So before, you got a massive discount off the top price for buying a crippled chip. Now, you get a massive discount off the top price for buying a crippled chip, and have the option to pay the difference to uncripple it at a later date.
How exactly is this ripping you off? You get what you paid for, same as always, and now have the option to get more if you pay more.
Oh give it a rest. Literally every semiconductor company does the same thing. It's not done to rip you off. It's done so that they can address different market segments with the same chip. Without speed binning and wounding, the low end market simply wouldn't get served at all. No one is going to design and fab a slower CPU to sell to the low end market, when the can just take their high end CPU and disable a few features. And they can't sell their high-end CPU at a lower price point, because then their ROI would suck, and they wouldn't be able to invest in new parts.
This is equivalent to furniture outlets selling pieces with that got scratched during shipping in the clearance area. You don't buy one of those pieces at 60% off and then bitch that it has a scratch on it.
The answer to your question is yes. Whenever they set these standards, the lobbyists from the auto industry work with them to make sure the standards are attainable.
Do you have any evidence to support that statement, or are you just guessing? I can easily imagine a world in which fusion reactors or high-efficiency solar power generate plenty of cheap electricity, some of which is then converted into high energy density fuels, allowing people to drive their cars wherever they want. What makes you so confident that that can never happen?
That's what the phrase faint praise (or more completely, "damning with faint praise") means. It's from a poem which also includes the line, "without sneering, teach the rest to sneer". It's a great way to make something or someone look bad without yourself being dismissed as biased, except by particularly astute readers. Of course, you don't see it as much these days, as the media has found even more insidious ways to say without saying, such as FUD and JAQing off.
Read the last paragraph of my post. I make the exact same point.
I wasn't trying to say the TSA was effective. I merely pointing out that the argument made by sjames was a weak one, and that there are stronger arguments to be made.
It's not that it's a requirement. If they took it down because it was too expensive, or it needed lengthy repairs, or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But when they cut off a mode of communication specifically to prevent people from communicating, that's when it becomes a problem. I expect that in Syria or Iran, not in the US.
While I detest the security theater at airports these days, your argument has a major hole. If the present day security has dissuaded someone from attempting a terrorist attack because they couldn't think of a way to bypass the security, then that's a success, but not one that the TSA could ever know occurred. Perhaps only those people who think of a way through are willing to try it.
The normal way to measure the deterrent effects of security is with statistics. Terrorist attacks are too infrequent for this approach to work, but that doesn't mean that there is no deterrent effect.
For my part, I don't think this is the case. I think international terrorism is a bogeyman, and doubly so as it relates to air travel. The enormous waste of money and lives in Iraq aside, Al Qaeda has been sufficiently disrupted by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that they aren't really able to attack, and no other organization has the means or desire to do so. Most terrorist groups are far more interested in effecting change in their own societies.
Additionally, terror groups can achieve better results with numerous small attacks against soft targets. They aren't stupid. Crazy, maybe, but not stupid. If they had the means and motive to attack us, they would be bombing grocery stores and schools and such, like they were in Israel ten years back, or in Ireland during the Troubles. The fact that they're not suggests that those that want to can't, and those that can don't want to.
There was a time when the only mode of communication was to write a letter and pay a guy with a horse to carry it for you, and people made do. That doesn't mean that all modern communications are a privilege and that the government would be within its rights to shutdown the internet, phone service, radios, organized mail carriers, and the interstate highway system.
The law can expressly forbid it, but when it tells cops to arrest people who they suspect might be here illegally, the fact remains that the people most likely to be suspected are those with brown skin and Spanish accents. Which means that there are plenty of American citizens of Mexican descent who may very well be arrested, for no reason other than their appearance.
I don't see how you can take issue with the notion that permanent residents, be they natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, or legal immigrants, are Americans. They live in America. They take part in American culture. The fact that a few people may consider themselves to be not American is irrelevant -- you're moving the goalposts. You stated that immigrants aren't Americans and thus America could be considered a free country even if we treated them like shit (though to your credit, you did not suggest that we should).
And the notion that a statement of what makes America great could be "objectively" true or false is silly. But pedantry aside, America was built by immigrants. Most of our population is descended from immigrants. You can't claim that immigrants aren't real Americans, and then turn around and claim that their immigration status has "nothing to do with it" when talking about their contributions to the country. Either their immigration status is unimportant, in which case they are Americans, or it is important, in which case you have to at least admit that immigration is important to the country.
And finally, some laws are more open to abuse than others. We should not allow bad laws simply because there are other bad laws on the books. Point me at another law that is equally likely to result in unjust imprisonment, and I'll oppose that one too.
Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant. The fact is that the law will be used against anyone with brown skin, and pretty much no one else.
As to your second point, anyone living long term in this country is an American. That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. That we take people from all over the world, mix the cultures together, and come out with one super culture (which we then sell back to the world). Perhaps you're thinking of native Americans -- confusing I know, given that some American Indians prefer to be known by that term.
Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry. That may not be the intent, but it's an unacceptable side effect. Anyone who values freedom should oppose it. The fact that Republicans support it shows that all their talk of small government is a facade.
The point is that people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times. If they lose them, or forget them at home, or whatever, then they get tossed in jail until they can present them. So the statement "Americans are a free people: No Identity papers" doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white.
I'm curious if one could just type some gibberish in notepad, rename it "*.png" and submit that as their driver's license. There's no way anyone actually looked at the second license and thought it was legit. I suspect Google is just conducting some security theater. Ask for a scanned license, and expect imposters to just slink off with their tail between their legs.
The difference is that the wacko left-winger Democrats are kept out in the fringe, whereas the wacko Tea Party types have essentially taken over the Republican party. This situation is made worse by the fact that those same nitwits who control the GOP are receiving their marching orders from Fox News, as you said. So nearly half the government of the United States is now directly controlled by a single corporation. If that doesn't terrify you, it should.
You can pretend to ignore the liars all you like. But the whole "Obama = Nazi Socialist!" tripe is a right-wing talking point that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe. You've already revealed yourself to be poisoned. Maybe it was by Beck or Limbaugh or Free Republic, instead of Fox. But you're poisoned all the same. Try to cure yourself, instead of striking out at me.
You arrogant twit. I get my data directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, same as your graph. But unlike you, I restricted the query to wage earners, instead of letting executives and wall street looters pull up the average.
Stop repeating the drivel you heard from Lord Murdoch and get your own facts.
Stop listening to Fox "News". There is no relationship between Nazis and socialism. The Nazis hated socialists. They simply co-opted the word for their name as a little trick to steal supporters. The Nazis were right-wing by all standards. I know it makes you sad that there have been bad people on your "team". Life is so much easier when you can see in black and white. The professional liars know this, and so they carefully craft their lies to let you think that way. They take every bad person in history, mix them all together, and then mix in their current victims (i.e. Obama) and you drink it all down.
It's poison, and you will never be able to think for yourself as long as you keep exposing yourself to it.
What a load of crap. A conservative, writing for a conservative paper, looks at some polls. He labels the answers he disagrees with as "unenlightened" and then feigns surprise when the people he disagrees with are most likely to choose the "unenlightened" answers. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with him is "dumber than a fifth grader". Ironically, a fifth grader could probably see the flaw in his logic.
And it's not like these questions have hard and fast answers. Let's look at some examples:
"Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree)"
Excuse me, but whose standard of living is he talking about? For the bottom sixty percent of Americans (also known as "the majority"), their inflation adjusted income has declined over the past thirty years. And meanwhile the safety nets meant to keep them out of the gutter have been systematically shredded. Welfare is gone, the current batch of Republicans already voted to end Medicare and will do so if they ever get a majority, and Social Security is undoubtedly next on the hit list. Of course, if you're talking about the looters in the top 1%, they're doing great.
"Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)"
Are you fucking kidding me? I, personally, have see my overseas coworkers get exploited. The statement wasn't that every third world worker gets exploited. This guy's an absolute hack. But what else could one expect from a Murdoch-owned rag like the Wall Street Journal?
Slashdot Mirror
So before, you got a massive discount off the top price for buying a crippled chip. Now, you get a massive discount off the top price for buying a crippled chip, and have the option to pay the difference to uncripple it at a later date.
How exactly is this ripping you off? You get what you paid for, same as always, and now have the option to get more if you pay more.
Oh give it a rest. Literally every semiconductor company does the same thing. It's not done to rip you off. It's done so that they can address different market segments with the same chip. Without speed binning and wounding, the low end market simply wouldn't get served at all. No one is going to design and fab a slower CPU to sell to the low end market, when the can just take their high end CPU and disable a few features. And they can't sell their high-end CPU at a lower price point, because then their ROI would suck, and they wouldn't be able to invest in new parts.
This is equivalent to furniture outlets selling pieces with that got scratched during shipping in the clearance area. You don't buy one of those pieces at 60% off and then bitch that it has a scratch on it.
The answer to your question is yes. Whenever they set these standards, the lobbyists from the auto industry work with them to make sure the standards are attainable.
Do you have any evidence to support that statement, or are you just guessing? I can easily imagine a world in which fusion reactors or high-efficiency solar power generate plenty of cheap electricity, some of which is then converted into high energy density fuels, allowing people to drive their cars wherever they want. What makes you so confident that that can never happen?
That's what the phrase faint praise (or more completely, "damning with faint praise") means. It's from a poem which also includes the line, "without sneering, teach the rest to sneer". It's a great way to make something or someone look bad without yourself being dismissed as biased, except by particularly astute readers. Of course, you don't see it as much these days, as the media has found even more insidious ways to say without saying, such as FUD and JAQing off.
Read the last paragraph of my post. I make the exact same point.
I wasn't trying to say the TSA was effective. I merely pointing out that the argument made by sjames was a weak one, and that there are stronger arguments to be made.
It's not that it's a requirement. If they took it down because it was too expensive, or it needed lengthy repairs, or whatever, I'd be fine with that. But when they cut off a mode of communication specifically to prevent people from communicating, that's when it becomes a problem. I expect that in Syria or Iran, not in the US.
While I detest the security theater at airports these days, your argument has a major hole. If the present day security has dissuaded someone from attempting a terrorist attack because they couldn't think of a way to bypass the security, then that's a success, but not one that the TSA could ever know occurred. Perhaps only those people who think of a way through are willing to try it.
The normal way to measure the deterrent effects of security is with statistics. Terrorist attacks are too infrequent for this approach to work, but that doesn't mean that there is no deterrent effect.
For my part, I don't think this is the case. I think international terrorism is a bogeyman, and doubly so as it relates to air travel. The enormous waste of money and lives in Iraq aside, Al Qaeda has been sufficiently disrupted by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that they aren't really able to attack, and no other organization has the means or desire to do so. Most terrorist groups are far more interested in effecting change in their own societies.
Additionally, terror groups can achieve better results with numerous small attacks against soft targets. They aren't stupid. Crazy, maybe, but not stupid. If they had the means and motive to attack us, they would be bombing grocery stores and schools and such, like they were in Israel ten years back, or in Ireland during the Troubles. The fact that they're not suggests that those that want to can't, and those that can don't want to.
There was a time when the only mode of communication was to write a letter and pay a guy with a horse to carry it for you, and people made do. That doesn't mean that all modern communications are a privilege and that the government would be within its rights to shutdown the internet, phone service, radios, organized mail carriers, and the interstate highway system.
Unless it was Microsoft doing it. Then it'd be called evil.
How many IE users have bothered updating to a version recent enough to have a search bar?
For those "convert X to Y"queries, use Wolfram Alpha. It's way better than Google Calculator.
Given that this whole discussion is predicated on the assumption that Google is about to turn on Mozilla, MS can't be any worse.
The law can expressly forbid it, but when it tells cops to arrest people who they suspect might be here illegally, the fact remains that the people most likely to be suspected are those with brown skin and Spanish accents. Which means that there are plenty of American citizens of Mexican descent who may very well be arrested, for no reason other than their appearance.
I don't see how you can take issue with the notion that permanent residents, be they natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, or legal immigrants, are Americans. They live in America. They take part in American culture. The fact that a few people may consider themselves to be not American is irrelevant -- you're moving the goalposts. You stated that immigrants aren't Americans and thus America could be considered a free country even if we treated them like shit (though to your credit, you did not suggest that we should).
And the notion that a statement of what makes America great could be "objectively" true or false is silly. But pedantry aside, America was built by immigrants. Most of our population is descended from immigrants. You can't claim that immigrants aren't real Americans, and then turn around and claim that their immigration status has "nothing to do with it" when talking about their contributions to the country. Either their immigration status is unimportant, in which case they are Americans, or it is important, in which case you have to at least admit that immigration is important to the country.
And finally, some laws are more open to abuse than others. We should not allow bad laws simply because there are other bad laws on the books. Point me at another law that is equally likely to result in unjust imprisonment, and I'll oppose that one too.
Don't be ridiculous. You know damn well that no cop is going to arrest a white person on suspicion of being an immigrant. The fact is that the law will be used against anyone with brown skin, and pretty much no one else.
As to your second point, anyone living long term in this country is an American. That's what makes this country great, or at least what used to. That we take people from all over the world, mix the cultures together, and come out with one super culture (which we then sell back to the world). Perhaps you're thinking of native Americans -- confusing I know, given that some American Indians prefer to be known by that term.
Once you get right down to it, this law will be used to imprison legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens of Mexican ancestry. That may not be the intent, but it's an unacceptable side effect. Anyone who values freedom should oppose it. The fact that Republicans support it shows that all their talk of small government is a facade.
The point is that people who are here legally, but have brown skin, must carry their papers with them at all times. If they lose them, or forget them at home, or whatever, then they get tossed in jail until they can present them. So the statement "Americans are a free people: No Identity papers" doesn't apply to Arizona. In Arizona, you're only free if you're white.
Unless of course you're an immigrant in Arizona. Then you need papers, or you end up in prison.
I'm curious if one could just type some gibberish in notepad, rename it "*.png" and submit that as their driver's license. There's no way anyone actually looked at the second license and thought it was legit. I suspect Google is just conducting some security theater. Ask for a scanned license, and expect imposters to just slink off with their tail between their legs.
And what, you think 50 year old cancer patients spend their evenings clubbing?
The difference is that the wacko left-winger Democrats are kept out in the fringe, whereas the wacko Tea Party types have essentially taken over the Republican party. This situation is made worse by the fact that those same nitwits who control the GOP are receiving their marching orders from Fox News, as you said. So nearly half the government of the United States is now directly controlled by a single corporation. If that doesn't terrify you, it should.
You can pretend to ignore the liars all you like. But the whole "Obama = Nazi Socialist!" tripe is a right-wing talking point that no intelligent, free-thinking person would believe. You've already revealed yourself to be poisoned. Maybe it was by Beck or Limbaugh or Free Republic, instead of Fox. But you're poisoned all the same. Try to cure yourself, instead of striking out at me.
You arrogant twit. I get my data directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, same as your graph. But unlike you, I restricted the query to wage earners, instead of letting executives and wall street looters pull up the average.
Stop repeating the drivel you heard from Lord Murdoch and get your own facts.
Stop listening to Fox "News". There is no relationship between Nazis and socialism. The Nazis hated socialists. They simply co-opted the word for their name as a little trick to steal supporters. The Nazis were right-wing by all standards. I know it makes you sad that there have been bad people on your "team". Life is so much easier when you can see in black and white. The professional liars know this, and so they carefully craft their lies to let you think that way. They take every bad person in history, mix them all together, and then mix in their current victims (i.e. Obama) and you drink it all down.
It's poison, and you will never be able to think for yourself as long as you keep exposing yourself to it.
I'll tell you what. I'll waste time arguing with Nazis and proving them wrong just as soon as you prove that the moon is not made of cheese.
What a load of crap. A conservative, writing for a conservative paper, looks at some polls. He labels the answers he disagrees with as "unenlightened" and then feigns surprise when the people he disagrees with are most likely to choose the "unenlightened" answers. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with him is "dumber than a fifth grader". Ironically, a fifth grader could probably see the flaw in his logic.
And it's not like these questions have hard and fast answers. Let's look at some examples:
"Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree)"
Excuse me, but whose standard of living is he talking about? For the bottom sixty percent of Americans (also known as "the majority"), their inflation adjusted income has declined over the past thirty years. And meanwhile the safety nets meant to keep them out of the gutter have been systematically shredded. Welfare is gone, the current batch of Republicans already voted to end Medicare and will do so if they ever get a majority, and Social Security is undoubtedly next on the hit list. Of course, if you're talking about the looters in the top 1%, they're doing great.
"Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree)"
Are you fucking kidding me? I, personally, have see my overseas coworkers get exploited. The statement wasn't that every third world worker gets exploited. This guy's an absolute hack. But what else could one expect from a Murdoch-owned rag like the Wall Street Journal?