Well, there's your problem. MS Paint also slows my computer to a crawl if I open 900 enormous images. Don't open so many tabs. And don't hold them that way.
In 1988, Brazil had a two-cilinder, 800cc car that fit 4 people and averaged about 45-50mpg on gasoline (actually "gasoline" is 25% ethanol here, making the mileage per gallon even more expressive). It wasn't exactly powerful, of course, but it was perfectly functional. The company that made it ended up going bankrupt because it couldn't compete with huge automakers such as Fiat after a dramatic tax reduction on imports. However technology was arealdy there, in the 80s, to get such figures as 50mpg, so it shouldn't be news 22 years later, when engine efficiency has increased dramatically. It still is, though, and that's baffling.
A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made.
True. However, typically it does have a will of its own. Who actually runs a corporation? The CEO, obviously, but he himself works for the shareholders, and if he's not raising the profits/price of their stocks, he's out. In a sense, he's a hostage. A very well treated hostage, but one nonetheless. Shareholders, however, are very similar. If profit/price of the stocks is not raised, then they lose money. And due to investors being typically very panicky, any unfamiliar drop means there will be plenty of people trying to get out of the boat before it sinks, which means more drops etc ad infinitum. Se you have to find a way to keep profiting more and more even if you're doing really well already, or you might lose a lot. Looking at it like that, it's hard to find someone who's in charge. We might as well say that the only one they're all working for is the corporation. Not that it jusifies taxing them, of course. I was just sidetracking. What justifies taxing them is their using of governmental institutions. They use court houses, roads, policemen etc. Actually, nowadays they use them more than citizens, I think.
Common doesn't mean smart. But let's assume you have no other way of dealing with your garbage (which is highly implausible). If you absolutely must burn it, then secure the area around the fire. Wet the soil, cut the grass, surround it with stones, keep a hose ready etc. Especially - and I cannot stress this enough - if you know you don't have firemen to assistt you in case something goes awry.
The point I was trying to make is that you need roads to use your car. The government, and only the government, provides roads. So if, either by you refusing to take the exams or by flunking them, you do not have its permission to drive on them, you simply cannot use your car. Surely you can drive around in your garage, but when restricted like that, a car is reduced to something very useless. Likewise, if you do not want to accept the software license, fine, but I think you'll end up with useless hardware.
As for your scenario, it is flawed. Cars already come with emission control software and removing, discarding, bypassing or tampering with it is illegal, even if the car is yours, at least in some countries. In mine, there's an annual inspection and if they find anything unusual, you have a couple of weeks to restore it to perfect functionality and factory standards, otherwise you are forbidden to drive your car. Changing "emission control software" for "Cd player" would be better, at least regarding updates, but then there's the first license that you have to accept, and what I was referencing with my road analogy. That license already states that you'll shut up and accept any software modifications the company decides to make to your device. So if you want to decline, do it immediately or refer to my first paragraph, because by then, as far as the license you agreed to is concerned, when it comes to your device, the manufacturer is your government.
I, on the other hand, usually distrust the free market. If the FD started to benefit from fires, then they'd have conflicting interests. You can bet they would take a huge step back in promoting prevention and safety, for instance. In the worst case scenario, we'd have fire marshall Bear Gryils setting fire to a few houses that didn't buy "protection". But that's not what happened here. How dumb do you have to be to set your own house on fire? If you have a hose and a fire extinguisher (and you should), you will never need the fire dept. Unless you're really, really stupid and decide to, say, BURN TRASH ON YOUR YARD. Really, it's all kinds of idiotic. Not to say environmentally ghastly. So I'd prefer not to have coverage, because I don't really like the idea of funding other people's stupidity. I find it similar to car insurance. We all should pay the government a fee in the event that we harm someone else, to pay for their hospital bills, granted. But I don't want the government also repairing my car, as that'd be expensive and lead to a much higher tax, one that a lot of people probably couldn't afford and will never need. On the other hand, fire can be deadly and could be compared to the hospital bills in my metaphor instead of car repairs, so I'm a bit torn.
I, for one, would welcome a full-fledged OS on a tablet. It'd take a little longer to boot, sure, and demand more powerful hardware, but it's not like there isn't an upside. Desktop OSs are much less closed, with you tipically having a lot more control over your applications and preferences. In order to pay for the superior specs and remain competitive, battery life could be downgraded. Because, frankly, when are we that far away from a power source? Most of the tablet users I know tend to never take their gadget out of the house, anyway, so the battery could be entirely discarded. Then you could add a physical keyboard, because even the best virtual ones suck in comparison to any $5 real counterpart. All that's left now is to make it modular, so if my screen or processor malfunctions, I can simply replace it instead of having to redundantly rebuy a lot of components I already have. Now THAT'd be a useful device. I'd call it a "personal computer".
You can't exactly "win" a war without it ending. And for it to end you have to achieve surrendering negotiate a cease-fire or obliterate every single enemy. We all know number three isn't happening, especially since the U.S. if facing an ideology. Worse still: an ideology of hatred. The more they put pressure, the worse the rebound will be. 09/11 was all about retaliation against U.S. meddling in foreign affairs. Do they really think going there, guns blazing, is going to prevent another insurrection? Yes, genius thinking. So, if #3 is out, #1 is probably not happening because the Tal... I mean "opposing force" has very strong reasons to be pissed and #2 is out of the question because the U.S. has very strong reasons to be pissed...
That's debatable. Oil prices would obviously rise, but the government has already spent so much on the war that it could probably subsidise the importation, if needed, from Venezuela and even manage to save a few bucks in comparison, so that the populace would not have to bear the sudden cost increase of gas. So yes, the soldiers are defending a lifestyle. But whose?
Because you're creative enough to explain in words to a green / red colorblind person what the difference between your perception of the color green and the color red is?
Sure I can. Well, with the aid of a few props. It’s not that difficult.
*holds up a transparent green cellophane in front of your face* This is what green looks like, if you filter out all the other colors... *holds up red* and this is what red looks like. They look the same to you, but I can distinguish between them. See how the tree over there looks light through this filter *green one* but black through this other filter *red one*? That’s because the tree is green. That car is red, *repeats filter demonstrations* light through the red filter and dark through the green one. And this banana is yellow, which is a combination of red and green: its colour looks light through either filter because it has both colours.
Ok, so what would be the few props needed to convey epileptic emotions? A Pokemon DVD and a Taser?
Slashdot Mirror
Xeroxing a Kindle seems harder.
Me too. Pictures were hard at first, but I got good at ASCII art.
Well, there's your problem. MS Paint also slows my computer to a crawl if I open 900 enormous images. Don't open so many tabs. And don't hold them that way.
In 1988, Brazil had a two-cilinder, 800cc car that fit 4 people and averaged about 45-50mpg on gasoline (actually "gasoline" is 25% ethanol here, making the mileage per gallon even more expressive). It wasn't exactly powerful, of course, but it was perfectly functional. The company that made it ended up going bankrupt because it couldn't compete with huge automakers such as Fiat after a dramatic tax reduction on imports. However technology was arealdy there, in the 80s, to get such figures as 50mpg, so it shouldn't be news 22 years later, when engine efficiency has increased dramatically. It still is, though, and that's baffling.
A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made.
True. However, typically it does have a will of its own. Who actually runs a corporation? The CEO, obviously, but he himself works for the shareholders, and if he's not raising the profits/price of their stocks, he's out. In a sense, he's a hostage. A very well treated hostage, but one nonetheless. Shareholders, however, are very similar. If profit/price of the stocks is not raised, then they lose money. And due to investors being typically very panicky, any unfamiliar drop means there will be plenty of people trying to get out of the boat before it sinks, which means more drops etc ad infinitum. Se you have to find a way to keep profiting more and more even if you're doing really well already, or you might lose a lot. Looking at it like that, it's hard to find someone who's in charge. We might as well say that the only one they're all working for is the corporation. Not that it jusifies taxing them, of course. I was just sidetracking. What justifies taxing them is their using of governmental institutions. They use court houses, roads, policemen etc. Actually, nowadays they use them more than citizens, I think.
At least elites today don't wear as much ridiculous clothing.
Really? I see a lot of them wearing suits when it's 35C/95F or hotter. Sure seems ridiculous to me.
Common doesn't mean smart. But let's assume you have no other way of dealing with your garbage (which is highly implausible). If you absolutely must burn it, then secure the area around the fire. Wet the soil, cut the grass, surround it with stones, keep a hose ready etc. Especially - and I cannot stress this enough - if you know you don't have firemen to assistt you in case something goes awry.
Oh, wait.
And this is modded "funny"? Should be modded "sad".
Next thing you know Obama will be saying they have evidence that UPS has WMDs.
Too late, you'll owe me a hundred bucks.
Yes, this seems especially ludicrous. It's like someone patenting today the act of bicycling.
boggled by what your trying to say. is english not your first language?
I used 'your' correctly.
Yes. Yes you did. Once.
Yes, they are so good that people flock to them, thus the overcrowding.
...and infrared sensors that can detect objects (such as children) much smaller than the human eye can, or...
Yeah, I myself run over microscopic children a lot.
The point I was trying to make is that you need roads to use your car. The government, and only the government, provides roads. So if, either by you refusing to take the exams or by flunking them, you do not have its permission to drive on them, you simply cannot use your car. Surely you can drive around in your garage, but when restricted like that, a car is reduced to something very useless. Likewise, if you do not want to accept the software license, fine, but I think you'll end up with useless hardware.
As for your scenario, it is flawed. Cars already come with emission control software and removing, discarding, bypassing or tampering with it is illegal, even if the car is yours, at least in some countries. In mine, there's an annual inspection and if they find anything unusual, you have a couple of weeks to restore it to perfect functionality and factory standards, otherwise you are forbidden to drive your car. Changing "emission control software" for "Cd player" would be better, at least regarding updates, but then there's the first license that you have to accept, and what I was referencing with my road analogy. That license already states that you'll shut up and accept any software modifications the company decides to make to your device. So if you want to decline, do it immediately or refer to my first paragraph, because by then, as far as the license you agreed to is concerned, when it comes to your device, the manufacturer is your government.
It'd be just like owning a car but having no driver's license.
I, on the other hand, usually distrust the free market. If the FD started to benefit from fires, then they'd have conflicting interests. You can bet they would take a huge step back in promoting prevention and safety, for instance. In the worst case scenario, we'd have fire marshall Bear Gryils setting fire to a few houses that didn't buy "protection". But that's not what happened here. How dumb do you have to be to set your own house on fire? If you have a hose and a fire extinguisher (and you should), you will never need the fire dept. Unless you're really, really stupid and decide to, say, BURN TRASH ON YOUR YARD. Really, it's all kinds of idiotic. Not to say environmentally ghastly. So I'd prefer not to have coverage, because I don't really like the idea of funding other people's stupidity. I find it similar to car insurance. We all should pay the government a fee in the event that we harm someone else, to pay for their hospital bills, granted. But I don't want the government also repairing my car, as that'd be expensive and lead to a much higher tax, one that a lot of people probably couldn't afford and will never need. On the other hand, fire can be deadly and could be compared to the hospital bills in my metaphor instead of car repairs, so I'm a bit torn.
Ok, so the trick is to gag her quickly, before she can tell you her age.
I, for one, would welcome a full-fledged OS on a tablet. It'd take a little longer to boot, sure, and demand more powerful hardware, but it's not like there isn't an upside. Desktop OSs are much less closed, with you tipically having a lot more control over your applications and preferences. In order to pay for the superior specs and remain competitive, battery life could be downgraded. Because, frankly, when are we that far away from a power source? Most of the tablet users I know tend to never take their gadget out of the house, anyway, so the battery could be entirely discarded. Then you could add a physical keyboard, because even the best virtual ones suck in comparison to any $5 real counterpart. All that's left now is to make it modular, so if my screen or processor malfunctions, I can simply replace it instead of having to redundantly rebuy a lot of components I already have. Now THAT'd be a useful device. I'd call it a "personal computer".
You can't exactly "win" a war without it ending. And for it to end you have to achieve surrendering negotiate a cease-fire or obliterate every single enemy. We all know number three isn't happening, especially since the U.S. if facing an ideology. Worse still: an ideology of hatred. The more they put pressure, the worse the rebound will be. 09/11 was all about retaliation against U.S. meddling in foreign affairs. Do they really think going there, guns blazing, is going to prevent another insurrection? Yes, genius thinking. So, if #3 is out, #1 is probably not happening because the Tal... I mean "opposing force" has very strong reasons to be pissed and #2 is out of the question because the U.S. has very strong reasons to be pissed...
That's debatable. Oil prices would obviously rise, but the government has already spent so much on the war that it could probably subsidise the importation, if needed, from Venezuela and even manage to save a few bucks in comparison, so that the populace would not have to bear the sudden cost increase of gas. So yes, the soldiers are defending a lifestyle. But whose?
Yes, but at midnight the carriage will turn into Windows Vista...
"The CIA assumed the bug was a feature." Are CIA agents being issued iPhones, by any chance?
Because you're creative enough to explain in words to a green / red colorblind person what the difference between your perception of the color green and the color red is?
Sure I can. Well, with the aid of a few props. It’s not that difficult.
*holds up a transparent green cellophane in front of your face* This is what green looks like, if you filter out all the other colors... *holds up red* and this is what red looks like. They look the same to you, but I can distinguish between them. See how the tree over there looks light through this filter *green one* but black through this other filter *red one*? That’s because the tree is green. That car is red, *repeats filter demonstrations* light through the red filter and dark through the green one. And this banana is yellow, which is a combination of red and green: its colour looks light through either filter because it has both colours.
Ok, so what would be the few props needed to convey epileptic emotions? A Pokemon DVD and a Taser?