No they aren't. They trot out the "regulation bad!" line whenever it suits them, then they try to pass stuff like Prop 26. Republicans can't claim a principled stance on government regulation at all.
So, because you can't point out anything specific, we can just assume that you're against this because it's a government action? You're going to ask someone to go through the entire document to point out that what you CLAIM is in there isn't actually in there? Would fit with your typical MO.
Basically, you're claiming there's a teapot somewhere out there orbiting the sun. It's up to YOU to prove that it's there. If you can't do that, you're full of shit.
Except that there are no other companies to switch to in most areas. Or if there are, they will only deliver half a meal per day for the same cost as the one delivering 3 full servings of pasta and candy.
The metaphor was already pretty strained, and it really doesn't prove jack shit. I think the main thing we can agree on is that restricted choice is bad, and that right now we have *very* restricted choice.
Dude, I know of no liberals in my circle who are happy with expansion of the DHS or NSA traffic monitoring. Quit trying to brand bad things as "the other guy's doing" and just agree that it's a bad thing.
Also, "giving the government more power" is not a liberal concept; it's a common mischaracterization of liberal goals by someone who clearly doesn't understand those goals.
$499 for the tablet itself puts it squarely in "Why should I buy this instead of an iPad?" territory
No, at $499 it remains in the "why should I buy this at all?" territory, along with the iPad itself, which is exactly what the line you quoted points out.
When I first got wind of the iPad I thought it sounded like a cool idea; I'd have even bought one had they come out at a reasonable price point. But $500 is way too fucking much to pay for a media consumption device, and that's 90+% of the use cases for every tablet in existence today.
I somehow was using Flash back in the early days of the web on desktop computers with less RAM and CPU power than phones have now. There's no reason it can't be used now.
That said, I'm glad Flash will finally be dying. I'm pretty convinced that once better technologies came along (HTML5, etc) it would have died off eventually anyway, regardless of its lack of support on iOS devices. I don't even have Flash installed on my phone, but that's by *choice* -- something that an Apple fanboi wouldn't really understand.
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
You mean Federal government, I presume? Because 'state or local level' is still government. California decided at the state level to ban incandescent bulbs that didn't meet efficiency requirements -- that must be ok with you then, because it was a state decision?
My part of the world. The pests you refer to were there before, but milder winters have allowed their populations to stay much higher and to move much further north. There are large parts of Montana's forests that are just red now. Driving down highway 95 I see big patches of red dying trees that simply weren't there 10 years ago.
Example: Person A owns Stock B that only has 1 share and begins at a market price of $1. Years later the market is pricing this share at $10. Person A wants to sell his share (perhaps to retire), so sells it to Person B. Person B now holds the share which cost him $10 and it is valued at $10.
Person A wealth created = $9 Person B wealth created = $0
This is not wealth. This is a monetary transaction. Wealth is tangible things that money can buy. Money is a *proxy* for wealth.
By your definition, the Fed printing money is creating wealth.
Curunir_wolf's solution to everything: just give all our money to the rich and powerful, because they'll get it all in the end anyway. Resistance is futile, and in fact any attempt at resistance will only make things worse; just become a slave today and save yourself the trouble.
Governments are dangerous - the only thing they can ever do is take from you. They can never give you something you didn't already have. But people just don't care.
When you phrase it like this, it just makes you sound like a paranoid idiot.
Yeah, I already had schools and police and roads and functioning utilities when I was born. The only reason they cost any money to use and operate is because of the big evil government -- they'd be free otherwise. *rolls eyes*
Did you even read the link you provided? It makes no claims whatsoever except that a group is performing a study that "will do" some things that may prove that HFT makes the markets more liquid. It provides no link to any study, provides no numbers or facts at all. It's just an announcement.
So, essentially, if you're a family with 5 kids (you know, the kind of family that tends to use up a lot of government resources - education primarily), you'll never pay any taxes unless you're making ridiculous amounts of money? That doesn't sound like a very good plan. I think *disincentivizing* childbearing beyond 1-2 kids would probably be a better idea.
The free market is essentially an optimization problem. Optimization algorithms can very easily get caught in non-optimal local maxima if they aren't nudged a bit, and still get caught anyway even if they are.
Of course, you don't understand this analogy so there's no way you'll see my point.
What's funny is that you seem to think that categorically, every single iOS feature beats every single Android feature because for every "check" there are intangibles that iOS has that Android doesn't.
Newsflash: There are intangibles that Android has that iOS doesn't, too. Each environment has pros and cons. Claiming that either one is better than the other in every way (or, with weasel mode on, in every way that matters) is just showing ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
No they aren't. They trot out the "regulation bad!" line whenever it suits them, then they try to pass stuff like Prop 26. Republicans can't claim a principled stance on government regulation at all.
--Jeremy
So, because you can't point out anything specific, we can just assume that you're against this because it's a government action? You're going to ask someone to go through the entire document to point out that what you CLAIM is in there isn't actually in there? Would fit with your typical MO.
Basically, you're claiming there's a teapot somewhere out there orbiting the sun. It's up to YOU to prove that it's there. If you can't do that, you're full of shit.
--Jeremy
Except that there are no other companies to switch to in most areas. Or if there are, they will only deliver half a meal per day for the same cost as the one delivering 3 full servings of pasta and candy.
The metaphor was already pretty strained, and it really doesn't prove jack shit. I think the main thing we can agree on is that restricted choice is bad, and that right now we have *very* restricted choice.
--Jeremy
Dude, I know of no liberals in my circle who are happy with expansion of the DHS or NSA traffic monitoring. Quit trying to brand bad things as "the other guy's doing" and just agree that it's a bad thing.
Also, "giving the government more power" is not a liberal concept; it's a common mischaracterization of liberal goals by someone who clearly doesn't understand those goals.
--Jeremy
$499 for the tablet itself puts it squarely in "Why should I buy this instead of an iPad?" territory
No, at $499 it remains in the "why should I buy this at all?" territory, along with the iPad itself, which is exactly what the line you quoted points out.
When I first got wind of the iPad I thought it sounded like a cool idea; I'd have even bought one had they come out at a reasonable price point. But $500 is way too fucking much to pay for a media consumption device, and that's 90+% of the use cases for every tablet in existence today.
--Jeremy
I somehow was using Flash back in the early days of the web on desktop computers with less RAM and CPU power than phones have now. There's no reason it can't be used now.
That said, I'm glad Flash will finally be dying. I'm pretty convinced that once better technologies came along (HTML5, etc) it would have died off eventually anyway, regardless of its lack of support on iOS devices. I don't even have Flash installed on my phone, but that's by *choice* -- something that an Apple fanboi wouldn't really understand.
--Jeremy
Hello, royalties.
--Jeremy
When did the "openness" argument turn out to be bullshit? Has anyone told the Cyanogen team?
--Jeremy
It's similar to situation with lightbulbs; pretty soon we're going to have to buy $7 mecury-filled lightbulbs- supposedly to combat global warming. See, this decision could have been made at the state or local level (local= ISPs, see the relation?), but now the government has made the decision FOR YOU.
You mean Federal government, I presume? Because 'state or local level' is still government. California decided at the state level to ban incandescent bulbs that didn't meet efficiency requirements -- that must be ok with you then, because it was a state decision?
--Jeremy
Here's the brilliance of Bush, though: he *was* an elitist snob, but he managed to convince enough that he was just "one of them" to get elected.
--Jeremy
And here we have a perfect example of the cynical nerds that the GP referred to.
--Jeremy
I would rather have a completely unregulated internet because once the government gets its hands on it
*rolls eyes* You mean that the internet has been completely outside of government control all this time, even when they built it?
--Jeremy
Worthless platitude is worthless.
--Jeremy
When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
Probably never, because any acknowledgment of Israel's dirty deeds is equivalent to anti semitism and means you like Hitler.
--Jeremy
Maybe because they'll be amongst the ones who ultimately decide whether a warrant is required for GPS tracking? Just maybe?
--Jeremy
In what part of the world?
My part of the world. The pests you refer to were there before, but milder winters have allowed their populations to stay much higher and to move much further north. There are large parts of Montana's forests that are just red now. Driving down highway 95 I see big patches of red dying trees that simply weren't there 10 years ago.
--Jeremy
Example:
Person A owns Stock B that only has 1 share and begins at a market price of $1. Years later the market is pricing this share at $10. Person A wants to sell his share (perhaps to retire), so sells it to Person B. Person B now holds the share which cost him $10 and it is valued at $10.
Person A wealth created = $9
Person B wealth created = $0
This is not wealth. This is a monetary transaction. Wealth is tangible things that money can buy. Money is a *proxy* for wealth.
By your definition, the Fed printing money is creating wealth.
--Jeremy
Curunir_wolf's solution to everything: just give all our money to the rich and powerful, because they'll get it all in the end anyway. Resistance is futile, and in fact any attempt at resistance will only make things worse; just become a slave today and save yourself the trouble.
--Jeremy
Governments are dangerous - the only thing they can ever do is take from you. They can never give you something you didn't already have. But people just don't care.
When you phrase it like this, it just makes you sound like a paranoid idiot.
Yeah, I already had schools and police and roads and functioning utilities when I was born. The only reason they cost any money to use and operate is because of the big evil government -- they'd be free otherwise. *rolls eyes*
--Jeremy
Did you even read the link you provided? It makes no claims whatsoever except that a group is performing a study that "will do" some things that may prove that HFT makes the markets more liquid. It provides no link to any study, provides no numbers or facts at all. It's just an announcement.
--Jeremy
So, essentially, if you're a family with 5 kids (you know, the kind of family that tends to use up a lot of government resources - education primarily), you'll never pay any taxes unless you're making ridiculous amounts of money? That doesn't sound like a very good plan. I think *disincentivizing* childbearing beyond 1-2 kids would probably be a better idea.
--Jeremy
The free market is essentially an optimization problem. Optimization algorithms can very easily get caught in non-optimal local maxima if they aren't nudged a bit, and still get caught anyway even if they are.
Of course, you don't understand this analogy so there's no way you'll see my point.
--Jeremy
Crazy. A website devoted to nerds where so many people rail against automation and computerization. WTF slashdot.
Always nice to distill an argument down to its simplest, most pure, completely out-of-context-and-irrelevant form.
--Jeremy
If you let what a company says about its products influence your purchasing decisions, you're an even bigger fool than I already thought you were.
--Jeremy
What's funny is that you seem to think that categorically, every single iOS feature beats every single Android feature because for every "check" there are intangibles that iOS has that Android doesn't.
Newsflash: There are intangibles that Android has that iOS doesn't, too. Each environment has pros and cons. Claiming that either one is better than the other in every way (or, with weasel mode on, in every way that matters) is just showing ignorance.
--Jeremy