They should be shooting for volume sales of a hot platform, like their current PC strategy is now.
Instead of trying to build a gee-whiz unique product, they should be building a phone that's cheaper than an HTC G1, runs Android and is available to a variety of networks. Dull, sure, but at a pricepoint beating the G1, it doesn't have to be a flashy offering, just usable and capture the enthusiasm of the G1 fanbase and potential market. 3G, Bluetooth, Web and Android apps.
First, it's HUD's job to make sure that housing prices are affordable and do not artificially inflate, and make sure that people can not only move into homes but also not be thrown out on their ass.
Second, it's the SEC's job to make sure that securities sold on the market pass the smell test, which none of these mortgage backed securities did.
The SEC is wholly responsible for this mess. We either need to rebuild it, or reform it, but not ignore it.
The one thing i love about PS3 haters is that they try to state that each console are sold at a loss.
but there's no way to actually *prove* that with out Sony actually saying so. Sony hasn't released any loss/gains on the per-unit for a ps3. So at this point it's no better than wildly guessing.
(I really do owe the writers of "House" on this one, not only that, but it was one of those great Thirteen focused episodes)
It's a finite course of typically Ivermectin.
note, Finite. Note, that there are several known ways to treat these parasites. You're just talking out of your ass. Sure, I'm not a doctor, and I got the inspiration from a TV Show, but I did a little research, googled it, got the wikipedia article on this and understood what was going on in that show. We're talking a rare, and obscure disease and we have a CURE for it. Thanks to Big Pharma. The fact that the treatment will cost you your arm and a leg, however, is a different matter.
Using a device to assist you in counting cards IS. Geico pointing out that drunk driving is illegal, but that doesn't mean that Geico is MAKING drunk driving illegal.
Further more, whoever submitted the post used a clever trick known as synonyms. Citing a violation of one of the many Nevada Revised Statues is the same as, gasp, warning that the app's usage IS ILLEGAL. Granted the headline could've included, "use of" instead of just the app name would be far more clear. But oh well.
Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?
Actually many states have their own constitutional provisions on religion in the public square. So yes, you do have different church-state laws when you cross state lines, within that state's government.
Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.
The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.
yes, but if less legal guns are sold, less legal guns are funneled from the legitimate market place and into the black market. Period. It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.
I do not work for the Brady Campaign, why do you keep thinking I'm in line with these guys? Do I agree with what they've got to say a lot of the time? Sure. But i'm not a member, nor am I representing them. Stop bringing this *incredibly* moot point up. It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.
I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.
You mean to tell me statistics relating to crime and social issues that are nearly 30 years old are *still* relevant? I'd be surprised if they were. Do I really need to work out the logical steps as to what has changed in the last 30 years and why these statistics are most likely not relevant? Software piracy wasn't a problem in the seventies either, so this means we should not worry about IP violations? Despite what you may or may not believe, I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon. The same is true for a number of other issues, like water reclamation laws and speed limit jurisdictions. Could there be a comprehensive gun law that would fit every municipalities particular need? Sure. It'd be complex, but no one in the congress would want to write it, muchless be responsible for it's implications. Much less any lawyer want to take that case, or any judge to try it.
I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER. If my toaster oven was rated for it's ability to KILL A MAN, you couldn't get a slice of Rye in this... okay I live in Nevada, so maybe this state, but not many. Our past or present feelings do not make our arguments more or less valid. Neither is pointing out hypocrisy. It makes me a hypocrite, sure, but on THIS issue I may not be wrong(doesn't make me wrong on the other issue either, it just means that I'm a jerk).
Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.
But there's statistical research done *every day* in this country by firms and institutions that have no inherent bias. Like the Pew Charitable Trust. I worked for one on my local state university's campus. With out any real quantifiable way to determine exactly whether or not more guns in certain metropolitan areas will result in more crime, then all we're doing is appealing to fear. Fear that you'll get shot if you let guns be sold, fear that you'll get shot because you can't stop an
I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?
Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.
Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:
* Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds
* 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person
Obviously biased source with more bad data. They're citing data that's specific to residents of the state of Missouri. Not national data. Either they can't get good information or they're lying because the truth hurts.
* When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
This time, old data is OOOOOOLD. this data is nearly 30 years old. I can't find good relevant data either, i'm guessing neither can they.
* 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed
The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here. Also typically psychopaths aren't that logical. if they were, they wouldn't be committing crimes they'd be getting easily caught for.
* 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.
this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason. It's many other factors. Not only that but the statistic is OLD. Can't these gunfacts guys find facts that are relevant to this decade?
What makes you think that such an amendment would pass any easier than an outright repeal? You'd only need 13 states to stop it.
Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.
Most statistics I've seen suggest that guns are used much more often for legitimate defense than they are for crime. In any case I can think of any number of other tools that are also used in crime and nobody is suggesting that we regulate them.
I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.
Slashdot Mirror
They should be shooting for volume sales of a hot platform, like their current PC strategy is now.
Instead of trying to build a gee-whiz unique product, they should be building a phone that's cheaper than an HTC G1, runs Android and is available to a variety of networks. Dull, sure, but at a pricepoint beating the G1, it doesn't have to be a flashy offering, just usable and capture the enthusiasm of the G1 fanbase and potential market. 3G, Bluetooth, Web and Android apps.
What else would they need?
I'm a CS student and I learned python well enough to migrate a mysql database in under week.
CS shouldn't be about the programming but problem solving.
IA supports Mac, so hopefully I'll be able to get my Shazbot on when it goes live.
I like working.
I hate the obligation to work though.
I have the ability to listen to music on mine.
Ultimately it's the SEC and HUD to do two things.
First, it's HUD's job to make sure that housing prices are affordable and do not artificially inflate, and make sure that people can not only move into homes but also not be thrown out on their ass.
Second, it's the SEC's job to make sure that securities sold on the market pass the smell test, which none of these mortgage backed securities did.
The SEC is wholly responsible for this mess. We either need to rebuild it, or reform it, but not ignore it.
are there even DDR3 capable boards that support 4 CPUs?
Yo dawg I herd u like...
Actually, I can't complete that meme with out wanting to take a small pistol to my temple these days.
The one thing i love about PS3 haters is that they try to state that each console are sold at a loss.
but there's no way to actually *prove* that with out Sony actually saying so. Sony hasn't released any loss/gains on the per-unit for a ps3. So at this point it's no better than wildly guessing.
Yeah, on the ps3 you have a hard time playing games for other consoles on it, on the 360, you have a rough time playing it's own games...
Trust me, Duluth, MN is worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strongyloides#Treatment
(I really do owe the writers of "House" on this one, not only that, but it was one of those great Thirteen focused episodes)
It's a finite course of typically Ivermectin.
note, Finite. Note, that there are several known ways to treat these parasites. You're just talking out of your ass. Sure, I'm not a doctor, and I got the inspiration from a TV Show, but I did a little research, googled it, got the wikipedia article on this and understood what was going on in that show. We're talking a rare, and obscure disease and we have a CURE for it. Thanks to Big Pharma. The fact that the treatment will cost you your arm and a leg, however, is a different matter.
Actually, I don't know what the answer is.
Tell me, other than drugs, what can cure an infection of Strongyloides?
Like what kind of cures? Homeopathy?
"Big Pharma" does some pretty evil shit.
Among them, using drugs to treat diseases is NOT one of them.
(Overpricing them for the American market however...)
Using a device to assist with card counting IS illegal, as well as trying to calculate odds on other table games.
having my phone continuously sniffing for my home network's SSID isn't a potential vector for attack?
openMoko is dead.
# Automatically sync your contacts to your computer via Wi-Fi when you walk in range of your home network.
That's exactly what I need, a potential vector for invasion into my phone.
I like my smartish iPhone, but when syncing i'd rather be in bluetooth class II range, or use a usb sync cable.
Counting cards is NOT illegal
Using a device to assist you in counting cards IS. Geico pointing out that drunk driving is illegal, but that doesn't mean that Geico is MAKING drunk driving illegal.
Further more, whoever submitted the post used a clever trick known as synonyms. Citing a violation of one of the many Nevada Revised Statues is the same as, gasp, warning that the app's usage IS ILLEGAL. Granted the headline could've included, "use of" instead of just the app name would be far more clear. But oh well.
You have all the answers don't you?
I have google.
Translation: Your Constitutional rights change when you cross lines on the map. If gun rights change in different regions then why not free speech laws? What's offensive in South Carolina might be considered perfectly normal in San Francisco. Why not separation of church and state? NYC may not want that monument of the 10 commandments in Central Park but what about that Alabama town that does?
Actually many states have their own constitutional provisions on religion in the public square. So yes, you do have different church-state laws when you cross state lines, within that state's government.
Take a look at the experience of the Philippines sometime. Illegal gun manufacturing is the primary source of guns for criminals over there. They may not be built as precise as the latest offering from Smith & Wesson but they get the job done. Meanwhile the civilians are unarmed. In any case you've already undercut your own argument by pointing out that you are in favor of 'regional' gun laws. So if you accept the fact that gun production will still be going on in the United States and that sales will be legal somewhere you ought to realize the folly of trying to regulate the ownership thereof.
The kind of resources it takes to start that kind of operation are immense, it's also something that's hard to keep secret too. That's why they get away with it in countries like the Philippines where law enforcement just doesn't have the same kind of resources we do. There's also a huge home brew gun manufacturing cottage industry in places in the middle east and southeastern asia, but that doesn't mean it's going to go on here.
yes, but if less legal guns are sold, less legal guns are funneled from the legitimate market place and into the black market. Period. It's not a problem we can stop but bringing down that number is something we *can* do.
If you want to change the 2nd amendment through the amendment process then all the power to you. But the gun control lobby doesn't want to do that because they know they could never pull it off. Instead they seek to erode it and kill the right via death by a thousand cuts. If they can do that with the 2nd amendment then they can do it with any of the other ones.
I do not work for the Brady Campaign, why do you keep thinking I'm in line with these guys? Do I agree with what they've got to say a lot of the time? Sure. But i'm not a member, nor am I representing them. Stop bringing this *incredibly* moot point up. It's like you need a hook to somehow wedge this into your libertarian bullshit.
I don't know what to tell you. You admit that your feelings are based on a "gut feeling" and then dispute the statistics that I provided because they are "too old". It seems to me that you aren't willing to even consider the other point of view. For the record I used to be in favor of gun control until I realized the folly of disarming people who follow the law and the hypocrisy of my position of shouting at the top of my lungs about civil liberties while simultaneously supporting gun control. I'm familiar with the arguments of the gun control position and I'm not convinced that they hold water.
You mean to tell me statistics relating to crime and social issues that are nearly 30 years old are *still* relevant? I'd be surprised if they were. Do I really need to work out the logical steps as to what has changed in the last 30 years and why these statistics are most likely not relevant? Software piracy wasn't a problem in the seventies either, so this means we should not worry about IP violations? Despite what you may or may not believe, I am actually open to listening to the arguments of the pro-gun ownership crowd, which has lead me to believe that gun ownership is simply NOT a national issue. Gun ownership in Alabama is a far different issue than Gun ownership in say, Maryland or California. Gun ownership in say, Atlanta is going to be far different than say Macon. The same is true for a number of other issues, like water reclamation laws and speed limit jurisdictions. Could there be a comprehensive gun law that would fit every municipalities particular need? Sure. It'd be complex, but no one in the congress would want to write it, muchless be responsible for it's implications. Much less any lawyer want to take that case, or any judge to try it.
I *was* pro gun, then I grew up and realized while these things are neat, they're also tools that are uniquely designed for MURDER. If my toaster oven was rated for it's ability to KILL A MAN, you couldn't get a slice of Rye in this ... okay I live in Nevada, so maybe this state, but not many. Our past or present feelings do not make our arguments more or less valid. Neither is pointing out hypocrisy. It makes me a hypocrite, sure, but on THIS issue I may not be wrong(doesn't make me wrong on the other issue either, it just means that I'm a jerk).
Statistics are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer to debate the merits of the particular position without resorting to statistics because they are invariably created by those with an agenda and easily dismissed by the other side. As far as the merits of gun control I would point to the stunning "success" of the War on Drugs as an example of the impossibility of beating the law of supply and demand.
But there's statistical research done *every day* in this country by firms and institutions that have no inherent bias. Like the Pew Charitable Trust. I worked for one on my local state university's campus. With out any real quantifiable way to determine exactly whether or not more guns in certain metropolitan areas will result in more crime, then all we're doing is appealing to fear. Fear that you'll get shot if you let guns be sold, fear that you'll get shot because you can't stop an
I realize that isn't the argument you are trying to make. Just try and understand it from my vantage point. The same people who push gun control are usually the same people who howl at the top of their lungs if they perceive any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights to be under threat. For better or worse the Constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms and I think that right needs to be taken as seriously as all the others. If we can erode that right then why can't we erode the right to free speech or the right against self-incrimination?
Well, maybe some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are pretty important, like the 5th Amendment, or the 3rd(I have a few principles but I stick to them!), the constitution isn't perfect. That's why there's an amendment process. Each amendment sits on it's own merit. the third amendment now is nearly useless(except in say, imminent domain cases). The 2nd is just as susceptible to scrutiny as any other part of our founding documentation. It's part of the reason why we moved away from the Articles of Confederation. Sometimes things do not work like they used to.
Source. Here's a few selected items for your consideration although I think you should think about reading through the whole document if you have the time:
* Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds
Bad data is bad data. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm
* 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person
Obviously biased source with more bad data. They're citing data that's specific to residents of the state of Missouri. Not national data. Either they can't get good information or they're lying because the truth hurts.
* When a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of rape attacks are completed, compared to 32% when unarmed.
This time, old data is OOOOOOLD. this data is nearly 30 years old. I can't find good relevant data either, i'm guessing neither can they.
* 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed
The one thing I've notice is that none of the data from this pamphlet seems to originate from this century, and the methodology is typically incredibly flawed. Particularly this one here. Also typically psychopaths aren't that logical. if they were, they wouldn't be committing crimes they'd be getting easily caught for.
* 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are "hot burglaries" which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U.S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a "hot burglary" rate of only 13%.
this is a misleading statistic designed to make you think that it's gun control laws and ONLY gun control laws that are the reason why these stats are higher, when they're not the reason. It's many other factors. Not only that but the statistic is OLD. Can't these gunfacts guys find facts that are relevant to this decade?
What makes you think that such an amendment would pass any easier than an outright repeal? You'd only need 13 states to stop it.
Still doesn't make it a nonsequitor argument. I really don't care about the implication on the 2nd Amendment until I know whether or not this is actually a good idea.
Most statistics I've seen suggest that guns are used much more often for legitimate defense than they are for crime. In any case I can think of any number of other tools that are also used in crime and nobody is suggesting that we regulate them.
I'm willing to admit I was just guessing based on gut feeling, what about you? Cite your source please.