They apparently built in a 1.3MP digital camera. That seems a bit odd to me. The fact is that without a flash a 1.xMP camera is pretty bad except outdoors. And despite this being smaller than a normal laptop, I'm hesitant to say I'd want to hold it up to take a picture.
That being said, I do see how this device would make an excellent companion for a real digital camera. My wife and I spent over $1000 on our digital camera but don't do any editing/compiling/uploading until we get home to our desktop. I think it would be cool to be on vacation, shoot some video, hook it up to this via USB 2.0, make some edits, and then upload over 802.11 to a site for relatives/friends to view it.
If I were them I'd kill the built in camera to keep price down. Bluetooth and/or USB will provide access to a camera. People talk a LOT about convergence and all in one device, but I do not want to use a full computer to take pictures, regardless of the size.
Would a wife be more jealous of a second wife or of a mistress? Would a husband be more jealous if his wife had a second husband or an ongoing affair?
I've often wondered about this. I believe there would need to be further research to say one way or the other. It would not surprise me, however, if there did exist hormonal differences between men and women that caused men to be more possessive/territorial than women in general. If you look at history, SOMETHING caused men to be the dominant sex, and my guess would a combination of physical and hormonal differences.
Modern life has changed a lot of this as we aren't dependent on the "brawn" of men to go out an hunt for food, fight off enemies, etc. With the advent of technology, women can just as easily provide for the family and fight off enemies. I believe these fundamental technological shifts are what has paved the way for the women's rights movement to emerge. I also happen to believe that is a Good Thing(tm).
Presumably women are getting something more than just sex from their husband(s).
Of course, and I wasn't asserting the woman would have the problem. The fact is the male sex drive is generally much stronger than the female sex drive. My wife is pregnant currently, and this has dampened her sex drive even further. A "good" husband (as I like to think of myself) is able to handle this reduction in sexual activity for the duration. Now, take the multiple husband scenario to an extreme. If the woman were expected to bear the children of multiple husbands (which she can only do one at a time) she would be pregnant most of the time and what's left of her sexual capability would be split amongst all husbands.
I tend to believe that this is possible with the right people, the right expectations and a true three-way relationship with everyone emotionally involved with everyone else. However, if you get to 4+ folks, I think you need more than one female partner involved. I hate to reduce it to these sexual issues, but that is one of the large defining drives of man and is built in hormonally through evolution.
As of 2/1/2004 we launched an aggressive new rate plan structure designed to be very competitive with other carriers. It clearly depends on what you want, but for most folks I've met Nextel can be a savings. What does your plan include/cost?
Nextel doesn't provide analog coverage in areas that don't have digital towers
Absolutely true. Nextel is an all-digital company and we don't have any roaming with any other carriers (even digital ones). With Nextel, if you have a signal, it is the Nextel network (with the exception of int'l GSM phones). This is largely due to our core technology, iDEN.
Certainly keep an eye on us as we continue to expand . CapEx this year will be huge and Nextel announced on its earnings call two days ago that we will build over 2200 towers this year. That being said, we cater mostly to business, not consumers, so we do focus on where most businesses are and rural areas tend to get left out.
I believe "rogue weapon" would be a weapon that is not properly declared as required by international non-proliferation treaties and the IAEA's guidance.
Any nation with a WMD program is a rogue nation
Not true. Only nations possessing "rogue weapons" as described above and whose leadership is not representative and/or controlled by its people, are generally considered "rogue nations".
the USA has bio, nuke and chem weapons... why cant everyone else?
Actually, legally, they can, though in a practical sense they cannot. Nations with the technology are either signatories of non-proliferation treaties or are heavily pressured by the signatories not to share the technology. A country could develop this technology entirely in-house, but the chances of a non-first-world nation having the education and high-tech production capability to do this independently is very unlikely. Also, if a nation were to attempt to do so, they would need to declare everything they were doing in order to not be considered "rogue".
This system exists on the theory that those nations capable of developing WMD on their own are also generally advanced enough to handle the security and safety of those WMD. Recent events may challenge this theory however, as revelations about Pakistan's sharing of WMD technology emerge.
IMHO, I'd rather that nobody had WMD, but then I'd also prefer we not have religion, conflict, wars, crime, dictators, etc...
Part of the deal was that the gov't was going to require Vodaphone to sell off their entire stake in Verizon if they won the bid for ATTWS.
This is not entirely correct. The government has not yet weighed in on any of the bid offers. Vodafone wants to be a player in the US Market. They are in virtually every other part of the world already and would like to build a "global brand". However, their 47% stake in VZW has not given them the naming rights (hence Verizon does not carry the Vodofone brand name). Vodofone would have sold their stake in VZW to bid on AWE for two reasons. First, to raise the capital needed for the bid. Second, because they only need one carrier in the U.S. to carry their brand and AWE is GSM (which matches Vodofone everywhere else). AFAIK there was no government mandate involved here, just business strategy.
I wonder if an area like Athens GA that limits the number of wireless contractors
Can you elaborate on the above? I live in Atlanta, GA and work for Nextel. AFAIK, we had no problem rolling out service in Athens, GA. With any market, you have to acquire spectrum rights and tower building permits, but I'm not aware of any GA cities limiting the number of carriers. We have put up several towers in Athens-Clarke county in the past few months.
I'm biased as I work for Nextel, but we are growing rapidly nationwide. I travel a lot and very rarely have any issues. Obviously all my coworkers are on Nextel, but also my friends and family have all converted to Nextel after WLNP hit. Now we all use the radio nationwide for unlimited voice communications. On the cell side, Nextel is well known for its Free Incoming plans, which offer unlimited incoming cellular. For very heavy users, we even have a completely unlimited plan (unlimited everything)...
Like I said, I'm biased, but I am being honest. Hope it helps.
I am an election judge for the upcoming primary in MD, and we had to take a class on our new electronic voting machines, made by Diebold.
Out of curiosity, was the class also taught by Diebold folks? I think you are missing the point most people here are making. You are assuming that everything will work just the way they told you it will work. But they will not let anyone examine the source code, they will not allow a paper trail, etc. So how do you know that you are not being lied to?
I commend you for helping out in your local election, but you seem to trust the Diebold corporation more than most people.
Once upon a time, there were no cell phones. I know, its hard to imagine, but it's true. When people had a heart attack, someone used the phone by the restrooms to call an ambulance.
Once upon a time there weren't even any ambulances. And my what an annoyance they are! I'm trying to peacefully drive down the road and here they come barreling along blaring their sirens and thinking they should have all the right of way. Well, I'm setting up roadblocks on my streets, because it should be me who gets to choose who can and cannot use these public roadways.
All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife...
Your post reflects the continuing issues of women's rights. There is nothing in the word polygamy that implies a man having multiple wives. There is nothing wrong with polygamy except for those whose moral and/or religious beliefs forbid it. Just as a man could have multiple wives, a woman could have multiple husbands.
Now, that being said, it isn't very likely that any woman would want multiple husbands. While some emotional and economic benefits exist for polygamy in general, the downside of jealousy is always there. And on the sex issue, very few women have enough of a sex drive to want multiple husbands, whereas that problem is common for men. Evolution is so cruel.
First (quick) point: most of the US debt is owed to US citizens.
This is correct. However, the percentage owned by foreign entities has been rising as a percentage of the total.(reference)
It is much more fiscally responsible to balance the budget (erring slightly either way doesn't make a big difference), and reduce the effect of the debt due to (1) an increased GDP and (2) inflation (the time value of money decreases).
The idea of reducing the federal debt through "inflation" is ludicrous. Remember that the debt is earning interest as well. Increase GDP does not directly reduce the debt.
needs to read more articles where Nobel Laureate economists give their insight
Ok, lets look at some of the information in that article...
ROBINSON: What about option two, using the surplus to pay off the national debt?
FRIEDMAN: From a purely economic point of view that makes a great deal of sense. If it were feasible to take the whole surplus and use it to pay down the debt, I might well be in favor of it. The argument against doing that is political. Even if politicians say they are going to pay down the debt, the political pressures to spend it will be so strong that they will in fact spend it.
Notice that he says paying down the debt is a good idea and that political reasons stand in the way. I'm not arguing with that. The source of political opposition is in the electorate.
...But I personally would rather it go back in the form of lower taxes.
The argument that people will make for paying back the debt is that, if you pay it back, the money will go to people who will invest it. The sellers of government securities will want to replace them with other assets, which will mean investment.
Friedman only cites one argument for paying down the national debt. The argument he cites is true, and I agree with that argument. I will deal with his opinion on it in a moment. First, consider the other reasons for paying down the debt which he did not cite: Reducing interest payments and obligations, reducing foreign ownership of american government debt and increasing our future capability to borrow in times of need.
World War II required surge borrowing of an extra 72% of GDP (above the prior 50% debt ratio) to meet the surge production and economic shifts necessary to meet our war needs. Now, that really was not all that difficult, since the private sector's share of the economy's national income at that time was itself 80% of the economic pie, as shown in the
Government Spending Report. But now the private sector's share has been shrunk to 60% of the economic pie, leaving less capacity for a surge to war-time needs. Now, today's debt is 60% GDP (or, 72% of national income). Can you imagine trying to add another 72% on top to meet an equivalent war in the future, considering the smaller relative private sector? Who are we going to shift from peace-time production to war-time production - - our higher ratio of seniors, state & local government employees and welfare recipients? And who will loan us the additional $7.3 trillion, since we are already tapped out with record domestic and foreign borrowings today?
Correct. At the end of Clinton's term there was a "forecasted surplus", not an "actual surplus"... The problem was that the next administration used that forecasted surplus to justify "giving the money back to Americans" instead of paying down the debt. Hence the tax refunds and cuts, which, combined with the war expenses, eliminated the surplus and pushed us back into deficits.
Isn't true, there hasn't been any "surplus". When Clinton got out we we're in DEBT and we still are, just worse.
This is a very common misunderstanding and the language must be very clear. Many Americans (unfortunately) do not understand the difference between deficit/surplus and debt. The "deficit" is the amount by which federal spending exceeds federal income in the current year budget. The debt, OTOH, is what the U.S. owes its creditors. See also here
The relationship is that the deficit is the amount by which the federal debt will grow in a given year. To complicate matters, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the "projected deficit/surplus" often for the next 5, 10 or 20 years. These "projections" are based on a host of variables but are generally based on the current tax policies, projected tax revenues (hence projected employment, spending, etc. are factors) and projected expense changes (bills already passed that have spending which kicks in in the future, etc.). These CBO reports are valuable for showing what may or may not need to be fixed/changed, but they should never be considered accurate as all of the variables change (often significantly) each year (espescially the tax code lately).
There was a forecasted "surplus" at the end of Clinton's term. This did not mean that we would be out of debt (a $179B surplus cannot pay off $5 trillion in debt). However, it did mean that we should be able to begin to pay off the debt, thereby reducing future interest payments (which yields a higher forecasted surplus).
Since most American's do not understand this, and most cannot comprehend what $7 Trillion really is, they tend to ignore the issue. But if we do not start paying down the debt, we will run into major problems. If the world stops buying US Treasury notes, we will have to find some other way to get the money to pay for our deficit spending.
I'm sure the above has a few mistakes, this topic is fairly confusing and controversial. Several of the above items are also interpreted differently by some folks. See Also Here
I will be the first to admit that I haven't done the historical research myself. I was taught the general story in like the 6th grade (I think)... I believe the story went that some colonialists (military or otherwise) sent blankets to the Indians as "gifts". These blankets were supposedly infected with smallpox (and known to be). This may have been what triggered a widely know epidemic of smallpox (which had not been on the American continent prior to the Western colonial period).
...the most important piece of human history to future generations who are living on Moon Base Alpha
I agree completely. We shouls ship it to Moon Base Alpha at once and let them deal with it.
Seriously though, I agree with other posters that I am sick and tired of going to museums and watching documentaries on what we have done in the past. I am now much more interested in what can be done in the future with resources like the $40M cost to preserve the tower.
For example, that money would pay for 4 $10M X-prizes, right?
As for people who claim they never watch terrestrial, or listen to BBC radio, or browse the BBC news website or anything else the licence funds - bullshit.
I love this system. I often watch things from BBC TV, listen to BBC Radio and/or visit the BBC website. But since I am not British I don't pay anything!
Now, what other services might Britain provide for free to the rest of us?:)
What do y'all (as we say here in NC;-) think of these terms? Unusual? Reasonable?
I suppose it depends what you plan to do with it. Do you have anything to hide?
The terms are completely reasonable considering this is a market-trial and they are providing devices and services to you at no charge. I wouldn't expect this to be the terms of their final EULA once commercially available.
Wan wireless would be cool if the people that actually had an application for it either got approval or they could justify wireless's cost, but it usually ends up in the hands of marketdroids or MBA's.
Bellsouth has hundreds of thousands of fixed leased circuit lines out there running 9.6 kbps. These are often used in SCADA systems, etc. Each of these lines typically costs $150-$250 per month. If this can be done today at $50/month, doesn't that alone "justify wireless' cost"? Mostly the market is simply not aware of today's capabilities.
Slashdot Mirror
They apparently built in a 1.3MP digital camera. That seems a bit odd to me. The fact is that without a flash a 1.xMP camera is pretty bad except outdoors. And despite this being smaller than a normal laptop, I'm hesitant to say I'd want to hold it up to take a picture.
That being said, I do see how this device would make an excellent companion for a real digital camera. My wife and I spent over $1000 on our digital camera but don't do any editing/compiling/uploading until we get home to our desktop. I think it would be cool to be on vacation, shoot some video, hook it up to this via USB 2.0, make some edits, and then upload over 802.11 to a site for relatives/friends to view it.
If I were them I'd kill the built in camera to keep price down. Bluetooth and/or USB will provide access to a camera. People talk a LOT about convergence and all in one device, but I do not want to use a full computer to take pictures, regardless of the size.
Modern life has changed a lot of this as we aren't dependent on the "brawn" of men to go out an hunt for food, fight off enemies, etc. With the advent of technology, women can just as easily provide for the family and fight off enemies. I believe these fundamental technological shifts are what has paved the way for the women's rights movement to emerge. I also happen to believe that is a Good Thing(tm). Of course, and I wasn't asserting the woman would have the problem. The fact is the male sex drive is generally much stronger than the female sex drive. My wife is pregnant currently, and this has dampened her sex drive even further. A "good" husband (as I like to think of myself) is able to handle this reduction in sexual activity for the duration. Now, take the multiple husband scenario to an extreme. If the woman were expected to bear the children of multiple husbands (which she can only do one at a time) she would be pregnant most of the time and what's left of her sexual capability would be split amongst all husbands.
I tend to believe that this is possible with the right people, the right expectations and a true three-way relationship with everyone emotionally involved with everyone else. However, if you get to 4+ folks, I think you need more than one female partner involved. I hate to reduce it to these sexual issues, but that is one of the large defining drives of man and is built in hormonally through evolution.
Certainly keep an eye on us as we continue to expand . CapEx this year will be huge and Nextel announced on its earnings call two days ago that we will build over 2200 towers this year. That being said, we cater mostly to business, not consumers, so we do focus on where most businesses are and rural areas tend to get left out.
This system exists on the theory that those nations capable of developing WMD on their own are also generally advanced enough to handle the security and safety of those WMD. Recent events may challenge this theory however, as revelations about Pakistan's sharing of WMD technology emerge.
IMHO, I'd rather that nobody had WMD, but then I'd also prefer we not have religion, conflict, wars, crime, dictators, etc...
"SBC Communications Inc. owns 60 percent of Cingular, while BellSouth owns 40 percent."
I'm biased as I work for Nextel, but we are growing rapidly nationwide. I travel a lot and very rarely have any issues. Obviously all my coworkers are on Nextel, but also my friends and family have all converted to Nextel after WLNP hit. Now we all use the radio nationwide for unlimited voice communications. On the cell side, Nextel is well known for its Free Incoming plans, which offer unlimited incoming cellular. For very heavy users, we even have a completely unlimited plan (unlimited everything)...
Like I said, I'm biased, but I am being honest. Hope it helps.
I commend you for helping out in your local election, but you seem to trust the Diebold corporation more than most people.
[/sarcasm]
Now, that being said, it isn't very likely that any woman would want multiple husbands. While some emotional and economic benefits exist for polygamy in general, the downside of jealousy is always there. And on the sex issue, very few women have enough of a sex drive to want multiple husbands, whereas that problem is common for men. Evolution is so cruel.
This is correct. However, the percentage owned by foreign entities has been rising as a percentage of the total.(reference)
The idea of reducing the federal debt through "inflation" is ludicrous. Remember that the debt is earning interest as well. Increase GDP does not directly reduce the debt.
Ok, lets look at some of the information in that article...
Notice that he says paying down the debt is a good idea and that political reasons stand in the way. I'm not arguing with that. The source of political opposition is in the electorate.
Friedman only cites one argument for paying down the national debt. The argument he cites is true, and I agree with that argument. I will deal with his opinion on it in a moment. First, consider the other reasons for paying down the debt which he did not cite: Reducing interest payments and obligations, reducing foreign ownership of american government debt and increasing our future capability to borrow in times of need.
Taken from here:
Back to the article you cited...
Correct. At the end of Clinton's term there was a "forecasted surplus", not an "actual surplus"... The problem was that the next administration used that forecasted surplus to justify "giving the money back to Americans" instead of paying down the debt. Hence the tax refunds and cuts, which, combined with the war expenses, eliminated the surplus and pushed us back into deficits.
And if I just steal their 'loyalty card'?
The relationship is that the deficit is the amount by which the federal debt will grow in a given year. To complicate matters, the Congressional Budget Office forecasts the "projected deficit/surplus" often for the next 5, 10 or 20 years. These "projections" are based on a host of variables but are generally based on the current tax policies, projected tax revenues (hence projected employment, spending, etc. are factors) and projected expense changes (bills already passed that have spending which kicks in in the future, etc.). These CBO reports are valuable for showing what may or may not need to be fixed/changed, but they should never be considered accurate as all of the variables change (often significantly) each year (espescially the tax code lately).
There was a forecasted "surplus" at the end of Clinton's term. This did not mean that we would be out of debt (a $179B surplus cannot pay off $5 trillion in debt). However, it did mean that we should be able to begin to pay off the debt, thereby reducing future interest payments (which yields a higher forecasted surplus).
Since most American's do not understand this, and most cannot comprehend what $7 Trillion really is, they tend to ignore the issue. But if we do not start paying down the debt, we will run into major problems. If the world stops buying US Treasury notes, we will have to find some other way to get the money to pay for our deficit spending.
I'm sure the above has a few mistakes, this topic is fairly confusing and controversial. Several of the above items are also interpreted differently by some folks. See Also Here
Flame away.
Ack, who to believe?!?! I mean the BBC has NEVER misreported anything and the MS in MSNBC is one of the most loved names in the online world!
I will be the first to admit that I haven't done the historical research myself. I was taught the general story in like the 6th grade (I think)... I believe the story went that some colonialists (military or otherwise) sent blankets to the Indians as "gifts". These blankets were supposedly infected with smallpox (and known to be). This may have been what triggered a widely know epidemic of smallpox (which had not been on the American continent prior to the Western colonial period).
Here are some weblinks I just found:
Modern History Sourcebook
Smallpox and the American Indians
Seriously though, I agree with other posters that I am sick and tired of going to museums and watching documentaries on what we have done in the past. I am now much more interested in what can be done in the future with resources like the $40M cost to preserve the tower.
For example, that money would pay for 4 $10M X-prizes, right?
Now, what other services might Britain provide for free to the rest of us?
Regarding the loaded part, visit here for more information.
The terms are completely reasonable considering this is a market-trial and they are providing devices and services to you at no charge. I wouldn't expect this to be the terms of their final EULA once commercially available.