The title isn't just misleading, it is an outright lie. It is the type of the thing that would make me NOT want to vote for this person. (I'm assuming the submitter makes the title?)
The ABC affiliate decided not to include this person because he wasn't what they considered a serious candidate. He didn't raise enough cash nor had a high enough approval rating. Even 7% is fairly low. It doesn't appear as if the reason was he didn't accept corporate donations (which is what the title claims)
In his defense, it would have been nice for the affiliate to have published the rules earlier. But if he is serious about running, then go out and raise more cash. Drum up more support. I'm not sure what he wants us to do about it.
From TFA "I don't got it. Deliberately. I am refusing all corporate donations" I don't exactly see how not having $50K and accepting corporate donations are the same. Does it mean you aren't qualified? No, but not having enough money to run a campaign shows you aren't serious about running. They've decided to run a serious campaign costs at least $50K. They don't want EVERYONE at the debate, just the serious contenders. Perhaps you can show them you can run an effective campaign with less money. But don't jump to conspiracy conclusions.
I can't argue to much about the poll numbers, and the independent polls. But again it comes down to the serious contenders. Again, they aren't looking for a room full of runners, they want the 2 or 3 top runners. It doesn't sound like you are a top runner. Perhaps if you had some of that $50K you didn't get, you could be a top runner?
Can you buck the system? Sure, if you try hard. But whining about it, and jumping to conspiracy conclusions isn't the way to do it. Campaign harder.
The world isn't as cynical as everyone makes it out to be. Whoever is organizing the debate wants to have serious candidates. They came up with a list of what qualifies a serious candidate. And this guy didn't make the list. It is possible that they would have come up with another excuse, but until it happens...you know innocent until proven guilty.
Why? Why is what you did at 11am SO important it has to get out right this minute, and can't wait till 5:00pm, or tomorrow or the end of the week?
Why churn your feature set several times a day? What is so important it can't wait for a few days?
Deploying that often is just a waste, and is unnecessary for most products
This really seems like it depends on WHAT your company does.
That is the key there. Our website is very content oriented. We release every week to 10 days. Mainly to push our new content out. But at the same time the newest features go along for the ride.
If your product is more feature oriented, release when the features are done. Be feature driven, not time driven. There is no need to "release once a week" because someone else does it. Release when you hit your milestones. Release when the feature set is finished.
accidentally clicking on a Romney ad or a “sponsored story” from the Romney campaign in their news feed.
Why is it that clicking on ANYTHING but a like button generates a like? Perhaps people say the "sponsored story" and wanted to read it, now all of a sudden they "like" the person? Clicking on an ad "likes" the ad?
The issue isn't fat fingering. The issue is Facebook liking things for you, even when you didn't ask it to.
Why not? It is about supply and demand. The more people that want something, the higher the price goes. It doesn't really have to do with some "intrinsic" value of what the stock is worth.
That said, it was clear that I could sell my car without permission when I bought it - changing the terms after the sale seems very wrong. If they implement this rule, they should specify that it applies to sales after a point in time in the future.
They aren't changing the terms. They are clarifying them.
Who made it clear you could resell the car? The dealer? You COULD argue that you had the manufacturers permission (of course you didn't have all the manufacturers permission, which of course is impossible.
Do you know why government hammers cost $400 dollars (or some ridicules amount) it is because there needs to be paperwork on the entire manufacturing process. So you can trace a part all the way to the raw materials. This paperwork doesn't exist. You have to have permission from EVERY manufacturer of every part in the product, and the manufacturers of the parts, and the manufacturers of the parts for the parts.
Dude, where were you a year ago? Under a rock?
Basically the drives just did not exist. You know, supply and demand. Huge demand, very low supply.
Here is the thing Costco could barely buy them direct/wholesale. What makes you think the supplier is going to supply a hand full to a small buyer when it won't even supply something like Costco?
I don't know... Perhaps the same way you ascertain the age of someone who is buying beer?
You'll obviously have to lock down the network, and provide passwords.
Interesting list. But InternetAudio (what the hell is that?) didn't kill CDs it was the iPod and ilk.
VHS wasn't really newer or better than Beta.
PCs existed long before the Mac Classic, and was a bit more popular than the Mac
You are right. The desktop won't live forever. Consumers will use it less, but producers will need it for some time. As better input devices come into existence, and better voice recognition, the keyboard will go away. Once the keyboard goes away the last big piece is a monitor.
I don't think the "google" type glasses are on the horizon, so producers will still need a large display area. Just not necessarily a monitor.
Sometime in the near future your smart phone (err smart small device) will be powerful enough to drive a producers workstation. That will probably happen first. Then the keyboard will disappear. Eventually the large monitor will as well.
The desktop will die. But it won't be replaced by a table/smart phone alone. At least not for the producers.
In the pre PC world the vast majority of the population was just fine with a "walled garden" television or radio. So yes in a post PC world consumers will be happy consuming in a "walled garden"
Didn't we just have a discussion the other day about causation and correlation?
You infer TV makes you stupid (I'm not sure how it MAKES you stupid, although I do admit it takes time away from other things) Yes TV is a distraction, and too much of it means you don't get enough other useful stuff in your life. But the can be said about almost anything. Some of the smartest people I know watch TV and some of the dumbest people I know watch TV.
The only thing I can tell from your barrage is that you grew up HATING TV, because you didn't have it. Now you are a smug elitist and you think you are better than everyone because you don't watch TV. I can guarantee there are people smarter and more motivated than you, and are probably more interesting. because you know what,... they watched TV.
Here is the thing I find interesting. You started off claiming you found it difficult to fit in. And then went on to elaborate how you are better than everyone else. But part of your problem is, you don't fit in. Part of that problem is you didn't do the same thing your 'peers' did. You aren't smarter because of TV, but your social life is stunted because of a lack of it.
I know you are being sarcastic, but... well that statement is actually true for a lot of people. I'm not saying this is a good reason to pass parenting laws, but still...
..., but you can probably link higher incidents of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, and maybe a dozen more undesired outcomes of which a person's course in life was directed fairly early on in life because of poor parenting.
Sure, that may be true. But even if there is a law that is passed that limits how much tv a child can watch. There will STILL be poor parenting that will lead to those higher incidents.
I created about a dozen channels based on various artists, with different styles. I added in some prebuilt channels like "Today;s Adult Hits" I figured this would give me a good variety. But it didn't. One of the songs I favorited I heard once a week, another I heard several times a day. I've got a dozen channels in the mix, but one band I heard way more than others (one of the channels was based on the band)
I am currently listening to ONLY one of the prebuilt channels, and am getting a larger variety of music. I listen to this about a dozen or so hours a day, what I'd love is to listen to thousands of songs. I should only hear a repetition maybe once a week, maybe repeat my favorites a couple of times a week, not a couple of times a day. If I wanted to hear the same small set of songs, I'd listen to the radio.
You do realize that shaving five minutes off everyone's commute will ALSO save lives? So yeah, I'll opt for the thing that saves lives AND decreases my commute.
Slashdot Mirror
The title isn't just misleading, it is an outright lie. It is the type of the thing that would make me NOT want to vote for this person. (I'm assuming the submitter makes the title?)
The ABC affiliate decided not to include this person because he wasn't what they considered a serious candidate. He didn't raise enough cash nor had a high enough approval rating. Even 7% is fairly low. It doesn't appear as if the reason was he didn't accept corporate donations (which is what the title claims)
In his defense, it would have been nice for the affiliate to have published the rules earlier. But if he is serious about running, then go out and raise more cash. Drum up more support. I'm not sure what he wants us to do about it.
From TFA "I don't got it. Deliberately. I am refusing all corporate donations" I don't exactly see how not having $50K and accepting corporate donations are the same. Does it mean you aren't qualified? No, but not having enough money to run a campaign shows you aren't serious about running. They've decided to run a serious campaign costs at least $50K. They don't want EVERYONE at the debate, just the serious contenders. Perhaps you can show them you can run an effective campaign with less money. But don't jump to conspiracy conclusions.
I can't argue to much about the poll numbers, and the independent polls. But again it comes down to the serious contenders. Again, they aren't looking for a room full of runners, they want the 2 or 3 top runners. It doesn't sound like you are a top runner. Perhaps if you had some of that $50K you didn't get, you could be a top runner?
Can you buck the system? Sure, if you try hard. But whining about it, and jumping to conspiracy conclusions isn't the way to do it. Campaign harder.
The world isn't as cynical as everyone makes it out to be. Whoever is organizing the debate wants to have serious candidates. They came up with a list of what qualifies a serious candidate. And this guy didn't make the list. It is possible that they would have come up with another excuse, but until it happens...you know innocent until proven guilty.
Not just certain people... but a lot of people.
At ... we deploy several times a day
Why? Why is what you did at 11am SO important it has to get out right this minute, and can't wait till 5:00pm, or tomorrow or the end of the week?
Why churn your feature set several times a day? What is so important it can't wait for a few days?
Deploying that often is just a waste, and is unnecessary for most products
This really seems like it depends on WHAT your company does.
That is the key there. Our website is very content oriented. We release every week to 10 days. Mainly to push our new content out. But at the same time the newest features go along for the ride.
If your product is more feature oriented, release when the features are done. Be feature driven, not time driven. There is no need to "release once a week" because someone else does it. Release when you hit your milestones. Release when the feature set is finished.
accidentally clicking on a Romney ad or a “sponsored story” from the Romney campaign in their news feed.
Why is it that clicking on ANYTHING but a like button generates a like? Perhaps people say the "sponsored story" and wanted to read it, now all of a sudden they "like" the person? Clicking on an ad "likes" the ad?
The issue isn't fat fingering. The issue is Facebook liking things for you, even when you didn't ask it to.
STOCK PRICES SHOULD NOT CHANGE FROM DAY TO DAY.
Why not? It is about supply and demand. The more people that want something, the higher the price goes. It doesn't really have to do with some "intrinsic" value of what the stock is worth.
In nashville you could be, since it is illegal to leave your keys in your car.
That said, it was clear that I could sell my car without permission when I bought it - changing the terms after the sale seems very wrong. If they implement this rule, they should specify that it applies to sales after a point in time in the future.
They aren't changing the terms. They are clarifying them.
Who made it clear you could resell the car? The dealer? You COULD argue that you had the manufacturers permission (of course you didn't have all the manufacturers permission, which of course is impossible.
Do you know why government hammers cost $400 dollars (or some ridicules amount) it is because there needs to be paperwork on the entire manufacturing process. So you can trace a part all the way to the raw materials. This paperwork doesn't exist. You have to have permission from EVERY manufacturer of every part in the product, and the manufacturers of the parts, and the manufacturers of the parts for the parts.
Dude, where were you a year ago? Under a rock?
Basically the drives just did not exist. You know, supply and demand. Huge demand, very low supply.
Here is the thing Costco could barely buy them direct/wholesale. What makes you think the supplier is going to supply a hand full to a small buyer when it won't even supply something like Costco?
Its not like there is no where else that defines a "child" as someone under the age of 18.
I don't know... Perhaps the same way you ascertain the age of someone who is buying beer?
You'll obviously have to lock down the network, and provide passwords.
Quick. Patent that before anyone else thinks of it!
Interesting list. But InternetAudio (what the hell is that?) didn't kill CDs it was the iPod and ilk.
VHS wasn't really newer or better than Beta.
PCs existed long before the Mac Classic, and was a bit more popular than the Mac
I'd like my cell phone to act like a thin client.
It IS a thin client. Or do you have one of that bricks from the 80s?
"I predict that the last mainframe will be unplugged on March 15, 1996."
It was, then was promptly plugged back in.
What is this command to "discuss?"
You are right. The desktop won't live forever. Consumers will use it less, but producers will need it for some time. As better input devices come into existence, and better voice recognition, the keyboard will go away. Once the keyboard goes away the last big piece is a monitor.
I don't think the "google" type glasses are on the horizon, so producers will still need a large display area. Just not necessarily a monitor.
Sometime in the near future your smart phone (err smart small device) will be powerful enough to drive a producers workstation. That will probably happen first. Then the keyboard will disappear. Eventually the large monitor will as well.
The desktop will die. But it won't be replaced by a table/smart phone alone. At least not for the producers.
In the pre PC world the vast majority of the population was just fine with a "walled garden" television or radio. So yes in a post PC world consumers will be happy consuming in a "walled garden"
No, it isn't.
This is why we can't have nice things.
You HAVE nice things.
Didn't we just have a discussion the other day about causation and correlation?
You infer TV makes you stupid (I'm not sure how it MAKES you stupid, although I do admit it takes time away from other things) Yes TV is a distraction, and too much of it means you don't get enough other useful stuff in your life. But the can be said about almost anything. Some of the smartest people I know watch TV and some of the dumbest people I know watch TV.
The only thing I can tell from your barrage is that you grew up HATING TV, because you didn't have it. Now you are a smug elitist and you think you are better than everyone because you don't watch TV. I can guarantee there are people smarter and more motivated than you, and are probably more interesting. because you know what,... they watched TV.
Here is the thing I find interesting. You started off claiming you found it difficult to fit in. And then went on to elaborate how you are better than everyone else. But part of your problem is, you don't fit in. Part of that problem is you didn't do the same thing your 'peers' did. You aren't smarter because of TV, but your social life is stunted because of a lack of it.
I'm a moron and can't control myself.
I know you are being sarcastic, but... well that statement is actually true for a lot of people. I'm not saying this is a good reason to pass parenting laws, but still...
..., but you can probably link higher incidents of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, and maybe a dozen more undesired outcomes of which a person's course in life was directed fairly early on in life because of poor parenting.
Sure, that may be true. But even if there is a law that is passed that limits how much tv a child can watch. There will STILL be poor parenting that will lead to those higher incidents.
I created about a dozen channels based on various artists, with different styles. I added in some prebuilt channels like "Today;s Adult Hits" I figured this would give me a good variety. But it didn't. One of the songs I favorited I heard once a week, another I heard several times a day. I've got a dozen channels in the mix, but one band I heard way more than others (one of the channels was based on the band)
I am currently listening to ONLY one of the prebuilt channels, and am getting a larger variety of music. I listen to this about a dozen or so hours a day, what I'd love is to listen to thousands of songs. I should only hear a repetition maybe once a week, maybe repeat my favorites a couple of times a week, not a couple of times a day. If I wanted to hear the same small set of songs, I'd listen to the radio.
You do realize that shaving five minutes off everyone's commute will ALSO save lives? So yeah, I'll opt for the thing that saves lives AND decreases my commute.
So we should built a high speed rail to no where instead?
Where is this high speed rail going to go? From downtown to the suburbs?