Wrong. What the EeePC replaces is the need to carry around a 6 pound notebook computer. It is a "notebook replacement" rather than a "desktop replacement". So, if you need a big screen to do your work properly, or access CDs/DVDs/Floppys or run a MythTV box, or if you have big thick fingers, or have trouble seeing small print, the Eee is not going to cut it. It is a small sub-notebook with only a few ports, speakers, microphone, and a webcam and almost no peripherals and low processing power. It is not a perfect solution...but it is not just a gadget...it is a general purpose device that made a few sacrifices for weight and size.
While the Asus eeePC is not perfect, it certainly is a general purpose device. I can do almost anything on my $350 eeePC that I can do on my $1800 desktop.
I bought it rather than a full notebook because it weighs two pounds (rather than 6 or 7) and is the size of a small book.
I'm sorry that you didn't like yours, but it isn't meant as a desktop replacement.
Assuming that the 6.8% of the population is under 5 years old and doesn't use the internet, and assuming that the 12.4% of the population is over 65 doesn't use the internet, leaves about 9.4% of the population unaccounted for.
Also, what about the 14 - 25 year old demographic who are using SMS rather than email?
So, I guess what I am saying here is that if only 71.4% of the US has access to the internet, how is it possible that 18% of all households don't use email?
Of course, it isn't the lawyer's morals and ethics who are circumspect....it is that lawyer's clients.
The lawyer isn't the person suing the drug company...the person with the dispute is the one who is suing.
The lack of ethics and morality stands squarely on the shoulders of the person who is the client; the lawyer must always act within the bounds of the law and represent the client zealously, since that is his duty.
An ordinary foot soldier is not to blame for an immoral war, so long as his individual actions do not violate the laws of war...the same can be said of a lawyer.
Actually, in the U.S., it is not college, it is graduate school, where the students are receiving a Master's/Doctoral level degree (juris doctor/L.L.B.).
Parents don't pay for law school, usually. Most students take out loans, or have scholarship, and are paying out of their own pockets, so if they want to ignore professors, its fine with me, its their money, as long as they aren't interrupting the class.
In order to understand why law students are goofing off in class, you have to understand the structure of lectures and the attitudes of professors.
Traditionally, classes were done in a pure Socratic method, with students being called on during class and harshly questioned (and usually berated for being stupid). If you weren't paying attention, you were singled out and humiliated in front of the class. Much like how real life judges berate lawyers for being late and being unprepared for trial.
Of course, this method of teaching, which is to teach yourself by briefing cases, coming to class, and having your thoughts corrected, fell out of favor, especially at elite universities, for more calm lecture style classes.
Another thing to remember is that the law is the law, and that a professor can only give so much insight into what the law is. A student should be able to teach himself what the law is, without guidance. The professor is there to answer questions and to offer instruction and to teach students to think like lawyers.
What about positive uses of the internet in classrooms? Looking up cases and relevant statutes? The cases in law books are often abridged...
Not entirely correct: Only 33% of the earthworm species in North America are exotic/introduced. Only two genera of Lumbricid earthworms are indigenous to North America while introduced genera have spread to areas where earthworms did not formerly exist, especially in the north where forest development relies on a large amount of undecayed leaf matter. (From wikipedia)
not everybody needs to go to college, nor is it beest *sic* for everyone. We still need mechanics, plumbers, and electricions *sic*. Hairdressers/barbers, cashiers and tellers. Should posting on/. require a degree in basic spelling and proper punctuation?
Haven't you heard of beauty school? Most bank tellers these days have college degrees. Car mechanics, plumbers and electricians also need very specialized training.
Plus, not everyone does go to college...its about 1 out of 4 people. Are you telling me that we should reduce that number to 20%? 15%? Give me a break. The more liberally educated our population is, the better off our society. We need more citizens informed about history, math, science and art, not less.
A college education doesn't "mean" much anymore. It just means that your employable and focused, not that you're particularly intelligent or well read. College education still matters. Only 27 percent of adults age 25 and over had a college degree in the United States. That is about 1 out of 4 people, which is pretty remarkable, especially considering that in 1940, only 4.6% had a degree, and even in 1970, only 10.7% had a degree. The percentages shot up in the past 30 years, by almost 4-6% a decade. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/phct41/US.pdf
Of course, part of the reason for the rising graduation rate is that Blacks, Hispanics, and women were allowed to attend institutions.
Another reason why college education is important is because our society has become more technical, the ability to think and have knowledge has become more important.
Using a college degree as a method to weed out 3 out of 4 job applicants is very helpful. Of course, knowing where an applicant went is helpful as well, since Bumblefck Community College is usually not going to produce as fine a graduate as a top 50 national university.
Who owns what in "road law" in most jurisdictions is fairly complicated. A so called "private road" could be anything from an abandoned public road to a road that was built by the landowner himself or another adjoining land owner who has given that landowner an easement.
Even if the road itself is totally owned by the landowner, whether they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from photographs on that road is a question that is probably undecided or unclear. Even if the answer is yes, the issue of damages is probably laughable. A generic photo of a house on a road? I'd give them $100. If the photo had a picture of them "doing it" in the window, maybe $25,000 would be justifiable.
If you want to read more, check out this link: The Pennsylvania Legislatorâ€(TM)s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006), Road Law Basics Chapter: http://tinyurl.com/6hvvnk
There is also a video link on the top ten page -- IMHO, the list itself is much funnier watched than read...you can't get some of the jokes without the visual cues.
A 5yr old laptop is not comparable. My Eee is a snappy device, and all of the components, including the battery, look and work like new.
The processor is a 900Mhz underclocked Celeron M ULV 353 made in late 2004. So, thats 3+ year old tech...not to mention 512 of RAM and a solid state hard drive and a modern linux OS with great hardware support for wireless, etc.
The Asus that I am working on now is light and portable and small, something that did not exist 5 years ago. Even my fiancee can use it out of the box. It easily fits into her pocketbook, or into my already overstuffed briefcase.
Plus, the styling is sleek and modern, and gets ooos and aaas from geeks and Mac fanboys alike.
I considered getting rid of my TV because I was staying up late watching the late night shows after a few solid hours of prime time TV watching...but technology saved me.
I bought a DVR for my computer and recorded shows onto my computer and put them on my mp3 player to watch while commuting and at work when I was bored. Time shifting shows allows me to get the sleep I need.
Property is a bundle of rights. Each right is like a stick in a bundle. You have the right to control of the use of the property, the right to benefit from your property, the right to transfer or sell your property and the right to exclude others from your property, among other rights. However, that these rights don't include the right to interfere with other people's property rights or use your property in a way that interferes with public health, safety or convenience. Furthermore, there are the rights of possession (when you are actually in physical possession of property) and rights by title (when you physically aren't there).
Your premise that property means that "it is yours, and no one can take it from you" is patently false. The government can take away your land for public use so long as they provide you with just compensation. A private party can take your property by adverse possession if they meet certain requirements for a long period of time. Property can be taken away as a punishment for a crime or as compensation in a civil lawsuit or as a matter of contract law.
Furthermore, your wrong that property taxes aren't made on the items you list. The power to tax property has always been retained by the States. Your use of property can also be taxed. Some States actually tax industrial equipment. States will tax bank accounts as property under certain circumstances. Some kinds of debt can be taxed.
These rights are part of a social contract enshrined in our constitution and the law, which is made by our elected representatives. You can't just proclaim a new libertarian theory of property and expect people to abide by your twisted logic.
I'd like you to slow down a moment, and take the time to actually read and understand what I am trying to say:
Invading a country illegally is NOT TERRORISM. It is a war crime, and completely unjustifiable. Did you read that last sentence? It is a horrid war crime. Bush and cronies should be thrown in jail.
Using military techniques to cause terror to combatants, such as using a flash bang/stun grenades, dropping bombs, dropping leaflets, and killing enemy soldiers in spectacular fashion is not terrorism. It is the legitimate use of military force.
Your problem is that you equate any killing as unjustifiable murder and any use of terror by military forces as terrorism. When you use these words so broadly, they loose their meaning. Charles Manson is a murderer. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. If you say that Bush is a murderer, then the word murderer becomes diluted and meaningless, because Osama's actions are clearly of a different caliber and carry with them absolutely no sort of moral, political, or spiritual authority.
The term terrorism should be used specifically, and not loosely as a political tool to attack one's enemies. Otherwise, it becomes as useless in our political debates as the words "socialist" and "liberal".
Your contention that the US Air Force are terrorists is complete and utter bullshit.
Terrorism is non-state sanctioned violence by a group for political/ideological reasons which is intended to create fear and terror, that deliberately targets civilian non-combatants.
State sanctioned violence is not terrorism. An attack not intended to cause terror is not terrorism. An attack not purposefully targeting civilians is not terrorism. Random (or ordinary criminal) violence without a political ideology is not terrorism. Being part of a loosely banded together militia fighting an invading army is not terrorism. Waging a holy war is not terrorism.
Waging an air war with precision guided munitions is not terrorism. Dropping a bomb on an AQI safehouse is not terrorism. Collateral damage caused by a bomb which accidentally falls into a civilian apartment complex is not terrorism.
There are other terms which encompass these activities, such as war crimes, aggression, looting, pillaging, etc. IMHO, terrorism should be something specific...making it too general is too political.
Coffee can be pronounced either as kaw-fee, kof-ee in the U.S. I'm not sure of the regional breakdown, but I know that I switch back and forth between both. Couldn't find a good geographic guide to coffee pronunciations on the internet unfortunately.
Elsewhere, coffee is written (not sure how some of these are pronounced though):
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. What the EeePC replaces is the need to carry around a 6 pound notebook computer. It is a "notebook replacement" rather than a "desktop replacement". So, if you need a big screen to do your work properly, or access CDs/DVDs/Floppys or run a MythTV box, or if you have big thick fingers, or have trouble seeing small print, the Eee is not going to cut it. It is a small sub-notebook with only a few ports, speakers, microphone, and a webcam and almost no peripherals and low processing power. It is not a perfect solution...but it is not just a gadget...it is a general purpose device that made a few sacrifices for weight and size.
While the Asus eeePC is not perfect, it certainly is a general purpose device. I can do almost anything on my $350 eeePC that I can do on my $1800 desktop.
I bought it rather than a full notebook because it weighs two pounds (rather than 6 or 7) and is the size of a small book.
I'm sorry that you didn't like yours, but it isn't meant as a desktop replacement.
According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats14.htm 71.4% of the entire US population uses the internet.
Assuming that the 6.8% of the population is under 5 years old and doesn't use the internet, and assuming that the 12.4% of the population is over 65 doesn't use the internet, leaves about 9.4% of the population unaccounted for.
Also, what about the 14 - 25 year old demographic who are using SMS rather than email?
So, I guess what I am saying here is that if only 71.4% of the US has access to the internet, how is it possible that 18% of all households don't use email?
Try an Asus Eee PC. It is small and silent. It wouldn't be a good choice for running a DVR though.
In fact, there is a whole body of international law devoted to outer space...check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
If you aren't already, try reading distrowatch weekly. Ladislav has good reviews of the major and minor distros.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:ce0P64aoa48J:developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986+http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/4986&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Google Cache of the discussion. It is more interesting than the developers believe. I found the trac message fairly obnoxious.
Oh, and I want video support!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics
For those of us who just assumed that numbers existed, this article will be enlightening.
Of course, it isn't the lawyer's morals and ethics who are circumspect....it is that lawyer's clients.
The lawyer isn't the person suing the drug company...the person with the dispute is the one who is suing.
The lack of ethics and morality stands squarely on the shoulders of the person who is the client; the lawyer must always act within the bounds of the law and represent the client zealously, since that is his duty.
An ordinary foot soldier is not to blame for an immoral war, so long as his individual actions do not violate the laws of war...the same can be said of a lawyer.
Actually, in the U.S., it is not college, it is graduate school, where the students are receiving a Master's/Doctoral level degree (juris doctor/L.L.B.).
Parents don't pay for law school, usually. Most students take out loans, or have scholarship, and are paying out of their own pockets, so if they want to ignore professors, its fine with me, its their money, as long as they aren't interrupting the class.
In order to understand why law students are goofing off in class, you have to understand the structure of lectures and the attitudes of professors.
Traditionally, classes were done in a pure Socratic method, with students being called on during class and harshly questioned (and usually berated for being stupid). If you weren't paying attention, you were singled out and humiliated in front of the class. Much like how real life judges berate lawyers for being late and being unprepared for trial.
Of course, this method of teaching, which is to teach yourself by briefing cases, coming to class, and having your thoughts corrected, fell out of favor, especially at elite universities, for more calm lecture style classes.
Another thing to remember is that the law is the law, and that a professor can only give so much insight into what the law is. A student should be able to teach himself what the law is, without guidance. The professor is there to answer questions and to offer instruction and to teach students to think like lawyers.
What about positive uses of the internet in classrooms? Looking up cases and relevant statutes? The cases in law books are often abridged...
Not entirely correct: Only 33% of the earthworm species in North America are exotic/introduced. Only two genera of Lumbricid earthworms are indigenous to North America while introduced genera have spread to areas where earthworms did not formerly exist, especially in the north where forest development relies on a large amount of undecayed leaf matter. (From wikipedia)
Haven't you heard of beauty school? Most bank tellers these days have college degrees. Car mechanics, plumbers and electricians also need very specialized training.
Plus, not everyone does go to college...its about 1 out of 4 people. Are you telling me that we should reduce that number to 20%? 15%? Give me a break. The more liberally educated our population is, the better off our society. We need more citizens informed about history, math, science and art, not less.
Of course, part of the reason for the rising graduation rate is that Blacks, Hispanics, and women were allowed to attend institutions.
Another reason why college education is important is because our society has become more technical, the ability to think and have knowledge has become more important.
Using a college degree as a method to weed out 3 out of 4 job applicants is very helpful. Of course, knowing where an applicant went is helpful as well, since Bumblefck Community College is usually not going to produce as fine a graduate as a top 50 national university.
Who owns what in "road law" in most jurisdictions is fairly complicated. A so called "private road" could be anything from an abandoned public road to a road that was built by the landowner himself or another adjoining land owner who has given that landowner an easement.
Even if the road itself is totally owned by the landowner, whether they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" from photographs on that road is a question that is probably undecided or unclear. Even if the answer is yes, the issue of damages is probably laughable. A generic photo of a house on a road? I'd give them $100. If the photo had a picture of them "doing it" in the window, maybe $25,000 would be justifiable.
If you want to read more, check out this link: The Pennsylvania Legislatorâ€(TM)s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006), Road Law Basics Chapter: http://tinyurl.com/6hvvnk
Yes, Yes, YES, YES!
Scruffy Looking Nerf Herders?
There is also a video link on the top ten page -- IMHO, the list itself is much funnier watched than read...you can't get some of the jokes without the visual cues.
You could shell out ~10k for a Tesla that computes using CUDA, or maybe you could build your own dual quad core, tri-SLI using a Tyan boads?
A 5yr old laptop is not comparable. My Eee is a snappy device, and all of the components, including the battery, look and work like new.
The processor is a 900Mhz underclocked Celeron M ULV 353 made in late 2004. So, thats 3+ year old tech...not to mention 512 of RAM and a solid state hard drive and a modern linux OS with great hardware support for wireless, etc.
The Asus that I am working on now is light and portable and small, something that did not exist 5 years ago. Even my fiancee can use it out of the box. It easily fits into her pocketbook, or into my already overstuffed briefcase.
Plus, the styling is sleek and modern, and gets ooos and aaas from geeks and Mac fanboys alike.
I considered getting rid of my TV because I was staying up late watching the late night shows after a few solid hours of prime time TV watching...but technology saved me.
I bought a DVR for my computer and recorded shows onto my computer and put them on my mp3 player to watch while commuting and at work when I was bored. Time shifting shows allows me to get the sleep I need.
Property is a bundle of rights. Each right is like a stick in a bundle. You have the right to control of the use of the property, the right to benefit from your property, the right to transfer or sell your property and the right to exclude others from your property, among other rights. However, that these rights don't include the right to interfere with other people's property rights or use your property in a way that interferes with public health, safety or convenience. Furthermore, there are the rights of possession (when you are actually in physical possession of property) and rights by title (when you physically aren't there).
Your premise that property means that "it is yours, and no one can take it from you" is patently false. The government can take away your land for public use so long as they provide you with just compensation. A private party can take your property by adverse possession if they meet certain requirements for a long period of time. Property can be taken away as a punishment for a crime or as compensation in a civil lawsuit or as a matter of contract law.
Furthermore, your wrong that property taxes aren't made on the items you list. The power to tax property has always been retained by the States. Your use of property can also be taxed. Some States actually tax industrial equipment. States will tax bank accounts as property under certain circumstances. Some kinds of debt can be taxed.
These rights are part of a social contract enshrined in our constitution and the law, which is made by our elected representatives. You can't just proclaim a new libertarian theory of property and expect people to abide by your twisted logic.
I'd like you to slow down a moment, and take the time to actually read and understand what I am trying to say:
Invading a country illegally is NOT TERRORISM. It is a war crime, and completely unjustifiable. Did you read that last sentence? It is a horrid war crime. Bush and cronies should be thrown in jail.
Using military techniques to cause terror to combatants, such as using a flash bang/stun grenades, dropping bombs, dropping leaflets, and killing enemy soldiers in spectacular fashion is not terrorism. It is the legitimate use of military force.
Your problem is that you equate any killing as unjustifiable murder and any use of terror by military forces as terrorism. When you use these words so broadly, they loose their meaning. Charles Manson is a murderer. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. If you say that Bush is a murderer, then the word murderer becomes diluted and meaningless, because Osama's actions are clearly of a different caliber and carry with them absolutely no sort of moral, political, or spiritual authority.
The term terrorism should be used specifically, and not loosely as a political tool to attack one's enemies. Otherwise, it becomes as useless in our political debates as the words "socialist" and "liberal".
Your contention that the US Air Force are terrorists is complete and utter bullshit.
Terrorism is non-state sanctioned violence by a group for political/ideological reasons which is intended to create fear and terror, that deliberately targets civilian non-combatants.
State sanctioned violence is not terrorism. An attack not intended to cause terror is not terrorism. An attack not purposefully targeting civilians is not terrorism. Random (or ordinary criminal) violence without a political ideology is not terrorism. Being part of a loosely banded together militia fighting an invading army is not terrorism. Waging a holy war is not terrorism.
Waging an air war with precision guided munitions is not terrorism. Dropping a bomb on an AQI safehouse is not terrorism. Collateral damage caused by a bomb which accidentally falls into a civilian apartment complex is not terrorism.
There are other terms which encompass these activities, such as war crimes, aggression, looting, pillaging, etc. IMHO, terrorism should be something specific...making it too general is too political.
Coffee can be pronounced either as kaw-fee, kof-ee in the U.S. I'm not sure of the regional breakdown, but I know that I switch back and forth between both. Couldn't find a good geographic guide to coffee pronunciations on the internet unfortunately.
Elsewhere, coffee is written (not sure how some of these are pronounced though):
Czech: káva
Danish: kaffe
Dutch: koffie
Estonian: kohv
Finnish: kahvi
French: café
German: der Kaffee
Hungarian: kávé
Icelandic: kaffi
Indonesian: kopi
Italian: caffè
Latvian: kafija
Lithuanian: kava
Norwegian: kaffe
Polish: kawa
Portuguese: café
Romanian: cafea
Slovak: káva
Slovenian: kava
Spanish: café
Swedish: kaffe
Turkish: kahve
What is the likelihood that Qt will go BSD licensed?