Ok, so their model is to sell $200 toys to people willing to give $200 to charity. Unfortunately there aren't many of the latter, so they ended up going out of business. You can complain that it is the fault of everybody who didn't pay $400 for a $200 laptop, and that's fine.
If they couldn't meet demand it's because MORE people were willing to pay that price than they expected.
Your inability to make that deduction is depressing.
Lawyers are not lobbyists. They MAY be the scum of the earth, but they are a hired hitter and often have no real opinion one way or another about a case except winning.
That applies to both lawyers and lobbyist: Bottom line, they represent their client.
The difference is that one represents to the judicial, and the other to the political.
When a prosecutor or litigant voluntarily closes a case, the government should impose a fine for "wasting taxpayer dollars" or something similar.
Because the law as it is is restricted to the wealthy, but isn't restricted to the rich enough?
The intent is good, but your suggestion would achieve the opposite of your stated goal: Only the very rich could sue, because THEY can afford the fees.
The only problem I have with the way police pull vehicles over is their practice of parking on the wrong side of the road. [...] (we drive on the left here)
Well THERE's your problem right there! You're ALL on the wrong side of the road, it's given them a hard habit to break;-)
People who might have been willing to buy an XO for $200 were probably put off by the $400 price tag. If their goal was to increase volume to drive down cost then they should have pursued sales ANYWHERE they could get them.
Their goal was to get poor kids learning opportunities otherwise denied to them, not to give cheap geeks a cool toy. They had trouble meeting the demand, much like Nintendo does with the Wii: Selling more to hose who don't need it would have made things worse, not better.
Their attitude seemed to be that we ought to be grateful for the opportunity to donate. My issue with that is that they chose to dicate the amount of contribution. That combined with the attitudes they seemed to come across with made me very hesitant to donate a dime to them.
I think the attitude problem here is the guy who demands cheap toys and refuses to contribute to charity, not the guys who deny cheap toys to those who won't contribute to charity.
Sorry, I was obviously assuming that my audience was already aware of how NN fucked up. He assumed Microsoft, Intel and all the politicians wouldn't play dirty. Then he whined about how dirty they were playing. They just ignored him, so he had a little hissy fit, then started making concessions. Game over. All of which could have been avoided if he had shown a little restraint and gotten buy-in from the big players.
You assumption that the dirty play would have ended at some reasonable point astounds me.
That doesn't make sense. Unless the OLPC hardware and software were being made by the people in the countries buying them, they would be consumers no matter what OS was preinstalled. 99.99% of open source developers are in first world countries
99.99% of computers are in those countries, think about cause and effect here.
With a secret-based proprietary OS, you cannot become a producer, with an open OS, once you have the computer in your hands, you have that option open for you. Most people will be happy to be users, just like how most people aren't musicians, but once you make the instruments available, then those with the inclination to do it have the opportunity.
Yeah because we know that the impact of an airplane flying as fast as it was going had no effect on the structural integrity of the core.
We know this because that is how it was engineered:
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It Edit event
In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, âoeOur analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.â But, he says, âoeThe building structure would still be there.â [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: âoeThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707â"DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.â
The Madrid building fire was also faught for many hours. The WTC7 fire was not.
Funny how you get so picky when your theories are being contradicted, yet fail to mention relevant details which contradict you.
Such as the fact that the WTC7 fire was fought, until the firemen were evacuated and told people to get back because the building was going to collapse.
Ah, people who tell me I ignora facts when they're the ignorants one, why don't you all just die already? Do the world a favor.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Once the mass of building above the weak point got moving, nothing below was strong enough to hold it up, so it was nearly freefall at that point. But look carefully at the video and you'll clearly see that the building above where the plane hit falls as an intact mass, taking out each floor below it in turn.
you do realize that you're talking about the wrong building, right?
Well, actually, the payment of the hijackers was done by high levels of the ISI, Pakistani CIA run largely by our own. The 9/11 commission report suggested this funding and tracing it was "of little practical value." All the Al Quaeda members involved were not on flight manifests. They were out drinking at strip clubs, and some are still alive. Besides which, the CIA has been funding Al Quaeda all along, including during the time we were fighting the cold war in Afganistan against the Soviets.
But you know, when the mob pays a hit man, police rarely bother chasing the money trail, right?
"The mob, pff, that's a crazy conspiracy theory! Criminals would never organize and share prifits, they're criminals! By definition, you are crazy."
The fact that the CIA had planned false flag activities in the past (on a much much smaller scale and without anywhere near the direct damage to the US infrastructure or loss of lives or the complications) does not mean that any given activity was carried out by the government.
The overwhelming evidence that the events were orchestrated by Al Queda-backed hijackers and not an inside job by the government combined with the nature of the attack rules that out.
Evidence provided by the people who carry out false flag operations.
Let me get this clear, if people who are professionals at fooling you provide you with evidence that one of their employees orchestrated an event, you think that is overwhelming proof that they didn't do it. Even if they profit through an increase of 100% of their budget after the event happened.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes! That's unpossible! They couldn't know that what they did was criminal, they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located, they couldn't know the jig was up!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.
Slashdot Mirror
They had trouble meeting the demand
Ok, so their model is to sell $200 toys to people willing to give $200 to charity. Unfortunately there aren't many of the latter, so they ended up going out of business. You can complain that it is the fault of everybody who didn't pay $400 for a $200 laptop, and that's fine.
If they couldn't meet demand it's because MORE people were willing to pay that price than they expected.
Your inability to make that deduction is depressing.
if I was a lawyer I would refuse to do any case I felt was unethical
Which explains why you're not a lawyer ;-)
Lawyers are not lobbyists. They MAY be the scum of the earth, but they are a hired hitter and often have no real opinion one way or another about a case except winning.
That applies to both lawyers and lobbyist: Bottom line, they represent their client.
The difference is that one represents to the judicial, and the other to the political.
When a prosecutor or litigant voluntarily closes a case, the government should impose a fine for "wasting taxpayer dollars" or something similar.
Because the law as it is is restricted to the wealthy, but isn't restricted to the rich enough?
The intent is good, but your suggestion would achieve the opposite of your stated goal: Only the very rich could sue, because THEY can afford the fees.
The only problem I have with the way police pull vehicles over is their practice of parking on the wrong side of the road.
[...]
(we drive on the left here)
Well THERE's your problem right there! You're ALL on the wrong side of the road, it's given them a hard habit to break ;-)
Can't really blame them, it's their environment.
Let's think about this: Toyota's engineers think drivers want to be spammed.
I wouldn't qualify as "thinking" a process that leads someone to say that engineers must have come up with this idea, and not marketing drones.
People who might have been willing to buy an XO for $200 were probably put off by the $400 price tag. If their goal was to increase volume to drive down cost then they should have pursued sales ANYWHERE they could get them.
Their goal was to get poor kids learning opportunities otherwise denied to them, not to give cheap geeks a cool toy. They had trouble meeting the demand, much like Nintendo does with the Wii: Selling more to hose who don't need it would have made things worse, not better.
Their attitude seemed to be that we ought to be grateful for the opportunity to donate. My issue with that is that they chose to dicate the amount of contribution. That combined with the attitudes they seemed to come across with made me very hesitant to donate a dime to them.
I think the attitude problem here is the guy who demands cheap toys and refuses to contribute to charity, not the guys who deny cheap toys to those who won't contribute to charity.
You're assuming that the target market of this device are a bunch of bushmen who will use is in broad daylight with no access to electricity.
Are *any* current OLPC users (those that the OLPC got deployed to) at all close to that?
OLPC deployment information
Sorry, I was obviously assuming that my audience was already aware of how NN fucked up. He assumed Microsoft, Intel and all the politicians wouldn't play dirty. Then he whined about how dirty they were playing. They just ignored him, so he had a little hissy fit, then started making concessions. Game over. All of which could have been avoided if he had shown a little restraint and gotten buy-in from the big players.
You assumption that the dirty play would have ended at some reasonable point astounds me.
why Microsoft wants Windows on the OLPC
They want to shape the minds of kids in a way that will increase shareholder value.
That doesn't make sense. Unless the OLPC hardware and software were being made by the people in the countries buying them, they would be consumers no matter what OS was preinstalled. 99.99% of open source developers are in first world countries
99.99% of computers are in those countries, think about cause and effect here.
With a secret-based proprietary OS, you cannot become a producer, with an open OS, once you have the computer in your hands, you have that option open for you.
Most people will be happy to be users, just like how most people aren't musicians, but once you make the instruments available, then those with the inclination to do it have the opportunity.
OLPC has the worst keyboard in history
Stop dissing the Atari 400!
Respect your elders, dammit!
We have no motivaiton to mess with Iran *in that way* right now.
That's never stopped you before...
It's hardly a big secret. There have been the USS Parche and the USS Jimmy Carter to name just two.
Why the data-snooping sub wasn't named the Nixon, I'll never know!
I've never understood this particular attack against the Wii.
Haters don't need to make sense. They just need other haters to agree with their hate.
Yeah because we know that the impact of an airplane flying as fast as it was going had no effect on the structural integrity of the core.
We know this because that is how it was engineered:
February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It
Edit event
In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, âoeOur analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.â But, he says, âoeThe building structure would still be there.â [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: âoeThe buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707â"DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.â
idiot truthers who proclaim it was a controlled demolition? Or was it thermite? Or was it basement nukes? Idiot truthers never actually say do they?
Nice strawman, does it come with matches?
I got modded troll too. I understand. :-)
It'll happen everytime you imply that the US could do anything un-good.
And most likely it's happen after the convo has died down. There's people trolling with modpoints, sad, but true.
Good Job quoting a political hit piece as a source.
Fire Engineering Magazine is a political hitpiece?
The Madrid building fire was also faught for many hours. The WTC7 fire was not.
Funny how you get so picky when your theories are being contradicted, yet fail to mention relevant details which contradict you.
Such as the fact that the WTC7 fire was fought, until the firemen were evacuated and told people to get back because the building was going to collapse.
Ah, people who tell me I ignora facts when they're the ignorants one, why don't you all just die already? Do the world a favor.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Once the mass of building above the weak point got moving, nothing below was strong enough to hold it up, so it was nearly freefall at that point. But look carefully at the video and you'll clearly see that the building above where the plane hit falls as an intact mass, taking out each floor below it in turn.
you do realize that you're talking about the wrong building, right?
No plane hit WTC7, the building in question here.
Well, actually, the payment of the hijackers was done by high levels of the ISI, Pakistani CIA run largely by our own. The 9/11 commission report suggested this funding and tracing it was "of little practical value." All the Al Quaeda members involved were not on flight manifests. They were out drinking at strip clubs, and some are still alive. Besides which, the CIA has been funding Al Quaeda all along, including during the time we were fighting the cold war in Afganistan against the Soviets.
But you know, when the mob pays a hit man, police rarely bother chasing the money trail, right?
"The mob, pff, that's a crazy conspiracy theory! Criminals would never organize and share prifits, they're criminals! By definition, you are crazy."
This is how their brain works, I fear :(
The fact that the CIA had planned false flag activities in the past (on a much much smaller scale and without anywhere near the direct damage to the US infrastructure or loss of lives or the complications) does not mean that any given activity was carried out by the government.
The overwhelming evidence that the events were orchestrated by Al Queda-backed hijackers and not an inside job by the government combined with the nature of the attack rules that out.
Evidence provided by the people who carry out false flag operations.
Let me get this clear, if people who are professionals at fooling you provide you with evidence that one of their employees orchestrated an event, you think that is overwhelming proof that they didn't do it.
Even if they profit through an increase of 100% of their budget after the event happened.
And you think I'm crazy, right?
"If you say so..."
The building you're showing has about 10 floors. WTC 1 and 2 had 10 times that
We're talking about WTC7.
Wanna tell me about other, unrellated stuff while you're at it? Your shoe size? The date of the first hot dog eating competion?
WTC7, not 1, not 2: SEVEN.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
How could criminals possibly know that they have to destroy evidence of their crimes!
That's unpossible! They couldn't know that what they did was criminal, they couldn't know where the detailed records of their intricate crimes were located, they couldn't know the jig was up!
You're mentally retarded, conviced that people with an IQ above yours are simply crazy, by definition.