> Democracy was a radical new idea
If you consider something 2,300 years old a "new idea".
Tell me, though what does democracy have to do with the founding of the republic? You know the US is a republic, not a democrqcy, right? Maybe you don't, given you thought democracy was a new idea.
The kernel and friends manage hotplug devices quite nicely.
I take that to mean you want a clickity-click GUI, so you can see what the system has already detected and handled properly for you, and do things without needing to understand what you're doing. If that's what you're looking for, hardinfo is a well-known option. Your choice of graphical desktop environment probably has one it provides by default as well. Look under "System" or similar.
That hawk video is impressive. I know just the guy for the job, smart as heck and he works on machine vision and drones, but early proposals have to be done January 6th.
If you want malls, freeways, and fiber, live in town.
If you want wide open spaces, live out in the country.
If you insist on having a fiber line run two miles across your neighbors' pastures to reach you, the only interested customer on your road, you can get that too. That two miles of trenching and fiber work isn't going to be cheap - I've priced it.
> your description would paint Bush as a liberal. What with his pet project to fix Iraq, bailouts for failed corporate ventures
And indeed Bush Jr's approval rating among republicans was nearly as bad as Obama's among Democrats. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity regularly took him to task. They much preferred the elder Bush, who made a clear decision to NOT invade Iraq. I myself criticized junior on national radio, based on the argument that he was not following conservative principles.
I guess we know who was stoned out of their mind during history class. Other than me, I mean.
You might also look up "tar and feather ", a common practice at the time the republic was founded. See also "drawn amd quartered".
Here's the opening line from George Washington's announcement of the Constitution, the one that protects the rights "endowed by your creator ":
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor
The concept that the founders were liberal hippies is laughable. American liberalism, the secular movement we have today, came to America in the 1960s.
Once you have clue about American history, you can go to the hardware store and buy some hemp rope. Hemp is a fiber that os legally sold in the US. Marijuana is a drug. They are similar genetically, but not as genetically similar as Clinton and Romney are.
The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government isn't allowed to do. It doesn't put any limitations on you, me or Dice. You and I can do bad things, but we can't violate the Bill of Rights because the B of R is a set of restrictions on the feds.
Therefore, ONLY big government can violate your Constitutional rights. Businesses can make you mad, they can provide'poor customer service, but only government can violate your Constitutional rights. The reason for this? Because only government can send men with guns to enforce their will upon. Comcast you can simply cancel, and get Dish or Verizon instead.
I had accidentally looked at 2013 rather than 2014. The average for 2013 was 7.5%. BLS says November 2004 was 5.4%, not 5.5% - close enough. If we're trying to compare this year to ten years ago, looking at just November only is a bit misleading, though.
For 2014:
Jan 6.6
Feb 6.7
Mar 6.7
Apr 6.3
May 6.3
Jun 6.1
Jul 6.2
Aug 6.1
Sep 5.9
Oct 5.8
Nov 5.8
That's a very interesting perspective.
I'd say that the fundamental, defining difference between conservative thinking vs progressive is that while progressives say "let's change things for the better" conservatives say "don't throw the baby out with the bath water". Conservatives think America is basically pretty good, progressives think it needs it be "fundamentally transformed", as Obama put it. Progressives say "we need to do something" (and proposal X is something, so we need to do it). Conservatives think we shouldn't lose sight of the principles that once made this the greatest country on earth.
If you belief, based on the news you see, that the place is falling apart, then indeed "we need to do something" (liberalism) is a reasonable response. If you believe life is pretty good, and slowly getting better, then you should stick with what's been working (conservatism). So I'd come to the opposite conclusion as you.
If having more women in nursing and more men in programming is a terrible, horrible thing, then we have to do something about it. If black people can never succeed, if it's unimaginable that any black person could ever be a judge, a mayor, or a senator, then we need to do something about that. On the other hand, if black people can be judges, mayors, senators, and even president of the United States, then all the liberal progressivism is unnecessary, and indeed their complaints of being "kept down by the man" are just whining, excuses. If the society isn't basically racist, then Al Sharpton is out of a job. Progressivism REQUIRES big problems. If you don't believe there are big problems everywhere you look, you have no interest in liberals' big "solutions".
Personally, I think some things could be improved. Liberals do a pretty good job at identifying the problems. However, they all-too-often fall into the trap of "we have to do something, and proposal X is something, so we have to do proposal X". Conservatives are hesitant to change things, so they don't screw things up. Perhaps the ideal would be for liberals to set the agenda of which problems we want to solve this year, then for conservatives beancounters to get out their calculators and figure out which proposed solutions have worked well elsewhere or in the past, and which ones are economically feasible. So the liberals force the conservatives to do SOMETHING, and the conservatives ensure that the SOMETHING has a reasonable chance of working, and without making us bankrupt.
> The jobless? The disenfranchised? The dispossessed and everyone else who loves to lick Obama's boot?
Yes, them. Or are you COMPLETELY ignorant of history?
At what other time in history could people take two or three years off work and collect unemployment benefits? Have a look at a picture or film of a low-income or rural area from a hundred years ago. Note the large number of children sick from hunger-related disease. Then drive through a modern low-income housing project. Note all the 22 inch rims.
It's never incorrect to say "perhaps we could make things better". To say "things were better when people starved to death as opposed to today, when they might need to buy the generic-brand cheese with their EBT card" is outrageous. It just makes you look utterly ignorant.
Or were you referring to today versus ten years ago? If your idea of history is the last ten years, then you're correct. In 2004, 5% of people were unemployed. Today, it's 7.5%.
TERRIFIC! We make terrific products, not terrible products. My last post is what happens when typos meet auto correct.
The products are great, the bookkeeping, support, etc is, shall we say "not world class". A vendor we've used for a long time provides great customer service , with a service that compliments what we do. Our customers would be better served if that vendor bought our company and offered our great products, with their customer service.
This particular cable merger would be bad. With that out of the way:
Tons of mom-and-pop shops with a good product but terrible process get bought by companies like Proctor & Gamble who have far better and more efficient processes. They then produce the same great product with more reliable quality at a much lower cost.
My own company may well become an example- we make terrible products, and have bad process, leading to very slow customer service, etc. That's because I'm very good at designing innovative new software systems, and very bad at running a business. I can think of a dozen well-run software shops that would make us better by taking us over. Their process, their customer service, billing department, etc and our products would be a huge improvement.
Aside from small companies who just never developed good processes, there have been many famous brands that have been bankrupt or on the way to bankruptcy before being aquired by a better company with a clearer vision or better execution. Given that these companies were going bankrupt, or already bankrupt, for them to survive at all (as a division of a larger company) is better.
One big, big name is Youtube, who was burning through other people's money faster than a drunk Kennedy and getting rightfully sued every 5 minutes for copyright infringement. They had a cool idea, and a completely non-sustainable business model that was guaranteed to put them belly-up within 36 months until Google bought them. Google brought to bear their expertise in funding a free service in a way that keeps customers happy (aka the best targeted advertising available) , allowing YouTube to survive and thrive rather than burning away investors' money until investors got sick of it and'the whole thing imploded.
Operation on 2.5Ghz is authorized by part 15 of the FCC rules. Within part 15, there are a number of subparts, including subpart 5:
If a Part 15 transmitter does cause interference to authorized radio communications,
even if the transmitter complies with all of the technical standards and equipment
authorization requirements in the FCC rules, then its operator will will be required to cease
operation, at least until the interference problem is corrected.
Though it can be disabled, the folks at Apple seem to have been VERY conservative about which updates they mark as "automatic" - only this one update in two years. All other updates have been released as needing user approval first.
So by having it on, you are NOT subjecting yourself to the same level of crap as Windows users who automatically install all sorts of random updates every single month. You're only getting the most critical updates, one small update every couple of years.
I came in to work this morning, my last (half) day of work before leaving for a two week vacation, to find that my Mac had automatically handled done this update. I very nearly skipped this last half-day of work. Had I done that, and had "allow automatic updates" turned off, my machine would have been been vulnerable for two weeks until I came back. I'm glad this one was automatically installed, while al of the other lower-priority updates have always awaited my approval.
Aside from the question of standing, Snowden probably would have taken this oath before taking the NSA secrecy oath:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
His prior oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, takes precedence in my mind.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
