Currently there are several worthwhile Laptop manufacturers, it depends on many things...
-)Is it going to run Linux? then hardware becomes a major concern, though there are many sites that show you how to run Linux on the iBook, but you might not be a Mac Zealot.
-)Do you want DVD support?
-)What speed range? How much RAM?
-)What chip...AMD or Intel?
-)Are you looking for a mobile desktop?
there are plenty more things to consider, but I'd look at Dell, the iBook starting at $1200 is a beautiful machine, and give Toshiba a look see.
This stuff is pretty dependent on your needs and wants, the iBooks are ideal and more for students, but aren't usually compatible with all business machines which are often x86. Look around, compare prices, and look at the common sense article on top-of-the-line computer hardware.
"and produce a sensible version Americans can point their simple minded government towards as a good example."
Simple minded? Nah. They just have loyalties the the almighty dollar before their constituents. Not simple minded, greedy maybe or corrupted, but hardly stupid. The problem rests in the influences on gov't now. Sure we can vote, but we can't throw millions of dollars around. Oraganization is the only threat we can use to hold gov't to our interests by using the ability to have a large number of votes to throw around.
"3. Voters are allowed to cast primary and secondary votes. (this is the original part) For instance, under the old system a voter wanting to vote for a third party, say Green Party and Ralph Nader, regrettably assists the candidate with the opposite political ideoligies into office. (George Bush) Under my system, the voter could select Nader without fear or apprehension because he or she also has a secondary vote. In the likley event that the minority candidate doesn't win, the secondary vote is tabulated, and in this way a voter is given a more effective way to express his or her intent. "
That'd be stupid. What about the person who wants to vote for say Bush? If they couldn't use their secondary vote for him as well then it would unbalance the voting.(they get one vote and you get two) If they can then everyone just has two votes and whats the difference?
Slashdot Mirror
-)Is it going to run Linux? then hardware becomes a major concern, though there are many sites that show you how to run Linux on the iBook, but you might not be a Mac Zealot.
-)Do you want DVD support?
-)What speed range? How much RAM?
-)What chip...AMD or Intel?
-)Are you looking for a mobile desktop?
there are plenty more things to consider, but I'd look at Dell, the iBook starting at $1200 is a beautiful machine, and give Toshiba a look see.
This stuff is pretty dependent on your needs and wants, the iBooks are ideal and more for students, but aren't usually compatible with all business machines which are often x86. Look around, compare prices, and look at the common sense article on top-of-the-line computer hardware.
Simple minded? Nah. They just have loyalties the the almighty dollar before their constituents. Not simple minded, greedy maybe or corrupted, but hardly stupid. The problem rests in the influences on gov't now. Sure we can vote, but we can't throw millions of dollars around. Oraganization is the only threat we can use to hold gov't to our interests by using the ability to have a large number of votes to throw around.
"3. Voters are allowed to cast primary and secondary votes. (this is the original part) For instance, under the old system a voter wanting to vote for a third party, say Green Party and Ralph Nader, regrettably assists the candidate with the opposite political ideoligies into office. (George Bush) Under my system, the voter could select Nader without fear or apprehension because he or she also has a secondary vote. In the likley event that the minority candidate doesn't win, the secondary vote is tabulated, and in this way a voter is given a more effective way to express his or her intent. " That'd be stupid. What about the person who wants to vote for say Bush? If they couldn't use their secondary vote for him as well then it would unbalance the voting.(they get one vote and you get two) If they can then everyone just has two votes and whats the difference?