957 karma · joined November 2, 2011
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/203437/nbc-clos...
I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but in broad strokes...
The US supported(propped up) that "free" regime of the Shah prior to 1979. They did that for cozy relations and cheap oil. That regime was actually quite brutal in its repression of dissidents (islamists mostly) and while it might look all pretty and western and "more like us" it was a brutal police state not unlike Egypt under Mubarak - which was also supported by the US.
There was a islamist revolution that took over the country in 1979 which ushered in the current situation - I'm sure the people that supported it then didn't envision it turning out the way it did but the whole thing is much more nuanced than black and white you seem to assume. And it wasn't the west trying to get oil that caused the 1979 revolution, it was a reaction AGAINST that western influence that caused the revolution.
I'd agree khaki pants with brown shoes would be weird with black socks
EDIT - ok so I just read some of the article you linked, I can't really fathom anything about that, I couldn't ever be in a relationship like the ones described so I guess I'm not qualified to comment on how to fix a relationship like that. My relationship is a partnership - not to say that we're equal in every way, we each excel in different areas and support each other as needed.
That said, I still don't think that advice is applicable to a lot of people, going from being a doormat to a arrogant alpha seems pretty extreme and likely to undermine the basis of whatever the relationship was founded on (assuming it was founded on something like her being a demanding princess and you being a cringing sycophant)
I'm so rarely optimistic about things, I feel my initial optimism in this regard means I must be right... apparently I'm being optimistic about that too! ;)
What the EFF is taking issue with in that case is the potential precedent that could be set depending how the case turns out that could undermine first sale. The only reason EFF is interested in the case is because the legal arguments being used could impact first sale.
What's happening in that case is not simply that publishers are trying to claw back rights from US consumers
True... but that's the part of the case that the EFF is concerned about.
In contrast, in the Capitol case the article very clearly takes a position, and while I'm not familiar with that case I give the EFF the benefit of the doubt and assume they're being truthful.
This seems to be her thesis:
To be crystal clear: my big complaint about Silver is naivete, and to a lesser extent, authority-worship.
It isn't off-topic because it is a direct response to it's parent who was trying to make a point by example that refers to this use of rhetoric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
It isn't offensive because it is simply using the loaded question to provide a loaded answer that uses the exact same rhetorical trick to turn the tables. To try to show by example that the point being made is little more than a trick.
It is the nature of a loaded question with an obvious appeal to emotion that makes responses to it seem offensive.
You didn't specify, do you think it is a morally white area? or a morally black area?
Better yet let's move away from colors. Do you think sex trade is immoral?
I'm genuinely curious because it wasn't obvious form reading your comment - and I'm not sure I have strong feelings one way other the other and so it would seem to me to be the epitome of a "gray area"
Now I'm a self-confessed habitual selector I feel compelled to say that in no way, shape or form do I select text like some kind of nervous tic. I rarely select text when reading HN comments for example, they're mostly short enough so I'm not going to have to scroll or have time to get pulled on to something else before finishing.
I voted for reading position because that's the one I use it for most.
I'm not sure I would want a 13.3" tablet on my lap or in my hands. There must be a reason the standard letter page size is 8½ × 11", right?
The diagonal on the standard letter is 13.9". The evidence Jeff cites completely undermines his point.
I'll just assume it must have been a really long time since he actually held a piece of paper.
268 words total.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Congrats to the Kayak folks I guess, when they got into the industry they really raised the bar.
Before Kayak I remember having to use Expedia and Orbitz and just having to accept their crappy UI because there simply were no alternatives.
Taking a more nuanced view, one way the numbers could be true is by people voting in specific precincts that they don't live in. I.E. they go to the polling place near work not home. Which would just mean that one PA vote is counted in a different part of the state, not actually affecting the outcome.
States have different rules governing this kind of thing and I have no idea what the laws in PA are like.
Philly county has 644,768 total votes currently with close to 100% reporting.
10% rather than 8% of that total is (generously) 65,000
Current lead for Obama in PA? 284,000 votes
So even if we amplify your 8% claim to 10% and over-round it is still not even close to making a difference.
Also if you are going to make claims about such contentious things it would be nice to cite some source.
My numbers above come from google's election results site
People CAN choose their religion, but should they based off of how other people make them feel about it?
You're missing a step... "Your religion makes you feel bad" NO! Other people make me feel bad about my religion. That's pretty obviously prejudice.
Also for most groups of people they don't chose their religion and can't simply change it (family pressures), and while what is described in the article refers to religion (hijab) having dark skin and speaking farsi or urdu is just as likely to cause the reaction in people due to fear of muslims, the prejudiced people are just as likely to filter on ethnic/nationality grounds as religious ones.
The reason the country is becoming more partisan is more likely due to the benefits of incumbency, and the insane level of gerrymandering we allow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States
If I instead compare and contrast them with each other, obviously I can too can see that they are not "the same"
It has been a very long time since I watched the movie so there may be something that addresses this that I'm not aware of, if that's the case please let me know!
The most obvious way to me would be to assume it is based on the actual amount of data transferred in an hour less the free allowance they give you. Which is actually what they say:
"we determine the hour during those days in which you retrieved the most amount of data for the month."
This also ties in with what the cost is to them, the amount of bandwidth you're using.
In your example you would need to be getting transfer rates of 3TB/hr. Given the nature of the service I don't think they are offering that amount of bandwidth to begin with. (I'm sure they get good transfer rates to other amazon cloud services but customers could be downloading that data to a home PC at which point they will not be getting anything even close to those transfer rates)
At that point a bigger issue might be how long it takes to get the data out rather than the cost.
At an overly generous download speed (residential cable) of 10GB/hr your 3TB archive would take over 12 days to download.
The cards are a hilarious way to raise awareness of the problem of brutal sexual harassment at DEFCON and similar conferences. Unfortunately, it will take more than raising awareness to make hacker conferences safe for women.
We’re waiting to hear about the first[2] hacker conference to adopt a specific, enforceable, well-planned policy protecting women from harassment – and then we’re going to promote the hell out of it.
Did you really just get bored and stop reading when you got to the colored cards? You were already 80% through the thing!