You mean like the American Letter Mail Company (look it up) that had faster delivery for a lower cost than the USPS but was forced to shut down because of Federal Law? Yea, that's SO horrible - providing people with a better service at a lower cost.
Yes, there is something wrong with Social Security. It assumes that the population will continually be growing at a given rate - and that's why it's a Ponzi scheme. Back when SS was created, the US population was growing rather rapidly and the elderly didn't tend to live particularly long (since we didn't have all of the medical treatments to keep someone alive in a hospital bed for years). Now that people live much longer and there are far fewer people paying in per retiree, the system is collapsing. Contrary to popular myth, it's not supposed to be a "retirement savings" - it's direct wealth transfers from the younger members of society to the elderly.
Which is fair enough, but then We The People need to foot the bill for this extra service we demand of them.
I'm sorry, but which people are demanding it? Seems like the massive amounts of packages shipped via other carries shows that the majority of the US doesn't want the USPS, so why should they be forced to pay for it? You might point out that FedEx and UPS don't do letters, but that's a matter of federal law prohibiting them from competing fully with the USPS, not because they can't / won't provide that service.
It's not that. It's that they're legally not allowed to do it - thanks to the USPS. The government took a long time before they allowed UPS and FedEx to do what they currently do and they definitely don't want them delivering letters because they know that no one will use USPS after that.
And that my friend, is a perfect argument for why the citizens of Europe should have fought to the death before giving up their rights to defend themselves. Once the people can't fight back against the government, they can do anything they damn well please with impunity. Sadly Europe has seen this before (especially with Nazi Germany), yet they don't seem to have learned this lesson.
Sorry, but I don't believe this. I've had multiple Android phones over the last couple of years and never experienced any lag except when I was installing an app in the background and trying to do something else. Then again, the reviewer bashes the tablet because it allows tablet owners to download any Android apps and not just tablet specific apps, so he's clearly an idiot or a troll.
So you're saying having an opinion contrary to the officially mandated opinion is banned? Didn't the aforementioned Hitler have such a policy? Just saying...
No, the US isn't. However, the US isn't facing a lack of lenders (like Greece & Co are), nor does the US make a habit of singling out successful foreign businesses to charge massive bullshit fines. Though, the real problem is corporate greed - if companies stood up en mass and told places like the EU to go fuck themselves and pulled out, the citizens of those countries would force through a governmental change real quick when they had to start living without things like video games, Android / iOS / Blackberry smartphones, software compatibility with the rest of the world, etc. And yes, I'd support companies from other countries doing the same to the US if the US government didn't want to play nice.
Only on AT&T and that's because (until they lost the iPhone exclusivity agreement recently), they intentionally carried only lower end Android phones and disabled features like side-loading apps.
Apple is "winning" the tablet war for two reasons:
1) They had a good year lead in entering the market (actually more since the first Android tablets weren't designed to be tablets and were released against Google's recommendation).
2) They have a cult of fanboys who would literally buy anything with the Apple logo on it and those people then pressure other people to get Apple products to "be cool".
A quad-core (technically quint-core) processor with 30% higher clock rates (40% higher for single core applications) is faster than a dual-core processor - I think saying "stating the obvious" is beyond redundant.
Heh, silly iFan's, having to wait a year for a new iDevice to come to market. Those in the Android camp have a new top of the line device coming out every few weeks.
I carry my Evo 3D and my wallet in the same front pocket just fine (just like I did with my Evo 4G and iPhone 3GS before it). Maybe you're accidentally buying women's jeans with those absurdly tiny pockets?
And why do you think a screen that is only slightly larger will become "unusable" when the keyboard space (in portrait mode) will barely change? Have you ever tried one of these "evil" 4+ inch phones?
The only people who whine about a 4+ inch screen being "too big" are people who've never actually USED one. Put something like an Evo 4g next to an iPhone. The phone itself is not much larger - it's just that the iPhone wastes so much space with those massive bezels on the top and bottom.
Actually as an American, I found his comment accurate enough to fall into the "sad but true" category. Don't get butthurt and cry just because you're probably one of the obese American's he was referring to.
Ah, the myth of "exponential growth" in business. It never fails to amuse me that the only people who talk about companies expecting exponential growth are anti-capitalists - never the people running businesses. As for why they're expected to grow? To obtain new customers - if you don't obtain new customers, you do not increase profits (well, usually) and you don't increase the stock price. Now unless your business is privately owned, you need to care about the stock price because otherwise the owners of the company (the stockholders) will toss your ass to the curb and find someone who will increase the stock price. Before you go off on an anti-business / anti-stock market rant, remember that normal citizens and their retirement funds are the largest holders of stocks in the world, not evil old men in business suits.
Catherine Zeta-Jones was also about 15-20 years older when she was spokesperson and had given birth to multiple children. Back when she was 23, she was about as thin as Carly Foulkes is.
It's sad that you mistake "fat rolls" for "curves". She's got plenty of curves in all the right places. What she doesn't have is a muffin top and a sagging gut - now if you find that look sexy, hey man, whatever gets you off. But she's damn hot - and part of why she's so hot is that she comes across as genuinely friendly, not just a girl being paid to act friendly.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean like the American Letter Mail Company (look it up) that had faster delivery for a lower cost than the USPS but was forced to shut down because of Federal Law? Yea, that's SO horrible - providing people with a better service at a lower cost.
Yes, there is something wrong with Social Security. It assumes that the population will continually be growing at a given rate - and that's why it's a Ponzi scheme. Back when SS was created, the US population was growing rather rapidly and the elderly didn't tend to live particularly long (since we didn't have all of the medical treatments to keep someone alive in a hospital bed for years). Now that people live much longer and there are far fewer people paying in per retiree, the system is collapsing. Contrary to popular myth, it's not supposed to be a "retirement savings" - it's direct wealth transfers from the younger members of society to the elderly.
Which is fair enough, but then We The People need to foot the bill for this extra service we demand of them.
I'm sorry, but which people are demanding it? Seems like the massive amounts of packages shipped via other carries shows that the majority of the US doesn't want the USPS, so why should they be forced to pay for it? You might point out that FedEx and UPS don't do letters, but that's a matter of federal law prohibiting them from competing fully with the USPS, not because they can't / won't provide that service.
It's not that. It's that they're legally not allowed to do it - thanks to the USPS. The government took a long time before they allowed UPS and FedEx to do what they currently do and they definitely don't want them delivering letters because they know that no one will use USPS after that.
And that my friend, is a perfect argument for why the citizens of Europe should have fought to the death before giving up their rights to defend themselves. Once the people can't fight back against the government, they can do anything they damn well please with impunity. Sadly Europe has seen this before (especially with Nazi Germany), yet they don't seem to have learned this lesson.
Sorry, but I don't believe this. I've had multiple Android phones over the last couple of years and never experienced any lag except when I was installing an app in the background and trying to do something else. Then again, the reviewer bashes the tablet because it allows tablet owners to download any Android apps and not just tablet specific apps, so he's clearly an idiot or a troll.
So you're saying having an opinion contrary to the officially mandated opinion is banned? Didn't the aforementioned Hitler have such a policy? Just saying...
No, the US isn't. However, the US isn't facing a lack of lenders (like Greece & Co are), nor does the US make a habit of singling out successful foreign businesses to charge massive bullshit fines. Though, the real problem is corporate greed - if companies stood up en mass and told places like the EU to go fuck themselves and pulled out, the citizens of those countries would force through a governmental change real quick when they had to start living without things like video games, Android / iOS / Blackberry smartphones, software compatibility with the rest of the world, etc. And yes, I'd support companies from other countries doing the same to the US if the US government didn't want to play nice.
Time to pull out of Europe. They love fining US companies to fund their bankrupt governments.
Only on AT&T and that's because (until they lost the iPhone exclusivity agreement recently), they intentionally carried only lower end Android phones and disabled features like side-loading apps.
Apple is "winning" the tablet war for two reasons:
1) They had a good year lead in entering the market (actually more since the first Android tablets weren't designed to be tablets and were released against Google's recommendation).
2) They have a cult of fanboys who would literally buy anything with the Apple logo on it and those people then pressure other people to get Apple products to "be cool".
A quad-core (technically quint-core) processor with 30% higher clock rates (40% higher for single core applications) is faster than a dual-core processor - I think saying "stating the obvious" is beyond redundant.
Jobs is dead, so now the world can undergo some much needed cult de-programming and actually 'think different' for real.
I think I might have to post that on Facebook....
Heh, silly iFan's, having to wait a year for a new iDevice to come to market. Those in the Android camp have a new top of the line device coming out every few weeks.
I carry my Evo 3D and my wallet in the same front pocket just fine (just like I did with my Evo 4G and iPhone 3GS before it). Maybe you're accidentally buying women's jeans with those absurdly tiny pockets?
Maybe he was thinking of soldiers "loosing" a volley? I doubt it, but hey - it could happen!
And why do you think a screen that is only slightly larger will become "unusable" when the keyboard space (in portrait mode) will barely change? Have you ever tried one of these "evil" 4+ inch phones?
The only people who whine about a 4+ inch screen being "too big" are people who've never actually USED one. Put something like an Evo 4g next to an iPhone. The phone itself is not much larger - it's just that the iPhone wastes so much space with those massive bezels on the top and bottom.
The iPhone 5 will add a 4" screen and another minor software update and STILL won't be worth upgrading to.
I think you meant "Jack Nicklaus" - though Jack Nicholson Golf would be a rather morbid and disturbing game.....
Funny, steam stopped me from buying some new games and lead me to pirating instead.
Actually as an American, I found his comment accurate enough to fall into the "sad but true" category. Don't get butthurt and cry just because you're probably one of the obese American's he was referring to.
Ah, the myth of "exponential growth" in business. It never fails to amuse me that the only people who talk about companies expecting exponential growth are anti-capitalists - never the people running businesses. As for why they're expected to grow? To obtain new customers - if you don't obtain new customers, you do not increase profits (well, usually) and you don't increase the stock price. Now unless your business is privately owned, you need to care about the stock price because otherwise the owners of the company (the stockholders) will toss your ass to the curb and find someone who will increase the stock price. Before you go off on an anti-business / anti-stock market rant, remember that normal citizens and their retirement funds are the largest holders of stocks in the world, not evil old men in business suits.
Catherine Zeta-Jones was also about 15-20 years older when she was spokesperson and had given birth to multiple children. Back when she was 23, she was about as thin as Carly Foulkes is.
It's sad that you mistake "fat rolls" for "curves". She's got plenty of curves in all the right places. What she doesn't have is a muffin top and a sagging gut - now if you find that look sexy, hey man, whatever gets you off. But she's damn hot - and part of why she's so hot is that she comes across as genuinely friendly, not just a girl being paid to act friendly.