So having Gitmo just as bad as it was is "better" than before?
Well, no NEW Gitmos have opened; and no NEW pointless, unwinnable wars have been started; and no NEW states secrets policy is more stringent than anything that came before. So yeah, I'd say this is marginally better. Not good, but standing in place is preferable to constantly stepping backward.
Also, North Korea did their missile testing repeatedly before and we did nothing then, too. What exactly would you have us do? Yet another trillion-dollar war we can't win?
Very big difference between absorbing 70mph (6.2 rods per second for those offended by my use of modern American units) in an inch or two, and absorbing the same thing using carefully-crafted deceleration over 6 feet.
There's also a big difference between a 20-year-old man absorbing this and a 90-year-old, or a 6-month-old. THAT's where the idea of a zero-fatality car fails. People die falling out of bed, ferchrissakes.
Unless you were on of the lucky few, you bought it on cassette or vinyl.
I agree with your basic point, but that line's just ridiculous. I was a dirt-poor college student in 1991, and even then records were considered quaint. CD players were already commonplace, and many "record" stores had stopped selling records.
I don't even recall a single person in my dorm with a record player, but everyone had CD players.
Would you rather that the FCC tell you what sites you can and can't view?
The government already has the power to install a Great Firewall - they've elected not to because the outcry would be too great.
Why you're so afraid of the FCC being the entity in government who wields power that the government already has is a mystery to me. We've already seen the FCC is easily over-ruled via built-in checks and balances.
Why are you so afraid of this one, single commission?
What the government needs to do is *step away* and allow other providers like Cox and T-W and ATT and Verizon to enter the market, run their own fiber optics in parallel with Comcast's, and give customers multiple choices to choose from.
Which has nothing to do with this bill. No one in government -- Republican or Democrat -- is suggesting anything like what you suggest (and which I agree with, BTW).
In the absence of the government leaving it all alone and permitting competition (which is a pipe dream), net neutrality is the only way to ensure that information is free.
Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.
If the government needs to step in to ensure that I have this freedom (and the obviously do, or Comcast wouldn't be throttling) then so be it.
Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping a site like Amazon from paying Comcast to slow traffic to any other retail site. Similarly, there's be great disincentive for network owners to allow access to bandwidth-hogging sites, so YouTube, Hulu, and most other video sites would never have been created, let alone new ones allowed to thrive.
Net neutrality means that access remains free (as in freedom). Lack of it is a massive gift to network providers at the expense of free information. When the government abuses their power, then it's time to get your panties in a bunch. This bill abuses nothing, and grants no powers that the government doesn't already have.
Stocks 101: The stock market is a measure of future expectations, not current conditions. The Dow hit 6800 because there was a great deal of future uncertainty about whether or not we were entering a major recession or a long-term depression.
So yes, the 1.5x valuation is fully warranted today. Whether that will still be true tomorrow is debatable.
The government is already picking which form of energy succeeds, in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to the petroleum industry. But of course, since you're against "socialism", you've been speaking out against oil for years, right?
Gates is just asking for a level(er) playing field for alt energy, which frankly has no long-term downside.
Anyone who says you DON'T have to buy a bunch of phones doesn't know how development works.
Google is happy to loan you various models at their dev conferences. Lemme guess: You've never been to one. Lemme guess again: You've never actually developed anything.
all flavors of the iPhone...they all look exactly the same and have the same physical characteristics... In the case of a Droid vs. a Nexus One vs. whatever other Android device exist...The devices not only look different, but are fundamentally different
This is called "choice" and it's something desirable to some of us. I wanted a physical keyboard, so I got a Droid. You may want a larger screen, so you choose the Huawei. Or you may want a better camera, and choose the Hero.
Or you may have your choice dictated to you by Apple.
Yet, based on the market numbers, the users seem to disagree with that assertion... Being the best does not always equate with being desirable.
But being first can seriously skew one's interpretation of what users seem to want. Apple had a significant head start, but iPhone adoption has slowed while Android's is still growing. In 3 years "what users want" will be more clear. For now, it's not. (How many of my iPhone-owning friends are waiting for their contracts to expire in order to get an Android? At least one, but who knows?)
In that case, you should be able to protect your home with a table saw. Oh, right. Guns are much more dangerous.
I'm actually an advocate of gun ownership, but when you parrot idiotic talking points, you denigrate both the point you're trying to make and the people who agree with you in theory.
That's a growth path that doesn't (and won't) exist.
1) Textbooks don't magically become half-priced by going online, just like regular books don't.
2) Students already don't have lots of $$, and could spend half the price for a Kindle.
Your point about the iPod is almost a good one, except that, when the iPod came out, it did what every other mp3 player did, only better. Once the price came down, it was the clear go-to device for music. Other features were added after customers were locked in.
The iPad fills no niche at all. It can't do 90% of what I need a netbook to do, leaving it as an overpriced ebook reader (which is, of course, why you chose that as your "one growth path" example).
Wow, three idiotic posts by morgan greywolf already, and I'm not even a tenth of the way through this page!
Many enterprises use alternative tools for generating PDFs
While you're correct that Adobe makes more from other tools, to say that free software is cutting into sales of Acrobat is just plain dumb. It's akin to saying, "Microsoft doesn't make that much off of Office because many enterprises use OpenOffice." Yes, there are free alternatives, but Adobe Acrobat is the standard bearer and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
As a smart company, don't you think there's a REASON that Adobe continues product development on Acrobat? Or do you think they're just throwing away their money without any profit expectation?
Slashdot Mirror
A comment from Metafilter awhile back:
"In my opinion, audiophiles do to audio what pedophiles do to 8-year-olds."
Which people say that again? Fact is, nearly every decision is made by people who aren't even on the field. The players might as well be robots.
So having Gitmo just as bad as it was is "better" than before?
Well, no NEW Gitmos have opened; and no NEW pointless, unwinnable wars have been started; and no NEW states secrets policy is more stringent than anything that came before. So yeah, I'd say this is marginally better. Not good, but standing in place is preferable to constantly stepping backward.
Also, North Korea did their missile testing repeatedly before and we did nothing then, too. What exactly would you have us do? Yet another trillion-dollar war we can't win?
Very big difference between absorbing 70mph (6.2 rods per second for those offended by my use of modern American units) in an inch or two, and absorbing the same thing using carefully-crafted deceleration over 6 feet.
There's also a big difference between a 20-year-old man absorbing this and a 90-year-old, or a 6-month-old. THAT's where the idea of a zero-fatality car fails. People die falling out of bed, ferchrissakes.
Unless you were on of the lucky few, you bought it on cassette or vinyl.
I agree with your basic point, but that line's just ridiculous. I was a dirt-poor college student in 1991, and even then records were considered quaint. CD players were already commonplace, and many "record" stores had stopped selling records.
I don't even recall a single person in my dorm with a record player, but everyone had CD players.
BTW- the V-chip was mandated by Congress. Thanks for playing, though.
Would you rather that the FCC tell you what sites you can and can't view?
The government already has the power to install a Great Firewall - they've elected not to because the outcry would be too great.
Why you're so afraid of the FCC being the entity in government who wields power that the government already has is a mystery to me. We've already seen the FCC is easily over-ruled via built-in checks and balances.
Why are you so afraid of this one, single commission?
What the government needs to do is *step away* and allow other providers like Cox and T-W and ATT and Verizon to enter the market, run their own fiber optics in parallel with Comcast's, and give customers multiple choices to choose from.
Which has nothing to do with this bill. No one in government -- Republican or Democrat -- is suggesting anything like what you suggest (and which I agree with, BTW).
In the absence of the government leaving it all alone and permitting competition (which is a pipe dream), net neutrality is the only way to ensure that information is free.
How is this at all related to anything said above?
Do you really want the precedent to be that the internet is to be ruled by a revolving door of figureheads?
No, I want to precedent to be that I can use the Internet in any legal way I see fit without my provider telling me what sites I can and can't view, or slowing down my access to certain sites.
If the government needs to step in to ensure that I have this freedom (and the obviously do, or Comcast wouldn't be throttling) then so be it.
Without net neutrality, there's nothing stopping a site like Amazon from paying Comcast to slow traffic to any other retail site. Similarly, there's be great disincentive for network owners to allow access to bandwidth-hogging sites, so YouTube, Hulu, and most other video sites would never have been created, let alone new ones allowed to thrive.
Net neutrality means that access remains free (as in freedom). Lack of it is a massive gift to network providers at the expense of free information. When the government abuses their power, then it's time to get your panties in a bunch. This bill abuses nothing, and grants no powers that the government doesn't already have.
Stocks 101: The stock market is a measure of future expectations, not current conditions. The Dow hit 6800 because there was a great deal of future uncertainty about whether or not we were entering a major recession or a long-term depression.
So yes, the 1.5x valuation is fully warranted today. Whether that will still be true tomorrow is debatable.
The government is already picking which form of energy succeeds, in the form of billions of dollars in subsidies to the petroleum industry. But of course, since you're against "socialism", you've been speaking out against oil for years, right?
Gates is just asking for a level(er) playing field for alt energy, which frankly has no long-term downside.
"I dont have the link but I read somewhere that..."
Nothing more need be said.
Anyone who says you DON'T have to buy a bunch of phones doesn't know how development works.
Google is happy to loan you various models at their dev conferences. Lemme guess: You've never been to one. Lemme guess again: You've never actually developed anything.
all flavors of the iPhone...they all look exactly the same and have the same physical characteristics...
In the case of a Droid vs. a Nexus One vs. whatever other Android device exist...The devices not only look different, but are fundamentally different
This is called "choice" and it's something desirable to some of us. I wanted a physical keyboard, so I got a Droid. You may want a larger screen, so you choose the Huawei. Or you may want a better camera, and choose the Hero.
Or you may have your choice dictated to you by Apple.
Yet, based on the market numbers, the users seem to disagree with that assertion ... Being the best does not always equate with being desirable.
But being first can seriously skew one's interpretation of what users seem to want. Apple had a significant head start, but iPhone adoption has slowed while Android's is still growing. In 3 years "what users want" will be more clear. For now, it's not. (How many of my iPhone-owning friends are waiting for their contracts to expire in order to get an Android? At least one, but who knows?)
2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw.
In that case, you should be able to protect your home with a table saw. Oh, right. Guns are much more dangerous.
I'm actually an advocate of gun ownership, but when you parrot idiotic talking points, you denigrate both the point you're trying to make and the people who agree with you in theory.
Apple has by far the least realistic laptop battery estimates and their mobile ones are very inaccurate . The Apple fanboism never ceases.
(See? My post contributed just as much to the conversation as yours: nothing.)
Adding the functionality to please both groups of users would be trivial. THAT'S why the iPad fails.
That's a growth path that doesn't (and won't) exist.
1) Textbooks don't magically become half-priced by going online, just like regular books don't.
2) Students already don't have lots of $$, and could spend half the price for a Kindle.
Your point about the iPod is almost a good one, except that, when the iPod came out, it did what every other mp3 player did, only better. Once the price came down, it was the clear go-to device for music. Other features were added after customers were locked in.
The iPad fills no niche at all. It can't do 90% of what I need a netbook to do, leaving it as an overpriced ebook reader (which is, of course, why you chose that as your "one growth path" example).
Krave is also the name of the largest gay club in Vegas. Hope no CES-ers got confused...
The only thing more boring than hearing about someone else's dreams is hearing anecdotes about someone else's upbringing or parenting style.
I think all the old and Next-Gen Trek movies had at least one really serious flaw.
Yeah, not enough Tribbles.
I don't get it. Why would a jaywalker run from police?
Many enterprises use alternative tools for generating PDFs
While you're correct that Adobe makes more from other tools, to say that free software is cutting into sales of Acrobat is just plain dumb. It's akin to saying, "Microsoft doesn't make that much off of Office because many enterprises use OpenOffice." Yes, there are free alternatives, but Adobe Acrobat is the standard bearer and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
As a smart company, don't you think there's a REASON that Adobe continues product development on Acrobat? Or do you think they're just throwing away their money without any profit expectation?