Why exactly could they supposedly get the 256mb chips so easily as to make a $35 machine, but 512 would suddenly be a monumental hurdle? If you can get a deal one one, why not the other?
I am still interested in the assertion of 256 being chosen, because of problems getting bulk deals, being backed up. Perhaps a link to a forum discussion or something elaborating on why certain choices were made? I'd love to see the reasoning behind some of the design choices.
Boeing makes a reliable way to get from point A to point B.
Aren't you taking a joke a bit too seriously?
From my point of view the way you wrote that you appeared to be making fun of what my standards for accepting SSDs for use in my own machines and are now trying to backpedal for using a bad analogy. Which one is true doesn't really matter to me. When dealing with written words between people who don't know each other it is very easy to have humor be interpreted as an insult if is not careful in how they write, it happens to everyone. Not gonna get bent out of shape over it.
Anyway, back to discussing WD.
Nvidia at least designs their own graphics chips. If WD has any chip design experience at all, it is in their drive controller.
and that is the part that seems to have given SSD users such headaches in the past.
And I'm sure some of that experience applies to SSDs, but they have no memory chip experience at all.
Apple didn't have any cell phone experience either, that didn't seem to stop them. As far as I can see, WD easily has the resources to make a SSD if they want to. Though at this point in the game they seem to be betting on spinning rust continuing to be vastly cheaper per gb than SSD, which could be either a very smart or very stupid move, time will tell.
The manufacturers weren't convinced there'd be enough demand for the Pi and therefore getting a deal for 512MB chips would indeed have increased the price of the device quite a bit.
I was not aware of this, do you have a link elaborating on that? Given that the VIA APC has 512 of ram and almost the same price I am slightly skeptical of this claim.
Also, your argument is like saying that they should never ever do upgraded versions of anything whatsoever because -- gee whiz! -- there will be new versions of stuff to make use of new possibilities!
No it is not like that at all. There IS such a thing as reving your product so often that nobody wants it, see Desktop Linux for proof of this. With a constantly shifting baseline, a good base of stable well developed software cannot be created because developers are constantly redeveloping for the new baseline. If the Pi was out for 2 years before the 512 came out, that would be one thing, but reving the baseline so drastically mere months after the initial hardware shipped is not smart when you are trying to get your new product established.
Come to think of it, hasn't Microsoft gotten a TON of flack for doing the exact same thing for WinPhone7? Depreciating the old version by reving the baseline to a new version just as the old version was starting to establish itself?
It's not 1994 anymore, ram is dirt cheap. Putting in 512mb from the start SHOULD have been obvious at the design meeting, would not have added significant cost, and would not have fragmented the software base, as now there will be different version for stuff with differing amounts of ram.
Ummmmmm, your analogy is a non sequitur. Boeing has never made cars. Western digital does make storage devices, so getting into SSD would be a logical step for them. You example would be logically coherent if you replaced "car" with "single engine prop planes", but even that's a stretch since SSDs are a growing market share while single engine prop planes are a rather mature market.
Nvidia doesn't own a single chip fab either, what does that have to do with anything?
Just like with SSDs, early ones were still faster than spinning rust, but horrifically unreliable. If you were someone who wanted the bleeding edge you still bought them, but for people who value reliability, we waited for the later models to come out.
I know I said in the past that I would buy one when Western Digital started making them, but the fact that Intel has a 5 year warranty on their SSDs now for awhile and the specs of the new 520 series I went ahead and got one. Combine that with finally listening to hairyfeet and switching from Firefox to Comodo Dragon, I've seen a nice speed boost. (That and now there are Chrome equivalents to my favorite plugins.)
Yup. Years ago the people said, "THE STATES ARE JERKS, WE NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND STOP THEM." How well has that worked out? Federal government is being a jerk, who are we gonna get to put them back in line?
Once the real crisis hits it would be wonderful if we could get back to what the US was originally, a series of self governing states with a federal government whose main purpose was national defense.I want to live in a US where people care more about who their Governor is than who is President.
The whole point of the Federal system was to copy what made Western Europe rise to prominence, decentralized power. No leader could become too aggressive in taxes or rules because people and their money would simply leave. We saw this during the Jim Crow South. As bad as that was for blacks, it is a perfect example of how the system was supposed to work. Yes the southern states enacted stupidly racist legislation and the states paid for it. What young person in 1950 would look in the mirror and say to themselves, "I'm going to go make my fortune in Alabama." NOBODY.
About 6.5 million blacks between 1910 and 1970 simply moved from the Jim Crow South to states without those laws.Those that left tended to be the most motivated, hardest working, and most talented. Businesses did not want to move or operate in the South because maintaining two separate facilities for whites and blacks is expensive. As a result of their stupid actions the South became an economic backwater.
The vital part of this equation was the easy of movement between jurisdictions, both by the jurisdictions being small and movement between them being free. For a practical example,for people reading this to consider, imagine what it would take you to move two states away from where you are now. now imagine what it would take you to move two countries away from where you are now. The easier it is to move, the sooner the government will be punished for its stupid policies. First the money leaves, then the people leave.
Very few people have a positive view of Washington DC, the only reason anyone listens to what any of them say is because they hand out money. Once the printing press no longer works it's gonna get mighty interesting. They won't be able to use the military since, for starters, the military industrial complex has resulted in our military having such overpriced and under performing equipment that anything that actually does work will soon be out of service due to cost and logistics, leaving the DC forces with little more than M113s and C130s, much like what we had in Iraq, except with far less air support.
Second, you're going to have a portion desert and go fight for the state or local militias, whatever happens to pop up, and take as much heavy hardware as they can. How many actually do this is a wild card, but if the currency collapses and the infantry are basically working for food, expect to see fragging incidents begin at the very least.
Third, our military is so effective because everyone can trust everyone to do their job. In such a domestic crisis we will see that go out the window, in Vietnam, sabotage by conscripts was commonplace. Sabotage will be at the back of every ones mind and everyone will be watching their back.
Hopefully it will be a mostly peaceful transition back to the states asserting their sovereignty, trying different things out, copying what works and abandoning what doesn't. While people are free to move to the jurisdictions they find most attractive. Hope for the best,prepare for the worst.
I think you are more accurately describing Mitbama. Please elaborate on how Gary Johnson is not better than Mitbama, as facts and history are not on your side.
Yes, working 10 hours a day in a 19th century factory must have sucked, but it sucked a whole lot less than working 14 hour days on a farm for half the pay. You are looking at it backwards. Do not compare our working conditions to them. Compare their working conditions to what they were 10 or 20 years earlier.
Look at the computers we had 20 years ago. Compared to what we have today they sucked. They sucked a lot. Was this because we had "robber barons" in the computer industry and no government regulation? No, it was because the computer industry was so technologically primitive that it had no way to produce the computers we have today, the garbage we had then was the best that could be produced. Likewise with 19th century capitalism, the technology available was so freakishly primitive by today's standards that it was the best they could do.
Also to explain the relatively poor working conditions is the idea of a compensating differential. Workers will accept poor working conditions if they are paid appropriately to compensate them. During the 19th century workers wanted high wages and were willing to put up with poor working conditions to get them. As technology improved and wages continued to increase, workers began to be willing to sacrifice wages for better working conditions, if the cost to improve the working conditions was less than the cost of extra wages then the business owner would be stupid not to make the improvements, as they would save him money. Not to mention that it is not in an employers interest to have a needlessly dangerous factory. Workmen in the machinery means downtime and cleanup costs, thus if there is a cost effective safety improvement it will eventually be put in place. Thus, as the 19th century wore on, working conditions improved as various safety technologies became economically viable and the workers became wealthy enough to begin considering.
BTW, in case you were wondering, the move for the 8 hour day was actually "8 hour day for 10 hour pay". Businesses had no problem with an 8 hour day if the workers were paid 8 hours of wages. Anyone reading this go to your boss and ask to work 20% fewer hours, but still get the same weekly pay, see how far you get.
The simple fact is that the 19th century saw the pay, living, and working conditions of the working class rise faster than anytime in history while at the same time prices fell steadily for 100 years. The people falsely called "robber barons" got rich by improving the lives of the average worker by providing better products that cost less.
Rockefeller's crime? Over the course of his leadership of Standard Oil, the price of kerosine, used for illumination, fell from 58 cents per gallon in 1865 to 8 cents per gallon in the late 1870's. Imagine if someone did that today, took the price of gasoline from $4 per gallon to 60 cents per gallon. Would you be demanding he be hung in the pubic square? Or would you be throwing money at him for his 60 cent per gallon gasoline?
Carnagie's crime? Under his leadership of Carnegie steel, the price of steel rails fell from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton in 1898.
Why exactly are we supposed to hate these people? Do these same people hate Steve Jobs for what he did?
Agree on some points, disagree on others. This isn't directed at you, but it's just thoughts and observations that I thought of while reading your post.
Fully agree that political correctness is harmful to the very groups those expounding it claim to be wishing to help. You don't help someone with a problem by making excuses or shifting the blame away from them. Bill Cosby had it right with his "pound cake" speech.
If some of these blacks think they are being "oppressed", just wait until the retaliation comes if the black community where these things are a problem doesn't get its act in order.
I disagree about the chemically laden food. They eat it because it is fast, it is actually VERY expensive compared to raw ingredients. I try to live frugally where possible (since I know SS and medicare won't be there when I'm old.) and the one thing I NEVER buy is the highly processed food. It's not that I don't like it, I LOVE hot pockets and all that other stuff. I don't buy it because it is simply too darn expensive vs what I can cook myself. Frozen chicken breasts are relatively cheap, pork chops can be bought when on sale, wrapped individually, and frozen. You can fit a lot into a refrigerator freezer if you do some basic planning. Boiled potatoes are a good option as well. (I LOVE boiled potatoes.) Most of my cooking consists of "put stuff in pot, let simmer for an hour." NOT hard to do and once you figure out how to flavor it you can get a decent amount of variety for not a lot of money. If I was willing to put even a little more time into cooking my options would increase greatly, but I'm not bothered by bland food.
If you're poor, don't expect a lot of variety, you're probably going to be eating the same thing over and over like much of the world does. However if you do that, then you'll be able to spend the money you now have towards more important things, like paying down any outstanding debts you have, buying or repairing a car so you are not limited to whatever jobs are nearby. Perhaps attending to medical needs, a new pair of glasses to replace that 12 year old pair with an out-of-date prescription. I see that all the time, pun fully intended, in the jails I do work at. You think someone is illiterate by how they take so long to read and understand a form, turns out they can't see because they haven't had their vision checked in 15 years. (Also explains how they got caught in the first place.) Seriously, nowadays $200-$300 will get you a new prescription and set of glasses. I've seen it done for $150, including the eye exam, if you are willing to have Drew Carry frames and coke bottle lenses. Today the checkup is going to be the most expensive part, shop around.
When you have as many as 200+ people in an area perfectly willing to go on a rampage, beating and robbing and just acting like no rules apply to them you have to wonder...what is different in THAT area than in others? its not poverty because the state with the lowest income WV also has the lowest violence levels.
Probably has to do with the chance of being shot. WV has one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the country. My state of North Dakota also has a very high rate. Thefts are done when people are not home and they actually take efforts to make SURE nobody is home. That or they just break into a garage from the alley where nobody can see them. Thugs know that any gunshot wound showing up at a hospital is automatically reported to police and darn near impossible to explain away, bruises lacerations and broken bones are far easier to explain as a simple accident. Thus they take efforts to avoid violent confrontation.
As for motivation, could be any number of things. A sense of entitlement, seeking a thrill. It would be interesting to know so that it can be addressed. My speculation is that this is a further development caused by the welfare system and other government programs destroying the ability of young blacks to function in society. I'd be all ears to someo
How does Tiny 7 handle folder sharing on a LAN? I'm running Tiny XP Rev09 on an old single core atom netbook with 2 gigs of ram and 8 gig SSD as a DVR security system and file sharing doesn't work, period. I want to have a remote system back up the recorded files every 60 seconds so if they steal the netbook from the garage I still have the photos it took. If I used Win7 I could use Readyboost to improve on the slow SSD it has.
Translation: Carriers are useless for fighting wars. These missiles are getting longer and longer ranges, to the point that they will start to outrage the carriers aircraft.
These missiles can be mounted to and launched from just about anything that is physically large enough to carry them. A great many civilian aircraft have the capability to launch them given the modifications necessary to mount them. Small boats are also plenty large enough to carry them and you can create even more decoy boats to make it even harder.
But lets just say that they are coming in across only a 90 degree arc from shore mounted batteries, you're still screwed because any direction you turn, you will still be facing broadside to some of the missiles.
Yea, I was taught that propaganda in school too. How about we look at what actually happened.
What amazes me is how few of you "free market is God" types will accept the fact that we already tried that and it was called "the age of the robber barons" by historians. look it up,
Historians know that the robber Barron myth was just that, a myth. I recommend "The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America " It's only $10. There areother writings on this online available for free.
they didn't regulate shit, hell you could sell rat poison to babies, no rules at all.
The drug that caused the most deaths prior to FDA licensing was Elixir Sulfanilamide. It was poorly researched and ended up killing 107 people. Now compare this worst-case example from before FDA licensing to just one case caused by "drug lag" under the FDA. The "drug lag" for Interleukin 2 killed 3,500. This is typical for the FDA, there is no repercussion for killing thousands of people by delaying the approval of a new drug, but there are for approving a bad drug. Thousands die every year because the FDA is slow to approve new drugs.
No rat poison being sold to children. Something about being bad for repeat business.
No food regulations,
You're seriously blaming the prevalence of food-born illness in the 19th century to the lack of regulation? Could it possibly be due to the fact that mass produced refrigerators and low-cost pasteurization techniques had not been invented yet? What regulations that would have been practical in the 19th century would you propose?
business regulations,
The only regulations needed are to enforce contracts and punish fraud and theft.Other than that Market regulation proved wildly successful in the 19th century given the rapid rise in pay and living conditions. What regulations would you have proposed?
environmental regulations, it was total free for all...so what happened?
The environmental problem was the result of government failing to enforce private property rights. At the beginning of the 19th century, people frequently went to court against factories for pollution and had injunctions issued against the factories and were awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The pollution of a neighbors property was considered trespassing. Thus factories were motivated to reduce the amount of pollution. They could either buy out the neighbors, continually pay damages, or reduce the pollution they created. A frequent method was to burn Anthracite coal, as it was clean burning and produced little soot and pollution for neighbors. Though expensive, burning Anthracite coal meant the factories no longer had to pay damages for pollution. Research was done and primitive scrubbers were developed for use in factory boilers that used dirtier Lignite coal.
As the century went on, the government took the view that industrializing, to compete with England, was top priority, so in the name of "the public good", the government had the courts stop issuing injunctions for pollution. With the factories free to pollute the property of their neighbors, research into and purchase of coal scrubbers and the use of expensive Anthracite coal ceased. The result was a century of unregulated pollution. A problem created by the government itself by failing to do something it was supposed to do.
Those at the top simply bought their own army and police and did whatever the fuck they wanted.
They bought their own "armies" because the local police either were no
Older SCUDs had no terminal guidance, newer ones do and supposedly can achieve an accuracy of around 50'. All you need to do is add the ability to receive targeting data in mid flight.
That would be great if the Phalanx actually worked. Unfortunately, it has crap reliability. USS Stark? Failed, Flakland war, failed. Works great during canned testing of course, so did the Sargent York..
Also note that the magazine only holds enough ammo for 10-15 bursts. With a skimmer that is maneuvering at 5 gs continually in the terminal phase I guarantee you that it will take multiple bursts to hit just one Hell, look at WWII. We had carriers bristling with radar guided, proximity fused 5" guns, radar guided 40mm cannons, several dozen manually aimed 20mm cannons, and Kamikazes STILL made it to the carriers. Remember that these were piloted by barely proficient aviators in unarmored aircraft that couldn't go faster than 350 mph in a dive without breaking apart. What chance in hell is one or two radar guided 20mm Gatling guns going to have against something at least twice as fast, several feet off the water, and performing high-G evasive maneuvers? Oh yea, and there's a dozen more 10 seconds behind the first one.
So there were two aircraft on two separate occasions that had stuck bombay doors? Really? Remember that two F-117s were destroyed in the exact same fashion, just that one managed to limp back and crash land so people forget about it. It most certainly was not a one-off event
I personally find the Serbian version a lot more believable.
You are also incorrect about the Serbs not detecting F-117s They routinely picked them up, when they had the radar turned on. The problem was that you can't get a firing solution from Longwave data since it cannot pinpoint the exact location. They reason they didn't shoot down more was because non-steal aircraft and cruise missiles would shoot at any radar set that was left on for too long and not moved frequently.
Despite this total air superiority, NATO failed to inflict more than superficial damage and was eventually forced to start bombing civilian targets.
You DO know that was NATO propaganda, right? There were no mass graves from that time, the Serbs were engaged in fighting the KLA.
They showed NATO to be completely inept and lacking in the political will to win wars against a competent enemy. Serbs only withdrew after Russia withdrew support. Sounds like a rather big victory to me.
I should also probably add that i find it interesting that you think it is "greedy" to want to keep the money you've earned, but not "greedy" to take someone elses money.
If I rob a your house with the intention of spending every penny of it on orphan children, I am still a thief and it is still wrong.
Finally as for Paul? He's NOT sane, he just has a few sane ideas, such as auditing the fed. You read his platform and it would pretty much end up an Ayn Rand version of paradise, which would be hell for anyone who isn't a 1%er. Hell even HE was shocked at how quickly the Randites in his own party screamed "LET HIM DIE!" when he asked what should happen to the young man who is hurt and needs an operation but doesn't have the money.
As opposed to government programs which do the exact same thing. News flash, resources are finite, especially medical care. (if you disagree then please tell me where unlimited medical resources fall from the sky as I know several people who would be interested in finding it.) Medicare wanted to let my grandma go blind rather then get her the treatment needed to save her sight so don't pretend that government programs are the land of milk and honey either..
The ugly little secret of libertarianism is that it would be heaven for the 1%, a living hell for everyone else.
So the freedom to not have the fruits of your labor stolen from you and not be forced into agreements you do not consent to only benefits the 1%? Please elaborate further.
The Crony capitalists would HATE a libertarian US because it would mean that they would have to COMPETE to maintain their position. Warren Buffet would be eating Rahmen noodles if not for his government buddies. He profits heavily from the death tax. All the major bankers would be bankrupt and the smaller banks would have simply taken their place once the assets were bought up in bankruptcy court.
I have been told with a straight face that a relative that is under 50 and requires a $100K a year medication to have a quality of life worth living should be put down like a dog because 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I? and that is libertarianism in a nutshell..pure GREED and ZERO empathy for the suffering of those not given a golden spoon by accident of birth like Romney or who luck into being in the right place at the right time like Gates.
You know full well that they did not say "put down like a dog."
Who is going without medicine because of that one person who needs $100,000 worth? Answer that question for me please? What are you going to tell the 5 people who need anti-rejection drugs so their transplanted heart doesn't die? What about the 100 low income diabetics who need insulin? Why are any of their lives and the medication they need worth less than the person who needs $100,000 worth of drugs? What right do you have to say it should go to the $100,000 guy?
You also never answered the question 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I?" Why should I or anyone care? You simply assert your view as correct with no argumentation to back it up. Once you have done that, elaborate further as to how much one should be forced to pay towards someone else. 40% of their income? 80%? You're throwing around bald assertions like the Linux guys you deride so much for doing the same thing.
How much money do YOU give to those "Poor person who needs $100,000 for medicine?" What if I want to have my money go to the diabetics?
Another practical question, how is the government going to not default on Social Security and Medicare? Where are the physical resources supposed to come from to make good on those promises?
What we NEED is a third party, talking with folks frankly most are right on foreign policy but VERY left when it comes to helping the weak among their fellow Americans, but our supposed "left wing party" is frankly right wing, its just our right wing has gone so far right it makes Attila the Hun look like a socialist by comparison. the nuts took over the nuthouse, that's why you don't see fiscal conservatives anymore, its all batshit loonies.
The reason we don't have such a party is because we have an organization like the F
Probably cool until you have to repair the dammed thing. I have to put up with phone and video equipment that was installed using prebuilt cabinets. They are nice and compact, but if something breaks you are screwed. Everything is crammed so close together that even troubleshooting to see what is wrong takes 10 times longer than it should and then repairing it is like working with Russian Nesting Dolls.
Everyone I know with 2 cars have 2 drivers (such as my oldest boy in his S10 while I have my Ranger) so it isn't like the second car is only used occasionally and having a vehicle with such limited range just wouldn't be practical. I mean at first glance it would look like my oldest could trade his S10 for something like an electric, since 90% of his driving is the 10 miles round trip to the local college, but it is that 10%, like when he recently had to drive a friend to another state to attend her grandma's funeral, that would create a real hardship if he didn't have any way to go long distances.
Or you have drivers like me who owns 2 vehicles, One is a 98 Ford Contour that has been totaled out twice by the insurance companies (neither time my fault, bought the car back both times.) and the other is a 1990 Ford Ranger with 240,000 miles. I can insure them both for under $500 PER YEAR and I own both outright. Wooptie do, I have to spend $200-$400 per year on maintaining each one. A car payment is that much PER MONTH.
As for battery tech catching up, that is literally impossible. Physics dictates energy density and physics says that batteries will always suck compared to gasoline and diesel. A look at an energy density chart makes that painfully clear. Our best current batteries are at about half of the theoretical maximum dictated by physics. Batteries need to increase by about a factor of forty to break even with gasoline.
Slashdot Mirror
Well what type of ram does it use and how expensive is it vs other types in common use today?
Why exactly could they supposedly get the 256mb chips so easily as to make a $35 machine, but 512 would suddenly be a monumental hurdle? If you can get a deal one one, why not the other?
I am still interested in the assertion of 256 being chosen, because of problems getting bulk deals, being backed up. Perhaps a link to a forum discussion or something elaborating on why certain choices were made? I'd love to see the reasoning behind some of the design choices.
Boeing makes a reliable way to get from point A to point B.
Aren't you taking a joke a bit too seriously?
From my point of view the way you wrote that you appeared to be making fun of what my standards for accepting SSDs for use in my own machines and are now trying to backpedal for using a bad analogy. Which one is true doesn't really matter to me. When dealing with written words between people who don't know each other it is very easy to have humor be interpreted as an insult if is not careful in how they write, it happens to everyone. Not gonna get bent out of shape over it.
Anyway, back to discussing WD.
Nvidia at least designs their own graphics chips. If WD has any chip design experience at all, it is in their drive controller.
and that is the part that seems to have given SSD users such headaches in the past.
And I'm sure some of that experience applies to SSDs, but they have no memory chip experience at all.
Apple didn't have any cell phone experience either, that didn't seem to stop them. As far as I can see, WD easily has the resources to make a SSD if they want to. Though at this point in the game they seem to be betting on spinning rust continuing to be vastly cheaper per gb than SSD, which could be either a very smart or very stupid move, time will tell.
The manufacturers weren't convinced there'd be enough demand for the Pi and therefore getting a deal for 512MB chips would indeed have increased the price of the device quite a bit.
I was not aware of this, do you have a link elaborating on that? Given that the VIA APC has 512 of ram and almost the same price I am slightly skeptical of this claim.
Also, your argument is like saying that they should never ever do upgraded versions of anything whatsoever because -- gee whiz! -- there will be new versions of stuff to make use of new possibilities!
No it is not like that at all. There IS such a thing as reving your product so often that nobody wants it, see Desktop Linux for proof of this. With a constantly shifting baseline, a good base of stable well developed software cannot be created because developers are constantly redeveloping for the new baseline. If the Pi was out for 2 years before the 512 came out, that would be one thing, but reving the baseline so drastically mere months after the initial hardware shipped is not smart when you are trying to get your new product established.
Come to think of it, hasn't Microsoft gotten a TON of flack for doing the exact same thing for WinPhone7? Depreciating the old version by reving the baseline to a new version just as the old version was starting to establish itself?
It's not 1994 anymore, ram is dirt cheap. Putting in 512mb from the start SHOULD have been obvious at the design meeting, would not have added significant cost, and would not have fragmented the software base, as now there will be different version for stuff with differing amounts of ram.
Ummmmmm, your analogy is a non sequitur. Boeing has never made cars. Western digital does make storage devices, so getting into SSD would be a logical step for them. You example would be logically coherent if you replaced "car" with "single engine prop planes", but even that's a stretch since SSDs are a growing market share while single engine prop planes are a rather mature market.
Nvidia doesn't own a single chip fab either, what does that have to do with anything?
Just like with SSDs, early ones were still faster than spinning rust, but horrifically unreliable. If you were someone who wanted the bleeding edge you still bought them, but for people who value reliability, we waited for the later models to come out.
I know I said in the past that I would buy one when Western Digital started making them, but the fact that Intel has a 5 year warranty on their SSDs now for awhile and the specs of the new 520 series I went ahead and got one. Combine that with finally listening to hairyfeet and switching from Firefox to Comodo Dragon, I've seen a nice speed boost. (That and now there are Chrome equivalents to my favorite plugins.)
Yup. Years ago the people said, "THE STATES ARE JERKS, WE NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND STOP THEM." How well has that worked out? Federal government is being a jerk, who are we gonna get to put them back in line?
Once the real crisis hits it would be wonderful if we could get back to what the US was originally, a series of self governing states with a federal government whose main purpose was national defense.I want to live in a US where people care more about who their Governor is than who is President.
The whole point of the Federal system was to copy what made Western Europe rise to prominence, decentralized power. No leader could become too aggressive in taxes or rules because people and their money would simply leave. We saw this during the Jim Crow South. As bad as that was for blacks, it is a perfect example of how the system was supposed to work. Yes the southern states enacted stupidly racist legislation and the states paid for it. What young person in 1950 would look in the mirror and say to themselves, "I'm going to go make my fortune in Alabama." NOBODY.
About 6.5 million blacks between 1910 and 1970 simply moved from the Jim Crow South to states without those laws.Those that left tended to be the most motivated, hardest working, and most talented. Businesses did not want to move or operate in the South because maintaining two separate facilities for whites and blacks is expensive. As a result of their stupid actions the South became an economic backwater.
The vital part of this equation was the easy of movement between jurisdictions, both by the jurisdictions being small and movement between them being free. For a practical example,for people reading this to consider, imagine what it would take you to move two states away from where you are now. now imagine what it would take you to move two countries away from where you are now. The easier it is to move, the sooner the government will be punished for its stupid policies. First the money leaves, then the people leave.
Very few people have a positive view of Washington DC, the only reason anyone listens to what any of them say is because they hand out money. Once the printing press no longer works it's gonna get mighty interesting. They won't be able to use the military since, for starters, the military industrial complex has resulted in our military having such overpriced and under performing equipment that anything that actually does work will soon be out of service due to cost and logistics, leaving the DC forces with little more than M113s and C130s, much like what we had in Iraq, except with far less air support.
Second, you're going to have a portion desert and go fight for the state or local militias, whatever happens to pop up, and take as much heavy hardware as they can. How many actually do this is a wild card, but if the currency collapses and the infantry are basically working for food, expect to see fragging incidents begin at the very least.
Third, our military is so effective because everyone can trust everyone to do their job. In such a domestic crisis we will see that go out the window, in Vietnam, sabotage by conscripts was commonplace. Sabotage will be at the back of every ones mind and everyone will be watching their back.
Hopefully it will be a mostly peaceful transition back to the states asserting their sovereignty, trying different things out, copying what works and abandoning what doesn't. While people are free to move to the jurisdictions they find most attractive. Hope for the best,prepare for the worst.
Do they make a 64-bit version of CDragon?
I think you are more accurately describing Mitbama. Please elaborate on how Gary Johnson is not better than Mitbama, as facts and history are not on your side.
Yes, working 10 hours a day in a 19th century factory must have sucked, but it sucked a whole lot less than working 14 hour days on a farm for half the pay. You are looking at it backwards. Do not compare our working conditions to them. Compare their working conditions to what they were 10 or 20 years earlier.
Look at the computers we had 20 years ago. Compared to what we have today they sucked. They sucked a lot. Was this because we had "robber barons" in the computer industry and no government regulation? No, it was because the computer industry was so technologically primitive that it had no way to produce the computers we have today, the garbage we had then was the best that could be produced. Likewise with 19th century capitalism, the technology available was so freakishly primitive by today's standards that it was the best they could do.
Also to explain the relatively poor working conditions is the idea of a compensating differential. Workers will accept poor working conditions if they are paid appropriately to compensate them. During the 19th century workers wanted high wages and were willing to put up with poor working conditions to get them. As technology improved and wages continued to increase, workers began to be willing to sacrifice wages for better working conditions, if the cost to improve the working conditions was less than the cost of extra wages then the business owner would be stupid not to make the improvements, as they would save him money. Not to mention that it is not in an employers interest to have a needlessly dangerous factory. Workmen in the machinery means downtime and cleanup costs, thus if there is a cost effective safety improvement it will eventually be put in place. Thus, as the 19th century wore on, working conditions improved as various safety technologies became economically viable and the workers became wealthy enough to begin considering.
BTW, in case you were wondering, the move for the 8 hour day was actually "8 hour day for 10 hour pay". Businesses had no problem with an 8 hour day if the workers were paid 8 hours of wages. Anyone reading this go to your boss and ask to work 20% fewer hours, but still get the same weekly pay, see how far you get.
The simple fact is that the 19th century saw the pay, living, and working conditions of the working class rise faster than anytime in history while at the same time prices fell steadily for 100 years. The people falsely called "robber barons" got rich by improving the lives of the average worker by providing better products that cost less.
Rockefeller's crime? Over the course of his leadership of Standard Oil, the price of kerosine, used for illumination, fell from 58 cents per gallon in 1865 to 8 cents per gallon in the late 1870's. Imagine if someone did that today, took the price of gasoline from $4 per gallon to 60 cents per gallon. Would you be demanding he be hung in the pubic square? Or would you be throwing money at him for his 60 cent per gallon gasoline?
Carnagie's crime? Under his leadership of Carnegie steel, the price of steel rails fell from $160 per ton in 1875 to $17 per ton in 1898.
Why exactly are we supposed to hate these people? Do these same people hate Steve Jobs for what he did?
Fully agree that political correctness is harmful to the very groups those expounding it claim to be wishing to help. You don't help someone with a problem by making excuses or shifting the blame away from them. Bill Cosby had it right with his "pound cake" speech.
If some of these blacks think they are being "oppressed", just wait until the retaliation comes if the black community where these things are a problem doesn't get its act in order.
I disagree about the chemically laden food. They eat it because it is fast, it is actually VERY expensive compared to raw ingredients. I try to live frugally where possible (since I know SS and medicare won't be there when I'm old.) and the one thing I NEVER buy is the highly processed food. It's not that I don't like it, I LOVE hot pockets and all that other stuff. I don't buy it because it is simply too darn expensive vs what I can cook myself. Frozen chicken breasts are relatively cheap, pork chops can be bought when on sale, wrapped individually, and frozen. You can fit a lot into a refrigerator freezer if you do some basic planning. Boiled potatoes are a good option as well. (I LOVE boiled potatoes.) Most of my cooking consists of "put stuff in pot, let simmer for an hour." NOT hard to do and once you figure out how to flavor it you can get a decent amount of variety for not a lot of money. If I was willing to put even a little more time into cooking my options would increase greatly, but I'm not bothered by bland food.
If you're poor, don't expect a lot of variety, you're probably going to be eating the same thing over and over like much of the world does. However if you do that, then you'll be able to spend the money you now have towards more important things, like paying down any outstanding debts you have, buying or repairing a car so you are not limited to whatever jobs are nearby. Perhaps attending to medical needs, a new pair of glasses to replace that 12 year old pair with an out-of-date prescription. I see that all the time, pun fully intended, in the jails I do work at. You think someone is illiterate by how they take so long to read and understand a form, turns out they can't see because they haven't had their vision checked in 15 years. (Also explains how they got caught in the first place.) Seriously, nowadays $200-$300 will get you a new prescription and set of glasses. I've seen it done for $150, including the eye exam, if you are willing to have Drew Carry frames and coke bottle lenses. Today the checkup is going to be the most expensive part, shop around.
When you have as many as 200+ people in an area perfectly willing to go on a rampage, beating and robbing and just acting like no rules apply to them you have to wonder...what is different in THAT area than in others? its not poverty because the state with the lowest income WV also has the lowest violence levels.
Probably has to do with the chance of being shot. WV has one of the highest firearm ownership rates in the country. My state of North Dakota also has a very high rate. Thefts are done when people are not home and they actually take efforts to make SURE nobody is home. That or they just break into a garage from the alley where nobody can see them. Thugs know that any gunshot wound showing up at a hospital is automatically reported to police and darn near impossible to explain away, bruises lacerations and broken bones are far easier to explain as a simple accident. Thus they take efforts to avoid violent confrontation.
As for motivation, could be any number of things. A sense of entitlement, seeking a thrill. It would be interesting to know so that it can be addressed. My speculation is that this is a further development caused by the welfare system and other government programs destroying the ability of young blacks to function in society. I'd be all ears to someo
Tell that to the crew of the USS Stark.
How does Tiny 7 handle folder sharing on a LAN? I'm running Tiny XP Rev09 on an old single core atom netbook with 2 gigs of ram and 8 gig SSD as a DVR security system and file sharing doesn't work, period. I want to have a remote system back up the recorded files every 60 seconds so if they steal the netbook from the garage I still have the photos it took. If I used Win7 I could use Readyboost to improve on the slow SSD it has.
Translation: Carriers are useless for fighting wars. These missiles are getting longer and longer ranges, to the point that they will start to outrage the carriers aircraft.
These missiles can be mounted to and launched from just about anything that is physically large enough to carry them. A great many civilian aircraft have the capability to launch them given the modifications necessary to mount them. Small boats are also plenty large enough to carry them and you can create even more decoy boats to make it even harder.
But lets just say that they are coming in across only a 90 degree arc from shore mounted batteries, you're still screwed because any direction you turn, you will still be facing broadside to some of the missiles.
What amazes me is how few of you "free market is God" types will accept the fact that we already tried that and it was called "the age of the robber barons" by historians. look it up,
Historians know that the robber Barron myth was just that, a myth. I recommend "The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America " It's only $10. There areother writings on this online available for free.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Robber-Barons-Business/dp/0963020315
Here is a lecture by the author.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vw6uF2LdZw
they didn't regulate shit, hell you could sell rat poison to babies, no rules at all.
The drug that caused the most deaths prior to FDA licensing was Elixir Sulfanilamide. It was poorly researched and ended up killing 107 people. Now compare this worst-case example from before FDA licensing to just one case caused by "drug lag" under the FDA. The "drug lag" for Interleukin 2 killed 3,500. This is typical for the FDA, there is no repercussion for killing thousands of people by delaying the approval of a new drug, but there are for approving a bad drug. Thousands die every year because the FDA is slow to approve new drugs.
No rat poison being sold to children. Something about being bad for repeat business.
No food regulations,
You're seriously blaming the prevalence of food-born illness in the 19th century to the lack of regulation? Could it possibly be due to the fact that mass produced refrigerators and low-cost pasteurization techniques had not been invented yet? What regulations that would have been practical in the 19th century would you propose?
business regulations,
The only regulations needed are to enforce contracts and punish fraud and theft.Other than that Market regulation proved wildly successful in the 19th century given the rapid rise in pay and living conditions. What regulations would you have proposed?
environmental regulations, it was total free for all...so what happened?
The environmental problem was the result of government failing to enforce private property rights. At the beginning of the 19th century, people frequently went to court against factories for pollution and had injunctions issued against the factories and were awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The pollution of a neighbors property was considered trespassing. Thus factories were motivated to reduce the amount of pollution. They could either buy out the neighbors, continually pay damages, or reduce the pollution they created. A frequent method was to burn Anthracite coal, as it was clean burning and produced little soot and pollution for neighbors. Though expensive, burning Anthracite coal meant the factories no longer had to pay damages for pollution. Research was done and primitive scrubbers were developed for use in factory boilers that used dirtier Lignite coal.
As the century went on, the government took the view that industrializing, to compete with England, was top priority, so in the name of "the public good", the government had the courts stop issuing injunctions for pollution. With the factories free to pollute the property of their neighbors, research into and purchase of coal scrubbers and the use of expensive Anthracite coal ceased. The result was a century of unregulated pollution. A problem created by the government itself by failing to do something it was supposed to do.
Those at the top simply bought their own army and police and did whatever the fuck they wanted.
They bought their own "armies" because the local police either were no
Just launch a SCUD or two at the attacking airfield and quit screwing around with UAVs.
Older SCUDs had no terminal guidance, newer ones do and supposedly can achieve an accuracy of around 50'. All you need to do is add the ability to receive targeting data in mid flight.
That would be great if the Phalanx actually worked. Unfortunately, it has crap reliability. USS Stark? Failed, Flakland war, failed. Works great during canned testing of course, so did the Sargent York..
Also note that the magazine only holds enough ammo for 10-15 bursts. With a skimmer that is maneuvering at 5 gs continually in the terminal phase I guarantee you that it will take multiple bursts to hit just one Hell, look at WWII. We had carriers bristling with radar guided, proximity fused 5" guns, radar guided 40mm cannons, several dozen manually aimed 20mm cannons, and Kamikazes STILL made it to the carriers. Remember that these were piloted by barely proficient aviators in unarmored aircraft that couldn't go faster than 350 mph in a dive without breaking apart. What chance in hell is one or two radar guided 20mm Gatling guns going to have against something at least twice as fast, several feet off the water, and performing high-G evasive maneuvers? Oh yea, and there's a dozen more 10 seconds behind the first one.
So there were two aircraft on two separate occasions that had stuck bombay doors? Really? Remember that two F-117s were destroyed in the exact same fashion, just that one managed to limp back and crash land so people forget about it. It most certainly was not a one-off event
I personally find the Serbian version a lot more believable.
You are also incorrect about the Serbs not detecting F-117s They routinely picked them up, when they had the radar turned on. The problem was that you can't get a firing solution from Longwave data since it cannot pinpoint the exact location. They reason they didn't shoot down more was because non-steal aircraft and cruise missiles would shoot at any radar set that was left on for too long and not moved frequently.
Despite this total air superiority, NATO failed to inflict more than superficial damage and was eventually forced to start bombing civilian targets.
You DO know that was NATO propaganda, right? There were no mass graves from that time, the Serbs were engaged in fighting the KLA.
They showed NATO to be completely inept and lacking in the political will to win wars against a competent enemy. Serbs only withdrew after Russia withdrew support. Sounds like a rather big victory to me.
I should also probably add that i find it interesting that you think it is "greedy" to want to keep the money you've earned, but not "greedy" to take someone elses money.
If I rob a your house with the intention of spending every penny of it on orphan children, I am still a thief and it is still wrong.
Finally as for Paul? He's NOT sane, he just has a few sane ideas, such as auditing the fed. You read his platform and it would pretty much end up an Ayn Rand version of paradise, which would be hell for anyone who isn't a 1%er. Hell even HE was shocked at how quickly the Randites in his own party screamed "LET HIM DIE!" when he asked what should happen to the young man who is hurt and needs an operation but doesn't have the money.
As opposed to government programs which do the exact same thing. News flash, resources are finite, especially medical care. (if you disagree then please tell me where unlimited medical resources fall from the sky as I know several people who would be interested in finding it.) Medicare wanted to let my grandma go blind rather then get her the treatment needed to save her sight so don't pretend that government programs are the land of milk and honey either..
The ugly little secret of libertarianism is that it would be heaven for the 1%, a living hell for everyone else.
So the freedom to not have the fruits of your labor stolen from you and not be forced into agreements you do not consent to only benefits the 1%? Please elaborate further.
The Crony capitalists would HATE a libertarian US because it would mean that they would have to COMPETE to maintain their position. Warren Buffet would be eating Rahmen noodles if not for his government buddies. He profits heavily from the death tax. All the major bankers would be bankrupt and the smaller banks would have simply taken their place once the assets were bought up in bankruptcy court.
I have been told with a straight face that a relative that is under 50 and requires a $100K a year medication to have a quality of life worth living should be put down like a dog because 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I? and that is libertarianism in a nutshell..pure GREED and ZERO empathy for the suffering of those not given a golden spoon by accident of birth like Romney or who luck into being in the right place at the right time like Gates.
You know full well that they did not say "put down like a dog."
Who is going without medicine because of that one person who needs $100,000 worth? Answer that question for me please? What are you going to tell the 5 people who need anti-rejection drugs so their transplanted heart doesn't die? What about the 100 low income diabetics who need insulin? Why are any of their lives and the medication they need worth less than the person who needs $100,000 worth of drugs? What right do you have to say it should go to the $100,000 guy?
You also never answered the question 'If he or his relatives can't pay for it why should I?" Why should I or anyone care? You simply assert your view as correct with no argumentation to back it up. Once you have done that, elaborate further as to how much one should be forced to pay towards someone else. 40% of their income? 80%? You're throwing around bald assertions like the Linux guys you deride so much for doing the same thing.
How much money do YOU give to those "Poor person who needs $100,000 for medicine?" What if I want to have my money go to the diabetics?
Another practical question, how is the government going to not default on Social Security and Medicare? Where are the physical resources supposed to come from to make good on those promises?
What we NEED is a third party, talking with folks frankly most are right on foreign policy but VERY left when it comes to helping the weak among their fellow Americans, but our supposed "left wing party" is frankly right wing, its just our right wing has gone so far right it makes Attila the Hun look like a socialist by comparison. the nuts took over the nuthouse, that's why you don't see fiscal conservatives anymore, its all batshit loonies.
The reason we don't have such a party is because we have an organization like the F
Probably cool until you have to repair the dammed thing. I have to put up with phone and video equipment that was installed using prebuilt cabinets. They are nice and compact, but if something breaks you are screwed. Everything is crammed so close together that even troubleshooting to see what is wrong takes 10 times longer than it should and then repairing it is like working with Russian Nesting Dolls.
Everyone I know with 2 cars have 2 drivers (such as my oldest boy in his S10 while I have my Ranger) so it isn't like the second car is only used occasionally and having a vehicle with such limited range just wouldn't be practical. I mean at first glance it would look like my oldest could trade his S10 for something like an electric, since 90% of his driving is the 10 miles round trip to the local college, but it is that 10%, like when he recently had to drive a friend to another state to attend her grandma's funeral, that would create a real hardship if he didn't have any way to go long distances.
Or you have drivers like me who owns 2 vehicles, One is a 98 Ford Contour that has been totaled out twice by the insurance companies (neither time my fault, bought the car back both times.) and the other is a 1990 Ford Ranger with 240,000 miles. I can insure them both for under $500 PER YEAR and I own both outright. Wooptie do, I have to spend $200-$400 per year on maintaining each one. A car payment is that much PER MONTH.
As for battery tech catching up, that is literally impossible. Physics dictates energy density and physics says that batteries will always suck compared to gasoline and diesel. A look at an energy density chart makes that painfully clear. Our best current batteries are at about half of the theoretical maximum dictated by physics. Batteries need to increase by about a factor of forty to break even with gasoline.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Energy_density.svg
Following the Krugman logic to its conclusion, ask them if they think 9/11 was good for the economy.