From the city that brought you gun bans, smoking bans, and bad drivers comes a proposed ban on trans fats, the kind of fats that make french fries crispy and donuts good-tasting. Most doctors agree that these fats are not good for you, but in moderation they are unlikely to do you in on their own.
The NYC ban would not apply to grocery stores (yet), but this is one locale that is already very far down the slippery slope of limiting personal choice and personal responsibility in the name of public health.
With the quality of the air in the big apple I'm surprised they aren't requiring children to wear face masks like the Chinese do.
You want to know something that's much more dangerous than trans fats? Driving. Car accidents kill more than 45,000 people in the United States each year, and more people in New York state than died on 9/11.
New York was once a great, tough city but it is on its way to becoming a laughingstock.
2006-09-26
2006-09-22
I've Fallen And I Can't Get Up!
To go along with my previous post, here is a lovely satire from The Onion, that describes just how stupid the intelligent design/evolution debate is.
These are the same type of people who imprisoned Galileo for saying the Earth revolved around the sun and who make a mockery of human intelligence.
2006-09-20
Crazy California
The state of CA is suing several auto companies, asserting that they are responsible for billions of dollars in damages caused by global warming. While many environmental kooks will applaud this lawsuit, I hope it fails.
First of all, while global temperatures may be up a degree worldwide, the part of it that was caused by humans is up for significant debate. Some claim it is possibly .01 degrees, some say most of the whole degree. At any rate, tens of thousands of years ago we were in an ice age, this is simply the other end of that curve. When dinosaurs ruled the earth and our ancestors were some type of rodent, temperatures were probably different from what they are today.
Secondly, if this lawsuit succeeds it could open the door to suing just about every manufacturing company, sending even more companies out of the US to build products and do their work in more business friendly countries.
Thirdly, CA is naming Toyota and Honda on the lawsuit. No other manufacturers make and sell as many low polluting hybrid vehicles as these guys. Taking away their profits just gives them less incentive to spend money researching cleaner and greener technologies.
Shame on you California.
Idiots
On one side, there are idiot gubernatorial candidates stressing that Intelligent Design (which should be known as backward, religious idiots) should be taught alongside evolution. Remember that intelligent design has absolutely no backing among scientific academics and the only people who support it are those who are too dumb to see the facts. They routinely say that there is no concrete fossil evidence of evolution.
Which brings me to my other point.
On the other side, every day there is more proof that yes, we humans have evolved from something else.
2006-09-16
Organic E. coli
The news is just now reporting that the recent outbreak of e. coli came from organic spinach.
I've known people who always buy organic products, despite the fact that they usually cost 10-40% more than conventional foods. No study has ever shown that organic food is better for you in any way.
This incident was bound to happen. Organic guidelines require produce to be grown without the use of any artificial chemicals, so instead of the safest, most scientifically advanced synthetic fertilizer, organic farmers use manure (cow shit). Cow shit can sometimes contain bacteria such as e. coli. These foods are consumed without cooking or pasteurization, greatly increasing the chances of people becoming ill.
Organic farming is very similar to the type of farming that was present in America 100 years ago, as far as the substances that are used to preserve the harvest. 100 years ago America's food supply was not safe.
Now we have companies like Whole Foods that sell these potentially dangerous products.
I've known people who always buy organic products, despite the fact that they usually cost 10-40% more than conventional foods. No study has ever shown that organic food is better for you in any way.
This incident was bound to happen. Organic guidelines require produce to be grown without the use of any artificial chemicals, so instead of the safest, most scientifically advanced synthetic fertilizer, organic farmers use manure (cow shit). Cow shit can sometimes contain bacteria such as e. coli. These foods are consumed without cooking or pasteurization, greatly increasing the chances of people becoming ill.
Organic farming is very similar to the type of farming that was present in America 100 years ago, as far as the substances that are used to preserve the harvest. 100 years ago America's food supply was not safe.
Now we have companies like Whole Foods that sell these potentially dangerous products.
2006-09-15
Virginia Law Would Reck Businesses, Lives
There is a proposal on the ballot in my home state (commonwealth) of Virginia that appears to merely be the usual "marriage is a man and a woman" type constitutional amendment, but is actually much more sinister.
The Virginia initiative has language that is so ambiguous it could open up attacks on arrangements that straight umarried couples have agreed to, such as wills, power of attorney, employer benefits, etc.
There are many groups fighting the passage of this law, and thankfully currently only around 45% of Virginians are supporting this measure, which could drop substantially once they read the rest of the bill, which says the Commonwealth will not recognize: "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Businesses are against this measure, because they may not be able to compete with businesses in Maryland and other states that would be able to offer benefits to domestic partners, whether they be of the same sex or not.
I urge all individuals and businesses in the area to support a defeat of this ballot question. Virginia was recently listed as the most "business friendly state" by Forbes. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.
The Virginia initiative has language that is so ambiguous it could open up attacks on arrangements that straight umarried couples have agreed to, such as wills, power of attorney, employer benefits, etc.
There are many groups fighting the passage of this law, and thankfully currently only around 45% of Virginians are supporting this measure, which could drop substantially once they read the rest of the bill, which says the Commonwealth will not recognize: "another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Businesses are against this measure, because they may not be able to compete with businesses in Maryland and other states that would be able to offer benefits to domestic partners, whether they be of the same sex or not.
I urge all individuals and businesses in the area to support a defeat of this ballot question. Virginia was recently listed as the most "business friendly state" by Forbes. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.
2006-09-13
Astroglide Airlines
No posts for a while, been busy.
Seems all the new restrictions the TSA imposed after the British/Muslim/Terrorists thought about using liquid explosives are still in effect.
The GOOD news is that, according to the TSA's website, up to 4 ounces of "Personal Lubricants" are allowed as carryon luggage. Since any amount of toothpaste, shampoo, mascara, chapstick and a myriad of other items is prohibited, I'm not sure if this admission of allowing K-Y on the flight is an official invitation to join the mile high club, or some kind of TSA joke.
Yes, contact lens solution is allowed, but hand sanitizers are not. I personally have no idea why the TSA is now allowing a sex-related item on board, but I think if the people at the TSA were getting more of it, they might ease up on the other restrictions too!
Seems all the new restrictions the TSA imposed after the British/Muslim/Terrorists thought about using liquid explosives are still in effect.
The GOOD news is that, according to the TSA's website, up to 4 ounces of "Personal Lubricants" are allowed as carryon luggage. Since any amount of toothpaste, shampoo, mascara, chapstick and a myriad of other items is prohibited, I'm not sure if this admission of allowing K-Y on the flight is an official invitation to join the mile high club, or some kind of TSA joke.
Yes, contact lens solution is allowed, but hand sanitizers are not. I personally have no idea why the TSA is now allowing a sex-related item on board, but I think if the people at the TSA were getting more of it, they might ease up on the other restrictions too!
2006-08-22
Different Reactions
Porn was accidentally broadcast in the background of a news show in Sweden. The media was interested, some people were "shocked" but nobody complained.
If this had happened in the United States, the station broadcasting the material would be fined millions of dollars per man, woman, child, and unborn fetus that saw the program, the offending network would have to issue a lengthy apology and pledge to fight porn, and would have to pay for psychological counseling for all the children that will now become rapists and murderers for having seen this show.
Maybe my above conclusion is overblown, but the US is pretty scared of porn. You can't even show tits on TV, something that almost every infant has succled at one point or another. There is not one person who hasn't seen tits, a pussy, or a cock, so I don't see what the big deal is about the human body. Maybe it goes back to the puritan roots of the USA, but by at this point we respect no "establishment of religion."
I say, we should have a public porn network. It could be instructional for children, especially a lot of the people I went to CMU with.
If this had happened in the United States, the station broadcasting the material would be fined millions of dollars per man, woman, child, and unborn fetus that saw the program, the offending network would have to issue a lengthy apology and pledge to fight porn, and would have to pay for psychological counseling for all the children that will now become rapists and murderers for having seen this show.
Maybe my above conclusion is overblown, but the US is pretty scared of porn. You can't even show tits on TV, something that almost every infant has succled at one point or another. There is not one person who hasn't seen tits, a pussy, or a cock, so I don't see what the big deal is about the human body. Maybe it goes back to the puritan roots of the USA, but by at this point we respect no "establishment of religion."
I say, we should have a public porn network. It could be instructional for children, especially a lot of the people I went to CMU with.
2006-08-11
The Sheep Accept Their Fate
Today, one day after the foiled terrorist attack, people are accepting the fact that they aren't supposed to carry any liquids onto planes, while Britons (a group not known to make a fuss) are complying with their countries banning of all carry-on luggage, including books. For a people who stood up gallantly to the Nazis, allowing their own government to ban books on an airplane is beyond pathetic.
Meanwhile, here's an interesting article from Ronald Bailey, in which he outlines that a risk of being killed by a terrorist is much less than getting into a car crash, murdered, drowned, and many other ways that people die even if terrorists carried out attacks regularly. Simply put: all this extra security is nothing but political bullshit, designed to enslave the populace.
The security measures being used are completely ineffective. In my previous post, I asked the question, "How far will it go?" I think we could safely eliminate all of our current security checking. All that is needed is an adaptive approach to singling out certain people. Young arab males travelling alone seem to be a good place to start. If we find out that terrorists are starting to come in other colors we can move our search there, but it's stupid to tell the 75 year old World War II veteran that he can't take his bottle of water on the plane because radical muslims are potentially using this method to bring bombs on board.
2006-08-10
How Far Would You Let It Go?
As an afterthought to my previous post,
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
--Thomas Jefferson
The inconviences of too much liberty is that shit can happen. Perhaps an airplane or two would go down every year through the acts of pissed off people.
How far would you be willing to go to prevent that?
0. Freedom
1. No weapons (federal laws that violates the 2nd amendment prohibit carrying on airplanes. Those who are licensed to carry weapons are among the most law abiding citizens. Just think if one of them had been on each of those 4 flights on 9/11. The muslims with the box cutters couldn't have gotten one of those. Would we be in the middle of this "war on terror" if we weren't disarmed on plans on that fateful day?).
2. Metal detectors.
3. X-rays of your luggage.
4. Prohibitions on all fluids (this just occured today; I read that they are expecting it to last 12 to 72 hours. We are now in the middle of that time frame). This means no water, contact lens solution, handcream, etc. Does the American woman with 2 young children carrying a purse full of handcream really worth this extra effort?
---Now that we've gone this far, how many steps below are you willing to let us fall?---
5. Prohibitions on ALL electronic devices. No cell phones to alert people if your flight is late, no iPods to listen to music on the 5 hour flight, subjecting your $3,000 laptop to baggage "throwers".
6. No more carry on luggage. No books, no magazines, no change of clothes, no nothing.
7. Strip searches. What if someone wrapped an explosive around their penis or tits? Suddenly you would have to go fully nude in front of the TSA.
8. Body cavity searches. Next a terrorist could put a condom full of explosives into their assholes, vaginas, whatever. So boarding an airplane would require everyone to take off all their clothes and have someone of the same sex stick their latex-gloved hand up their ass.
I'd personally like to see us go back to level 0.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
--Thomas Jefferson
The inconviences of too much liberty is that shit can happen. Perhaps an airplane or two would go down every year through the acts of pissed off people.
How far would you be willing to go to prevent that?
0. Freedom
1. No weapons (federal laws that violates the 2nd amendment prohibit carrying on airplanes. Those who are licensed to carry weapons are among the most law abiding citizens. Just think if one of them had been on each of those 4 flights on 9/11. The muslims with the box cutters couldn't have gotten one of those. Would we be in the middle of this "war on terror" if we weren't disarmed on plans on that fateful day?).
2. Metal detectors.
3. X-rays of your luggage.
4. Prohibitions on all fluids (this just occured today; I read that they are expecting it to last 12 to 72 hours. We are now in the middle of that time frame). This means no water, contact lens solution, handcream, etc. Does the American woman with 2 young children carrying a purse full of handcream really worth this extra effort?
---Now that we've gone this far, how many steps below are you willing to let us fall?---
5. Prohibitions on ALL electronic devices. No cell phones to alert people if your flight is late, no iPods to listen to music on the 5 hour flight, subjecting your $3,000 laptop to baggage "throwers".
6. No more carry on luggage. No books, no magazines, no change of clothes, no nothing.
7. Strip searches. What if someone wrapped an explosive around their penis or tits? Suddenly you would have to go fully nude in front of the TSA.
8. Body cavity searches. Next a terrorist could put a condom full of explosives into their assholes, vaginas, whatever. So boarding an airplane would require everyone to take off all their clothes and have someone of the same sex stick their latex-gloved hand up their ass.
I'd personally like to see us go back to level 0.
Attack On All Liquids!
It seems that a plot was foiled to bomb planes in midair bound from the UK to the US. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who was probably behind it (here's a hint: they aren't Mormon).
The British flipped out and banned all carry-on luggage from their flights, with only a few exceptions (wallets, glasses, tampons, etc.) You aren't allowed to bring iPods or books! Can you believe this? These fucking British Nazis banned books!!!
Not to mention that it's just a little bit harder to join the mile high club now, since the TSA has banned all liquids and gels (no K-Y allowed anymore).
Penn Jillette said that we should make every passenger consume a slice of bacon before boarding the flight; if we did that we wouldn't even need the x-ray machine or metal detector.
2006-08-09
An Early Obituary to Vinegar Joe's Career
"Vinegar" Joe Lieberman has just conceded the Connecticut Senate Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont. This defeat is the first indication of the ramifications of the Iraq situation. Lieberman voted to authorize the president to send troops to Iraq, violating the Constitution in that only Congress can declare war, something it hasn't done since 1941. CT is a very liberal state (as is the entire Northeast except New Hampshire), so this action comes as no surprise.
Joe Lieberman is an oddball of a senator. While he is a hawk on foreign interventions, he is sometimes socially liberal. He does not seem to be against gay marriage, flag desecration, and stem cell research. Also he feels that affirmative action goes against our country's history on equality, is a proponent of school vouchers, and seems to favor States' Rights. These are all good things.
However he is definitely far from perfect. He has voted against tax cuts, which is an overall bad sign. He is very pro gun-control, something that also does not jibe with the Constitution. Lastly, he (along with Hilary Clinton) have a vendetta against the entertainment industry. If it were up to people like him, everything from R-rated movies to pornography to violent video games would be under strict government control, if not outright banned. This stance has made me very hesitant to support him in any of his endeavors, since I find it hard to trust politicians who blatantly should their distrust of the public to make their own decisions, especially when it comes down to things that do no harm to others. My bad taste could be someone else's fetish, and I have no right to tell them what to like. Neither does he, or any politician.
Many other politicians are going to see fallout for their actions, and not just for the war. I think it's time for a clean slate, I think every senator and representative (except for Ron Paul) should be voted out of office. I would prefer to see this happen more often, but now is as good of a time as any.
Joe Lieberman is an oddball of a senator. While he is a hawk on foreign interventions, he is sometimes socially liberal. He does not seem to be against gay marriage, flag desecration, and stem cell research. Also he feels that affirmative action goes against our country's history on equality, is a proponent of school vouchers, and seems to favor States' Rights. These are all good things.
However he is definitely far from perfect. He has voted against tax cuts, which is an overall bad sign. He is very pro gun-control, something that also does not jibe with the Constitution. Lastly, he (along with Hilary Clinton) have a vendetta against the entertainment industry. If it were up to people like him, everything from R-rated movies to pornography to violent video games would be under strict government control, if not outright banned. This stance has made me very hesitant to support him in any of his endeavors, since I find it hard to trust politicians who blatantly should their distrust of the public to make their own decisions, especially when it comes down to things that do no harm to others. My bad taste could be someone else's fetish, and I have no right to tell them what to like. Neither does he, or any politician.
Many other politicians are going to see fallout for their actions, and not just for the war. I think it's time for a clean slate, I think every senator and representative (except for Ron Paul) should be voted out of office. I would prefer to see this happen more often, but now is as good of a time as any.
2006-07-30
Raising the Minimum Wage Won't Help Anyone
A new increase to the federal minimum wage has passed the house. If this bill becomes law, the minimum wage will increase to $7.25/hr over the next three years.
First off, if you check back on my blog, Congress does not have the power to regulate wages, so this law is unconstitutional, though that issue will never come up with the overall level of corruption we have in all three branches of government.
Overall, having a minimum wage creates problems for workers, employers, and the whole economy. The true minimum wage varies for anyone. Maybe a high school student working a summer job would gladly take $3 per hour to mow lawns, or wash cars. Maybe he wouldn't work for anything less than $8/hr at a fancy coffee shop.
It's up to a worker to decide what his or her minimum wage should be. Mine is $25/hr or 50,000 a year, I won't work for anything less than that.
There are many that argue, "a worker in a desperate state cannot hope to get a fair wage, therefore we must establish one so someone can live at least slightly above the poverty level."
This reasoning is bullshit.
Even a 30 year old man still working at McDonald's has options. Maybe the Wendy's across the street pays $1/hr more. Maybe he could find work at a construction site making $10/hr or more. Nobody is stuck in their current job. That's not to say they can just quit, but what's to stop them from looking for job options in the newspaper? Nothing.
However, if the minimum wage raises to $7.25, we could run into problems. The McDonald's paying $5.15 will raise their wages to the new figure. But the Burger King at $8 may lower theirs. Jobs where people receive tips might start requiring workers to give up a percentage of their tips to make up for the increase in their wages. Suddenly the job market is less flexible, everyone pays the same, there are no monetary incentives for "shopping around" and nobody is in a better position. It also gives workers a false psychological sense of an accomplishment. That may cause some to stick with their current shitty jobs instead of looking for something that provides them with enough income to truly survive.
Worse for everyone, driving up the minimum wage drives up prices everywhere. Maybe gas will go up another 5 cents because of it (so 10 gallons will be 50 cents more). A Big Mac goes up by 25 cents. Washing your car goes up by a 50 cents. Getting a pizza delivered costs an extra dollar. And finally your dry cleaning goes up by .45 cents a garment. There's the $2.60 right there, in everyday activities. You want to give up an extra $2.60 or more to pay for people that should go out and find better jobs?
It's not my problem that in general the people making minimum wage are uneducated, unlucky, or felons. Congress, keep your filthy fucking hands out of my wallet.
First off, if you check back on my blog, Congress does not have the power to regulate wages, so this law is unconstitutional, though that issue will never come up with the overall level of corruption we have in all three branches of government.
Overall, having a minimum wage creates problems for workers, employers, and the whole economy. The true minimum wage varies for anyone. Maybe a high school student working a summer job would gladly take $3 per hour to mow lawns, or wash cars. Maybe he wouldn't work for anything less than $8/hr at a fancy coffee shop.
It's up to a worker to decide what his or her minimum wage should be. Mine is $25/hr or 50,000 a year, I won't work for anything less than that.
There are many that argue, "a worker in a desperate state cannot hope to get a fair wage, therefore we must establish one so someone can live at least slightly above the poverty level."
This reasoning is bullshit.
Even a 30 year old man still working at McDonald's has options. Maybe the Wendy's across the street pays $1/hr more. Maybe he could find work at a construction site making $10/hr or more. Nobody is stuck in their current job. That's not to say they can just quit, but what's to stop them from looking for job options in the newspaper? Nothing.
However, if the minimum wage raises to $7.25, we could run into problems. The McDonald's paying $5.15 will raise their wages to the new figure. But the Burger King at $8 may lower theirs. Jobs where people receive tips might start requiring workers to give up a percentage of their tips to make up for the increase in their wages. Suddenly the job market is less flexible, everyone pays the same, there are no monetary incentives for "shopping around" and nobody is in a better position. It also gives workers a false psychological sense of an accomplishment. That may cause some to stick with their current shitty jobs instead of looking for something that provides them with enough income to truly survive.
Worse for everyone, driving up the minimum wage drives up prices everywhere. Maybe gas will go up another 5 cents because of it (so 10 gallons will be 50 cents more). A Big Mac goes up by 25 cents. Washing your car goes up by a 50 cents. Getting a pizza delivered costs an extra dollar. And finally your dry cleaning goes up by .45 cents a garment. There's the $2.60 right there, in everyday activities. You want to give up an extra $2.60 or more to pay for people that should go out and find better jobs?
It's not my problem that in general the people making minimum wage are uneducated, unlucky, or felons. Congress, keep your filthy fucking hands out of my wallet.
2006-07-26
The Burning Middle East
In the past week or so as you all must know, Israel and Hezbollah have been battling each other in southern Lebanon. This situation has the potential to quickly get out of control and poses many problems to us here in America.
Israel had several soldiers taken prisoner by Hezbollah, the extremist muslim group that occupies most of south Lebanon. Israel retaliated by bombing much of the infrastructure of Beirut, including the airport and a UN OutPost (oops!!!). Hezbollah has several seats in the legislature of Lebanon though its operations are generally not supported by the majority of the Lebanese government. Enter Syria/Iran/etc. who finance and arm Hezbollah. Lebanon has been under the control of Syria to one degree or another for many years, and now Syria chooses to use Hezbollah to further its goals, which include constant threats and violence against Israel.
There are several issues we as Americans should consider. We have had many of our soldiers kidnapped over the years and have generally not bombed a country into the stoneage for it, especially when done by a non-sanctioned group. Israelis tend to have hot-heads, and usually do not care about the "big picture" when undertaking operations, which is fine, since they are a sovereign nation.
The problem is that the US government continues to fund Israel and many other countries with billions of dollars in foreign aid. If you want to give Israel, Egypt, Tanzania, and the rest of the third world money, that's good, but don't make me give it through tax dollars, especially when Israel is directly contributing to the high prices we are paying at the gas station. After Israel launched this recent attack, oil went up by several dollars per barrel, which will translate to 20-40 cents extra at the pump.
My recommendation is this: repeal the federal gas tax, giving everyone an immediate 18 cents per gallon cut. To make up the resulting budget deficit, cut off all foreign aid to everyone. Why force Arab-Americans to pay for Israeli buildings and Jewish-Americans to pay for Saudi mosques?
Israel is right to do what it thinks it needs to do to secure its country, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.
Israel had several soldiers taken prisoner by Hezbollah, the extremist muslim group that occupies most of south Lebanon. Israel retaliated by bombing much of the infrastructure of Beirut, including the airport and a UN OutPost (oops!!!). Hezbollah has several seats in the legislature of Lebanon though its operations are generally not supported by the majority of the Lebanese government. Enter Syria/Iran/etc. who finance and arm Hezbollah. Lebanon has been under the control of Syria to one degree or another for many years, and now Syria chooses to use Hezbollah to further its goals, which include constant threats and violence against Israel.
There are several issues we as Americans should consider. We have had many of our soldiers kidnapped over the years and have generally not bombed a country into the stoneage for it, especially when done by a non-sanctioned group. Israelis tend to have hot-heads, and usually do not care about the "big picture" when undertaking operations, which is fine, since they are a sovereign nation.
The problem is that the US government continues to fund Israel and many other countries with billions of dollars in foreign aid. If you want to give Israel, Egypt, Tanzania, and the rest of the third world money, that's good, but don't make me give it through tax dollars, especially when Israel is directly contributing to the high prices we are paying at the gas station. After Israel launched this recent attack, oil went up by several dollars per barrel, which will translate to 20-40 cents extra at the pump.
My recommendation is this: repeal the federal gas tax, giving everyone an immediate 18 cents per gallon cut. To make up the resulting budget deficit, cut off all foreign aid to everyone. Why force Arab-Americans to pay for Israeli buildings and Jewish-Americans to pay for Saudi mosques?
Israel is right to do what it thinks it needs to do to secure its country, but I shouldn't have to pay for it.
2006-07-25
Tip
OK so its 2:40 in the morning. Problem was, I couldn't get my Motorola V710 to charge, I got the lovely, "unable to charge" message no matter what I did. This incident has happened with previous motorolas.
Here's a tip on how to fix the problem, if you encounter it. Take the battery out of the phone. Dip a Q-tip into some rubbing alcohol, and rub all the electrical contacts with it (they are on the battery, inside the phone where it connects to the battery, the charger, and where the charger connects). Allow a minute or so to dry, and it should work. Fuckin dirty contacts!
PS: I do still recommend Motorolas, only phones I ever use these days, only problem is with the charging.
Here's a tip on how to fix the problem, if you encounter it. Take the battery out of the phone. Dip a Q-tip into some rubbing alcohol, and rub all the electrical contacts with it (they are on the battery, inside the phone where it connects to the battery, the charger, and where the charger connects). Allow a minute or so to dry, and it should work. Fuckin dirty contacts!
PS: I do still recommend Motorolas, only phones I ever use these days, only problem is with the charging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
