Mr.damien
May 2, 02:31 AM
This suck, it was a really good improvement. Sad to see that Apple is stepping back listening to old people over here that can't change their habits ...
unlinked
Mar 29, 02:22 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
They rummaged through non-App Store apps two years ago, but back then there wasn't a 30% cut in it for them.
That never happened.
They rummaged through non-App Store apps two years ago, but back then there wasn't a 30% cut in it for them.
That never happened.
GeekLawyer
May 3, 01:52 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?Because you then sign a contract that says how you agree to use it. This is outside of that agreement. If you want to sign an agreement to use the data in a different way, I'm sure the carrier will accommodate you. But get your wallet open.
ilfn143
May 3, 02:23 PM
take out the sim, go to market on wifi. all carrier restrictions is gone. :p
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 11, 06:53 PM
Anyone who says that is taking the mickey. As a mac user of over a decade I can say I'm quite happy that I can run Windows 7 on my mac.
People on both sides of the OS war (or the console war, or Pepsi/Coke war, or the Marvel/DC war, etc.) are either trolls or severely lacking in the "life" department.
+1 I'd say.
Use winXP everyday; more than my mac.
Use win7 for beta-testing apps in the office.
Great OS's; I just wish MS do something in the usability department. Or may be I'm using it wrong.
People on both sides of the OS war (or the console war, or Pepsi/Coke war, or the Marvel/DC war, etc.) are either trolls or severely lacking in the "life" department.
+1 I'd say.
Use winXP everyday; more than my mac.
Use win7 for beta-testing apps in the office.
Great OS's; I just wish MS do something in the usability department. Or may be I'm using it wrong.
tophergt
Oct 19, 10:09 AM
Do you believe that the perpetual delay of Microsoft's Vista OS is allowing Apple to temporarily grab up some of the markey share? I'm not saying that people who would otherwise purchase a Wintel machine are switching to Mac because Vista is not out, but rather that some percentage are waiting to buy their new Core2Duo machine (or other upgrade to their current box) until they can get an full release version of Vista preinstalled on it.
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]
Just a conjecture, but I thought it was worth considering. I suppose we'll find out in the first two quarters of 2007 when Microsoft decides that they're ready to release that bad boy on the world . . .
[JDOG, your post came in while I was still typing mine . . . sorry for the repeat]
more...
bedifferent
Apr 29, 06:50 PM
Like this? :p
Odd, I don't have that option in "System Preferences"
Odd, I don't have that option in "System Preferences"
Puck.
Jan 15, 01:33 PM
Pretty terrible honestly, it seemed as though there should have been at least one more major item. Let's hope that in 6 months we get more another major goodie.
more...
Applejuiced
Apr 22, 01:11 PM
On IE7 whenever I click either the "up" or "down" arrow I get taken back to the forum index.
Same here.
It was working fine yesterday but today it just takes me to the forum index.
I got IE9 installed btw.
Same here.
It was working fine yesterday but today it just takes me to the forum index.
I got IE9 installed btw.
Dagless
Mar 28, 02:52 PM
Eh, they could do with renaming this award ceremony. "App Store Award"? It's hardly "Apple Design Awards" if they're excluding a lot of those developers.
more...
llahsram
Oct 17, 10:25 AM
Blu-ray had initially gained a lot of studio support, but recently Universal Studios has decided to drop initial support for Blu-ray (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2017527,00.asp).
This is false. Blu-Ray initially had less studio support. Universal never supported Blu-Ray (which the linked article states, despite the misleading headline), and Warner Brothers and Paramount only added support for Blu-Ray comparatively recently; they were initially HD-DVD only. Universal is now the only studio without Blu-Ray support.
On the other hand, Fox and Disney are still supporting only Blu-Ray (though there have been rumors of Disney looking at HD-DVD). So for the time being, it's Blu-Ray for Star Wars and Pixar fans -- assuming this is still the state of affairs when the studios release those titles...
Picture quality should be the deciding factor, and much like VHS vs Betamax, most people apparently can't see any real difference between BluRay and HD-DVD.
Given the same quality decoding hardware, for most movies they shouldn't see any difference at all. Both support the same codecs (MPEG-2, h.264, and VC-1). The first Blu-Ray discs were encoded using MPEG-2, which produced a lower quality image than the VC-1-encoded HD-DVD discs, but newer Blu-Ray discs are using VC-1 as well. The picture should be identical between the two.
The only case I could see where the capacity would affect it would be for longer movies like Lord of the Rings, where the encoded video plus lossless audio may reach the boundaries of HD-DVD. We could conceivably see more compression artifacts or the dropping of higher-resolution audio or commentaries on HD-DVD in these cases, whereas Blu-Ray would have more space. But this shouldn't affect most titles.
This is false. Blu-Ray initially had less studio support. Universal never supported Blu-Ray (which the linked article states, despite the misleading headline), and Warner Brothers and Paramount only added support for Blu-Ray comparatively recently; they were initially HD-DVD only. Universal is now the only studio without Blu-Ray support.
On the other hand, Fox and Disney are still supporting only Blu-Ray (though there have been rumors of Disney looking at HD-DVD). So for the time being, it's Blu-Ray for Star Wars and Pixar fans -- assuming this is still the state of affairs when the studios release those titles...
Picture quality should be the deciding factor, and much like VHS vs Betamax, most people apparently can't see any real difference between BluRay and HD-DVD.
Given the same quality decoding hardware, for most movies they shouldn't see any difference at all. Both support the same codecs (MPEG-2, h.264, and VC-1). The first Blu-Ray discs were encoded using MPEG-2, which produced a lower quality image than the VC-1-encoded HD-DVD discs, but newer Blu-Ray discs are using VC-1 as well. The picture should be identical between the two.
The only case I could see where the capacity would affect it would be for longer movies like Lord of the Rings, where the encoded video plus lossless audio may reach the boundaries of HD-DVD. We could conceivably see more compression artifacts or the dropping of higher-resolution audio or commentaries on HD-DVD in these cases, whereas Blu-Ray would have more space. But this shouldn't affect most titles.
_0.jpg "justin bieber you smile i")
madmaxmedia
Jan 11, 04:53 PM
Doing it during somebody's presentation is just plain cold.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
more...
Fearless Leader
Jan 14, 04:14 PM
The first bit was funny for this teenage, but this was nothing for a "Journalist" to be doing.
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 10:41 PM
Nekbeth, you didn't thank Philip Endecott, who posted the solution to your problem on the Apple forum about three hours before wlh99 posted essentially the same solution here.
I did PhoneyDeveloper, it just that his explanation only stops the timer, if I press StartTimer again, the seconds continue where they left. e.g.
startTimer 59,58, cancel.. startTimer 57,56 and so on.
mmm.. I see where there might be problem (my fault, not Phillips).. I'll come back..
I did PhoneyDeveloper, it just that his explanation only stops the timer, if I press StartTimer again, the seconds continue where they left. e.g.
startTimer 59,58, cancel.. startTimer 57,56 and so on.
mmm.. I see where there might be problem (my fault, not Phillips).. I'll come back..
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
BlindMellon
Apr 25, 08:34 PM
I don't get the fascination with a marginal bigger screen, if I need a bigger screen I get my iPad.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
more...
franswa za
May 2, 10:45 AM
I find it amusing that the G1 can run Android Gingerbread fairly well, but Apple makes it impossible to upgrade the original iPhone to the latest and greatest iOS.
and, your point is?
"old tech" wanting 2 b supported to include WHAT? you can still phone from the device, yes, my droogie?,
I SMILE! lt;3. by »Justin Bieber
justin bieber you smile i
and, your point is?
"old tech" wanting 2 b supported to include WHAT? you can still phone from the device, yes, my droogie?,
JForestZ34
Mar 17, 04:20 PM
The poor kid simply hit the "cash" button before typing in the total. I used to work at BB (now an attorney), so I feel sorry for the kid. The OP committed retail theft by knowingly leaving the store with a product he didn't pay full value for (differentiated from receiving a computer by mistake because of the intent requirement). If the kid is not fired he will surely be written up and never able to move upward in the company to get things like health insurance and other benefits. What's worse is that this is the time of the year when BB takes on a lot of new hires.
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
It's sad to see people surprised at "morality police" coming out against the OP. He committed a freaking crime! Worse, he thinks he deserved to do it because he was a good boy and didnt steal the lady's iPhone earlier...
I doubt it will do any good, but I'll do my part and forward this thread to some friends at BB corporate. I'm sure they could track down the receipt and let the kids gm know why his register was off by that amount and that it wasn't internal theft. They'd also give the GM OP's info from his rz card, which could be amusing... :)
Good luck.. But it won't do any good... Nice try though....
James
Dagless
Apr 15, 12:37 PM
To say the lighting is quite good, it sure is grainy! The grain also seems fake. As does the angle of the phone.
It's also fairly ugly and fairly fake.
It's also fairly ugly and fairly fake.
daneoni
Aug 9, 09:12 AM
UK specs have been updated.
devilstrider
Mar 18, 10:10 PM
That happened to me just last week..
I was answering a call beside a guy at a bus stop who had an evo.. Out of no where he was like "Hey, you better hurry up before that call drops.."
So I just stared at him for a few seconds and said "Well atleast it wont be because my batteries dead"
I knew I got him, because he couldnt come up with anything better and just stared at me with depression as if to say "awwww hes right -_-".. :apple:
I have both of those phones but I like my EVO better. The big screen and flash puts it over the top for me. I still like my iPhone 4 but I get more done on my EVO.
I was answering a call beside a guy at a bus stop who had an evo.. Out of no where he was like "Hey, you better hurry up before that call drops.."
So I just stared at him for a few seconds and said "Well atleast it wont be because my batteries dead"
I knew I got him, because he couldnt come up with anything better and just stared at me with depression as if to say "awwww hes right -_-".. :apple:
I have both of those phones but I like my EVO better. The big screen and flash puts it over the top for me. I still like my iPhone 4 but I get more done on my EVO.
Lynxpro
Oct 20, 01:33 PM
I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. Apple is a computer company. A computer = hardware + an operating system + software. This was always the way it was until IBM made their terrible strategic errors with the PC. Now we think companies like Dell make computers. They really don't -- they are Microsoft remarketers.
The truth hath spoken.
Ode for the days when we enthusiasts also had Atari and Commodore to pick from. Before the dark times, before the Microsoft Empire.
To think what would have happened had Atari and Commodore set aside their differences and harmonized the ST and Amiga platforms and licensed it to the PC cloners.
The truth hath spoken.
Ode for the days when we enthusiasts also had Atari and Commodore to pick from. Before the dark times, before the Microsoft Empire.
To think what would have happened had Atari and Commodore set aside their differences and harmonized the ST and Amiga platforms and licensed it to the PC cloners.
fivepoint
Mar 3, 09:45 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
That's true regarding federal employees. It's being labeled as draconian because that's how union thugs get their message across. They need to scare people in order to get their way. Scare or intimidate... and thankfully they aren't powerful enough to intimidate all of us at this point. Not that they aren't trying:
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/188078_139173095668_4256766_n.jpg
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Progressive/Liberal Hero
That's true regarding federal employees. It's being labeled as draconian because that's how union thugs get their message across. They need to scare people in order to get their way. Scare or intimidate... and thankfully they aren't powerful enough to intimidate all of us at this point. Not that they aren't trying:
https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/188078_139173095668_4256766_n.jpg
"... Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations ... The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for ... officials ... to bind the employer ... The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives ...
"Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people ... This obligation is paramount ... A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent ... to prevent or obstruct ... Government ... Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government ... is unthinkable and intolerable." -Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and Progressive/Liberal Hero
KingYaba
Mar 3, 09:02 PM
Fines and jail time? What a crock of ****. Negotiate, by all means, if the union pay needs to be cut back to balance a state budget, but this bill goes too far.
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to peacefully assemble....
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to peacefully assemble....
No comments:
Post a Comment