So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Title 2 reclassification, which the President has proposed, is *exactly* how you do this. Common carriage, a form of title 2 regulation which governs the phone system, among other things mandates that phone infrastructure owners resell service at a reasonable wholesale rate to other phone providers. This is why you can buy phone service from any phone provider - not just the one who owns the cable that comes to your house.
The problem you're articulating - a hugely important problem - is exactly what the President is trying to tackle here. Net neutrality is part of it, but title two reclassification gives the FCC much, much broader powers to keep the eyeball networks (i.e. home broadband providers) in line. It doesn't predetermine what the FCC will do with these powers, but this is the right track.
The courts have essentially said that in the absence of title 2 reclassification, net neutrality won't be possible. But what the President is proposing IS title two regulation. Should the FCC move forward with this (its choice) it should not have an issue in the courts.
Correction - I misquoted you. There is no need to "start legislation". There is a need to start regulation! Doesn't change the substance of the comment, though.
The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!
That's why I said "many of our ancestors", not "all of them." Of course alcohol was an imperfect substitute for water, one that was most useful for cities and towns where contamination of water supplies was an issue. But I wasn't making claims of universality--only that when my parent comment said that water was good enough for our ancestors, that it was a little more complex than that.
I agree with some of this, typos--it's espresso, not expresso, for one--not withstanding. A few things, though:
1) Many of our ancestors didn't make do with water. Actually, it made a lot of them very sick, because it couldn't be sanitized efficiently. To stay healthy, they turned to alcohol. (ha!) I agree that we should have more water drinkers, but on the historical point I take issue. Water hasn't always been mankind's cup of tea. So to speak. (:
2) I think the kidney stones-milk connection is a very dubious one, which basically rests on the assertion that "AHHH KIDNEY STONES CONTAIN CALCIUM AND SO DOES MILK WHAT WILL I DO?!?!" And while it's true that both things contain lots of calcium, the only people I'd advise to stay away from milk on that account would be people who have kidney stones. Otherwise it's just scare tactics. Unless you can show me some (peer-reviewed, major journal published) evidence to the contrary.
3) Unless you're hypertensive, there's nothing particularly wrong with a *lot* of espresso. Except that it dehydrates you a bit. People have been trying to spoil coffee for the masses with damning scientific evidence for years now, and it seems that it just isn't there. (:
4) Don't leave out all of the juice! Sure, a glass of good orange juice has a lot of sugar, but it's not artificial. It's got plenty of good stuff too. One should be moderate with it, but one should be moderate with everything!
Well, sort of. Except what you're calling an intrastate activity is not a single activity at all. It's predicated on a transaction that takes place across state lines. Even more than that, it necessitates that transaction. Selling the ketchup to the customer is an "intrAstate activity," to quote you, sure. But it's intERstate commerce. If I buy imported goods from China in the US, would you really claim that's not international commerce? Come now.
If you would care to provide a link, I will investigate. I can't find the court case you are referring to. Could you give me a findlaw link?
Remember several things: 1) Federal action != Supreme Court decision 2) Lower court decision != Supreme Court decision
If you read the commerce clause section in any constitutional law textbook, it will back me up. Unless something has changed very recently, I'm going to be skeptical. Show me the court decisions.
From what I can see on findlaw (read a couple cases) it actually looks like the courts have not been terribly unkind to california's medicinal marjiuana laws.
That is a misrepresentation. It is true that the commerce clause has expanded significantly. It is not true that that expansion rests on hypotheticals.
The reason much 'intra-state' commerce isn't really 'intra-state' is that although one face of it takes place in a given state, that face would be impossible without huge quantities of national commerce which are regulated explicitly under the commerce clause. If your restaurant services travelers on the interstate, you not only participate in the national economy by serving out-of-state guests, but you surely get almost all of your goods by way of the external economy, not local growers. You are only facially a part of the state economy--in reality, you're engaging in massive amounts of interstate commerce!
You may not like it that commerce has become integrated across states since..oh, 1789. But it has, and it's unacceptable for the residents of one state to be able to perpetrate their laws, fair or otherwise, on those of another. That's what happens in an inter-state economy, and that's why the commerce clause has broadened. Not because of some potential for trade elsewhere. Your post is a distortion.
This article deeply misinterprets Tolstoy's novel. From TFA:
"Jenkins elaborates, "The last hundred pages [of "War and Peace"] is this essay that Tolstoy wrote, saying 'if the Russians had done this differently, then this would have been the result and if the French had done this differently then this would have been the result.' "It's not hard to look at 'War and Peace' and say that this wanted to be a video game."
Absurd. The last hundred pages of War and Peace describe the way in which events necessarily turned out as they did, and that those in power were so constrained by their roles that they had no more choice than the cannons that fired at Borodino. The true power, Tolstoy claims, lies with the people--but not in any concrete choices they make. In their mass action they constitute the integral of history, that which drives and shapes it. Tolstoy would never, ever, ever have said "if X had done Y differently, Z would have happened." He viciously attacked those who said precisely that--they were looking only at the manifestations of history, not its causes.
And for all of you who appreciate [insert videogame here] more than Tolstoy: it's your perogative, and there's no accounting for taste. But I've played a lot of videogames, and I've read a lot of Tolstoy (Anna Karenina, Resurrection, War and Peace, The Devil, The Forged Coupon, The Death of Ivan Illyich, Family Happiness, Sevastopol in May, Sevastopol in December, The Kreutzer Sonata, and countless other short stories). And as someone who met and appreciated video games (and I can think of several games I would classify as 'brilliant') before I encountered Tolstoy, I'll say this: I have never played a game that posessed anything like the fierce invention, modal clarity and deep insight of Tolstoy's works. It may be fashionable to bash literature on Slashdot--there was a discussion on Shakespeare vs. Video Games the other day on which I barely restrained myself from commenting--but the insight of War and Peace will never grow old or die.
Having done exactly what you're doing for 10 years, I hope I might have a little perspective on it. Basically, you're trying to provide utility, which is kind of a twofold formulation: on the one hand, you want to let these kids use the computers to print, type, game, etc. It's probably true that Linux would run faster and more securely on these older computers, so it might seem like there's more utility there. But really, all of what they're doing now is prep for real-world computer usage--they're not doing anything earthshaking now, but they're gaining computer skills, and as much as we may or may not like it, they'll be best served in the world (especially since they haven't yet been exposed to much tech and it's thus likely will not pursue IT) by Windows skills, not Linux ones. So in my formulation, despite the costs, Windows always won the utility wars, for these particular kids. This might be one of those instances in which the forthcoming cheaper versions of Vista might serve you well! Or maybe they'll lower XP prices when Vista arrives...
Now, the other part of the utility problem has to do with the hardware you take: I love computers, I'm sure you do too, and as a computer lover it's very tempting to take everything you're offered. After all, they're all cool! But you really have to set the most stringent of standards--because everyone has computers to get rid of. If you have any friends who'll tell anyone about your operation, as I did, you'll be buried in computers in no time flat. Really. Set a strict standard and stick by it. Take RAM, HDs, GFX cards, whatever, from computers that don't meet those standards (set standards for these, too) but DO NOT DO NOT take the computers. You will be stuck with tons of useless crap that you can't unload easily (computer recycling gets harder and harder!) and don't feel comfortable giving to end users because it's simply too old. And that situation sucks.
Should you have any further questions, email me: selker REMOVEREMOVE REMOVETHIS@ REMOVETHIS yale. REMOVETHIS edu
sweet jesus, folks. Google's totally within their rights, and I'd do the same thing in their place. CNet put some very personal information on a public site--yes, it can be done. yes, it's (probably, cyberstalking aside) legal. but that doesn't mean it shows any discretion or tact, which reporters are generally expected to display. Even if we don't assume that:
Reporters are not *entitled* to be told anything, and if a reporter (or group of reporters, as in this case) proves themselves hostile, juvenile and indiscreet, I wouldn't talk to them for my own good--and I'd expect that as an intelligent group of folks, Google wouldn't either. Google isn't decrying the free availability of information--to think that is absurd. they're decrying the irresponsible and vindictive use of it on a highly public website, and they're protecting themselves from a group of people who are clearly hostile to them.
The totally unprofessional, absurd ZDNet UK piece only confirms the bullshit-ness of the ZDNet position. They were tools, they were unreasonable, they were below the belt, they got burned, and now they're pissed and they complain to the world in the most juvenile tones possible. Amazing. It's like listening to a two-year old with an ego.
Even if Gale whoever is competent (even if they're the best), skill doesn't magically destroy conflicts of interest. The point that the author of this article has a serious conflict of interest is just as valid now as before you posted this pointless rubbish.
You cannot excuse a conflict of interest, except by admitting it outright and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions--which TFA does not do. Bad form.
Familiarity doesn't equal tolerance, but tolerance equals tolerance--and that's what, according to the extrordinarily brief article, the children are showing, what with their dancing around with the thing and such.
Whether or not their tolerance of it equals recognition of it as an entity different from, say, a doll, is another question. That one probably depends on their age, experience and the nature of the robot's reactions to various stimuli.
I think you're somewhat missing the point. What's being tested is not whether the robot, say, will attack the humans, or injure them, or whatever.
It's a test, rather, of the visceral, emotional response of children to a novel stimulus. (A child's perspective is something of an unadulterated--pun always intended--source of basic emotionality.)
The idea is to discover how and if children will deal with an antropomorphic entity that is similar to, but paradoxically (to them, I'm sure) different from them.
Reader Rabbit != humanesque robots. Beta testing of software != putting a robot amongst children in an unrestrictred environment. They're testing fundamentally different things.
I'd bet these children grow up with a radically liberal--not in the political sense--definition of legitimate consciousness and thought. What's more difficult to say, though, is whether that means they'll be pro-life nuts or scientific crusaders.
"I suggest that anybody who believes in freedom like I do move out and colonize some area with me. We'll set up a country centered around freedom..
Oh wait! They already did that, it's called the U.S. of A. But then why does said country have so many laws prohibiting so many types of possessions and a few types of speech?"
It's when your freedom to blow stuff up without the proper training might impinge on other people's freedoms and livelihoods that we have a problem. You might not hurt anyone with your little canisters, but that's no guarantee that what is an essentially dangerous activity might go wrong in the hands of someone less careful. The goal of the United States is not to ensure the excersize of unconditional, unlimited freedom--that would be a Bad Thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's about giving us the rights and freedoms we can have while simultaneously making sure we don't deny them to others at the same time.
When it's in the overwhelming public interest to curtail freedom (i.e. we tend not to allow people to drive drunk, even though they would be more free if it were permitted), we do it. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.
The Context Aware Computing group at the MIT Media Lab produced Eye aRe years ago. These devices detect attention paid to another such unit (yes, everyone needs to be equipped with one, which is a difference from the canadian item), and not just staring in the general direction: There is a demo, for instance, wherein the wearer can look at a computer, which prompts it to unpause movie playback. Looking away--without turning of the head, eyes only--repauses the movie (this is insanely hard to demo without sound; you can't really tell if it has paused or not when you're looking away, so you look back at it. oops.). The Eye-Are units are certainly smaller, at the very least. To be fair, they're using different technologies, but the optical advanced-ness of the canadian unit seems wasted on a supid application. The usefulness of having inanimate objects--say, appliances--know where you're looking, when, and how (the Eye aRe detects blinking, an increase of which can signal any number of things) seems to dwarf that of some hyper-blogging solution. Both devices, of course, offer a sort of unconscious appliance-control possiblilties, but one is much smaller, and cheaper to manufacture (namely, the Eye aRe).
This comment is disgusting. Its author personifies all of the absurd xenophobia that runs rampant in America (often in the guise of patriotism) nowadays. Also notable is the total lack of, or misunderstanding of the facts; there is not an argument here against the millitary's possesion of guns, or at least not that I can see. And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
I'm at least heartened by the fact that the poster seems to have some sense of shame: hence the anonymous posting.
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
I've always found this perspective absurd. If you outlaw seven-winged dogs, only outlaws will have those.
What you're presenting is not an argument against gun control/bans, it's an argument against prohibitive laws, e.g. against murder. Hey, if you outlaw murder, one might say, then those outlaws--because they then will be--will be murdering left and right. This is, of course, totally nonsensical. The objective of most 'anti-gun' groups isn't banning, anyway--it's strict control to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the real outlaws (i.e., the ones who actually commit crimes).
Seems they've decided to copy Apple's idea of fitting a 17" LCD on a laptop...
I like macs as much as the next guy, but this is rather silly. So, now, in the name of apple supremacy, the idea of increasing laptop screen size is revolutionary, and everyone else who tries it is just an imitator?
Folks, it's not like no one's upped the screen size of a laptop before....
Slashdot Mirror
So how would one go about taking away home ISPs' ability to get away with charging both sides of the connection?
Title 2 reclassification, which the President has proposed, is *exactly* how you do this. Common carriage, a form of title 2 regulation which governs the phone system, among other things mandates that phone infrastructure owners resell service at a reasonable wholesale rate to other phone providers. This is why you can buy phone service from any phone provider - not just the one who owns the cable that comes to your house.
The problem you're articulating - a hugely important problem - is exactly what the President is trying to tackle here. Net neutrality is part of it, but title two reclassification gives the FCC much, much broader powers to keep the eyeball networks (i.e. home broadband providers) in line. It doesn't predetermine what the FCC will do with these powers, but this is the right track.
For more details, I recommend Susan Crawford's excellent book, Captive Audience. http://yalepress.yale.edu/book...
The courts have essentially said that in the absence of title 2 reclassification, net neutrality won't be possible. But what the President is proposing IS title two regulation. Should the FCC move forward with this (its choice) it should not have an issue in the courts.
Correction - I misquoted you. There is no need to "start legislation". There is a need to start regulation! Doesn't change the substance of the comment, though.
The FCC doesn't need congressional approval to implement net neutrality, or Title 2 regulation. So there's no need to "start regulation." I suggest reading TFA, it's fairly educational!
What a bunch of Crookes.
That's why I said "many of our ancestors", not "all of them." Of course alcohol was an imperfect substitute for water, one that was most useful for cities and towns where contamination of water supplies was an issue. But I wasn't making claims of universality--only that when my parent comment said that water was good enough for our ancestors, that it was a little more complex than that.
I agree with some of this, typos--it's espresso, not expresso, for one--not withstanding. A few things, though:
1) Many of our ancestors didn't make do with water. Actually, it made a lot of them very sick, because it couldn't be sanitized efficiently. To stay healthy, they turned to alcohol. (ha!) I agree that we should have more water drinkers, but on the historical point I take issue. Water hasn't always been mankind's cup of tea. So to speak. (:
2) I think the kidney stones-milk connection is a very dubious one, which basically rests on the assertion that "AHHH KIDNEY STONES CONTAIN CALCIUM AND SO DOES MILK WHAT WILL I DO?!?!" And while it's true that both things contain lots of calcium, the only people I'd advise to stay away from milk on that account would be people who have kidney stones. Otherwise it's just scare tactics. Unless you can show me some (peer-reviewed, major journal published) evidence to the contrary.
3) Unless you're hypertensive, there's nothing particularly wrong with a *lot* of espresso. Except that it dehydrates you a bit. People have been trying to spoil coffee for the masses with damning scientific evidence for years now, and it seems that it just isn't there. (:
4) Don't leave out all of the juice! Sure, a glass of good orange juice has a lot of sugar, but it's not artificial. It's got plenty of good stuff too. One should be moderate with it, but one should be moderate with everything!
Well, sort of. Except what you're calling an intrastate activity is not a single activity at all. It's predicated on a transaction that takes place across state lines. Even more than that, it necessitates that transaction. Selling the ketchup to the customer is an "intrAstate activity," to quote you, sure. But it's intERstate commerce. If I buy imported goods from China in the US, would you really claim that's not international commerce? Come now.
Prove it.
If you would care to provide a link, I will investigate. I can't find the court case you are referring to. Could you give me a findlaw link?
Remember several things:
1) Federal action != Supreme Court decision
2) Lower court decision != Supreme Court decision
If you read the commerce clause section in any constitutional law textbook, it will back me up. Unless something has changed very recently, I'm going to be skeptical. Show me the court decisions.
From what I can see on findlaw (read a couple cases) it actually looks like the courts have not been terribly unkind to california's medicinal marjiuana laws.
That is a misrepresentation. It is true that the commerce clause has expanded significantly. It is not true that that expansion rests on hypotheticals.
The reason much 'intra-state' commerce isn't really 'intra-state' is that although one face of it takes place in a given state, that face would be impossible without huge quantities of national commerce which are regulated explicitly under the commerce clause. If your restaurant services travelers on the interstate, you not only participate in the national economy by serving out-of-state guests, but you surely get almost all of your goods by way of the external economy, not local growers. You are only facially a part of the state economy--in reality, you're engaging in massive amounts of interstate commerce!
You may not like it that commerce has become integrated across states since..oh, 1789. But it has, and it's unacceptable for the residents of one state to be able to perpetrate their laws, fair or otherwise, on those of another. That's what happens in an inter-state economy, and that's why the commerce clause has broadened. Not because of some potential for trade elsewhere. Your post is a distortion.
This man has nothing to do with futurism. Futurism is far more interesting than anything he's talking about.
"Jenkins elaborates, "The last hundred pages [of "War and Peace"] is this essay that Tolstoy wrote, saying 'if the Russians had done this differently, then this would have been the result and if the French had done this differently then this would have been the result.' "It's not hard to look at 'War and Peace' and say that this wanted to be a video game."
Absurd. The last hundred pages of War and Peace describe the way in which events necessarily turned out as they did, and that those in power were so constrained by their roles that they had no more choice than the cannons that fired at Borodino. The true power, Tolstoy claims, lies with the people--but not in any concrete choices they make. In their mass action they constitute the integral of history, that which drives and shapes it. Tolstoy would never, ever, ever have said "if X had done Y differently, Z would have happened." He viciously attacked those who said precisely that--they were looking only at the manifestations of history, not its causes.
And for all of you who appreciate [insert videogame here] more than Tolstoy: it's your perogative, and there's no accounting for taste. But I've played a lot of videogames, and I've read a lot of Tolstoy (Anna Karenina, Resurrection, War and Peace, The Devil, The Forged Coupon, The Death of Ivan Illyich, Family Happiness, Sevastopol in May, Sevastopol in December, The Kreutzer Sonata, and countless other short stories). And as someone who met and appreciated video games (and I can think of several games I would classify as 'brilliant') before I encountered Tolstoy, I'll say this: I have never played a game that posessed anything like the fierce invention, modal clarity and deep insight of Tolstoy's works. It may be fashionable to bash literature on Slashdot--there was a discussion on Shakespeare vs. Video Games the other day on which I barely restrained myself from commenting--but the insight of War and Peace will never grow old or die.
Having done exactly what you're doing for 10 years, I hope I might have a little perspective on it. Basically, you're trying to provide utility, which is kind of a twofold formulation: on the one hand, you want to let these kids use the computers to print, type, game, etc. It's probably true that Linux would run faster and more securely on these older computers, so it might seem like there's more utility there. But really, all of what they're doing now is prep for real-world computer usage--they're not doing anything earthshaking now, but they're gaining computer skills, and as much as we may or may not like it, they'll be best served in the world (especially since they haven't yet been exposed to much tech and it's thus likely will not pursue IT) by Windows skills, not Linux ones. So in my formulation, despite the costs, Windows always won the utility wars, for these particular kids. This might be one of those instances in which the forthcoming cheaper versions of Vista might serve you well! Or maybe they'll lower XP prices when Vista arrives...
Now, the other part of the utility problem has to do with the hardware you take: I love computers, I'm sure you do too, and as a computer lover it's very tempting to take everything you're offered. After all, they're all cool! But you really have to set the most stringent of standards--because everyone has computers to get rid of. If you have any friends who'll tell anyone about your operation, as I did, you'll be buried in computers in no time flat. Really. Set a strict standard and stick by it. Take RAM, HDs, GFX cards, whatever, from computers that don't meet those standards (set standards for these, too) but DO NOT DO NOT take the computers. You will be stuck with tons of useless crap that you can't unload easily (computer recycling gets harder and harder!) and don't feel comfortable giving to end users because it's simply too old. And that situation sucks.
Should you have any further questions, email me: selker REMOVEREMOVE REMOVETHIS@ REMOVETHIS yale. REMOVETHIS edu
sweet jesus, folks. Google's totally within their rights, and I'd do the same thing in their place. CNet put some very personal information on a public site--yes, it can be done. yes, it's (probably, cyberstalking aside) legal. but that doesn't mean it shows any discretion or tact, which reporters are generally expected to display. Even if we don't assume that:
Reporters are not *entitled* to be told anything, and if a reporter (or group of reporters, as in this case) proves themselves hostile, juvenile and indiscreet, I wouldn't talk to them for my own good--and I'd expect that as an intelligent group of folks, Google wouldn't either. Google isn't decrying the free availability of information--to think that is absurd. they're decrying the irresponsible and vindictive use of it on a highly public website, and they're protecting themselves from a group of people who are clearly hostile to them.
The totally unprofessional, absurd ZDNet UK piece only confirms the bullshit-ness of the ZDNet position. They were tools, they were unreasonable, they were below the belt, they got burned, and now they're pissed and they complain to the world in the most juvenile tones possible. Amazing. It's like listening to a two-year old with an ego.
Dude.
Even if Gale whoever is competent (even if they're the best), skill doesn't magically destroy conflicts of interest. The point that the author of this article has a serious conflict of interest is just as valid now as before you posted this pointless rubbish.
You cannot excuse a conflict of interest, except by admitting it outright and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions--which TFA does not do. Bad form.
Familiarity doesn't equal tolerance, but tolerance equals tolerance--and that's what, according to the extrordinarily brief article, the children are showing, what with their dancing around with the thing and such.
Whether or not their tolerance of it equals recognition of it as an entity different from, say, a doll, is another question. That one probably depends on their age, experience and the nature of the robot's reactions to various stimuli.
I think you're somewhat missing the point. What's being tested is not whether the robot, say, will attack the humans, or injure them, or whatever.
It's a test, rather, of the visceral, emotional response of children to a novel stimulus. (A child's perspective is something of an unadulterated--pun always intended--source of basic emotionality.)
The idea is to discover how and if children will deal with an antropomorphic entity that is similar to, but paradoxically (to them, I'm sure) different from them.
Reader Rabbit != humanesque robots. Beta testing of software != putting a robot amongst children in an unrestrictred environment. They're testing fundamentally different things.
I'd bet these children grow up with a radically liberal--not in the political sense--definition of legitimate consciousness and thought. What's more difficult to say, though, is whether that means they'll be pro-life nuts or scientific crusaders.
"I suggest that anybody who believes in freedom like I do move out and colonize some area with me. We'll set up a country centered around freedom..
Oh wait! They already did that, it's called the U.S. of A. But then why does said country have so many laws prohibiting so many types of possessions and a few types of speech?"
It's when your freedom to blow stuff up without the proper training might impinge on other people's freedoms and livelihoods that we have a problem. You might not hurt anyone with your little canisters, but that's no guarantee that what is an essentially dangerous activity might go wrong in the hands of someone less careful. The goal of the United States is not to ensure the excersize of unconditional, unlimited freedom--that would be a Bad Thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's about giving us the rights and freedoms we can have while simultaneously making sure we don't deny them to others at the same time. When it's in the overwhelming public interest to curtail freedom (i.e. we tend not to allow people to drive drunk, even though they would be more free if it were permitted), we do it. I wouldn't hesitate for a second.
The Context Aware Computing group at the MIT Media Lab produced Eye aRe years ago. These devices detect attention paid to another such unit (yes, everyone needs to be equipped with one, which is a difference from the canadian item), and not just staring in the general direction: There is a demo, for instance, wherein the wearer can look at a computer, which prompts it to unpause movie playback. Looking away--without turning of the head, eyes only--repauses the movie (this is insanely hard to demo without sound; you can't really tell if it has paused or not when you're looking away, so you look back at it. oops.). The Eye-Are units are certainly smaller, at the very least. To be fair, they're using different technologies, but the optical advanced-ness of the canadian unit seems wasted on a supid application. The usefulness of having inanimate objects--say, appliances--know where you're looking, when, and how (the Eye aRe detects blinking, an increase of which can signal any number of things) seems to dwarf that of some hyper-blogging solution. Both devices, of course, offer a sort of unconscious appliance-control possiblilties, but one is much smaller, and cheaper to manufacture (namely, the Eye aRe).
This comment is disgusting. Its author personifies all of the absurd xenophobia that runs rampant in America (often in the guise of patriotism) nowadays. Also notable is the total lack of, or misunderstanding of the facts; there is not an argument here against the millitary's possesion of guns, or at least not that I can see. And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
I'm at least heartened by the fact that the poster seems to have some sense of shame: hence the anonymous posting.
What you're presenting is not an argument against gun control/bans, it's an argument against prohibitive laws, e.g. against murder. Hey, if you outlaw murder, one might say, then those outlaws--because they then will be--will be murdering left and right. This is, of course, totally nonsensical. The objective of most 'anti-gun' groups isn't banning, anyway--it's strict control to prevent guns from falling into the hands of the real outlaws (i.e., the ones who actually commit crimes).
Seems they've decided to copy Apple's idea of fitting a 17" LCD on a laptop...
I like macs as much as the next guy, but this is rather silly. So, now, in the name of apple supremacy, the idea of increasing laptop screen size is revolutionary, and everyone else who tries it is just an imitator?
Folks, it's not like no one's upped the screen size of a laptop before....
Alternative-powered vehicles seem to be crippled..
Not this one.
Dimensions: 3.84m, 1.72m, 1.75m
Weight: 720 kg
Maximum speed: 130 kmh
Autonomy: 200 to 300 km
Recharging: 4 hours (electric)
Recharging: 3 minutes (air station)