Other posters address the issue of repair-ability. But I will point out that while computers (and related devices, such as Ipods) may soon be something that people rarely, if ever, upgrade (and therefore there is no significant market for making them upgradeable), that does not address the issue the poster you replied to made.
That poster asked the question, how does a "boutique" vendor compete once they have turned their product into a commodity? They are going to discover they have the same problem which Schick and Gillette have. They both spent a lot of time and money convincing men to buy disposable razors. Then they discovered that it was hard to compete when a razor was something someone bought and threw away after a week or two. They are now spending large amounts of money to convince people to buy their razors with replaceable blades.
That would make sense, except, why would you throw fish into a pond so that you can catch them again next year to eat them? It takes several years before a new born fish is large enough to eat. So, if you are stocking a pond you are either doing it with fish that are already large enough to eat (or close to it), or you are willing to wait a few years before you are expecting to catch them. BTW, if you want to suggest that your uncles would have thrown the ones they caught that were too small that year, to catch them again next year, they were taking a very large risk, since fish that small risk a significant fine if you are caught with them by the game commission.
I would recommend that you reword your statement to "...were never intentionally stocked..."
The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.
Well, yes, that is certainly a possible (and I think likely) explanation. My point is that the evidence suggests that the lack of diversity the poster I replied to is likely NOT the result of the massive stocking program which he postulated.
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.
Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?
Because "drone" is the word which the news now uses to describe RC aircraft. The reason they do that is that "drone" sounds much scarier than "RC aircraft".
because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.
The problem with your theory is that I know for a fact that those same fish show up in ponds that did not exist a hundred years ago. For that matter I know that those fish show up in ponds that the federal government (nor any other organization) ever planted fish in. The reason I know this is that I know the people who built the ponds and owned the land they were situated on when fish started to appear in them. And yes, some of these ponds now have fish in them, even though no one put them there and there is no way for fish to swim there from elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but the only difference between a liberal and a totalitarian is that the liberal says, "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as what you want is what I think you should want."
From other sources we learn that the staff resigned over the fact that he fired the top editor for the magazine by announcing his replacement on Gawker. This action followed bringing in a new CEO who acted in ways they interpreted as having no respect for the traditions of the organization (there is, by the way, a difference between deciding that traditions need to be changed and disrespecting those traditions).
You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.
I see, you read that wrong. Privacy is one of their top priorities. The problem is that you think of privacy as a good thing. They, on the other hand, view privacy as a bad thing. So, privacy is a top priority for them. That is making sure that you have as little as they can possibly manage.
The thing is that while people constantly talk about the problems with older drivers, the statistics indicate that it is young drivers who are more likely to be a problem than older drivers. My recollection is that older drivers are not statistically more likely to be in an accident than drivers in general. The fact of the matter is that most people, as the impairments that come with age start to affect their driving, begin to drive less and more carefully, until they stop entirely when they believe they can no longer do so safely.
Marijuana distorts your depth perception and causes your brain to take longer to process information. Both of these things are significant impairments when driving, but generally not significant when playing a musical instrument.
It all depends on how you value the various variables involved. The problems with all public transportation can be summed up with the following list:
1)One must get from where one is to where the bus stops
2)One must get from where the bus stops to where one is going
3)The bus is unlikely to take the most direct route from one's starting point to one's destination
4)The route from one's starting point to one's destination has a significant probability of involving multiple buses
5)One must plan one's trip around the bus schedule, even if that requires spending significant amounts of time where one has nothing constructive to do
6)Because of 3 and 4, a trip by bus is likely to take significantly longer than the same trip by automobile
None of these mean that public transportation is a bad choice. For many people these things represent acceptable trade-offs for the problems with driving your own care. However, they do mean that public transportation is not better for everyone.
Well, since John Dean no longer had access to the inner circles of Republican strategy after Nixon, how would he know? I actually know who John Dean was. There is no way that anyone who was doing what John Dean claimed the Republican strategists were doing would have talked to him about it after he spilled the beans on the plots he had been involved in while on the Nixon team.
You know it is interesting that you say you reached your conclusions by reading the WSJ. I reached my conclusions by listening to what various politicians said they believed and watching the actual results of their policies...and the results of the policies they said would lead to disaster. For example, Democrats said that welfare reform, passed by Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton (with a promise to "fix" it after he was re-elected) would result in single mothers and others dependent on the programs it effected ending up homeless and starving. In actuality, it turned out to lift large numbers out of poverty. Or for another example, just look at Detroit.
As to what happens when Democrats are in charge of the government, When Ronald Reagan was President median African American incomes rose by 84% as opposed to 68% for whites. Under Obama, the median income for African Americans has dropped 10.9%, while that for non-hispanic whites has dropped 3.6 %. I'm sorry, but when one looks at the results of the policies implemented by Democrats vs those implemented by Republicans one realizes that the Democrats are still the same as when they founded the KKK.
So, you are saying that, by desegregating the schools in the south, the Republican Party under Richard Nixon was demonstrating its racism?
I would suggest that you examine the results of the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats to determine which party is truly racist. Democrats pursue policies which trap minorities (and others) in poverty while increasing the wealth and power of those who already have it. When Democrats control the government, the gap between white and black income almost invariably widens. When republicans control the government it usually narrows.
When did the Republican Party become the party of racism? Was it when they supplied the necessary votes to pass the Civil Rights Act by voting for it in higher percentages than the Democrats? Or was it when Richard Nixon implemented the "Southern Strategy" of actually enforcing the desegregation of schools, especially in the South?
Well, that is interesting. I have never before heard the word alley used to apply to a pedestrian only pathway. Everyone I know uses it according to definitions one and two from Dictionary.com
1. a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc.
2.
a narrow back street.
Even by the definition you used, none of those paths were "blind alleys".
As to getting out of his truck to look at a street sign, all that means is that he never paid attention to the names of the streets. It does not mean that he was lost. Being lost means that you do not know how to find your way to a destination from where you are. Zimmerman knew where he was, but as he was talking to dispatch he realized that someone not as familiar with the neighborhood would not be able to find him with the information he could give them at the moment. Your argument about him being lost would apply to me looking up google maps to give my wife directions from my house to work because I knew that she would not know the things I could think of off the top of my head to describe where to turn.
Furthermore, my comment on the preponderance of evidence was not based on what was found in court, but in what I was able to obtain by looking at various sources. The evidence in the Zimmerman case overwhelmingly failed to support a different story than the one he gave. I am not saying that it overwhelmingly supported his story, merely that there was little or no evidence that actually supported a different story. (There is a difference between not supporting an account and contradicting an account).
As an anonymous coward pointed out your account of the Martin/Zimmerman case bears almost no resemblance to the actual case. There were no alleys, blind or otherwise, in the development where Martin was shot. Zimmerman never claimed that he was lost. Martin was never "trapped" in any sense of that word. The preponderance of the evidence presented in the Zimmerman case indicate that, although he initially followed Martin on foot, by the time the shooting had occurred he was retreating to his vehicle.
There were at least as many witnesses saying that Michael Brown was charging the officer when he was shot. Witnesses who are significantly more credible than those whom you are relying on. In addition, the evidence from the autopsy completely contradicts the idea that Michael Brown was standing with his hands up when he was shot. The evidence from the autopsy actually supports Officer Wilson's account that Michael Brown was charging him when he was shot.
In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well. Furthermore, forensic evidence from the scene contradicts that account of events. It is possible that Officer Wilson behaved inappropriately by shooting Michael Brown, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
This is in contrast to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case where the evidence merely failed to support the idea that George Zimmerman did anything wrong.
Yes, $53 billion was SPENT by the Highway Trust Fund, but approximately 1/4 of that was spent on things OTHER than roads and bridges (or about $14 billion). Interestingly enough the amount of tax revenue which went INTO the Highway Trust Fund was about $14 billion LESS than what was spent.
In other words, the Highway Trust Fund collected about $39 billion in tax revenues AND spent about $39 billion on roads and bridges (the rest of it being spent on things not related to highways)...Or approximately what "Snotnose" was claiming.
... but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Other posters address the issue of repair-ability. But I will point out that while computers (and related devices, such as Ipods) may soon be something that people rarely, if ever, upgrade (and therefore there is no significant market for making them upgradeable), that does not address the issue the poster you replied to made.
That poster asked the question, how does a "boutique" vendor compete once they have turned their product into a commodity? They are going to discover they have the same problem which Schick and Gillette have. They both spent a lot of time and money convincing men to buy disposable razors. Then they discovered that it was hard to compete when a razor was something someone bought and threw away after a week or two. They are now spending large amounts of money to convince people to buy their razors with replaceable blades.
That would make sense, except, why would you throw fish into a pond so that you can catch them again next year to eat them? It takes several years before a new born fish is large enough to eat. So, if you are stocking a pond you are either doing it with fish that are already large enough to eat (or close to it), or you are willing to wait a few years before you are expecting to catch them. BTW, if you want to suggest that your uncles would have thrown the ones they caught that were too small that year, to catch them again next year, they were taking a very large risk, since fish that small risk a significant fine if you are caught with them by the game commission.
I would recommend that you reword your statement to "...were never intentionally stocked..."
The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.
Well, yes, that is certainly a possible (and I think likely) explanation. My point is that the evidence suggests that the lack of diversity the poster I replied to is likely NOT the result of the massive stocking program which he postulated.
You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.
Why do we hear about incidents with drones but not about incidents with RC aircraft?
Because "drone" is the word which the news now uses to describe RC aircraft. The reason they do that is that "drone" sounds much scarier than "RC aircraft".
because you can find the same fish in tiny, isolated ponds that don't show up except on detailed topographical maps. Even the neighbors seem scarcely aware of these ponds, but at some point maybe a hundred years ago the federal government planted fish there.
The problem with your theory is that I know for a fact that those same fish show up in ponds that did not exist a hundred years ago. For that matter I know that those fish show up in ponds that the federal government (nor any other organization) ever planted fish in. The reason I know this is that I know the people who built the ponds and owned the land they were situated on when fish started to appear in them. And yes, some of these ponds now have fish in them, even though no one put them there and there is no way for fish to swim there from elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but the only difference between a liberal and a totalitarian is that the liberal says, "You are free to do whatever you want, as long as what you want is what I think you should want."
From other sources we learn that the staff resigned over the fact that he fired the top editor for the magazine by announcing his replacement on Gawker. This action followed bringing in a new CEO who acted in ways they interpreted as having no respect for the traditions of the organization (there is, by the way, a difference between deciding that traditions need to be changed and disrespecting those traditions).
You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.
I see, you read that wrong. Privacy is one of their top priorities. The problem is that you think of privacy as a good thing. They, on the other hand, view privacy as a bad thing. So, privacy is a top priority for them. That is making sure that you have as little as they can possibly manage.
The thing is that while people constantly talk about the problems with older drivers, the statistics indicate that it is young drivers who are more likely to be a problem than older drivers. My recollection is that older drivers are not statistically more likely to be in an accident than drivers in general. The fact of the matter is that most people, as the impairments that come with age start to affect their driving, begin to drive less and more carefully, until they stop entirely when they believe they can no longer do so safely.
Marijuana distorts your depth perception and causes your brain to take longer to process information. Both of these things are significant impairments when driving, but generally not significant when playing a musical instrument.
Well, since John Dean no longer had access to the inner circles of Republican strategy after Nixon, how would he know? I actually know who John Dean was. There is no way that anyone who was doing what John Dean claimed the Republican strategists were doing would have talked to him about it after he spilled the beans on the plots he had been involved in while on the Nixon team.
You know it is interesting that you say you reached your conclusions by reading the WSJ. I reached my conclusions by listening to what various politicians said they believed and watching the actual results of their policies...and the results of the policies they said would lead to disaster. For example, Democrats said that welfare reform, passed by Republicans and signed by Bill Clinton (with a promise to "fix" it after he was re-elected) would result in single mothers and others dependent on the programs it effected ending up homeless and starving. In actuality, it turned out to lift large numbers out of poverty. Or for another example, just look at Detroit.
As to what happens when Democrats are in charge of the government, When Ronald Reagan was President median African American incomes rose by 84% as opposed to 68% for whites. Under Obama, the median income for African Americans has dropped 10.9%, while that for non-hispanic whites has dropped 3.6 %. I'm sorry, but when one looks at the results of the policies implemented by Democrats vs those implemented by Republicans one realizes that the Democrats are still the same as when they founded the KKK.
So, you are saying that, by desegregating the schools in the south, the Republican Party under Richard Nixon was demonstrating its racism?
I would suggest that you examine the results of the policies of both the Republicans and the Democrats to determine which party is truly racist. Democrats pursue policies which trap minorities (and others) in poverty while increasing the wealth and power of those who already have it. When Democrats control the government, the gap between white and black income almost invariably widens. When republicans control the government it usually narrows.
When did the Republican Party become the party of racism? Was it when they supplied the necessary votes to pass the Civil Rights Act by voting for it in higher percentages than the Democrats? Or was it when Richard Nixon implemented the "Southern Strategy" of actually enforcing the desegregation of schools, especially in the South?
Hey, it could be worse. It could be the Democratic Party's candidate pool.
1. a passage, as through a continuous row of houses, permitting access from the street to backyards, garages, etc.
2. a narrow back street.
Even by the definition you used, none of those paths were "blind alleys". As to getting out of his truck to look at a street sign, all that means is that he never paid attention to the names of the streets. It does not mean that he was lost. Being lost means that you do not know how to find your way to a destination from where you are. Zimmerman knew where he was, but as he was talking to dispatch he realized that someone not as familiar with the neighborhood would not be able to find him with the information he could give them at the moment. Your argument about him being lost would apply to me looking up google maps to give my wife directions from my house to work because I knew that she would not know the things I could think of off the top of my head to describe where to turn.
Furthermore, my comment on the preponderance of evidence was not based on what was found in court, but in what I was able to obtain by looking at various sources. The evidence in the Zimmerman case overwhelmingly failed to support a different story than the one he gave. I am not saying that it overwhelmingly supported his story, merely that there was little or no evidence that actually supported a different story. (There is a difference between not supporting an account and contradicting an account).
As an anonymous coward pointed out your account of the Martin/Zimmerman case bears almost no resemblance to the actual case. There were no alleys, blind or otherwise, in the development where Martin was shot. Zimmerman never claimed that he was lost. Martin was never "trapped" in any sense of that word. The preponderance of the evidence presented in the Zimmerman case indicate that, although he initially followed Martin on foot, by the time the shooting had occurred he was retreating to his vehicle.
Is that the one where the one telling about it talks about him charging the cop?
There were at least as many witnesses saying that Michael Brown was charging the officer when he was shot. Witnesses who are significantly more credible than those whom you are relying on. In addition, the evidence from the autopsy completely contradicts the idea that Michael Brown was standing with his hands up when he was shot. The evidence from the autopsy actually supports Officer Wilson's account that Michael Brown was charging him when he was shot.
In addition to there being witnesses (black males and females) who contradicted that statement, the autopsy of Michael Brown clearly contradicted it as well. Furthermore, forensic evidence from the scene contradicts that account of events. It is possible that Officer Wilson behaved inappropriately by shooting Michael Brown, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
This is in contrast to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case where the evidence merely failed to support the idea that George Zimmerman did anything wrong.
Yes, $53 billion was SPENT by the Highway Trust Fund, but approximately 1/4 of that was spent on things OTHER than roads and bridges (or about $14 billion). Interestingly enough the amount of tax revenue which went INTO the Highway Trust Fund was about $14 billion LESS than what was spent.
In other words, the Highway Trust Fund collected about $39 billion in tax revenues AND spent about $39 billion on roads and bridges (the rest of it being spent on things not related to highways)...Or approximately what "Snotnose" was claiming.
... but spending from the Highway Trust Fund was about $53 billion last year. Approximately a quarter of that (or over $14 billion) was spent on non-highway purposes (mass transit, bicycle lanes, etc). Over the same period, the HTF received $39 billion in revenue, most of that from gas taxes.
$53 billion does not equal $39 billion.