in the State of Michigan the yearly increase in "taxable value" for property taxes is capped to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. This cap is removed when a property sale occurs, so the new owner pays based on the actual "assessed value." The net effect is that for equally valuable property, newly purchased property has higher taxes than property which has had the same owner for years.
Under your argument and Kelo, it appears that government could use eminent domain to force the sale of properties (government buys, then resells to the same or another party), effectively circumventing that cap. The public benefit would be increased tax revenue.
Is that correct, and if not what argument do you offer which is not at odds with Kelo?
it evolved, just as cities (and more generally, societies) have evolved. It's a natural evolution because there are economies involved with those formations which are not available to isolated individuals. The enabling technologies were invented and developed - the end result was not an invention, so no one can be said to have "invented" it. Internet protocols (IP, TCP, HTTP, etc) were invented, but they are not the Internet, if they were, every person or country could have their own "Internet."
The Internet is the result of the voluntary interconnection of a bunch of independent networks, based upon a.common set of protocols. It's the closest the modern world has come to anarchy - there is a hierarchy of technology which supports it, but real control is dispersed, because participation is by voluntary consent. Someone doesn't like the way it works - fine, here's some tools, they can go off and build their own. And that can even work, if enough people agree that's what is useful to them ( http://www.internet2.org/ ). But more likely, they'll quickly come to the realization that the Internet isn't technology or even a network, it's communications amongst consenting peers. It's part of the evolutionary path human communications has taken.
Yes, cars were invented. They myriad ways we use cars evolved from that invention.
the US didn't invent the Internet, because the Internet is not a thing, but a concept.
The US funded the research which created the protocols upon which the Internet is based. The Internet first existed in the US, but it wasn't invented, it evolved.
The Internet itself is simply a bunch of individual networks which have agreed to connect together using those protocols. For that reason, any attempt to "control" it is fatally flawed. There's nothing to control. One can presume to "take control" of the DNS "root servers," but there's nothing preventing someone else from creating their own set. Who wins depends strictly upon which set the individual networks point to, and no one has control over that decision except the individual network admins.
Let the Euros piss and moan, after which if they don't like the US influence over the Internet, they can instead join Fidonet http://www.fidonet.us/joinfido.htm:)
where business is the government. Here in the US, businesses such as eBay get to set their own rules for the most part. The US government has done nothing to prevent you from using the Internet to bid on adult items on eBay.
Perhaps, but the exact claim was "This kit is not new...," which is incorrect, as has been shown. You're talking about things which are not "this kit."
Kits will begin shipping on November 1, 2005. E Ink is currently accepting pre-orders for kits, which will be filled on a first-come first-served basis.
If they want to play the game of unintended consequences, try this...
Rip and burn from one of these DRM'd pieces of plastic, then make lots of copies on audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for less than $1 each. Give (do not sell) those copies to all of your friends. It's all perfectly legal in the US.
When you buy audio CD-R media, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) by law. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
[emphasis added]
So, copy and distribute (noncommercially) all you want!
Fact: The keyboard was by far the most reviled part of the PET. Commodore was a calculator manufacturer, and the PET keyboard used the same (poor) style key mechanisms as the cheap calculators Commodore produced (aka "chicklet keyboard"). It could include a numeric keypad because the key spacing on the rest of they keyboard was significantly smaller that the norm. Touch typing was extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Claim: lots of room for an additional RAM or Processor board
Fact: Well, there was physical room, but that was it - there was no internal access to the microprocessor bus (all expansion was intended to be external to the unit, so expansion was difficult). The principal means of I/O expansion, via a (non-standard) IEEE-488 bus, was difficult to work with, and resulted in expensive peripherals.
Claim: several expansion ports including an RS232 (serial) port
Fact: The original PET did NOT have an RS232, or even serial, port. At the time, I built quite a few pseudo-RS232 hardware interfaces which allowed one to "bit bang" the parallel "User Port" to talk to a modem.
Claim: ability to handle and create fantastic graphics
Fact: The PET used character graphics, and so was limited to what the ROM provided in this regard. It was better than the TRS-80, however. The best graphical program for the PET was probably "Toker II," and the amazing thing was not the graphics, per se, but just the fact that it could be done on a PET.
Claim: upper and lower case text
Fact: Only when not using graphics. One had a choice of uppercase and graphics, or upper and lower case text. (POKE 59468,14) AIR, something which was uppercase in graphics mode was lowercase in text mode.
Claim: The Pet was considerably cheaper then the Apple II - initially $499 and then $595
Fact: That was the pricing for the 4K model, but good luck finding one. Commodore only shipped a few. At the time, I worked for the largest Commodore retailer east of the Mississippi (NCE Compumart), and only ever saw a handful of 4K PETs. The vast majority of PETs were the $795 8K model.
Claim:You could upgrade the Pet with memory chips in a similar fashion to the Apple II, but it was not as "user servicable" as the Apple. But the same process was involved - plop in more chips.
Fact: Absolutely untrue. The original PET used non standard static RAMs (6550s) available only from MOS Technology (the chip manufacturer which Commodore owned). All RAM was soldered directly to the motherboard, not socketed. On the 4K PETs, Commodore even went so far as to drill through the PC board locations where the additional memory chips might have otherwise been installed in order to prevent user expansion. Apple used industry standard 4K and 16K Dynamic RAMs, which were not only readily available from multiple sources, but significantly less expensive than static RAM. Every Apple 2 could easily be expanded to 48K simply by installing the appropriate chips in the socketed motherboard.
Claim: You could buy a Pet PLUS a floppy drive for less then an Apple II with *no* peripherals.
Wrong. Commodore's first disk drive, the 2040, cost more than the computer itself, originally selling for $1195 - as much as a 16K Apple 2 (1979). It couldn't handle random access files and was unreliable. It was also significantly slower than the competition, including Apple, North Star, and Cromemco (the latter being two popular S-100 disk controllers). The Apple Disk sold for $595, a breakthrough price at the time. To be fair, the 2040 was a dual drive, but that was an extravagance at the time.
The C64 didn't ship until 1982 (5 years after the ones I mentioned!) was basically a toy and wasn't competitive for serious applications. Yes, it sold lots. It was cheap (not inexpensive
"The Macintosh was not the first personal computer
on
The Future of the iPod
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, no, but the Apple 2 arguably was. Its shipment was about the same time as the Commodore PET and the TRS-80 (1977), and it became the most successful of the three (measured by longevity, if not $ sales). What differentiated these from other microcomputers available at the time was that they were useful out of the box, with keyboard input, video out, BASIC in ROM and a storage interface (cassette tape).
The Apple 2 was the only one of these which was fully documented - it came with full schematics and Apple encouraged development using the expansion slots (bus). Apple even provided a source code listing of the monitor ROM (BIOS). It was also the only one of the three which was easily upgradable in memory (just add/change memory chips) and the only one to support color and bit mapped graphics. It was the first to offer a reasonably priced floppy disk drive and to take advantage of a switching power supply. The very first "killer app," Visicalc, was introduced first for the Apple 2.
It not not currently in Microsoft's best interest to support OpenDocument. If they loose marketshare to alternatives which do, it will at some point be in their best interest to do so.
It behooves those who desire unrestricted interchange of information to help make proper support of OpenDocument become of interest to MS.
This move by MA is a step in the right direction, away from proprietary formats.
Visicalc was exclusive to the Apple ][ when it was released. The version for the "Trash 80" didn't come for almost a year.
It was not Visicalc alone which made the Apple ][ successful, although it did significantly raise awareness of microcomputers in the mainstream. Prior to Visicalc, the market was mostly hobbiests and bleeding edge early adopters.
What made the Apple ][ successful was the combination of an all-in-one computer except display), color support, a low cost and reliable disk drive, a good selection of useful applications, (including Visicalc and Applewriter), and most importantly, a flexible and well documented hardware expansion bus. It's biggest deficiency was lack of 80 column and lowercase text support, which quickly became available with add-ins and later on the//e.
The TRS-80 was popular because it was cheap, it sold for $600 with display when Apple ][s were selling for almost $1000 without a display.
Slashdot Mirror
Under your argument and Kelo, it appears that government could use eminent domain to force the sale of properties (government buys, then resells to the same or another party), effectively circumventing that cap. The public benefit would be increased tax revenue.
Is that correct, and if not what argument do you offer which is not at odds with Kelo?
What's next, turn down service?
The Internet is the result of the voluntary interconnection of a bunch of independent networks, based upon a.common set of protocols. It's the closest the modern world has come to anarchy - there is a hierarchy of technology which supports it, but real control is dispersed, because participation is by voluntary consent. Someone doesn't like the way it works - fine, here's some tools, they can go off and build their own. And that can even work, if enough people agree that's what is useful to them ( http://www.internet2.org/ ). But more likely, they'll quickly come to the realization that the Internet isn't technology or even a network, it's communications amongst consenting peers. It's part of the evolutionary path human communications has taken.
Yes, cars were invented. They myriad ways we use cars evolved from that invention.
Or maybe it's more like Myxomycophyta ( http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/slimemolds.h tml ), in that the most interesting thing is the sum of the whole, not the components.
hint: http://www.darpa.mil/
The US funded the research which created the protocols upon which the Internet is based. The Internet first existed in the US, but it wasn't invented, it evolved.
The Internet itself is simply a bunch of individual networks which have agreed to connect together using those protocols. For that reason, any attempt to "control" it is fatally flawed. There's nothing to control. One can presume to "take control" of the DNS "root servers," but there's nothing preventing someone else from creating their own set. Who wins depends strictly upon which set the individual networks point to, and no one has control over that decision except the individual network admins.
Let the Euros piss and moan, after which if they don't like the US influence over the Internet, they can instead join Fidonet http://www.fidonet.us/joinfido.htm :)
I'd expect him to chose the $30 POTS line instead of the much more expensive and/or unreliable VoIP.
where business is the government. Here in the US, businesses such as eBay get to set their own rules for the most part. The US government has done nothing to prevent you from using the Internet to bid on adult items on eBay.
Perhaps, but the exact claim was "This kit is not new...," which is incorrect, as has been shown. You're talking about things which are not "this kit."
a automobile plant is alive? When more complex nanotech becomes reality (self-replication), man can claim to have created life?
Yeah, right. Like a 128x92 screen is as useable as a 1600x1200 one.
because it doesn't - fire certainly responds to its environment (wind, water) in addition to reproducing.
It metabolizes carbon and oxygen, and can reproduct, even grow.
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.ht ml
Rip and burn from one of these DRM'd pieces of plastic, then make lots of copies on audio CD-Rs, which can be purchased for less than $1 each. Give (do not sell) those copies to all of your friends. It's all perfectly legal in the US.
When you buy audio CD-R media, you're automatically paying a royalty tax (3% of wholesale) by law. The RIAA should be more careful about what it wishes for - they pushed for the legislation which allows this.
18 USC, Chapter 10, Subchapter A, Section 1008 specifically states:
[emphasis added]
So, copy and distribute (noncommercially) all you want!
Albedo != libedo.
Claim: a keyboard with a separate numeric pad
Fact: The keyboard was by far the most reviled part of the PET. Commodore was a calculator manufacturer, and the PET keyboard used the same (poor) style key mechanisms as the cheap calculators Commodore produced (aka "chicklet keyboard"). It could include a numeric keypad because the key spacing on the rest of they keyboard was significantly smaller that the norm. Touch typing was extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Claim: lots of room for an additional RAM or Processor board
Fact: Well, there was physical room, but that was it - there was no internal access to the microprocessor bus (all expansion was intended to be external to the unit, so expansion was difficult). The principal means of I/O expansion, via a (non-standard) IEEE-488 bus, was difficult to work with, and resulted in expensive peripherals.
Claim: several expansion ports including an RS232 (serial) port
Fact: The original PET did NOT have an RS232, or even serial, port. At the time, I built quite a few pseudo-RS232 hardware interfaces which allowed one to "bit bang" the parallel "User Port" to talk to a modem.
Claim: ability to handle and create fantastic graphics
Fact: The PET used character graphics, and so was limited to what the ROM provided in this regard. It was better than the TRS-80, however. The best graphical program for the PET was probably "Toker II," and the amazing thing was not the graphics, per se, but just the fact that it could be done on a PET.
Claim: upper and lower case text
Fact: Only when not using graphics. One had a choice of uppercase and graphics, or upper and lower case text. (POKE 59468,14) AIR, something which was uppercase in graphics mode was lowercase in text mode.
Claim: The Pet was considerably cheaper then the Apple II - initially $499 and then $595
Fact: That was the pricing for the 4K model, but good luck finding one. Commodore only shipped a few. At the time, I worked for the largest Commodore retailer east of the Mississippi (NCE Compumart), and only ever saw a handful of 4K PETs. The vast majority of PETs were the $795 8K model.
Claim:You could upgrade the Pet with memory chips in a similar fashion to the Apple II, but it was not as "user servicable" as the Apple. But the same process was involved - plop in more chips.
Fact: Absolutely untrue. The original PET used non standard static RAMs (6550s) available only from MOS Technology (the chip manufacturer which Commodore owned). All RAM was soldered directly to the motherboard, not socketed. On the 4K PETs, Commodore even went so far as to drill through the PC board locations where the additional memory chips might have otherwise been installed in order to prevent user expansion. Apple used industry standard 4K and 16K Dynamic RAMs, which were not only readily available from multiple sources, but significantly less expensive than static RAM. Every Apple 2 could easily be expanded to 48K simply by installing the appropriate chips in the socketed motherboard.
Claim: You could buy a Pet PLUS a floppy drive for less then an Apple II with *no* peripherals.
Wrong. Commodore's first disk drive, the 2040, cost more than the computer itself, originally selling for $1195 - as much as a 16K Apple 2 (1979). It couldn't handle random access files and was unreliable. It was also significantly slower than the competition, including Apple, North Star, and Cromemco (the latter being two popular S-100 disk controllers). The Apple Disk sold for $595, a breakthrough price at the time. To be fair, the 2040 was a dual drive, but that was an extravagance at the time.
The C64 didn't ship until 1982 (5 years after the ones I mentioned!) was basically a toy and wasn't competitive for serious applications. Yes, it sold lots. It was cheap (not inexpensive
The Apple 2 was the only one of these which was fully documented - it came with full schematics and Apple encouraged development using the expansion slots (bus). Apple even provided a source code listing of the monitor ROM (BIOS). It was also the only one of the three which was easily upgradable in memory (just add/change memory chips) and the only one to support color and bit mapped graphics. It was the first to offer a reasonably priced floppy disk drive and to take advantage of a switching power supply. The very first "killer app," Visicalc, was introduced first for the Apple 2.
802.11-eh?
Markup is profit/cost.
ex. $1 items sells for $1.50. Margin is 0.50/1.50, or 33%. Markup is 0.50/1.00, or 50%. One cannot have a margin of more than 100%.
The original statement, that MS had a 72% margin, is correct.
This is high school business stuff.
It behooves those who desire unrestricted interchange of information to help make proper support of OpenDocument become of interest to MS.
This move by MA is a step in the right direction, away from proprietary formats.
http://www.atariarchives.org/bcc1/showpage.php?pag e=247
It was not Visicalc alone which made the Apple ][ successful, although it did significantly raise awareness of microcomputers in the mainstream. Prior to Visicalc, the market was mostly hobbiests and bleeding edge early adopters.
What made the Apple ][ successful was the combination of an all-in-one computer except display), color support, a low cost and reliable disk drive, a good selection of useful applications, (including Visicalc and Applewriter), and most importantly, a flexible and well documented hardware expansion bus. It's biggest deficiency was lack of 80 column and lowercase text support, which quickly became available with add-ins and later on the //e.
The TRS-80 was popular because it was cheap, it sold for $600 with display when Apple ][s were selling for almost $1000 without a display.
US gasoline taxes average around 0.05 Euro per liter. If I'm not mistaken, the Netherlands imposes a tax of around 0.70 per liter.
...or maybe it's just one of those ridiculous meta-comments. :-)