I can relate. It's not as much about the computer itself (though I've never been able to be as satisfied with a laptop/docking station), it's about the layout of the useful parts (monitor, keyboard, mouse). The workstation environment is not what the tablet is made for though, and in other settings I can see that being really nice (as the witty replier said, when I am consuming rather than creating).
I don't think Apple is any different than any other computer hardware or software maker. Autodesk is probably one of the worst on the software side, and the WinTel side of the PC world is pretty good at planned obsolescence as well. In fact I don't think I've ever owned a computer that after 3 years would run the latest software without dragging like a donkey. And the hardware upgrades to get to that point almost always seemed to run just a little slower with all of the latest and "greatest" software than the previous iteration. At my office I am pushing for a no software upgrade policy, as there is little benefit to stay on that train (here is where the security update side comes in and always at some point forces an upgrade).
You also need to take away a business power to meddle in government. The people that make up the corporation have the ability to vote, but the corporation should not be allowed to donate money, lobby, or otherwise influence government. Until the two are fully decoupled there is no hope. But it seems that there is always the imperative for government to regulate business as it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from corporate abuse. So there is always going to be some kind of relationship and regulation from the government, which means there is always going to be a means for corporations to influence the government. It's an idea that I struggle with when trying to identify plausible solution to the corporate control of so many aspects of our society.
I've thought that (throwing the last election): a Republican administration would continue to get hammered. But this way the Democrats can share some of the blame. Although that really just makes it more likely that a third party can actually make a decent showing (by more likely I mean going from not at all to slim).
What you say about fighting a ground war is true. Which is why fighting a ground war is not a good idea, and should not be done. The exception of course is in the event there is an invading force that you are defending against, or helping your ally defend against. This is why Gulf I was a reasonable war, but why Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not such great ideas. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was probably necessary, but stopping short of getting Bin Ladin so we could invade Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in american history, and no single person or party is to blame, rather the entire US Congress shares the blame.
If some invader came here, to the US, I would be considered an insurgent. And I would stop at nothing rather than give up fighting for my country.
That's a good one. You were joking right? If you've never been molested by the police while walking then you must be white. I would consider the right to move freely about necessary for the pursuit of happiness. And the fact that this right is not enumerated in the constitution means that you do have it, and that the government may not infringe upon it.
There's an Indian auto company that is supposedly going to sell a small diesel pickup in the US (already sells it in India of course). Can't remember the company name, but the truck is the "Taj Mahauler" which made me snort. I'd really like a small (think old Datsun) diesel pickup that was cheap.
Which will happen regardless. We can either react to it the way we have, in which case we have lost, or we can keep living our lives and valuing our liberty and ignore the lunatics.
By the constitution you have the all rights, except for those explicit areas where the Gov't is granted the power to limit your rights. If not listed, it is your right. Furthermore, in the case of the airport security the only penalty is not simply not being allowed to fly. There is a monetary penalty for refusing to be screened in addition to not being allowed to fly. And please explain how privately owned aircraft are in the governments sphere of control. If we're talking about a courthouse, or the Capitol then perhaps, but the aircraft is not a government building. The only (and very thin) connection would be air traffic control and the FAA.
Re:What's the deal with the rush of TSA stories re
on
TSA Pats Down 3-Year-Old
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This. The reactions to 9-11 have amounted to a huge win for the terrorists. Anyone who thinks their life is safer as a result of any of this (outside some provisions in the patriot with regards to information sharing amongst different agencies) is a tool.
Re:it's really not that kind of test
on
2010 Geek IQ Test
·
· Score: 1
Anyone preferring imports is just drinking a heavily preserved beer that would most likely not be legal to sell in the home country (at least in Germany). The best beer is going to be a locally brewed variety, especially at the tap room, that has not been preserved. For that reason alone Budwiser is not so bad, as at least it is not preserved. Not that I would drink it, as I live near too many very fine breweries.
You can't really blame the wars on the GOP though. Surely the whole of congress that voted to allow the administration to declare war in Iraq has some culpability, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld for pushing bad intelligence, or badly representing what the intelligence actually said. The Dems are equally responsible for their lack of critical thought.
I think we are mostly in agreement. A thought experiment I like to do is think about computers and the state of personal computers if in 1985 computer insurance companies were set up to make sure that everyone could get a computer. I don't think we would see nearly the price drop we have, nor would we see the vast improvement in computing power that we have in 25 years.
So, by this, would you say that the Republican party has been overrun by liberals? In the US the churches (Catholic is the one I see the most, but all Christian) seem to lean heavily to the Republican side, and are very intent on basing laws on their own ideologies (abortion and gay marriage to name two examples). What you say regarding the Taliban in my mind parallels this view among US Christians. Note that there are exceptions, my parents for instance, but they are few in my experience.
Riches or no we all suffer. Life is suffering. Insurance or not we all die. I haven had insurance for my entire adault life, and I am terminally ill. I could with insurance perhaps extend my life by 10 years and drain millions from the pool. Would the quality of my life as a whole be better or worse if I had that option? I say worse. I make less than 20 an hour and am quite happy. I don't need or want the medical establishment involved in my life or death. I choose all of what I have and accept my fate, whatever it may be.
I expect that kind of bs here, but honestly thought you were above that. I don't want anyone to suffer and did not say that. My position is that we have a corrupt (greed) medical system. I choose not to give money to it. I am now being forced to. If we can't vote with our dollars how can we possibly be heard?
Firstly, you're positing that a solution is possible, and that if we all just agree to what we have now it will somehow get better. That I most strenuouly disagree with. What I do agree with is that the kind of care, minimal, that we get is extremely expensive. I keep saying that my solution is not going to be acceptable to most people, and you keep essentially agreeing with me. But somehow you think you're going to inform me of something. I'm still waiting to see what that is. I guess you're trying to convert me to your religion.
There are a lot of ifs in there. Some of them are not appropriate and change the point substantially. Quit putting hypotheticals into my statement. "At that point, if you are unable to afford the care provided . . . " I will pay for my care, and in the event something like that happens I will chose to leave and not have care in a hospital as soon as I can. As this has happened to me I do know that it will work. I have my own health care practitioners to go to. The solution I choose I have already said will be objectionable to most people. You began this by attacking me (sitting in the corner reciting my mantra). We do have a choice, and you could decide not to use expensive medical treatments. It is very simple in the end. Even in the event that everyone has insurance, that money will be used to treat a small percentage of the population. If you think that in your magical solution everyone will be afforded equal or even competent care you are fooling yourself.
Perhaps in the generic case you are correct: the insured pay for the non-insured. But you are incorrect to extend that to me personally, as I would pay for any treatment that I chose to receive.
My solution is consistent with my objection. I do not use insurance companies, I do not visit traditional doctors, and I do not go to the hospital for care. My statement that "if no one had health insurance the medical industry would find a way" comes from experience and seeing health care adapt and find a way. Of course this excludes MRIs and TomoTherapy and numerous other treatments that are highly specialized. The fact is that with a vast pool of money available (the insurance pool) there are going to be many people unwilling to lower their service rates, as there is little incentive. I understand that for this to change society as a whole will have to change and no longer seek to accumulate wealth as a personal goal. This will undoubtedly not occur in my lifetime, and probably won't ever occur. But that does not stop me from living according to my own principles. I doubt very much that you have anything that you could explain to me, but I am reading each of your posts to try to glean any information within them. So far I am left with nothing, but didn't expect it in the first place. It is your choice to either support the system or not. Your choosing to support it even though you want something else will never lead to change. By not supporting it despite knowing I have a better chance at winning Power Ball than effecting change, I am living consistent with my beliefs. If you are comfortable with your own situation that is good, but don't try to tell me that I have not proposed a solution consistent with my objection . . . I am living a solution that is consistent with my objection.
Slashdot Mirror
I can relate. It's not as much about the computer itself (though I've never been able to be as satisfied with a laptop/docking station), it's about the layout of the useful parts (monitor, keyboard, mouse). The workstation environment is not what the tablet is made for though, and in other settings I can see that being really nice (as the witty replier said, when I am consuming rather than creating).
I don't think Apple is any different than any other computer hardware or software maker. Autodesk is probably one of the worst on the software side, and the WinTel side of the PC world is pretty good at planned obsolescence as well. In fact I don't think I've ever owned a computer that after 3 years would run the latest software without dragging like a donkey. And the hardware upgrades to get to that point almost always seemed to run just a little slower with all of the latest and "greatest" software than the previous iteration. At my office I am pushing for a no software upgrade policy, as there is little benefit to stay on that train (here is where the security update side comes in and always at some point forces an upgrade).
You also need to take away a business power to meddle in government. The people that make up the corporation have the ability to vote, but the corporation should not be allowed to donate money, lobby, or otherwise influence government. Until the two are fully decoupled there is no hope. But it seems that there is always the imperative for government to regulate business as it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from corporate abuse. So there is always going to be some kind of relationship and regulation from the government, which means there is always going to be a means for corporations to influence the government. It's an idea that I struggle with when trying to identify plausible solution to the corporate control of so many aspects of our society.
I've thought that (throwing the last election): a Republican administration would continue to get hammered. But this way the Democrats can share some of the blame. Although that really just makes it more likely that a third party can actually make a decent showing (by more likely I mean going from not at all to slim).
What you say about fighting a ground war is true. Which is why fighting a ground war is not a good idea, and should not be done. The exception of course is in the event there is an invading force that you are defending against, or helping your ally defend against. This is why Gulf I was a reasonable war, but why Viet Nam, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not such great ideas. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was probably necessary, but stopping short of getting Bin Ladin so we could invade Iraq was the worst foreign policy decision in american history, and no single person or party is to blame, rather the entire US Congress shares the blame.
If some invader came here, to the US, I would be considered an insurgent. And I would stop at nothing rather than give up fighting for my country.
That's a good one. You were joking right? If you've never been molested by the police while walking then you must be white. I would consider the right to move freely about necessary for the pursuit of happiness. And the fact that this right is not enumerated in the constitution means that you do have it, and that the government may not infringe upon it.
Presumably this certainty is a result of the inability and or unwillingness of [you/Dell] to fix the problem, rather than the starting position.
There's an Indian auto company that is supposedly going to sell a small diesel pickup in the US (already sells it in India of course). Can't remember the company name, but the truck is the "Taj Mahauler" which made me snort. I'd really like a small (think old Datsun) diesel pickup that was cheap.
Which will happen regardless. We can either react to it the way we have, in which case we have lost, or we can keep living our lives and valuing our liberty and ignore the lunatics.
By the constitution you have the all rights, except for those explicit areas where the Gov't is granted the power to limit your rights. If not listed, it is your right. Furthermore, in the case of the airport security the only penalty is not simply not being allowed to fly. There is a monetary penalty for refusing to be screened in addition to not being allowed to fly. And please explain how privately owned aircraft are in the governments sphere of control. If we're talking about a courthouse, or the Capitol then perhaps, but the aircraft is not a government building. The only (and very thin) connection would be air traffic control and the FAA.
This. The reactions to 9-11 have amounted to a huge win for the terrorists. Anyone who thinks their life is safer as a result of any of this (outside some provisions in the patriot with regards to information sharing amongst different agencies) is a tool.
Anyone preferring imports is just drinking a heavily preserved beer that would most likely not be legal to sell in the home country (at least in Germany). The best beer is going to be a locally brewed variety, especially at the tap room, that has not been preserved. For that reason alone Budwiser is not so bad, as at least it is not preserved. Not that I would drink it, as I live near too many very fine breweries.
Holy shit that's funny.
n/t
You can't really blame the wars on the GOP though. Surely the whole of congress that voted to allow the administration to declare war in Iraq has some culpability, along with Cheney and Rumsfeld for pushing bad intelligence, or badly representing what the intelligence actually said. The Dems are equally responsible for their lack of critical thought.
I think we are mostly in agreement. A thought experiment I like to do is think about computers and the state of personal computers if in 1985 computer insurance companies were set up to make sure that everyone could get a computer. I don't think we would see nearly the price drop we have, nor would we see the vast improvement in computing power that we have in 25 years.
I think we already have this show, it's called Jerry Springer.
So, by this, would you say that the Republican party has been overrun by liberals? In the US the churches (Catholic is the one I see the most, but all Christian) seem to lean heavily to the Republican side, and are very intent on basing laws on their own ideologies (abortion and gay marriage to name two examples). What you say regarding the Taliban in my mind parallels this view among US Christians. Note that there are exceptions, my parents for instance, but they are few in my experience.
Riches or no we all suffer. Life is suffering. Insurance or not we all die. I haven had insurance for my entire adault life, and I am terminally ill. I could with insurance perhaps extend my life by 10 years and drain millions from the pool. Would the quality of my life as a whole be better or worse if I had that option? I say worse. I make less than 20 an hour and am quite happy. I don't need or want the medical establishment involved in my life or death. I choose all of what I have and accept my fate, whatever it may be.
I expect that kind of bs here, but honestly thought you were above that. I don't want anyone to suffer and did not say that. My position is that we have a corrupt (greed) medical system. I choose not to give money to it. I am now being forced to. If we can't vote with our dollars how can we possibly be heard?
Firstly, you're positing that a solution is possible, and that if we all just agree to what we have now it will somehow get better. That I most strenuouly disagree with. What I do agree with is that the kind of care, minimal, that we get is extremely expensive. I keep saying that my solution is not going to be acceptable to most people, and you keep essentially agreeing with me. But somehow you think you're going to inform me of something. I'm still waiting to see what that is. I guess you're trying to convert me to your religion.
There are a lot of ifs in there. Some of them are not appropriate and change the point substantially. Quit putting hypotheticals into my statement. "At that point, if you are unable to afford the care provided . . . " I will pay for my care, and in the event something like that happens I will chose to leave and not have care in a hospital as soon as I can. As this has happened to me I do know that it will work. I have my own health care practitioners to go to. The solution I choose I have already said will be objectionable to most people. You began this by attacking me (sitting in the corner reciting my mantra). We do have a choice, and you could decide not to use expensive medical treatments. It is very simple in the end. Even in the event that everyone has insurance, that money will be used to treat a small percentage of the population. If you think that in your magical solution everyone will be afforded equal or even competent care you are fooling yourself.
Perhaps in the generic case you are correct: the insured pay for the non-insured. But you are incorrect to extend that to me personally, as I would pay for any treatment that I chose to receive.
Other than that I agree with you.
On this we are in total agreement, which surprises me a little bit. Cheers.
My solution is consistent with my objection. I do not use insurance companies, I do not visit traditional doctors, and I do not go to the hospital for care. My statement that "if no one had health insurance the medical industry would find a way" comes from experience and seeing health care adapt and find a way. Of course this excludes MRIs and TomoTherapy and numerous other treatments that are highly specialized. The fact is that with a vast pool of money available (the insurance pool) there are going to be many people unwilling to lower their service rates, as there is little incentive. I understand that for this to change society as a whole will have to change and no longer seek to accumulate wealth as a personal goal. This will undoubtedly not occur in my lifetime, and probably won't ever occur. But that does not stop me from living according to my own principles. I doubt very much that you have anything that you could explain to me, but I am reading each of your posts to try to glean any information within them. So far I am left with nothing, but didn't expect it in the first place. It is your choice to either support the system or not. Your choosing to support it even though you want something else will never lead to change. By not supporting it despite knowing I have a better chance at winning Power Ball than effecting change, I am living consistent with my beliefs. If you are comfortable with your own situation that is good, but don't try to tell me that I have not proposed a solution consistent with my objection . . . I am living a solution that is consistent with my objection.