You can make any definition to be broader and broader until uselessness. You seem to equate all kinds of communication with content. If that is your definition, then any electronic device is able to be used to optimally generate some subset of it, even dumbphones.
In your own example, calling your client with a dumbphone and warning him is even more optimal than sending him an e-mail typed in a tablet or in a laptop. Now if you want to send him an e-mail with a day to day list of dishes he should eat for a week for example, a laptop is considerably more efficient than a tablet.
The point is, although you can generate and store information in tablets their interfaces are suboptimal to generate any information, and the point where a tablet's size and portability become poor trade ofs for its lack of input efficiency comes very quickly as the amount of data needed to be generated increases.
Well, and what I said is that if your work does not require content creation tablets are a good tool, but when it does, which is the case quite often laptops are clearly superior. And no content creation doesn't mean only what you can do with word processors and spreadsheets, programming. Making CAD drawings, 3D Meshes, creating models in Matlab or Matematica, and many other tasks are best performed in laptops than tablets.
As the GP said, if the work requires content creation you are better served by a PC, if you just have to annotate or use content (as in checking flight charts, for example), tablets are perfect for the job.
LOL. Finally your true nature surfaces. You are a coward and ironically you are the liar here too. The saddest part is that you believe in your own lies and that is pathological. Seek for psychiatric help, my friend, you desperately need it.
Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy, not even your own defective arguments, but you wouldn't recognize a fallacy and be able to categorize it even if it bit you in the ass.
The truth is, you have no point, no argument, nothing besides your stubbornness and willingness to keep repeating your own defective statements time and again. You are a fool, and even more of a fool for thinking you are something else.
That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't. So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes. Therefore by your own admission there is no motive for more strict gun control, even if you were right about the black market. You are on the ropes here, my friend, and badly.
Now even if you only had only referred to the black market, which wouldn't make any sense as an isolated argument. Criminals in UK get their guns from the black market, and they are far in excess, per capita, of the guns in the hands of criminals in Norway, even though guns are illegal in UK and legal in Norway. So again, your theory is debunked.
Sure it does. You say that UK has less gun related crimes per capita than US because guns cannot be bought there legally. I said that Norway has less gun related crimes per capita than UK even though you can buy guns legally there.
Then in a desperate attempt to change the subject, realizing you have absolutely no argument, you decided to link Breivik incident, which, again, does nothing to support your theory. Actually it does nothing to support any theory that lax gun control help to create Breivik's specific kind of incident either, as UK had considerably more incidents of this sort than Norway too.
Time to admit you are wrong, as you usually are, put your tail between your legs and go away, Basil.
And in Norway where civilians can legally buy and own guns, you have a lot less crimes with firearms per capita than in UK. Comparing two different countries with two very different cultures and social reality to make a statistical point is not only ridiculous, it is maliciously fallacious.
Most guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners. If there were no legal owners, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop dramatically.
Certainly not true. Most guns used in crimes are not "taken from legal owners", they are purchased legally and used by their legal owners to commit crimes, mostly because it is legal to buy them. If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.
Yes, I know the standard answer to that, "the government lies" but everyone lies, so nobody has high moral ground.
Your conclusion cannot be taken from your assumptions even if you could prove them. Moral ground is a subjective concept, and which lies are told, where and when are very significant to determine who has it.
But you have a point, statistics are easily manipulated, hard to be verified, and subjected to biased interpretation. Considering that the only rational attitude is not to base decisions on them unless you have almost unanimous opinions about them, all possible eyes verifying them and it is all but impossible to deny them. Failing that they are best ignored.
I am of the opinion that whenever the government cannot prove the need to regulate something and the efficacy of its methods it has no business restricting individual freedoms in this. I abhor the idea of a paternal government that thinks it knows what is best for its citizens and feels in the right to take decisions from them.
Illusions. Criminals will always have means to get guns, in the same way people can get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a "war" that can't be won.
Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.
The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals. The latter is unavoidable no matter how convenient it may be to pretend it is not.
Sure they do, with each unit deciding to do whatever it sees fit because there is no chain of command, while the enemy is doing coordinated attacks.
There is a motive for the military to use those nice computers and network infrastructure they have, my good sir, and if you want a hint it it is not as paperweight.
Only sheer ignorance can justify your failure to give the due importance to communication and information acquisition in any military conflict.
Your car analogy is ridiculous. The "service" you participate in never warned that it was using your hardware to do another tasks that had nothing to do with the service you contracted, and never asked your permission to do such a thing.
You may delude yourself in any way you see fit, but installing a trojan to run an unauthorized program in my system is a criminal offence. Period. It doesn't matter what this program does. If I, had done the same thing with a program sold to the government for example, or to a bank, I would be in jail.
Was what they did wrong? Of course. But is it some crazy thing we all need to be getting uppity about?
Sure it is. They abused the user trust, installed unauthorized software inside his machine and received unauthorized information from that machine. They should go to jail because of it.
Nothing regarding EULA applies to this case, but if you want to talk about it, even if they had put it in an EULA it would still be a crime in many countries, maybe even in US where legislation by EULA is a common practice.
Nah, a better analogy is, you hired me to change your tires, and I decided to put stuff in your car and copy your car lock to be able to access it and get my stuff whenever I wanted. Then when you found out I had copied the car keys I apologized and donated the results of my endeavor to a charity.
Analogies are always wrong in the end, but wrong as it may be mine is still a lot better than yours.
What the GP said still stands. If he, as a person and not a corporation had done exactly that, admitting it, and donating the results would fall very short from freeing his ass from prosecution. He would more likely than not end in jail.
The Internet is more than the infrastructure. It is the sum of the infrastructure and all the agents acting upon it. It may as well be considered a sentient being, although a very schizophrenic one, and as such it does actively resist censorship.
The natural progression of a truly free market is money agglutination, monopolies and the collapse of the economy because of speculation. That is why there never was a real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism and there will never be.
Free market is a concept that resides in the realm of fantasy, together with communism.
Slashdot Mirror
You can make any definition to be broader and broader until uselessness. You seem to equate all kinds of communication with content. If that is your definition, then any electronic device is able to be used to optimally generate some subset of it, even dumbphones.
In your own example, calling your client with a dumbphone and warning him is even more optimal than sending him an e-mail typed in a tablet or in a laptop. Now if you want to send him an e-mail with a day to day list of dishes he should eat for a week for example, a laptop is considerably more efficient than a tablet.
The point is, although you can generate and store information in tablets their interfaces are suboptimal to generate any information, and the point where a tablet's size and portability become poor trade ofs for its lack of input efficiency comes very quickly as the amount of data needed to be generated increases.
So, you you agree with my thesis, right? Tablets are not adequate if you need to create content.
Well, and what I said is that if your work does not require content creation tablets are a good tool, but when it does, which is the case quite often laptops are clearly superior. And no content creation doesn't mean only what you can do with word processors and spreadsheets, programming. Making CAD drawings, 3D Meshes, creating models in Matlab or Matematica, and many other tasks are best performed in laptops than tablets.
You seem to think you made a point. Please elaborate about the supposed relation between remote payment and content creation.
As the GP said, if the work requires content creation you are better served by a PC, if you just have to annotate or use content (as in checking flight charts, for example), tablets are perfect for the job.
If they intend to create any real content in this time, they are much better served by a laptop PC.
That is your theory, which you fail to prove, mostly because it can't be proved, being false and all.
LOL. Finally your true nature surfaces. You are a coward and ironically you are the liar here too. The saddest part is that you believe in your own lies and that is pathological. Seek for psychiatric help, my friend, you desperately need it.
Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy, not even your own defective arguments, but you wouldn't recognize a fallacy and be able to categorize it even if it bit you in the ass.
The truth is, you have no point, no argument, nothing besides your stubbornness and willingness to keep repeating your own defective statements time and again. You are a fool, and even more of a fool for thinking you are something else.
That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't. So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes. Therefore by your own admission there is no motive for more strict gun control, even if you were right about the black market. You are on the ropes here, my friend, and badly.
Now even if you only had only referred to the black market, which wouldn't make any sense as an isolated argument. Criminals in UK get their guns from the black market, and they are far in excess, per capita, of the guns in the hands of criminals in Norway, even though guns are illegal in UK and legal in Norway. So again, your theory is debunked.
Sure it does. You say that UK has less gun related crimes per capita than US because guns cannot be bought there legally. I said that Norway has less gun related crimes per capita than UK even though you can buy guns legally there.
Then in a desperate attempt to change the subject, realizing you have absolutely no argument, you decided to link Breivik incident, which, again, does nothing to support your theory. Actually it does nothing to support any theory that lax gun control help to create Breivik's specific kind of incident either, as UK had considerably more incidents of this sort than Norway too.
Time to admit you are wrong, as you usually are, put your tail between your legs and go away, Basil.
Breivik's case does absolutely nothing to support your argument that gun crimes decrease if guns are made illegal.
And in Norway where civilians can legally buy and own guns, you have a lot less crimes with firearms per capita than in UK. Comparing two different countries with two very different cultures and social reality to make a statistical point is not only ridiculous, it is maliciously fallacious.
Most guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners. If there were no legal owners, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop dramatically.
Certainly not true. Most guns used in crimes are not "taken from legal owners", they are purchased legally and used by their legal owners to commit crimes, mostly because it is legal to buy them. If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.
Yes, I know the standard answer to that, "the government lies" but everyone lies, so nobody has high moral ground.
Your conclusion cannot be taken from your assumptions even if you could prove them. Moral ground is a subjective concept, and which lies are told, where and when are very significant to determine who has it.
But you have a point, statistics are easily manipulated, hard to be verified, and subjected to biased interpretation. Considering that the only rational attitude is not to base decisions on them unless you have almost unanimous opinions about them, all possible eyes verifying them and it is all but impossible to deny them. Failing that they are best ignored.
I am of the opinion that whenever the government cannot prove the need to regulate something and the efficacy of its methods it has no business restricting individual freedoms in this. I abhor the idea of a paternal government that thinks it knows what is best for its citizens and feels in the right to take decisions from them.
Illusions. Criminals will always have means to get guns, in the same way people can get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a "war" that can't be won.
Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.
The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals. The latter is unavoidable no matter how convenient it may be to pretend it is not.
Not when nobody wants your product. They will most likely end with less customers now that the market is open than they were before.
Sure they do, with each unit deciding to do whatever it sees fit because there is no chain of command, while the enemy is doing coordinated attacks.
There is a motive for the military to use those nice computers and network infrastructure they have, my good sir, and if you want a hint it it is not as paperweight.
Only sheer ignorance can justify your failure to give the due importance to communication and information acquisition in any military conflict.
Your car analogy is ridiculous. The "service" you participate in never warned that it was using your hardware to do another tasks that had nothing to do with the service you contracted, and never asked your permission to do such a thing.
You may delude yourself in any way you see fit, but installing a trojan to run an unauthorized program in my system is a criminal offence. Period. It doesn't matter what this program does. If I, had done the same thing with a program sold to the government for example, or to a bank, I would be in jail.
Was what they did wrong? Of course. But is it some crazy thing we all need to be getting uppity about?
Sure it is. They abused the user trust, installed unauthorized software inside his machine and received unauthorized information from that machine. They should go to jail because of it.
Nothing regarding EULA applies to this case, but if you want to talk about it, even if they had put it in an EULA it would still be a crime in many countries, maybe even in US where legislation by EULA is a common practice.
By all means. I will bring the soft drinks.
Nah, a better analogy is, you hired me to change your tires, and I decided to put stuff in your car and copy your car lock to be able to access it and get my stuff whenever I wanted. Then when you found out I had copied the car keys I apologized and donated the results of my endeavor to a charity.
Analogies are always wrong in the end, but wrong as it may be mine is still a lot better than yours.
What the GP said still stands. If he, as a person and not a corporation had done exactly that, admitting it, and donating the results would fall very short from freeing his ass from prosecution. He would more likely than not end in jail.
The Internet is more than the infrastructure. It is the sum of the infrastructure and all the agents acting upon it. It may as well be considered a sentient being, although a very schizophrenic one, and as such it does actively resist censorship.
The natural progression of a truly free market is money agglutination, monopolies and the collapse of the economy because of speculation. That is why there never was a real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism and there will never be.
Free market is a concept that resides in the realm of fantasy, together with communism.