I'm not clear what point you were trying to make here, but; Your landlord will always retain a key to your apartment. If it's a large enough building, the maintenance crew will have keys as well.
"Claiming the service is either 144kbps or 78kbps is pure marketing"
A standard ISDN line is 144k... you are correct in that there are two B channels and a D channel, but absent that D channel, the 128k reference is diminished and not possible, as bit robbing must occur for the technology to work at all. The fact that bits are robbed by virtue of the D channel does not eliminate them. The D channel is pure data.
The marketing explanation would be to say that it's 128k... because that's the most an end user will experience. However, from an engineering standpoint, the difference between a 128k ISDN circuit and a 144k ISDN circuit is the same as the difference between being an employed engineer or a previously employed engineer.
Due to some general inaccuracies in your post, I had the impression that you must have been attempting an analogy. Both ISDN and G.729 (voip) are international standards which do not appear to match what you're describing... hence the confusion on my part!
ISDN service was/is 144kbps. The bandwidth throughput was/is 128kbps, with a 16kbps signal to enable it.
IF you've somehow gotten 64kbps ISDN, that service is either 78kbps (64k + 16k), or a fraudulently marketed dial-up.
In either event... Your analogy hurt my head just a little bit.
I get what you're going after... I just disagree. If absolutely everyone abstained from voting, it is just as unlikely that anything would change any more than if there was 100% voter turnout. Though; Neither your point nor mine have any direct bearing on the machinations of a two party system which has perfected the art of undercutting itself while also promoting itself... A system which emphasizes the importance of 'being' right while demeaning any attempt at figuring out how to actually 'do' what is right. A system which is designed (or has evolved) to exist as a stalemate.
There is a South Park episode which parodies this topic quite effectively... When a "vote" has to benefit either a giant douche or a turd sandwich; I'd rather just find something productive to do.
I can't speak for the 60% voter apathy which you referenced, but can expound on personal electoral antipathy at length!
Have a good day!
"Ha, I know something is wrong here, so I'm not participating" is a prudent and efficient attitude, but I think you are, perhaps, selling the idea a bit short. It would look more like, "Ha! I know something is wrong here and I cannot fix it, so I'm not participating."
It may be petulant, but it is far from immature. One need not jump from a cliff to understand the impact of landing. Similarly; the fact of some people choosing to jump from that cliff to the left, while others prefer to jump to the right does not make the act of jumping off of the cliff a rational course of action.
If you pay closer attention, you'll sort this one out... The problem is the parties and the systemic issues which they've build to subvert the constitution and manipulate the human psyche. You're almost there!
I call shenanigans on all of you.
Dell still sells laptops... and refers to them as such:
"Why is trespassing peacefully on your coach a crime, but disobeying some local ordinance not?"
-To gain access to my couch in such a context, you would have had to break in. By going to a park... that's what they're for. We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.
"They had absolutely no demand as to how to accomplish those things."
-Right. How utterly... not arrogant, not-presumptive, and open-minded of them. An entire movement, deliberately not making demands... but demanding help. A person seeking relief from suffering cares little for the method of rescue. Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how" they simply made themselves available to demand change. Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest? Militant activists get a pass, but Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid? That's silly and propagandist.
"I say: I support allowing people to own dogs. I recognize that some people will abuse the dogs. You say: You support hurting dogs. It's total bullshit and I'm not giving you a pass."
-This is in no way an accurate comparison. You say you allow people to own dogs and that some people will abuse them. but by virtue of your comparison, you also say that the authorities have the right to be the ones to abuse them. I simply say that this is wrong. Have your bullshit call back.
"I'm all for discussion of how our public spaces should be administered... The decision should be democratic."
-There is no democracy in the use of force. No one votes for authoritarian use of force, no matter how much schadenfreude some may get from observing such.
Democratic? How many ballot initiatives have you witnessed to reflect the democracy of pepper spraying a seated protestor?
"I'm sorry, but you propose anarchy. I could lay in a highway with a few good friends and completely destroy the local economy."
-I do not propose anarchy. I propose peace. Laying prone on a highway is dangerous and is in no way comparable to sitting in a park. Your comparison isn't even rational.
I'm reluctant to continue this debate with you, because, again... conflation. There is a logic to your thoughts which I can appreciate, but your analogous references serve to re-define reality, rather than accurately describe it.
With respect to both of our reasoning, it's not an inaccurate statement to present that; You think it's okay to enable a system which will harm the harmless. I think that doing so is evil. Neither one of us have a plan. =)
They probably wouldn't call it "Windows Update" this time, so I see your point.
"I'll come right out and suggest that this is because it would lead you to an uncomfortable conclusion."
- No. I reject that the use of force against a passive Peaceful assembly acceptable. Ever. A person on my couch is committing a criminal act. A person occupying a public place is engaged a civil act. The criminal, I cannot ignore or tolerate safely. The civil protestor... I can safely walk around and avoid.
"The only? I think you are not being fair... and never issued any kind of goal or agenda."
-False. "more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement] This "what do they want" line of rationalization has been disingenuous and pandering since it first emerged as the primary media meme to discredit the movement.
"Now you are twisting my words. I don't support the intentional harm of a peaceful demonstrator. I do support the forced removal of people in certain situations..."
-You twist your own words. You don't support intentional harm... but you do. Because... reasons.
"I'd rather not take the step of arresting people for silly crimes like staying in a park overnight, but it is a crime depending on the locality."
-We shouldn't, perhaps, expand the dialogue to question *why and how* those laws exist and begin working toward changing them into laws which support and affirm our rights.
"You keep saying things like that, without suggesting how you would move someone who is uncooperative without the risk of injury.
-Arrest the dangerous criminal. Do not move someone simply because they are uncooperative. Is it inconvenient? It's supposed to be.
"In some cities the law enforcement got out of hand. In others the clearing operations went off without a hitch."
-7000 arrests [http://stpeteforpeace.org/occupyarrests.sources.html], numerous (too numerous to readily quantify) injuries, many instances of abuse of power by law enforcement [http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/violent-pictures-from-occupy-wall-street-protests]
It's far from simple, but the true complications reflect the system, not the protestors.
I wish that I had more time to put into articulating these responses, because this exchange is a good one... All apologies for the odd formatting, but I think that the statements I'm attempting to put together are fairly clear =)
"Let me ask you something: when it comes time to remove people from a place where they need to be removed from, do you think it is possible to do it without the use of force if they do not cooperate? Once you start forcing people out, don't you think some amount of injury is unavoidable?"
I refuse to accept the premise you present. When it comes time to remove Peaceful people from any place, it is time to advance the dialogue and question the reasoning behind those who would rather remove Peaceful people than advance the dialogue. The only outcome desired by those who would "start forcing" Peaceful people from gathering is to silence the message those Peaceful people are struggling to convey.
Any person who willingly harms, or supports those who would harm, a Peaceful demonstrator is a monster. If your indoctrination has brought you to a place where you disagree that Peace should be met with Peace, then you, too, are a monster.
Moreover... "do you think it is possible to do it without the use of force if they do not cooperate?" Absolutely... Continue (or begin) to talk to them.
If Peaceful People have committed a crime, cite them, arrest them... That's what laws are for and what cops are for. But accepting a premise that "some amount of injury" is acceptable when faced with civil infractions being perpetrated by Peaceful people? That's just sick and stupid.
I mean no personal offense to you, but the whole notion of abusing and/or harming Peaceful people is disgusting. We can do better.
I'm glad that law enforcement is equipped to calm a violent scene. I am ashamed of law enforcement is empowered to inject violence into a peaceful gathering.
Through the divine powers of conflation, you are correct. The existence of an unelected despot is an abusive cop's best defense? Buh?
Two entirely unrelated things can be very, very, wrong and still remain unrelated. They need not be equally wrong for both to be wrong.
What's scale got to do with right and wrong? The fact of something being less harmful that that which is far worse, doesn't lessen the fact that it's harmful.
Your liver can hold and retain a sufficient quantity of B12 to hold you over for, potentially, years (not recommending that you experiment with this).
To answer your question, though... The easiest non-pill supplement I've found for B12, as a vegan, is Nutritional Yeast. Internet or healthy food stores.
Here's a link if you want to read up on sources a bit: http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm