Since the increase in digital communications my usage of overland and international shipping has increased several hundred percent. I buy laptop batteries from China, truck parts from Texas, and computer parts from Ontario just in the past few weeks. Prior to ubiquitous Internet shopping I used couriers once every couple of years.
Sure, game sales are increasingly distributed by being downloaded on-line, but I am sure if a real study was made (like the example in the article) it would be shown that the Internet has increased the use of shipping services.
Only the Jersey Shore episode was funnier than that one. I hate the sound of a Harley even if the pipe baffles are still in place. I've been riding large highway cruiser style motorcycles since I was 17 and the quieter the bike the more enjoyable the ride.
Also, if the boots are like my experience with Harley Davidson motorcycles you will have to re-sole them once a week and every step you take vibrates to the point of pain and sounds like you are breaking wind.
Oh, of course they'll donate all of the money...
...oops, I just pooped myself.
A few months ago the police caught someone in my cul-de-sac who was running from what looked like every on-duty unit in the city that night. I could hear squeling tires and sirens for over half an hour. The suspect tried to park the car he was driving, duck down and pretend to be just another car in the neighborhood. When six or more squad cars boxed him in he tried to run and then fought with the police yelling as screaming punk tough guy. They beat the hell out of him. When he finally gave in and was finished he was covered in blood head to toe and crying like a baby.
I went out (this was about 3AM) and asked if this had anything to do with any of the people living in the neighborhood (it didn't) and the officer was extremely nervous and wanted to keep me away from getting a good look at the suspect. He seemed relieved I simply said thank you and went home and did not have a camera. Most of what I am relaying is based on sounds and a glimpse or two of the actions but I got a complete picture of the events and the necessity of what the police did to protect me and you.
On video this would have looked terrible. Six or more police beating a teenager (albeit a large, muscular, tattooed, shaved headed, violent one) with batons and boots. The reality was a hyper-violent suspect resisting arrest and trying to injure police to his last once of strength and well trained police trying not to kill him while attempting getting him under control after a dangerous car chase that left all of the officers filled with adrenaline. They could not use a taser because they have been banned for any police use in this area (considered too dangerous). If only a small part of the fight was recorded and not the initial attack of the suspect this video taping of only part of the incident would be very coercive, effectively working as if it was edited.
On the other hand another incident that was on the news was a bystander's cell phone video that showed a suspect fully complying and on the ground and another officer coming up and kicking the arrested man in the face without provocation, something he may have gotten away with without the video evidence.
Having had arrested knife wielding muggers, home invaders, and a couple of thieves in the past and controlling the situation through extreme aggression, but no violence, I can see that a police officer may use a level of aggression that is less than necessary if intimidated by a video taping public resulting in harm to the officer, suspect, or both given the possibility of a loss of promotion, career, or even a bogus criminal sentence. Looking at shows like "Video on Patrol" I do sometimes sense a level of reserve on that part of officers confronting aggressive suspects in several of the videos (usually from the police dash cams) that could be argued encouraged the suspect to become violent and did result in injury and even death when a far more aggressive initial confrontation would have resulted in compliance.
Personally these NPR liberal, academic, armchair quarterbacks often make me retch but I agree that the actions like those of the New Jersey police who arrested Khaliah Fitchette and, in my opinion are guilty of tampering with evidence, and that idiot that was recorded confronting the motorcyclist in plain cloths and pulled the pistol without first identifying himself as a police officer and then arresting and prosecuting these vidoegraphers to intimidate them should have been brought to light. The article also does point out that most police do understand that video is now ubiquitous and a fact of everyday life for us all. Where should we draw the line? Should video from anti-crime cameras put in place by cities be edited if police are recorded committing crimes?
On the whole, I would have to side with public freedom to observe, report, and record police actions in public otherwise we will end up with more of a police state than the "patriot" act and other slimy, anti-freedom, anti-privacy laws have already created.
Possibly at one point, but strategic bombers have blackout curtains/shutters and pilots fly on instruments only until clear of probable target areas. An eye patch is not thick enough and may slip out of place and even the loss of sight in one eye is not desirable.
I want a fricken mutant shark with a fricken laser mounted on its head!
Most of my reading (and all of my writing) is done on a computer except for bed time literature which I still prefer in a format that does not need a power supply or require distracting whirring cooling fans. eReaders are popular due to low cost, long battery life, novelty, and quiet operation. However, laptops (netbooks) are now down to $250 and dropping and are far more versatile, are getting longer battery life, and many no longer have noisy moving parts. The attraction of publishers to eBooks is the control they can have (causing incidents like the ironically "Orwellian" 1984 deletion by Amazon: http://www.pcworld.com/article/169408/kindle_lawsuit_filed_over_orwell_1984_ebook_deletions_by_amazo n.html). Once eReaders can't be priced much less than user controlled, easily programmable laptops, control of media issues like this should go away. Hopefully.
This brings up a thought: Will eBooks eliminate the need for libraries?
Where did I say "invisible hand"? I said librarians and provided an example of a ongoing librarian boycott.
You may think it's all a conspiracy, with active clandestine manipulating of markets with no control from general supply and demand forces. But, I do not think all is controlled by a shadowy group of powerful men sitting at a large polished table in a lavishly paneled secret room.
Keep well, safe, and happy in your doomsday bunker in Idaho.
Kidding aside, vague, accusatory allusions of conspiracy don't cut it in public debate forums. Please explain what you are implying.
If the 26 loan (yearly) renewal price is only a couple of dollars it might be fair as long as it works out to the same or less than reordering a printed copy after it is worn out.
What is the typical lifetime of a book and average cost?
What is the 26 loan renewal price?
If a book is replaced in 3 years at $50 and the yearly electronic renewal is $15 (3x$15=$45) the library saves $5 - 10% is a significant savings.
Without numbers, what is fair in business is just an opinion.
However, publishing costs are virtually nothing for the renewal so this appears as gouging the customer.
But, not to worry, the market will make the adjustments. HarperCollins will be reduced and possibly eliminated from the business by firms that understand electronic publishing and trade in a fair manner. HarperCollins will not attract or be able to pay authors if no one will read the books.
And, in the end, when librarians simply will not order HarperCollins eBooks, this stupidity will go away.
Yeah, the politicians authorize spending large amounts on dubious scanner technology (probably getting large donations from the corporations manufacturing this junk) and bluff the public into thinking air travel is being made safer through apparently proactive efforts on elected official's part.
A large person hiding a small pistol has a very good chance of passing through TSA security. I personally would not try it, I prefer not to shower in prison. A person trying to pass through security carrying a Dirty Harry sized hand cannon in a holster would be caught, but, as this proves, not always someone trying to sneak a small, well hidden, firearm. The techniques and technology used are simply poor. Hiring very astute (read: well paid due to being educated and smart) people as TSA agents that are trained to 'read' passengers as is done in Israel (with perfect success since implementation) is the way to go.
Yes, I get that vibe too, but maybe they are simply trying to build up a mailing list. There's no charge, however, it's a bad design if popularizing a technology is the goal. When I worked as a marketing director for a technology company I made sure product information was as easily obtainable as possible, even writing articles for newspapers and letting the reporters put their names to my work (it's a more common practice then you would think). Of greater concern is that it looks like they have patented or have applied to patent the snot out of everything they have designed. I almost hope the technology is not useful because with all that patenting effort it's unlikely the technology will ever be used in significant quantity.
It strikes me as odd that the Australian government went to such lengths and taxpayer expense to fire the government employee. Why not simply an official reprimand and/or a demotion? It sure looks as if someone was simply after this guy. I assume it was a male, a woman would have only had to take umbrage and claim that she was researching breast cancer and using the colloquialism to ensure a thorough search.
That brings up a thought: What if an Australian female government employee searched 'wanker'? Would she be fired for searching for porn or for trolling for comments about her boss?
Seriously: This is a good lesson to anyone using company or government kit be it a laptop, car, or any other type of equipment. It's not yours it's the owner's/taxpayer's.
Federal law enforcement was so focused on tracking down the people responsible for the knockoff DVDs of 'All Dogs go to Heaven' and 'My Little Pony: The Princess Promenade' sold in Baltimore area flea markets they didn't have time to pay attention to field agent reports about a group of Saudi nationals holding valid US Customs student visas acting in a suspicious manner and taking pilot training.
The USA has started what appears to be a never ending war against Muslims and is making noises about attacking Iran (which now, thanks to documents released by Wikileaks, seems to be the idea of Arab nations to get rid of Persians by having the USA fight a race war for them), is being destroyed from within by drugs, is having its economic base destroyed by a corrupt financial system, and is aggressively protecting a media that makes its fortunes glorifying drugs, stupidity, and violence (The Jersey Shore, Two and a half Men).
With all of this needing to be addressed are they really throwing what appears to be substantial resources into battling offshore internet streaming of NFL games and pay per view UFC fights? It seems so.
Re: a 20 year old joke .... based on McDonalds - Mine's Worse
A frog hops into a bank and asks for a meeting with a loans officer. The officer, Patricia Whack, meets the frog with some surprise and asks what she and the bank could do for him. The frog replies: "I have some outstanding debts and a cash flow crisis that requires a $10,000 overdraft to meet my sort term business obligations." "Very well.", replies Miss Whack. "Do you have a guarantor?" "Yes." says the frog, "I am the adopted son of Mick Jagger and he will cosign." Not really believing this Patricia asks, "And what do you have as collateral?" "This!", says the frog, proudly holding up an inexpensive ceramic duck. Patti (her usual name used around the office) states, "I'm sorry Mr. Frog, I do not believe we can provide you with any lending services"
The bank manager overhears the conversation in his office next store and being a huge Stones fan realizes that the frog was indeed the one adopted by Mr. Jagger as described in an article he had read in a fan magazine and hears the loan officer's increasingly unimpressed tone and steps in to head off a potentially embarrassing media event. Calling her into his office she enters with the ceramic duck she was given and when confronted with the manager's question as to why she would not loan money to the frog Patti provides an obvious list of reasonable points as to why the frog does not qualify for a $10,000 overdraft. Finishing with a flourish she holds up the duck concluding, "And what the heck is this?"
The manager replies: "It's a nick-knack Patti Whack, give the frog a loan, his old man's a Rolling Stone."
Re: Vietnam Re-visited - The bitches still be crazy...
True, same thing then as now. War is not about winning. War is about profit and political manipulation. Haliburton is just a reasonably successful oil industry supply company without Iraq and Afghanistan. By providing $500 a gallon gas and $75 a plate franks and beans meals to the troops they are a money making machine.