In the end, it all depends on what you want out of the device. If the iSlate has a PixelQi screen and functions as an ereader, I am going to buy it for that; all the laptop features that would (supposedly) come along with it would just be an added bonus.
That is worth $1000 to you? Either you make big time money or you have your priorities seriously messed up.
You can start by not being a pompous blowhard. No. Seriously. Give it a shot.
I thought you had to be a pompous blowhard to buy an Apple product. If that isn't true, why are all the people I know who own Apple products pompous blowhards?
To be fair to the pope, Galileo was a bit of a prick.
To be fair to everybody who isn't a medieval reactionary, the pope used state power against Galileo just because of an argument they were having..
The thing is that before Galileo published the book that called the Pope a simpleton, the Pope was Galileo's friend. Galileo was having a heated and nasty dispute with a scientific rival. This rival had connections in the Catholic Church that he turned to because Galileo was a prick and gratuitously insulted the rival. Galileo basically said, Nyah, nyah, nyah. the Pope's my friend. The Pope trumps your Bishop." The Pope said, "You are my friend, but these are powerful people. We need to tone down the rhetoric and get everybody to cool down. Galileo, you're the smartest guy I know. Write a book that makes the best case possible for both sides of the argument and I will get these guys off your back."br.
Galileo wrote a book that made the Pope out to be a fool and called everybody who disagreed with Galileo on anything an idiot. If Galileo and his rival's positions on Heliocentrism had been reversed, the only thing that would have been different about Galileo's story is that very few people would have ever heard of him.
Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?
Because this is based on a scientific, reproducible study that shows an actual effect, whereas, the claims that there were negative effects were contradicted by all of the scientific, reproducible experiments that were run to test them.
I recall seeing a reference to something similar in humans a few weeks ago in an article discussing the proposed Maine law requiring warnings of possible brain cancer on cellphones. That article talked about the fact that there were mutliple long term studies looking into correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage and they all found no increased brain cancer in cell phone users. One of the studies showed a minor, but statistically significant drop in dementia among cell phone users. The scientists running the study dismissed it because they didn't have any explanation and they had not controlled for other factors that are known to correlate to dementia.
Except that it is putting a tariff on electricity generated in ND and imported into MN, which kinda is what that article forbids.
Except that's not what they're doing. If they decide to tax cheese, and it turns out a lot of cheese is imported from Wisconsin, that doesn't make a cheese tax unconstitutional. They've decided to tax carbon. Will this disproportionally effect North Dakota? Yes. Does that make it unconstitutional? No.
They have decided to tax carbon even if that carbon is not in Minnesota. That is unconstitutional. Minnesota has no authority to tax carbon in another state. This is like putting a tax on wood cut in a sawmill in ND (or any other state not MN) because there is asbestos in the sawmills insulation.
Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?
Huh? That's exactly what this is all about. They're trying to get people to stop using coal. They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive. If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.
Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric. As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN, this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in.
States are free to tax things within their state all they want. If Minnesota wants to tax carbon, Minnesota can tax carbon...
Absolutely, they can tax carbon....if that carbon is in MN. However, this law appears to also tax carbon in other states if it is used to generate electricity that is later sold in MN. If this tax only applied to electricity generated in MN, it would be perfectly legitimate, just as stupid, but legitimate.
It's not nearly that clear in this case. The tax is only applied to companies doing business in Minnesota, and is only assessed on the portion of their business considered to impact Minnesota (i.e. emissions actually generated in Minnesota, emissions imputed to electricity transmitted in Minnesota, etc.). It's at least arguable that that doesn't violate the dormant commerce clause: MN isn't specifically taxing only imports and exempting in-state MN electricity generators, which is the usual inter/intra-state disparity in treatment that caused constitutional problems; nor is the state attempting to tax companies that don't do business in MN.
Except I am pretty sure that this tax would apply to an electricity distribution company (based outside of MN) that buys electricity from a company (that does not do business in MN) that generates electricity using coal. So, the tax would either apply to a company that does not generate electricity in any way (the distribution company) or to a company that does not do business in MN (the electric generating company). In both cases the tax would be on a transaction that did not occur in MN, because (in this case) there is no difference between the electricity and any other electricity once it gets to MN.
This isn''t a tax on trade between states. It's a tax on carbon. It's perfectly neutral in theory -- no matter where your carbon-based energy comes from, it gets hit with the tax. Now, it's true that much of MN's coal-based energy comes from ND, so the law will impact imported power more than local power, but a luxury tax on high-priced wines is not unconstitutional because more wine is grown in California and imported to Minnesota rather than grown in Minnesota. This is no different. There's nothing unconsitutional going on here, it's a spurious argument being raised by people who oppose a carbon tax in principle.
Except that this isn't a tax on carbon, it is a tax on electricity based on how that electricity is generated. If that electricity is not generated in Minnesota, Minnesota is not constitutionally allowed to regulate how it is generated. Electricity generated using coal is indistinguishable from electricity generated by any other means.
Minnesota cannot legally tax carbon that is released in another state.
Matthew was kind of an idiot - an eye for an eye was set forth as a limit and not a requirement: the whole idea is to prevent blood feuds.
Actually, Matthew was aware that it was a limit. He makes it clear that Jesus was saying that those who choose to follow Him must follow an even more severe limit. The next two verses say "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two."
Jesus (the new testament) was ghandiacally pacifistic.
(The question was about Christians, not Jesus, lets not even question that.)
Since they believe their way is the only path to eternal life, so contrary teachings are logically worse than murder. Non-believers will inevitably be judged deserving of eternal punishment anyway, but murder can be forgiven. Do you still not see how conflict could arise?
Actually the question was Christianity (the religion), not about Christians (the followers of the religion). As to your second point, the New Testament has many passages that discuss that the "wicked" will not be separated from the righteous until "the end of the age" (Judgement Day): see Matthew 13.
And while we are at that, let's get to the root and just ban religions across the globe?
Yeah, because Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot were such religious men./sarcasm
The greatest death tolls in the history of the world were committed in the name of anti-religion.
. We need to fix the social problems that cause terrorism before that happens. In real terms, that involves raising the level of education and the quality of life in all parts of the globe to the point where there are no large groups of people who are still so poor that they have nothing to lose, or so ignorant that they have nothing to believe in beyond what their local preacher tells them.
Iraq didn't have WMDs because it didn't want them.
First of all, Iraq had WMDs at one point because they used them against their own people. Saddam Hussein used poison gas (a WMD) against the Kurds in 1988.
You appear to think that terrorists come from people who are poor and uneducated. The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber was the son of one of the leading bankers in Africa, his last known address was a $3 million dollar apartment in London (the source I saw it in listed it converted to dollars, not in Pounds or Euros) and he spent three years at a London University (I don't remember the specific name and don't feel like taking the time to look it up at the moment). He was not an exception, but more or less typical.
The first two "modern" 3D movies I saw (Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth) both gave me intense headaches, but Avatar seems to use a different process (at least the glasses were different) and gave me no problems. I don't know how the 3D televisions work, but it is certainly possible to have 3D with pain.
I do not believe that 3D will be successful in the long run if it requires wearing special glasses. There have been previous successful 3D movies, but when the studios tried to follow it up with another 3D movie, people weren't interested.
Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.
Right, because Sony is one of the big content companies, so, you are right, they aren't owned by one of the big content companies.
I've got a better solution. Change it back to where the airport screeners work for the airlines (like they did before 9/11). Then the TSA sends people out to test airport security and fines the airlines when they find security breaches.
Except that INTERPOL has offices in the Justice Department. That means that the Justice Department can gather information with their INTERPOL office and it is not subject to FOIA requests.
The average citizen of a country will see financial improvements as their government increasingly functions according to rule of law rather than rule of edict.
Those two are merging.
No, they aren't "merging", the U.S. is moving in the direction of rule by edict, that is part of the reason the economy is so bad. It is why I have no confidence in any economic improvement in the near future.
Ive had an HP TC1100 for a couple years now and loved it. I find a good tablet to easily be a replacement for a netbook.....
I agree that tablets are not a practical replacement for a standard notebook or desktop, but they make a good replacement for a netbook.
So, Apple is going to make a product that competes with netbooks that sells in the $1000 range? And some people think they can sell somewhere around 10 million of them in the first year? I want some of what those people are smoking.
I have a sneaking suspicion that more security will lead to less internet freedom. Sure it'll be nice if you didn't have to worry about phishing sites or spam, but at what cost? A more secure internet means oppressive regimes can track dissidents. It means companies can track your behavior online, and well-meaning governments can limits legitimate freedoms.
Except that you will still have to worry about phishing sites and spam, but the government and companies will be able to track your online behavior (unless you have stolen someone else's identity) in detail. Oh yeah, it will also be harder to find info that the governemtn doesn't want you to know.
The problem is that they didn't develop the current Internet for everyone, it didn't even occur to them that people outside of a very limited scope would even be interested in the Internet. Everyone knows that the "new" Internet will be for everyone, so there is no way that political and corporate interests will let it develop without trying to influence it.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, it all depends on what you want out of the device. If the iSlate has a PixelQi screen and functions as an ereader, I am going to buy it for that; all the laptop features that would (supposedly) come along with it would just be an added bonus.
That is worth $1000 to you? Either you make big time money or you have your priorities seriously messed up.
You can start by not being a pompous blowhard. No. Seriously. Give it a shot.
I thought you had to be a pompous blowhard to buy an Apple product. If that isn't true, why are all the people I know who own Apple products pompous blowhards?
To be fair to the pope, Galileo was a bit of a prick. To be fair to everybody who isn't a medieval reactionary, the pope used state power against Galileo just because of an argument they were having. .
The thing is that before Galileo published the book that called the Pope a simpleton, the Pope was Galileo's friend. Galileo was having a heated and nasty dispute with a scientific rival. This rival had connections in the Catholic Church that he turned to because Galileo was a prick and gratuitously insulted the rival. Galileo basically said, Nyah, nyah, nyah. the Pope's my friend. The Pope trumps your Bishop." The Pope said, "You are my friend, but these are powerful people. We need to tone down the rhetoric and get everybody to cool down. Galileo, you're the smartest guy I know. Write a book that makes the best case possible for both sides of the argument and I will get these guys off your back."br. Galileo wrote a book that made the Pope out to be a fool and called everybody who disagreed with Galileo on anything an idiot. If Galileo and his rival's positions on Heliocentrism had been reversed, the only thing that would have been different about Galileo's story is that very few people would have ever heard of him.
Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?
Because this is based on a scientific, reproducible study that shows an actual effect, whereas, the claims that there were negative effects were contradicted by all of the scientific, reproducible experiments that were run to test them.
I recall seeing a reference to something similar in humans a few weeks ago in an article discussing the proposed Maine law requiring warnings of possible brain cancer on cellphones. That article talked about the fact that there were mutliple long term studies looking into correlation between brain cancer and cell phone usage and they all found no increased brain cancer in cell phone users. One of the studies showed a minor, but statistically significant drop in dementia among cell phone users. The scientists running the study dismissed it because they didn't have any explanation and they had not controlled for other factors that are known to correlate to dementia.
Except that it is putting a tariff on electricity generated in ND and imported into MN, which kinda is what that article forbids.
Except that's not what they're doing. If they decide to tax cheese, and it turns out a lot of cheese is imported from Wisconsin, that doesn't make a cheese tax unconstitutional. They've decided to tax carbon. Will this disproportionally effect North Dakota? Yes. Does that make it unconstitutional? No.
They have decided to tax carbon even if that carbon is not in Minnesota. That is unconstitutional. Minnesota has no authority to tax carbon in another state. This is like putting a tax on wood cut in a sawmill in ND (or any other state not MN) because there is asbestos in the sawmills insulation.
Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?
Huh? That's exactly what this is all about. They're trying to get people to stop using coal. They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive. If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.
Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric. As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN, this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in.
States are free to tax things within their state all they want. If Minnesota wants to tax carbon, Minnesota can tax carbon. ..
Absolutely, they can tax carbon....if that carbon is in MN. However, this law appears to also tax carbon in other states if it is used to generate electricity that is later sold in MN. If this tax only applied to electricity generated in MN, it would be perfectly legitimate, just as stupid, but legitimate.
It's not nearly that clear in this case. The tax is only applied to companies doing business in Minnesota, and is only assessed on the portion of their business considered to impact Minnesota (i.e. emissions actually generated in Minnesota, emissions imputed to electricity transmitted in Minnesota, etc.). It's at least arguable that that doesn't violate the dormant commerce clause: MN isn't specifically taxing only imports and exempting in-state MN electricity generators, which is the usual inter/intra-state disparity in treatment that caused constitutional problems; nor is the state attempting to tax companies that don't do business in MN.
Except I am pretty sure that this tax would apply to an electricity distribution company (based outside of MN) that buys electricity from a company (that does not do business in MN) that generates electricity using coal. So, the tax would either apply to a company that does not generate electricity in any way (the distribution company) or to a company that does not do business in MN (the electric generating company). In both cases the tax would be on a transaction that did not occur in MN, because (in this case) there is no difference between the electricity and any other electricity once it gets to MN.
This isn''t a tax on trade between states. It's a tax on carbon. It's perfectly neutral in theory -- no matter where your carbon-based energy comes from, it gets hit with the tax. Now, it's true that much of MN's coal-based energy comes from ND, so the law will impact imported power more than local power, but a luxury tax on high-priced wines is not unconstitutional because more wine is grown in California and imported to Minnesota rather than grown in Minnesota. This is no different. There's nothing unconsitutional going on here, it's a spurious argument being raised by people who oppose a carbon tax in principle.
Except that this isn't a tax on carbon, it is a tax on electricity based on how that electricity is generated. If that electricity is not generated in Minnesota, Minnesota is not constitutionally allowed to regulate how it is generated. Electricity generated using coal is indistinguishable from electricity generated by any other means.
Minnesota cannot legally tax carbon that is released in another state.
What about money contribution?
Sorry but no - protestantism allows you to buy your way to heaven, not FOSS
Actually, indulgences (buying your way into heaven)was one of the practices of the Roman Catholic CHurch that the Protestants were protesting.
"Content" is more than just TV. If you meant TV content you should have specified.
This is what it is to be white in America.
Unless of course you are Michael Yon ( http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/05/exclusive-interview-military-blogger-michael-yon-detained-by-tsa-in-seattle-airport/ ). While I have not yet seen this confirmed in another source, it is consistent with other stories I have seen of the TSA harassing its critics (or even those who do not voluntarily give them information they request that has nothing to do with airline security).
Matthew was kind of an idiot - an eye for an eye was set forth as a limit and not a requirement: the whole idea is to prevent blood feuds.
Actually, Matthew was aware that it was a limit. He makes it clear that Jesus was saying that those who choose to follow Him must follow an even more severe limit. The next two verses say "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two."
Jesus (the new testament) was ghandiacally pacifistic.
(The question was about Christians, not Jesus, lets not even question that.) Since they believe their way is the only path to eternal life, so contrary teachings are logically worse than murder. Non-believers will inevitably be judged deserving of eternal punishment anyway, but murder can be forgiven. Do you still not see how conflict could arise?
Actually the question was Christianity (the religion), not about Christians (the followers of the religion). As to your second point, the New Testament has many passages that discuss that the "wicked" will not be separated from the righteous until "the end of the age" (Judgement Day): see Matthew 13.
And while we are at that, let's get to the root and just ban religions across the globe?
Yeah, because Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot were such religious men. /sarcasm
The greatest death tolls in the history of the world were committed in the name of anti-religion.
. We need to fix the social problems that cause terrorism before that happens. In real terms, that involves raising the level of education and the quality of life in all parts of the globe to the point where there are no large groups of people who are still so poor that they have nothing to lose, or so ignorant that they have nothing to believe in beyond what their local preacher tells them. Iraq didn't have WMDs because it didn't want them.
First of all, Iraq had WMDs at one point because they used them against their own people. Saddam Hussein used poison gas (a WMD) against the Kurds in 1988.
You appear to think that terrorists come from people who are poor and uneducated. The Christmas Day Underwear Bomber was the son of one of the leading bankers in Africa, his last known address was a $3 million dollar apartment in London (the source I saw it in listed it converted to dollars, not in Pounds or Euros) and he spent three years at a London University (I don't remember the specific name and don't feel like taking the time to look it up at the moment). He was not an exception, but more or less typical.
The first two "modern" 3D movies I saw (Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth) both gave me intense headaches, but Avatar seems to use a different process (at least the glasses were different) and gave me no problems. I don't know how the 3D televisions work, but it is certainly possible to have 3D with pain.
I do not believe that 3D will be successful in the long run if it requires wearing special glasses. There have been previous successful 3D movies, but when the studios tried to follow it up with another 3D movie, people weren't interested.
Sony, IMAX and Discovery aren't owned by the "big" content companies. Nothing heard from CBS, NBCU, NewsCorp/Fox, Time Warner... and Disney's only asset offering anything is ESPN.
Right, because Sony is one of the big content companies, so, you are right, they aren't owned by one of the big content companies.
I've got a better solution. Change it back to where the airport screeners work for the airlines (like they did before 9/11). Then the TSA sends people out to test airport security and fines the airlines when they find security breaches.
Except that INTERPOL has offices in the Justice Department. That means that the Justice Department can gather information with their INTERPOL office and it is not subject to FOIA requests.
The average citizen of a country will see financial improvements as their government increasingly functions according to rule of law rather than rule of edict.
Those two are merging.
No, they aren't "merging", the U.S. is moving in the direction of rule by edict, that is part of the reason the economy is so bad. It is why I have no confidence in any economic improvement in the near future.
Ive had an HP TC1100 for a couple years now and loved it. I find a good tablet to easily be a replacement for a netbook.....
I agree that tablets are not a practical replacement for a standard notebook or desktop, but they make a good replacement for a netbook.
So, Apple is going to make a product that competes with netbooks that sells in the $1000 range? And some people think they can sell somewhere around 10 million of them in the first year? I want some of what those people are smoking.
I have a sneaking suspicion that more security will lead to less internet freedom. Sure it'll be nice if you didn't have to worry about phishing sites or spam, but at what cost? A more secure internet means oppressive regimes can track dissidents. It means companies can track your behavior online, and well-meaning governments can limits legitimate freedoms.
Except that you will still have to worry about phishing sites and spam, but the government and companies will be able to track your online behavior (unless you have stolen someone else's identity) in detail. Oh yeah, it will also be harder to find info that the governemtn doesn't want you to know.
The problem is that they didn't develop the current Internet for everyone, it didn't even occur to them that people outside of a very limited scope would even be interested in the Internet. Everyone knows that the "new" Internet will be for everyone, so there is no way that political and corporate interests will let it develop without trying to influence it.