Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I have Pebble Steel (Score 1) 471

by Jhon (#47874951) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Smartwatch Apps Could You See Yourself Using?

It's called "Modern". it's an analog face with Weekday, date and "current" temp (by current, usually within an hour of current time). I turned of the "second" hand and it works nice. I also have backlight set to "auto" -- so if it's bright, it wont activate.

Notifications are all SMS (not a heavy text user, so MAYBE 5 per day -- but could be 20+ if something snaps at work). Work email (fairly busy) and phone calls. I charge it every friday night before bed. Over the last 2 or 3 months I've gotten just 2 "low battery" warnings (20%) -- and those were when I forgot attach the charger (got that notice on Sunday -- 9 days). I don't push personal email unless it's from any one of 3 family members.

I SOMETIMES switch to a doctor who face ("The 12 Doctors" (with 8.30-9 being the War Doctor). It's very simple and has one animation every hour. K9 or some other character will fly across the screen and present the NEXT doctor. Also have two "weather" centric faces that I'll switch to for a quick check, but I always go back to "Modern".

Lastly I have one app -- an MTG life counter (my son found my cards in the garage a few years ago and got hooked).

Comment: Re:I have Pebble Steel (Score 4, Insightful) 471

by Jhon (#47872673) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Smartwatch Apps Could You See Yourself Using?

I get 7+ days with mine. Try a watch face that doesn't update every second -- just every minute.

The Pebble is cheaper and lasts longer without needing to juice up than any of the other options available. And looks decent for casual wear (for those who care). Unless you have really really small wrists and hands (and I mean REALLY small).

While ~$150 was pricy for me and I'm unsure I'd buy it again given the opportunity, That said, I'm hooked on notifications. I find that JUST for notifications I'm keeping my phone in my pocket far more often now. I really thought I was done with watches. Haven't worn one in 15 years.

With regards of "two way" communication, I really don't see a need for "two way" (like SMS reply) if it's going to be a battery killer. Unless you can make using such a small device easier than taking your phone out and using that, it's pointless. It's the notifications that make the difference.

Comment: Re:Everyone is a taxpayer (Score 1) 194

by Jhon (#47759433) Attached to: $75K Prosthetic Arm Is Bricked When Paired iPod Is Stolen

"Sure they are. I assure you that the priest who is fully supported by his congregation is taxed on his "earnings"."

Do you read stuff before you post?

What does "often do not earn any money" mean to you?

Also, there's a difference between joint filings for a family and "not earn(ing) any money". Besides, who said housewife? What about the unmarried woman with 5 kids and not working getting state and federal aid? What about the infirm? Transferring of government benefits (paid by actual 'tax payers") from one federal, state or pocket to the other could HARDLY be called "paying taxes". I'm not calling anyone out who happens to be in a situation that requires aid, but it is disingenuous to really try to call them "taxpayers".

Comment: Re:The real crime here (Score 1) 465

by Jhon (#47735295) Attached to: 33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

" The reason is that those committing crimes aren't considering the risk or consequence of their actions"

This is silly. Your basic premise is that "threat of jail isn't considered by those committing crimes" means that it doesn't prevent ANYONE from committing crimes. By your own reasoning, you've expunged the entire population of those who aren't committing crimes without questioning if their "crime free" state was at all influenced by the threat of jail. *BOGGLES*.

Example: A monster (they exist -- and the scary part is they look just like us) kidnapped my daughter and did horrific things to her. Trust me, the ONLY thing keeping me from committing murder is that one day I won't be available to walk my daughter down the isle* as I'll be behind bars. This is an extreme example, but how many people WOULD steal (or worse) if the KNEW there wouldn't be anyone coming for them?

*My daughter was recovered and the monster is getting ready to go to trial.

Comment: Re:The real crime here (Score 2) 465

by Jhon (#47730169) Attached to: 33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

"And what benefit does jail time give the public? "

That the threat of jail prevents many crimes. Point is that the "benefit" is not zero.

GENERALLY, (at least in the US) jail isn't automatic on a first time offense -- or even second or third. The courts bend over backwards trying to give the defendant a chance to change. And if jail wasn't a decent enough threat, why do so many criminals flee from the cops?

Comment: Re:Whenever it's advertized like this, then it is (Score 1) 232

by Jhon (#47670673) Attached to: Fugitive Child Sex Abuser Caught By Face-Recognition Technology

Honest question:

What's the difference with a criminal walking in public and being identified by some person who notifies the authorities VS. a criminal walking in public and being identified by a camera using face recognition software which notifies the authorities?

There are no cameras in our homes watching us. There are no cameras in the bathroom watching us. No cameras where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy...

I just don't get the argument that a camera scanning my face in public is the "government assuming I'm a criminal and treating me like one" and a stranger scanning my face with his eyes (though maybe creepy) isn't assuming I'm a criminal.

I'll admit I have an uneasy FEELING about the practice, but I haven't found a reasonable argument AGAINST it in public places.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47656307) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47654697) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

If we don't need an investigation

The Constitution says we don't. Stop being stupid.

Your original statement ... indicated ... that you are certain of the outcome of the coming election

You're a liar.

... and that once your fantasy comes true that the rest of congress would bend to your will before the new class even shows up.

You're a liar. I implied no such thing. You appear to be under the impression that a. the House is not currently Republican, or b. that if the incoming House wants to impeach, the outgoing House would not, or c. the Senate has anything to do with impeachment before the House actually votes for impeachment. a. and c. are obviously false, and b. is nonsense. Stop being stupid.

So now, you admit to lying about proving it.

You're a liar. I said no such thing. I simply proved you were wrong. And you still won't admit you were wrong. In fact, you repeated your lie, even after I proved it was a lie, that removal is a separate process and takes a long time.

Except for all the times when you said [impeachment] needs to happen

You're a liar. It's never happened.

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47652965) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

You claimed it, you most certainly did not prove it.

Simply put: the Constitution doesn't require an investigation, therefore it isn't necessary. This is easy, even for you, to understand.

First of all, you are claiming to know the results of the upcoming elections

You're a liar, or you can't read. (I could go either way on that one.)

why would the house and senate just spontaneously decide to bend over?

I never implied they would. What are you blabbering about? (Note: this is a rhetorical question. I don't really care what you are blabbering about, because I am quite sure it won't make any sense, won't reflect reality, won't be honest, etc. As usual.)

You are operating in a land of pure fantasy and imagination when you pretend that somehow congress could get this done quickly.

You're a liar. I presented evidence: evidence that Clinton was impeached and tried in 5 months, evidence that removal can happen as part of the trial process and take no additional time, evidence that the Constitution requires no lengthy time period, evidence that no investigation is required, and so on. And make no mistake: all of this evidence is incontrovertible.

You have provided zero evidence. You simply asserted it would take two years or more, literally without any evidence at all.

you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't

You claimed it but you did not prove it.

You're a liar. I gave you the example of the former judge, Alcee Hastings (D-FL), whose removal was not a separate process and took no additional time. That is proof. I didn't prove it wouldn't be a separate process and wouldn't take much more time, only that you were obviously wrong to say it necessarily would. And it makes sense that you were wrong, because you are completely ignorant.

Except for the times when you very plainly supported [impeachment].

You're a liar. I have never once supported impeachment of President Obama. You're simply making shit up, as usual.

I ... are [sic] really enjoying how you just discarded the demonstration of your list of claims as being pure fantasy by trying to pick apart just one of them to try to make yourself feel better.

You're a liar. That never happened.

Let's see. You don't admit you were wrong about removal being a separate process and taking a long time, despite incontrovertible proof being presented. You don't admit you were wrong about Obama refusing to enforce the employer mandate, despite it being truly uncontested. You don't admit you were wrong about me supporting impeachment of President Obama, despite the fact that you have no, and have never seen any, evidence I ever did.

And let's not forget that bizarrely stupid claim you made about a grand jury being required! That was a bona fide howler.

You just can't stop making shit up. It's pretty funny.

Comment: Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

by pudge (#47650825) Attached to: So this problem isn't new, or owned by either party

Which you already admitted, happened after an investigation.

And I also already proved no investigation here is necessary. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring it, obviously; and if the House feels that we know what we need to, then no investigation needs to be done. It's that simple.

No investigation will even start until the middle of 2015 at the earliest

You're a liar. Even if an investigation were done, it could start immediately in January. Actually, it could start this November, after the results of the Senate election are known. But it would likely begin in January.

Two, however, is the bigger problem you have. No president has ever been removed by impeachment.

That is not a problem with anything I said, no.

It is reasonable to expect it would take at least as long as the impeachment itself, if not longer.

You're a liar. No such thing is reasonable to expect. In fact, the only evidence we have is that removals are not complicated and do not take a long time. Granted, a President is not a Judge, but you've offered zero evidence backing up your assertion that it would take a long time. None at all.

And to compound your dishonesty, you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't. You stopped asserting it, which is fine, but maybe you should at least admit you were lying when you said it?

assuming of course that your fantasy of a conviction

You're a liar. I never said I hoped for that, and, in fact, I do not.

You have no evidence to support a.

I have evidence that it does not need to take that long, which is more than your nonexistent evidence for your claim that it does need to take that long.

If b is true then why are you supporting impeachment?

You're a liar. I am not. I've said from the beginning of this thread that I oppose impeachment ("Impeachment is a stupid idea ...").

Not that I don't expect you to not lie, but still, that one was beneath even you. Which is saying something.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

That is your opinion.

I am not going to cast pearls here and go over all the cases, but one of these in particular is very funny, because it just shows how completely ignorant you are. Not that we didn't already know, with your idiotic claims of impeachment taking years, of removal being a separate more lengthy process, and so on.

But you just said it is merely my opinion that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

This fact is seriously not in dispute by anyone. It's a simple statement of fact. The law says it begins in 2014, and he signed an executive order pushing it to 2015. No one denies this.

Now, on this point I am actually on Obama's side, in that I think the President has the legitimate authority to not enforce punishments, as long as he does it without violating equal protection. So he cannot say, "I won't enforce the mandate against liberal companies," but he can say he won't enforce it against all companies. He can further take it on a case-by-case basis, if he chooses. It's basically prosecutorial discretion. The President can, and does, choose all the time which laws he will and will not enforce prosecution or punishment of. Suing the President for exercising his authority here, as Boehner is threatening, is legal nonsense.

Of course, you can impeach the President for anything you want to.

But, none of this takes away from the fact that Obama has refused to enforce the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Everyone knows it.

Similarly, it's in my view a proven fact that Obama has given subsidies to people in violation of the law, and Obama's own advisor said this is the case. The law does not allow subsidies for the federal exchange. The wording of the law is absolutely clear, the intent of the law is very well-established, and Obama knew all this and did it anyway. But Obama denies this; he does not, however, deny that he has refused to enforce the employer mandates, though he wouldn't use those exact words to characterize it.

You're just full of shit, as usual, at every turn.

The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured in billigrahams.

Working...