You think an Apple based package built into a vehicle will be less expensive? Really? Based on what evidence?
Based on the numbers the poster already gave you. Really.
Really? I see most tablets are horribly overpriced and the only reason most vendors seem to be making them is the belief that they too can capture some of that sweet sweet insanely great Apple style profit margin.
Really, you're going to try to move the goalposts after he just answered your question of when Apple has competed on price?
...shooting his mouth off without bothering to read the summary:
"The book is not banned by law in Germany, but Bavaria has used ownership of the copyright to prevent publication of German editions since 1945. Copyright restrictions stop at the end of 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death."
The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion. It does not guarantee freedom of assembly wherever and whenever you want to assemble. It also does not guarantee total free speech - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. Do some very basic reading before you lecture me on the first amendment. But I'm the lazy one.
Yes, you are.
maintain law and order
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
facilitate traffic
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
reduce noise congestion
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?
I said the NYPD does not even have tear gas.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.
If I direct you to a Supreme Court ruling about peaceful assembly, will you actually read it? Cox v. New Hampshire (1941): the government may require permits for parading on public streets
As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional, this obviously being one of them. The first amendment is quite, quite clear on this. "One nation, under God" was another open-and-shut case, but that didn't stop SCOTUS from punting on it.
Over 600 dead in Egypt.
And you're conflating the holy shit this turned into a fucking revolution part with the you protesters leave this square part. And I wonder if your lazy, authoritarian tool brain can comprehend the fact that all of your arguments against the OWS protests apply just as much to the protests in Tahrir Square. What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square? What right did the Egyptian protesters have to refuse lawful orders from lawful authorities to leave? Bloomberg and Quan (much less Obama), unlike Mubarak, never lost control or had their authority directly challenged. If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.
You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army. Nevermind that they are both pointless land wars in Asia doing little more than supporting corrupt puppet governments.
Other than all the central points I just re-iterated.
And YOU don't address the marketshare % I quoted
Sure I did. If marketshare % is the problem - as opposed to design flaws - then why did IIS have more exploits than Apache with less marketshare. Why have the number of exploits for Windows 7 not caught up to the number of exploits for XP as Windows 7 has replaced it's predecessor in marketshare.
Apple ships between 5 and 10 million computers a year. The greater marketshare of Windows may indeed explain why it gets attacked more often - but it doesn't come close to explaining why OS X has never had a problem that has come close to Code Red, just to name one example. Or why there is not a single Mac botnet out there, despite tens of million of Apple machines running around the world.
That's because, to borrow Clinton's old line about the economy: it's the design flaws, stupid.
Take a look at the top right map of countries with conscription based military [wikipedia.org]. These include my own country and many Islamic and Arab ones. I strongly refuse the notion that anyone that have or might some day serve in the army should be considered legitimate military targets.
And I strongly reject the idea that attacks in response to land theft and occupation are "terrorism". Palestinian attacks are no more terrorism than Sioux attacks on prospectors violating their home and sacred grounds were "terrorism". And again this is comparing mountains (settler violence) to molehills (Indian/Palestinian violence).
This is correct. I also suspect that traffic is a higher cause of death than murder in any country. Which is again second to heart disease diseases. However I fail to see how this is relevant.
Other than the obvious matter of proportion? Is the cost of America's "War on Terror" - trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives thrown away with a shredded Bill of Rights - worth the cost when you have a higher chance of dying in America after a slip in your own bathtub than from a terrorist attack? Are Israel's recent wars and police state tactics worth it when 22 people have died from Quassam rockets - ever?
Neighboring Arab countries simply attacked, demanding everything.
The problem with that framing is: of course the native population was entitled to resist the creation of a new state, by fiat, from their territory for a bunch of immigrants from a thousand or more miles away. What if the minority Cuban population up and declared an independent state covering the majority of Florida - would that not be resisted with force from native Floridians with help from Georgia and Alabama?
Regarding the Gaza blockade issue, what would you do in Israels shoes? Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.
What would you do if you were in Gaza, with the IDF putting you on a "diet", massacring 9 passengers on a ship bearing you supplies, and slaughtered over a thousand people after the IDF broke it's own cease fire? Contrasted to the greater threat to Israeli life, of course: a passenger bus colliding with your car in traffic.
Hamas doesn't even bother to hide his intentions of destroying Israel.
See above on both motivations and sense of proportion.
In the wikipedia article you linked to, the Egyptian president announced before the 6 day war: Moving On
Moving right back: Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran. On one hand you have words, and on the other you have the side actually firing the first shots in an actual war. Both the United States and the USSR talked tough during the cold war, but there was never a World War III. Because no one fired the first shots.
And with support of Iran or other countries, they pose similar danger as Cuba when the Soviets were transporting missile bases there.
And when did the Cuban Missile Crisis happen? After the Soviets actually tried to place actual nuclear missiles on the island. When the scary boogeyman of Iran arming "terrorists" turns into a point of fact instead of a point of propaganda point from countries threatening and committing their own terrorist attacks upon the Islamic Republic, then we can talk.
I've spoken to many Arabs that have the idea that the "zionist regime" is a machine that is evil, just for being evil, even at the cost of bad internatio
So, buses are already less efficient, and commuter rail and AMTRAK only reach their efficiencies because of high utilization.
Not less efficient. And of course AMTRAK is going to have horrible numbers (still better than cars though) because it's an antiquated system running on diesel engines. The future isn't AMTRAK vs the modern Prius, but the modern Prius vs modern electrically powered trains. You can also directly power an electric train with wind or hydro power - which wont work with cars - or solar power (not efficient on cars).
But you can't get high utilization if you try to switch people from cars to public transit because then you need many more trains at more times, a lot of which are going to be poorly utilized.
And highway capacity is poorly utilized at 3:00 am. But that's been a double standard in this country for decades: public roads are a car subsidy worth hundreds of billions a year, while mass transit is supposed to be self-sufficient.
Massive government investment has to be paid through taxes somehow. So, either you tax fossil fuels, or you tax everything, or you tax someone else who isn't causing the problem.
Since you skipped it the first two times here it is again: slash military spending and use those funds for green energy development. At a trillion dollars a year, how long do you expect it would take to put solar panels on the roof of every public building in America? And it could be done without a single cent in carbon taxes. And it would result in an economic boon as money is spent at home on direct job creation rather than pissing it away in the arabian deserts.
You want to tax everything because what you really want is increase taxes further, you're just using "global warming" as an excuse to do so.
See above. Oh, and feel free to back away from the sophistry at any time.
Why should I, in my energy-efficient home and with my tiny car, pay higher taxes for the costs other people (according to you) are imposing on poor south sea islanders?
Why should I bother to address your straw man? Because, even if your storyline had any basis in reality, climate change is everyone's business. The same way public education is everyone's business, whether or not you yourself have children.
And of course, there's the FACT that the costs of mitigating climate change are INSIGNIFICANT next to the costs of *not* mitigating it.
First, those were nowhere near as massive as changing over a large part of the energy producing capacity of the world to some different energy source.
Red herring. Even more so given the fact that other energy sources can be plugged into the existing grid, and solar panels can be plugged directly into existing buildings. To head off the next red herring, no, they don't power your house at night without battery storage. But when is energy use the greatest? On hot, sunny days.
Many of those government projects also turned out to be harmful and/or inefficient. Rural electrification and the federal highway system are, after all, in large part responsible for the kind of inefficient energy utilization you are now complaining about. If low density living hadn't been subsidized by the US government in the first place, blah blah blah
I don't know what's more impressive, the attempt at deflection or arguing that successful federal projects have increased energy use right after arguing that federal projects could not change our energy use. And, of course, nevermind that those same rural areas are prime areas for wind or solar farms, or that greens have long argued in favor of replacing highway sprawl with mass transit.
Accusing your opponents of acting in bad faith, which is what not caring about facts would be in a scientific discussion, is demonizing them.
Except that, again, those "questioning" climate change invariably do so because they don't like the conclusions or the implications, not out of a concern that the theory hasn't been sufficiently tested. That's reality, not "demonization", so feel free to lay off your own overly dramatic hyperbole at any time.
Just because the analogy was a poor apples-to-oranges comparison doesn't mean we had a hard time understanding it.
which made the argument that lacking a proper label ("climate scientist", "climate agency", etc.) is not a good enough reason to dismiss the arguments made by competent people discussing how their expertise in their field shows that the arguments
Of course it's reasonable to question claims coming from individuals speaking outside their expertise when presenting themselves as experts. Especially when they are contradicting actual expert opinions from actual experts in the actual field in question. If a bunch of mathematicians got together and not only said that Vioxx was a perfectly safe drug but accused actual medical and pharmaceutical doctors of taking an 'Extreme Position' over tying the medication to heart attacks, would you take them seriously or suspect them of having an agenda?
If such lack of a label were enough, then dismissing the arguments made by NASA would be as legitimate as dismissing the arguments made by physicists.
Back to the apples-to-oranges nonsense. It is absurd to compare opinions from individuals to opinions from massive institutions and pretend the two are are on the same page. Would you dismiss findings from John's Hopkins computer science department out of hand because it's primarily known as a medical school? Would you dismiss findings on organ cloning from MIT out of hand because it's primarily known as an engineering school? As opposed to a medical doctor from MIT opining on artificial intelligence or a computer scientist from John's Hopkins opining on organ transplants.
Then there's the fact that the rest of this fallacy depends on the notion that the study of climate, the atmosphere or the environment is somehow unusual for NASA. That of course is not the case:
Ozone depletion
In the middle of the 20th century[clarification needed] NASA augmented its mission of Earthâ(TM)s observation and redirected it toward environmental quality. The result was the launch of Earth Observing System (EOS) in 1980s, which was able to monitor one of the global environmental problemsâ"ozone depletion.[99] The first comprehensive worldwide measurements were obtained in 1978 with the Nimbus-7 satellite and NASA scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.[100]
Salt evaporation and energy management
In one of the nation's largest restoration projects, NASA technology helps state and federal government reclaim 15,100 acres (61 km2) of salt evaporation ponds in South San Francisco Bay. Satellite sensors are used by scientists to study the effect of salt evaporation on local ecology.[101]
Earth Science Enterprise
Understanding of natural and human-induced changes on the global environment is the main objective of NASA's Earth Science Enterprise. NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere, cyrosphere), with several more planned for launch in the next few years.[103]
Not only is the study of climate not unusual for NASA, it's been a main area of study for decades.
Hardly - the United States is on par with petty dictatorships for income inequality and mobility. A young member of the working class can look forward to graduating with $25k or more in student loan debt and then struggling to find a job in a shitty economy while hoping they don't need health care. Whereas the rich don't have to worry about health care or student loan debt or housing and can afford to take a year long unpaid internship - or three - before getting a job.
I can say this because I come from a family that emigrated and came to the United States and started off on welfare, living in government projects, and going to very poorly supported schools.
I can say that's a logical fallacy. I know someone who won a lottery. Therefore, winning the lottery is a realistic expectation for the majority of the population.
They convinced me, my siblings, and themselves, that the government handouts were temporary aids for us, and that continuing to live off the government when we have the ability to eventually make it on our own is shameful.
Nice boilerplate pull-up-by-your-bootstraps talking points. And how about when they are six applicants for every open job? At least you have the self-awareness not to join the tea party.
1. IIS having more exploits than Apache despite Apache's superior marketshare 2. Why the number of exploits for Windows 7 hasn't begun to surpass the number of exploits for XP as it replaces it's predecessor in marketshare. 3. The fact that Windows operating systems ran all programs with super user access, left ports and services open all over the place, and tied scripting & a web browser into the operating system.
Imaginary Ford Executive, circa 1980: "There's no design flaw with the Pinto! The only reason you hear about the Pinto's gas tank exploding in 10 mph collisions and not from Honda is because Ford has such great marketshare. If Honda were in our place, you would be hearing about the same sort of exploding gas tank problems with Accord!"
Any attacks aiming purely for civilian targets are terrorists in my book.
Civilians living on land that was stolen from you. Civilians who, thanks to Israel's laws on compulsory military service, are either 1) active duty soldiers defending the occupation 2) future active duty soldiers defending the occupation 3) reservists who can be called back into service to defend the occupation.
And even, then, there is no comparison in the levels of civilian-killing even if you want to call it terrorism. Israelis stand a higher chance of being murdered by another Israeli than dying in a "terrorist attack". You have a higher chance of being killed by a bus colliding with your car in an accident (not car accidents overall, but accidents involving buses) than in being killed by a Quassam rocket.
Whether the Judean desert is stolen and occupied is IMHO a big grey area which I don't want to discuss
Any particular reason why? The U.N. partition plan that the Palestinians (rightfully) rejected would have given the majority of the land to a minority of the population. The vast majority of whom were not people to the area, but immigrants. Furthermore, blockades are an act of war according to Israel. Meaning that according to Israeli logic, attacks on Israel in response to the far more draconian blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.
As for your accusation of the IDF terrorism, I'll have to go for a [Citation needed].
Surething. This isn't the most ironclad example as both the attacks (did shelling hit the building directly or indirectly?) and the death tolls are heavily disputed. So I'll talk more about things that are not in dispute:
What could the IDF even gain from just massacring a school with no military target as you suggest?
What would the IDF have to gain from full scale bombardment and invasion when even the IDF admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets and that Quassam rockets are more of a psycological than military threat?
And furthermore, if terrorism is the bane of Israel's existence, then why has the current prime minister celebrated the 60th anniversary of an Irgun (Zionist terrorist group) attack on a hotel used by the British as a headquarters before Israel's "independence"? How about the nuclear scientists assassinated in Iran, undoubtedly carried out or funded by Mossad?
Mac users have had an easy time of it to now, and that's only becuase the market share has been so low.
Ah, the Marketshare Myth that has never had any basis in reality.
If you're trying to tell me that the reason was becase the technology was so scarry superior to windows or linux I think you're in for a rude awakening.
Easy enough to debunk with Microsoft's own products. If it were only a matter of marketshare, then the number of exploits for Windows 7 would be surpassing the number of exploits for XP and '98 as 7 has surpassed it's predecessors. But that's obviously not the case, because Microsoft started to give a damn about security after the release of XP. See also: the fact that there were far more hacks for IIS than there were hacks for Apache, despite the latter having more marketshare than the former.
That's because marketshare has little to do with it. Shitty code and privileged separation has everything to do with it. If OS X or Linux had all programs run with administrative access all the time, left ports and services open all over the place, or had web browsers tied into the operating system (with scripting!) then they would have been a cesspool just like 98 and XP.
The only reason the science is being contested is the same reason evolution is: because some people have agendas that don't care about facts.
Which is of course the truth. Climate change is being contested for the same reason evolution is: to suit an agenda. Pointing that fact out isn't "demonization", it's point out reality. I don't know why you guys are bothering to pretend otherwise when even Koch funded researchers have to admit that climate change is actually happening and not some Al Gore/George Soros conspiracy, when they actually look at the data.
Each one of them is explicitly making a comparison to Syrian repression.
Except they're not. At all. Not one of your cited comments makes such a comparison. Not even close.
"Now if only they'd use that on the TSA" How is the TSA engaged in repression like Syria, to warrant this comparison?
Except that commenter never mentioned Syria, which means you have no basis for complaint, and it's the same for the rest of your links. Look, this really isn't that hard. Greenwald:
Khader Adnan and now-normalized Western justice
Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).
In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The âoeprincipal human rights problemsâ of the tyrannical Chinese government include âoea lack of due process in judicial proceedingsâ and âoethe use of administrative detention.â Indeed, âoearbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges.â Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?
It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Pointing out that the United States and it's closest allies routinely engages in behavior that it denounces from "rouge" states is not even close to saying that the United States is engaging in exactly the same abuses across the board.
That's a straw man that has existed only inside your head. You say you're concerned with human rights abuses at both home and abroad, but you're acting more like a Concern Troll looking to deflect and distract.
Furhermore, we know what a world without any ice caps looks like, because Earth has existed that way for most of the time since the end of the dinosaurs, and such a world is just fine for mammals like us.
Oh, the "we've had changes before so this is no big deal" talking point, how quaint. Nevermind that...
During previous periods of climate change, we didn't have nearly 7 billion people on the planet. It's just a wee bit easier for a couple million people to migrate to higher or more fertile ground than a couple billion people. And hello, land and resource wars.
Yes, it's true that our planet cycles between warm and cold periods. It's also true that these normal fluctuations happen at a far slower place than humans are pushing climate change. Polar bears can adapt to disappearing arctic ice if you give them a couple thousand years to migrate/evolve/find new sources of food. Give them 5% that much time to adapt and you'll push them towards extinction.
Yes, extinction. It's true as well that we've had rapid climate change in the past. It's also true that those changes invariably coincide with mass extinctions.
Environments change and people migrate; it's part of the human experience.
It's not usually a part of the human experience for those migrations to be brought about from human-induced rapid climate change.
Your analysis is naive and unscientific.
Your rebuttal is lazy, pompous and false. We've had greener energy sources available for decades; hell, hydro power has been with us for over 120 years.
If "green energy" were comparable to, or cheaper than, fossil fuel energy, then people would already be using it.
And again, if we subsidized green energy the way we subsidized the fossil fuel industry and the industrial-congressional-contractor-surrvielance-prison complex (much of which is also spent propping up the fossil fuel industry), green energy would not just be cheaper, but vastly cheaper.
And that's in direct costs, as in what you pay at the pump or for your home electricity. And then, again, there's the indirect costs. Spending blood and treasure to keep our armed forces mostly centered in and around the world's gas station. Pollution. Cranking up your AC to deal with month's long temperatures that soar into the 100's. Forced migrations due to changing rainfall or disappearing land.
It is indeed a matter of elementary economics.
You just keep waving your hands and ignoring basic economics and physics.
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection?
Switching to mass transit does not actually result in large energy savings.
Of *course* it does. Buses are far more fuel efficient than cars and transport far more people. Trains are far more fuel efficient than and transport more people than buses. And that's even if they are powered by fossil fuels, much less powered by air, solar, or hydro power.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And yes, it is a fact fact FACT that mass transit is far more efficient than passenger automotive vehicles. Basic physics, deal with it.
If you were serious about reducing carbon emissions, there is exactly and only one way of doing that: you tax fossil fuels to account for the externalities you believe they impose on the world.
LOL - and you were the one just whining that climate ch
Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.
Which part is your lazy mind having a hard time understanding?
The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?
The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?
The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?
The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?
The use of mounted police against peaceful protesters?
Tents aren't "dwellings"? How about you discuss the gist of my argument instead of arguing about whether my use of the word "squatter" is appropriate? They were living in the park(s), not simply "protesting" - that is the important distinction I was trying to make.
Try making an analogy that's not absurdly comparing apples to irrelevant oranges and I'll address it. Squatters are people who trespass into buildings they don't own for the purpose of establishing residency. The protesters were, you know, protesting. Not establishing residency.
Care to point to the part of the amendment where it says they can assemble wherever and whenever they want?
Care to back up from that lazy straw man? It didn't work the first time with the couch.
Now you are just making shit up (or you are only reading Occupy-biased blogs). NYPD doesn't even have tear gas.
Now you're claiming that the only OWS crackdowns were in NYC or that the NYPD receives no equipment or support from other law enforcement agencies?
Public property is nothing but communal property. Just because it has the word "public" in it does not mean that anyone can hijack it for their own purposes.
Was anyone prevented from traveling through or using Zuccotti or any other space used by any other OWS protest? No. So try explaining how you get around
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The rules and regulations should not infringe on inalienable rights, nor should they infringe upon our constitutional or other legal rights - but that's about it as far as limits go.
Okay, serious question now...do you have mono? Because even the most lazy mind would draw some connection between BS evictions based on "health code violations" and "infringing upon our constitutional rights".
But to get back to the point at hand...of COURSE the OWS crackdowns are comparable to the crackdowns in Tahiri square.
Mass arrests? Check.
Police brutality? Check.
Use of mounted police to force out peaceful protesters? Check.
Tear gas and pepper spray? Check.
Bullshit reasons for evictions? Check.
I'm sure somewhere in Egypt a police state apologist counterpart of MightyYar is whining that it's unfair to complain OWS crackdowns to Mubarak's because Egypt wasn't using LRAD audio cannons.
I didn't say anyone is. I'm objecting to drawing parallels between US repression like domestic wiretapping (and other violations of civil liberties) with Syrian repression which is much more severe than the examples of US repression used by the posters I responded to . Here are the comments I was responding to:
I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?
Zero.
Not one of those comments is saying that the OWS crackdowns are exactly like the brutality in Syria, or that DHS is a brutal as the Syrian military. No, they're all pretty much variations of "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
Now if only they'd use that on the TSA ... So when do the sanctions roll out against ourselves? I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no? ... Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity [wikipedia.org] to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?
Are you really expecting your fake outrage and filibustering to fly here? The Federal Government targeted an American citizen for execution without bothering to even indict him. Which alternates between insisting that no one should question this killing because there was so much evidence that he was a bad guy, and then refusing to give a shred of said evidence when pressed to do so.
Then you uncritically accept their storyline without bothering to cite anything. There is as much hard evidence to send Predator Drones after Glenn Beck (propagandized the Tides Foundation shooter), Ted Nugent (multiple implied threats against a sitting president) or Gordon Liddy (shoot government agents in the head because they might be wearing body armor).
This was exactly the sort of black booted government police state BS that you conservatives should be screaming about. But just like the Obama fanboys, you trade away your principles in a nanosecond if it's a decision you agree with. You're both pathetic.
Yes, except that's a big pile of police state apologist bullshit with no basis in reality.
If we are "at war" with Al Queda, then how many captured Al Queda operatives have been treated as prisoners of war? The Constitution clearly states that habeas corpus may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, making the NDAA and military detention flatly unconstitutional. The AUMF only applies to the people who actually attacked us on 911, not everyone we point a finger at ten years later and call them "Al Queda". If you weren't involved in 911, then the AUMF does. not. apply.
So see your own doctor and and ask him to pry your head out of Dick Cheney's ass. Then maybe he can give you some pills to deal with your tendency towards sophistry and fascism. Then pick up an elementary level civics textbook and brush up on your Bill of Rights:
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Based on the numbers the poster already gave you. Really.
Really, you're going to try to move the goalposts after he just answered your question of when Apple has competed on price?
You mean the same way Apple locked the Zune and Android into using Apple's USB interface, and you into only buying music from the iTunes store?
Since that was half the point of this story and all.
Why - were they holding a gun to your head to force you to buy an iPod instead of a Zune, or an iPhone instead of an Android?
This also brought to you from the trite department of false equivalencies...
...shooting his mouth off without bothering to read the summary:
"The book is not banned by law in Germany, but Bavaria has used ownership of the copyright to prevent publication of German editions since 1945. Copyright restrictions stop at the end of 2015, 70 years after Hitler's death."
Xerox got paid. And Apple pays money for patents all the time, just as other companies pay royalties to Apple all the time.
Any more chestnuts? One button mouse, or copying a 17 meg file maybe?
As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?
Yes, you are.
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.
Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.
As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional, this obviously being one of them. The first amendment is quite, quite clear on this. "One nation, under God" was another open-and-shut case, but that didn't stop SCOTUS from punting on it.
And you're conflating the holy shit this turned into a fucking revolution part with the you protesters leave this square part. And I wonder if your lazy, authoritarian tool brain can comprehend the fact that all of your arguments against the OWS protests apply just as much to the protests in Tahrir Square. What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square? What right did the Egyptian protesters have to refuse lawful orders from lawful authorities to leave? Bloomberg and Quan (much less Obama), unlike Mubarak, never lost control or had their authority directly challenged. If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.
You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army. Nevermind that they are both pointless land wars in Asia doing little more than supporting corrupt puppet governments.
Other than all the central points I just re-iterated.
Sure I did. If marketshare % is the problem - as opposed to design flaws - then why did IIS have more exploits than Apache with less marketshare. Why have the number of exploits for Windows 7 not caught up to the number of exploits for XP as Windows 7 has replaced it's predecessor in marketshare.
Apple ships between 5 and 10 million computers a year. The greater marketshare of Windows may indeed explain why it gets attacked more often - but it doesn't come close to explaining why OS X has never had a problem that has come close to Code Red, just to name one example. Or why there is not a single Mac botnet out there, despite tens of million of Apple machines running around the world.
That's because, to borrow Clinton's old line about the economy: it's the design flaws, stupid.
And I strongly reject the idea that attacks in response to land theft and occupation are "terrorism". Palestinian attacks are no more terrorism than Sioux attacks on prospectors violating their home and sacred grounds were "terrorism". And again this is comparing mountains (settler violence) to molehills (Indian/Palestinian violence).
Other than the obvious matter of proportion? Is the cost of America's "War on Terror" - trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives thrown away with a shredded Bill of Rights - worth the cost when you have a higher chance of dying in America after a slip in your own bathtub than from a terrorist attack? Are Israel's recent wars and police state tactics worth it when 22 people have died from Quassam rockets - ever?
The problem with that framing is: of course the native population was entitled to resist the creation of a new state, by fiat, from their territory for a bunch of immigrants from a thousand or more miles away. What if the minority Cuban population up and declared an independent state covering the majority of Florida - would that not be resisted with force from native Floridians with help from Georgia and Alabama?
What would you do if you were in Gaza, with the IDF putting you on a "diet", massacring 9 passengers on a ship bearing you supplies, and slaughtered over a thousand people after the IDF broke it's own cease fire? Contrasted to the greater threat to Israeli life, of course: a passenger bus colliding with your car in traffic.
See above on both motivations and sense of proportion.
Moving right back: Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on Egypt's air force in response to Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran. On one hand you have words, and on the other you have the side actually firing the first shots in an actual war. Both the United States and the USSR talked tough during the cold war, but there was never a World War III. Because no one fired the first shots.
And when did the Cuban Missile Crisis happen? After the Soviets actually tried to place actual nuclear missiles on the island. When the scary boogeyman of Iran arming "terrorists" turns into a point of fact instead of a point of propaganda point from countries threatening and committing their own terrorist attacks upon the Islamic Republic, then we can talk.
Not less efficient. And of course AMTRAK is going to have horrible numbers (still better than cars though) because it's an antiquated system running on diesel engines. The future isn't AMTRAK vs the modern Prius, but the modern Prius vs modern electrically powered trains. You can also directly power an electric train with wind or hydro power - which wont work with cars - or solar power (not efficient on cars).
And highway capacity is poorly utilized at 3:00 am. But that's been a double standard in this country for decades: public roads are a car subsidy worth hundreds of billions a year, while mass transit is supposed to be self-sufficient.
Since you skipped it the first two times here it is again: slash military spending and use those funds for green energy development. At a trillion dollars a year, how long do you expect it would take to put solar panels on the roof of every public building in America? And it could be done without a single cent in carbon taxes. And it would result in an economic boon as money is spent at home on direct job creation rather than pissing it away in the arabian deserts.
See above. Oh, and feel free to back away from the sophistry at any time.
Why should I bother to address your straw man? Because, even if your storyline had any basis in reality, climate change is everyone's business. The same way public education is everyone's business, whether or not you yourself have children.
And of course, there's the FACT that the costs of mitigating climate change are INSIGNIFICANT next to the costs of *not* mitigating it.
Red herring. Even more so given the fact that other energy sources can be plugged into the existing grid, and solar panels can be plugged directly into existing buildings. To head off the next red herring, no, they don't power your house at night without battery storage. But when is energy use the greatest? On hot, sunny days.
I don't know what's more impressive, the attempt at deflection or arguing that successful federal projects have increased energy use right after arguing that federal projects could not change our energy use. And, of course, nevermind that those same rural areas are prime areas for wind or solar farms, or that greens have long argued in favor of replacing highway sprawl with mass transit.
Except that, again, those "questioning" climate change invariably do so because they don't like the conclusions or the implications, not out of a concern that the theory hasn't been sufficiently tested. That's reality, not "demonization", so feel free to lay off your own overly dramatic hyperbole at any time.
Just because the analogy was a poor apples-to-oranges comparison doesn't mean we had a hard time understanding it.
Of course it's reasonable to question claims coming from individuals speaking outside their expertise when presenting themselves as experts. Especially when they are contradicting actual expert opinions from actual experts in the actual field in question. If a bunch of mathematicians got together and not only said that Vioxx was a perfectly safe drug but accused actual medical and pharmaceutical doctors of taking an 'Extreme Position' over tying the medication to heart attacks, would you take them seriously or suspect them of having an agenda?
Back to the apples-to-oranges nonsense. It is absurd to compare opinions from individuals to opinions from massive institutions and pretend the two are are on the same page. Would you dismiss findings from John's Hopkins computer science department out of hand because it's primarily known as a medical school? Would you dismiss findings on organ cloning from MIT out of hand because it's primarily known as an engineering school? As opposed to a medical doctor from MIT opining on artificial intelligence or a computer scientist from John's Hopkins opining on organ transplants.
Then there's the fact that the rest of this fallacy depends on the notion that the study of climate, the atmosphere or the environment is somehow unusual for NASA. That of course is not the case:
Not only is the study of climate not unusual for NASA, it's been a main area of study for decades.
Hardly - the United States is on par with petty dictatorships for income inequality and mobility. A young member of the working class can look forward to graduating with $25k or more in student loan debt and then struggling to find a job in a shitty economy while hoping they don't need health care. Whereas the rich don't have to worry about health care or student loan debt or housing and can afford to take a year long unpaid internship - or three - before getting a job.
I can say that's a logical fallacy. I know someone who won a lottery. Therefore, winning the lottery is a realistic expectation for the majority of the population.
Nice boilerplate pull-up-by-your-bootstraps talking points. And how about when they are six applicants for every open job? At least you have the self-awareness not to join the tea party.
Any particular reason you skipped over:
1. IIS having more exploits than Apache despite Apache's superior marketshare
2. Why the number of exploits for Windows 7 hasn't begun to surpass the number of exploits for XP as it replaces it's predecessor in marketshare.
3. The fact that Windows operating systems ran all programs with super user access, left ports and services open all over the place, and tied scripting & a web browser into the operating system.
Imaginary Ford Executive, circa 1980: "There's no design flaw with the Pinto! The only reason you hear about the Pinto's gas tank exploding in 10 mph collisions and not from Honda is because Ford has such great marketshare. If Honda were in our place, you would be hearing about the same sort of exploding gas tank problems with Accord!"
Civilians living on land that was stolen from you. Civilians who, thanks to Israel's laws on compulsory military service, are either 1) active duty soldiers defending the occupation 2) future active duty soldiers defending the occupation 3) reservists who can be called back into service to defend the occupation.
And even, then, there is no comparison in the levels of civilian-killing even if you want to call it terrorism. Israelis stand a higher chance of being murdered by another Israeli than dying in a "terrorist attack". You have a higher chance of being killed by a bus colliding with your car in an accident (not car accidents overall, but accidents involving buses) than in being killed by a Quassam rocket.
Any particular reason why? The U.N. partition plan that the Palestinians (rightfully) rejected would have given the majority of the land to a minority of the population. The vast majority of whom were not people to the area, but immigrants. Furthermore, blockades are an act of war according to Israel. Meaning that according to Israeli logic, attacks on Israel in response to the far more draconian blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified.
Sure thing. This isn't the most ironclad example as both the attacks (did shelling hit the building directly or indirectly?) and the death tolls are heavily disputed. So I'll talk more about things that are not in dispute:
What would the IDF have to gain from full scale bombardment and invasion when even the IDF admits that Hamas had stopped firing rockets and that Quassam rockets are more of a psycological than military threat?
And furthermore, if terrorism is the bane of Israel's existence, then why has the current prime minister celebrated the 60th anniversary of an Irgun (Zionist terrorist group) attack on a hotel used by the British as a headquarters before Israel's "independence"? How about the nuclear scientists assassinated in Iran, undoubtedly carried out or funded by Mossad?
Ah, the Marketshare Myth that has never had any basis in reality.
Easy enough to debunk with Microsoft's own products. If it were only a matter of marketshare, then the number of exploits for Windows 7 would be surpassing the number of exploits for XP and '98 as 7 has surpassed it's predecessors. But that's obviously not the case, because Microsoft started to give a damn about security after the release of XP. See also: the fact that there were far more hacks for IIS than there were hacks for Apache, despite the latter having more marketshare than the former.
That's because marketshare has little to do with it. Shitty code and privileged separation has everything to do with it. If OS X or Linux had all programs run with administrative access all the time, left ports and services open all over the place, or had web browsers tied into the operating system (with scripting!) then they would have been a cesspool just like 98 and XP.
Oh, just an obvious difference in proportion that some people are obviously ignoring. Like the helmetless motorcycle rider afraid of plane crashes.
No, that's you getting your Vizzini on.
What he actually said:
Which is of course the truth. Climate change is being contested for the same reason evolution is: to suit an agenda. Pointing that fact out isn't "demonization", it's point out reality. I don't know why you guys are bothering to pretend otherwise when even Koch funded researchers have to admit that climate change is actually happening and not some Al Gore/George Soros conspiracy, when they actually look at the data.
Indeed.
Except they're not. At all. Not one of your cited comments makes such a comparison. Not even close.
Except that commenter never mentioned Syria, which means you have no basis for complaint, and it's the same for the rest of your links. Look, this really isn't that hard. Greenwald:
It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Pointing out that the United States and it's closest allies routinely engages in behavior that it denounces from "rouge" states is not even close to saying that the United States is engaging in exactly the same abuses across the board.
That's a straw man that has existed only inside your head. You say you're concerned with human rights abuses at both home and abroad, but you're acting more like a Concern Troll looking to deflect and distract.
Not *that* complicated.
Oh, the "we've had changes before so this is no big deal" talking point, how quaint. Nevermind that...
During previous periods of climate change, we didn't have nearly 7 billion people on the planet. It's just a wee bit easier for a couple million people to migrate to higher or more fertile ground than a couple billion people. And hello, land and resource wars.
Yes, it's true that our planet cycles between warm and cold periods. It's also true that these normal fluctuations happen at a far slower place than humans are pushing climate change. Polar bears can adapt to disappearing arctic ice if you give them a couple thousand years to migrate/evolve/find new sources of food. Give them 5% that much time to adapt and you'll push them towards extinction.
Yes, extinction. It's true as well that we've had rapid climate change in the past. It's also true that those changes invariably coincide with mass extinctions.
It's not usually a part of the human experience for those migrations to be brought about from human-induced rapid climate change.
Your rebuttal is lazy, pompous and false. We've had greener energy sources available for decades; hell, hydro power has been with us for over 120 years.
And again, if we subsidized green energy the way we subsidized the fossil fuel industry and the industrial-congressional-contractor-surrvielance-prison complex (much of which is also spent propping up the fossil fuel industry), green energy would not just be cheaper, but vastly cheaper.
And that's in direct costs, as in what you pay at the pump or for your home electricity. And then, again, there's the indirect costs. Spending blood and treasure to keep our armed forces mostly centered in and around the world's gas station. Pollution. Cranking up your AC to deal with month's long temperatures that soar into the 100's. Forced migrations due to changing rainfall or disappearing land.
It is indeed a matter of elementary economics.
Do you use a cannon or a howitzer for your projection?
Of *course* it does. Buses are far more fuel efficient than cars and transport far more people. Trains are far more fuel efficient than and transport more people than buses. And that's even if they are powered by fossil fuels, much less powered by air, solar, or hydro power.
You have the right to your own opinion, but you don't have the right to your own set of facts. And yes, it is a fact fact FACT that mass transit is far more efficient than passenger automotive vehicles. Basic physics, deal with it.
LOL - and you were the one just whining that climate ch
Which part is your lazy mind having a hard time understanding?
The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?
The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?
The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?
The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?
The use of mounted police against peaceful protesters?
Try making an analogy that's not absurdly comparing apples to irrelevant oranges and I'll address it. Squatters are people who trespass into buildings they don't own for the purpose of establishing residency. The protesters were, you know, protesting. Not establishing residency.
Care to back up from that lazy straw man? It didn't work the first time with the couch.
Now you're claiming that the only OWS crackdowns were in NYC or that the NYPD receives no equipment or support from other law enforcement agencies?
Was anyone prevented from traveling through or using Zuccotti or any other space used by any other OWS protest? No. So try explaining how you get around
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Okay, serious question now...do you have mono? Because even the most lazy mind would draw some connection between BS evictions based on "health code violations" and "infringing upon our constitutional rights".
But to get back to the point at hand...of COURSE the OWS crackdowns are comparable to the crackdowns in Tahiri square.
Mass arrests? Check.
Police brutality? Check.
Use of mounted police to force out peaceful protesters? Check.
Tear gas and pepper spray? Check.
Bullshit reasons for evictions? Check.
I'm sure somewhere in Egypt a police state apologist counterpart of MightyYar is whining that it's unfair to complain OWS crackdowns to Mubarak's because Egypt wasn't using LRAD audio cannons.
I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?
Zero.
Not one of those comments is saying that the OWS crackdowns are exactly like the brutality in Syria, or that DHS is a brutal as the Syrian military. No, they're all pretty much variations of "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
And so on.
If you're a head-in-the-sand sophist. But from your other post, we know that already.
Are you really expecting your fake outrage and filibustering to fly here? The Federal Government targeted an American citizen for execution without bothering to even indict him. Which alternates between insisting that no one should question this killing because there was so much evidence that he was a bad guy, and then refusing to give a shred of said evidence when pressed to do so.
Then you uncritically accept their storyline without bothering to cite anything. There is as much hard evidence to send Predator Drones after Glenn Beck (propagandized the Tides Foundation shooter), Ted Nugent (multiple implied threats against a sitting president) or Gordon Liddy (shoot government agents in the head because they might be wearing body armor).
This was exactly the sort of black booted government police state BS that you conservatives should be screaming about. But just like the Obama fanboys, you trade away your principles in a nanosecond if it's a decision you agree with. You're both pathetic.
Yes, except that's a big pile of police state apologist bullshit with no basis in reality.
If we are "at war" with Al Queda, then how many captured Al Queda operatives have been treated as prisoners of war? The Constitution clearly states that habeas corpus may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, making the NDAA and military detention flatly unconstitutional. The AUMF only applies to the people who actually attacked us on 911, not everyone we point a finger at ten years later and call them "Al Queda". If you weren't involved in 911, then the AUMF does. not. apply.
So see your own doctor and and ask him to pry your head out of Dick Cheney's ass. Then maybe he can give you some pills to deal with your tendency towards sophistry and fascism. Then pick up an elementary level civics textbook and brush up on your Bill of Rights: