Let me impart a little lesson on reading between the lines. You read that sentence and see "family values." Why shouldn't taking care of your home and raising your children be more important than taking an interest and participating in your government?
I read that sentence and I see the destruction of the nuclear family. Why is the parent picking up a child from daycare rather than caring for it at home? The reason, of course, is that most families are now dual income, with both parents working, which means that they do not have time to stay home and raise children. This was not true 50 years ago. It seems obvious to me that this is not progress - twice as much work must be done to achieve the same standard of living, though granted, with more cool gadgets. How did this come to pass? Politics. So, it seems obvious to me that taking an active interest in politics might be easily as important as many of the mundane things we do as part of our regular schedule.
It is less immediate, sure, but not less important.
Let me get this straight: I pay a cable bill sufficient to provide me access to every show I enjoy, and I have not been offered the opportunity to be a Nielson household, yet somehow my watching or not watching a TV show that I have paid for in a format of my choosing is both freeloading and magically detectable to the great and glorious content providers? It seems to me that if I'm not a Nielson household, my vote doesn't count to save the TV shows I like, but likewise I am not bound to watch the commercials I don't like, since my eyes aren't counted there either. In fact, by torrenting my favorite shows, my viewing habits can at least be counted
I will grant that if EVERYONE did it, or even just the Nielson households, then yes, we could end up in the Stygian world you imply. Or maybe, just maybe, the content distributors would wake up to the fact that we dislike loud commercials and like time-shifting. They might also be forced to place heavier consideration on online viewing numbers, and then start providing TV shows in the way the customer desires, while still generating revenue either by charging per episode, or by providing less obtrusive (or at least less numerous/obnoxiously loud) ads, perhaps by using TASTEFUL product placement rather than stand-alone ads.
Right now, we can be ignored, because we can't vote with our wallets. No one knows if we are watching their ads because we aren't in the magical
That is a good question. It seems logical that if one can't read, they also can't write, and so it stands to reason that one can graduate high school without learning how to write (if you take the statement you quoted as truth), which you seem to be implying is the case with the GPP. Of course, the statement allows that at least some high school graduates can read, and presumably write, so their ability to do (or not do) either tells us little about their graduation status. Without a knowledge of the educational distribution of Slashdot posters, any sort of educated guess would be unlikely. However, considering his familiarity and interest in the subject, I would imagine that the GPP is posting from a position of at least some experience with the subject, and therefore either has already graduated from high school, or is quite close to graduating.
My only source of confusion in the matter is why the answer to your question is important enough to undo your previous moderations, unless you had mis-modded and needed to post anyway to undue them.
Compliance is voluntary. Not complying will not bring penalties to existing bank business.
I'm not disagreeing (or agreeing) with your main point, but I simply wanted to point out the fallacy of this statement. Complying with CRA, from what I understand, provided huge competitive advantage in the form of increased license to merge, acquire, and otherwise grow as a business. This is like saying that adding a rule to soccer that allowed all team members to use their hands when handling the ball if they agreed to wear a Nike jersey is fair because it doesn't bring any penalties to those members who decline. While technically true in that they can continue to play exactly as they have before, they will inevitably be crushed as the competition gains immense advantage.
Now, if the CRA did assist in causing the crunch (and I'm not arguing either way as I don't know the full details), you could argue that those that suffered the disadvantage by not adopting it would win in the end, but the simple fact is that all of the banks knew full well that the government would save them, and so they could have their cake and eat it to by complying. Only the taxpayers lose.
You go to get your car washed. You spot some attractive, scantily clad young ladies (or men, depending on your preference) offering car washes on the side of the road. You pull in and they wash your car. They charge you more than you would pay at a regular car wash, and they do a terrible job, but you were given a complimentary soft drink and a view of them for 15 minutes as they gyrated all around your car. How would you rate your car washing experience?
From the article, it is extremely likely that the main reason that the iPhone users rate AT&T so highly is because (*drum roll*) it has the iPhone. In short, they are fans of the iPhone, not really AT&T, but since AT&T is the exclusive carrier of the iPhone... The article links it to the supposed "Reality Distortion Field" that supposedly affects all users of Apple products (or at least the Apple Fanboys), but quite simply I think that it is that many of the iPhone users are extremely tolerant of network issues so long as they can have their iPhone and it works the majority of the time. When Verizon starts carrying the iPhone, you'll see the satisfaction level with AT&T drop like a stone.
Now, as for why the majority of these people *must* have an iPhone so badly, I refuse to speculate as it would probably result in some unfavorable comments about the Apple faithful.
As for why the Android repeat number is so low, I posit that if they limited the survey group to Android users that bought an Android phone that was equivalently priced with the iPhone, you'd see a dramatically higher percentage. Android's early (and still ongoing) market fragmentation resulted in many poor custom UIs and underpowered low-end devices, which negatively impacted its image. Not to mention, all Android users having to face iPhone envy because it was the "in" thing, and constantly making headlines thanks to Apple's image machine. Ask the Droid X or Evo or Nexus One users whether they'd buy another Android device, and I'd wager you'd see closer to a 75% (and quite probably higher) affirmative response.
Really? Then why is it they consider my password and answering a personal question two-factor authentication? It's possible you work at one of the few banks that actually do authentication properly, but to generalize about the whole banking industry taking security seriously when they pull crap like that, and all but encourage identity theft is a little disingenuous.
On a paper submitted by a physicist colleague: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli