The operating system isn't the problem. It's the GUI. There is no reason why you can't run Windows 7 on a slate with a different GUI that is custom-tailored to a touchscreen environment.
If slates are going to stand any chance of being successful they need to be full computers running a full OS (even if it's Android) that have a properly-designed GUI. Smartphone OSs just aren't going to cut it.
Yet what else is one to do? You either accept the reality that your usage will be tracked in one form or another or you spend a lot of time and energy fighting a losing battle to prevent it. What other options are there?
And about your surveillance cameras analogy. It's very accurate. So what's the answer? The cameras aren't going away. Their use as a measure of public safety greatly outweighs any minor invasion of privacy they might pose. So what is a tinfoil hat wearing, batshit crazy loon supposed to do when they don't want to be seen entering the local WalMart? It's a pickle, I'll give you that.
Not at all. I'm just saying this is the way these companies make money. They have a right to do that, and if you don't like the "invasion of your privacy" then you shouldn't use them. It would be like complaining about how TV wastes your valuable time and ruins the viewing experience by showing advertising.
Use a proxy so your IP address can't be traced. Run your browser in a sandbox or some other "privacy" mode. I dunno, I'm certainly no expert because I don't care. It's not apathy. It's a lack of concern.
If you're someone who is so paranoid about your privacy I'm betting your going to do your homework. Me, I don't care in the least. If someone really wants to snoop around in my browsing habits they're not going to find anything of value.
Let's face, 99.9% of us simply aren't that interesting.
If you don't like the way Google handles privacy DON'T USE IT.
If you don't like the way Facebook handles privacy DON'T USE IT.
These companies provide valuable services for free, in exchange for tracking data that allows them to make money. There is no free ride. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. It's that simple.
When are we going to start taking responsibility for our own privacy? If it's a concern to you then do what's necessary to protect yourself.
I just don't get why this is suddenly such a big deal. What exactly did Google do that other's couldn't have? If you leave your wi-fi unencrypted and someone accesses it it's somehow THEIR fault???
If you don't want people to know your business start by not announcing everything you do in a public forum.
I'll join the parade... gave up DirecTV years ago and never looked back. I can find just about all the shows I want to watch on the Internet for free, not to mention a ton of non-US stuff that would *never* get to see on cable or satellite. Every once in awhile I miss being able to sit down and channel surf when I'm bored, but it ain't worth $75 a month. And really, even if I had cable how many channels would I watch outside of the networks? 3? Maybe 4? And of those it's usually for 1 or 2 shows each. It's not worth the money. And it's worse if you have a hi-def TV cause it then costs even more to get the hi-def channels. Want a DVR? Ding, even more money. And let's not forget the $15-$20 in taxes, fees, and surcharges that's on top of the service. So your bill for the $60 basic cable tier is gonna be at least $75. Using the Internet I get 720p shows and the freedom to watch whenever I want at no additional cost. Pure win.
Maybe if they unbundled the packages and let us pay only for the channels we want with no surcharge for hi-def and DVR service I'd reconsider, LOL, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen!
Unfortunately this puts a kibosh on the lifeblood of many towns -- ticket revenue from speed traps. Y'know, where they purposefully lower the speed limits on open stretches of road so they can snag unsuspecting drivers. If they were to redesign the roads so that people drive slower they'll start to cut into their lucrative legal organized crime and extortion business. Hey, safety is good and all, but I'm betting they'll choose profit over safety every time.
The system will only work if people actually go and buy the game instead of waiting for a crack. Even if I were interested in buying it (which I'm not) I would wait for a crack just so I wouldn't be hogtied in trying to play it.
Sure, but those are the rare exceptions. I dare say the vast majority of titles in anyone's DVD collection don't get watched more than a few times, making rentals much more cost effective.
When we have disposable income we like to spend it on things like DVDs, books, and CDs. But when money is tight and that disposable income is gone most people realize they don't need to own a DVD they're only going to watch once or twice.
Then of course there are those that used to buy them but now choose instead to rent and copy them as a much cheaper alternative.
Maybe people aren't buying DVDs cause there isn't much worth owning anymore, or they have found, in a recession, it's just more cost-effective to rent it rather than buy it. How many DVDs do you really watch 15+ times that makes buying it worthwhile?
So if this is the case, which seems most likely, their "plan" is going to flop. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. They'll just wait the extra month till the DVD hits the rental market, watching other rentals in the meantime.
I mean seriously, do these idiots really get paid for their "brilliance"? Who are the morons that come up with these ideas, not to mention those that hop on the bandwagon and think it's the best thing since sliced bread? How do they manage to stay employed?
First off we have no idea what his children intend to do with the money. They might keep it, or they might not, who knows?
And for me it's more about Jack finally getting the recognition and compensation he deserved for his achievements. It would be one thing if he himself had become wealthy from his creations, but he didn't. In fact he died practically penniless, despite the billions of dollars he made for Marvel. Not to mention the untold millions that Stan has made over the years.
It's not about his kids becoming wealthy off their dad's work. It's about their dad finally getting compensated for the true value of his work, something that was never done during his life.
Lee and Marvel shafted Jack big time during the 60s. Jack did 90% of the work while Stan took 90% of the credit. It's about time he gets the recognition and money he deserves. Too bad he didn't live to see it. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, he was a lovely, soft spoken man.
Tumors are not normal. If an adrenal tumor is producing extreme levels of testosterone, I don't think anyone would consider that normal or natural.
Now if she proves to have higher than normal levels of testosterone and there is *no determinable cause*, then that's a different story. But that is HIGHLY unlikely. For her to look and sound like she does we're not talking a little extra testosterone, we're talking a whole lot more.
Well hell, I don't know the standard deviation either, so I'm certainly not qualified to say what constitutes a grossly abnormal arm or foot length. But I must think I'd know it when I see it (such as having one's arms come down to their knees, or being 6'4" tall and a size 24 foot).
What if a competitive swimmer had extra large hands/feet with webbed fingers/toes? Would that be acceptable? I would think not, but until such a case arises who knows how it'll go. Remember, it only becomes an issue when you *win*.
And standard deviation covers only 66% of the general populace (e.g., the median IQ of Americans is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning 66% of Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115). I think to be considered grossly abnormal you'd have to be well outside that range.
Like I said, there are no easy answers. I think each case needs to be evaluated individually. In her particular case, if it's proven she does have abnormally high levels of testosterone and they can pinpoint the cause (such as a tumor), then it's clear that she has an unfair advantage.
I mean, let's say they find this out and do nothing. Can you imagine the backlash from the other side? She essentially has a tumor that is producing steroids, which she is using to her advantage in athletic competition. How would this be any different than someone who injects steroids to accomplish the same thing? How can you say it's ok for one to use, but not the other? That's not fair either.
The primary reason for banning steroids in athletics is specifically for that reason -- to keep everyone on a level playing field.
This situation really hinges on this, because she happens to have an abnormality that in any other circumstance would be considered verboten. You can't say ok to one without saying ok to the other.
But this is not to say that this should be the rule for all abnormalities. I think each case needs to be judged individually. The sticky part is who gets to decide what's acceptable and what's abnormal?
And I do have quite a bit of empathy for her. I completely agree that a hormone imbalance in and of itself is not enough to get where she is. She has worked very very hard. And so have all the other athletes against whom she competes. It's sad that she could be disqualified for being "too good". But at the same time the other athletes who work just as hard, or even harder, and who don't have a hormone imbalance, deserve a fair fight.
Here's the problem: while she might be genetically female, and have female genitalia, I think there is a very strong likelihood she has some kind of severe hormone imbalance that is pumping extreme amounts of testosterone into her system. This would account for her physique, total lack of breasts, deep voice, facial hair, etc. Most likely she has some kind of tumor on her adrenal glands.
And therein lies the issue. If her body is producing much more testosterone than it should be, it's ultimately no different than if she were taking steroids -- it gives her an unfair advantage over the competition that have normal levels of testosterone.
I also understand there is a fine line to be drawn here. It's easy to say "well this is the way she was born, it's not like she's using illegal drugs", but the end result is the same. But it could be a slippery slope. We know that, for example, certain body types are better at swimming than others (tall and lanky, long arms and feet -- basically Michael Phelps). Do we then disqualify athletes that have a "genetic" advantage? Of course that's not right either.
I think it has to come down to whether a deviation is grossly abnormal or within what would be considered as normal. Michael Phelps, although physically advantaged to swimming, still has normal body proportions. If his arms or feet were grossly and abnormally long, would it still be considered fair?
This government-run "non-profit" is not superior. Whether its K-12 or Higher Ed, private schools do it better. Sometimes they even do it cheaper. Look at the voucher program in Washington DC and all the good it has done for those who were able to take part of it -- then explain why Congress wants to end it. Why else does Obama send his kids to private school? Education for all is great -- but public schools are more broadly considered failing than succeeding, and that's why many parents would love the option to get their kids a better education in a private institution.
For the vast majority public school is by far cheaper. Not necessarily better, but that's why I said and/or.
Firefighters
This local option currently works well as a government-run organization. It only works because no one has the incentive to allow fires to continue burning and destroying property. Insurance companies could maintain their own fire departments, who would ensure that homes insured by other companies don't catch their own on fire, while perhaps earning some compensation for their cooperation. And a company that lets a house burn down instead of helping will soon have no customers.
But like you said, it still works, and works well.
Police
Law enforcement and the use of force is the exclusive domain of government, and as such cannot have anyone else perform that task. It should not be in your list.
Not true. Many wealthy people employ their own security force to protect them. This public service is much like the fire department. We take it for granted because it's always been there. But I wonder, if that weren't the case, and "law and order" was kept by private police forces, how easy it would be to establish a "socialist" police force today? I can just hear the GOP screaming "communism" and "KGB".
Remember, the 2nd amendment grants us the right to form militias that are unfettered by the government. Could you imagine if, instead of police as we know it, each community had their own public militia???
Social Security
This social safety net is definitely a "non-profit". Did you know that the original legislation excluded most women and minorities? It is a pyramid scheme that relies on continuous growth in the base and in the tax receipts, which we have not seen. It worked when we had lots of new baby boomers and a 16:1 ratio of people paying in to people taking out. That ratio is now closer to 3:1. I fully expect not to get a dime from Social Security when I retire, even though I pay my share like everyone else. I know for a fact I would get a much better return on my money than -100% from just a regular savings account.
Critics have been proclaiming the demise of Social Security for 50 years. And it's still here, and it still works. And despite the DOOMsayers that insist it will go belly up by 2020, I have every confidence it'll still be here. And what's the alternative? Private pensions? IRAs? OK, SS is not perfect, but it works well enough. The alternative would be catastrophic.
Broadband
Where do you live that the government supplies you with a broadband internet connection? Unless you mean the free wifi at the local library, I'm not sure what you mean by the government's far superior non-profit broadband provider.
Try Greenlight, in the city of Wilson, North Carolina. The plan that has the local cable company so worried they are vigorously lobbying the state legislature to ban it. Greenlight offers faster speeds for less money. Oh, and they do phone and cable TV service too. And I'm fairly sure there are a number of municipal WIMAX systems being planned all over the country (and again, they are facing stiff resistance from local ISPs and cell carriers).
Because in many instances the "public" option is superior and/or significantly less expensive than the private option.
In instances where consumers are being raped blind in the name of corporate profits, a government-run non-profit option is by far superior; it often supplies equivalent services (sometimes better) at a fraction of the cost.
Now this is not true in every area. Just most.
And this is exactly why corporate America, the GOP, and their buddies at Fox News so vehemently oppose any and all government run programs. Not because they are ineffecient and inferior, but just the opposite, and it ends the gravy train of unfettered corporate industries that line their pockets with billions dollars every year, at our expense.
I'm not being a tard, I'm genuinely asking this question.
Since Apple is the only company that makes OSX compatible hardware, doesn't that make them a monopoly in that market? Many years ago there used to be Macintosh clones, and during that time Apple had competition in that market. But without that competition aren't they, by definition, a monopoly in their own market?
Now you could say they aren't a monopoly in the general computer market, and that's correct, but aren't they in terms of making Mac hardware? In the personal computer world we define machines as being Macs or PCs. Many companies make PCs. Only one company makes Macs. Isn't this a monopoly? While yes, it's a brand, it's also a distinct class of product unto itself.
Dell isn't a monopoly as they make Windows-compatible hardware like a dozen other manufacturers.
While it seems like a fine line distinction, there most definitely *is* a distinction. And if monopoly is the incorrect word, what would you call it?
I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
Yeah, that's exactly how they do it. You just get a ticket in the mail a few days after the trip.
I don't understand how it's legal either. How do they know who's driving the car? What if it was someone else you lent the car to?
I had a different experience with this retarded program. I borrowed an EasyPass from a friend of mine and wound up getting a ticket in mail for unauthorized use of an EasyPass, telling me that not only did I have to pay for the toll but also a $25 fine.
Turns out that to allow someone else to use your pass you have to register their plate number in advance, something neither I or my friend knew. I eventually managed to get the ticket dismissed, but you don't even want to know how difficult and time consuming it was.
Having an extremely portable computer that is significantly less expensive than a regular notebook does not mean you have to give "up usually just about every aspect of the computer".
I have a 17" laptop I bought 2 years ago to use for light gaming on the road. I don't travel anymore and now the laptop is next to the couch and used for email, web surfing, downloading, and some video playback -- everything a netbook does just fine.
I have a DVD drive; never use it. I have firewire and an ExpressCard slot; never use em. And tho I can play games with a Go7600 GPU there is no need any more.
I will keep using this laptop until it goes belly up and then be looking at a netbook. They do everything I need a laptop to do, nothing more, nothing less. And they have one huge advantage over my current laptop -- they are a lot easier to tote around than an 8# 17"er.
Slashdot Mirror
The operating system isn't the problem. It's the GUI. There is no reason why you can't run Windows 7 on a slate with a different GUI that is custom-tailored to a touchscreen environment.
If slates are going to stand any chance of being successful they need to be full computers running a full OS (even if it's Android) that have a properly-designed GUI. Smartphone OSs just aren't going to cut it.
Yet what else is one to do? You either accept the reality that your usage will be tracked in one form or another or you spend a lot of time and energy fighting a losing battle to prevent it. What other options are there?
And about your surveillance cameras analogy. It's very accurate. So what's the answer? The cameras aren't going away. Their use as a measure of public safety greatly outweighs any minor invasion of privacy they might pose. So what is a tinfoil hat wearing, batshit crazy loon supposed to do when they don't want to be seen entering the local WalMart? It's a pickle, I'll give you that.
Not at all. I'm just saying this is the way these companies make money. They have a right to do that, and if you don't like the "invasion of your privacy" then you shouldn't use them. It would be like complaining about how TV wastes your valuable time and ruins the viewing experience by showing advertising.
Use a proxy so your IP address can't be traced. Run your browser in a sandbox or some other "privacy" mode. I dunno, I'm certainly no expert because I don't care. It's not apathy. It's a lack of concern.
If you're someone who is so paranoid about your privacy I'm betting your going to do your homework. Me, I don't care in the least. If someone really wants to snoop around in my browsing habits they're not going to find anything of value.
Let's face, 99.9% of us simply aren't that interesting.
If you don't like the way Google handles privacy DON'T USE IT.
If you don't like the way Facebook handles privacy DON'T USE IT.
These companies provide valuable services for free, in exchange for tracking data that allows them to make money. There is no free ride. If you don't like the terms, don't use the service. It's that simple.
You do realize God will punish you for downloading those shows and not watching the ads right?
When are we going to start taking responsibility for our own privacy? If it's a concern to you then do what's necessary to protect yourself.
I just don't get why this is suddenly such a big deal. What exactly did Google do that other's couldn't have? If you leave your wi-fi unencrypted and someone accesses it it's somehow THEIR fault???
If you don't want people to know your business start by not announcing everything you do in a public forum.
I'll join the parade... gave up DirecTV years ago and never looked back. I can find just about all the shows I want to watch on the Internet for free, not to mention a ton of non-US stuff that would *never* get to see on cable or satellite. Every once in awhile I miss being able to sit down and channel surf when I'm bored, but it ain't worth $75 a month. And really, even if I had cable how many channels would I watch outside of the networks? 3? Maybe 4? And of those it's usually for 1 or 2 shows each. It's not worth the money. And it's worse if you have a hi-def TV cause it then costs even more to get the hi-def channels. Want a DVR? Ding, even more money. And let's not forget the $15-$20 in taxes, fees, and surcharges that's on top of the service. So your bill for the $60 basic cable tier is gonna be at least $75. Using the Internet I get 720p shows and the freedom to watch whenever I want at no additional cost. Pure win.
Maybe if they unbundled the packages and let us pay only for the channels we want with no surcharge for hi-def and DVR service I'd reconsider, LOL, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen!
Unfortunately this puts a kibosh on the lifeblood of many towns -- ticket revenue from speed traps. Y'know, where they purposefully lower the speed limits on open stretches of road so they can snag unsuspecting drivers. If they were to redesign the roads so that people drive slower they'll start to cut into their lucrative legal organized crime and extortion business. Hey, safety is good and all, but I'm betting they'll choose profit over safety every time.
Since he can't hack it as a game developer anymore I guess he's got to do something with the millions he's scammed, er, earned over the years.
The system will only work if people actually go and buy the game instead of waiting for a crack. Even if I were interested in buying it (which I'm not) I would wait for a crack just so I wouldn't be hogtied in trying to play it.
Sure, but those are the rare exceptions. I dare say the vast majority of titles in anyone's DVD collection don't get watched more than a few times, making rentals much more cost effective.
When we have disposable income we like to spend it on things like DVDs, books, and CDs. But when money is tight and that disposable income is gone most people realize they don't need to own a DVD they're only going to watch once or twice.
Then of course there are those that used to buy them but now choose instead to rent and copy them as a much cheaper alternative.
Maybe people aren't buying DVDs cause there isn't much worth owning anymore, or they have found, in a recession, it's just more cost-effective to rent it rather than buy it. How many DVDs do you really watch 15+ times that makes buying it worthwhile?
So if this is the case, which seems most likely, their "plan" is going to flop. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. They'll just wait the extra month till the DVD hits the rental market, watching other rentals in the meantime.
I mean seriously, do these idiots really get paid for their "brilliance"? Who are the morons that come up with these ideas, not to mention those that hop on the bandwagon and think it's the best thing since sliced bread? How do they manage to stay employed?
First off we have no idea what his children intend to do with the money. They might keep it, or they might not, who knows?
And for me it's more about Jack finally getting the recognition and compensation he deserved for his achievements. It would be one thing if he himself had become wealthy from his creations, but he didn't. In fact he died practically penniless, despite the billions of dollars he made for Marvel. Not to mention the untold millions that Stan has made over the years.
It's not about his kids becoming wealthy off their dad's work. It's about their dad finally getting compensated for the true value of his work, something that was never done during his life.
Lee and Marvel shafted Jack big time during the 60s. Jack did 90% of the work while Stan took 90% of the credit. It's about time he gets the recognition and money he deserves. Too bad he didn't live to see it. I had the pleasure of meeting him once, he was a lovely, soft spoken man.
Tumors are not normal. If an adrenal tumor is producing extreme levels of testosterone, I don't think anyone would consider that normal or natural.
Now if she proves to have higher than normal levels of testosterone and there is *no determinable cause*, then that's a different story. But that is HIGHLY unlikely. For her to look and sound like she does we're not talking a little extra testosterone, we're talking a whole lot more.
Well hell, I don't know the standard deviation either, so I'm certainly not qualified to say what constitutes a grossly abnormal arm or foot length. But I must think I'd know it when I see it (such as having one's arms come down to their knees, or being 6'4" tall and a size 24 foot).
What if a competitive swimmer had extra large hands/feet with webbed fingers/toes? Would that be acceptable? I would think not, but until such a case arises who knows how it'll go. Remember, it only becomes an issue when you *win*.
And standard deviation covers only 66% of the general populace (e.g., the median IQ of Americans is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning 66% of Americans have an IQ between 85 and 115). I think to be considered grossly abnormal you'd have to be well outside that range.
Like I said, there are no easy answers. I think each case needs to be evaluated individually. In her particular case, if it's proven she does have abnormally high levels of testosterone and they can pinpoint the cause (such as a tumor), then it's clear that she has an unfair advantage.
I mean, let's say they find this out and do nothing. Can you imagine the backlash from the other side? She essentially has a tumor that is producing steroids, which she is using to her advantage in athletic competition. How would this be any different than someone who injects steroids to accomplish the same thing? How can you say it's ok for one to use, but not the other? That's not fair either.
The primary reason for banning steroids in athletics is specifically for that reason -- to keep everyone on a level playing field.
This situation really hinges on this, because she happens to have an abnormality that in any other circumstance would be considered verboten. You can't say ok to one without saying ok to the other.
But this is not to say that this should be the rule for all abnormalities. I think each case needs to be judged individually. The sticky part is who gets to decide what's acceptable and what's abnormal?
And I do have quite a bit of empathy for her. I completely agree that a hormone imbalance in and of itself is not enough to get where she is. She has worked very very hard. And so have all the other athletes against whom she competes. It's sad that she could be disqualified for being "too good". But at the same time the other athletes who work just as hard, or even harder, and who don't have a hormone imbalance, deserve a fair fight.
Here's the problem: while she might be genetically female, and have female genitalia, I think there is a very strong likelihood she has some kind of severe hormone imbalance that is pumping extreme amounts of testosterone into her system. This would account for her physique, total lack of breasts, deep voice, facial hair, etc. Most likely she has some kind of tumor on her adrenal glands.
And therein lies the issue. If her body is producing much more testosterone than it should be, it's ultimately no different than if she were taking steroids -- it gives her an unfair advantage over the competition that have normal levels of testosterone.
I also understand there is a fine line to be drawn here. It's easy to say "well this is the way she was born, it's not like she's using illegal drugs", but the end result is the same. But it could be a slippery slope. We know that, for example, certain body types are better at swimming than others (tall and lanky, long arms and feet -- basically Michael Phelps). Do we then disqualify athletes that have a "genetic" advantage? Of course that's not right either.
I think it has to come down to whether a deviation is grossly abnormal or within what would be considered as normal. Michael Phelps, although physically advantaged to swimming, still has normal body proportions. If his arms or feet were grossly and abnormally long, would it still be considered fair?
schools
This government-run "non-profit" is not superior. Whether its K-12 or Higher Ed, private schools do it better. Sometimes they even do it cheaper. Look at the voucher program in Washington DC and all the good it has done for those who were able to take part of it -- then explain why Congress wants to end it. Why else does Obama send his kids to private school? Education for all is great -- but public schools are more broadly considered failing than succeeding, and that's why many parents would love the option to get their kids a better education in a private institution.
For the vast majority public school is by far cheaper. Not necessarily better, but that's why I said and/or.
Firefighters
This local option currently works well as a government-run organization. It only works because no one has the incentive to allow fires to continue burning and destroying property. Insurance companies could maintain their own fire departments, who would ensure that homes insured by other companies don't catch their own on fire, while perhaps earning some compensation for their cooperation. And a company that lets a house burn down instead of helping will soon have no customers.
But like you said, it still works, and works well.
Police
Law enforcement and the use of force is the exclusive domain of government, and as such cannot have anyone else perform that task. It should not be in your list.
Not true. Many wealthy people employ their own security force to protect them. This public service is much like the fire department. We take it for granted because it's always been there. But I wonder, if that weren't the case, and "law and order" was kept by private police forces, how easy it would be to establish a "socialist" police force today? I can just hear the GOP screaming "communism" and "KGB". Remember, the 2nd amendment grants us the right to form militias that are unfettered by the government. Could you imagine if, instead of police as we know it, each community had their own public militia???
Social Security
This social safety net is definitely a "non-profit". Did you know that the original legislation excluded most women and minorities? It is a pyramid scheme that relies on continuous growth in the base and in the tax receipts, which we have not seen. It worked when we had lots of new baby boomers and a 16:1 ratio of people paying in to people taking out. That ratio is now closer to 3:1. I fully expect not to get a dime from Social Security when I retire, even though I pay my share like everyone else. I know for a fact I would get a much better return on my money than -100% from just a regular savings account.
Critics have been proclaiming the demise of Social Security for 50 years. And it's still here, and it still works. And despite the DOOMsayers that insist it will go belly up by 2020, I have every confidence it'll still be here. And what's the alternative? Private pensions? IRAs? OK, SS is not perfect, but it works well enough. The alternative would be catastrophic.
Broadband
Where do you live that the government supplies you with a broadband internet connection? Unless you mean the free wifi at the local library, I'm not sure what you mean by the government's far superior non-profit broadband provider.
Try Greenlight, in the city of Wilson, North Carolina. The plan that has the local cable company so worried they are vigorously lobbying the state legislature to ban it. Greenlight offers faster speeds for less money. Oh, and they do phone and cable TV service too. And I'm fairly sure there are a number of municipal WIMAX systems being planned all over the country (and again, they are facing stiff resistance from local ISPs and cell carriers).
Schools. Firefighters. Police. Medicare. Social Security. Broadband. Public utilities.
That's 7 off the top of my head.
Because in many instances the "public" option is superior and/or significantly less expensive than the private option.
In instances where consumers are being raped blind in the name of corporate profits, a government-run non-profit option is by far superior; it often supplies equivalent services (sometimes better) at a fraction of the cost.
Now this is not true in every area. Just most.
And this is exactly why corporate America, the GOP, and their buddies at Fox News so vehemently oppose any and all government run programs. Not because they are ineffecient and inferior, but just the opposite, and it ends the gravy train of unfettered corporate industries that line their pockets with billions dollars every year, at our expense.
I'm not being a tard, I'm genuinely asking this question.
Since Apple is the only company that makes OSX compatible hardware, doesn't that make them a monopoly in that market? Many years ago there used to be Macintosh clones, and during that time Apple had competition in that market. But without that competition aren't they, by definition, a monopoly in their own market?
Now you could say they aren't a monopoly in the general computer market, and that's correct, but aren't they in terms of making Mac hardware? In the personal computer world we define machines as being Macs or PCs. Many companies make PCs. Only one company makes Macs. Isn't this a monopoly? While yes, it's a brand, it's also a distinct class of product unto itself.
Dell isn't a monopoly as they make Windows-compatible hardware like a dozen other manufacturers.
While it seems like a fine line distinction, there most definitely *is* a distinction. And if monopoly is the incorrect word, what would you call it?
I'm just trying to understand the subtleties here.
Yeah, that's exactly how they do it. You just get a ticket in the mail a few days after the trip.
I don't understand how it's legal either. How do they know who's driving the car? What if it was someone else you lent the car to?
I had a different experience with this retarded program. I borrowed an EasyPass from a friend of mine and wound up getting a ticket in mail for unauthorized use of an EasyPass, telling me that not only did I have to pay for the toll but also a $25 fine.
Turns out that to allow someone else to use your pass you have to register their plate number in advance, something neither I or my friend knew. I eventually managed to get the ticket dismissed, but you don't even want to know how difficult and time consuming it was.
Well clearly the problem is you, not us.
Having an extremely portable computer that is significantly less expensive than a regular notebook does not mean you have to give "up usually just about every aspect of the computer".
I have a 17" laptop I bought 2 years ago to use for light gaming on the road. I don't travel anymore and now the laptop is next to the couch and used for email, web surfing, downloading, and some video playback -- everything a netbook does just fine.
I have a DVD drive; never use it. I have firewire and an ExpressCard slot; never use em. And tho I can play games with a Go7600 GPU there is no need any more.
I will keep using this laptop until it goes belly up and then be looking at a netbook. They do everything I need a laptop to do, nothing more, nothing less. And they have one huge advantage over my current laptop -- they are a lot easier to tote around than an 8# 17"er.