Then why am I buying the Windows tablet in the first place? As I said in another post, the Android tablet will almost certainly be cheaper and the Ipad will almost certainly have a better UI.
If battery life is a concern, why don't I just get an Android ARM tablet? It will almost certainly be cheaper. Or a Ipad? It will almost certainly be prettier and have a superior UI.
Yes, but the reason to buy a Windows tablet is because it runs the software I already have. If a Windows tablet won't run the software I already have, then there is no rason not to buy one of those others. The question is, what is the market for an ARM Windows tablet if it doesn't run the software I already have?
What if battery life is a concern, but I have this x86 Windows app that I would like to run on a tablet? If battery life is a concern, why would I buy a Windows ARM tablet if I can't run the same apps as on my desktop PC that is running x86 Windows?
I do not understand how that relates to the thread. I was discussing how the people we are supporting in Libya are affiliated with the people we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which the person responded, "I say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" IF they were referring to what you say they were referring, I don't understand the relevance of the comment.
OK, this was a bad law and its repeal is a good idea, but how does it qualify as the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? The teachers are government employees who have a government mandated relationship with the students. For the most part, the teachers would have no relationship with these students if it was not the law that these students must be in the classroom that the government hired these teachers to take charge of.
Every study that I have heard of, shows that countries that the people of countries that allow free trade (or freer trade, if not entirley free) are better off than those that don't, even when those countries that restrict trade are trading partners of the free trade countries.
You obviously have not been following what is going on in Libya. The people we are backing in Libya are basically the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (or at least a significant faction of those we back in Libya). And while maybe we shouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we weren't we would be fighting those guys somewhere (or, at the very least, responding to their attacks on our interests somewhere).
The answer is really easy. Return responsibility for screening the passengers to the airlines. Competitive pressures will find a balance between tight screening procedures and not inconveniencing the passengers. It may be necessary to establish some rules as to what is allowed on with some agency tasked with determining if airlines are successfully keeping those things off of the planes.
Your skepticism is definitely warranted. I am pretty sure this is the same bank that had a "rogue" trader story very similar to this sometime in the last 10 years. Except in that case, he ended up somewhere in Asia before they tracked him down, with supposedly most (or all) of the lost money in accounts that he controlled.
McAfee thinks that Microsoft will never be able to write a secure OS, so they are taking matters into their own hands.
No, McAfee is afraid Microsoft will write a secure OS (or at least an malware detector/remover better than McAfee's), so they want to put an insecure layer beneath Microsoft's OS so that they can ensure that they will still have a business going forward (with the bonus of being able to sell info to the MAFIAA to limit people's ability to copy non-copyrighted work).
It doesn't matter if it's really more secure. It only matters if it is perceived as being more secure. If you don't believe it, go to the next airport.
The thing is, people don't even believe that is more secure. The problem is that they believe that the people doing those stupid things in the airports are genuinely trying to make things more secure. If we can get people to understand that the TSA is not trying to make airports more secure (the TSA is merely trying to get people to think they are trying to make airports more secure), then we can perhaps get them on board to fixing the problem (both the problem of making the airport more secure and the problem of the TSA infringing on our freedom).
No, it is designed to make it easier for Medicare and Medicaid to deny payment and to allege fraud, any benefit to the insurance companies is purely ancillary.
The difference is that Craigslist was not (and is not) a publicly traded company, Intel was. Ebay got the shares in Craigslist by buying them from a disgruntled (former?) employee of Craigslist. The number of shares entitled Ebay to a seat on Craigslist's Board. Craigslist has since changed its rules concerning selling shares to prevent something similar from happening. At the time, there was evidence that Ebay was trying to buy Craigslist. When that plan was thwarted/abandoned Ebay started to build a competing classified ads section.
Bill will make it illegal to discriminate against long term unemployed. So what will happen is that people who are long term unemployed will NOT be interviewed.
Actually, the response to that provision will be to depress hiring even further, because not interviewing the long term unemployed will not be enough to avoid lawsuits. If that provision were passed, any company that hired someone other than someone who had been long term unemployed (as defined by the bill) would be asking for a lawsuit (if there were any applicants who were long term unemployed, whether interviewed or not).
As a result, the only jobs that companies would hire for under this law would be positions that they are desperate to fill or positions which require little more than a warm body (where they can take advantage of some of the tax breaks in the bill without risking anything significant).
Without the stimulus-spending that Obama initiated between 1 - 3.5 million more people would be out of job today. (According to independent analysis, CBO). That would be a real drag on the economy.
Do you know how the CBO reached that conclusion? Did they do it by studying actual jobs and businesses? No, the CBO plugged the numbers about the amout of money that was spent under the stimulus bill into a formula that says that for every dollar the government spends the economy improves by 1.8 dollars then calculating how many jobs would result from that much more economic activity.
That is like me deciding to invest a $1000 in the stock market based on a formula that says that money invested in the stock market increases by 10% each year. Then a year later declaring that I have $1100 without ever looking at the value of the stocks I have. Then when someone points out that the total value of my stocks today is only $600, people like you say, "Yes, but if he hadn't invested in the stock market he would only have $500."
If Obama gets re-elected the Bush tax cuts will expire. Here is the logic that supports that claim. First, Obama will no longer have any reason to worry about his standings in the polls (he cannot get elected to a third term), so he will be free to follow his ideological bias, which is to raise taxes. Second, if Obama gets re-elected there is no way the Republicans will gain enough seats in Congress to override Obama's veto.
If on the other hand, Obama is defeated, it is likely that the Bush tax rates will be made permanent (although if we are lucky, there might be genuine tax reform resulting in a simpler tax code with lower rates and fewer deductions).
Why would I want a tinfoil hat? I am not a conspiracy theorist. I just believe that people act in their own interests and the policies that Global Warming Alarmists call for are the same policies they called for before the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming was first stated.
"Entrenched powers", like the people at NASA? Like the people at the UN? How come a significant number of the Global Warming Alarmists work for one government or another? Or, if they don't work directly for the government, they receive government grants? Are you trying to say that oil companies have deeper pockets than governments? Or that the governments you think are controlled by the oil companies are paying people to promote Global Warming Alarmism?
Tell me again who is the propagandized fool?
Hotfile is suing Warner, so, Warner does not have the option of dropping that case. I am not quite sure how Warner managed to replace the link with a link to buying something from them, but that is a fairly serious charge (and one I have no trouble believing they would do if possible).
You are the one who is obsessed with "university hippies and politicians who don't follow the money". Al Gore is most certainly not a politician who didn't follow the money, yet he is one of the most prominent proponents of Global Warming Alarmism. I do not think that the proponents of Global Warming Alarmism of "university hippies". I think that Global Warming Alarmists are some of the most cynical, self-absorbed, greedy people on the face of the planet, who use rhetoric intended to sound altruistic to disguise their attempts to advance themselves at the expense of the general populace.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why am I buying the Windows tablet in the first place? As I said in another post, the Android tablet will almost certainly be cheaper and the Ipad will almost certainly have a better UI.
If battery life is a concern, why don't I just get an Android ARM tablet? It will almost certainly be cheaper. Or a Ipad? It will almost certainly be prettier and have a superior UI.
Yes, but the reason to buy a Windows tablet is because it runs the software I already have. If a Windows tablet won't run the software I already have, then there is no rason not to buy one of those others. The question is, what is the market for an ARM Windows tablet if it doesn't run the software I already have?
What if battery life is a concern, but I have this x86 Windows app that I would like to run on a tablet? If battery life is a concern, why would I buy a Windows ARM tablet if I can't run the same apps as on my desktop PC that is running x86 Windows?
If I can't run the same apps on my ARM version of Windows as on my x86 version, why do I want the ARM version of Windows to begin with?
I do not understand how that relates to the thread. I was discussing how the people we are supporting in Libya are affiliated with the people we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which the person responded, "I say, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" IF they were referring to what you say they were referring, I don't understand the relevance of the comment.
What "Mission Accomplished"?
OK, this was a bad law and its repeal is a good idea, but how does it qualify as the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? The teachers are government employees who have a government mandated relationship with the students. For the most part, the teachers would have no relationship with these students if it was not the law that these students must be in the classroom that the government hired these teachers to take charge of.
Every study that I have heard of, shows that countries that the people of countries that allow free trade (or freer trade, if not entirley free) are better off than those that don't, even when those countries that restrict trade are trading partners of the free trade countries.
You obviously have not been following what is going on in Libya. The people we are backing in Libya are basically the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq (or at least a significant faction of those we back in Libya). And while maybe we shouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we weren't we would be fighting those guys somewhere (or, at the very least, responding to their attacks on our interests somewhere).
And how does what we have now differ from that? Oh, right, now it inconveniences the passengers. I don't see that as an improvement.
The answer is really easy. Return responsibility for screening the passengers to the airlines. Competitive pressures will find a balance between tight screening procedures and not inconveniencing the passengers. It may be necessary to establish some rules as to what is allowed on with some agency tasked with determining if airlines are successfully keeping those things off of the planes.
Your skepticism is definitely warranted. I am pretty sure this is the same bank that had a "rogue" trader story very similar to this sometime in the last 10 years. Except in that case, he ended up somewhere in Asia before they tracked him down, with supposedly most (or all) of the lost money in accounts that he controlled.
McAfee thinks that Microsoft will never be able to write a secure OS, so they are taking matters into their own hands.
No, McAfee is afraid Microsoft will write a secure OS (or at least an malware detector/remover better than McAfee's), so they want to put an insecure layer beneath Microsoft's OS so that they can ensure that they will still have a business going forward (with the bonus of being able to sell info to the MAFIAA to limit people's ability to copy non-copyrighted work).
It doesn't matter if it's really more secure. It only matters if it is perceived as being more secure. If you don't believe it, go to the next airport.
The thing is, people don't even believe that is more secure. The problem is that they believe that the people doing those stupid things in the airports are genuinely trying to make things more secure. If we can get people to understand that the TSA is not trying to make airports more secure (the TSA is merely trying to get people to think they are trying to make airports more secure), then we can perhaps get them on board to fixing the problem (both the problem of making the airport more secure and the problem of the TSA infringing on our freedom).
Google is your friend.
No, it is designed to make it easier for Medicare and Medicaid to deny payment and to allege fraud, any benefit to the insurance companies is purely ancillary.
The difference is that Craigslist was not (and is not) a publicly traded company, Intel was. Ebay got the shares in Craigslist by buying them from a disgruntled (former?) employee of Craigslist. The number of shares entitled Ebay to a seat on Craigslist's Board. Craigslist has since changed its rules concerning selling shares to prevent something similar from happening. At the time, there was evidence that Ebay was trying to buy Craigslist. When that plan was thwarted/abandoned Ebay started to build a competing classified ads section.
Bill will make it illegal to discriminate against long term unemployed. So what will happen is that people who are long term unemployed will NOT be interviewed.
Actually, the response to that provision will be to depress hiring even further, because not interviewing the long term unemployed will not be enough to avoid lawsuits. If that provision were passed, any company that hired someone other than someone who had been long term unemployed (as defined by the bill) would be asking for a lawsuit (if there were any applicants who were long term unemployed, whether interviewed or not).
As a result, the only jobs that companies would hire for under this law would be positions that they are desperate to fill or positions which require little more than a warm body (where they can take advantage of some of the tax breaks in the bill without risking anything significant).
Without the stimulus-spending that Obama initiated between 1 - 3.5 million more people would be out of job today. (According to independent analysis, CBO). That would be a real drag on the economy.
Do you know how the CBO reached that conclusion? Did they do it by studying actual jobs and businesses? No, the CBO plugged the numbers about the amout of money that was spent under the stimulus bill into a formula that says that for every dollar the government spends the economy improves by 1.8 dollars then calculating how many jobs would result from that much more economic activity.
That is like me deciding to invest a $1000 in the stock market based on a formula that says that money invested in the stock market increases by 10% each year. Then a year later declaring that I have $1100 without ever looking at the value of the stocks I have. Then when someone points out that the total value of my stocks today is only $600, people like you say, "Yes, but if he hadn't invested in the stock market he would only have $500."
If Obama gets re-elected the Bush tax cuts will expire. Here is the logic that supports that claim. First, Obama will no longer have any reason to worry about his standings in the polls (he cannot get elected to a third term), so he will be free to follow his ideological bias, which is to raise taxes. Second, if Obama gets re-elected there is no way the Republicans will gain enough seats in Congress to override Obama's veto.
If on the other hand, Obama is defeated, it is likely that the Bush tax rates will be made permanent (although if we are lucky, there might be genuine tax reform resulting in a simpler tax code with lower rates and fewer deductions).
Why would I want a tinfoil hat? I am not a conspiracy theorist. I just believe that people act in their own interests and the policies that Global Warming Alarmists call for are the same policies they called for before the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming was first stated.
"Entrenched powers", like the people at NASA? Like the people at the UN? How come a significant number of the Global Warming Alarmists work for one government or another? Or, if they don't work directly for the government, they receive government grants? Are you trying to say that oil companies have deeper pockets than governments? Or that the governments you think are controlled by the oil companies are paying people to promote Global Warming Alarmism?
Tell me again who is the propagandized fool?
Hotfile is suing Warner, so, Warner does not have the option of dropping that case. I am not quite sure how Warner managed to replace the link with a link to buying something from them, but that is a fairly serious charge (and one I have no trouble believing they would do if possible).
You are the one who is obsessed with "university hippies and politicians who don't follow the money". Al Gore is most certainly not a politician who didn't follow the money, yet he is one of the most prominent proponents of Global Warming Alarmism. I do not think that the proponents of Global Warming Alarmism of "university hippies". I think that Global Warming Alarmists are some of the most cynical, self-absorbed, greedy people on the face of the planet, who use rhetoric intended to sound altruistic to disguise their attempts to advance themselves at the expense of the general populace.