Yes, along with swappable batteries and FM radio, as proven by the iPod's dominance of the market over players that do offer those options. Any more stupid questions?
Yes you do. You don't find people whining about how a Honda Civic lacks a 5,000 lbs towing capacity or seats as many people as a minivan, yet you'll find plenty of people overly impressed with themselves who poo poo an Apple product because it doesn't have feature X which 99% of the population doesn't give a shit about.
If an iPod doesn't do what you want...don't fucking buy one. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson
First, point out the part of the Constitution that names James Madison as the authority on what the Constitution means. Second, that is completely batshit irrelevant to the point, which was that if "General Welfare" has strict limits, so does "Common Defense". But funny how you never hear about the latter from wingnuts, only the former.
doesn't mean it should be broken for a cradle-to-grave nanny state either.
First, because social programs aren't handouts, they're about the middle class, stupid. Even if you're the most selfish, self centered elitist on the planet you will want taxes and social programs, because they increase the size and affluence of the middle class, which means more customers for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Secondly, since you missed it the first time: because socialized medicine provides BETTER care for LESS money. With private insurance, enormous amounts of money are wasted on administration costs and paying big bucks to the board of Blue Cross, et all. With socialized medicine, not only do you get to skip all that, you actually get what you pay for: health care. Whereas with private insurance, they'll just take your premium and spend it on ways to deny you coverage.
Other western nations with socialized care have shorter lines, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, while spending less than half the amount per patient that the U.S. does. Oh, and no one has to lose their house because they had to pay for cancer treatments, or die because insurers will pay for the cost of a kidney transplant but not the anti-regection drugs.
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If your response is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide". If your response to that is that General Welfare in Section 8 only applies to the listed powers, then Common Defense is also similarly limited.
So if nationalized health care is unconstitutional, so are:
The NSA
The CIA
Any other intelligence agency (we have something like 15) not attached to the Army or the Navy
The U.S. Air Force, since it's neither Army nor Navy
NORAD
Our network of spy satellites
Customs, U.S. Border Patrol
And that's just off my head. Conservatives who complain about the so called unconstitutionality of socialized medicine are being just as selective as Evangelical hacks that don't protest usurious rates from Countrywide or NRA hacks that fight Democrats tooth and nail for supporting gun control yet give a 100% free pass to Republicans that support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Now that that chestnut has been put to bed, the reason why you want socialized health care is because it provides better care for less money. It provides better care for less money. It provides BETTER care for LESS money.
There's a big difference between trying to cheat (disenfranchising voters) and a winner take all system that applies to all but two states - and benefits Republicans as much or more than it does Republicans. Dems have New York and California, but the Republicans have had most of the west and the south.
As far as what could be done better - sure, make voting proportional to population, but we should have serious, point me in the ass prison terms for those who try and disenfranchise votes or perpetuate voter fraud - but we've had vastly more of the former than the latter.
WHOOSHER. If the industry was going to start paying for top talent it would have happened a long time ago - outside of the Google/Microsoft pissing match with who has the most valedictorians with Ph.D's, there is no bidding war for IT. Even more so after the.com bust and with H1-B visas. If given a choice between paying for top talent and keeping low pay scales, management at any sizable company will opt for the later every time.
The only way to raise base salaries is either with unions or another boom. Unfortunately, we probably wont have either any time soon.
WHOOSH. The point was, why compete when offering crappy wages/products is more profitable in the long run. Sure, Sprint could get more customers if they offered unlimited calling, messages & data for $30 a month without contracts. But then Verizon and AT&T would just follow suit. Short term gains are outweighed by the long term benefits of nickle & dimeing customers on top of a $40 base plan ($50 with taxes & fees). Sure, EA could pay top dollar for top programmers, but then so would every other company. Why offer $90k a year to get first in class MIT graduates when you can get the work force used to slaving away on a 70 hour work week for $60k a year instead?
Apple's clone attempts showed that the market will bear lower priced hardware.
They also showed that clones cannibalize Apple's sales before they grow the market.
Apple still makes OEM money from the OS license itself.
Not as much as they do on the hardware. They would have to charge a high premium on cloners to make up for lost sales.
Considering how diversified Apple is now it can certainly open its game.
The iPod may be Apple's cash cow, but personal computers are the bedrock of it's business and have been since the formation of the company. Screwing with that might make sense for you, but it makes little sense for Apple.
Lastly, what mac fanboys wont admit to is that OS7-9 was a terrible product. They would have failed in the 90s because they were selling garbage and everyone knew it, except loyalists.
Yawn. Mac users were very well aware of the lack of preemptive multitasking and protected memory. What anti-Apple fanboys wont admit is that Windows 95 was no better, NT was a pain in the ass in the usability department and UNIX was only for computer science geeks.
Good thing EULA's are worthless and unenforceable then.:) Even if they put "can only be used with an Apple branded machine" on the box, unless you make an agreement in writing before making a purchase, it's unenforceable. I'm thinking about building a hackintosh once Apple adds ZFS support to Leopard, as I want a file server with four 1 terabyte hard drives but want my total cost to be less than $1000, and a Mac Pro starts out at $2800 before I even add the drives. As Apple has gotten close to $20,000 out of my family since my mother bought an Apple IIe back in the day, I don't feel too guilty. And I don't think they have to worry too much about piracy as there are technical hurdles in building a hackintosh, and each hoop to jump through cuts down on the number of unauthorized machines.
Excuse me but wasn't it the ATF's choice to invade the compound? That's very much different from being attacked. Ok, boys! It's America to blame for Pearl Harbor being so ill prepared for an attack! Woohoo! How ridiculous. They're two very different affairs that you want to make sound the same.
WHOOSH. The point was that if Clinton was responsible for a debacle a month and a week after he took office, Bush is certainly responsible for the debacle that was the 911 preparation/response 9 months after he took office.
What are you smoking? Do you really believe this, or are you just lying? Al Gore probably lost the 2000 race because of his gun control stance
Yes, which explains why all the gun nuts who said they could never vote for a politician who supported gun control, either sat home during the 2004 election or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry. Because Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban.
Oh wait, you mean that didn't happen? You mean the NRA is a political hack organization, further evidenced when they gave Giuliani a free pass when he was the only candidate this cycle to have really pushed for gun control? Huh, interesting.
Roosevelt made things worse during the Great Depression.
As usual, take the opposite of wingnut beliefs and you have reality.
but his obsession with controlling all of the gold
Yes, I just don't see why he'd want strong backing for the dollar after a complete collapse of the economy. No reason at all. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
his failure to grasp supply side economics
Thank god for that. Supply side economics is nothing more than a rationalization for funneling the benefits of the economy to those who are already rich. And the rich don't create jobs, customers do. Where do the customers come from? The middle class.
all conspired to make what should have been a manageable revival of the economy into a long and protracted national trauma alleviated only by the generous weapons purchases from the United Kingdom at the outset of World War II.
Which could have been done far more easily and long before the start of WWII. It's simple:
Break out the 91% marginal tax rates for the rich
Massively subsidize secondary education and job training programs
Spend massive amounts on infrastructure
This injects money into and stabilizes the middle class, the base for any economy.
You have a curious way of being helpful. Replying to a "Citation needed" with a reference to a wiki on "political positions of Barack Obama" would seem to imply that the wiki backs up the assertions. As my father says to my mother: "sorry, next time I'll try to read your mind more clearly.":)
How would Apple release a desktop, consumer OS that runs on vanilla PC's and not be competing with Windows?
OS X on generic PCs of supported hardware would still be more copies running than OS X on no generic PCs.
And fewer Macs sold. They tried this already with the cloners. They didn't expand the Mac OS marketshare, they just cannibalized Apple's sales.
Just because this would make sense for you does not mean it would make sense for Apple. They aren't a monopoly and can't force Dell and HP to install Leopard on their machines. They wouldn't have Microsoft's volume, but they would be going up against Microsoft's $50 billion in cash reserves while trying to make a profit on the sales of OX X.
So you are either very young or didn't pay attention to the media's coverage of the 2000 election. At all. And yet you were convinced that there was a liberal bias in the media. Huh, interesting.
But they were certainly skeptical of many of his claims, and not completely without justification
Their justification was: they didn't like him personally. And we've suffered enormously because of their high school click mentality.
given his involvement with Clinton's scandals
Such as.
They don't tend to question the "authorities" when said authorities are providing a good story.
They manage to question Democrats just fine. And if there aren't questions to be asked, they'll invent them from whole cloth, as they did with the Gore "invented the Internet" story, the "Love Canal" story, the "Love Story" story, and so on.
Because taking note of Obama's celebrity is not racist.
Straw man. No one was saying McCain's attacks on Obama's "celebrity" is racist, but it is massively hypocritical given McCain's popularity with the press and making cameos for 24 on Fox.
Obama's own words and actions have played right into that elitist stereotype.
[Citation needed]
Taking Obama's campaign to task for their "disrespectful" treatment of Palin is not racist.
It absolutely was, ask a southerner about it some time. More so since they were flat-out lying when they said Obama's "lipstick" comment was in reference to Palin.
It was almost comical, except that it was so sad, to see Hillary and Obama's partisans throwing accusations of racism and sexism back and forth, with very little basis in reality.
Racism, yes, sexism no. Hillary attacked Obama for not "winning white, blue collar workers" when he cleaned her clock in overwhelmingly white states like Iowa, Utah and North Dakota. They also joined with the rest of the hack media and Republicans in obsessing over the Rev. Wright nontroversy. Whereas I haven't yet met a Hillbot that's been able to point out a single media meme attacking Hillary's candidacy based on her gender.
That's right, I forget you were lazy. Sorry, my bad. Let's try that again:
Yes they were your assertions, since they sure didn't come from the Wiki page you referred to.
Re:Every time I read an article like this
on
OS X On the MSI Wind
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There are a bunch of external USB and firewire hard drive products out there that would require a significantly less amount of work to plug into a mac mini or imac.
External drives are great for temporary use, not so much for permanent use. Reasons to use internal over external:
Price
Performance (Firewire 800 is the shiznit, but it doesn't have the 3 Gpbs bandwidth of SATA)
Well, to continue to beat the dead Pinto analogy to death, it's more like complaining that tires made for an F-150 wont work on your Corvette.:)
But anyway, I think the reason Apple went with Intel instead of AMD is that the former had better mobile processors. I also doubt that Apple has an exclusive contract with Intel (why would they?), so if AMD builds a better mousetrap again, I don't see why Apple couldn't offer both, just as they did with ATI and Nvidia graphics cards.
That bill had unrelated bullcrap attached to it, as usual.
Wishful revisionism. From the same link:
Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top national security adviser, said McCain was concerned about the Senate legislation's requirement that the CIA abide by Army rules. "It's not a vote for torture," Scheunemann said. "This wasn't a vote on waterboarding. This was a vote on applying the standards of the field manual to CIA personnel."
In 2005, he sponsored the Detainee Treatment Act, which explicitly forbade the use of waterboarding and other harsh tactics on U.S. military prisoners but exempted the CIA.
Opening your platform to more hardware is a good way to expand your market and create new profits.
Good way for Apple to cut their own throats, you mean. They already tried this in the 90's, remember? They licensed their OS to OEM's with the idea that clones would grow the Mac market. But the cloners didn't grow the market, they just cannibalized Apple's sales. And trying to compete head to head against an OS monopoly would be a suicide mission, especially when Microsoft could use their $60 billion in cash to fund a price war.
Opening their OS might make sense for you, but it doesn't make sense for Apple.
In all honesty, I can't see why AMD hasn't filed a lawsuit against Apple for artificially locking them out of their hardware sales and granting Intel a monopoly in Mac products.
Because every company has a monopoly on the products it makes. Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. GM has a monopoly on Corvettes. Neither has a monopoly on the car market, just as Apple doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems, computer hardware or MP3 players.
I'll see your Boston Massacre and raise you the Kent State shootings and the Civil War. The Confederates couldn't stand up to Uncle Sam, and they had a frikkin army.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, along with swappable batteries and FM radio, as proven by the iPod's dominance of the market over players that do offer those options. Any more stupid questions?
Not to be a prick
Yes you do. You don't find people whining about how a Honda Civic lacks a 5,000 lbs towing capacity or seats as many people as a minivan, yet you'll find plenty of people overly impressed with themselves who poo poo an Apple product because it doesn't have feature X which 99% of the population doesn't give a shit about.
If an iPod doesn't do what you want...don't fucking buy one. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson
First, point out the part of the Constitution that names James Madison as the authority on what the Constitution means. Second, that is completely batshit irrelevant to the point, which was that if "General Welfare" has strict limits, so does "Common Defense". But funny how you never hear about the latter from wingnuts, only the former.
doesn't mean it should be broken for a cradle-to-grave nanny state either.
First, because social programs aren't handouts, they're about the middle class, stupid. Even if you're the most selfish, self centered elitist on the planet you will want taxes and social programs, because they increase the size and affluence of the middle class, which means more customers for whatever business you are in or are invested in.
Secondly, since you missed it the first time: because socialized medicine provides BETTER care for LESS money. With private insurance, enormous amounts of money are wasted on administration costs and paying big bucks to the board of Blue Cross, et all. With socialized medicine, not only do you get to skip all that, you actually get what you pay for: health care. Whereas with private insurance, they'll just take your premium and spend it on ways to deny you coverage.
Other western nations with socialized care have shorter lines, longer lifespans, lower infant mortality rates, while spending less than half the amount per patient that the U.S. does. Oh, and no one has to lose their house because they had to pay for cancer treatments, or die because insurers will pay for the cost of a kidney transplant but not the anti-regection drugs.
Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If your response is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I Section 8 uses the word "provide". If your response to that is that General Welfare in Section 8 only applies to the listed powers, then Common Defense is also similarly limited.
So if nationalized health care is unconstitutional, so are:
And that's just off my head. Conservatives who complain about the so called unconstitutionality of socialized medicine are being just as selective as Evangelical hacks that don't protest usurious rates from Countrywide or NRA hacks that fight Democrats tooth and nail for supporting gun control yet give a 100% free pass to Republicans that support gun control, like George W. Bush and Rudy Giuliani.
Now that that chestnut has been put to bed, the reason why you want socialized health care is because it provides better care for less money. It provides better care for less money. It provides BETTER care for LESS money.
There's a big difference between trying to cheat (disenfranchising voters) and a winner take all system that applies to all but two states - and benefits Republicans as much or more than it does Republicans. Dems have New York and California, but the Republicans have had most of the west and the south.
As far as what could be done better - sure, make voting proportional to population, but we should have serious, point me in the ass prison terms for those who try and disenfranchise votes or perpetuate voter fraud - but we've had vastly more of the former than the latter.
Wishfull wingnut thinking.
WHOOSHER. If the industry was going to start paying for top talent it would have happened a long time ago - outside of the Google/Microsoft pissing match with who has the most valedictorians with Ph.D's, there is no bidding war for IT. Even more so after the .com bust and with H1-B visas. If given a choice between paying for top talent and keeping low pay scales, management at any sizable company will opt for the later every time.
The only way to raise base salaries is either with unions or another boom. Unfortunately, we probably wont have either any time soon.
WHOOSH. The point was, why compete when offering crappy wages/products is more profitable in the long run. Sure, Sprint could get more customers if they offered unlimited calling, messages & data for $30 a month without contracts. But then Verizon and AT&T would just follow suit. Short term gains are outweighed by the long term benefits of nickle & dimeing customers on top of a $40 base plan ($50 with taxes & fees). Sure, EA could pay top dollar for top programmers, but then so would every other company. Why offer $90k a year to get first in class MIT graduates when you can get the work force used to slaving away on a 70 hour work week for $60k a year instead?
Apple's clone attempts showed that the market will bear lower priced hardware.
They also showed that clones cannibalize Apple's sales before they grow the market.
Apple still makes OEM money from the OS license itself.
Not as much as they do on the hardware. They would have to charge a high premium on cloners to make up for lost sales.
Considering how diversified Apple is now it can certainly open its game.
The iPod may be Apple's cash cow, but personal computers are the bedrock of it's business and have been since the formation of the company. Screwing with that might make sense for you, but it makes little sense for Apple.
Lastly, what mac fanboys wont admit to is that OS7-9 was a terrible product. They would have failed in the 90s because they were selling garbage and everyone knew it, except loyalists.
Yawn. Mac users were very well aware of the lack of preemptive multitasking and protected memory. What anti-Apple fanboys wont admit is that Windows 95 was no better, NT was a pain in the ass in the usability department and UNIX was only for computer science geeks.
Good thing EULA's are worthless and unenforceable then. :) Even if they put "can only be used with an Apple branded machine" on the box, unless you make an agreement in writing before making a purchase, it's unenforceable. I'm thinking about building a hackintosh once Apple adds ZFS support to Leopard, as I want a file server with four 1 terabyte hard drives but want my total cost to be less than $1000, and a Mac Pro starts out at $2800 before I even add the drives. As Apple has gotten close to $20,000 out of my family since my mother bought an Apple IIe back in the day, I don't feel too guilty. And I don't think they have to worry too much about piracy as there are technical hurdles in building a hackintosh, and each hoop to jump through cuts down on the number of unauthorized machines.
Excuse me but wasn't it the ATF's choice to invade the compound? That's very much different from being attacked. Ok, boys! It's America to blame for Pearl Harbor being so ill prepared for an attack! Woohoo! How ridiculous. They're two very different affairs that you want to make sound the same.
WHOOSH. The point was that if Clinton was responsible for a debacle a month and a week after he took office, Bush is certainly responsible for the debacle that was the 911 preparation/response 9 months after he took office.
What are you smoking? Do you really believe this, or are you just lying? Al Gore probably lost the 2000 race because of his gun control stance
Yes, which explains why all the gun nuts who said they could never vote for a politician who supported gun control, either sat home during the 2004 election or voted 3rd party, throwing the election to Kerry. Because Bush said he supported existing gun control laws and would re-sign the assault weapons ban.
Oh wait, you mean that didn't happen? You mean the NRA is a political hack organization, further evidenced when they gave Giuliani a free pass when he was the only candidate this cycle to have really pushed for gun control? Huh, interesting.
Roosevelt made things worse during the Great Depression.
As usual, take the opposite of wingnut beliefs and you have reality.
but his obsession with controlling all of the gold
Yes, I just don't see why he'd want strong backing for the dollar after a complete collapse of the economy. No reason at all. Drastic times call for drastic measures.
his failure to grasp supply side economics
Thank god for that. Supply side economics is nothing more than a rationalization for funneling the benefits of the economy to those who are already rich. And the rich don't create jobs, customers do. Where do the customers come from? The middle class.
all conspired to make what should have been a manageable revival of the economy into a long and protracted national trauma alleviated only by the generous weapons purchases from the United Kingdom at the outset of World War II.
Which could have been done far more easily and long before the start of WWII. It's simple:
This injects money into and stabilizes the middle class, the base for any economy.
You have a curious way of being helpful. Replying to a "Citation needed" with a reference to a wiki on "political positions of Barack Obama" would seem to imply that the wiki backs up the assertions. As my father says to my mother: "sorry, next time I'll try to read your mind more clearly." :)
What say they should try to compete with Windows?
How would Apple release a desktop, consumer OS that runs on vanilla PC's and not be competing with Windows?
OS X on generic PCs of supported hardware would still be more copies running than OS X on no generic PCs.
And fewer Macs sold. They tried this already with the cloners. They didn't expand the Mac OS marketshare, they just cannibalized Apple's sales.
Just because this would make sense for you does not mean it would make sense for Apple. They aren't a monopoly and can't force Dell and HP to install Leopard on their machines. They wouldn't have Microsoft's volume, but they would be going up against Microsoft's $50 billion in cash reserves while trying to make a profit on the sales of OX X.
You're asking them to slit their own throats.
I don't recall the media hating Gore's guts.
So you are either very young or didn't pay attention to the media's coverage of the 2000 election. At all. And yet you were convinced that there was a liberal bias in the media. Huh, interesting.
But they were certainly skeptical of many of his claims, and not completely without justification
Their justification was: they didn't like him personally. And we've suffered enormously because of their high school click mentality.
given his involvement with Clinton's scandals
Such as.
They don't tend to question the "authorities" when said authorities are providing a good story.
They manage to question Democrats just fine. And if there aren't questions to be asked, they'll invent them from whole cloth, as they did with the Gore "invented the Internet" story, the "Love Canal" story, the "Love Story" story, and so on.
Because taking note of Obama's celebrity is not racist.
Straw man. No one was saying McCain's attacks on Obama's "celebrity" is racist, but it is massively hypocritical given McCain's popularity with the press and making cameos for 24 on Fox.
Obama's own words and actions have played right into that elitist stereotype.
[Citation needed]
Taking Obama's campaign to task for their "disrespectful" treatment of Palin is not racist.
It absolutely was, ask a southerner about it some time. More so since they were flat-out lying when they said Obama's "lipstick" comment was in reference to Palin.
It was almost comical, except that it was so sad, to see Hillary and Obama's partisans throwing accusations of racism and sexism back and forth, with very little basis in reality.
Racism, yes, sexism no. Hillary attacked Obama for not "winning white, blue collar workers" when he cleaned her clock in overwhelmingly white states like Iowa, Utah and North Dakota. They also joined with the rest of the hack media and Republicans in obsessing over the Rev. Wright nontroversy. Whereas I haven't yet met a Hillbot that's been able to point out a single media meme attacking Hillary's candidacy based on her gender.
That's right, I forget you were lazy. Sorry, my bad. Let's try that again:
Yes they were your assertions, since they sure didn't come from the Wiki page you referred to.
There are a bunch of external USB and firewire hard drive products out there that would require a significantly less amount of work to plug into a mac mini or imac.
External drives are great for temporary use, not so much for permanent use. Reasons to use internal over external:
Well, to continue to beat the dead Pinto analogy to death, it's more like complaining that tires made for an F-150 wont work on your Corvette. :)
But anyway, I think the reason Apple went with Intel instead of AMD is that the former had better mobile processors. I also doubt that Apple has an exclusive contract with Intel (why would they?), so if AMD builds a better mousetrap again, I don't see why Apple couldn't offer both, just as they did with ATI and Nvidia graphics cards.
Not my assertions
Yes they were, since they sure didn't come from the Wiki page you linked to.
That bill had unrelated bullcrap attached to it, as usual.
Wishful revisionism. From the same link:
Facts & consistency: Kyrptonite for wingnuts.
Opening your platform to more hardware is a good way to expand your market and create new profits.
Good way for Apple to cut their own throats, you mean. They already tried this in the 90's, remember? They licensed their OS to OEM's with the idea that clones would grow the Mac market. But the cloners didn't grow the market, they just cannibalized Apple's sales. And trying to compete head to head against an OS monopoly would be a suicide mission, especially when Microsoft could use their $60 billion in cash to fund a price war.
Opening their OS might make sense for you, but it doesn't make sense for Apple.
In all honesty, I can't see why AMD hasn't filed a lawsuit against Apple for artificially locking them out of their hardware sales and granting Intel a monopoly in Mac products.
Because every company has a monopoly on the products it makes. Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. GM has a monopoly on Corvettes. Neither has a monopoly on the car market, just as Apple doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems, computer hardware or MP3 players.
I'll see your Boston Massacre and raise you the Kent State shootings and the Civil War. The Confederates couldn't stand up to Uncle Sam, and they had a frikkin army.
Because single payer coverage provides better care for less money.