Saving and investing WIDEN the gap between rich and poor. The old adage "you must have money to make money" is true. So by finding ways to take less money (percentagewise) of a poor person's income allows them to save it better. Compare the PERCENTAGE of money a poor person pays to 'essentials' and taxes to a rich person. The rich person may pay more percentage in taxes, but a SIGNIFICANTLY lower percentage in 'essentials'.
To top that off, rich people tend to be able to afford to 'hide' their money from taxes better. (When you have a million, it's easier to create trusts and other similar methods for sheltering money.)
I think the entire tax system needs a complete overhaul. A progressive tax, with a smooth increase from 0% at $15,000 a year or less to 20% at $200,000 a year or more. (2.5x limits for married.) Limits to be tied to inflation, so they stay current. This tax would be on ALL 'first source' income. If you managed to 'earn' money before without having it taxed (stock options,) then you're taxed on it when you take possession of the cash. No income is exempt.
Social Security is *NOT* a 'retirement' system. It's not a government-run pension. It's a SECURITY system. It's insurance. It's for those who don't have other means of supporting themselves. If you have enough money to support yourself above the poverty line without Social Security, you shouldn't be allowed to draw on it. Nevermind the whole 'privatizing' issue. If Bush wants a government-run pension system, fine. Create it. Don't try to turn Social Security INTO it.
As for Medicare? Either completely take over health care (like Canada,) or else let people choose their own insurance company, paid for BY Medicare. Don't do it half-assed like we have now.
Yes, but Air National Guard fighters form Portland are the front-line air defense of the entire West Coast. And an Air Guard base in Klamath Falls is the Air Force's elite training center. (The Air Force equivalent of 'Top Gun'.) Back when I was in Air Force ROTC, the Air Force did a comparison of the top Air Forces in the world, and the state of Oregon ranked sixth. (Only behind the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marines, and the Russian AF. Ahead of Britain, France, Israel, China, and everyone else.) I think California was tenth, and Arizona twelveth. Those are the only other states I can remember.
VERY few cities have an additional local tax of any kind.
Portland (Well, Multnomah County) and Beaverton have temporary local income taxes to help fund schools that were short-changed last year. And one city (only one, from my research) has an additional local gas tax.)
As for 'laying the burden'? A progressive income tax is the most 'fair' tax. As sales taxes tend to hit the poor disproportionately more than the rich. I consider it bad form to tax someone for daily essentials when they already spend a larger percentage of their income on true essentials like housing and food. Tax the income, not the spending. (And yes, I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, so don't claim I'm just some unemployed ya-hoo trying to live off the government.)
Tonya lived in Milwaukie (different suburb) for awhile, then moved to the 'slummy' area of SE Portland. (I used to work with someone who lived in the same trailer park!)
Then off to Vancouver, WA, where she got into all sorts of legal trouble. (That's what we do with troublemakers here, we toss 'em North over the border.)
"...would require ... government mandates..."
on
No Pictures, Thanks
·
· Score: 1
An HP representative said the company had no current plans to commercialize the technology, which would require widespread adoption by camera makers and possibly government mandates to be financially practical.
"possibly"? POSSIBLY government mandates??? That's the only way this would work. Since it only works if the camera itself has such a circuit (and even then only on digital cameras,) it would be easy to circumvent. Just don't use a camera that has it! (Or use a film camera.)
What, is Britain now going to outlaw all film cameras? Make all cameras made without this technology illegal? It would be one hell of a coup for HP, since every British citizen would have to replace every single camera in the country with a new HP (or HP licensed) digital camera. There goes all those antique camera collections! (You didn't want to keep that old 'Brownie' did you?) The film industry would be instantly dead. (Film as in 35mm, not as in motion pictures.)
It's not going to be a problem. Don't worry about it. Chill.
Wherever you can find an 80GB 2.5" (a.k.a. "laptop") drive for $40, let me know. I've got an older PowerBook that could use a hard drive upgrade, and the cheapest I've seen an 80GB drive is $115. (Even assuming Apple gets a 50% discount for volume, that's still $57.50)
And as 40GB drives are $64, paying only $50 for the upgrade sounds like a good deal to me. (Only $1 'tax on the stup[id and gullible'.)
As for memory? Yeah, Apple has always charged WAAAAY too much for memory. (I even see 1GB DIMMs for $85 in places.)
Try the naviPlay. Bluetooth transmitter and receiver. Supposedly good quality, but I haven't seen an actual review, nor seen one out of it's packaging. (The Apple Store in Portland has them, but none out on display.)
One story claims it will come with HP Bluetooth headphones 'when it is released', but I saw it in a store yesterday with no headphones...
1. The powertrain is more efficient, and lighter, than a normal cars. (No complex transmission, just a simple Planetary gear.)
2. I know when I'm going down the freeway, I'm not going a perfectly constant 55 mph, nor am I travelling on a perfectly level road. (Only if your power load NEVER changes does the battery system not matter.) Quite often, I'm running on battery power alone, in fact, even at 60+ mph. (My record is going down a very slight incline, I accelerated from 61 to 63 mph on battery power alone. In my gas-only car, 'coasting' in neutral on the exact same stretch, the car settles at 56 mph.)
3. The entire 'hybrid' system adds less than 100 pounds of weight to the car, and from what I've read, the simpler transmission and engine (no alternator, no starter) actually saves about 100 pounds, so it ends up even.
I agree that setting a speed record in a hybrid is silly. But the hybrid components don't cause HARM, either.
How is connecting to an open wireless network illegal? Against various companies terms of service (which, technically, the AP owner would be breaking, not the AP user,) yes. But illegal?
Last I checked, there was no law stating that it was punishable by jail time or fine to use someone's open wireless internet connection.
Actually, from the article, you SHOULDN'T be paying for a CSS license, as the DVDCCA seems to be interested in revoking their license.
And didn't the courts already rule that the DVDCCA's position is untenable, and that there are legitimate 'fair use's for bypassing CSS? Now, as I didn't sign any agreement when I purchased my DVD, and there is no 'shrink-wrap agreement' or 'click-through agreement' in/on the DVD and its packaging, I have not agreed to any specific license with respect to the content of the DVD. It is my fair use right to use the content of the DVD in any form I wish, even in an alternate form (such as from a backed-up copy on my HD; as I can fairly do with my CD collection, which is in a boxed packed up in the attic, as the entire collection is on a HD in my computer. (i.e. The courts have ruled that anti-fair-use clauses in license agreements cannot be enforced. And I recall the courts ruling *FOR* "DVD Jon".)
Sadly, Nintendo has a 'no-backup' license in their DS games. It specifically says that you do *NOT* have permission to makes a copy of a DS game for any reason at all. I don't know if this is now standard with game systems or not, but I know my GameBoy Advance games don't have such a clause in their manuals.
I'll just sell it as a 'home media server'. If people want to use it to backup their DVDs, hey, I'm not responsible for their actions. (And reselling Apple is cheap.)
I've been using various laptops on my lap for a long time. My wife and I were planning on having kids in a year or two, but last December she got an infection and was told to stop her birth control pills. We only had unprotected sex once during the time she was off her pills.
I know have a 3-month old daughter.:-O
A little earlier than we were planning, but I wouldn't trade her for anything.
So, designing my own version of this system, I've got an Apple Xserve single-proc system with two 80GB hard drives (software RAID-1 for protection of the system,) a Combo Drive and Fibre Channel controller, plus an Xserve RAID maxed out with 5.6TB of space (4TB usable after making it a RAID-50 with hot spares.) This comes to just under $17,000. A few free programs, such as DVBackup or MacTheRipper, and I have the 'backup' capability. Add an Elgato System EyeHome, and voila! (Heck, if the EyeHome could control an EyeTV connected to the server, this setup would be a great DVR as well.)
Or program your own custom interface that uses an iBook or iMac as the client. Add a computer-accessory IR remote, and you're all set.
Total cost $17450 with an EyeHome, and two AirPort Express base stations (one connected to the server, one to the EyeHome, for wireless transmission.) Add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (SD or HD, respectively.)
Total cost $18190 with an iBook as playback/control and an AirPort Express to connect to the server, and a Keyspan Express Remote to control the iBook. (Custom interface software not provided, and would have to be written.) Again, add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (which could be connected directly to the iBook, in this setup.)
Let's see, at last count there were 35 'general purpose' computers in the house, plus 5 TVs (not as bad as my parents' house's 8 TVs, including one in each bathroom, though;) and numerous other small interactive computing devices (GameBoys and such.)
However, my (10 year old) son is limited to 1 hour of non-educational TV a day (including video games,) or non-educational computer use a day, plus two more hours of 'optional' educational use. (So, for example, 'educational' cartoons count as extra, but doing actual homework does not count against this limit.) Doing real mind-stressing things like playing his violin (hey, he chose the instrument,) playing chess, doing homework, or reading 'real' books (not comic books,) earns him more time on a 2-for-1 basis. (Two hours of reading equals one hour of TV.)
And I try to limit (but not outright prohibit) less savory material (The Simpsons,) through 'lead by example'. Downright offensive material (South Park) is prohibited, though. (And I love both cartoons, so I have to wait until the kids are in bed to watch them in secret.:-) Same with playing my Castle Wolfenstein and Doom3.)
Finally, no TV or computer in bedrooms. Only in public places, where a parent's watchful eye can wander by at any moment. I have very lax filtering on the computer, basically to prevent the EXTREME hard core material that comes up when you click on the wrong search result, or typo a website address just wrong. But other than that, the rule is that he can go to whatever websites he wants, as long as he's comfortable viewing them with my wife and I standing right behind him. If we come by, and a windows closes or gets minimized just as we approach, it's an immediate 1-day ban from the computer for attempted deception. Same with the TV. If the channel changes suddenly when we enter the room, it's 'LAST CHANNEL' button time, and if it's not innocent channel surfing, no TV for a day.
Luckily, these rules haven't had to be enforced yet, as he's only 10. But I know other parents of slightly older kids who have had to enforce them regularly. I figure it's good to have them in place early. (I also have a 3 month old, so it'll be awhile until she's going to need any of this.)
The best solution for the 'too many computers hurts learning'? Teach as if the computers aren't there, only using them as higher-tech tools in place of older, klunkier ones. (Wikipaedia vs. Encyclopedias, for example.) Don't use them just to use them. (Teaching basic addition using a calculator. Math GAMES, fine. But using a calculator for basic problems? BAD!)
I had a Logitech wireless set for my PC desktop, and yeah, it was overkill. It was more to keep the desktop LOOKING decluttered than anything else.
But with my PowerBook, and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, it has actual useful benefits. Notably, I can store them in a drawer, and when I want to use my notebook on my desk, I just set it on top of the inevitable pile of papers, dig out the keyboard, set it on the pile of papers, and clear a small space (either revealing the actual desk, or just a large-enough area of paper,) to mouse around. It's great. No more hunting for, or fiddling with, the free end of the cable, or digging under the mess for the keyboard and mouse. I just pull them out when I need them. (And the mouse is nice and portable, all self-contained, no wire, no adaptor, just the mouse.)
Yeah, it was a mistaken quote. A.C.C. came up with the idea of the communications satellite placed in geosync orbit. Hence, he realized that geosync orbit is a great place for such satellites. Obviously, he didn't invent geosynchronous orbit itself, (no more than the Wright Brothers 'invented' flight,) he was just the first to realize it's a great place to put a satellite.
Keep cranking, guys! You can keep up with the load! Go, go, go!!!
I saw this video a couple days ago. It is funny. THe guy speeds up and slows down a little, and doesn't keep it 'perfectly' in sync, but it's pretty good. (If the click sound were off, and they had it zoomed so you could only see the screen, not the guy frantically scrolling; I would have thought they had actually figured out how to play video on it.)
So, how long until some company makes a 'scroller' device that automatically scrolls at 30 fps?
Same thing is true in lots of states. Look at Oregon, Washington, and Florida. In each, the popular vote was pretty darned close to 50/50, yet the 'blue' areas are where the main cities are, and the rest of the state is red. (In Washington, blue clustered around Seattle; in Oregon around Portland and Eugene, and in Florida around Miami.
I find it interesting that the largest city that went for Bush was Phoenix; while some smaller areas of Arizona (especially counties that have large American Indian populations,) went for Kerry. Arizona is the only 'backwards' state this way. (There are a few VERY dominantly-Republican states where cities went for Bush, most notably Utah and (duh) Texas.)
I'm trying to figure out why Chicago is so much taller than L.A. or New York City.
As for your Electoral College reform idea? A couple of states already do that. They are (look at the map,) Nebraska and Maine. As you see, neither has much chance of ever splitting up their electors. (Nebraska being one of only two states in which Kerry did not win a single county, and Maine which is almost the exact opposite.) If this reform were to take place, the Republican party would gain SIGNIFICANTLY, as the largest states tend to go Democrat, and even then, only because the large cities dominate. In California, for example, Kerry's 55 electoral votes would have probably been chopped to 25-30, and in New York, from 31 to 18-20. Yes, Kerry would have made gains in Florida and Ohio, but not to that extent.
For a president who made a major campaign issue of the fact that the U.S. should not be involved in "Nation Building", he has taken on the biggest case of Nation Building since World War II ended. And it wasn't even something that was directly related to our own national security.
I don't fault him AT ALL for Afghanistan. That was fully justified. I would not have faulted him for trying to take out the corrupt governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan (although Pakistan at least 'switched sides' to our side on 9/12, so there was less reason there.) And I also don't fault him for taking out Saddam. I think Saddam should have been removed by Bush I in 1991.
Saddam was a bad, bad man. But he had nothing to do with 9/11. He had no connections to Al Qaeda (heck, Al Qaeda wanted Saddam out of power even more than the U.S. wanted him out of power. They just wanted him replaced with an Iran-style theocracy,) he did not pose a direct threat to America. Yes, he needed to be removed from power. No, this wasn't the time. We needed to get rid of the terrorists FIRST. Supporting moderate regimes, toppling terrorist-sponsoring regimes. NOT removing third-party regimes, especially ones terrorists oppose. EVEN when they are corrupt.
Saddam may have been THINKING about acquiring WMD, but N. Korea has them, India and Pakistan have them, Israel has them, and Iran is trying hard to get them. Saddam was not an imminent international threat. If we had ignored Saddam, would Bush-apologists have been crying for his removal? No. They would be supporting whatever other country we attacked.
And the terrorists don't want 'all Westerners' dead, they want to frighten us with appalling acts enough to cause us to change our actions, to leave them alone (including a withdrawal from our support for Israel.) There is a difference. Neo-Nazis want all non-Aryans dead. Bin Laden just wants us out of Asia. Heck, Bin Laden doesn't like us because we support the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia.
The right war would have been against Iran, or N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia. (Only after actually TRYING to get them to reform peacefully.) But those countries are too big, too powerful, or have too many real allies. No, we went after Iraq. No real allies, no real power. Not a threat at all. (Although some would say that NO war is the RIGHT war. That war is inherently wrong, even when inevitable.)
The right time to go after Iraq would have been after we knew terrorists wouldn't rally around it. When Al Qaeda had been made so weak, it couldn't hold up a hot dog stand, much less cause real terror like in Spain. (I honestly believe that if we had not invaded Iraq, but had continued to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Spain bombing would not have happened.)
And the right president is *NOT* George Bush. His priorities are all about himself, not anyone else. He doesn't want to help the average American, he wants to help his rich/powerful friends. His tax cuts don't go deep enough for the middle class, and are TOO much for the rich. His policies have helped corrupt companies, and made his friends and allies rich.
Defending this war is just defending someone who has caused more harm as President than any other President. (And no, I'm not saying he was responsible for 9/11. That would have happened under Gore, too. And I even think Gore would have done a WORSE job than Bush. I just think Bush is pretty darned bad, and needs to be replaced. I don't think Kerry will be MUCH better, but I do think he will be better. I would much rather see McCain, Lieberman, or even Powell as President.) There is no logical defense of this war NOW. Especially after the faulty reason for the war, and the lack of need for it now.
heh.. Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters" did a segment on something like this. They heard an urban legend that a construction worker was holding onto a piece of 4x8 (foot) plywood, and fell off a 10-story building. The myth was that he managed to hold onto the board and it acted a little like a parachute to ease his landing.
They easily disproved it. (They used a dummy, measured how hard he hit the ground alone, and how hard when his hands were glued to a piece of plywood. He hit HARDER with the plywood, as it made him land on his feet, which crumpled him and smacked his head into the ground with little cushioning, whereas dropping by himself, the dummy hit 'flat', absorbing the shock over his whole body. Still too much shock to survive, but less than with the plywood.)
Slashdot Mirror
Saving and investing WIDEN the gap between rich and poor. The old adage "you must have money to make money" is true. So by finding ways to take less money (percentagewise) of a poor person's income allows them to save it better. Compare the PERCENTAGE of money a poor person pays to 'essentials' and taxes to a rich person. The rich person may pay more percentage in taxes, but a SIGNIFICANTLY lower percentage in 'essentials'.
To top that off, rich people tend to be able to afford to 'hide' their money from taxes better. (When you have a million, it's easier to create trusts and other similar methods for sheltering money.)
I think the entire tax system needs a complete overhaul. A progressive tax, with a smooth increase from 0% at $15,000 a year or less to 20% at $200,000 a year or more. (2.5x limits for married.) Limits to be tied to inflation, so they stay current. This tax would be on ALL 'first source' income. If you managed to 'earn' money before without having it taxed (stock options,) then you're taxed on it when you take possession of the cash. No income is exempt.
Social Security is *NOT* a 'retirement' system. It's not a government-run pension. It's a SECURITY system. It's insurance. It's for those who don't have other means of supporting themselves. If you have enough money to support yourself above the poverty line without Social Security, you shouldn't be allowed to draw on it. Nevermind the whole 'privatizing' issue. If Bush wants a government-run pension system, fine. Create it. Don't try to turn Social Security INTO it.
As for Medicare? Either completely take over health care (like Canada,) or else let people choose their own insurance company, paid for BY Medicare. Don't do it half-assed like we have now.
Yes, but Air National Guard fighters form Portland are the front-line air defense of the entire West Coast. And an Air Guard base in Klamath Falls is the Air Force's elite training center. (The Air Force equivalent of 'Top Gun'.) Back when I was in Air Force ROTC, the Air Force did a comparison of the top Air Forces in the world, and the state of Oregon ranked sixth. (Only behind the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marines, and the Russian AF. Ahead of Britain, France, Israel, China, and everyone else.) I think California was tenth, and Arizona twelveth. Those are the only other states I can remember.
VERY few cities have an additional local tax of any kind.
Portland (Well, Multnomah County) and Beaverton have temporary local income taxes to help fund schools that were short-changed last year. And one city (only one, from my research) has an additional local gas tax.)
As for 'laying the burden'? A progressive income tax is the most 'fair' tax. As sales taxes tend to hit the poor disproportionately more than the rich. I consider it bad form to tax someone for daily essentials when they already spend a larger percentage of their income on true essentials like housing and food. Tax the income, not the spending. (And yes, I have benefited from Bush's tax cuts, so don't claim I'm just some unemployed ya-hoo trying to live off the government.)
Tonya lived in Milwaukie (different suburb) for awhile, then moved to the 'slummy' area of SE Portland. (I used to work with someone who lived in the same trailer park!)
Then off to Vancouver, WA, where she got into all sorts of legal trouble. (That's what we do with troublemakers here, we toss 'em North over the border.)
"possibly"? POSSIBLY government mandates??? That's the only way this would work. Since it only works if the camera itself has such a circuit (and even then only on digital cameras,) it would be easy to circumvent. Just don't use a camera that has it! (Or use a film camera.)
What, is Britain now going to outlaw all film cameras? Make all cameras made without this technology illegal? It would be one hell of a coup for HP, since every British citizen would have to replace every single camera in the country with a new HP (or HP licensed) digital camera. There goes all those antique camera collections! (You didn't want to keep that old 'Brownie' did you?) The film industry would be instantly dead. (Film as in 35mm, not as in motion pictures.)
It's not going to be a problem. Don't worry about it. Chill.
Wherever you can find an 80GB 2.5" (a.k.a. "laptop") drive for $40, let me know. I've got an older PowerBook that could use a hard drive upgrade, and the cheapest I've seen an 80GB drive is $115. (Even assuming Apple gets a 50% discount for volume, that's still $57.50)
And as 40GB drives are $64, paying only $50 for the upgrade sounds like a good deal to me. (Only $1 'tax on the stup[id and gullible'.)
As for memory? Yeah, Apple has always charged WAAAAY too much for memory. (I even see 1GB DIMMs for $85 in places.)
Try the naviPlay. Bluetooth transmitter and receiver. Supposedly good quality, but I haven't seen an actual review, nor seen one out of it's packaging. (The Apple Store in Portland has them, but none out on display.)
One story claims it will come with HP Bluetooth headphones 'when it is released', but I saw it in a store yesterday with no headphones...
Don't forget, he only had it 'running' for 4 hours per day. (0.372 seconds per visitor.)
For Honda's hybrid systems, yes.
For Toyota's, no.
1. The powertrain is more efficient, and lighter, than a normal cars. (No complex transmission, just a simple Planetary gear.)
2. I know when I'm going down the freeway, I'm not going a perfectly constant 55 mph, nor am I travelling on a perfectly level road. (Only if your power load NEVER changes does the battery system not matter.) Quite often, I'm running on battery power alone, in fact, even at 60+ mph. (My record is going down a very slight incline, I accelerated from 61 to 63 mph on battery power alone. In my gas-only car, 'coasting' in neutral on the exact same stretch, the car settles at 56 mph.)
3. The entire 'hybrid' system adds less than 100 pounds of weight to the car, and from what I've read, the simpler transmission and engine (no alternator, no starter) actually saves about 100 pounds, so it ends up even.
I agree that setting a speed record in a hybrid is silly. But the hybrid components don't cause HARM, either.
How is connecting to an open wireless network illegal? Against various companies terms of service (which, technically, the AP owner would be breaking, not the AP user,) yes. But illegal?
Last I checked, there was no law stating that it was punishable by jail time or fine to use someone's open wireless internet connection.
Actually, from the article, you SHOULDN'T be paying for a CSS license, as the DVDCCA seems to be interested in revoking their license.
And didn't the courts already rule that the DVDCCA's position is untenable, and that there are legitimate 'fair use's for bypassing CSS? Now, as I didn't sign any agreement when I purchased my DVD, and there is no 'shrink-wrap agreement' or 'click-through agreement' in/on the DVD and its packaging, I have not agreed to any specific license with respect to the content of the DVD. It is my fair use right to use the content of the DVD in any form I wish, even in an alternate form (such as from a backed-up copy on my HD; as I can fairly do with my CD collection, which is in a boxed packed up in the attic, as the entire collection is on a HD in my computer. (i.e. The courts have ruled that anti-fair-use clauses in license agreements cannot be enforced. And I recall the courts ruling *FOR* "DVD Jon".)
Sadly, Nintendo has a 'no-backup' license in their DS games. It specifically says that you do *NOT* have permission to makes a copy of a DS game for any reason at all. I don't know if this is now standard with game systems or not, but I know my GameBoy Advance games don't have such a clause in their manuals.
I'll just sell it as a 'home media server'. If people want to use it to backup their DVDs, hey, I'm not responsible for their actions. (And reselling Apple is cheap.)
I've been using various laptops on my lap for a long time. My wife and I were planning on having kids in a year or two, but last December she got an infection and was told to stop her birth control pills. We only had unprotected sex once during the time she was off her pills.
:-O
I know have a 3-month old daughter.
A little earlier than we were planning, but I wouldn't trade her for anything.
So, designing my own version of this system, I've got an Apple Xserve single-proc system with two 80GB hard drives (software RAID-1 for protection of the system,) a Combo Drive and Fibre Channel controller, plus an Xserve RAID maxed out with 5.6TB of space (4TB usable after making it a RAID-50 with hot spares.) This comes to just under $17,000. A few free programs, such as DVBackup or MacTheRipper, and I have the 'backup' capability. Add an Elgato System EyeHome, and voila! (Heck, if the EyeHome could control an EyeTV connected to the server, this setup would be a great DVR as well.)
Or program your own custom interface that uses an iBook or iMac as the client. Add a computer-accessory IR remote, and you're all set.
Total cost $17450 with an EyeHome, and two AirPort Express base stations (one connected to the server, one to the EyeHome, for wireless transmission.) Add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (SD or HD, respectively.)
Total cost $18190 with an iBook as playback/control and an AirPort Express to connect to the server, and a Keyspan Express Remote to control the iBook. (Custom interface software not provided, and would have to be written.) Again, add $330 or $350 for an EyeTV (which could be connected directly to the iBook, in this setup.)
Let's see, at last count there were 35 'general purpose' computers in the house, plus 5 TVs (not as bad as my parents' house's 8 TVs, including one in each bathroom, though;) and numerous other small interactive computing devices (GameBoys and such.)
:-) Same with playing my Castle Wolfenstein and Doom3.)
However, my (10 year old) son is limited to 1 hour of non-educational TV a day (including video games,) or non-educational computer use a day, plus two more hours of 'optional' educational use. (So, for example, 'educational' cartoons count as extra, but doing actual homework does not count against this limit.) Doing real mind-stressing things like playing his violin (hey, he chose the instrument,) playing chess, doing homework, or reading 'real' books (not comic books,) earns him more time on a 2-for-1 basis. (Two hours of reading equals one hour of TV.)
And I try to limit (but not outright prohibit) less savory material (The Simpsons,) through 'lead by example'. Downright offensive material (South Park) is prohibited, though. (And I love both cartoons, so I have to wait until the kids are in bed to watch them in secret.
Finally, no TV or computer in bedrooms. Only in public places, where a parent's watchful eye can wander by at any moment. I have very lax filtering on the computer, basically to prevent the EXTREME hard core material that comes up when you click on the wrong search result, or typo a website address just wrong. But other than that, the rule is that he can go to whatever websites he wants, as long as he's comfortable viewing them with my wife and I standing right behind him. If we come by, and a windows closes or gets minimized just as we approach, it's an immediate 1-day ban from the computer for attempted deception. Same with the TV. If the channel changes suddenly when we enter the room, it's 'LAST CHANNEL' button time, and if it's not innocent channel surfing, no TV for a day.
Luckily, these rules haven't had to be enforced yet, as he's only 10. But I know other parents of slightly older kids who have had to enforce them regularly. I figure it's good to have them in place early. (I also have a 3 month old, so it'll be awhile until she's going to need any of this.)
The best solution for the 'too many computers hurts learning'? Teach as if the computers aren't there, only using them as higher-tech tools in place of older, klunkier ones. (Wikipaedia vs. Encyclopedias, for example.) Don't use them just to use them. (Teaching basic addition using a calculator. Math GAMES, fine. But using a calculator for basic problems? BAD!)
I had a Logitech wireless set for my PC desktop, and yeah, it was overkill. It was more to keep the desktop LOOKING decluttered than anything else.
But with my PowerBook, and a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, it has actual useful benefits. Notably, I can store them in a drawer, and when I want to use my notebook on my desk, I just set it on top of the inevitable pile of papers, dig out the keyboard, set it on the pile of papers, and clear a small space (either revealing the actual desk, or just a large-enough area of paper,) to mouse around. It's great. No more hunting for, or fiddling with, the free end of the cable, or digging under the mess for the keyboard and mouse. I just pull them out when I need them. (And the mouse is nice and portable, all self-contained, no wire, no adaptor, just the mouse.)
Yeah, it was a mistaken quote. A.C.C. came up with the idea of the communications satellite placed in geosync orbit. Hence, he realized that geosync orbit is a great place for such satellites. Obviously, he didn't invent geosynchronous orbit itself, (no more than the Wright Brothers 'invented' flight,) he was just the first to realize it's a great place to put a satellite.
Keep cranking, guys! You can keep up with the load! Go, go, go!!!
I saw this video a couple days ago. It is funny. THe guy speeds up and slows down a little, and doesn't keep it 'perfectly' in sync, but it's pretty good. (If the click sound were off, and they had it zoomed so you could only see the screen, not the guy frantically scrolling; I would have thought they had actually figured out how to play video on it.)
So, how long until some company makes a 'scroller' device that automatically scrolls at 30 fps?
So, I say kill everyone (pro-death penalty, pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide,) where do I fall in that spectrum?
And if you notice, the Chinese official news source's English translation uses "astronaut".
Same thing is true in lots of states. Look at Oregon, Washington, and Florida. In each, the popular vote was pretty darned close to 50/50, yet the 'blue' areas are where the main cities are, and the rest of the state is red. (In Washington, blue clustered around Seattle; in Oregon around Portland and Eugene, and in Florida around Miami.
I find it interesting that the largest city that went for Bush was Phoenix; while some smaller areas of Arizona (especially counties that have large American Indian populations,) went for Kerry. Arizona is the only 'backwards' state this way. (There are a few VERY dominantly-Republican states where cities went for Bush, most notably Utah and (duh) Texas.)
I'm trying to figure out why Chicago is so much taller than L.A. or New York City.
As for your Electoral College reform idea? A couple of states already do that. They are (look at the map,) Nebraska and Maine. As you see, neither has much chance of ever splitting up their electors. (Nebraska being one of only two states in which Kerry did not win a single county, and Maine which is almost the exact opposite.) If this reform were to take place, the Republican party would gain SIGNIFICANTLY, as the largest states tend to go Democrat, and even then, only because the large cities dominate. In California, for example, Kerry's 55 electoral votes would have probably been chopped to 25-30, and in New York, from 31 to 18-20. Yes, Kerry would have made gains in Florida and Ohio, but not to that extent.
For a president who made a major campaign issue of the fact that the U.S. should not be involved in "Nation Building", he has taken on the biggest case of Nation Building since World War II ended. And it wasn't even something that was directly related to our own national security.
I don't fault him AT ALL for Afghanistan. That was fully justified. I would not have faulted him for trying to take out the corrupt governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan (although Pakistan at least 'switched sides' to our side on 9/12, so there was less reason there.) And I also don't fault him for taking out Saddam. I think Saddam should have been removed by Bush I in 1991.
Saddam was a bad, bad man. But he had nothing to do with 9/11. He had no connections to Al Qaeda (heck, Al Qaeda wanted Saddam out of power even more than the U.S. wanted him out of power. They just wanted him replaced with an Iran-style theocracy,) he did not pose a direct threat to America. Yes, he needed to be removed from power. No, this wasn't the time. We needed to get rid of the terrorists FIRST. Supporting moderate regimes, toppling terrorist-sponsoring regimes. NOT removing third-party regimes, especially ones terrorists oppose. EVEN when they are corrupt.
Saddam may have been THINKING about acquiring WMD, but N. Korea has them, India and Pakistan have them, Israel has them, and Iran is trying hard to get them. Saddam was not an imminent international threat. If we had ignored Saddam, would Bush-apologists have been crying for his removal? No. They would be supporting whatever other country we attacked.
And the terrorists don't want 'all Westerners' dead, they want to frighten us with appalling acts enough to cause us to change our actions, to leave them alone (including a withdrawal from our support for Israel.) There is a difference. Neo-Nazis want all non-Aryans dead. Bin Laden just wants us out of Asia. Heck, Bin Laden doesn't like us because we support the corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia.
The right war would have been against Iran, or N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia. (Only after actually TRYING to get them to reform peacefully.) But those countries are too big, too powerful, or have too many real allies. No, we went after Iraq. No real allies, no real power. Not a threat at all. (Although some would say that NO war is the RIGHT war. That war is inherently wrong, even when inevitable.)
The right time to go after Iraq would have been after we knew terrorists wouldn't rally around it. When Al Qaeda had been made so weak, it couldn't hold up a hot dog stand, much less cause real terror like in Spain. (I honestly believe that if we had not invaded Iraq, but had continued to hunt down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Spain bombing would not have happened.)
And the right president is *NOT* George Bush. His priorities are all about himself, not anyone else. He doesn't want to help the average American, he wants to help his rich/powerful friends. His tax cuts don't go deep enough for the middle class, and are TOO much for the rich. His policies have helped corrupt companies, and made his friends and allies rich.
Defending this war is just defending someone who has caused more harm as President than any other President. (And no, I'm not saying he was responsible for 9/11. That would have happened under Gore, too. And I even think Gore would have done a WORSE job than Bush. I just think Bush is pretty darned bad, and needs to be replaced. I don't think Kerry will be MUCH better, but I do think he will be better. I would much rather see McCain, Lieberman, or even Powell as President.) There is no logical defense of this war NOW. Especially after the faulty reason for the war, and the lack of need for it now.
heh.. Discovery Channel's "Mythbusters" did a segment on something like this. They heard an urban legend that a construction worker was holding onto a piece of 4x8 (foot) plywood, and fell off a 10-story building. The myth was that he managed to hold onto the board and it acted a little like a parachute to ease his landing.
They easily disproved it. (They used a dummy, measured how hard he hit the ground alone, and how hard when his hands were glued to a piece of plywood. He hit HARDER with the plywood, as it made him land on his feet, which crumpled him and smacked his head into the ground with little cushioning, whereas dropping by himself, the dummy hit 'flat', absorbing the shock over his whole body. Still too much shock to survive, but less than with the plywood.)
For $3500, a company employee driving a company car with a well-appointed pet area in the back better be it.
Ah, that's right. For some reason, I thought it only had one RAM slot.