You left out wireless keyboard and mouse and the built-in TV function. While you may be able to get them for the iMac, they come standard on the XPS One.
The lowest-spec iMac is $200 less than the lowest-spec Dell. A wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, TV tuner, and 1GB of RAM would cost about $200. It's a wash, except with the Mac you get OS X instead of Windows.
You need significantly more than 10 quid to get a TV tuner that's compatible with the Mac. However, they're not so expensive that they make the Dell a better deal.
The iMacs look to me like they could use a face-lift soon... I think the brains at Apple have been off designing phones and iPods lately, not iMacs.
They just had a facelift, and the purpose of it was to make them look more like the iPhone and iPods! Now, I agree: the old white style did look better, but your statement is a bit ill-informed.
"Flex fuel" is bullshit. All it means is that they use slightly better rubber hoses and have extra programming in the ECU. It doesn't actually help anything (at least not until ethanol from sources other than corn is widely available); it's just a way for US auto makers (in collusion with the corn lobby) to weasel out of real improvements!
(not joking: while the elite here drives BMWs and Mercedes like everywhere else, cars are so expensive here that a Camry is "upper middle-class only" and a VW Jetta is considered a "nice family car")
You crazy Europeans (I assume)... here in the US, the Jetta is often significantly more expensive than the Camry! And yes, I'm complaining about that, because I'd rather have the VW.
Why do you consider attacking the issue indirectly/inefficiently is required?
Because your suggestion is even more inefficient!
Your suggestion requires getting together everyone that was harmed by the pollution (i.e., everyone downwind of the plant, which is millions of people), having all of them sue (which means at the very least each having to fill out a bunch of paperwork), finding environmental scientists to act as expert witnesses, going through years of appeals, etc.
I assert that your idea would result in more cost than by passing a law about it to begin with, especially since the law is supposed to reflect "the will of the people," and it is indeed "the people" -- all of them -- who would be the plaintiffs anyway!
Could you define 'true, rational human behavior' in this context for me?
How about "logically consistent?"
For example, the "logically consistent" thing to do would be to shop at Wal-Mart and support open immigration and outsourcing (if the person supports free trade), or to try to stop immigration and outsourcing and not shop at Wal-Mart (if the person doesn't support free trade).
And by "price" being the biggest factor in any economics, are you defining price as 'purchase price' or as 'total cost over the useful lifetime of the product'?
It should be the latter, but since people aren't actually rational it is often the former.
I would think that making lending organizations tell borrowers the actual interest rate they are going to pay, how high that interest rate can go -- and that it is variable
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I could have sworn the phrase "ADJUSTABLE RATE mortgage" was pretty fucking self-explanatory!
I'm getting sick and tired of idiots being saved from the consequences of their own idiocy. It's not fair for the rest of us (i.e., the non-idiots)!
Yeah the RIAA does want these songs on the radio. And more importantly, the RIAA wants the songs it chooses to be on the radio. The RIAA's goal here is to give themselves an extra bargaining chip: "if you insist on playing artist A, you've gotta pay the exhorbitant royalty. But if you give extra playtime to artist B (that we're pushing at the moment), we'll waive most of the royalty."
I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.
Now, I know he doesn't have any actual ideas or plans.
That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:
Invest "in renewable and alternative fuels to promote greater energy independence and a cleaner environment."
"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."
Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.
"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"
committed to a balanced approach to energy security that increases domestic supplies, reduces demand for oil and gas, and promotes alternative fuels and other diverse energy sources... [and] places more emphasis on conservation and energy efficiency
"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."
Encourage students to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and math.
"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."
By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.
That's a disingenuous claim. In reality, he can't be considered to oppose or support reproductive rights, in the context of the Presidency (as a federal office). To say that a candidate supports them implies seeking legislation to affirm them at the federal level; to oppose them implies seeking legislation to ban them at the federal level. Instead, Ron Paul believes the issue shouldn't be considered at the federal level at all, and should instead be left to the states.
Since Ron Paul is running for a federal -- not state -- office, he should be considered neutral on that issue.
Slashdot Mirror
The lowest-spec iMac is $200 less than the lowest-spec Dell. A wireless keyboard, wireless mouse, TV tuner, and 1GB of RAM would cost about $200. It's a wash, except with the Mac you get OS X instead of Windows.
Two words: Vista Aero.
Ironically, the only computer that does need the dedicated video card (the Dell, since it can't run OS X) is the only one that doesn't have it!
You need significantly more than 10 quid to get a TV tuner that's compatible with the Mac. However, they're not so expensive that they make the Dell a better deal.
They just had a facelift, and the purpose of it was to make them look more like the iPhone and iPods! Now, I agree: the old white style did look better, but your statement is a bit ill-informed.
"Flex fuel" is bullshit. All it means is that they use slightly better rubber hoses and have extra programming in the ECU. It doesn't actually help anything (at least not until ethanol from sources other than corn is widely available); it's just a way for US auto makers (in collusion with the corn lobby) to weasel out of real improvements!
You crazy Europeans (I assume)... here in the US, the Jetta is often significantly more expensive than the Camry! And yes, I'm complaining about that, because I'd rather have the VW.
WTF?! An "EXACT replacement" is "perfection," dumbass!
Because your suggestion is even more inefficient!
Your suggestion requires getting together everyone that was harmed by the pollution (i.e., everyone downwind of the plant, which is millions of people), having all of them sue (which means at the very least each having to fill out a bunch of paperwork), finding environmental scientists to act as expert witnesses, going through years of appeals, etc.
I assert that your idea would result in more cost than by passing a law about it to begin with, especially since the law is supposed to reflect "the will of the people," and it is indeed "the people" -- all of them -- who would be the plaintiffs anyway!
(Note: I'm not the guy you replied to.)
How about "logically consistent?"
For example, the "logically consistent" thing to do would be to shop at Wal-Mart and support open immigration and outsourcing (if the person supports free trade), or to try to stop immigration and outsourcing and not shop at Wal-Mart (if the person doesn't support free trade).
It should be the latter, but since people aren't actually rational it is often the former.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I could have sworn the phrase "ADJUSTABLE RATE mortgage" was pretty fucking self-explanatory!
I'm getting sick and tired of idiots being saved from the consequences of their own idiocy. It's not fair for the rest of us (i.e., the non-idiots)!
Yeah the RIAA does want these songs on the radio. And more importantly, the RIAA wants the songs it chooses to be on the radio. The RIAA's goal here is to give themselves an extra bargaining chip: "if you insist on playing artist A, you've gotta pay the exhorbitant royalty. But if you give extra playtime to artist B (that we're pushing at the moment), we'll waive most of the royalty."
That's proof of "it's not even fully documented," not "even MS itself doesn't use the specification." Like I said, it's a starting place.
"John Romero's about to make you his bitch."
...'nuff said.
Kodos is human. Vote for Kang!
Ah, but did it suffer because it was late, or because John Romero threatened to make us his bitches?
I think it's safe to vote for him because there's no way he'd actually accomplish all that, but he would manage to prevent the Federal government from bloating further.
It's meaningful enough here in Georgia -- at least, enough to (unconstitutionally!) prevent me from voting in both primaries, instead of only one.
The list tells us plenty, because Ron Paul is the only one for which the distinction matters (and he does make the distinction for Ron Paul).
That's not true. He does have plans; you're just not reading into it cynically or deeply enough to see them:
"I intend to pay lip-service to environmentalism while doing as little as possible to actually improve things, because if I really cared I'd have more to say about the issue."
"I support filtering by ISPs and libraries. OMG, think of the children! Oh, and by "child pornography" I really mean 'music, movies, and subversive speech' too. Anonymity is bad, mmkay?"
"I support 'securing our energy' by subjugating the Iraqis, and I support 'increasing domestic supply' by drilling in protected wilderness areas."
"Just like the environment, I don't give a shit about this issue either."
By the way: I don't have anything against this Thompson fellow; in fact, I know nothing about him except these excerpts. Any candidate that says the same kinds of things should be suspected of having the same real positions.
Moreover, I believe that's the primary purpose of the Second Amendment. (Cue Jefferson's "tree of liberty" quote, etc.)
Huh? That doesn't make sense; is there a word missing or something?
That's a disingenuous claim. In reality, he can't be considered to oppose or support reproductive rights, in the context of the Presidency (as a federal office). To say that a candidate supports them implies seeking legislation to affirm them at the federal level; to oppose them implies seeking legislation to ban them at the federal level. Instead, Ron Paul believes the issue shouldn't be considered at the federal level at all, and should instead be left to the states.
Since Ron Paul is running for a federal -- not state -- office, he should be considered neutral on that issue.
Google "autoSpaceLikeWord95" and start from there.
I wish! Then we'd be rid of idiots like him!
In fact, that's why they're rich. If they weren't cheap, they'd just be high-income poor people.