The model I bought came with 2GB RAM (Which I upgraded to 8GB), 160GB HD (Which I promptly cloned to a WD 750GB 7200 RPM HD, and cloned the original drive before booting).
Could you give me a quote for something like it?
Sorry, I don't sell hardware anymore - no money in it for a small (Read: One person) business.Check Lenovo's site, and watch for discount coupons and sales.
Netbooks are not even in the same league. They are too anemic to run desktop software properly and are only really useful for face booking and web email.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "netbook". I bought a ThinkPad x120e and its form factor is pretty much the same as a netbook, but it is powerful enough to replace a standard business-class laptop from a computing perspective.
I've pretty much stopped using my ThinkPad T500 as the x120e has handled everything that I've thrown at it... of course, upgrading the memory to 8 GB and the hard drive to 750 GB helped quite a bit *grin*.
As for real tablets: I bought a Kindle Fire, but I don't use if for anything other than reading books and streaming video, so I can't really attest to its usability as a general-purpose computing device.
If I were traveling, I'd carry both. The weight penalty of the Kindle Fire is minimal, and between it and the x120e all of my needs would be satisfied.
Yeah, but, you missed a few things, and since you're "cherry-picking", well, I think I can, too:)
Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, unless it's explicity stated, the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction. So, have fun refuting that!:)
3) They are not adding 2000 new accounts, they are adding 2000 new devices to connect to the accounts.
If the 2000 accounts existed and different devices are now connecting to them then there is something fundamentally wrong with the software
That doesn't make any sense at all. I read it, re-read it and I still don't understand what you wrote. How could there be something wrong with the software just because 2000 new devices are connecting to 2000 existing accounts?
Take a typical situation in a corporation: An employee gets a new laptop. Congratulations! That's one new device connecting to one existing account. Now, scale that up through a computer refresh cycle at a large corporation... say 200 new computers each quarter. Hey that's 800 new devices per year connecting to existing accounts!
Then add in smartphones, and, as in this case, iPads.
As some times people end doing the work load of 2-3 people?
That's just another sign of ineffectual management or broken corporate culture. If you're working for a company that makes you work overtime so that you can do the work of 2-3 people, then you're being abused.
Aw, how cute! A self-professed hobbyist programmer with a UID in the nosebleed section deigns to lecture the rest of Slashdot, assuming that his life is exactly what everyone else here aspires to.
And what principle would that be, exactly? By your own admission you don't even pay for the service, which gives you no say at all. In addition, your roommate apparently signed up without a contract establishing any terms of service at all - that makes him an idiot, and you even more so for thinking that you are entitled to complain.
No where that I am aware of did he actually agree to terms and conditions stating that his service would be throttled under X conditions, nor to what extent
Which would make sense, considering the fact that he didn't agree to any terms at all.
Did you even bother to read what you wrote before posting it? It proves the parent's point: You ARE an entitlement nag.
I should warn you that I'm also one of those _absolute_ sociopaths that finds the lack of truth in advertising seen to be appalling
I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to warn us, it's not likely that anyone here really cares, not even if your sociopathic tendencies were to turn to violence. After all, what are you going to do, kill us over the Internet with the sheer force of your moral outrage? If you were to go postal in the real world, odds are the people that you killed wouldn't be any of us. I do, however, pity your roommate...
To quote the late Warren Oates in his role as Sergeant Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis".
We already have a forth branch. It is small, and not only economical, it actually generates its own revenue, and not through confiscatory taxation. It is the Federal Reserve.
Too bad they only get to vote on interest rates.
Tell me you're joking? The Federal Reserve only generates money in the sense that it earns interest on money that it creates from nothing and then loans out.
You can't actually get this from the Federal Reserve's Web site any longer, although years ago there was a section that dealt with fiat money and the economy which made it clear that the Federal Reserve made money from nothing. I haven't looked, but you might find it on the Wayback Machine.
Thanks! There's two clarifications that I'd like to make:
"Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money." should be "Doing this ensures that all candidates have the same amount of money." I had originally thought to permit candidates to use their own money in addition, which would have resulted in the "basically the same" part... but I think that any candidate wishing to donate should do so under the same terms as anyone else.
The other clarification:
"Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord" is better stated "Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them monetarily to play fair of their own accord", which was implied but is better stated explicitly.
There's another alternative, at least at the Federal level: Mandate an election contribution system that evens the playing field for all candidates by making all contributions a part of a common pool for each elected position.
Donations would earmarked when made: "Federal Senator #1 From California", "3rd District Representative From Ohio #3", etc.
There would be a fixed time period for donations, and once the donation period ended, no more donations could be made and all of the money donated at that point would be evenly divided between all candidates that meet the electoral requirements for that position.
Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money.
In addition, all donations would be non-tax exempt for Federal taxation purposes, whether they came from corporations or from individuals.
Then, require that all candidates only use their share of the money from the pool for that election. Any attempts to side-step this on the part of a candidate or his/her supporters would be illegal, and if discovered would result in automatic disqualification from that election, even after the fact, and if the candidate won the election, the results would be voided and the person that came in second would take the office.
This is the only way I can see to reform campaign donations, by building checks such as these into the process itself.
And for those that would say that this isn't fair? It's eminently fair from a monetary perspective, and the candidates would then be forced to actually run on the strengths of their campaign platforms and wouldn't be able to easily "drown out" others. In addition, it helps to somewhat remove the "campaign donation as bribe" aspect that exists in the campaign donation system today.
Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord, and so I think that we have to resort to draconian measures such as these to force them to do so.
significant factions within our nation that take up the fight to deny us our rights, as enumerated in our Constitution
The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the states or the citizenry, it enumerates the rights of the Federal government.
The 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Honestly, I don't know where people get the idea that the Constitution grants citizens rights - it does not. It recognizes a few of them, explicitly, and also explicitly states that those recognized are not all that there may be.
does the constitution define the maximum powers the government has, the minimum powers it has, or exactly the powers it has?
Sure it does. The minimum and maximum powers are those enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, and those are exactly the powers it has. Nothing more, nothing less. There's a reason that the 10th Amendment was included, you know.
It does enumerate a number of specific powers, but adds "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" which allows for much latitude to what is allowed to do.
What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.
The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.
And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.
I actually like Unity but at leaston my hardware (core2duo t7200 thinkpad Intel graphics), it ran dog slow. I even went so far as to creates couple of my own indicator apps in python and customized my dock icons with custom menus. But on lark last weekend, i wwanted gnome2 so I installed debian stable on another partition and it was llike buying a nnew ccomputer. I mean the performance upgrade was unbelievable. Needless to say, I havent looked back.
Now all you need to do is fix that keyboard driver and you'll be all set!
as most people in the western world have no conception of how to survive even a plane crash
Care to elaborate? One presumes that you're speaking from a position of authority here. Which plane crash(es) have you survived? What advice do you have to others that might find themselves in the same predicament? Oh, and do you have a newsletter?
The act of asking a question shows you want to learn, understand that someone else may have the answer and are willing to listen.
Not necessarily. The act of asking a question may show that, depending on the question and how it is asked. It might also show that the person asking is lazy, and doesn't care to find an answer on his/her own. If you are asked the same question by the same person repeatedly, it might indicate that you're not answering it clearly or that the person is incapable of understanding the answer.
I do agree that believing that the mere act of asking a question is a problem itself is ridiculous, however.
Maybe this comes from the facile suggestion that 'corporations are people' because of Citizens United, but it has no bearing on actual corporate accounting or taxes.
You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing. It is not, and here's why: Corporations are citizens, at least in the US, and have been for a very long time. You summed up the problem very nicely: "it has no bearing on actual corporate accounting or taxes."
In effect, the US now has a two-tier citizenry - the "human citizens" and the "corporate citizens", yet corporate citizens get preferential treatment under the law.
As someone already pointed out, a corporation pays income tax on profits, which is fundamentally defined as "Gross income minus expenses", of which salary/wage costs are included, and so are immediately removed from gross profit.
Now, consider the case of a typical human citizen. Their income is considered to be pure profit at the outset, despite the fact that, in an accounting sense, it is a simple exchange of time/labor/skills for money, and so would, in any sane world, be an even exchange.
They are not able to avail themselves of the same treatment as corporate citizens, because according to the IRS, their time has no value as an expense as individuals, even though it does for the corporations that employ them.
Call me crazy, but if that doesn't prove that corporate citizens are given preferential treatment over human citizens in the US, I don't know what does.
You aren't supposed to pay 35% of revenue. Taxes are paid on profits.
That leads me to one of my favorite quotes, from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Or, in this case: "All citizens are equal but some citizens are more equal than others."
Human citizens are told what their expenses can be as a percentage of gross income/profit, in the form of deductions in set amounts, because for human citizens they are treated as one and the same: Gross income for human citizens equals net profit, for the most part.
But the salaried guy is only responsible for himself and his family. He doesn't have to cover payroll.
Sure he does, only the payroll for him is individual - he covers it by working. If he doesn't work, he doesn't get paid.
Unless you're suggesting that corporations shouldn't have deductions?
*I* certainly am not, I have no problems in general with the way corporate citizens are allowed to calculate profits. The problem that I have is that because of the two-tiered nature of citizenry in the US, such laws are now inherently biased in favor of corporations, and not only when it comes to taxation.
You, and people like you, believe that corporate citizens should be given special treatment, because of the benefits they bring to the economy. However, such benefits could not be realized without the human citizens that work for them. Why shouldn't they be treated equally under the law? After all, unlike corporate citizens, which can be effectively immortal, human citizens give up the only thing that any human being truly possesses: Their life, expressed in part as time working, in exchange for the money needed to live in our society.
Such an exchange, while necessary, can hardly be considered profit when viewed in human terms.
And therein lies the true problem, I think. We've lost the concept of individual human dignity, the idea that human lives are valuable, and replaced it with the amorality of corporations upon whom most of us now depend to live.We've given them unparalleled power over our lives, over our government, with next to no accountability, and in return have become serfs at best, slaves at worst, to legal fictions created by the greedy and self-centered, aided and abetted by the politicians we've trusted for so long to represent us.
Now it's mostly just crap about who pissed on who's patents
Well, that's marginally better than the copyright wars that reigned here not so long ago... or the global warming debate... or... what was before that? I forget.
I imagine, however, that those generated more revenue. Patent battles among corporations are pretty much a battle among giants, and most of us here are just nerdly peons, fairly removed from such. They're gonna do whatever they want, work it out in the end, and the rest of us will get shat upon, one way or another.
From here in the "cheap seats"? Shit is shit, regardless of who is dumping it on you, or so it seems to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it's a laptop, roughly the same formfactor as a netbook:
http://news.lenovo.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1398
The model I bought came with 2GB RAM (Which I upgraded to 8GB), 160GB HD (Which I promptly cloned to a WD 750GB 7200 RPM HD, and cloned the original drive before booting).
Sorry, I don't sell hardware anymore - no money in it for a small (Read: One person) business.Check Lenovo's site, and watch for discount coupons and sales.
Regards,
dj
I guess that depends on what you mean by "netbook". I bought a ThinkPad x120e and its form factor is pretty much the same as a netbook, but it is powerful enough to replace a standard business-class laptop from a computing perspective.
I've pretty much stopped using my ThinkPad T500 as the x120e has handled everything that I've thrown at it... of course, upgrading the memory to 8 GB and the hard drive to 750 GB helped quite a bit *grin*.
As for real tablets: I bought a Kindle Fire, but I don't use if for anything other than reading books and streaming video, so I can't really attest to its usability as a general-purpose computing device.
If I were traveling, I'd carry both. The weight penalty of the Kindle Fire is minimal, and between it and the x120e all of my needs would be satisfied.
Regards,
dj
Bullshit. Since all money in the US comes from the Fed, in one way, shape or form, yes, you did.
Yeah, but, you missed a few things, and since you're "cherry-picking", well, I think I can, too :)
:)
Ninth Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, unless it's explicity stated, the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction. So, have fun refuting that!
Regards,
dj
So, you're proposing disarming every air marshal as well and giving them a club?
You're an idiot.
Seriously. Why don't you stop posting here until you learn how to think?
Regards,
dj
That doesn't make any sense at all. I read it, re-read it and I still don't understand what you wrote. How could there be something wrong with the software just because 2000 new devices are connecting to 2000 existing accounts?
Take a typical situation in a corporation: An employee gets a new laptop. Congratulations! That's one new device connecting to one existing account. Now, scale that up through a computer refresh cycle at a large corporation... say 200 new computers each quarter. Hey that's 800 new devices per year connecting to existing accounts!
Then add in smartphones, and, as in this case, iPads.
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make?
Regards,
dj
That's just another sign of ineffectual management or broken corporate culture. If you're working for a company that makes you work overtime so that you can do the work of 2-3 people, then you're being abused.
Regards,
dj
Aw, how cute! A self-professed hobbyist programmer with a UID in the nosebleed section deigns to lecture the rest of Slashdot, assuming that his life is exactly what everyone else here aspires to.
Congress hasn't declared war on either. In fact, the last formal declaration of war made by Congress was World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
I'm fairly certain that it doesn't matter either way to all of the people that have died, nor to their families and loved ones.
Regards,
dj
And what principle would that be, exactly? By your own admission you don't even pay for the service, which gives you no say at all. In addition, your roommate apparently signed up without a contract establishing any terms of service at all - that makes him an idiot, and you even more so for thinking that you are entitled to complain.
Which would make sense, considering the fact that he didn't agree to any terms at all.
Did you even bother to read what you wrote before posting it? It proves the parent's point: You ARE an entitlement nag.
I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to warn us, it's not likely that anyone here really cares, not even if your sociopathic tendencies were to turn to violence. After all, what are you going to do, kill us over the Internet with the sheer force of your moral outrage? If you were to go postal in the real world, odds are the people that you killed wouldn't be any of us. I do, however, pity your roommate...
To quote the late Warren Oates in his role as Sergeant Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis".
Regards
dj
Tell me you're joking? The Federal Reserve only generates money in the sense that it earns interest on money that it creates from nothing and then loans out.
Here's a link to a post that sums it up nicely: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message592721/pg1
You can't actually get this from the Federal Reserve's Web site any longer, although years ago there was a section that dealt with fiat money and the economy which made it clear that the Federal Reserve made money from nothing. I haven't looked, but you might find it on the Wayback Machine.
Regards,
dj
Thanks! There's two clarifications that I'd like to make:
"Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money." should be "Doing this ensures that all candidates have the same amount of money." I had originally thought to permit candidates to use their own money in addition, which would have resulted in the "basically the same" part... but I think that any candidate wishing to donate should do so under the same terms as anyone else.
The other clarification:
"Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord" is better stated "Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them monetarily to play fair of their own accord", which was implied but is better stated explicitly.
Regards,
dj
There's another alternative, at least at the Federal level: Mandate an election contribution system that evens the playing field for all candidates by making all contributions a part of a common pool for each elected position.
Donations would earmarked when made: "Federal Senator #1 From California", "3rd District Representative From Ohio #3", etc.
There would be a fixed time period for donations, and once the donation period ended, no more donations could be made and all of the money donated at that point would be evenly divided between all candidates that meet the electoral requirements for that position.
Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money.
In addition, all donations would be non-tax exempt for Federal taxation purposes, whether they came from corporations or from individuals.
Then, require that all candidates only use their share of the money from the pool for that election. Any attempts to side-step this on the part of a candidate or his/her supporters would be illegal, and if discovered would result in automatic disqualification from that election, even after the fact, and if the candidate won the election, the results would be voided and the person that came in second would take the office.
This is the only way I can see to reform campaign donations, by building checks such as these into the process itself.
And for those that would say that this isn't fair? It's eminently fair from a monetary perspective, and the candidates would then be forced to actually run on the strengths of their campaign platforms and wouldn't be able to easily "drown out" others. In addition, it helps to somewhat remove the "campaign donation as bribe" aspect that exists in the campaign donation system today.
Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord, and so I think that we have to resort to draconian measures such as these to force them to do so.
Regards,
dj
The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the states or the citizenry, it enumerates the rights of the Federal government.
The 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Honestly, I don't know where people get the idea that the Constitution grants citizens rights - it does not. It recognizes a few of them, explicitly, and also explicitly states that those recognized are not all that there may be.
Regards,
dj br
Sure it does. The minimum and maximum powers are those enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, and those are exactly the powers it has. Nothing more, nothing less. There's a reason that the 10th Amendment was included, you know.
Regards,
dj
What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people
The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.
The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.
And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.
Regards,
dj br
Now all you need to do is fix that keyboard driver and you'll be all set!
Or he's really that old and senility is setting in...
It's a string variable in very old versions of BASIC :)
Care to elaborate? One presumes that you're speaking from a position of authority here. Which plane crash(es) have you survived? What advice do you have to others that might find themselves in the same predicament? Oh, and do you have a newsletter?
Regards,
dj
Not necessarily. The act of asking a question may show that, depending on the question and how it is asked. It might also show that the person asking is lazy, and doesn't care to find an answer on his/her own. If you are asked the same question by the same person repeatedly, it might indicate that you're not answering it clearly or that the person is incapable of understanding the answer.
I do agree that believing that the mere act of asking a question is a problem itself is ridiculous, however.
Regards,
dj
Steve Jobs: iDead.
Laugh, it's a joke.
Wait, too soon?
You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing. It is not, and here's why: Corporations are citizens, at least in the US, and have been for a very long time. You summed up the problem very nicely: "it has no bearing on actual corporate accounting or taxes."
In effect, the US now has a two-tier citizenry - the "human citizens" and the "corporate citizens", yet corporate citizens get preferential treatment under the law.
As someone already pointed out, a corporation pays income tax on profits, which is fundamentally defined as "Gross income minus expenses", of which salary/wage costs are included, and so are immediately removed from gross profit.
Now, consider the case of a typical human citizen. Their income is considered to be pure profit at the outset, despite the fact that, in an accounting sense, it is a simple exchange of time/labor/skills for money, and so would, in any sane world, be an even exchange.
They are not able to avail themselves of the same treatment as corporate citizens, because according to the IRS, their time has no value as an expense as individuals, even though it does for the corporations that employ them.
Call me crazy, but if that doesn't prove that corporate citizens are given preferential treatment over human citizens in the US, I don't know what does.
That leads me to one of my favorite quotes, from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Or, in this case: "All citizens are equal but some citizens are more equal than others."
Human citizens are told what their expenses can be as a percentage of gross income/profit, in the form of deductions in set amounts, because for human citizens they are treated as one and the same: Gross income for human citizens equals net profit, for the most part.
Sure he does, only the payroll for him is individual - he covers it by working. If he doesn't work, he doesn't get paid.
*I* certainly am not, I have no problems in general with the way corporate citizens are allowed to calculate profits. The problem that I have is that because of the two-tiered nature of citizenry in the US, such laws are now inherently biased in favor of corporations, and not only when it comes to taxation.
You, and people like you, believe that corporate citizens should be given special treatment, because of the benefits they bring to the economy. However, such benefits could not be realized without the human citizens that work for them. Why shouldn't they be treated equally under the law? After all, unlike corporate citizens, which can be effectively immortal, human citizens give up the only thing that any human being truly possesses: Their life, expressed in part as time working, in exchange for the money needed to live in our society.
Such an exchange, while necessary, can hardly be considered profit when viewed in human terms.
And therein lies the true problem, I think. We've lost the concept of individual human dignity, the idea that human lives are valuable, and replaced it with the amorality of corporations upon whom most of us now depend to live.We've given them unparalleled power over our lives, over our government, with next to no accountability, and in return have become serfs at best, slaves at worst, to legal fictions created by the greedy and self-centered, aided and abetted by the politicians we've trusted for so long to represent us.
Regards,
dj
RDP works just as well for that, and is available for Windows, Linux and OS X. Regards, dj
Well, that's marginally better than the copyright wars that reigned here not so long ago... or the global warming debate... or... what was before that? I forget.
I imagine, however, that those generated more revenue. Patent battles among corporations are pretty much a battle among giants, and most of us here are just nerdly peons, fairly removed from such. They're gonna do whatever they want, work it out in the end, and the rest of us will get shat upon, one way or another.
From here in the "cheap seats"? Shit is shit, regardless of who is dumping it on you, or so it seems to me.
Cynically,
dj