They continually invent new and creative kinds of suck.
They also oversharpen the shit out of it.
The worst is grass, where the blades are close to the limiting resolution. The compression algorithm can't decide whether it's worth it or not to capture the detail in the grass blades, so you either get a smeary mess or holy shit oversharpened artifacts.
Sure, but when I say that my reason for cancellation is I'M MOVING OUT, stop hounding me.
Also, when I call to inquire at my new residence, telling me that your downstream speed is 25 megabytes/sec is a good way to make me ask "Ma'am, do you mean megabytes, or megabits?"
An answer of "Oh, we mean megabytes! Our competition measures their speeds in megabits but we have megabytes, which are eight times as much!" won't inspire confidence.
I don't want them to "reinvent productivity" -- I want them to stop buying other people's things and making them suck (Skype) and stop working hard to make their own things suck (Windows 8).
I thought that's what those x-ray machines were for?
Besides, there is a lot of empty space inside some laptops. If they're worried about someone putting a bomb inside a laptop that won't boot then they should be equally worried about someone putting one inside a laptop that will.
Just because something's constitutional it's not necessarily a good idea, and in a government like ours the decision whether to do it or not ought to lie in the hands of the citizens.
Thank you -- finally a nation that treats everyone with respect, and figures that more information is better than less information since it lets people make more informed decisions.
How is doing electronic voting any more complex to maintain and develop than setting up polling places, screwing around with ballots, etc.?
What fraction of that 50% were suicides, and what fraction of those suicides would have killed themselves by another method were a firearm not available?
In Washington DC, jumping in front of trains is the preferred method.
I'm in NYC right now, visiting for a physics conference.
To an outsider, New Yorkers seem uniquely willing to deal with (and, when in charge, impose) authoritarian rules that people from elsewhere would chafe at. Don't do this; do this; everything in New York seems over-regulated. It's not just from the government; it's everywhere. I'm staying in a dormitory at Columbia University, and the rules on how guest passes work are quite asinine. The plenary talks at the conference have free bottled water and coffee provided (the conference organizers have paid Columbia's chosen caterer for this already), but bring in any of your own water bottles and it's a $1000 (!) fine. [This is different from the standard "no outside food" rule at restaurants, since they want you to buy their stuff; in this case the catering is all already paid for.]
I was also fortunate enough to get to perform in Carnegie Hall a few months ago with a choir I sing with. During our rehearsal, the conductor wanted her podium moved a few inches to get out of the way of a troupe of dancers sharing the stage. She wasn't allowed to move this simple block of wood three inches; someone had to go get a union stagehand, since it was made very clear to us: the union stagehands, by the terms of their contract, are the only ones allowed to touch anything, including things as mundane as music stands.
For whatever reason, New York is full of rules. Maybe some of them are necessary to keep eight million people crammed into this sardine can from hurting each other, but this has so conditioned the people here to obey unnecessary rules that people go along with it.
This contradiction demonstrates in a nutshell why price controls on limited resources are silly.
Croquet is that game where you hit stuff with hammers, right? That's about like most urban areas' approach to parking enforcement.
If someone wants to send a bomb threat using someone else's wifi there is a Starbucks or a McDonalds on every corner.
Frankly, if ISP's want to prevent overuse of their networks they should impose transfer caps. Within those caps it shouldn't matter whether I want to deliver my own bits or bits on behalf of someone else.
So what you're saying is that it's unfair to accomplish what you consider to be proper policy objectives of taxation using a tax code with one free parameter.
Fine, then. Make it two free parameters: a common one is "your tax is X% of your income minus Y". The point is that every free parameter in the tax code is an opportunity for corruption, and currently we have about eleventy billion.
A true progressive tax, at realistic rates and without any built in "favors" is what is needed.
The problem is that so long as politicians are able to build in favors, they will. If you rely on the honor of politicians to prevent corruption you're doomed.
If you have the X%+Y tax system outlined above, there are no special favors; for a given revenue level there is in fact only one degree of freedom, and then it's just the standard rich-vs-poor fight, which is far less vulnerable to capture by special interests than our current behemoth.