The reason iDevices get good reviews is that the balance of all the various parts of the hardware and the software. That's a compelling package. Part by part they can obviously be beat, and for specialized used cases they can be beat. But what's missing is a broad based disadvantages for the iDevices relative to the competition.
The reason iDevices get good reviews is because such reviews usually don't look at the cost of the devices. A Porsche is a lot better driving experience than a Honda, but that doesn't mean it is a better buy. What most reviews of Apple products do not discuss/include is whether or not such device is a good buy. To know if something is a good buy or not, you need to know how it is to be used and what else is available.
The new MacBook Pro with the Retina display is a very good product, all the reviews say so. It may be superior in every way to say an average pc, However, I don't think I will buy one for my mother to use just to send emails, surf the web and see pictures of the grand kids. Why not? Because for her use, a MacBook Pro is definitely not a good buy.
What about Android on the desktop? I bet Google could make a lot of money selling PCs with the ad: "Works just like your phone, with the same android interface you know and love."
Why is everyone so obsessed with unifying interfaces? Sometimes, different interfaces are *necessary* to achieve wildly differing functionalities on the desktop and portable devices.
If I had points, I'd mod you up. You don't see people clamoring to have trains, cars, planes and boats to all have the same interface. Each mode of transportation has an interface suited to that mode. Why people think that computer devices should be different is beyond me. Using a desktop or laptop, use a desktop interface, using a tablet or phone, use a tablet or phone interface. Using a TV, use an interface appropriate to that. Put differently, if your use of a device is to consume data, than use an interface suited to that us. On the other hand, if your use is to create content, then the interface needs to support that.
Nobody would want to go to a surgeon where all of the "tools" were patterned after a bone saw. That might be good for some procedures, but if you needed an appendectomy that would hardly be the tool of choice.
One ring to rule them all may apply in Middle Earth, but definitely fails when dealing with computer interfaces.
Of course, traffic lights also stop traffic so people can cross the street. As for speed limits, unless everyone is going to wear a pressure suit, the human body can only handle so many g's when accelerating/braking/turning.
Actually, early cars were a novelty, even for the rich, at least in the US. That all changed when some guy named Ford, made an affordable car that the masses could buy.
Some manufacturers are specifying 10K to 15K oil change intervals on some vehicles. The average manufacturer recommendation, as printed in their manuals is 3K to 5K.
If you want outside verification of the cost to drive, go to AAA's website. They estimate in 2012 it costs $0.60/mile.
It doesn't matter if you get a trade in value or not. At some point you had to purchase the vehicle outright, a trade in is still part of the cost of the new vehicle.
28mpg exceeds the average mileage of cars made in the last three years. Yes, highway mileage is higher, but the OP is talking about driving in to NY. That includes a lot of stop and go city mileage.
Insurance may be a fixed cost, but it is still a cost. The more you drive the lower the cost per mile, but you still have to pay for it.
New cars still recommend replacing oil every 3000 to 5000 miles depending on make of car.
Even new cars still require tune ups, just not every 15,000 miles. Spark pllugs do wear and wires do crack. The computer adjusts for those conditions, but mileage suffers. In addition, many states require emission tests and your car pretty much needs to be mechanically up to date to pass.
But yes, if you ignore the maintenance on a vehicle, you can in the short term lower your cost per mile. Then again one tow truck call in NYC will offset any savings you might have had. And if you add AAA to cover the tow truck, then that is just one more expense to spread.
But hey, you don't have to believe me. Google AAA, for 2012 they estimate it costs $0.60/mie to drive.
You must be buying new vehicles and paying for dealer maintenance, brand new tires, etc, to come up with numbers anywhere near that high. Delivery and truck drivers typically make a profit on mileage reimbursement.
My vehicle cost $3500. Over its life span I will put another $1000 into it for total vehicle maintenance. $4500. I'll probably put about 150,000 miles on it. So $0.03/mile fixed maintenance costs. I get lousy gas milage so it will cost $62.30 at the current $3.50/gallon to drive to Norfolk based on your 356 mile figure and $10.68 covers the wear and tear. That is $72.98 for the trip. Nowhere near your $350 mark.
If you want to attack artificial numbers in the car travel equation you need to look for the subsidies and where you find those is in oil. Oil and Gas proponents point out the big subsidies on alternative energy solutions when those subsidies are negligible compared to oil and gas subsidies. The real price of that gas is probably closer to $15/gallon. That is $267 in fuel cost for my vehicle rather than $62.30 brining the trip cost to $277.68.
Yes, in your situation, you are not paying the same as most commuters as you have removed the price of the vehicle from the equation. I would be curious, with used car prices that average $8,000 for a late model vehicle with close to 100,000 miles on it, how you will add another 150,000 miles to your $3,500 vehicle. In addition, for that 150,000 you will need 3 sets of tires and 50 oil changes. Tires cost will be approximately $1,800 over the 150,000 miles and oil changes about $1,750 (both of which do not include inflationary increases). Insurance at $1,000/yr also needs to be figured in, but it may very well be cheaper given the cost of your vehicle.
So, yes, for any given person, the numbers will be different, however, on average, the $0.50/mile is pretty darn close for most people.
Driving the 356 or so miles will cost you around $75 in gas, but if you figure in the total cost, including tires, oil, depreciation (or decreased value), insurance, etc., then you are closer to $350
I drive 450 miles a week just commuting to work. The running costs are nowhere near your figures, I would be broke if they were. Nothing close to $20k is being spent on my transport costs, I would sure as hell notice if it was.
Come up with all the theoretical operating costs you want. I have "mythbusters" style of real world testing proving running costs is nothing like your figures.
Of course, you have figured in the costs of purchasing and maintaining your vehicle, including taxes, licensing, insurance and the like. $25,000 purchase price for a vehicle that is traded in every 100,000 miles is $0.25/mile, 28mpg at $4/gallon is $0.14/mile, $1,000/yr insurance is $0.07/mile (assuming 15,000/yr, $600 for four tires rated at 60,000 miles comes out to be $.01/mile driven, a $35 oil change every 3,000 miles is another $.01/mile, regularly scheduled maintenance over the 100,000 (tuneups, wheel balances, etc) even if only $2,000 comes out to another $.02/mile. Not including tolls, and other extra costs, that comes out to approximately $0.50/mile.
Now, one can purchase a used car, which would lower the cost of the car per mile to go down, but then you probably won't drive it for another 100,000 miles which will increase those costs and the maintenance cost will surely be higher, too.
When you figure in the total cost to drive and maintain a vehicle, it is quite expensive.
I don't have any mod points, or I would definitely mod you up. Somebody please mod geekymachoman's post up to +5. Every coin has two sides and the link mentioned presents an undoubtedly tarnished side.
Funny, when I go to Amtrak's website, round trip fro Norfolk, VA to NYC is $124. Driving the 356 or so miles will cost you around $75 in gas, but if you figure in the total cost, including tires, oil, depreciation (or decreased value), insurance, etc., then you are closer to $350 (coincidently close to the IRS mileage rage of $0.505/mile).
Again, I ask then, why pull out for EPEAT on all of the of the devices they make that are already EPEAT qualified instead of just not listing the new one that is not?
There are two issues at play here: EPEAT failing to keep up with the times and Apple choosing to go in a different direction.
Regarding the first, imagine if you went to get your driver's license and they told you that, using their outdated test which failed to consider corrective lenses, your vision was too poor. EPEAT has similar issues. Alternatives to some of the problems they seek to address have been developed in recent years, but their certifications still fail to consider those alternatives, and will fail the devices as a result.
Part of it is expanding EPEAT's global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they're a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own.
Regarding the second point, EPEAT checks a number of factors, such as the materials being used, packaging, energy conservation, and how serviceable the device is. Apple has received EPEAT's highest marks up until now for all of their devices that sought certification, but they're clearly interested in slimmer form factors that come at the cost of serviceability, which means that their future marks are likely to be much lower.
With regards to your drivers license example, so if I fell into the category you describe, I should just go and drive without a license anyway? Isn't that what Apple is saying with the EPEAT? I'm pretty sure the I would be in trouble for ignoring the test, regardless of how unimportant I thought it was. Likewise, ignoring the EPEAT, while not against the law, could have some very negative consequences for Apple.
With regards to Apple wanting out of EPEAT so that they can make slimmer devices, how is that any different than Ford wanting out of EPA so they can make bigger faster vehicles? I do understand Apple, wanting a thin molded on case, but surely it can be engineered so that a screwdriver can pry it off or some other method. Actually, I am quite sure it can be designed that way, which would mean Apple has a different reason than just wanting a thin device.
So you are defending Apple's position of trust me, I will make sure my products are green because they were in the past? Obviously, if Apple no longer wants to be certified as EPEAT, then there must be some change they want to make that wouldn't be compliant with EPEAT. Otherwise, why ask to be decertified? Even the Apple Response link you posted is double speak. Apple is dropping EPEAT certification because Dell isn't Energy Star listed? What's that about?
If Apple products are superior to EPEAT standards, then why stop getting EPEAT certification? Apple should re-think this. Not only will government agencies and municipalities quit buying, because they are required to meet EPEAT, the environmentally concerned will, too. I can see the MIcrosoft slogan now: Save a tree, buy a Windows PC.
Assuming the Nexus 7 is the big iPad killer, or even some other android tablet. If it is locked down as the summary suggests, somebody will release a tablet that isn't locked down. Once the iPad has been knocked off the pinnacle of tablets, others will enter the market. If the market wants an unlocked tablet, they will get an unlocked tablet. Plain and simple strategy: First get people to realize that there are quality alternatives to Apple. Next offer them products that they really want. Finally offer them a product the way they want it.
If marriage isn't a right then why were mixed race marriage bans overturned? Equal protection before the law means just that. You cannot deprive one group of the privileges of another.
Those were state laws that specifically said that people of different races could not marry. No state has a law that says two men or two women cannot get married. The problem is that until recently, the states always assumed marriage was between a man and a women, so it was understood. As such, when they said a black man couldn't marry a white woman or vice-versa, that was a violation of the due process clause. Specificaly, in the Virginia case, the state did not say the couple was not married. The objection was with they were forced to leave the state because the state banned interracial marriages.
In regards to same sex marriages, there are no laws forcing same sex couples to leave the state if they get married. As for access to the rights conferred in marriage, they are all available through other legal means and have been discussed throughout this/. discussion.
As for denying privileges, well, I'm 5'7" and allways wanted to be a fighter pilot, but I was denied that. Does that mean that the air force deprived me of my right? The courts woud see it that way. BTW, my partner and I are both commercial pilots, so where as I couldn't fly military jets, commercial ones are just fine.
Yes, it is true there are some federal benefits and privileges that my partner and I don't have, but for most of them we wouldn't qualify anyway, so big deal. Our home is jointly owned. Our vehicles are jointly owned, our banking and investment is likewise. So, all of our major assets are held jointly. Health insurance is a non issue as we both work and have our insurance through our employers, which is significanlty cheaper than having him on my insurance or vice versa.
As for inheritance issues, I suggest you contact a good estate planner, most heterosexual couples pay way too much in inheritance taxes thinking that being married makes it easier. It doesn't. Estate planning should be able to get you an inheritance from your significant other tax free. There is a reason that most wealthy people don't rely on wills for their estates. Those same strategies are available for normal people, gay or straight, too.
Again speaking from actual experience, there isn't one real right of any significance that can't be accomplished legally without having to get married. I don't support discrimination, but I do have a distaste for claiming discrimination, were none actually exists.
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with a loveless marriage. However, it is not up to the government to promote love. There is nothing stopping you from spending your life with the person you love and cherish, whether male or female. I live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw). The government can define marriage however they want, it is just a silly word without any real meaning. Legally, which is what rights are about, my partner and I have all of the positive benefits and rights of marriage without any of the negative ones and getting the various paperwork was a lot cheaper than a wedding. Why in the world would I want to change that? My partner and I are secure in our love for each other and don't need outside affirmation for it. Our friends are supportive, why do we care if we can say we are legally married or not? Love is not required for marriage nor is marriage required for love.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Will or not, you will end up in probate court. Only way around that is to set up a trust. It doesn't matter if you are married or not. For children, if you are not a biological parent, you do not have a legal "right" to the children, unless you previously adopted them. Again, the same situation whether homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried. A court, of course, in such cases can grant custody, but again, that is no difference depending on your status. As for hospital visitations, if you have medical power of attorney you cannot be refused, unless the patient refuses to see you. A medical power of attorney actually gets you more rights than marriage. Durable power of attorney handles most other legal issues and also grants more rights than marriage.
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs. In short, whether gay or straight, if you don't want to get married or aren't allowed, to have the same rights as marriage, 1) draw up a will or purchase thing jointly or form a trust with both as the trustees, adopt any children involved in the relations, both partners sign a durable power of attorney for the other one and both sign a medical power of attorney for the other one. What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
No, you stated that 9 murders and 2 rapes were hate crimes. The FBI statistics, state that in 2010 there were 8,208 hate crimes reported. As for whether 8,208 is a large number of hate crimes or not, well, I would suggest that 1 is 1 too many.
If the only reason the government doesn't do civil unions, is because it is too hard to change the existing statutes, then that is a weak reason. If they did recognize civil unions, it wouldn't necessarily mean more than two people. The government still would have the ability to define how many people, ages, etc.
I'm not saying that it would be easy to change the statutes, but usually anything worth doing is rarely easy.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills or you can purchase property jointly, etc. Marriage is just one way to confer the right of inheritance, it is not the only way, nor is it even a good way (if it was, there wouldn''t be all those case going to probate court). For having a legal say while one is alive, there is the durable power of attorney and for medical decisions a medical power of attorney. With the exception of purchasing something jointly, all of these "rights" granted through the normal means are easier to rescind than through the dissoultuion of a marriage. Even heterosexuals realize that marriage is not the best way to grant rights which is why pre-nuptual agreements have become so popular. Marriage is simply a civil construct to grant a package of legal rights instead of having to grant them individually.
Why would the government pass a law prohibiting people from eating meat? Besides, there is no law prohibiting gays from getting married. There is, or has been, an understanding that marriage, at least in the US, has always been between a man and a woman. That is not the same as the government prohibiting an action, but instead an attempt of a minority to redefine what has tradtionally been the understanding.
Whether that is right or wrong is open to debate. But if we ever want a solution to a complex social problem, we can't be confusing the issue by inserting unrelated concepts (such as prohibiting) into the actual reality.
And yet the FBI reported in 2010 there were 8,208 hate crimes -- also from a quick search on wikipedia. The internet is a lot like statistics, misuse it and you can prove any point you want to make.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason iDevices get good reviews is that the balance of all the various parts of the hardware and the software. That's a compelling package. Part by part they can obviously be beat, and for specialized used cases they can be beat. But what's missing is a broad based disadvantages for the iDevices relative to the competition.
The reason iDevices get good reviews is because such reviews usually don't look at the cost of the devices. A Porsche is a lot better driving experience than a Honda, but that doesn't mean it is a better buy. What most reviews of Apple products do not discuss/include is whether or not such device is a good buy. To know if something is a good buy or not, you need to know how it is to be used and what else is available.
The new MacBook Pro with the Retina display is a very good product, all the reviews say so. It may be superior in every way to say an average pc, However, I don't think I will buy one for my mother to use just to send emails, surf the web and see pictures of the grand kids. Why not? Because for her use, a MacBook Pro is definitely not a good buy.
What about Android on the desktop? I bet Google could make a lot of money selling PCs with the ad: "Works just like your phone, with the same android interface you know and love."
Why is everyone so obsessed with unifying interfaces? Sometimes, different interfaces are *necessary* to achieve wildly differing functionalities on the desktop and portable devices.
If I had points, I'd mod you up. You don't see people clamoring to have trains, cars, planes and boats to all have the same interface. Each mode of transportation has an interface suited to that mode. Why people think that computer devices should be different is beyond me. Using a desktop or laptop, use a desktop interface, using a tablet or phone, use a tablet or phone interface. Using a TV, use an interface appropriate to that. Put differently, if your use of a device is to consume data, than use an interface suited to that us. On the other hand, if your use is to create content, then the interface needs to support that.
Nobody would want to go to a surgeon where all of the "tools" were patterned after a bone saw. That might be good for some procedures, but if you needed an appendectomy that would hardly be the tool of choice.
One ring to rule them all may apply in Middle Earth, but definitely fails when dealing with computer interfaces.
Of course, traffic lights also stop traffic so people can cross the street. As for speed limits, unless everyone is going to wear a pressure suit, the human body can only handle so many g's when accelerating/braking/turning.
Actually, early cars were a novelty, even for the rich, at least in the US. That all changed when some guy named Ford, made an affordable car that the masses could buy.
Some manufacturers are specifying 10K to 15K oil change intervals on some vehicles. The average manufacturer recommendation, as printed in their manuals is 3K to 5K.
If you want outside verification of the cost to drive, go to AAA's website. They estimate in 2012 it costs $0.60/mile.
It doesn't matter if you get a trade in value or not. At some point you had to purchase the vehicle outright, a trade in is still part of the cost of the new vehicle.
28mpg exceeds the average mileage of cars made in the last three years. Yes, highway mileage is higher, but the OP is talking about driving in to NY. That includes a lot of stop and go city mileage.
Insurance may be a fixed cost, but it is still a cost. The more you drive the lower the cost per mile, but you still have to pay for it.
New cars still recommend replacing oil every 3000 to 5000 miles depending on make of car.
Even new cars still require tune ups, just not every 15,000 miles. Spark pllugs do wear and wires do crack. The computer adjusts for those conditions, but mileage suffers. In addition, many states require emission tests and your car pretty much needs to be mechanically up to date to pass.
But yes, if you ignore the maintenance on a vehicle, you can in the short term lower your cost per mile. Then again one tow truck call in NYC will offset any savings you might have had. And if you add AAA to cover the tow truck, then that is just one more expense to spread.
But hey, you don't have to believe me. Google AAA, for 2012 they estimate it costs $0.60/mie to drive.
You must be buying new vehicles and paying for dealer maintenance, brand new tires, etc, to come up with numbers anywhere near that high. Delivery and truck drivers typically make a profit on mileage reimbursement.
My vehicle cost $3500. Over its life span I will put another $1000 into it for total vehicle maintenance. $4500. I'll probably put about 150,000 miles on it. So $0.03/mile fixed maintenance costs. I get lousy gas milage so it will cost $62.30 at the current $3.50/gallon to drive to Norfolk based on your 356 mile figure and $10.68 covers the wear and tear. That is $72.98 for the trip. Nowhere near your $350 mark.
If you want to attack artificial numbers in the car travel equation you need to look for the subsidies and where you find those is in oil. Oil and Gas proponents point out the big subsidies on alternative energy solutions when those subsidies are negligible compared to oil and gas subsidies. The real price of that gas is probably closer to $15/gallon. That is $267 in fuel cost for my vehicle rather than $62.30 brining the trip cost to $277.68.
Yes, in your situation, you are not paying the same as most commuters as you have removed the price of the vehicle from the equation. I would be curious, with used car prices that average $8,000 for a late model vehicle with close to 100,000 miles on it, how you will add another 150,000 miles to your $3,500 vehicle. In addition, for that 150,000 you will need 3 sets of tires and 50 oil changes. Tires cost will be approximately $1,800 over the 150,000 miles and oil changes about $1,750 (both of which do not include inflationary increases). Insurance at $1,000/yr also needs to be figured in, but it may very well be cheaper given the cost of your vehicle.
So, yes, for any given person, the numbers will be different, however, on average, the $0.50/mile is pretty darn close for most people.
Driving the 356 or so miles will cost you around $75 in gas, but if you figure in the total cost, including tires, oil, depreciation (or decreased value), insurance, etc., then you are closer to $350
I drive 450 miles a week just commuting to work.
The running costs are nowhere near your figures, I would be broke if they were. Nothing close to $20k is being spent on my transport costs, I would sure as hell notice if it was.
Come up with all the theoretical operating costs you want. I have "mythbusters" style of real world testing proving running costs is nothing like your figures.
Of course, you have figured in the costs of purchasing and maintaining your vehicle, including taxes, licensing, insurance and the like. $25,000 purchase price for a vehicle that is traded in every 100,000 miles is $0.25/mile, 28mpg at $4/gallon is $0.14/mile, $1,000/yr insurance is $0.07/mile (assuming 15,000/yr, $600 for four tires rated at 60,000 miles comes out to be $.01/mile driven, a $35 oil change every 3,000 miles is another $.01/mile, regularly scheduled maintenance over the 100,000 (tuneups, wheel balances, etc) even if only $2,000 comes out to another $.02/mile. Not including tolls, and other extra costs, that comes out to approximately $0.50/mile.
Now, one can purchase a used car, which would lower the cost of the car per mile to go down, but then you probably won't drive it for another 100,000 miles which will increase those costs and the maintenance cost will surely be higher, too.
When you figure in the total cost to drive and maintain a vehicle, it is quite expensive.
I don't have any mod points, or I would definitely mod you up. Somebody please mod geekymachoman's post up to +5. Every coin has two sides and the link mentioned presents an undoubtedly tarnished side.
Funny, when I go to Amtrak's website, round trip fro Norfolk, VA to NYC is $124. Driving the 356 or so miles will cost you around $75 in gas, but if you figure in the total cost, including tires, oil, depreciation (or decreased value), insurance, etc., then you are closer to $350 (coincidently close to the IRS mileage rage of $0.505/mile).
Again, I ask then, why pull out for EPEAT on all of the of the devices they make that are already EPEAT qualified instead of just not listing the new one that is not?
There are two issues at play here: EPEAT failing to keep up with the times and Apple choosing to go in a different direction.
Regarding the first, imagine if you went to get your driver's license and they told you that, using their outdated test which failed to consider corrective lenses, your vision was too poor. EPEAT has similar issues. Alternatives to some of the problems they seek to address have been developed in recent years, but their certifications still fail to consider those alternatives, and will fail the devices as a result.
For instance, their interim-CEO was talking just a few months ago, and said regarding their goals (emphasis mine):
Part of it is expanding EPEAT's global reach through the multiple certification [process]; as well as moving into new, additional products; as well as updating the EPEAT [certifications], because they're a little long in the tooth. [Each of those] is a huge project on its own.
Regarding the second point, EPEAT checks a number of factors, such as the materials being used, packaging, energy conservation, and how serviceable the device is. Apple has received EPEAT's highest marks up until now for all of their devices that sought certification, but they're clearly interested in slimmer form factors that come at the cost of serviceability, which means that their future marks are likely to be much lower.
With regards to your drivers license example, so if I fell into the category you describe, I should just go and drive without a license anyway? Isn't that what Apple is saying with the EPEAT? I'm pretty sure the I would be in trouble for ignoring the test, regardless of how unimportant I thought it was. Likewise, ignoring the EPEAT, while not against the law, could have some very negative consequences for Apple.
With regards to Apple wanting out of EPEAT so that they can make slimmer devices, how is that any different than Ford wanting out of EPA so they can make bigger faster vehicles? I do understand Apple, wanting a thin molded on case, but surely it can be engineered so that a screwdriver can pry it off or some other method. Actually, I am quite sure it can be designed that way, which would mean Apple has a different reason than just wanting a thin device.
So you are defending Apple's position of trust me, I will make sure my products are green because they were in the past? Obviously, if Apple no longer wants to be certified as EPEAT, then there must be some change they want to make that wouldn't be compliant with EPEAT. Otherwise, why ask to be decertified? Even the Apple Response link you posted is double speak. Apple is dropping EPEAT certification because Dell isn't Energy Star listed? What's that about?
"Apple defended the move by saying their products are environmentally superior in areas not measured by EPEAT."
First line from front page of the EPEAT website:
"EPEAT is a comprehensive environmental rating..."
But if they don't meet the EPEAT standards, it could also be said that their products are environmentally inferior in areas measured by EPEAT.
If Apple products are superior to EPEAT standards, then why stop getting EPEAT certification? Apple should re-think this. Not only will government agencies and municipalities quit buying, because they are required to meet EPEAT, the environmentally concerned will, too. I can see the MIcrosoft slogan now: Save a tree, buy a Windows PC.
Assuming the Nexus 7 is the big iPad killer, or even some other android tablet. If it is locked down as the summary suggests, somebody will release a tablet that isn't locked down. Once the iPad has been knocked off the pinnacle of tablets, others will enter the market. If the market wants an unlocked tablet, they will get an unlocked tablet. Plain and simple strategy: First get people to realize that there are quality alternatives to Apple. Next offer them products that they really want. Finally offer them a product the way they want it.
If marriage isn't a right then why were mixed race marriage bans overturned? Equal protection before the law means just that. You cannot deprive one group of the privileges of another.
Those were state laws that specifically said that people of different races could not marry. No state has a law that says two men or two women cannot get married. The problem is that until recently, the states always assumed marriage was between a man and a women, so it was understood. As such, when they said a black man couldn't marry a white woman or vice-versa, that was a violation of the due process clause. Specificaly, in the Virginia case, the state did not say the couple was not married. The objection was with they were forced to leave the state because the state banned interracial marriages.
In regards to same sex marriages, there are no laws forcing same sex couples to leave the state if they get married. As for access to the rights conferred in marriage, they are all available through other legal means and have been discussed throughout this /. discussion.
As for denying privileges, well, I'm 5'7" and allways wanted to be a fighter pilot, but I was denied that. Does that mean that the air force deprived me of my right? The courts woud see it that way. BTW, my partner and I are both commercial pilots, so where as I couldn't fly military jets, commercial ones are just fine.
Yes, it is true there are some federal benefits and privileges that my partner and I don't have, but for most of them we wouldn't qualify anyway, so big deal. Our home is jointly owned. Our vehicles are jointly owned, our banking and investment is likewise. So, all of our major assets are held jointly. Health insurance is a non issue as we both work and have our insurance through our employers, which is significanlty cheaper than having him on my insurance or vice versa.
As for inheritance issues, I suggest you contact a good estate planner, most heterosexual couples pay way too much in inheritance taxes thinking that being married makes it easier. It doesn't. Estate planning should be able to get you an inheritance from your significant other tax free. There is a reason that most wealthy people don't rely on wills for their estates. Those same strategies are available for normal people, gay or straight, too.
Again speaking from actual experience, there isn't one real right of any significance that can't be accomplished legally without having to get married. I don't support discrimination, but I do have a distaste for claiming discrimination, were none actually exists.
I didn't say there was nothing wrong with a loveless marriage. However, it is not up to the government to promote love. There is nothing stopping you from spending your life with the person you love and cherish, whether male or female. I live in a state that does not recognize same sex marriage. It does not change one way how I live my life with my partner (who is the same sex, btw). The government can define marriage however they want, it is just a silly word without any real meaning. Legally, which is what rights are about, my partner and I have all of the positive benefits and rights of marriage without any of the negative ones and getting the various paperwork was a lot cheaper than a wedding. Why in the world would I want to change that? My partner and I are secure in our love for each other and don't need outside affirmation for it. Our friends are supportive, why do we care if we can say we are legally married or not? Love is not required for marriage nor is marriage required for love.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills
Yes, they exist, they also don't do all the work necessary. Children can't be handed down via will without court permission. That isn't required with marriage. Also, wills can be challenged, but marriage is almost never challenged, though in some high profile cases, marriage and the will are contested. And my father had a will and it's in probate court, so apparently a will isn't a good thing either.
There are hundreds of rights conferred via marriage that are in one easy and common contract. Some of which aren't transferrable, as hospitals allow in "family" only in many cases, and legal power of attorney apparently doesn't suffice for all such regulations.
Will or not, you will end up in probate court. Only way around that is to set up a trust. It doesn't matter if you are married or not. For children, if you are not a biological parent, you do not have a legal "right" to the children, unless you previously adopted them. Again, the same situation whether homosexual or heterosexual, married or unmarried. A court, of course, in such cases can grant custody, but again, that is no difference depending on your status. As for hospital visitations, if you have medical power of attorney you cannot be refused, unless the patient refuses to see you. A medical power of attorney actually gets you more rights than marriage. Durable power of attorney handles most other legal issues and also grants more rights than marriage.
The hundreds of other so called rights, if they aren't covered by the above (wills, adoption, durable power of attorney and medical power of attorney) probably aren't actual rights granted through the marriage contract, but instead perceived rights, which aren't really rights, but customs. In short, whether gay or straight, if you don't want to get married or aren't allowed, to have the same rights as marriage, 1) draw up a will or purchase thing jointly or form a trust with both as the trustees, adopt any children involved in the relations, both partners sign a durable power of attorney for the other one and both sign a medical power of attorney for the other one. What doesn't that get you? Well, you can't say you were married, but you do have all the same legal rights.
No, you stated that 9 murders and 2 rapes were hate crimes. The FBI statistics, state that in 2010 there were 8,208 hate crimes reported. As for whether 8,208 is a large number of hate crimes or not, well, I would suggest that 1 is 1 too many.
If the only reason the government doesn't do civil unions, is because it is too hard to change the existing statutes, then that is a weak reason. If they did recognize civil unions, it wouldn't necessarily mean more than two people. The government still would have the ability to define how many people, ages, etc.
I'm not saying that it would be easy to change the statutes, but usually anything worth doing is rarely easy.
The legal rights granted in marriage, such as next of kin can be obtained without marriage. There are things called wills or you can purchase property jointly, etc. Marriage is just one way to confer the right of inheritance, it is not the only way, nor is it even a good way (if it was, there wouldn''t be all those case going to probate court). For having a legal say while one is alive, there is the durable power of attorney and for medical decisions a medical power of attorney. With the exception of purchasing something jointly, all of these "rights" granted through the normal means are easier to rescind than through the dissoultuion of a marriage. Even heterosexuals realize that marriage is not the best way to grant rights which is why pre-nuptual agreements have become so popular. Marriage is simply a civil construct to grant a package of legal rights instead of having to grant them individually.
Why would the government pass a law prohibiting people from eating meat? Besides, there is no law prohibiting gays from getting married. There is, or has been, an understanding that marriage, at least in the US, has always been between a man and a woman. That is not the same as the government prohibiting an action, but instead an attempt of a minority to redefine what has tradtionally been the understanding.
Whether that is right or wrong is open to debate. But if we ever want a solution to a complex social problem, we can't be confusing the issue by inserting unrelated concepts (such as prohibiting) into the actual reality.
And yet the FBI reported in 2010 there were 8,208 hate crimes -- also from a quick search on wikipedia. The internet is a lot like statistics, misuse it and you can prove any point you want to make.