Except that the Ipad isn't supplanting those traditional tablets. As far as I can tell, for the most part, the Ipad is entering into a market that didn't exist before the Ipad. Everyone I know who owns one bought it as an entertainment device. On the other hand every traditional tablet in end user hands that I am aware of is in a business environment.
I'm still not sure how this doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment does not apply to entering the country (Customs) since back when the guys who wrote the 4th Amendment were still around. The guys who wrote the 4th Amendment did not disagree with those rulings.
Actually the idea of a "trickle-down" effect is that if you lower taxes on the highest income earners, they will higher more people (thus lowering unemployment). Hey and what do you know, unemployment has been lower than what economists called "full employment" for a large portion of the last 30 years.
In other words the theory has been thoroughly proven according to your standards because when tax rates were lowered, tax revenues went up.
I just checked this and when I type in "stock ticker". the first search result is not for Google Finance. The first result that shows is Google Finance, but that is in the ads section. I always ignore anything in that part of the results when I do a google search. The only reason things are in that area is because they pay to be there, not because they are of any interest to me.
Upon what do you base claiming that the Austrian School of Economics is "scientifically" discredited?
Personally, I find using the term "scientific" with regard to any economic theory suspect.
Fine, by your definition, netbook is just a different word for UMPC. What word would you suggest for an inexpensive (less than $400), small (10 inches or less) portable computer?
I thought we had settled on netbook as that term, you say that "netbook" is a computer that won't take external media and can only be accessed by wireless or network cable. Personally, neither of those were part of my definition of netbook.
Once again, the reason that there exists a "netbook" segment of the PC market is because they were cheap. PC manufacturers have been trying to create an Ultra Portable market segment since at least the 90s, but they wanted to make it a premium price point. That failed.
The macbook air costs over $500 and has a screen larger than 10 inches that means it is not a netbook. Manufacturers may redefine the term anyway they want, but the niche that the original netbooks filled was a small, cheap portable device.
What price in money and freedom are we giving up for each life that is saved?
Before we go looking for a solution to people talking on cell phones while driving, how about we quantify the problem. How many people die each year as a result of someone talking on a cell phone while driving? How many of those are the person who was talking on the cell phone? How many of the remaining would have died anyway because the driver was doing something else stupid? Oh yeah, out of how many people on the roads? Are we talking 1 person for every 100 man hours spent on the roads? Or are we talking 1 person for every 1 million man hours spent on the roads? My guess would be somewhere in between but closer to the latter than the former.
Government doesn't think it can fix anything by expanding government controls, it just thinks it can get people to accept government controls if it claims they are going to fix problems.
Except that the government won't settle for telling industry that they must secure their systems. Government will tell industry how to secure their systems and if industry follows government standards they will be protected from lawsuits...even if everyone knows that meeting government standards will do nothing to actually secure industry's systems.
The Kmart analogy is apt. Ending up like Kmart would be a bad thing. While Kmart may pull off a comeback, right now they are an also ran that is currently (and has been for a few years now) one bad decision from going out of business.
However, While IBM was once the computer company and is no longer, they are still a dominant force in computers and no smart company in the computer business intentionally picks a fight with them.
Not for long . . . I've been hearing that MS is losing tons of money and heading towards IBM territory.
Why would heading towards "IBM territory" be a bad thing? IBM is a profitable, successful company that has been around for longer than most companies of its size.
Treaties modify the US Constitution. People have to realize that.
No they don't. According to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This means that treaties override state constitutions not the U.S. Constitution.
Your rant would make more sense if you demonstrated any knowledge of the legal ways that a treaty becomes law in the U.S.. In the U.S., the house of representatives have nothing to do with treaties. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate.Furthermore, it hasn't been that many years since a President signed a treaty that was resoundingly rejected by the U.S. Senate. Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Accords and the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to reject them.
But I also see that that is the same argument of the manager who refused to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
The thing is that that wasn't really a problem. What was a problem was the manager that would have been happy to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter but wasn't allowed to because of the law.
The problem pre-Civil Rights Act was not businesses discriminating against blacks voluntarily, it was the laws requiring businesses to discriminate. If it had just been businesses discriminating voluntarily, the market would have addressed the issue.
Of course blacks represent a much larger percentage of the population than the deaf or the blind, so the market would work for them much more efficiently than for those with disabilities.
GE manufacturers the "charging stations that the government is going to subsidize being installed all over the country. If there aren't enough electric cars on the roads, people are going to complain about their tax dollars going to subsidize the installation of these charging stations. By buying a bunch of electric vehicles, GE hopes to prime the pump for people to buy electric vehicles.
It's not just information technology, it's technology in general since 1840. Textiles, railroads, oil, PC operating systems - they all started out as highly competitive markets then when the government stepped in, inevitably became monopolies,
There fixed that for you. The only thing like a monopoly that I have ever heard of that did not result from government action is Microsoft. Railroads, monopolies developed through government intervention (primarily state and local governments, but government nonetheless). Telephone, AT&T got their monopoly through intervention by the Federal Government. Our current situation with the Internet in the U.S. is a result of the Federal government passing laws to give localities the authority to grant local monopolies for cable TV.
It has nothing to do with BP being foreign. I suspect that most Americans think BP is an American company (I know at least one slashdotter wanted Congress to confiscate all of BP's assets). BP gets all of the blame because it serves the interests of several groups (much of the press, some politicians. etc) to have a single"villain".
The value added is that the next time you want a game, you won't have to go to the store to buy it. You already have Steam installed on your PC, so you can just connect, buy and download.
I've never used Steam so I don't know how involved setting up an account is and whether it is less of a hassle than going out to the store but at least theoretically it should be
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the Ipad isn't supplanting those traditional tablets. As far as I can tell, for the most part, the Ipad is entering into a market that didn't exist before the Ipad. Everyone I know who owns one bought it as an entertainment device. On the other hand every traditional tablet in end user hands that I am aware of is in a business environment.
I'm still not sure how this doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment.
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment does not apply to entering the country (Customs) since back when the guys who wrote the 4th Amendment were still around. The guys who wrote the 4th Amendment did not disagree with those rulings.
Especially since she was appointed in 2003, which means she was appointed by George W. Bush.
Actually the idea of a "trickle-down" effect is that if you lower taxes on the highest income earners, they will higher more people (thus lowering unemployment). Hey and what do you know, unemployment has been lower than what economists called "full employment" for a large portion of the last 30 years.
In other words the theory has been thoroughly proven according to your standards because when tax rates were lowered, tax revenues went up.
I just checked this and when I type in "stock ticker". the first search result is not for Google Finance. The first result that shows is Google Finance, but that is in the ads section. I always ignore anything in that part of the results when I do a google search. The only reason things are in that area is because they pay to be there, not because they are of any interest to me.
You mean like the case where a mother was charged with child pornography for taking pictures of her infant/toddler child taking a bath?
Upon what do you base claiming that the Austrian School of Economics is "scientifically" discredited?
Personally, I find using the term "scientific" with regard to any economic theory suspect.
Fine, by your definition, netbook is just a different word for UMPC. What word would you suggest for an inexpensive (less than $400), small (10 inches or less) portable computer?
I thought we had settled on netbook as that term, you say that "netbook" is a computer that won't take external media and can only be accessed by wireless or network cable. Personally, neither of those were part of my definition of netbook.
Once again, the reason that there exists a "netbook" segment of the PC market is because they were cheap. PC manufacturers have been trying to create an Ultra Portable market segment since at least the 90s, but they wanted to make it a premium price point. That failed.
Why is that surprising?
The macbook air costs over $500 and has a screen larger than 10 inches that means it is not a netbook. Manufacturers may redefine the term anyway they want, but the niche that the original netbooks filled was a small, cheap portable device.
I could get an Apple netbook for that much.
Apple doesn't build a netbook. For that matter for that price, it doesn't matter who built it, it isn't a netbook.
What price in money and freedom are we giving up for each life that is saved?
Before we go looking for a solution to people talking on cell phones while driving, how about we quantify the problem. How many people die each year as a result of someone talking on a cell phone while driving? How many of those are the person who was talking on the cell phone? How many of the remaining would have died anyway because the driver was doing something else stupid? Oh yeah, out of how many people on the roads? Are we talking 1 person for every 100 man hours spent on the roads? Or are we talking 1 person for every 1 million man hours spent on the roads? My guess would be somewhere in between but closer to the latter than the former.
Government doesn't think it can fix anything by expanding government controls, it just thinks it can get people to accept government controls if it claims they are going to fix problems.
Except that the government won't settle for telling industry that they must secure their systems. Government will tell industry how to secure their systems and if industry follows government standards they will be protected from lawsuits...even if everyone knows that meeting government standards will do nothing to actually secure industry's systems.
What happens when the power failure takes out the cell phone towers near you?
The Kmart analogy is apt. Ending up like Kmart would be a bad thing. While Kmart may pull off a comeback, right now they are an also ran that is currently (and has been for a few years now) one bad decision from going out of business.
However, While IBM was once the computer company and is no longer, they are still a dominant force in computers and no smart company in the computer business intentionally picks a fight with them.
Not for long . . . I've been hearing that MS is losing tons of money and heading towards IBM territory.
Why would heading towards "IBM territory" be a bad thing? IBM is a profitable, successful company that has been around for longer than most companies of its size.
Treaties modify the US Constitution. People have to realize that.
No they don't. According to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This means that treaties override state constitutions not the U.S. Constitution.
Your rant would make more sense if you demonstrated any knowledge of the legal ways that a treaty becomes law in the U.S.. In the U.S., the house of representatives have nothing to do with treaties. Treaties must be ratified by the Senate.Furthermore, it hasn't been that many years since a President signed a treaty that was resoundingly rejected by the U.S. Senate. Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Accords and the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 to reject them.
But I also see that that is the same argument of the manager who refused to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter.
The thing is that that wasn't really a problem. What was a problem was the manager that would have been happy to serve black customers at the Woolworth's lunch counter but wasn't allowed to because of the law.
The problem pre-Civil Rights Act was not businesses discriminating against blacks voluntarily, it was the laws requiring businesses to discriminate. If it had just been businesses discriminating voluntarily, the market would have addressed the issue.
Of course blacks represent a much larger percentage of the population than the deaf or the blind, so the market would work for them much more efficiently than for those with disabilities.
GE manufacturers the "charging stations that the government is going to subsidize being installed all over the country. If there aren't enough electric cars on the roads, people are going to complain about their tax dollars going to subsidize the installation of these charging stations. By buying a bunch of electric vehicles, GE hopes to prime the pump for people to buy electric vehicles.
Yes, I have heard of Standard Oil. Standard Oil became a monopoly in part as a result of government regulations that created the railroad monopolies.
It's not just information technology, it's technology in general since 1840. Textiles, railroads, oil, PC operating systems - they all started out as highly competitive markets then when the government stepped in, inevitably became monopolies,
There fixed that for you. The only thing like a monopoly that I have ever heard of that did not result from government action is Microsoft. Railroads, monopolies developed through government intervention (primarily state and local governments, but government nonetheless). Telephone, AT&T got their monopoly through intervention by the Federal Government. Our current situation with the Internet in the U.S. is a result of the Federal government passing laws to give localities the authority to grant local monopolies for cable TV.
It has nothing to do with BP being foreign. I suspect that most Americans think BP is an American company (I know at least one slashdotter wanted Congress to confiscate all of BP's assets). BP gets all of the blame because it serves the interests of several groups (much of the press, some politicians. etc) to have a single"villain".
The value added is that the next time you want a game, you won't have to go to the store to buy it. You already have Steam installed on your PC, so you can just connect, buy and download.
I've never used Steam so I don't know how involved setting up an account is and whether it is less of a hassle than going out to the store but at least theoretically it should be