They were bad because they assumed all files being copied were about the same size. "This file completed in 0.5 seconds? All of the next 10,000 will also! Estimate: 83 minutes... Oh no, this new file is going to take 1 minute. Estimate: 167 hours"
Losses to transmission are less than the losses to hideously inefficient ICEs in the vehicles. Even if you used a petroleum-burning power plant a couple states over for your electricity, you'd still come out ahead in charging up the electric car and using an electric motor in terms of efficiency. Car engines are just that bad.
I was looking that up recently, since my SO has a car and was considering AAA. I remembered seeing how AAA lobbied against Bike Paths (in particulaR), along with lobbying against other environmental measures, and for further highway development, against public transit, against high density urban development in favor of sprawl/suburbs, and so on... so I went looking and found this: http://www.betterworldclub.com/. No idea how good they actually are, but it might be worth checking them out.
Solar: not only does current solar technology require batteries to normalize the power, which are very energy inefficient, both the panels and the batteries have large manufacturing costs in terms of both energy consumed and resources (rare metals etc, which also have large energy costs in production, as well as environmental impact). We need a LOT more investigation on this one before we can claim actual overall benefit using this method.
Solar doesn't have to mean Photo-voltaic. Heliostats (mirrors) and Molten Salt as a Thermal Storage work pretty well. They can retain heat for useful generation for up to a week, and the basic generator tech is the same as almost every other power plant -- thermal-to-electric conversion. Mirrors? Not a difficult technology. Molten Salt containment? Also not terribly difficult. Right blend of salts -- they're working on that, since the best of the current generation uses one that wouldn't extend much further. That said, it's a known and proven technology with commercial plants already in production, and allows for constant base-load generation to fill in the gaps between wind generators.
That's just the chemical energy. I think the GP was going for total matter annihilation. 1kg of excreted mass * c^2 = 8.98755179 × 10^16 joule (or 2.49654216 × 10^13 watt hours). Plenty. Assuming you had the appropriate anti-matter available to do so, anyway.
There's also a Peabody in there, so it isn't all just silly awards.
It's possible it was an attempt to tar Al Jazeera in some sense - or it was an attempt to distance AJE from the Arabic version so it would get less backlash as part of the Current TV sale, and possibly get AJA a foothold in America.
I just want to think and laugh at how Dems love State rights when they agree with the idea being practiced. (not saying you are a Dem or that I am a Repub)
I don't think I've ever seen a politician (besides possibly Ron and Rand Paul -- and I'm not even sure about them sometimes) advocate State vs. Federal Government when it wasn't just a way to get what they want through. In fact, you'll see the same politicians argue the opposite ends of the same thing 10 years later when the political winds have shifted and now suddenly their State would be against it, but the Federal Government might get it through. It's almost always a proxy-war over some other issue, a tactic to get their way, not an actual stand on whether the Central or State governments should have authority over some aspect of law.
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
On what evidence do you make this claim? Seriously, lets see analysis showing their English reporting is substantially better than their Arabic reporting. And I'm not talking about some talk show with an asshole on it, I'm talking news coverage.
Well, the English channel's Awards list is significantly longer than the Arabic channel, and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.
The differences in tone and spin are marked, and have been noted in various places (particularly after the purchase of Current TV by AJE). Al Jazeera itself does some excellent work, just as Fox News occasionally does some real journalism, but the entire institution is brought down by the less hard-news segments. I can't find the article now in the sea of others regarding the Current TV sale, but I saw a couple that did exactly the breakdown you're looking for, showing why AJE is better (and pointing out that AJ isn't as bad as most Americans think, and does a lot of good journalism as well). They also point out that both are generally better than any major American news broadcast, but given that even CNN has completely cut out their investigative news team in favor of silly holograms and touch screens, that's not a terribly high bar to reach.
The Charlotte measure seems to be primarily concerned with municipal and government use of drones. I'm not sure it even regulates amateur and civilian use. I didn't dig into the Oregon one -- that seemed like a much more comprehensive measure, but as long as the license process isn't onerous (as far as I could tell, it was mostly "If you want to fly a drone, you need to register first"), it seems acceptable to me to say "if you want to fly your drones here, we need to know who you are, ensure you are capable and competent to do so, and further ensure that you are aware of the regulations that may be applicable."
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
Go back up a few comments. Specifically regarding, say, the size of Finland vs. the size of the United States. If you're not in that Redneck category, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
I also remember it cost $2 to call my friend the next town over because it was considered long distance, even though I could bike there in about 10 minutes (we were close to the town line). It wasn't just the cell phone industry doing that, it was the entire telephone industry, all the Baby-Bells... Then all those tiny regional zones started getting bumped up in size, and I could call across most of the state... And then they were all bought up by Verizon and I could call cross-country. Now that the major carriers have long-distance included in even their most basic connection, even if you found a small local phone company they'd still need to find a way to offer that or customers would want to invite int he big company.
Oh, hey, how about the comparison I already made, when local banks used to do the same with ATMs - use someone else's ATM and you were charged a couple bucks by both banks, and you were lucky if your Credit Union could even use a bank's ATM with outrageous fees -- normally it was go to the actual CU office or you were SOL. I remember when having your local bank bought out by HSBC, BoA, or Chase was a good thing... until now, when suddenly everyone is all about the local credit unions, and the local credit unions got their asses in gear and set up their own cross-country ATM network. Hence the direct comparison.
I got my Verizon phone back then, because they actually had a cross-country plan, and I was moving from city-to-city while I looked for a job and I wanted a cell phone I could stick on my resume and know that the number would be valid and I could have service no matter where I ended up. Of course, all those smaller companies went out, and along with them went most of the really good deals. But... what if, instead of charging stupidly high roaming fees, those various smaller companies were forced (for example, by other companies that included both of their zones) to cooperate and instead waived fees for both sides? You could pick your favorite local dealer, but still enjoy nationwide coverage without any additional roaming fees. Wait, what if instead of corporations, they were co-ops? Cell-Phone Unions, if you will. The users of the network are the shareholders, so the charter is about serving the user's needs as best they can, rather than profit at all costs? Heck, maybe they can also partner out of country possibly, and get you world-wide coverage without extra fees, since they're small and acting as a co-op in your interest rather than a corp in their shareholder's interest. Nah, that'd be terrible... Capitalism! Rah rah rah!
The old adage is that Americans think 100 years is "old" and Europeans think 100 miles is "far away".
The U.S. might be better served by associations of smaller companies that have cross-sharing deals (similar to how most small Credit Unions can allow you to use almost any other Credit Union's services without charging a fee). You still get your local-level service for your most common usage and when negotiating details, but have cross-country utility when you need it.
Yes, you read me right, all of the cars, not just the first one. Here in the US, one car slowly starts rolling, then the next one, then the next one. The lights have to stay green a lot longer as a result, which in turn blocks people going the other way, which in turn leads to idiots blocking the intersection or running yellow lights because they don't want to have to wait for three minutes for the next light.
That would be illegal -- you need to leave ~2 seconds of space between your car and the one in front. That's why car 1 rolls out, and car 2 waits 2 seconds before moving. If you all start at the same time, everyone behind the first car is tail-gating, and very likely to cause a massive pile-up accident should something go wrong.
BMG would pay, IIRC, 13% royalties on gross. Call it $1 per song (15 song CD at $15, or $1 per song on iTunes -- works either way). You buy that and listen to it, say, 26 times in total after purchase. $1.00 * 0.13 = $0.13 paid in royalties. $0.13 / 26 = $0.0050 per listen. Spotify: $0.0042 per listen. Looks to me like it's pretty damn close. Add a few more times that you listen to a purchased song, and Spotify will even pull ahead. So much for BMG watching out for the artists...
Listening to every track an average of 20 times (assume the ones you like a bit more often, the ones you don't like a bit less often), at $15/CD and 15songs/CD, and a 10% royalty rate to the artist: 0.50 cents per listen. Almost exactly what she's getting paid per listen. Sounds like the streaming model is, if nothing else, almost perfectly matching what she might get paid by selling in other contexts. Of course, those numbers may fluctuate some -- some get higher or lower royalty rates, the actual average number of times people listen to a purchased album may be higher or lower, and cost of a CD can vary wildly depending on album, artist, and time of purchase. But as such things go, those seem like reasonable figures to use baseline -- so it seems like streaming is... not bad, as such things go.
Not entirely accurate. I may really enjoy, say, Portal... but I don't spend hours playing it now. It was a nice self-contained experience. Total hours would need to be rated against expected hours in some fashion, but it still doesn't entirely make for a good rating system -- there are people that will play through a bad game just to see the end (or whatever) -- just like some people will finish a bad movie. Just because they watched it to the end, that doesn't mean it was their favorite movie ever. Even if they were a reasonable approximation of rating, Valve currently doesn't harvest that "implicit" rating for consumer use in a NetFlix-style "based on your past behaviors, you might want to try X, Y, and Z" way. They may or may not be using that data for other purposes.
So, please tell us about this miraculous time we seem to all have slept through, where the USSR's average standard of living exceeded that of the US? When it had more overall personal liberty?
The USSR wasn't Socialist. It was Communist. There is a yawning gulf of difference between them. As much as there is between, say, Capitalism and Fascism.
Capitalism, by it's very nature, will attract those least suited to be allowed power. This is one of the many ways Capitalism regularly fails, because it puts tremendous central authority into the hands of a few relatively unaccountable elite leaders. That never works out well for the average person under their regimes.
Patent law is all about semantics. The specific implementation is to replicate a known pattern on the screen, probably with a fixed orientation. Samsung's implementation could be a distance-from-start-point, which is very different in that a specific geometric pattern isn't even required. Sadly, I don't have a Samsung phone with this system to test on, so I don't know if it's true that I could spiral out (for example) and still unlock. If so, though, that would very clearly show that a specified direction is not required, nor is a line required, nor is even a specified known to the device geometric pattern required.
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It was described pretty clearly already, but in case you come back to actually read this I'll try to elaborate a bit: iPhone - there's a designated line and an arrow. You hold on the arrow and drag along the line. Samsung (as described by GP): Hold on spot, drag in any direction
Patent: Draw a geometric pattern in a specified direction, specifically a line.
iPhone is clearly infringing. Motorola Droid is also probably infringing on this patent, as it specifies a direction and has you slide in a line, though it did not infringe on Apple's Slide-To-Unliock, as it didn't have a UI "groove" to slide in. Samsung's drag-in-any-direction does not specify direction, and would not be infringing on this particular patent.
Well, I happen to fully support the 2nd amendment. If it were up to me just about anything that is man-portable would be legal.
If you're willing to draw a line on what armaments are covered by the 2nd Amendment and which are allowed to be restricted by the Federal government, we're just arguing about where the line is drawn. That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says, so if you're not willing to say things over man-portable are legal, you're actually in favor of gun control and having what that part of the Constitution says changed. Tanks? A vehicle, so possibly subject to vehicular restrictions for normal use, but the ownership of the main gun and the shells it uses would fall under the clause. Artillery? Also Arms, the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. Nuclear Missile? Also an armament, you can own those if you can afford them. It's an all-or-nothing sort of deal there. Seriously. As soon as you allow that maybe some shouldn't be in private hands, you've already accepted that not all weapons are covered, and it's just negotiation over what should be allowed freely and what should be regulated.
Did you just seriously use a "mind share" argument for Linux over Windows? Nearly every professional that has touched a computer at some point has used Windows, and nearly every school will teach something that includes Windows (and particularly MS Office). It's even mostly the same on MacOS. Book counts between Windows and Linux... yeah, not even touching that. You might want to re-think this line of reasoning a little.
I like to travel, date various women, I have hobbies, I have TONS of things that I'd be doing every day if I didn't have to bother coming to a job to work.
I like to travel, be with my wife, I have hobbies, and I have TONS of things I already do every day because I have a job I want to do. Sure, there are other things I'd enjoy doing as well, and I do enjoy them when I take vacations or have a few days of holiday, but often at the end of those breaks, I genuinely look forward to getting back into work to tackle the latest problems. I could have moved into higher-paying alternative careers, but instead of hating every day I go to work, I wake up happy about going into work. I get to do interesting things every day with awesome people, and they actually give me money for it so I can do other interesting things outside of work after... So while I could easily earn more by sacrificing that to be in a company I didn't like, doing work I didn't enjoy as much, probably in an industry I don't have any respect for, I earn enough to have the life and lifestyle I want right now, and also save for retirement.
I'm defined by myself, and I really, really do LIKE myself....and would love to not have to work, and spend more time having fun and doing interesting things.
Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that you're more defined by what you can afford, and you're willing to sacrifice who you wish you were to buy those things.
Slashdot Mirror
They were bad because they assumed all files being copied were about the same size. "This file completed in 0.5 seconds? All of the next 10,000 will also! Estimate: 83 minutes... Oh no, this new file is going to take 1 minute. Estimate: 167 hours"
Losses to transmission are less than the losses to hideously inefficient ICEs in the vehicles. Even if you used a petroleum-burning power plant a couple states over for your electricity, you'd still come out ahead in charging up the electric car and using an electric motor in terms of efficiency. Car engines are just that bad.
A well-cited footnote for you... [1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.
I was looking that up recently, since my SO has a car and was considering AAA. I remembered seeing how AAA lobbied against Bike Paths (in particulaR), along with lobbying against other environmental measures, and for further highway development, against public transit, against high density urban development in favor of sprawl/suburbs, and so on... so I went looking and found this: http://www.betterworldclub.com/. No idea how good they actually are, but it might be worth checking them out.
Solar: not only does current solar technology require batteries to normalize the power, which are very energy inefficient, both the panels and the batteries have large manufacturing costs in terms of both energy consumed and resources (rare metals etc, which also have large energy costs in production, as well as environmental impact). We need a LOT more investigation on this one before we can claim actual overall benefit using this method.
Solar doesn't have to mean Photo-voltaic. Heliostats (mirrors) and Molten Salt as a Thermal Storage work pretty well. They can retain heat for useful generation for up to a week, and the basic generator tech is the same as almost every other power plant -- thermal-to-electric conversion. Mirrors? Not a difficult technology. Molten Salt containment? Also not terribly difficult. Right blend of salts -- they're working on that, since the best of the current generation uses one that wouldn't extend much further. That said, it's a known and proven technology with commercial plants already in production, and allows for constant base-load generation to fill in the gaps between wind generators.
That's just the chemical energy. I think the GP was going for total matter annihilation. 1kg of excreted mass * c^2 = 8.98755179 × 10^16 joule (or 2.49654216 × 10^13 watt hours). Plenty. Assuming you had the appropriate anti-matter available to do so, anyway.
There's also a Peabody in there, so it isn't all just silly awards.
It's possible it was an attempt to tar Al Jazeera in some sense - or it was an attempt to distance AJE from the Arabic version so it would get less backlash as part of the Current TV sale, and possibly get AJA a foothold in America.
I just want to think and laugh at how Dems love State rights when they agree with the idea being practiced. (not saying you are a Dem or that I am a Repub)
I don't think I've ever seen a politician (besides possibly Ron and Rand Paul -- and I'm not even sure about them sometimes) advocate State vs. Federal Government when it wasn't just a way to get what they want through. In fact, you'll see the same politicians argue the opposite ends of the same thing 10 years later when the political winds have shifted and now suddenly their State would be against it, but the Federal Government might get it through. It's almost always a proxy-war over some other issue, a tactic to get their way, not an actual stand on whether the Central or State governments should have authority over some aspect of law.
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
On what evidence do you make this claim? Seriously, lets see analysis showing their English reporting is substantially better than their Arabic reporting. And I'm not talking about some talk show with an asshole on it, I'm talking news coverage.
Well, the English channel's Awards list is significantly longer than the Arabic channel, and contains several prestigious awards for excellence in journalism. This, despite having a decade less time to have acquired them.
The differences in tone and spin are marked, and have been noted in various places (particularly after the purchase of Current TV by AJE). Al Jazeera itself does some excellent work, just as Fox News occasionally does some real journalism, but the entire institution is brought down by the less hard-news segments. I can't find the article now in the sea of others regarding the Current TV sale, but I saw a couple that did exactly the breakdown you're looking for, showing why AJE is better (and pointing out that AJ isn't as bad as most Americans think, and does a lot of good journalism as well). They also point out that both are generally better than any major American news broadcast, but given that even CNN has completely cut out their investigative news team in favor of silly holograms and touch screens, that's not a terribly high bar to reach.
The Charlotte measure seems to be primarily concerned with municipal and government use of drones. I'm not sure it even regulates amateur and civilian use. I didn't dig into the Oregon one -- that seemed like a much more comprehensive measure, but as long as the license process isn't onerous (as far as I could tell, it was mostly "If you want to fly a drone, you need to register first"), it seems acceptable to me to say "if you want to fly your drones here, we need to know who you are, ensure you are capable and competent to do so, and further ensure that you are aware of the regulations that may be applicable."
Al Jazeera Arabic, or Al Jazeera English? They're very different sources, and one of them is highly respected throughout the world for in-depth coverage and serious journalism (except, perhaps, in America).
Go back up a few comments. Specifically regarding, say, the size of Finland vs. the size of the United States. If you're not in that Redneck category, I'm sure you'll figure it out.
I also remember it cost $2 to call my friend the next town over because it was considered long distance, even though I could bike there in about 10 minutes (we were close to the town line). It wasn't just the cell phone industry doing that, it was the entire telephone industry, all the Baby-Bells... Then all those tiny regional zones started getting bumped up in size, and I could call across most of the state... And then they were all bought up by Verizon and I could call cross-country. Now that the major carriers have long-distance included in even their most basic connection, even if you found a small local phone company they'd still need to find a way to offer that or customers would want to invite int he big company.
Oh, hey, how about the comparison I already made, when local banks used to do the same with ATMs - use someone else's ATM and you were charged a couple bucks by both banks, and you were lucky if your Credit Union could even use a bank's ATM with outrageous fees -- normally it was go to the actual CU office or you were SOL. I remember when having your local bank bought out by HSBC, BoA, or Chase was a good thing... until now, when suddenly everyone is all about the local credit unions, and the local credit unions got their asses in gear and set up their own cross-country ATM network. Hence the direct comparison.
I got my Verizon phone back then, because they actually had a cross-country plan, and I was moving from city-to-city while I looked for a job and I wanted a cell phone I could stick on my resume and know that the number would be valid and I could have service no matter where I ended up. Of course, all those smaller companies went out, and along with them went most of the really good deals. But... what if, instead of charging stupidly high roaming fees, those various smaller companies were forced (for example, by other companies that included both of their zones) to cooperate and instead waived fees for both sides? You could pick your favorite local dealer, but still enjoy nationwide coverage without any additional roaming fees. Wait, what if instead of corporations, they were co-ops? Cell-Phone Unions, if you will. The users of the network are the shareholders, so the charter is about serving the user's needs as best they can, rather than profit at all costs? Heck, maybe they can also partner out of country possibly, and get you world-wide coverage without extra fees, since they're small and acting as a co-op in your interest rather than a corp in their shareholder's interest. Nah, that'd be terrible... Capitalism! Rah rah rah!
The old adage is that Americans think 100 years is "old" and Europeans think 100 miles is "far away".
The U.S. might be better served by associations of smaller companies that have cross-sharing deals (similar to how most small Credit Unions can allow you to use almost any other Credit Union's services without charging a fee). You still get your local-level service for your most common usage and when negotiating details, but have cross-country utility when you need it.
Yes, you read me right, all of the cars, not just the first one. Here in the US, one car slowly starts rolling, then the next one, then the next one. The lights have to stay green a lot longer as a result, which in turn blocks people going the other way, which in turn leads to idiots blocking the intersection or running yellow lights because they don't want to have to wait for three minutes for the next light.
That would be illegal -- you need to leave ~2 seconds of space between your car and the one in front. That's why car 1 rolls out, and car 2 waits 2 seconds before moving. If you all start at the same time, everyone behind the first car is tail-gating, and very likely to cause a massive pile-up accident should something go wrong.
The fun part is the math...
BMG would pay, IIRC, 13% royalties on gross. Call it $1 per song (15 song CD at $15, or $1 per song on iTunes -- works either way). You buy that and listen to it, say, 26 times in total after purchase. $1.00 * 0.13 = $0.13 paid in royalties. $0.13 / 26 = $0.0050 per listen. Spotify: $0.0042 per listen. Looks to me like it's pretty damn close. Add a few more times that you listen to a purchased song, and Spotify will even pull ahead. So much for BMG watching out for the artists...
Listening to every track an average of 20 times (assume the ones you like a bit more often, the ones you don't like a bit less often), at $15/CD and 15songs/CD, and a 10% royalty rate to the artist: 0.50 cents per listen. Almost exactly what she's getting paid per listen. Sounds like the streaming model is, if nothing else, almost perfectly matching what she might get paid by selling in other contexts. Of course, those numbers may fluctuate some -- some get higher or lower royalty rates, the actual average number of times people listen to a purchased album may be higher or lower, and cost of a CD can vary wildly depending on album, artist, and time of purchase. But as such things go, those seem like reasonable figures to use baseline -- so it seems like streaming is... not bad, as such things go.
Not entirely accurate. I may really enjoy, say, Portal... but I don't spend hours playing it now. It was a nice self-contained experience. Total hours would need to be rated against expected hours in some fashion, but it still doesn't entirely make for a good rating system -- there are people that will play through a bad game just to see the end (or whatever) -- just like some people will finish a bad movie. Just because they watched it to the end, that doesn't mean it was their favorite movie ever. Even if they were a reasonable approximation of rating, Valve currently doesn't harvest that "implicit" rating for consumer use in a NetFlix-style "based on your past behaviors, you might want to try X, Y, and Z" way. They may or may not be using that data for other purposes.
Or used an Apple product.
So, please tell us about this miraculous time we seem to all have slept through, where the USSR's average standard of living exceeded that of the US? When it had more overall personal liberty?
The USSR wasn't Socialist. It was Communist. There is a yawning gulf of difference between them. As much as there is between, say, Capitalism and Fascism.
Capitalism, by it's very nature, will attract those least suited to be allowed power. This is one of the many ways Capitalism regularly fails, because it puts tremendous central authority into the hands of a few relatively unaccountable elite leaders. That never works out well for the average person under their regimes.
Since you're so fond of it... FTFY.
Patent law is all about semantics. The specific implementation is to replicate a known pattern on the screen, probably with a fixed orientation. Samsung's implementation could be a distance-from-start-point, which is very different in that a specific geometric pattern isn't even required. Sadly, I don't have a Samsung phone with this system to test on, so I don't know if it's true that I could spiral out (for example) and still unlock. If so, though, that would very clearly show that a specified direction is not required, nor is a line required, nor is even a specified known to the device geometric pattern required.
And how would the slide to unlock implementation for Samsung be any different from iPhone?
It was described pretty clearly already, but in case you come back to actually read this I'll try to elaborate a bit:
iPhone - there's a designated line and an arrow. You hold on the arrow and drag along the line.
Samsung (as described by GP): Hold on spot, drag in any direction
Patent: Draw a geometric pattern in a specified direction, specifically a line.
iPhone is clearly infringing.
Motorola Droid is also probably infringing on this patent, as it specifies a direction and has you slide in a line, though it did not infringe on Apple's Slide-To-Unliock, as it didn't have a UI "groove" to slide in.
Samsung's drag-in-any-direction does not specify direction, and would not be infringing on this particular patent.
Well, I happen to fully support the 2nd amendment. If it were up to me just about anything that is man-portable would be legal.
If you're willing to draw a line on what armaments are covered by the 2nd Amendment and which are allowed to be restricted by the Federal government, we're just arguing about where the line is drawn. That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says, so if you're not willing to say things over man-portable are legal, you're actually in favor of gun control and having what that part of the Constitution says changed. Tanks? A vehicle, so possibly subject to vehicular restrictions for normal use, but the ownership of the main gun and the shells it uses would fall under the clause. Artillery? Also Arms, the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. Nuclear Missile? Also an armament, you can own those if you can afford them. It's an all-or-nothing sort of deal there. Seriously. As soon as you allow that maybe some shouldn't be in private hands, you've already accepted that not all weapons are covered, and it's just negotiation over what should be allowed freely and what should be regulated.
This already happened. Sorry, you didn't make the cut.
Did you just seriously use a "mind share" argument for Linux over Windows? Nearly every professional that has touched a computer at some point has used Windows, and nearly every school will teach something that includes Windows (and particularly MS Office). It's even mostly the same on MacOS. Book counts between Windows and Linux... yeah, not even touching that. You might want to re-think this line of reasoning a little.
I like to travel, date various women, I have hobbies, I have TONS of things that I'd be doing every day if I didn't have to bother coming to a job to work.
I like to travel, be with my wife, I have hobbies, and I have TONS of things I already do every day because I have a job I want to do. Sure, there are other things I'd enjoy doing as well, and I do enjoy them when I take vacations or have a few days of holiday, but often at the end of those breaks, I genuinely look forward to getting back into work to tackle the latest problems. I could have moved into higher-paying alternative careers, but instead of hating every day I go to work, I wake up happy about going into work. I get to do interesting things every day with awesome people, and they actually give me money for it so I can do other interesting things outside of work after... So while I could easily earn more by sacrificing that to be in a company I didn't like, doing work I didn't enjoy as much, probably in an industry I don't have any respect for, I earn enough to have the life and lifestyle I want right now, and also save for retirement.
I'm defined by myself, and I really, really do LIKE myself....and would love to not have to work, and spend more time having fun and doing interesting things.
Are you sure about that? Because it seems to me that you're more defined by what you can afford, and you're willing to sacrifice who you wish you were to buy those things.