Ethernet dongles (likely at added cost on $2k+) laptop.
Face it wifi is not all over the place and Ethernet is faster, has more security, work better in some places, ect.
I was just in a hotel with in room cable modems hooked to the tv system with Ethernet and Poor wifi in room.
Yes, added cost, but consider that you're buying with that extra cost a thinner laptop (because it didn't have to be included) and the option of NOT carrying it around. I've found that I almost never need either the display adapter or the ethernet adapter, so I don't have to carry them around if I don't need them (I have an Air). For me, the thinness is worth it. You could just as easily say that the base model, with no dongle, gives people who don't need the dongle(s) the opportunity to buy a slightly cheaper Macbook - thus, it is a price discount for them, rather than an extra cost for us.
Not everyone likes this, of course, but that's why you have the option of buying other notebooks.
Islam never raped, kidnapped, or stoned anyone. A small number of people, who practice a particular version of Islam, have done those things and justified it using their particular doctrinal interpretation. The same is true of Christianity and Judaism. To blame some fictional, abstract, monolithic "Islam," which doesn't have existence independent from how people interpret it, for the actions of individuals is a logical fallacy.
It is only socialist or communist when done by the government.
Huh, I must have missed the part where government welfare programs were actually state control of the means of production. OHHHH, you don't know what the words "socialist" and "communist" mean! Now it makes sense. Carry on.
Since when is doing something voluntarily with no coercion or pressure "slavery"?
It is fairly well established among ethicists that offering money to people who are in dire situations can be coercive. Researchers have to deal with this if they want to do research with the homeless or destitute. If someone has an extreme need for money, you can get them to do things that are against their best interests.
Any disaster could be averted with extra millions and millions spent on it, it's just balancing risk and reward.
Come on, don't be dense. The claim here is precisely that they weren't balancing risk and reward - they were overweighting their own immediate gains and underweighting the future risks, which were mostly to other people.
"Estimates suggest that building a passenger-capable Startram would require 20 years and a construction budget (ignoring inflation and overoptimism) of about $60 billion."
So, triple it for a realistic estimate: $180 billion. Now, that sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that the total amount of money flushed down the toilet for the Iraq war will probably be an order of magnitude above that, it's play money. We just have to convince people that there's oil in LEO.
Democracy is advocated on the belief that all individuals have an inalienable right to a degree of self-determination; to participate in the maintanance of the system that governs them. It is about being fundamentally free, not correct.
I was going to say the same thing, but I decided to scroll down to see whether any one else said it before. The fact that I had to scroll down nearly to the bottom of the page before I finally found it depresses me. We should have the right to choose our leaders because no one else should have the right to choose them for us, not because we make the best choices.
They're the Corporate-Regressive party, our own home-grown copy of American neoliberal parties like the GOP. No real Canadian actually thinks they are legitimate.
Is this a variation of the "No True Scotsman" argument?
No, because it wasn't an argument. It's a statement which is obviously meant to communicate the poster's view of what Canadian values are.
I keep telling you people, the federal government has no business in public education, the local and state government. As stupid as this bill seems, the next "logical" step would be for Obama to force it on the rest of the nation.
You think it is "logical" that Obama is just itching to pass a federal version of a state decency law written by a bunch of conservative Republicans? That word, "logical", I do not think it means what you think it means.
Keeping all education local would prevent this stupidity from leaving Arizona's borders.
That sure worked with local control of science standards and creationism, didn't it?
1.) Poorer working conditions aren't exclusive to Apple's factories, or even Foxconn.
Irrelevant. "Joe may have killed someone, but Frank did too, so don't complain about Joe!" Being inconsistent in your calls for better treatment is much better than never calling for better treatment at all.
2.) Workers are -happy- about their job and working conditions. It's you who feel unhappy about them. Your protesting will NOT IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. You will render them jobless (as you boycott these products and companies pull out of these countries) and effectively kill off their means of living.
The whole point of exerting economic pressure through a boycott is to make it reasonable for a company to change their behavior to get you to buy their products again. Nobody, including people protesting, want to put anyone out of business. Also, and you might be surprised by this, but China is an authoritarian country. There can be dire consequences for protesting, and so you think they are happy, but really, they are forced by the government to be "content" with their lot. We know that conditions at Foxconn's factories have been bad in the past. There's no sense in saying "Oh, but those Chinese, their HAPPY about it!"
3.) Progress takes time. Most Americans have forgotten their past when there were still slaves, often in FAR worse conditions than that of China.
Time is not the cause of anything. Progress takes time, but that's because there's stuff that happens in time, like protests, political pressure, inspections, etc. You think slavery just ceased to exist because we gave it enough time? That shows a tremendous lack of historical understanding.
1. Human imagination imagines beyond what is possible.
2. I cannot imagine a quantum computer.
3. Therefore, quantum computing is further beyond what is possible than my imagination.
4. By (1), quantum computing is beyond the possible.
At least it's valid. If you give me half the money, I can work out rest of the kinks.
Oh piss off with your true scotsman fallacy. Words are defined by their usage, and political labels especially so.
Yes, but they aren't defined by your usage. "Liberal", except to US conservatives, means a political position that is marked by a desire to remove constraints on peoples' behavior. In the Western world, the people who use the word "liberal" to mean that far outnumber the people who take it to mean "people who disagree with the right wing in the US."
"Believe" connotes faith. As a scientist, I accept the theory of AGW as it would be perverse to withhold acceptance in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If better evidence is found, I'm willing to change. Believers aren't willing to change as their beliefs don't, in general, depend upon evidence.
As another scientist, you are using the word "belief" in a way that almost no one, including other scientists, would use it. Following the evidence leads to justified belief. If your beliefs are justified by evidence, then of course your beliefs can change. Faith and belief, then, are not synonyms: faith is unjustified belief.
Put another way, you prefer the word "accept". What are you accepting? You've got half a metaphor there. When you find the other half, you'll see why you're really just talking about belief.
it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.
The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...
Most animals who can physically hunt and digest humans do not have any opposition to hunting humans, endangered or not.
Most animals also don't have a problem with rape. Your point is?
On the other hand if you're referring to hunting your own species, we have a problem. While many animal and other species are known to actively practice cannibalism, humans rarely do in cases other then those borne out of extreme competition for food sources.
Oh, right, an appeal to nature. Ugh. Is that the best you can do?
"I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered humans. The people I'd like to hunt (mostly developmentally-disabled people), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the people hunting? Do these anti-human hunting people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing human-hunting parties? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else...."
Seriously, if you think the amount of a particular species is the only thing relevant to the ethics of killing it, you aren't thinking about ethics very hard. The fact that your post was modded up is baffling. We can disagree on whether whales are intelligent enough to make killing them unethical (I think the evidence shows they probably are, and it is better to err on the side of not killing intelligent animals unnecessarily).
And then you belittle Sea Shepherd for acting in a principled manner and putting their lives and money on the line to fight something that a strong argument can be made (whether you agree with it or not) is like murder. While you might like playing Magic, at least they're out there fighting for something that has the potential to make the world a better place not just for future people, but other intelligent species as well.
Yeah, right; it was the atomic bombs that made them allies, and not the massive amount of reconstruction help after the war. Blow them up! That's how you make allies!
The government doesn't like us because of the Shah and differences in how religion should affect policy, and they never will.
Silly Iranians, so mad that we propped up a horribly oppressive regime. ("Maybe a better, simpler solution is to build good relations with those who oppose you?" would have been a good rule back then, too, eh?) Also, "and they never will" is a dumb statement to make. Being "nice" to nations can do wonders. After all, we turned Japan, our mortal enemy in WW2, with no history of democracy, on whom we dropped two atomic weapons, into one of our closest allies in just a few decades.
People love science until it tells them that something they like doing has extremely negative consequences.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Let's ask a similarly stupid question: "Why are we targeting drunk drivers instead of bad drivers?" When you can answer that question, you should be able to form a pretty good answer to the question above.
The article spends its entire space criticising the idea that the test is measuring something useful, and then the quiz link title is "How smart are you?".
The right hand needs to talk to the left hand over at the Post.
Slashdot Mirror
Ethernet dongles (likely at added cost on $2k+) laptop.
Face it wifi is not all over the place and Ethernet is faster, has more security, work better in some places, ect.
I was just in a hotel with in room cable modems hooked to the tv system with Ethernet and Poor wifi in room.
Yes, added cost, but consider that you're buying with that extra cost a thinner laptop (because it didn't have to be included) and the option of NOT carrying it around. I've found that I almost never need either the display adapter or the ethernet adapter, so I don't have to carry them around if I don't need them (I have an Air). For me, the thinness is worth it. You could just as easily say that the base model, with no dongle, gives people who don't need the dongle(s) the opportunity to buy a slightly cheaper Macbook - thus, it is a price discount for them, rather than an extra cost for us.
Not everyone likes this, of course, but that's why you have the option of buying other notebooks.
A backward prachice? Yes. Savage like Islam? No.
Islam never raped, kidnapped, or stoned anyone. A small number of people, who practice a particular version of Islam, have done those things and justified it using their particular doctrinal interpretation. The same is true of Christianity and Judaism. To blame some fictional, abstract, monolithic "Islam," which doesn't have existence independent from how people interpret it, for the actions of individuals is a logical fallacy.
What, pi is 14.3? When did that happen?
It is only socialist or communist when done by the government.
Huh, I must have missed the part where government welfare programs were actually state control of the means of production. OHHHH, you don't know what the words "socialist" and "communist" mean! Now it makes sense. Carry on.
Since when is doing something voluntarily with no coercion or pressure "slavery"?
It is fairly well established among ethicists that offering money to people who are in dire situations can be coercive. Researchers have to deal with this if they want to do research with the homeless or destitute. If someone has an extreme need for money, you can get them to do things that are against their best interests.
Any disaster could be averted with extra millions and millions spent on it, it's just balancing risk and reward.
Come on, don't be dense. The claim here is precisely that they weren't balancing risk and reward - they were overweighting their own immediate gains and underweighting the future risks, which were mostly to other people.
So, triple it for a realistic estimate: $180 billion. Now, that sounds like a lot of money, but when you consider that the total amount of money flushed down the toilet for the Iraq war will probably be an order of magnitude above that, it's play money. We just have to convince people that there's oil in LEO.
Democracy is advocated on the belief that all individuals have an inalienable right to a degree of self-determination; to participate in the maintanance of the system that governs them. It is about being fundamentally free, not correct.
I was going to say the same thing, but I decided to scroll down to see whether any one else said it before. The fact that I had to scroll down nearly to the bottom of the page before I finally found it depresses me. We should have the right to choose our leaders because no one else should have the right to choose them for us, not because we make the best choices.
They're the Corporate-Regressive party, our own home-grown copy of American neoliberal parties like the GOP. No real Canadian actually thinks they are legitimate.
Is this a variation of the "No True Scotsman" argument?
No, because it wasn't an argument. It's a statement which is obviously meant to communicate the poster's view of what Canadian values are.
I'm no climate denier, but what he did was unethical. He should be fired, and possibly prosecuted if any crimes were committed.
I keep telling you people, the federal government has no business in public education, the local and state government. As stupid as this bill seems, the next "logical" step would be for Obama to force it on the rest of the nation.
You think it is "logical" that Obama is just itching to pass a federal version of a state decency law written by a bunch of conservative Republicans? That word, "logical", I do not think it means what you think it means.
Keeping all education local would prevent this stupidity from leaving Arizona's borders.
That sure worked with local control of science standards and creationism, didn't it?
1.) Poorer working conditions aren't exclusive to Apple's factories, or even Foxconn.
Irrelevant. "Joe may have killed someone, but Frank did too, so don't complain about Joe!" Being inconsistent in your calls for better treatment is much better than never calling for better treatment at all.
2.) Workers are -happy- about their job and working conditions. It's you who feel unhappy about them. Your protesting will NOT IMPROVE THEIR LIVES. You will render them jobless (as you boycott these products and companies pull out of these countries) and effectively kill off their means of living.
The whole point of exerting economic pressure through a boycott is to make it reasonable for a company to change their behavior to get you to buy their products again. Nobody, including people protesting, want to put anyone out of business. Also, and you might be surprised by this, but China is an authoritarian country. There can be dire consequences for protesting, and so you think they are happy, but really, they are forced by the government to be "content" with their lot. We know that conditions at Foxconn's factories have been bad in the past. There's no sense in saying "Oh, but those Chinese, their HAPPY about it!"
3.) Progress takes time. Most Americans have forgotten their past when there were still slaves, often in FAR worse conditions than that of China.
Time is not the cause of anything. Progress takes time, but that's because there's stuff that happens in time, like protests, political pressure, inspections, etc. You think slavery just ceased to exist because we gave it enough time? That shows a tremendous lack of historical understanding.
Life may have many definitions but no meaning at all.
Yes, but "life" has both definitions and meaning.
1. Human imagination imagines beyond what is possible.
2. I cannot imagine a quantum computer.
3. Therefore, quantum computing is further beyond what is possible than my imagination.
4. By (1), quantum computing is beyond the possible.
At least it's valid. If you give me half the money, I can work out rest of the kinks.
Oh piss off with your true scotsman fallacy. Words are defined by their usage, and political labels especially so.
Yes, but they aren't defined by your usage. "Liberal", except to US conservatives, means a political position that is marked by a desire to remove constraints on peoples' behavior. In the Western world, the people who use the word "liberal" to mean that far outnumber the people who take it to mean "people who disagree with the right wing in the US."
"Believe" connotes faith. As a scientist, I accept the theory of AGW as it would be perverse to withhold acceptance in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If better evidence is found, I'm willing to change. Believers aren't willing to change as their beliefs don't, in general, depend upon evidence.
As another scientist, you are using the word "belief" in a way that almost no one, including other scientists, would use it. Following the evidence leads to justified belief. If your beliefs are justified by evidence, then of course your beliefs can change. Faith and belief, then, are not synonyms: faith is unjustified belief.
Put another way, you prefer the word "accept". What are you accepting? You've got half a metaphor there. When you find the other half, you'll see why you're really just talking about belief.
it's located someplace that we're not going to be able to verify the results.
The laws of physics work the same way there that they do here...you don't actually have to go there to know how light will pass through the atmosphere...
Most animals who can physically hunt and digest humans do not have any opposition to hunting humans, endangered or not.
Most animals also don't have a problem with rape. Your point is?
On the other hand if you're referring to hunting your own species, we have a problem. While many animal and other species are known to actively practice cannibalism, humans rarely do in cases other then those borne out of extreme competition for food sources.
Oh, right, an appeal to nature. Ugh. Is that the best you can do?
"I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered humans. The people I'd like to hunt (mostly developmentally-disabled people), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the people hunting? Do these anti-human hunting people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing human-hunting parties? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else...."
Seriously, if you think the amount of a particular species is the only thing relevant to the ethics of killing it, you aren't thinking about ethics very hard. The fact that your post was modded up is baffling. We can disagree on whether whales are intelligent enough to make killing them unethical (I think the evidence shows they probably are, and it is better to err on the side of not killing intelligent animals unnecessarily).
And then you belittle Sea Shepherd for acting in a principled manner and putting their lives and money on the line to fight something that a strong argument can be made (whether you agree with it or not) is like murder. While you might like playing Magic, at least they're out there fighting for something that has the potential to make the world a better place not just for future people, but other intelligent species as well.
Someone has already tagged Razor-Qt as 'a KDE ripoff.'
Oh no, someone call the police! Someone is ripping off an idea from an open source project! We must stop this "open" madness!
Yeah, right; it was the atomic bombs that made them allies, and not the massive amount of reconstruction help after the war. Blow them up! That's how you make allies!
The government doesn't like us because of the Shah and differences in how religion should affect policy, and they never will.
Silly Iranians, so mad that we propped up a horribly oppressive regime. ("Maybe a better, simpler solution is to build good relations with those who oppose you?" would have been a good rule back then, too, eh?) Also, "and they never will" is a dumb statement to make. Being "nice" to nations can do wonders. After all, we turned Japan, our mortal enemy in WW2, with no history of democracy, on whom we dropped two atomic weapons, into one of our closest allies in just a few decades.
Why is the NTSB targeting gadgets instead of bad drivers?
Let's ask a similarly stupid question: "Why are we targeting drunk drivers instead of bad drivers?" When you can answer that question, you should be able to form a pretty good answer to the question above.
Don't blame the devil for doing bad things with your sole after you sold it to him.
What does the devil want with my pet flounder? Oh, god, Bessie, I'm sorry, I didn't know it was him!
The article spends its entire space criticising the idea that the test is measuring something useful, and then the quiz link title is "How smart are you?".
The right hand needs to talk to the left hand over at the Post.