I can't possibly defend the Texas changes that you point out, and that wasn't my intention.
But this guy isn't helping matters by using the words "conservative" and "extremist" together. He did that on purpose, and it was meant to polarize - thus my labeling it "hyperbole". The primaries are afoot, and he's using a legitimate issue to score some cheap points. I'm on his side, but he's a kind of being a dick.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Ron Paul, but...
There's plenty of proof that socialized health care is cheaper by simply looking at how much less other countries spend on their health care while still having better health statistics than us.
We don't have anything even resembling a market system in health care. We have at least 3 distinct systems - a single-payer system for military vets, medicare/medicaid state sponsored health insurance, and a sort-of market system where it is illegal to refuse service for non-payment. To further pull us away from a market system, most people do not buy actual health insurance, but instead the government warps the marketplace with special rules and by giving tax breaks to employers to provide something akin to flat-rate health service, which is a very poor controller of price.
Each system has it's own advantages and disadvantages, and I'm not going to claim to be smart enough to know which is best - but we certainly don't have a market system here in the US - we have a very expensive and poor version of socialized medicine where the uninsured get treated in expensive emergency rooms.
For the record, HMOs did a fair job of controlling health care costs - but everyone involved hated them. IMHO, HMOs are very similar to what a government-pays system will look like in the US.
Any German knows beer is made of malted barley, hops, water and yeast and nothing else.
IIRC, the reason that they had to make the "purity" laws was because otherwise the Germans would make all of the wheat into beer! So at least at some point, Germans definitely thought that wheat beer was "beer":)
You mean they want an Apple but it costs too much money:)
You raise a good point, but I don't think that Apple's flat stock price of the 90s is simply because they failed to license their OS a decade earlier. Besides, recently, Apple's closed model has spanked MS's open model. Look at the 10-year chart... if you had bough MS 10 years ago - well, at least you wouldn't have lost any money. Apple would have returned 20x your money.
But anyway, what is it they say about past results not indicating future performance:)
many people choose style over substance without ever knowing that they're buying a very restricted device.
To use my mother as a case study, I don't think she sees her iPhone as "restricted". It lets her check her email and read and play little games. Yes, her old phone did that, too - but Verizon had it so locked down and the functions were so obtuse that she never bothered. To many people, the iPhone is quite open compared to their previous phone.
I don't have one - they are too big for me, but they certainly were the nicest internet-browsing phone out there when they were introduced. Now there is more competition, but it certainly doesn't come from MS or RIM. You have to buy a phone from a company you've never heard of before in order to get a comparable experience to the iPhone. Apple is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet - HTC... not so much. Hell, I'm pretty damn geeky and I find the process of selecting a cell phone pretty damned daunting.
Anyway, my point was that it's not necessarily people choosing "style over substance" - there is also usability and brand awareness at work here. Does my mom like having something pretty and shiny? Sure! But she also knows the name "Apple" as a trusted brand and everyone who has one of these things raves about it.
but they have never been really good at selling HP as a brand
No kidding... you can go to a Best Buy and buy an absolute abomination of a machine with "HP" stamped on it. You can also buy a really nice "HP"-stamped machine an the same store. I can't believe that they dilute their brand like this... at the very least, they should have a bo-bo brand name, like eMachines to sell the low-end stuff.
Yes, if it cost one fifth of its present cost, it would be nice. It does not.
So really it comes down to cost, then?
To you, $99 is the sweet spot. To others, it would be $50, and to others, it is apparently $500.
I happen to be in your camp, but I recognize that this would be a pretty cool gadget for the right price. Also - try to put it in perspective. Most people are willing to spend $1200 or so per year on cable alone, let alone other sources of entertainment... $500 or $600 for another thing to stare at isn't that obscene.
This is equivilent to Ford Motors declaring that none of its suppliers can use any tools from Stanley (aka Craftsman), and then Ford setting up its own tool supplier and declaring that you can use tools from their wholly owned tool division, or from other spoecific competition to Stanley, but not at all from Stanley.
Besides being really stupid business, what would be wrong with that? It would make their cars more expensive, and there's plenty of other competition out there without such silly rules.
Now, if Microsoft did that, we could talk Sherman.
You mean Sherman? How in the heck can they violate Sherman?
And more to the point, when has Sherman ever been used against a non-monopoly? Granted, it was used to crush a crippling strike - but surely you aren't suggesting that Apple is restricting trade in such a blatant manner?
You can save well over $200 (15" MBP starts at $1800, Envy starts at $1300) and have a much higher-performance, higher-spec laptop with the HP.
Yes, but not at the same time:)
Battery life parity costs you $100, screen resolution improvement to get full-HD is another addition. When I went to HP.com and got them as similar as possible, I was within about $200.
And the HP remained heavier and fatter.
It all depends on what you are after. The superior configurability of the HP probably makes it a better laptop for more people. But that doesn't make the Mac overpriced for the people whom it meets their needs.
Why do so many people neglect to compare size, weight, and battery life? These are notebooks! If you are looking for something that sits on your desk plugged in and only occasionally moves, then yeah, Apples probably aren't what you are looking for - you can save hundreds of dollars by getting a larger, heavier laptop with less battery life.
Depends on how you value form-factor. The HP is about 10% or so larger by volume and priced very similarly when spec'd closely. You have to go up from the base processor on the HP and the monitors aren't quite the same res. The video card is an ATI vs the nVidia in the Apple, but at least it is discrete (I think).
But mainly, to get even 6 hours out of the HP you have to spend $100 on this big ugly thing that sticks out of the bottom of the computer. I mean... look at this abomination.:)
They also ship it with the crappy home edition of Windows... there goes another $100 upgrade. And you want a recovery CD? That's another $19.00.
So yeah, you can save $200 on the HP and it is a perfectly nice laptop... but it is correspondingly bigger and - with the competitive battery - heavier.
I don't know many tea partiers, but I can say with some confidence that they are pretty strongly for stronger states vs a stronger federal government. Those from other states would not presume to tell Massachusetts what to do with their health care, even if they are against social programs in general.
But you are right, as far as having a "platform", they are a total mess. The various groups sort-of claiming to be official seem to only make very vague demands: "Tea Party Patriots, Inc. ("TPP") is a non-partisan, non-profit social welfare organization dedicated to furthering the common good and general welfare of the people of the United States. TPP furthers this goal by educating the public and promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets."
You'd have to be pretty fringe to disagree with any of those three things! The only one even remotely debated is the extent of the free market.
The European Union has a population larger than the United States and yet it manages just fine.
Which more or less is in agreement with what the Tea Partiers are saying... you don't need such a large Federal government. The EU model does seem to work, with obvious problems (Greece, ahem), but it works on balance. But the EU model is to have VERY strong state governments with an extremely loose central government. So loose that some would argue that it isn't even a real government.
So don't be too hard on the Tea Partiers... ask yourself how you'd like your healthcare to be run from Brussels. The party seems to attract a lot of nuts, but they do have a point.
Because in order to have a self-sustaining domestic market, they need to have decent per-capita income. This means higher salaries, which diminishes their international price competitiveness.
Also, at some point, this currency manipulation is going to bite them. They will, in the end, be stuck with a whole bunch of rapidly depreciating US paper.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't possibly defend the Texas changes that you point out, and that wasn't my intention.
But this guy isn't helping matters by using the words "conservative" and "extremist" together. He did that on purpose, and it was meant to polarize - thus my labeling it "hyperbole". The primaries are afoot, and he's using a legitimate issue to score some cheap points. I'm on his side, but he's a kind of being a dick.
I can't believe I'm about to defend Ron Paul, but...
There's plenty of proof that socialized health care is cheaper by simply looking at how much less other countries spend on their health care while still having better health statistics than us.
We don't have anything even resembling a market system in health care. We have at least 3 distinct systems - a single-payer system for military vets, medicare/medicaid state sponsored health insurance, and a sort-of market system where it is illegal to refuse service for non-payment. To further pull us away from a market system, most people do not buy actual health insurance, but instead the government warps the marketplace with special rules and by giving tax breaks to employers to provide something akin to flat-rate health service, which is a very poor controller of price.
Each system has it's own advantages and disadvantages, and I'm not going to claim to be smart enough to know which is best - but we certainly don't have a market system here in the US - we have a very expensive and poor version of socialized medicine where the uninsured get treated in expensive emergency rooms.
For the record, HMOs did a fair job of controlling health care costs - but everyone involved hated them. IMHO, HMOs are very similar to what a government-pays system will look like in the US.
that the revenue from the income tax wouldn't be needed.
But he's still counting on the social security tax revenue. How in the world is that not an "income tax"?
Say what?
Even better, in TFA he follows it up with:
Gotta love the evil conservative hyperbole there. I really wish people would vote for people with less of a flair for the dramatic.
Any German knows beer is made of malted barley, hops, water and yeast and nothing else.
IIRC, the reason that they had to make the "purity" laws was because otherwise the Germans would make all of the wheat into beer! So at least at some point, Germans definitely thought that wheat beer was "beer" :)
The US tests during the Cold War? Or the more recent US test that used no explosives and did not create any space junk*?
* Rather, the satellite was so low that the "junk" immediately de-orbited and burned up.
Motorola is new to the 'Droid game, and indeed I'd wager that their name is a big reason for the surge in Android device sales.
Depending on your requirements, Scicos might be what you are looking for.
Android is the Windows of the mobile world.
You mean they want an Apple but it costs too much money :)
You raise a good point, but I don't think that Apple's flat stock price of the 90s is simply because they failed to license their OS a decade earlier. Besides, recently, Apple's closed model has spanked MS's open model. Look at the 10-year chart... if you had bough MS 10 years ago - well, at least you wouldn't have lost any money. Apple would have returned 20x your money.
But anyway, what is it they say about past results not indicating future performance :)
many people choose style over substance without ever knowing that they're buying a very restricted device.
To use my mother as a case study, I don't think she sees her iPhone as "restricted". It lets her check her email and read and play little games. Yes, her old phone did that, too - but Verizon had it so locked down and the functions were so obtuse that she never bothered. To many people, the iPhone is quite open compared to their previous phone.
I don't have one - they are too big for me, but they certainly were the nicest internet-browsing phone out there when they were introduced. Now there is more competition, but it certainly doesn't come from MS or RIM. You have to buy a phone from a company you've never heard of before in order to get a comparable experience to the iPhone. Apple is one of the most recognizable brands on the planet - HTC... not so much. Hell, I'm pretty damn geeky and I find the process of selecting a cell phone pretty damned daunting.
Anyway, my point was that it's not necessarily people choosing "style over substance" - there is also usability and brand awareness at work here. Does my mom like having something pretty and shiny? Sure! But she also knows the name "Apple" as a trusted brand and everyone who has one of these things raves about it.
once we combine that cookie with the next rom image ripped from a related newer phone.
You should come up with a catchy name for this process, like "jailbreaking". :)
but they have never been really good at selling HP as a brand
No kidding... you can go to a Best Buy and buy an absolute abomination of a machine with "HP" stamped on it. You can also buy a really nice "HP"-stamped machine an the same store. I can't believe that they dilute their brand like this... at the very least, they should have a bo-bo brand name, like eMachines to sell the low-end stuff.
Yes, if it cost one fifth of its present cost, it would be nice. It does not.
So really it comes down to cost, then?
To you, $99 is the sweet spot. To others, it would be $50, and to others, it is apparently $500.
I happen to be in your camp, but I recognize that this would be a pretty cool gadget for the right price. Also - try to put it in perspective. Most people are willing to spend $1200 or so per year on cable alone, let alone other sources of entertainment... $500 or $600 for another thing to stare at isn't that obscene.
Apple is clearly no longer the leader.
When were they the leader? Symbian and RIM are both ahead of Apple, and AFAIK always have been.
Thanks to him and him alone you've lost the OS functionality.
Yeah, how DARE he screw around with hardware that he owns.
What the hell happened to the hacker mentality in geek-land?
This is equivilent to Ford Motors declaring that none of its suppliers can use any tools from Stanley (aka Craftsman), and then Ford setting up its own tool supplier and declaring that you can use tools from their wholly owned tool division, or from other spoecific competition to Stanley, but not at all from Stanley.
Besides being really stupid business, what would be wrong with that? It would make their cars more expensive, and there's plenty of other competition out there without such silly rules.
Now, if Microsoft did that, we could talk Sherman.
You mean Sherman? How in the heck can they violate Sherman?
And more to the point, when has Sherman ever been used against a non-monopoly? Granted, it was used to crush a crippling strike - but surely you aren't suggesting that Apple is restricting trade in such a blatant manner?
Again, the cost seems similar. As soon as I click on "configure" to attempt parity comparison, the prices are in the $2000 range.
And these laptops are a full pound heavier and much larger by volume than the Macbook Pros, so again... what is form-factor worth to you?
You can save well over $200 (15" MBP starts at $1800, Envy starts at $1300) and have a much higher-performance, higher-spec laptop with the HP.
Yes, but not at the same time :)
Battery life parity costs you $100, screen resolution improvement to get full-HD is another addition. When I went to HP.com and got them as similar as possible, I was within about $200.
And the HP remained heavier and fatter.
It all depends on what you are after. The superior configurability of the HP probably makes it a better laptop for more people. But that doesn't make the Mac overpriced for the people whom it meets their needs.
All right...
What anti-trust law is Apple violating, then?
Why do so many people neglect to compare size, weight, and battery life? These are notebooks! If you are looking for something that sits on your desk plugged in and only occasionally moves, then yeah, Apples probably aren't what you are looking for - you can save hundreds of dollars by getting a larger, heavier laptop with less battery life.
Depends on how you value form-factor. The HP is about 10% or so larger by volume and priced very similarly when spec'd closely. You have to go up from the base processor on the HP and the monitors aren't quite the same res. The video card is an ATI vs the nVidia in the Apple, but at least it is discrete (I think).
But mainly, to get even 6 hours out of the HP you have to spend $100 on this big ugly thing that sticks out of the bottom of the computer. I mean... look at this abomination. :)
They also ship it with the crappy home edition of Windows... there goes another $100 upgrade. And you want a recovery CD? That's another $19.00.
So yeah, you can save $200 on the HP and it is a perfectly nice laptop... but it is correspondingly bigger and - with the competitive battery - heavier.
I don't know many tea partiers, but I can say with some confidence that they are pretty strongly for stronger states vs a stronger federal government. Those from other states would not presume to tell Massachusetts what to do with their health care, even if they are against social programs in general.
But you are right, as far as having a "platform", they are a total mess. The various groups sort-of claiming to be official seem to only make very vague demands:
"Tea Party Patriots, Inc. ("TPP") is a non-partisan, non-profit social welfare organization dedicated to furthering the common good and general welfare of the people of the United States. TPP furthers this goal by educating the public and promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets."
You'd have to be pretty fringe to disagree with any of those three things! The only one even remotely debated is the extent of the free market.
The European Union has a population larger than the United States and yet it manages just fine.
Which more or less is in agreement with what the Tea Partiers are saying... you don't need such a large Federal government. The EU model does seem to work, with obvious problems (Greece, ahem), but it works on balance. But the EU model is to have VERY strong state governments with an extremely loose central government. So loose that some would argue that it isn't even a real government.
So don't be too hard on the Tea Partiers... ask yourself how you'd like your healthcare to be run from Brussels. The party seems to attract a lot of nuts, but they do have a point.
When they've stable enough
Because in order to have a self-sustaining domestic market, they need to have decent per-capita income. This means higher salaries, which diminishes their international price competitiveness.
Also, at some point, this currency manipulation is going to bite them. They will, in the end, be stuck with a whole bunch of rapidly depreciating US paper.