Well, then I apologize for thinking that you were supporting it. Since you didn't say anything in your first post about disagreeing with the view that it's a necessity, it was implied that you agreed with that 73%. =)
So, by NOT crying and thinking that having a Ferrari, the latest Apple toy, a $10 million dollar mansion, and the latest trendy clothes are "necessities", I'm stupid? You sir, are a spoiled rich brat who's never had to work for anything in your life.
Get a goddamn job and start paying your own bills and you'll learn real quick the difference between a necessity and a luxury.
You are failing to make a distinction between a luxury that you really really want and "I will literally DIE or have a severely impaired quality of life without this". Internet access period is a luxury, the same as cable, or even owning a computer or tv is a luxury. Just because people in the Western world have gotten used to having them to the point where virtually everyone has it does not make it a right or a necessity.
I'll undo my mods for this. The fact that they DOUBLED the processing power (and in turn actually using the phone is nicer because apps load faster, respond faster, etc) is not a "minor tweak". That's a pretty damn big improvement.
The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
Except that many of the governments "obligations" are just BS pet projects that don't benefit anyone but a few corrupt politicians and their pals. If we actually took a stand against wasteful government spending, we could cut corporate taxes and not have income taxes raised.
Even if people did pay higher income taxes, we'd have more companies (who could afford to pay employees more and hire more employees due to lower taxes), and on an individual basis things probably wouldn't really change, but for the country as a whole we'd be better off due to more jobs and a more stable economy.
Ding Ding Ding! Someone on Slashdot finally gets it! I can't believe all of the idiots who think being taxed into oblivion is "patriotic". It's not.
When Daimler bought Chrysler, they actually looked into moving their global headquarters to the US -- and they realized that it was much better for them to stay in Germany where the corporate tax rate is much lower. Everyone who complains about outsourcing sure as hell better be in favor of lower corporate taxes, because other wise you're complaining about a problem (outsourcing) that you created (by taxing companies into moving overseas).
I work in a restaurant and we (are supposed to) use chainmail gloves when using sharp blades to prevent accidentally chopping your fingers off. So, I definitely wouldn't say that chainmail is obsolete in every way, it's just obsolete when used as armor due to guns.
When did I say anything about her worth? I just mentioned her attractiveness. I'm guessing by how spiteful you sound, you're one of those unattractive girls who actually reads slashdot and as such, you're bitter that the vast majority of guys don't find you attractive.
You have my condolences, but it's still no excuse for your poor attitude.
I can't count how many girls I've dated who always went on about how they're "not like other girls" and yet in the end, they always proved themselves to be exactly the same (soulless bitches who only want to date a jerk).
By treating women like they aren't tech savvy, you're making them feel uncomfortable about being tech savvy.
First off, sadly most women AREN'T able to program a VCR, let alone deal with their computer. Secondly, you're full of crap about a tech savvy woman feeling "uncomfortable". Every guy I know of thinks "wow, she's cool" if they find a girl (even if it's just a family member or a friend) that knows about technology -- which then boosts the girl's confidence because she realizes that she's more attractive to guys.
By marketing to stereotypes that accurately reflect most of your target audience, you make money.
No one said that this video card was going to be shoved into every computer. This video card is for people who use a computer for more than reading slashdot and checking email.
2) For better or worse, right now Intel is ~80% of the market. End users (the customers of the PC makers) still want Intel.
That has very little to do with people specifically WANTING Intel. Most of it has to do with people not knowing what Intel or AMD are and they just buy whatever computer the person at Best Buy / Wal-Mart tells them is the computer that fits their needs.
I think a better punishment is to take the money from Intel's fine and give it to AMD tax free as compensation for all the money AMD has lost over the last couple decades due to Intel bribing companies.
I pointed out to him that there are cheap cars like the Echo and Aveo and such and also pointed out used cars, but he thinks that he should be able to buy a Lambo for $10,000 just because he dropped out of high school and at 25 is making a whole $7.30 an hour.
Heh, you could look up the numbers easily. If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about Europe, you'd know it's in their culture to eat differently and do more walking -- it has nothing to do with doctors recommending it.
Your entire argument rests on you being a lazy, greedy bastard who wants everyone else to work while you get rewarded for doing nothing.
I have many friends who are teachers and all through college they talked about what a joke the education classes were. Oh, and this isn't some piece of crap school either, it's a well known and respected one.
Your claims of other countries having longer life expectancies due to socialist health care are bogus. They have longer life expectancies because they eat healthier and exercise more. It has nothing to do with their health care system being "superior". As for WHY ours costs more? Because like it or not, we DO have better doctors and our pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing most of the research to create new drugs. So go ahead, tell that company working on a drug to cure disease XYZ that they can't make charge enough for it to make a profit and then that company will simply shut down and there goes the cure....
You have to think farther along than "I think someone else should pay for me to get medical treatment".
The problem is that the vast majority of people, regardless of what country they live in, think that they're SO wonderful that they should have everything they desire and that if they aren't successful enough in life to be able to afford what they desire, then someone should force others to give them what they desire.
I had a high school dropout complaining the other day that the government should force all car companies to sell their cars for no more than $10,000 so that "everyone can afford every car". Of course he was completely unable to understand that it costs money to design and build cars (as well as being unable to understand that companies exist to make a profit and that if they can't make a profit, they'll shut down).
[shout]NOTHING RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE![/shout]
Ok, you see, when the government does something for "free", you're still paying for it. Every time you make any money at all, the government takes money from you by force. The more things the government provides for "free", the more money they have to take from you in order to pay for it. Just because they're taking more from your paycheck before you get it doesn't mean that you're not paying for it.
It's the same as the stupid "free college education" people try to claim about the EU -- just because the college doesn't send you a bill doesn't mean you don't pay for it. In fact, a typical American 4 year degree costs between $50,000 and $80,000. Sounds like a lot, right? Well you pay a hell of a lot more when the government provides it "for free" because EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE that you pay taxes, you're paying for that "free" education -- the more successful you become, the more money you make, the more you have to pay for that "free" education and "free" health care.
The biggest lie governments ever told was convincing the masses that the government can give them things for free.
Except that when the government runs the insurance company, they CAN decide "Well, you're 75 years old and this heart surgery is REALLY expensive......so we've decided it's not in the best interest of the country to pay that much money since you're already old. Sorry Chuck, you're going to die. Oh, and we still want your taxes too". THAT, along with the blatant inefficiency (it's real easy to find the numbers about how long it takes to get treatment -- plenty of examples out there of things like 8 months to live with no treatment for cancer, but due to government run health systems you can't see a doctor for 10 months -- so 2 months after you're dead, you can go see a doctor), is why government run health care is a very bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, then I apologize for thinking that you were supporting it. Since you didn't say anything in your first post about disagreeing with the view that it's a necessity, it was implied that you agreed with that 73%. =)
So, by NOT crying and thinking that having a Ferrari, the latest Apple toy, a $10 million dollar mansion, and the latest trendy clothes are "necessities", I'm stupid? You sir, are a spoiled rich brat who's never had to work for anything in your life.
Get a goddamn job and start paying your own bills and you'll learn real quick the difference between a necessity and a luxury.
You are failing to make a distinction between a luxury that you really really want and "I will literally DIE or have a severely impaired quality of life without this". Internet access period is a luxury, the same as cable, or even owning a computer or tv is a luxury. Just because people in the Western world have gotten used to having them to the point where virtually everyone has it does not make it a right or a necessity.
I'll undo my mods for this. The fact that they DOUBLED the processing power (and in turn actually using the phone is nicer because apps load faster, respond faster, etc) is not a "minor tweak". That's a pretty damn big improvement.
I assume you're talking about Apple?
The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
Except that many of the governments "obligations" are just BS pet projects that don't benefit anyone but a few corrupt politicians and their pals. If we actually took a stand against wasteful government spending, we could cut corporate taxes and not have income taxes raised.
Even if people did pay higher income taxes, we'd have more companies (who could afford to pay employees more and hire more employees due to lower taxes), and on an individual basis things probably wouldn't really change, but for the country as a whole we'd be better off due to more jobs and a more stable economy.
Ding Ding Ding! Someone on Slashdot finally gets it! I can't believe all of the idiots who think being taxed into oblivion is "patriotic". It's not.
When Daimler bought Chrysler, they actually looked into moving their global headquarters to the US -- and they realized that it was much better for them to stay in Germany where the corporate tax rate is much lower. Everyone who complains about outsourcing sure as hell better be in favor of lower corporate taxes, because other wise you're complaining about a problem (outsourcing) that you created (by taxing companies into moving overseas).
Let me know when we hit 1.21 GW -- then I'll be excited!
I work in a restaurant and we (are supposed to) use chainmail gloves when using sharp blades to prevent accidentally chopping your fingers off. So, I definitely wouldn't say that chainmail is obsolete in every way, it's just obsolete when used as armor due to guns.
Yes your honor, this man has no dick.
.......except if the network goes down, you have no internet connection and can't do any of those things to begin with!
When did I say anything about her worth? I just mentioned her attractiveness. I'm guessing by how spiteful you sound, you're one of those unattractive girls who actually reads slashdot and as such, you're bitter that the vast majority of guys don't find you attractive.
You have my condolences, but it's still no excuse for your poor attitude.
I can't count how many girls I've dated who always went on about how they're "not like other girls" and yet in the end, they always proved themselves to be exactly the same (soulless bitches who only want to date a jerk).
By treating women like they aren't tech savvy, you're making them feel uncomfortable about being tech savvy.
First off, sadly most women AREN'T able to program a VCR, let alone deal with their computer. Secondly, you're full of crap about a tech savvy woman feeling "uncomfortable". Every guy I know of thinks "wow, she's cool" if they find a girl (even if it's just a family member or a friend) that knows about technology -- which then boosts the girl's confidence because she realizes that she's more attractive to guys.
By marketing to stereotypes that accurately reflect most of your target audience, you make money.
No one said that this video card was going to be shoved into every computer. This video card is for people who use a computer for more than reading slashdot and checking email.
2) For better or worse, right now Intel is ~80% of the market. End users (the customers of the PC makers) still want Intel.
That has very little to do with people specifically WANTING Intel. Most of it has to do with people not knowing what Intel or AMD are and they just buy whatever computer the person at Best Buy / Wal-Mart tells them is the computer that fits their needs.
Treat it more like a civil case then -- if you get fined for destroying some of my property, that fine doesn't go to the government, it goes to me.
I think a better punishment is to take the money from Intel's fine and give it to AMD tax free as compensation for all the money AMD has lost over the last couple decades due to Intel bribing companies.
I pointed out to him that there are cheap cars like the Echo and Aveo and such and also pointed out used cars, but he thinks that he should be able to buy a Lambo for $10,000 just because he dropped out of high school and at 25 is making a whole $7.30 an hour.
Heh, you could look up the numbers easily. If you'd ever bothered to learn anything about Europe, you'd know it's in their culture to eat differently and do more walking -- it has nothing to do with doctors recommending it.
Your entire argument rests on you being a lazy, greedy bastard who wants everyone else to work while you get rewarded for doing nothing.
I have many friends who are teachers and all through college they talked about what a joke the education classes were. Oh, and this isn't some piece of crap school either, it's a well known and respected one.
Your claims of other countries having longer life expectancies due to socialist health care are bogus. They have longer life expectancies because they eat healthier and exercise more. It has nothing to do with their health care system being "superior". As for WHY ours costs more? Because like it or not, we DO have better doctors and our pharmaceutical companies are the ones doing most of the research to create new drugs. So go ahead, tell that company working on a drug to cure disease XYZ that they can't make charge enough for it to make a profit and then that company will simply shut down and there goes the cure....
You have to think farther along than "I think someone else should pay for me to get medical treatment".
The problem is that the vast majority of people, regardless of what country they live in, think that they're SO wonderful that they should have everything they desire and that if they aren't successful enough in life to be able to afford what they desire, then someone should force others to give them what they desire.
I had a high school dropout complaining the other day that the government should force all car companies to sell their cars for no more than $10,000 so that "everyone can afford every car". Of course he was completely unable to understand that it costs money to design and build cars (as well as being unable to understand that companies exist to make a profit and that if they can't make a profit, they'll shut down).
*Ahem*
[shout]NOTHING RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT IS FREE![/shout]
Ok, you see, when the government does something for "free", you're still paying for it. Every time you make any money at all, the government takes money from you by force. The more things the government provides for "free", the more money they have to take from you in order to pay for it. Just because they're taking more from your paycheck before you get it doesn't mean that you're not paying for it.
It's the same as the stupid "free college education" people try to claim about the EU -- just because the college doesn't send you a bill doesn't mean you don't pay for it. In fact, a typical American 4 year degree costs between $50,000 and $80,000. Sounds like a lot, right? Well you pay a hell of a lot more when the government provides it "for free" because EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE that you pay taxes, you're paying for that "free" education -- the more successful you become, the more money you make, the more you have to pay for that "free" education and "free" health care.
The biggest lie governments ever told was convincing the masses that the government can give them things for free.
Except that when the government runs the insurance company, they CAN decide "Well, you're 75 years old and this heart surgery is REALLY expensive......so we've decided it's not in the best interest of the country to pay that much money since you're already old. Sorry Chuck, you're going to die. Oh, and we still want your taxes too". THAT, along with the blatant inefficiency (it's real easy to find the numbers about how long it takes to get treatment -- plenty of examples out there of things like 8 months to live with no treatment for cancer, but due to government run health systems you can't see a doctor for 10 months -- so 2 months after you're dead, you can go see a doctor), is why government run health care is a very bad idea.