It is not the place of the government to meddle in the compensation of private citizens or corporations.
But if the government doesn't meddle we'll see a financial crisis like this every couple of decades, as old lessons are forgotten and investors again take insane risks in pursuit of high profits. In the 80's, it was the S&L's, today it's the default swap market. We could pull ourselves out of this mess only to go through it again in the 2020's if serious changes aren't made to our economic structure.
But I doubt that our current president has the backbone to pursue such changes, even if he has the desire. Obama has far too much "go along to get along" and "we must look to the future, not the past" BS in him (see: no prosecutions for CIA torturers). He seems to want to return to the 90's, except much of our current problems started in the 90's or 80's.
Never said I do. But farmers/construction firms/people who live in areas with harsh winters do need SUV's. Which is not to say that lots of people need SUV's - the urban Cowboy who has never taken his F-150 outside of Houston can go screw himself.
Also, please explain to me why you need the burger greaseballs when there is much more healthy and about as expensive food available.
I don't need to have a burger anymore than I need to have a salad for lunch. However, it is perfectly possible to balance out the burger with other healthy foods like salads and regular exercise. There is no way to balance out a pack of cigarettes.
The $600 extra cost attached to MacBook Pros (when compared to approximately equivalent Dell laptops)
"Equivalent", eh? Like this guy who compares a $1600 Dell to a $2800 MPB, without mentioning that the Dell is literally twice the size of the MPB, has an older processor, a weaker battery and has a slower system bus with DDR2 compared to DDR3 for the MBP?
Oh, and I actually get MORE options with a regular PC - MenuetOS won't work on an EFI-based system. So a PC gives me MORE OS choices than the Mac will currently.
Because of one OS? But of course your PC wont run Mac OS X, so it's even, and your argument is utter shite.
It annoys me when people conflate limited product options with a "tax". If you want a $300 laptop, go ahead and buy a $300 laptop - no skin off your nose or Apple's.
That's just because MY cigarettes are less harmful to the environment than YOUR SUVs.
Some people need SUV's. No one needs to smoke. And people don't routinely leave their SUV's running on sidewalks, in bars, or at concerts/sporting events so other people are forced to breath in the toxic fumes from the SUV's exhaust.
And MY gun kills fewer people than the greaseballs YOU are sucking down.
Almost the same as the above: everyone needs food, but very, very, very few people actually need a gun. Guns are like how one of my friends talks about expensive electronics: what does need have to do with it.
It took me half an hour with my iPod before I started filing usability-related bug reports (about half of which are still open, and a few were marked as duplicates). The iPod UI, really, is not very good.
Such as? I'm interested in hearing your qualitative and/or quantitative reasoning on the iPod's deficiencies.
Fact is, Macs still don't make sense outside the home in most cases.
Other than vastly lower support costs. Other than Microsoft costing companies tens of billions in extra support costs for their crappy, insecure operating systems.
There was a time you could walk into any newspaper or television newsroom in the country and not see anything BUT Apple computers.
Apple got there first
Building on the above, and much like with business apps on PC's, many creative apps were Mac-only or Mac-first
Superior color matching
Great multiple monitor support long before Microsoft managed it
The press LOVES Apple. They slovenly follow every Apple product launch with almost rapturous attention
And this would be different from the Windows 95/98/XP/Vista/XBox/Halo/Zune rollouts how, exactly? And as someone else pointed out, you missed the decade of "Beleaguered Apple is dying" stories in the 90's.
Most of the positive press coverage I see about MS is either when they have a MAJOR launch (the 360, a new Halo game, etc.) or is related to Bill Gates' considerable charitable activities (which *deserves* to be covered and extolled, if nothing more than to encourage other rich guys to do it). Most of their stuff barely gets a nod.
Crap, see above.
I don't remember a single mainstream, non tech-press, story on the Zune launch, for example.
Naturally, that would interfere with your storyline.
They'd have a 10,000$ maxed out Mac and an IBM PC with two floppy drives (I really wish I was making this up...).
So what you're saying is...companies try to show their products as superior to the competition? I'm sure your Nobel Prize will arrive by FedEx any day now.
Sooooo Muuuuch Smarter, Hipper And Rational than Bible-thumping Young Earth Creationist conservatives that you'd think they'd care a smidgen about reality.
Um, they do, Mr. Pot. But I suppose dealing with reality isn't as much fun as riding a high horse.
They were anti Bush because it was fashionable to anti Bush.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were totally full of crap and missed how the press didn't stop sucking Bush's cock until Katrina. But even before that, no voter in the United States could have supported Bush in 2004 if they were actually objective for two seconds, and that includes his own mother.
Meanwhile, those few of us who (regardless of our personal stance on Bush) tried to explain that the two parties never give up powers and perks gained by the other party were shouted down as 'haters' or ignored as 'irrelevant fossils' or even worse pejoratives.
Another problem with your storyline: guess who has led and continues to lead opposition to executive power grabbing, and they aren't Libertarians or independents.
Like I said; Don't know why EFF didn't endorse Ron Paul.
Because he doesn't believe that the federal government can enforce the Bill of Rights on the states. Which means that if, say, the state of Utah decides to tap your phones without a warrant, sad day for you.
But of course, this also means that all those state and local gun laws that gives gun nuts the vapors are Constitutional as well.
Right, which explains why Paul sponsors federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. He's as selective on states rights as any other Republican.
I wouldn't call him a social conservative at all, I think that's inaccurate.
From what I know of his platform, he doesn't believe it's the government's place to decide these things, but if it IS to be decided anywhere in government, it certainly should not be at the Federal level. He believes in state's rights - that doesn't mean he is a bigot or or a "social conservative."
Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
So Mr. Will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" Ron Paul is like most Republicans: a selective strict Constitutionalist.
and liberals are both happily sacrificing liberty for security
On what planet?
Liberals want to be sheltered from the difficulties of life.
Remember Analogy Guy from Dilbert? Adams needs to have a Crap Generalizations Guy.
This is not to say there aren't concerns on both sides of the aisle, but while one side lives in the reality-based community, the other listens to Beck and Limbaugh
Fixed that for you.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn't intentional so that everyone is weakened by fighting amongst themselves and thus distracted from the real threat.
Yes, the threat of bees! You have a greater chance of dying from a bee sting than from an Al Queda attack. Awaiting the GWOB to launch any day now...
Slashdot Mirror
Because your "opinion" is high on inflammation whilst being free of any qualitative or quantitative analysis.
It is not the place of the government to meddle in the compensation of private citizens or corporations.
But if the government doesn't meddle we'll see a financial crisis like this every couple of decades, as old lessons are forgotten and investors again take insane risks in pursuit of high profits. In the 80's, it was the S&L's, today it's the default swap market. We could pull ourselves out of this mess only to go through it again in the 2020's if serious changes aren't made to our economic structure.
But I doubt that our current president has the backbone to pursue such changes, even if he has the desire. Obama has far too much "go along to get along" and "we must look to the future, not the past" BS in him (see: no prosecutions for CIA torturers). He seems to want to return to the 90's, except much of our current problems started in the 90's or 80's.
You need an SUV?
Never said I do. But farmers/construction firms/people who live in areas with harsh winters do need SUV's. Which is not to say that lots of people need SUV's - the urban Cowboy who has never taken his F-150 outside of Houston can go screw himself.
Also, please explain to me why you need the burger greaseballs when there is much more healthy and about as expensive food available.
I don't need to have a burger anymore than I need to have a salad for lunch. However, it is perfectly possible to balance out the burger with other healthy foods like salads and regular exercise. There is no way to balance out a pack of cigarettes.
The $600 extra cost attached to MacBook Pros (when compared to approximately equivalent Dell laptops)
"Equivalent", eh? Like this guy who compares a $1600 Dell to a $2800 MPB, without mentioning that the Dell is literally twice the size of the MPB, has an older processor, a weaker battery and has a slower system bus with DDR2 compared to DDR3 for the MBP?
Oh, and I actually get MORE options with a regular PC - MenuetOS won't work on an EFI-based system. So a PC gives me MORE OS choices than the Mac will currently.
Because of one OS? But of course your PC wont run Mac OS X, so it's even, and your argument is utter shite.
It annoys me when people conflate limited product options with a "tax". If you want a $300 laptop, go ahead and buy a $300 laptop - no skin off your nose or Apple's.
Overheating
Lots of laptops get hot. Get something to sit it on.
creaky laptop casings
Are you still holding the bad 5300 batteries against them too? No OEM has a flawless quality record.
the annoyance of iTunes
Delete it then.
Because -1, Bloviation isn't an option.
That is not necessarily a universal truth.
But a qualitative one is that with Apple's User Interface Guidelines, applications have more consistent interfaces than with KDE or Gnome.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
That's just because MY cigarettes are less harmful to the environment than YOUR SUVs.
Some people need SUV's. No one needs to smoke. And people don't routinely leave their SUV's running on sidewalks, in bars, or at concerts/sporting events so other people are forced to breath in the toxic fumes from the SUV's exhaust.
And MY gun kills fewer people than the greaseballs YOU are sucking down.
Almost the same as the above: everyone needs food, but very, very, very few people actually need a gun. Guns are like how one of my friends talks about expensive electronics: what does need have to do with it.
I don't hate Apple, or Macs, or iPods. It's the pretentious twits who act like they're special just because they buy the brand.
As opposed to all the pretentious twits that go out of their way to mention that they don't buy Brand X for Reason Y.
It took me half an hour with my iPod before I started filing usability-related bug reports (about half of which are still open, and a few were marked as duplicates). The iPod UI, really, is not very good.
Such as? I'm interested in hearing your qualitative and/or quantitative reasoning on the iPod's deficiencies.
My experience has shown that Mac users
...are annoyed by blathering morons who speak out of their ass? Who knew?
Fact is, Macs still don't make sense outside the home in most cases.
Other than vastly lower support costs. Other than Microsoft costing companies tens of billions in extra support costs for their crappy, insecure operating systems.
You mean like all the Dells you see on 24 and Smallville? Companies try go get their products placed in media, news at 11.
There was a time you could walk into any newspaper or television newsroom in the country and not see anything BUT Apple computers.
The press LOVES Apple. They slovenly follow every Apple product launch with almost rapturous attention
And this would be different from the Windows 95/98/XP/Vista/XBox/Halo/Zune rollouts how, exactly? And as someone else pointed out, you missed the decade of "Beleaguered Apple is dying" stories in the 90's.
Most of the positive press coverage I see about MS is either when they have a MAJOR launch (the 360, a new Halo game, etc.) or is related to Bill Gates' considerable charitable activities (which *deserves* to be covered and extolled, if nothing more than to encourage other rich guys to do it). Most of their stuff barely gets a nod.
Crap, see above.
I don't remember a single mainstream, non tech-press, story on the Zune launch, for example.
Naturally, that would interfere with your storyline.
They'd have a 10,000$ maxed out Mac and an IBM PC with two floppy drives (I really wish I was making this up...).
So what you're saying is...companies try to show their products as superior to the competition? I'm sure your Nobel Prize will arrive by FedEx any day now.
Sooooo Muuuuch Smarter, Hipper And Rational than Bible-thumping Young Earth Creationist conservatives that you'd think they'd care a smidgen about reality.
Um, they do, Mr. Pot. But I suppose dealing with reality isn't as much fun as riding a high horse.
They were anti Bush because it was fashionable to anti Bush.
I suppose you could see it that way, if you were totally full of crap and missed how the press didn't stop sucking Bush's cock until Katrina. But even before that, no voter in the United States could have supported Bush in 2004 if they were actually objective for two seconds, and that includes his own mother.
Meanwhile, those few of us who (regardless of our personal stance on Bush) tried to explain that the two parties never give up powers and perks gained by the other party were shouted down as 'haters' or ignored as 'irrelevant fossils' or even worse pejoratives.
Another problem with your storyline: guess who has led and continues to lead opposition to executive power grabbing, and they aren't Libertarians or independents.
Like I said; Don't know why EFF didn't endorse Ron Paul.
Because he doesn't believe that the federal government can enforce the Bill of Rights on the states. Which means that if, say, the state of Utah decides to tap your phones without a warrant, sad day for you.
But of course, this also means that all those state and local gun laws that gives gun nuts the vapors are Constitutional as well.
Right, which explains why Paul sponsors federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. He's as selective on states rights as any other Republican.
I wouldn't call him a social conservative at all, I think that's inaccurate.
From what I know of his platform, he doesn't believe it's the government's place to decide these things, but if it IS to be decided anywhere in government, it certainly should not be at the Federal level. He believes in state's rights - that doesn't mean he is a bigot or or a "social conservative."
What's he doing sponsoring the Federal Sanctity of Life Act then?
So Mr. Will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" Ron Paul is like most Republicans: a selective strict Constitutionalist.
and liberals are both happily sacrificing liberty for security
On what planet?
Liberals want to be sheltered from the difficulties of life.
Remember Analogy Guy from Dilbert? Adams needs to have a Crap Generalizations Guy.
This is not to say there aren't concerns on both sides of the aisle, but while one side lives in the reality-based community, the other listens to Beck and Limbaugh
Fixed that for you.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn't intentional so that everyone is weakened by fighting amongst themselves and thus distracted from the real threat.
Yes, the threat of bees! You have a greater chance of dying from a bee sting than from an Al Queda attack. Awaiting the GWOB to launch any day now...
Not for the basis of your comparison, it's not.