And if Iraq was about oil, why did not one US company get in on the rebuilding, transport, or refining of Iraqi oil?
because the jackasses that lied our way in planned the exit just as well as the entrance?
Thousands of active chemical weapons, millions of liters of dual-purpose chemicals, and hundreds of tons of uranium don't count as WMDs?
No they don't. They didn't have ANYTHING remotely close to what was promised they had. A few relic bombs is not a justification for invasion of another country.
I'm in VA, horribly gerrymandered. 51st Delegate isn't that bad but the 28th Senate in VA is ridiculous - it stretches from Northern VA to almost Williamsburg
I ask you what I ask everybody, do you know who your state reps are? Not House member, but state reps/senators? Local country council? School board?
Nobody knows these things...and remember they are passing laws and regulations, like gerrymandered districts. 'Winning' the US House and Senate is impossible if you haven't been paying attention at the local level.
Shame Cheney specifically shielded big oil form disclosing the toxic chemicals they use. Makes proving that 'contamination came from the fracking a bit tougher.
"The Company keeps reiterating how great they are"
you have no idea. The year my company was named to 100 best to work for...they reprinted every god damned piece of letterhead, envelope, notepad...anything with our logo on it now had the 100 best to work for logo.
the funny thing was apparently that was illegal and within a month we got cease and desist from whoever grants 100 best to work for. Now we had zero paper for anything we could use and corporate wasn't buying yet another company wide paper buy...yeah they do anything to claim how great they are
It is, however, also absolutely essential for the next 50-100 years or so. There's just nothing else that doesn't release CO2 that can do the base-load job.
The free market will go nuclear in the short term, because a true market will price in the cost of releasing CO2 from fossil fuels and price it according to how much damage and/or cleanup costs would be - it will make nuclear look quite cheap...but only in the short term until other base-load options are available.
Feel free to come up with another explanation for the abject demonization of Obama from before he even got into office. He's a socialist! He's a communist! He's a Muslim! He's Kenyan! Terrorist Fist Bump anyone?
And Android tablets cannot be of the same tech specs as an iPad, simply because they run Android, which SUUUUCKS as a Tablet OS.
Who cares if you have twice as many cores if the UI is all jerky and crappy?
Who cares if you have 2 GB instead of 1 GB if your battery life is half that of an iPad.
Who cares if you have more Apps, if 25% of them steal your data?
Who cares if you have the latest version of Android (which you probably won't) when you buy your tablet, because you'll never see an OS update, even for things like Stagefright, unless you "jailbreak" and install some off-label build of the OS?
Who cares if you can load stuff from any dark corner of the interwebs, if all it does is open you up to even more malware?
Who cares if Google releases a payment system that is a knockoff of ApplePay; you'll never see it until you buy a new A-Thingie?
You seem to be confused. You're making my points for me. Apple's hardware generally isn't as good as competitors in the 'same price range'
It's almost as if i said:
Bottom line: It ain't about the number of Cores, number of Ports, RAM, etc. It's about the entire PACKAGE. And in that regard; Apple is still the one to beat.
the iPhone isn't popular because of the hardware it's the software and it's what Apple uses to sell the hardware at inflated costs above what others could produce the 'hardware' for
The problem is a generation knows this 'lie' was true at one point. Until you can give me something significantly BETTER than Japanese reliability, people don't see a need to change what they buy. If it's the same thing as I have now, why switch? basic consumer inertia keeps people buying what they always have.
If Apple throws as much money at a car as Tesla did, perhaps they can, but they aren't likely to do that. It will be just a small part of the ecosystem.
Apple thrives on selling cheap hardware by putting well tested software on it that really works well...and selling that package for a hefty premium. Cars aren't cheap to build and they won't be building them in China.
Slashdot Mirror
the question is why does a phone intended for *human* consumption even allow frequencies beyond human hearing?
Granted. Your hospital access is hereby revoked unless you pay upfront and full cost.
And if Iraq was about oil, why did not one US company get in on the rebuilding, transport, or refining of Iraqi oil?
because the jackasses that lied our way in planned the exit just as well as the entrance?
Thousands of active chemical weapons, millions of liters of dual-purpose chemicals, and hundreds of tons of uranium don't count as WMDs?
No they don't. They didn't have ANYTHING remotely close to what was promised they had. A few relic bombs is not a justification for invasion of another country.
I'm in VA, horribly gerrymandered. 51st Delegate isn't that bad but the 28th Senate in VA is ridiculous - it stretches from Northern VA to almost Williamsburg
Sadly, when I voted today, both of my state election options were moot...the party I don't want was running unopposed :(
I ask you what I ask everybody, do you know who your state reps are? Not House member, but state reps/senators? Local country council? School board?
Nobody knows these things...and remember they are passing laws and regulations, like gerrymandered districts. 'Winning' the US House and Senate is impossible if you haven't been paying attention at the local level.
And I'm just as guilty as the next on this.
Indeed....or Perfect, meet Good...try not to be enemies.
Visible is open. If the code is visible I'm able to download it and modify/fork/redistribute; legality of that is an, ahem, open question.
Shame Cheney specifically shielded big oil form disclosing the toxic chemicals they use. Makes proving that 'contamination came from the fracking a bit tougher.
No, it has lead to LOWER violent crimes....i.e. the ones committed by the police over and above anything reasonable.
I'm wondering about the intelligence of a FINANCIAL institution that thinks getting advice from *former* employees would be a good idea...
"Yeah (ex)boss, you should update the data...here's a script for you to run"
"The Company keeps reiterating how great they are"
you have no idea. The year my company was named to 100 best to work for...they reprinted every god damned piece of letterhead, envelope, notepad...anything with our logo on it now had the 100 best to work for logo.
the funny thing was apparently that was illegal and within a month we got cease and desist from whoever grants 100 best to work for. Now we had zero paper for anything we could use and corporate wasn't buying yet another company wide paper buy...yeah they do anything to claim how great they are
Another site's take was if they couldn't crack it they'd be in line with the FBI for back doors in software.
That they aren't nearly as vocal can be construed to mean it doesn't matter to them since they don't need the back doors.
and the interview is with The Register, a website also well known for it's AGW denial...
Well it still has negative side effects, but we're already living with those :)
He said evaluate, not valuate. Big difference that 'e' makes.
God dammit. Sticking an 'e' on something to pretend it's something new is just internet marketing!
;-)
re: nuclear.
It is absolutely everything you said.
It is, however, also absolutely essential for the next 50-100 years or so. There's just nothing else that doesn't release CO2 that can do the base-load job.
The free market will go nuclear in the short term, because a true market will price in the cost of releasing CO2 from fossil fuels and price it according to how much damage and/or cleanup costs would be - it will make nuclear look quite cheap...but only in the short term until other base-load options are available.
Feel free to come up with another explanation for the abject demonization of Obama from before he even got into office. He's a socialist! He's a communist! He's a Muslim! He's Kenyan! Terrorist Fist Bump anyone?
And Android tablets cannot be of the same tech specs as an iPad, simply because they run Android, which SUUUUCKS as a Tablet OS.
Who cares if you have twice as many cores if the UI is all jerky and crappy?
Who cares if you have 2 GB instead of 1 GB if your battery life is half that of an iPad.
Who cares if you have more Apps, if 25% of them steal your data?
Who cares if you have the latest version of Android (which you probably won't) when you buy your tablet, because you'll never see an OS update, even for things like Stagefright, unless you "jailbreak" and install some off-label build of the OS?
Who cares if you can load stuff from any dark corner of the interwebs, if all it does is open you up to even more malware?
Who cares if Google releases a payment system that is a knockoff of ApplePay; you'll never see it until you buy a new A-Thingie?
You seem to be confused. You're making my points for me. Apple's hardware generally isn't as good as competitors in the 'same price range'
It's almost as if i said: Bottom line: It ain't about the number of Cores, number of Ports, RAM, etc. It's about the entire PACKAGE. And in that regard; Apple is still the one to beat.
Which, in fact, I did.
WTF was your point?
iPads are routinely more expensive than comparable Android tablets of the same tech specs.
The old 4 inch iPhones were as expensive as 6" Galaxy Notes and other larger Android phones.
competitive doesn't preclude hefty premium - iPads/Airs/etc.
the iPhone isn't popular because of the hardware it's the software and it's what Apple uses to sell the hardware at inflated costs above what others could produce the 'hardware' for
Assume you're implying politicians do this all the time? perhaps but not when this damn much was on the line.
The problem is a generation knows this 'lie' was true at one point. Until you can give me something significantly BETTER than Japanese reliability, people don't see a need to change what they buy. If it's the same thing as I have now, why switch? basic consumer inertia keeps people buying what they always have.
If Apple throws as much money at a car as Tesla did, perhaps they can, but they aren't likely to do that. It will be just a small part of the ecosystem.
Apple thrives on selling cheap hardware by putting well tested software on it that really works well...and selling that package for a hefty premium. Cars aren't cheap to build and they won't be building them in China.