endpoint, there really isn't much that can be classified as 'less evolved or more evolved' unless you slice the requirements so thin that only one organism could survive based on such criteria and therefore make the whole concept of evolution meaningless. Let's say a landslide washes a very niche species of plant into the ocean where the saline content promptly kills the entire species. Does that make a salmon more evolved since it didn't die?
And for that matter, unless we assume some multiple genesis theory for life on Earth, every species today has been subject to evolutionary forces for the exact length of time as any other species.
Are plants smarter than us? Maybe we are turning a corner with this one.
Depends.
Give me 2 billion years to make it work through trial and error, and if I can't figure it out by then, I'll concede that plants may be smarter.
And as an alternative, let me paraphrase:
Are plants smarter than me? Maybe, maybe. I have yet to meet one that can outsmart axe.
It also must make life very easy for organised crime.
Yeah, that makes sense, because organized crime is all about following the rules. Tell me, what keeps them from carrying a concealed weapon while they are committing their crimes?
While there may be some for the PS3, it's definitely not a multi-purpose device.
One could say the same thing about an unjailbroken iPhone. Especially before the third party scene forced Apple to implement some obviously missing features.
The PS3 is only not a multi-purpose device because Sony keeps trying to force it to be that way.
Yes, and paying $25.00 will clearly make that crappy driver into a good one who can handle speeds up to 90 mph.
Of course it will. It only cost them $20 to get their drivers license in the first place.
You're right to ask, because in a purely mathematical sense it is limited. A vehicle on pedestrian accident at 100mph will cause 100% fatalities. AT 200 mph it's still 100%.
Maybe pedestrians should stay the hell off major highways and interstates?
Can I buy a pass to temporarily raise the legal blood alcohol limit?
Why not just raise the legal blood alcohol limit? For the level of punishment involved, .08 is low. When originally asked to determine a BAC threshold where an intoxicated driver becomes dangerous, they said .15
Why?
Because it wasn't a political topic then. These days, drunk drivers are a bit outdated though. The new scare words are Pedophile and Child Porn. You know, the current boogey man to get all of your authoritarian laws passed with a minimum of rational thought.
What good is concealed carry to anybody apart from undercover police (who have other permits to cover it anyway) and organised crime?
It keeps people from overreacting. I prefer concealed carry primarily for that reason. They don't panic if I'm carrying a razor sharp hunting knife because that too is in a sheath in my pocket or under my jacket (because I don't want it getting caught on something and falling out) The firearm for similar reasons: I don't want it to get caught on a door handle, or have some goofball reach for it, or make people uncomfortable.
People overreact to firearms. Consider in terms of physical danger, most men will think nothing of going to a barber, who will take a razor sharp blade and press it against your neck.
Yep--I also disagree with those too. The government has no authority to 'grant' me permission to hunt for food to feed my family. I don't have to pay them to harvest food from my garden.
I don't agree with licenses to drive in their current form, which is just there to give the government an excuse for further violating your rights. "Normally we couldn't do this, but by you exercising your right to travel, we are now claiming that you gave us implicit consent to do things to you that we would not normally be allowed to do. Just ignore the fact that it is impossible to live in 95% of the US if you aren't allowed to drive".
Hunting licenses are a different issue in that there is a limited resource which is consumed by the process of hunting. While you could argue that your garden plot is consuming limited resources in the soil, the level of consumption is orders of magnitude less.
Concealed weapons permits and other registration or attempts to license firearms? I disagree with them tremendously in their current form. The exercise of a right should not require payment of fees to the government (If it is a right, it is at your will to exercise it, and it is a responsibility of the government to support that right regardless of how often or if one desires to exercise that right)
Of course you have a choice. Cancel your cable service and throw away the cable box.
That isn't a choice. It simply isn't possible to convince enough people to cancel cable based on that reason. If every single person that was noticably impacted cancelled PLUS 10% on top of that due to word of mouth, you might see 50 people cancel per cable company.
I AGREE with you in general, but I'd much rather not bash my head against a concrete wall in order to build a tunnel. I file FTC and FCC complaints once per billing cycle.
Don't bother trying to convince me to cancel, for a variety of reasons canceling is not an acceptable option for me. And believe me, I'm the type of person who will go through a lot of hardship to stand up for what I believe in. I was pissed at my mortgage company so I pulled together $65k and paid off my mortgage in full just so they wouldn't get any additional interest from me.
I put my money where my mouth is if it's an option. Cancelling just isn't an option when the requirement is "Shall include cable television service".
So far, I have had light success with the following iTunes alternatives:
Winamp - Various plugins seem to work, then not work depending on iOS versions. Sharepod turned out much easier, then later I discovered MediaMonkey.
SharePod - Originally for iPods, but seems to support iPhones fairly well. Last I checked, you DO need to have iTunes installed. It's been flaky from time to time, but is good for providing a drag-n-drop interface for the iPhone.
MediaMonkey - This one I think is going to be big for me in the future for as long as I keep my iPhone (Perhaps not too much longer). It seems to integrate very easily with my iPhone, and provides a relatively simple interface.
Now, I'm in the process of building all of my CDs to FLAC, and from what I understand the paid version of MediaMonkey will convert FLAC to MP3 (or other formats) on the fly as it copies it over to my iPhone. Having the ability to not need a MP3 library and a FLAC library might be nice.
The only thing that I wish MediaMonkey would do (and I think the next version gets it) is handle video files for the iPhone.
Oh my main point: it seems like even the most poorly written and feature limited versions of iTunes alternative software is lightyears better than iTunes itself.
It is so freaking annoying trying to keep my computers 'updated' to Apples preferred setup. 9 times out of 10, each time I hook up my iPhone to my computer it will tell me it needs to erase my phone before it can even think of managing it. I'm sorry, but I'm not surrendering to the Apple method of letting them manage every aspect of my data and would prefer to just do it the way that has worked for me since 1994.
Looks like you reformated your computer: Let me erase your phone
Looks like you altered your library: let me erase your phone
Looks like you updated your phone from your laptop: let me erase your phone.
Yeah, I'm sure that there is some way that I can avoid iTunes caring about how my phone is managed, but if it does it even 1 time out of ten, that's one too many.
Working for huge corporations just sucks.
I used to work for Lockheed Martin. Now I work for a company with 50 employees.
Talk about a head rush of culture shock.