Well if you want to wait 10 years for technology to advance that far, that's up to you. I was just informing you of options that exist outside of Star Trek.
Wrong. If you want use just your fingers, then yes, they're not too hot - but if you use a pen, then Windows 7 is great on a tablet. Even the default handwriting recognition is pretty damn accurate (you can train it to better fit your writing style). Don't bash it until you try it.
Have you looked at the HP tm2t? I bought one recently to use for grad school and it has a Wacom digitizer. It's only about an inch and ahalf thick, around 5 hours battery life, and is pretty snappy with the low end 1.2 GHz Core i3. They're not exactly cheap, mine was about $900 after a $200 discount, but it's significantly cheaper than other similar tablets.
When we are in a recession and his stated economic goal is to help end the recession, his policies are atrocious because they actively prolong the recession. Society is NOT benefiting from extending the recession, regardless of how wonderful you may think some of his goals are.
As for Lincoln? Being able to read the Constitution and see if someone followed it or not does not require legal expertise because the Constitution is plainly spelled out for what the Federal government can and can't do. Being able to read the Constitution is not a science that requires years of training.
But then again, you knew all of that. You're just trolling.
The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech.
I guess I missed that part in the first amendment where it says "This does not include factual information that the government doesn't want you to tell people". Any time a person's name is mention in a book / interview / tv, that person is "in danger" of someone who doesn't like them using that to locate and harm them. Unless you suggest we ban biographies and using real names and faces in interviews, that's a hypocritical stance to take.
The downward spiral began with Lincoln violating the Constitution and starting a war to prevent people from peacefully leaving the US. I have an old Lit. book from college with personal letters in it written by Lincoln - there's one where he writes to the Confederate leaders and in very plain terms says that he's ok with letting them keep slaves as long as they rejoined the US and acknowledged his supreme power - if they refused to bow before him, he would destroy them. Then once FDR came to power and violated just about every last inch of the Constitution.........but I just expanded a comment below and saw that he goes into FDR, so I'll stop there.
Please, show me evidence of an economist who said exponential growth can go on forever. Economists are the ones who'll tell you that not only can it not go on forever, but it'll almost always only happen for an extremely short time. If you'd even taken a simple "Principles of Economics" class, you'd know that one of the central tenants of Economics is scarcity of resources - which by definition means that it's impossible for exponential growth to go on forever.
It's people like you who know nothing about economics that dreamed up this myth of "economists think exponential growth can go on forever". That's one of the biggest problems with trying to get good economic policies implemented - the fact that every idiot who's ever paid a bill or heard the term "supply and demand" thinks that they're an expert at economics, despite having no economic education. The people like you are extremely dangerous for society. Not only are you ignorant (not that big a deal, everyone is ignorant about something), but you refuse to lean and simultaneously delude yourself into thinking you're an expert in economics. You know how on House he berates people with no medical training for thinking that they know more about how to treat an illness than a doctor? That's the same situation here - you have no training in the field and yet you think you know more than the experts.
The really clever ones that are guiding us through these hard times.
No, Obama and his lackeys are "guiding" us. His economic policies are utterly atrocious, which is why at the Economics department at my University, I knew a whole one student (and no professors) who voted for him. You're probably referring to the fact that every time Obama shits the White House says "The President's Council of Economic Advisors recommended the plan" - because the White House would never be stupid enough to say "Even though the CEA advises against this because it will harm the economy, the President has decided to do it anyways".
I know I'll get modded down for this post - it happens all the time. The majaority of people on Slashdot are so used to being smart in math / chemistry / computers that they've deluded themselves into thinking that they're an expert in every field. I think I've come across one person other than myself on Slashdot who actually has a degree(s) in Economics. If people like you listened to the experts instead of believing that you're an expert without ever studying, we probably wouldn't be in this recession right now.
The fact that only two people to respond so far have gotten the joke makes me sad........I can't tell if it's a lack of common sense or a lack of historical knowledge.....
.........I strongly urge you to read papers / editorials by Economists as to the cause of the current recession, not articles written by the Sierra Club. I don't think I've ever read a post that was so horrible incorrect. Everyone on Slashdot is now dumber for having read that. I award you 0 points, and my god have mercy on your soul.
Actually, german cars (Audi) have already been investigated on sudden unintended acceleration charges in the 1980s.
Turns out it was driver error. Just as with the recent investigation of Toyota.
But you're right. There is still a chance that sudden unintended acceleration will occur because of bugs in the product. Although it probably won't. Probably.
Well the Audi "unintended acceleration" issues were because Americans weren't used to driving fast cars in the 80's. The Toyota problem was that Toyota drivers were unaware that their car HAD an accelerator and mistakenly thought their car had two brake pedals to go even slower than the usual Toyota - thus when they went to slow down to 20 mph in the high speed lane, they pressed the gas pedal, broke 30 mph, shit their pants, and called 911.
While I'm aware that EVENTUALLY oil will run out, I find "studies" like this hard to take seriously considering that there have been anti-oil people screaming "We're almost out of oil" since the late 1800's.
I didn't mean billions in a year. However, 37 million pounds is a lot of wasted money that could go to other things. For one thing it could go back to the taxpayers directly, which would mean more money in banks available to lend to people, which means it's easier to get loans and lower interest rates. If they keep tax levels the same, that money could be used to provide better education opportunities for poor students, funding more research, upgrading infrastructure, etc.
Also, since I'm assuming the royal family is rarely seen by tourists, what those tourists are coming to see are the buildings and landmarks related to the royal family, such as palaces - which would still be around once the royal family is gone.
You commented on how you're glad you don't have a president - you do, just under a different name - "prime minister". The job functions are essentially the same (though due to more ministers / secretaries, things are divided among some more people over there), it's just the job title that differs.
A monarchy is simply the descendants of a family who used violence to force others to work for them hundreds of years ago and then created a myth that they had some "divine right" to tell everyone what to do while the "royal" family never works a day in their lives.
You failed basic math, didn't you? Even if everyone pays 10%, the more you make the more you pay. With the bogus system we have, the more you make,the higher percent you pay and you pay massively in actual dollars.
Please, I'd love to hear your logic as to why some people are allowed to keep 90% of their income and others are so evil that they're only allowed to keep 60% of what they worked for.
Once they make that much, it's time to give something back.
No. Again, that's you being a greedy little shit and thinking that you have a right to someone else's money.
Government buildings are public spaces - yet we're not allowed to place cameras through them to monitor what politicians and government employees are doing.
Here's the kicker. Every major city in the US has got just as much CCTV surveillance as London! Yes, you're "spied on" just as much in New York as you are in London, and you've got armed police ready and willing to shoot you, too. It must be awful living in the US, with that constant threat over you all the time.
Yes, it's so awful that millions of people immigrate here every year.
Well, the US is pretty bad - it's just that the rest of the world is even worse off. You know the saying - "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".
Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?
I don't know what he was suggesting, but I'd suggest getting rid of the royal family. The cost tons of money and provide zero benefit to society. Essentially, they have the ultimate form of welfare - only instead of getting paid a marginally above poverty salary to not work they get paid billions to not work.
Oh and before someone tries to twist my words, I'll clarify - I mean "get rid of" as in telling them "You're fired and all your wealth that's been stolen from the people of the UK for hundreds of years is being confiscated".
$35k isn't impoverished, but it's not much higher. If you have an average apartment, an average car payment, and your other basic bills (food, gas, utilities), you don't have much to save for the future / emergencies or to spend on fun.
Adjusting for the cost of caring for a family, you and I probably have a similar standard of living, and I'm far from impoverished.
Other than both having computers, basic utilities, internet, food, a vehicle, and a roof of some sort over our heads, I'm sure are living standards are nothing similar. I know plenty of people with the husband making around $60k and the wife no working plus the standard 2.5 kids and their standard of living is wayyyyyy higher than mine.
What I'm complaining about is people complaining about the plight of the $160k income household.
Make whatever excuses you want - you were complaining that people who make more than you aren't punished with insanely high taxes to rape them for being better off than you.
I'm a tard for wanting to keep my money, have free time, and not be spit on, vomited on, shit on, and listen to screaming all the time? Sounds like you missed the day they taught logic in school...
They do "pay their fair share". Shit, if they're both making $80k, they pay way more than their fair share. If you look at who pays what % of taxes, the people making over $70k a year pay an insanely high percent of all taxes paid and it only gets more unfair the more you make. Also, if you think $160k (before taxes) is "wealthy", then you need to actually leave the house sometime and experience the real world. That's 'middle-middle class'. Even someone making $300k isn't "wealthy' - just uppper middle class. It takes more money than normal working people can comprehend to be "wealthy" (and I say that as someone making $35k a year). Get over yourself, accept that you haven't worked hard enough to earn $160k a year household income, and quite demonizing people who worked harder than you. All you're doing is being immature and greedy.
There has been crime since the beginning of time, yet it's always the "How dare someone have more than me!!" assholes like yourself who try to claim that people being successful causes others to commit crimes - which is utter bullshit. If you don't like the consequences of having kids, then you should've thought of that beforehand. It's not the rest of worlds fault that you chose to have kids and chose to have your wife not work and are pissy that you don't have as much money as a family where the wife works. Those were your choices. Shut the fuck up and accept the consequences of your actions. It's people like you who think you can have everything and never have to suffer negative consequences for choices that have brought society to this fucked up point.
But if your life revolves around work and money (as it apparently does), then DON'T HAVE KIDS.
My life revolves around enjoying myself. Having money and a successfully career are a means to enjoying myself. And no, I'm not going to throw my life away by having kids. I want to enjoy life and kids take away all of your free time and money. Once you have kids, you exist only to make money to provide for them - I have no desire to end up like that.
Now, on to your fallacious tax argument. Two people who are married are typically making purchases (such as a home) that cost much more than someone who's single. It's actually a carryover from the whole issue of on person working while the spouse doesn't (just like you). That's the flaw in your logic - they see a married houses income - not the individual income of two people. The tax rules are the same regardless of if you're married and only one person works, married and both people work, or married and neither works. Do you really want your wife to pay $0 on her income of $0 and you pay significantly more in taxes (thus reducing your income)? That's what you're really arguing for here. Well, except I'm sure you'd want to put in a special rule to let people like you avoid the negative consequences of your choices, but that would never get made law.
First, unless your son has a disability, I call bullshit on your claimed childcare costs. Daycare for one kid does NOT cost $30k+ a year. I did a quick search and it appears that the MOST expensive ares only hit around $12k a year for daycare. Secondly, you want to vilify them for daring to WORK for money? Screw you. You openly said that it's your personal preference (is it really 'yours' or just your wifes?) is for her to stay home instead of working - so you openly admit that it's your own fault that you don't have the money to buy those things.
It's really irritating to listen to people who refuse to put out the work to earn more vilify someone else for working and making more money.
So, liking Tom Clancy (a great author who's loved by men, women, and people of all races), Van Halen (eh, they're alright i guess, but they have fans of all genders and races), and golf (again, fans of all genders and races) makes them 'wrong'? What's your idea of the 'right' white person? Someone with spinners on their car blasting Ja Rule?
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Onenote is exactly why I bought a tablet (since I just started grad school). The Windows Journal app works great too.
The technology doesn't exist now - it may be close, but to have the kind of device you want (and I want too), it's going to be several more years.
But I guess wishing the future was here now and being a dick to people who offer you alternatives that already exist works better for you.
Well if you want to wait 10 years for technology to advance that far, that's up to you. I was just informing you of options that exist outside of Star Trek.
It already sells - the HP tm2t shows that. The only reason that tablets aren't more popular is that most of them are horribly overpriced.
Wrong. If you want use just your fingers, then yes, they're not too hot - but if you use a pen, then Windows 7 is great on a tablet. Even the default handwriting recognition is pretty damn accurate (you can train it to better fit your writing style). Don't bash it until you try it.
Have you looked at the HP tm2t? I bought one recently to use for grad school and it has a Wacom digitizer. It's only about an inch and ahalf thick, around 5 hours battery life, and is pretty snappy with the low end 1.2 GHz Core i3. They're not exactly cheap, mine was about $900 after a $200 discount, but it's significantly cheaper than other similar tablets.
I wrote this post on my tm2t.
When we are in a recession and his stated economic goal is to help end the recession, his policies are atrocious because they actively prolong the recession. Society is NOT benefiting from extending the recession, regardless of how wonderful you may think some of his goals are.
As for Lincoln? Being able to read the Constitution and see if someone followed it or not does not require legal expertise because the Constitution is plainly spelled out for what the Federal government can and can't do. Being able to read the Constitution is not a science that requires years of training.
But then again, you knew all of that. You're just trolling.
Government employees, military and civilian, are subject to NDA regarding classified information.
I love every time that this is pointed out. It shows what a joke the myth of "government of / by the people" is.
The first amendment does not grant the right to endanger others by means of speech.
I guess I missed that part in the first amendment where it says "This does not include factual information that the government doesn't want you to tell people". Any time a person's name is mention in a book / interview / tv, that person is "in danger" of someone who doesn't like them using that to locate and harm them. Unless you suggest we ban biographies and using real names and faces in interviews, that's a hypocritical stance to take.
The downward spiral began with Lincoln violating the Constitution and starting a war to prevent people from peacefully leaving the US. I have an old Lit. book from college with personal letters in it written by Lincoln - there's one where he writes to the Confederate leaders and in very plain terms says that he's ok with letting them keep slaves as long as they rejoined the US and acknowledged his supreme power - if they refused to bow before him, he would destroy them. Then once FDR came to power and violated just about every last inch of the Constitution.........but I just expanded a comment below and saw that he goes into FDR, so I'll stop there.
Please, show me evidence of an economist who said exponential growth can go on forever. Economists are the ones who'll tell you that not only can it not go on forever, but it'll almost always only happen for an extremely short time. If you'd even taken a simple "Principles of Economics" class, you'd know that one of the central tenants of Economics is scarcity of resources - which by definition means that it's impossible for exponential growth to go on forever.
It's people like you who know nothing about economics that dreamed up this myth of "economists think exponential growth can go on forever". That's one of the biggest problems with trying to get good economic policies implemented - the fact that every idiot who's ever paid a bill or heard the term "supply and demand" thinks that they're an expert at economics, despite having no economic education. The people like you are extremely dangerous for society. Not only are you ignorant (not that big a deal, everyone is ignorant about something), but you refuse to lean and simultaneously delude yourself into thinking you're an expert in economics. You know how on House he berates people with no medical training for thinking that they know more about how to treat an illness than a doctor? That's the same situation here - you have no training in the field and yet you think you know more than the experts.
The really clever ones that are guiding us through these hard times.
No, Obama and his lackeys are "guiding" us. His economic policies are utterly atrocious, which is why at the Economics department at my University, I knew a whole one student (and no professors) who voted for him. You're probably referring to the fact that every time Obama shits the White House says "The President's Council of Economic Advisors recommended the plan" - because the White House would never be stupid enough to say "Even though the CEA advises against this because it will harm the economy, the President has decided to do it anyways".
I know I'll get modded down for this post - it happens all the time. The majaority of people on Slashdot are so used to being smart in math / chemistry / computers that they've deluded themselves into thinking that they're an expert in every field. I think I've come across one person other than myself on Slashdot who actually has a degree(s) in Economics. If people like you listened to the experts instead of believing that you're an expert without ever studying, we probably wouldn't be in this recession right now.
The fact that only two people to respond so far have gotten the joke makes me sad........I can't tell if it's a lack of common sense or a lack of historical knowledge.....
.........I strongly urge you to read papers / editorials by Economists as to the cause of the current recession, not articles written by the Sierra Club. I don't think I've ever read a post that was so horrible incorrect. Everyone on Slashdot is now dumber for having read that. I award you 0 points, and my god have mercy on your soul.
Actually, german cars (Audi) have already been investigated on sudden unintended acceleration charges in the 1980s.
Turns out it was driver error. Just as with the recent investigation of Toyota.
But you're right. There is still a chance that sudden unintended acceleration will occur because of bugs in the product. Although it probably won't. Probably.
Well the Audi "unintended acceleration" issues were because Americans weren't used to driving fast cars in the 80's. The Toyota problem was that Toyota drivers were unaware that their car HAD an accelerator and mistakenly thought their car had two brake pedals to go even slower than the usual Toyota - thus when they went to slow down to 20 mph in the high speed lane, they pressed the gas pedal, broke 30 mph, shit their pants, and called 911.
While I'm aware that EVENTUALLY oil will run out, I find "studies" like this hard to take seriously considering that there have been anti-oil people screaming "We're almost out of oil" since the late 1800's.
I didn't mean billions in a year. However, 37 million pounds is a lot of wasted money that could go to other things. For one thing it could go back to the taxpayers directly, which would mean more money in banks available to lend to people, which means it's easier to get loans and lower interest rates. If they keep tax levels the same, that money could be used to provide better education opportunities for poor students, funding more research, upgrading infrastructure, etc.
Also, since I'm assuming the royal family is rarely seen by tourists, what those tourists are coming to see are the buildings and landmarks related to the royal family, such as palaces - which would still be around once the royal family is gone.
You commented on how you're glad you don't have a president - you do, just under a different name - "prime minister". The job functions are essentially the same (though due to more ministers / secretaries, things are divided among some more people over there), it's just the job title that differs.
A monarchy is simply the descendants of a family who used violence to force others to work for them hundreds of years ago and then created a myth that they had some "divine right" to tell everyone what to do while the "royal" family never works a day in their lives.
You failed basic math, didn't you? Even if everyone pays 10%, the more you make the more you pay. With the bogus system we have, the more you make,the higher percent you pay and you pay massively in actual dollars.
Please, I'd love to hear your logic as to why some people are allowed to keep 90% of their income and others are so evil that they're only allowed to keep 60% of what they worked for.
Once they make that much, it's time to give something back.
No. Again, that's you being a greedy little shit and thinking that you have a right to someone else's money.
Government buildings are public spaces - yet we're not allowed to place cameras through them to monitor what politicians and government employees are doing.
Yes, it's so awful that millions of people immigrate here every year.
Well, the US is pretty bad - it's just that the rest of the world is even worse off. You know the saying - "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king".
Are you suggesting that the British public somehow force a non-white person into the family?
I don't know what he was suggesting, but I'd suggest getting rid of the royal family. The cost tons of money and provide zero benefit to society. Essentially, they have the ultimate form of welfare - only instead of getting paid a marginally above poverty salary to not work they get paid billions to not work.
Oh and before someone tries to twist my words, I'll clarify - I mean "get rid of" as in telling them "You're fired and all your wealth that's been stolen from the people of the UK for hundreds of years is being confiscated".
$35k isn't impoverished, but it's not much higher. If you have an average apartment, an average car payment, and your other basic bills (food, gas, utilities), you don't have much to save for the future / emergencies or to spend on fun.
Adjusting for the cost of caring for a family, you and I probably have a similar standard of living, and I'm far from impoverished.
Other than both having computers, basic utilities, internet, food, a vehicle, and a roof of some sort over our heads, I'm sure are living standards are nothing similar. I know plenty of people with the husband making around $60k and the wife no working plus the standard 2.5 kids and their standard of living is wayyyyyy higher than mine.
What I'm complaining about is people complaining about the plight of the $160k income household.
Make whatever excuses you want - you were complaining that people who make more than you aren't punished with insanely high taxes to rape them for being better off than you.
I'm a tard for wanting to keep my money, have free time, and not be spit on, vomited on, shit on, and listen to screaming all the time? Sounds like you missed the day they taught logic in school...
They do "pay their fair share". Shit, if they're both making $80k, they pay way more than their fair share. If you look at who pays what % of taxes, the people making over $70k a year pay an insanely high percent of all taxes paid and it only gets more unfair the more you make. Also, if you think $160k (before taxes) is "wealthy", then you need to actually leave the house sometime and experience the real world. That's 'middle-middle class'. Even someone making $300k isn't "wealthy' - just uppper middle class. It takes more money than normal working people can comprehend to be "wealthy" (and I say that as someone making $35k a year). Get over yourself, accept that you haven't worked hard enough to earn $160k a year household income, and quite demonizing people who worked harder than you. All you're doing is being immature and greedy.
There has been crime since the beginning of time, yet it's always the "How dare someone have more than me!!" assholes like yourself who try to claim that people being successful causes others to commit crimes - which is utter bullshit. If you don't like the consequences of having kids, then you should've thought of that beforehand. It's not the rest of worlds fault that you chose to have kids and chose to have your wife not work and are pissy that you don't have as much money as a family where the wife works. Those were your choices. Shut the fuck up and accept the consequences of your actions. It's people like you who think you can have everything and never have to suffer negative consequences for choices that have brought society to this fucked up point.
But if your life revolves around work and money (as it apparently does), then DON'T HAVE KIDS.
My life revolves around enjoying myself. Having money and a successfully career are a means to enjoying myself. And no, I'm not going to throw my life away by having kids. I want to enjoy life and kids take away all of your free time and money. Once you have kids, you exist only to make money to provide for them - I have no desire to end up like that.
Now, on to your fallacious tax argument. Two people who are married are typically making purchases (such as a home) that cost much more than someone who's single. It's actually a carryover from the whole issue of on person working while the spouse doesn't (just like you). That's the flaw in your logic - they see a married houses income - not the individual income of two people. The tax rules are the same regardless of if you're married and only one person works, married and both people work, or married and neither works. Do you really want your wife to pay $0 on her income of $0 and you pay significantly more in taxes (thus reducing your income)? That's what you're really arguing for here. Well, except I'm sure you'd want to put in a special rule to let people like you avoid the negative consequences of your choices, but that would never get made law.
First, unless your son has a disability, I call bullshit on your claimed childcare costs. Daycare for one kid does NOT cost $30k+ a year. I did a quick search and it appears that the MOST expensive ares only hit around $12k a year for daycare. Secondly, you want to vilify them for daring to WORK for money? Screw you. You openly said that it's your personal preference (is it really 'yours' or just your wifes?) is for her to stay home instead of working - so you openly admit that it's your own fault that you don't have the money to buy those things.
It's really irritating to listen to people who refuse to put out the work to earn more vilify someone else for working and making more money.
So, liking Tom Clancy (a great author who's loved by men, women, and people of all races), Van Halen (eh, they're alright i guess, but they have fans of all genders and races), and golf (again, fans of all genders and races) makes them 'wrong'? What's your idea of the 'right' white person? Someone with spinners on their car blasting Ja Rule?