I've used it a few times just so I could answer questions like this.
Well, there's your problem. You used it to show yourself how much you hate it. Try using it for real. I really only use it when I'm having DNS issues for google services (happens more often than I'd like), but Bing gives me results that are just as good as Google's (even if you believe Bing cheats by copying Google, this still goes against your argument).
Have you ever used Bing? It doesn't seem like it. While I stick to Google, Bing is just as capable, and has some very cool (and useful) features that google doesn't have.
But people *do* invest their money. Seriously--Go ask a billionaire how much of his/her money is sitting in personal vaults or under his/her mattress. Maybe some, but nothing significant. Even the money they have in the bank is mostly invested (by the bank).
I clicked on a link at random, because every source of actual facts will tell you the same thing (by the way, don't come back with a link of "wealth vs. taxes paid." We are taxed on what we make, not what we have. Those people saved their money (actually more likely they invested it, which helps the economy)).
I didn't infer that he was referring to the previous 2 presidents. The point I'm making is that Clinton is more responsible than any other president for what canadian_right described.
I'm glad you agree a million times with one of the most uneducated statements I've ever seen on slashdot (and that's saying a lot). Just as a small example, "The recent melt down of the USA financial sector, directly caused by the deregulation of two Republican administrations shows that unfettered capitalism is often a disaster." ---- Um.. no. I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton was not a Republican.
There are ways for you to legally listen to music before buying it. Most bands I listen to have official music videos on youtube. There are previews on iTunes and Amazon mp3. There's the radio. There's Pandora. Stop stealing and start contributing to society. We don't need leeches. As horrible as you think record companies are, the band/artist you're trying to listen to chose to sign with them, and you should respect that.
One, you assume that there are no use cases that don't cut battery life in half (since this is the basis of your argument, you shouldn't give "worst case" scenarios).
Two, you assume that it needs to last (in use) for an entire work day. I don't think I need to explain why this is a bad assumption. Maybe someone just needs to around with a USB barcode scanner taking inventory. I worked at a place that did this (though they used a laptop with a USB barcode scanner. And by the way, most laptops don't get more than a few hours of battery life).
Again, you can't argue against something's worst-case scenario. People don't look at buying something and consider how horrible it would be for a worst-case use case. They consider how useful it would be for what they need to be done. This doesn't always involve using it 8 hours a day. It also doesn't always involve high-wattage peripherals.
Even if he knew you were kidding, it's a valid opinion. Have you seen what your UPS delivery man carries around? I own an iPad (strictly to develop apps for it; my Xoom is much more capable for actual use), and I do indeed question its structural integrity, even if it isn't justified.
Get rid of the/s and you are absolutely right. I don't understand why people ask "I don't see any advantages, so why not just get apple?" Well, what advantages does the iPad have? Not many. And he's wrong about there not being distinct differences ("advantages" to many people) with this tablet. Android is one of them. Dedicated ports without requiring dongles is another. Pressure sensitive stylus is another. Perhaps there are even people who dislike Apple's aluminum obsession.
Wow. Your vision is incredible. Is getting anything less than 100% battery life a deal-breaker for you? Maybe there are people who do consider it a compelling use case. I can think of a whole bunch of powered devices that would use a very small amount of electricity compared to what the tablet is using. I'm willing to bet that there are even use cases where it'd be worth it to cut battery time in half.
Agreed, though I'm going to cancel my DVD and keep streaming. I only get (got) a DVD maybe three or four times a year, and while the math may not back me up, it was worth it to be able to get one whenever I wanted. Now not so much. I'll drop that service, keep streaming, and if I need something not on "Instant," I'll rent it on Amazon's streaming service.
I'm willing to bet that a significant number of people will drop the service that they use less often (mail or streaming).
So in addition to needing the ability to drive safely, they also need to be able to drive ecologically. And this somehow means that it has "nothing to do with safety" ?
And because there are currently dangerous drivers, we should allow even more dangerous drivers?
Wow. "I don't remember something so it never existed."
Ignoring all other cases (which are numerous), I know for a fact that Texas Instruments has a very long history of calling programs for their calculators "Apps," (short for "applications"). They had app development contests in 2001 and 2002 (and apparently 2003: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/news/articles/8/89/89529.html ). They specifically referred to anything created with their Flash SDK as "apps." Do a "find" for "flash app" on this page from 2000: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/news/articles/4/43/43266.html
Who gave me facts? Politicususa does not offer facts. They offer very opinions and lies. Give me verifiable facts. That's the challenge. Not whether or not you can offer me a link to a blog (that's what politicususa is) filled with people far crazier than you claim Fox is, but in the other direction.
I did click the link, and I watched the video. It's about 20 seconds long, and doesn't offer any context, such as what Fox claimed about death panels in the first place, and what their conclusion was after the segment.
You're citing politicususa? You have got to be kidding. "Real Liberal Politics." Oh, surely we can believe anything on that site! But seriously, I've read dozens of stories on that site. They lie. They distort. They censor comments (even though they claim not to). Try coming up with a better example.
You don't think a private investigator would be able to attain that kind of information independent of the tabloid? If not, what's the point of a private investigator? I'm not saying the tabloid didn't do anything wrong (especially if they published the information, knowing how it was attained), but your argument doesn't make sense. The main point of the GP, however, was the ridiculous line drawn all the way to News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch.
His citation is other people spewing the exact same comment any time Fox News is mentioned. They never have any evidence aside from a few mistakes (which all news organizations have) blown way out of proportion. Often Fox News will be vindicated, but these vindications are never publicized by Rachel Maddow, which seems to be the only show these people watch.
Slashdot Mirror
That isn't how it works. At all. It's a search engine and gives you links on the first page after you search for something.
I've used it a few times just so I could answer questions like this.
Well, there's your problem. You used it to show yourself how much you hate it. Try using it for real. I really only use it when I'm having DNS issues for google services (happens more often than I'd like), but Bing gives me results that are just as good as Google's (even if you believe Bing cheats by copying Google, this still goes against your argument).
Innovate. That's an order.
Have you ever used Bing? It doesn't seem like it. While I stick to Google, Bing is just as capable, and has some very cool (and useful) features that google doesn't have.
But people *do* invest their money. Seriously--Go ask a billionaire how much of his/her money is sitting in personal vaults or under his/her mattress. Maybe some, but nothing significant. Even the money they have in the bank is mostly invested (by the bank).
. . . and a disproportionate is being collected from the middle class and poor due to numerous tax breaks for the rich.
What exactly is your definition of "disproportionate?"
This is what I found with a quick google search: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html
I clicked on a link at random, because every source of actual facts will tell you the same thing (by the way, don't come back with a link of "wealth vs. taxes paid." We are taxed on what we make, not what we have. Those people saved their money (actually more likely they invested it, which helps the economy)).
I didn't infer that he was referring to the previous 2 presidents. The point I'm making is that Clinton is more responsible than any other president for what canadian_right described.
I'm glad you agree a million times with one of the most uneducated statements I've ever seen on slashdot (and that's saying a lot). Just as a small example, "The recent melt down of the USA financial sector, directly caused by the deregulation of two Republican administrations shows that unfettered capitalism is often a disaster." ---- Um.. no. I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton was not a Republican.
Do you honestly STILL believe that Jared Loughner was a conservative? Or in any way fueled by conservatives? The guy is just crazy. Period.
Just so we're clear on this, disliking the way artists advertise their music does not give you the right to pirate it.
There are ways for you to legally listen to music before buying it. Most bands I listen to have official music videos on youtube. There are previews on iTunes and Amazon mp3. There's the radio. There's Pandora. Stop stealing and start contributing to society. We don't need leeches. As horrible as you think record companies are, the band/artist you're trying to listen to chose to sign with them, and you should respect that.
You are making a lot of assumptions there.
One, you assume that there are no use cases that don't cut battery life in half (since this is the basis of your argument, you shouldn't give "worst case" scenarios).
Two, you assume that it needs to last (in use) for an entire work day. I don't think I need to explain why this is a bad assumption. Maybe someone just needs to around with a USB barcode scanner taking inventory. I worked at a place that did this (though they used a laptop with a USB barcode scanner. And by the way, most laptops don't get more than a few hours of battery life).
Again, you can't argue against something's worst-case scenario. People don't look at buying something and consider how horrible it would be for a worst-case use case. They consider how useful it would be for what they need to be done. This doesn't always involve using it 8 hours a day. It also doesn't always involve high-wattage peripherals.
Even if he knew you were kidding, it's a valid opinion. Have you seen what your UPS delivery man carries around? I own an iPad (strictly to develop apps for it; my Xoom is much more capable for actual use), and I do indeed question its structural integrity, even if it isn't justified.
Get rid of the /s and you are absolutely right. I don't understand why people ask "I don't see any advantages, so why not just get apple?" Well, what advantages does the iPad have? Not many. And he's wrong about there not being distinct differences ("advantages" to many people) with this tablet. Android is one of them. Dedicated ports without requiring dongles is another. Pressure sensitive stylus is another. Perhaps there are even people who dislike Apple's aluminum obsession.
Wow. Your vision is incredible. Is getting anything less than 100% battery life a deal-breaker for you? Maybe there are people who do consider it a compelling use case. I can think of a whole bunch of powered devices that would use a very small amount of electricity compared to what the tablet is using. I'm willing to bet that there are even use cases where it'd be worth it to cut battery time in half.
Agreed, though I'm going to cancel my DVD and keep streaming. I only get (got) a DVD maybe three or four times a year, and while the math may not back me up, it was worth it to be able to get one whenever I wanted. Now not so much. I'll drop that service, keep streaming, and if I need something not on "Instant," I'll rent it on Amazon's streaming service.
I'm willing to bet that a significant number of people will drop the service that they use less often (mail or streaming).
So in addition to needing the ability to drive safely, they also need to be able to drive ecologically. And this somehow means that it has "nothing to do with safety" ?
And because there are currently dangerous drivers, we should allow even more dangerous drivers?
Where did you learn basic logic?
Wow. "I don't remember something so it never existed."
Ignoring all other cases (which are numerous), I know for a fact that Texas Instruments has a very long history of calling programs for their calculators "Apps," (short for "applications"). They had app development contests in 2001 and 2002 (and apparently 2003: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/news/articles/8/89/89529.html ). They specifically referred to anything created with their Flash SDK as "apps." Do a "find" for "flash app" on this page from 2000: http://www.ticalc.org/archives/news/articles/4/43/43266.html
Who gave me facts? Politicususa does not offer facts. They offer very opinions and lies. Give me verifiable facts. That's the challenge. Not whether or not you can offer me a link to a blog (that's what politicususa is) filled with people far crazier than you claim Fox is, but in the other direction.
I did click the link, and I watched the video. It's about 20 seconds long, and doesn't offer any context, such as what Fox claimed about death panels in the first place, and what their conclusion was after the segment.
You're citing politicususa? You have got to be kidding. "Real Liberal Politics." Oh, surely we can believe anything on that site! But seriously, I've read dozens of stories on that site. They lie. They distort. They censor comments (even though they claim not to). Try coming up with a better example.
[Citation Needed]
John Stewart doesn't count.
This discussions is a prime example of the arguments presented against Fox News. "OMG FAUX NEWS!" "What's wrong with them?" "You are such a tool"
You don't think a private investigator would be able to attain that kind of information independent of the tabloid? If not, what's the point of a private investigator? I'm not saying the tabloid didn't do anything wrong (especially if they published the information, knowing how it was attained), but your argument doesn't make sense. The main point of the GP, however, was the ridiculous line drawn all the way to News Corp. and Rupert Murdoch.
His citation is other people spewing the exact same comment any time Fox News is mentioned. They never have any evidence aside from a few mistakes (which all news organizations have) blown way out of proportion. Often Fox News will be vindicated, but these vindications are never publicized by Rachel Maddow, which seems to be the only show these people watch.