That's a true statement. Communism does not, in theory, require censoring information, oppressing people, and opposing all change and progress. But for some reason, whenever and wherever it has been implemented, it has involved these things.
Perhaps it's because the rigid top-down political structure that always seems to accompany it lends itself to these kind of abuses. Perhaps it's that people who implement communism feel that the common man is too stupid to be trusted, and must be censured and controlled.
Whatever the reason, that fact that these things always seem to be associated with communism does indicate that they're connected.
So, I take it you don't understand that the US has very similar laws to Europe and the rest of the world. This isn't a case of an "Arrogant American Company" not following laws. This is a case of the laws not being well-defined. In the past, Google had the policy that if the trademark holder complained, they would disable the keyword. But now, they've decided that they don't want to do that, and it's up to the courts to decide whether or not that is lawful.
The fact that European courts seem to have ruled differently from US courts strange. The result in this French case seems specifically designed to prevent competition between brands. I don't know why they would rule this way, since it stifles competition and hurts the consumer in the end. That is to say that this ruling hurts the common people, who Europeans claim to care about so very much. This is yet another example of why Europe has a weak economy. The government goes above and beyond it's duty to protect people, and ends up hurting business. This is also an excellent example of a French court ruling in favor of a French brand, to the detriment of reason. It seems that their only reason for doing this is their desire to rule against a successful American corporation.
Well, Burt Rutan did it for $10 million. Do you think NASA could pull off a similar feat today for that price? I think it costs them more than that to develop a toilet (granted, a space toilet is a fairly complex thing).
Right, sure. A 16 year old has never been tried as an adult before. A potential $2000 fine and 180 day prison sentence is outrageous.
You can get a misdemeanor for a moving violation for god sake. It think it is clear that you're the one who doesn't understand the scope an impact of this crime (that is to say, it's not a very serious charge).
Yeah, it makes sense given the situation at NASA at the time, but it's still bad management.
At the university I attend, teachers always complain that using the motor pool for field trips causes their department to be billed. They say that it's already paid for, and it doesn't make any difference whether they use them or not. But the fact is, usage is the reason the motor pool exists, and it's important that the cost of that usage be distributed to the departments which use it. Otherwise, you get an inaccurate picture of how many resources each department is using. You get budgetary decisions that don't make any sense. Basically, you get something like the Shuttle Program.
"Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the NASA estimate for a shuttle mission needed clarification. In answer to committee budget questions in 2002, Mr. O'Keefe wrote that the cost of the shuttle mission was included in the long-term budget of the space flight office, not the science budget.
Dr. Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said previous shuttle missions to the telescope were charged in the $300 million to $400 million range, which was acceptable to scientists. If the cost suddenly went above $1 billion, Dr. Beckwith said, he would have to reconsider his strong support for a service mission."
So the Hubbell costs $300 million to service when you don't add the cost of the shuttle flight? I can't believe that NASA ever tracked the cost of their programs this way. Does it make any sense not to include the cost of the shuttle flight in the Science budget if that is the only purpose for the shuttle flight?
I don't get it. Are you saying that Watergate would've been okay if it had been perpetrated by 16 year olds? Or that since watergate involved trained CIA agents, it must be impossible for a 16 year old to steal information? Perhaps you mean that it's only wrong to steal information if you are a CIA agent, or are in some way connected to the CIA? Are you saying that 16 year olds cannot commit crimes?
Any way you look at it, you're wrong, misguided and stupid. This kid intentionally stole information for the purpose of cheating on a test. That was illegal, dishonest, and stupid. He should definitely be punished.
I forget which rumor site says it, but the best time to buy a computer that fits your needs now is now. I don't see any reason not to buy today. Products scale incrementally except for processor change like G4-G5, which don't come along very often. Even if Apple released a G5 PowerBook today, it'd be better to wait a few months for Apple to work out the issues. They won't leave you out in the cold if you buy a computer with problems, but it's annoying to have to get it repaired, even if you don't have to pay for it.
I find that it's best to wait until a product comes along that makes you want to upgrade. Anticipating specific future products leads to long waits and disappointment when the final product isn't what you expect. If the PowerBook is compelling to you now, you should buy it now. You won't regret it. If it's not, then wait until Apple releases something you want to buy (if you're waiting for a PowerBook G5 specifically, you could be waiting a long time).
"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals."
Unless there have been huge leaps in our understanding of biology and chemistry, as well as huge advances in mathematics and computer science and increases in computer manufacturing technology-that I am not aware of, this last statement is most certainly not true. If a computer model could replace animal testing, it would be done. Do people just think that scientists enjoy torturing innocent animals"
Honestly, the absurdity of this argument is appalling. There are two alternatives to animal testing, human testing and no testing.
Of course, crime prevention is also not as bad as you think. So you're on (approximately) the same level as the person you're replying to.
You point out a few specific occasions where police power was abused, but on many more occasions, police power is not abused. This is not unlike the media's coverage of crime. Any time a pretty woman is murdered in this country, you hear about it. But there is hardly anything in the news about pretty women not getting murdered (which is much, much more common).
I suggest we dispense with unnecessary paranoia altogether.
I'll tell you what. I have a 400Mhz G4 with 512MB ram. I use it for programming, 3D visitation, and photo editing (but not video editing or DVD encoding). I've been thinking about upgrading to 1Gb, but I just can't justify it. I never run into issues with memory swapping. Maybe it's just that my system is so slow that it never runs into a problem, but I'd doubt that'd be much different than on a mac mini.
If I were buying a mac mini, I'd start with 512, and then upgrade from there if I needed to. If a 512MB chip costs $75 and a 1GB costs $225, then the odds that you'd need to upgrade would have to be 66% before you were justified in starting out with 1GB.
if x is the probability you'd need to upgrade then using the relation:
75(x)=(225-75)(1-x)
(75 is the added cost if you later need to upgrade, 225 - 75 is the added cost if you upgraded but you didn't need to)
and solving for x you get
x = 2/3
Speaking from personal experience, I expect that the probability you will need to upgrade is less than 66%. But if you're not sure, you could try out a mac mini (or some equivalent system) with 512MB at an apple store and see what you think.
It's to "Authors and Inventors", and it doesn't say that they should give the right's exclusively to authors of useful Art, it says the purpose of the provision is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". This means that they might have been thinking that it would apply to all arts and inventions, (since the definition of "useful" is somewhat subjective) in order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
And I don't know about your limited time argument, you can profit from something now based on it's future value, so extending copyright after the authors death is not necessary unreasonable.
If the ads are relevant to you information search, why should they not be considered search results. Google gives you ads that it thinks you're interested in based on your search criteria, so in a way they are search results. Often the ads seem more relevant to my searches then the actual search results.
Damn straight. It's unbelievable how many people seem to think that we can switch to solar/wind and start walking right now and it won't cause any problems. More surprising still is the number of people who then go on to say that we need to take care of our poor. Who do you think these environmentally friendly policies will hurt the worst? The poor. The people who lack the resources to live in the new eco-friendly world. If you think that increased social spending can make up for the kind of problems this would cause, you should consider the countries of China and North Korea (not to mention the former Soviet Union) for examples of what excessive government social spending can do to a country.
Rash action is only likely to make the problem worse. We need a slow transition to more environmentally friendly technologies, and that is exactly what is happening. Technological advances in materials (like plastics and carbon-fiber) have made production much less energy-intensive. Incremental advances in engine and automotive design have made transportation more energy efficient. Hydrogen technology has the potential to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels (though petroleum products like plastics aren't going away any time soon). Solar panels and wind-mills are a more efficient power source than ever.
Politicians need to stop proposing doomsday scenarios and start working proactively with industry to resolve these problems.
Is this like one of these advertisements that says you can get it for only two easy payments of 9.95?
Seriously though, you're going to pay for it one way or another. What's the difference between paying once in taxes and again to use the information and just paying it all in taxes? People complain about the strangest things.
Companies do (often) spend money on projects without a guaranteed return. The problem is that they will only spend a small amount on such projects, and they often demand intellectual property rights in return. It can also be seen in the form of underwriting (happens a lot in universities) which companies do for PR reasons.
Also, there are cases where this kind research happens in private industry. For example, Space Ship One was developed with the help of a $10 million investment from Paul Allen, even though he was unlikely to earn a return on this investment. It's true that you won't see corporations doing this kind of thing, but wealthy individuals will invest in these projects if they want to see the research get done.
I've seen people argue that companies would do the research more efficiently than the government. And that if the government didn't tax the economy in order to do research, companies would do it themselves (because they would have more money to invest in future earnings). But the government spends ten times as much on social programs as on R&D, so I can't imagine that cutting government R&D would have a noteworthy effect. Now, cutting social spending, that's where the real money is at.
Also, perhaps if IP laws were such that companies could make money on really long-term research, that might help with the problem. Perhaps, you could say that a patent is only worth some multiple of what the R&D cost, and that amount increases over time.
Broadband technology is not ready for HD content delivery. The fastest systems could just barely deliver 640x480 in real time. That means you could download HD in 1/4 time (approximately). Care to wait 12 hours to download The Return of the King? Jobs knows better than to bring a product to market before it is ready. The only way this could work is with higher compression, or some kind of groundbreaking broadband technology.
Though I do agree that there is more to the Mac Mini than Jobs is letting on.
Re:iMac mini NEEDS a PC card slot
on
Mac mini Dissection
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"they have the same weight and size as the iMAc mini. Only the videocard is better in the iMac mini, otherwise ePC-2-3 are better, more ports (e-PC3-2 firewire, 4Highspeed USB, serial, parallel,video out AND A PC CARD SLOT. IN ADDITION USERS ARE ALLOWED TO OPEN THE BOX"
Well, that's all well and good if you only want ports, but lets look at the facts.
Okay, first of all, you're not "paying federal taxes to fund tax cuts for the rich." That is an absurd piece of political rhetoric that is as nonsensical as it is false. The wealthy people in this country are taxed at a higher rate than the non-wealthy, first of all. Secondly, almost every tax cut I've seen cuts more of the tax burden from people making less than average income than from people making more than average income. It's only through obscure statistical voodoo that people can claim that the Bush tax cut only saves money for wealthy.
Fairness is central to the idea of Social Security. It is the notion that everyone is entitled enjoy a fair standard of living in retirement, regardless of their current financial situation. All I'm saying is that it is not fair to deny people the choice of participating social security. I'm sure that I can do a better job with my money than the government can, and I think I should be allowed that choice.
No, social security is not fine. It may be solvent, but it's not fair that everyone it forced to pay into a social security system that not everyone wants.
Besides, that article is filled with misleading statements. For example, it says that personal accounts would yield typically 4.5% where as social security yields 6%. What's misleading? It says later that the personal account number is after inflation and the social security number is in nominal dollars (3.5% after inflation).
They also assume that social security SHOULD be indexed to wages rather than inflation. This is an absurd argument. Inflation is proportional to cost of living (by definition), so providing the same benefits in inflation adjusted dollars will provide the same quality of living. The only reason wages (in real dollars) rise over time is because of advances in technology (which make living less resource intensive-or cheaper). This is not crazy thing to do, indexing benefits to inflation makes perfect sense and is a good alternative for lowering the cost of social security.
From the standpoint that the US is a place that honors personal liberty, private accounts and indexing benefits to inflation make perfect sense. It allows personal accounts, and will not let the social security administration grow over time.
It may be that this man is a sexist, misogynistic pig, but it is an important question to ask regardless. We know that women think and reason differently than men, and we know that most scientists and engineers are men. What we don't know is how men and women are different, and if women are getting a fair chance at achieving their full potential in the fields of math and science.
If women are indeed achieving their full potential in these fields, then the number of successful women scientists would seem to indicate that there are, in fact, innate differences which keep women from succeeding.
But if they aren't, then research needs to be done to figure out why, and what can be done to help more women reach their full potential in these fields. It's hard to imagine that political correctness can go any farther in promoting women's issues than it already has. What is needed now is objectivity. We need to find out why more women aren't going into math and science, and what must be done about it.
The first step of the scientific method is to determine the problem (and whether or not there is a problem), and the way to do that is to ask (and answer) the questions that need to be asked.
I wonder if apple felt that including the feature for normal audio tracks would just confuse people. I know that when you import audio books from CD's they come in lots of 4-5 minute tracks, so there is no real need for bookmarking there. Where do you get 45 minute mp3 files?
I don't know where you got the impression that was a citation. That was an example I created to demonstrate the nature of theories.
Your assertion that I am "just pulling these ideas out of [my] ass" very strange given the context of my statement, but it is factual. My whole argument is that statement is not a fact (hence the label theory). Thus the appearance of such a statement where it is not presented as a theory would be unlikely to occur in a text book. That would be, as you and I have both pointed out, inappropriate.
So basically, what you've said here is that that statement is appropriately described as a theory, much like the theory of evolution. It's strange that you've chosen to state this in such an offensive manner (then again, it is equally strange that you post at +2 if this is the typical form of your comments), but I'm glad you agree with my argument.
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution. This means that evolution is a good theory to use in trying to predict the changes in species which occur over time.
This, like any other scientific theory, does not necessarily mean that it is applicable in all cases. For example it does not preclude the possibility species will become less adapted to their environment over time (which could happen given the correct arrangement of random events, especially over a small period of time). Also, theories which try to formulate the mechanism of evolution are only theories. It is possible that evolution could come about by another means than mutation and natural selection (a good example of this is genetic manipulation on the part of humans).
One could describe the theory of evolution as a law (such as the laws of thermodynamics, or Moors' law). But describing it as fact is not appropriate. No one would describe the laws of thermodynamics as facts, while there is a much greater of abundance of information supporting these laws than supporting evolution. There are many individual occurrences where evolution accurately describes facts, but these do not render evolution itself fact.
Your very authoritative sources do not counter my argument as outlined here. Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact. Perhaps you cold dry to popularize the description of evolution as a law (but "law of evolution" does not roll off the tongue as easily as "theory of evolution" in much the same way as the "law of relativity" doesn't seem as good as the "theory or relativity"), but describing evolution as fact is not correct.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory? Moreover, why is it not derogatory when scientists refer to evolution as a theory? I think the intent of the sticker was to encourage students to view evolution as a scientific theory and not as a direct contradiction to their established beliefs. This is good because often people will reject a direct contradiction to their beliefs out of hand.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a true statement. Communism does not, in theory, require censoring information, oppressing people, and opposing all change and progress. But for some reason, whenever and wherever it has been implemented, it has involved these things.
Perhaps it's because the rigid top-down political structure that always seems to accompany it lends itself to these kind of abuses. Perhaps it's that people who implement communism feel that the common man is too stupid to be trusted, and must be censured and controlled.
Whatever the reason, that fact that these things always seem to be associated with communism does indicate that they're connected.
So, I take it you don't understand that the US has very similar laws to Europe and the rest of the world. This isn't a case of an "Arrogant American Company" not following laws. This is a case of the laws not being well-defined. In the past, Google had the policy that if the trademark holder complained, they would disable the keyword. But now, they've decided that they don't want to do that, and it's up to the courts to decide whether or not that is lawful.
The fact that European courts seem to have ruled differently from US courts strange. The result in this French case seems specifically designed to prevent competition between brands. I don't know why they would rule this way, since it stifles competition and hurts the consumer in the end. That is to say that this ruling hurts the common people, who Europeans claim to care about so very much. This is yet another example of why Europe has a weak economy. The government goes above and beyond it's duty to protect people, and ends up hurting business. This is also an excellent example of a French court ruling in favor of a French brand, to the detriment of reason. It seems that their only reason for doing this is their desire to rule against a successful American corporation.
Well, Burt Rutan did it for $10 million. Do you think NASA could pull off a similar feat today for that price? I think it costs them more than that to develop a toilet (granted, a space toilet is a fairly complex thing).
Right, sure. A 16 year old has never been tried as an adult before. A potential $2000 fine and 180 day prison sentence is outrageous.
You can get a misdemeanor for a moving violation for god sake. It think it is clear that you're the one who doesn't understand the scope an impact of this crime (that is to say, it's not a very serious charge).
Yeah, it makes sense given the situation at NASA at the time, but it's still bad management.
At the university I attend, teachers always complain that using the motor pool for field trips causes their department to be billed. They say that it's already paid for, and it doesn't make any difference whether they use them or not. But the fact is, usage is the reason the motor pool exists, and it's important that the cost of that usage be distributed to the departments which use it. Otherwise, you get an inaccurate picture of how many resources each department is using. You get budgetary decisions that don't make any sense. Basically, you get something like the Shuttle Program.
"Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the NASA estimate for a shuttle mission needed clarification. In answer to committee budget questions in 2002, Mr. O'Keefe wrote that the cost of the shuttle mission was included in the long-term budget of the space flight office, not the science budget.
Dr. Steven Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said previous shuttle missions to the telescope were charged in the $300 million to $400 million range, which was acceptable to scientists. If the cost suddenly went above $1 billion, Dr. Beckwith said, he would have to reconsider his strong support for a service mission."
So the Hubbell costs $300 million to service when you don't add the cost of the shuttle flight? I can't believe that NASA ever tracked the cost of their programs this way. Does it make any sense not to include the cost of the shuttle flight in the Science budget if that is the only purpose for the shuttle flight?
I don't get it. Are you saying that Watergate would've been okay if it had been perpetrated by 16 year olds? Or that since watergate involved trained CIA agents, it must be impossible for a 16 year old to steal information? Perhaps you mean that it's only wrong to steal information if you are a CIA agent, or are in some way connected to the CIA? Are you saying that 16 year olds cannot commit crimes?
Any way you look at it, you're wrong, misguided and stupid. This kid intentionally stole information for the purpose of cheating on a test. That was illegal, dishonest, and stupid. He should definitely be punished.
I forget which rumor site says it, but the best time to buy a computer that fits your needs now is now. I don't see any reason not to buy today. Products scale incrementally except for processor change like G4-G5, which don't come along very often. Even if Apple released a G5 PowerBook today, it'd be better to wait a few months for Apple to work out the issues. They won't leave you out in the cold if you buy a computer with problems, but it's annoying to have to get it repaired, even if you don't have to pay for it.
I find that it's best to wait until a product comes along that makes you want to upgrade. Anticipating specific future products leads to long waits and disappointment when the final product isn't what you expect. If the PowerBook is compelling to you now, you should buy it now. You won't regret it. If it's not, then wait until Apple releases something you want to buy (if you're waiting for a PowerBook G5 specifically, you could be waiting a long time).
"There are other ways to advance medicine and human health besides going out into the strange, brave new world of chimeric animals," Rifkin said, adding that sophisticated computer models can substitute for experimentation on live animals."
Unless there have been huge leaps in our understanding of biology and chemistry, as well as huge advances in mathematics and computer science and increases in computer manufacturing technology-that I am not aware of, this last statement is most certainly not true. If a computer model could replace animal testing, it would be done. Do people just think that scientists enjoy torturing innocent animals"
Honestly, the absurdity of this argument is appalling. There are two alternatives to animal testing, human testing and no testing.
Of course, crime prevention is also not as bad as you think. So you're on (approximately) the same level as the person you're replying to.
You point out a few specific occasions where police power was abused, but on many more occasions, police power is not abused. This is not unlike the media's coverage of crime. Any time a pretty woman is murdered in this country, you hear about it. But there is hardly anything in the news about pretty women not getting murdered (which is much, much more common).
I suggest we dispense with unnecessary paranoia altogether.
Do you use OS X?
I'll tell you what. I have a 400Mhz G4 with 512MB ram. I use it for programming, 3D visitation, and photo editing (but not video editing or DVD encoding). I've been thinking about upgrading to 1Gb, but I just can't justify it. I never run into issues with memory swapping. Maybe it's just that my system is so slow that it never runs into a problem, but I'd doubt that'd be much different than on a mac mini.
If I were buying a mac mini, I'd start with 512, and then upgrade from there if I needed to. If a 512MB chip costs $75 and a 1GB costs $225, then the odds that you'd need to upgrade would have to be 66% before you were justified in starting out with 1GB.
if x is the probability you'd need to upgrade then using the relation:
75(x)=(225-75)(1-x)
(75 is the added cost if you later need to upgrade, 225 - 75 is the added cost if you upgraded but you didn't need to)
and solving for x you get
x = 2/3
Speaking from personal experience, I expect that the probability you will need to upgrade is less than 66%. But if you're not sure, you could try out a mac mini (or some equivalent system) with 512MB at an apple store and see what you think.
It's to "Authors and Inventors", and it doesn't say that they should give the right's exclusively to authors of useful Art, it says the purpose of the provision is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". This means that they might have been thinking that it would apply to all arts and inventions, (since the definition of "useful" is somewhat subjective) in order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
And I don't know about your limited time argument, you can profit from something now based on it's future value, so extending copyright after the authors death is not necessary unreasonable.
If the ads are relevant to you information search, why should they not be considered search results. Google gives you ads that it thinks you're interested in based on your search criteria, so in a way they are search results. Often the ads seem more relevant to my searches then the actual search results.
Damn straight. It's unbelievable how many people seem to think that we can switch to solar/wind and start walking right now and it won't cause any problems. More surprising still is the number of people who then go on to say that we need to take care of our poor. Who do you think these environmentally friendly policies will hurt the worst? The poor. The people who lack the resources to live in the new eco-friendly world. If you think that increased social spending can make up for the kind of problems this would cause, you should consider the countries of China and North Korea (not to mention the former Soviet Union) for examples of what excessive government social spending can do to a country.
Rash action is only likely to make the problem worse. We need a slow transition to more environmentally friendly technologies, and that is exactly what is happening. Technological advances in materials (like plastics and carbon-fiber) have made production much less energy-intensive. Incremental advances in engine and automotive design have made transportation more energy efficient. Hydrogen technology has the potential to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels (though petroleum products like plastics aren't going away any time soon). Solar panels and wind-mills are a more efficient power source than ever.
Politicians need to stop proposing doomsday scenarios and start working proactively with industry to resolve these problems.
Is this like one of these advertisements that says you can get it for only two easy payments of 9.95?
Seriously though, you're going to pay for it one way or another. What's the difference between paying once in taxes and again to use the information and just paying it all in taxes? People complain about the strangest things.
Companies do (often) spend money on projects without a guaranteed return. The problem is that they will only spend a small amount on such projects, and they often demand intellectual property rights in return. It can also be seen in the form of underwriting (happens a lot in universities) which companies do for PR reasons.
Also, there are cases where this kind research happens in private industry. For example, Space Ship One was developed with the help of a $10 million investment from Paul Allen, even though he was unlikely to earn a return on this investment. It's true that you won't see corporations doing this kind of thing, but wealthy individuals will invest in these projects if they want to see the research get done.
I've seen people argue that companies would do the research more efficiently than the government. And that if the government didn't tax the economy in order to do research, companies would do it themselves (because they would have more money to invest in future earnings). But the government spends ten times as much on social programs as on R&D, so I can't imagine that cutting government R&D would have a noteworthy effect. Now, cutting social spending, that's where the real money is at.
Also, perhaps if IP laws were such that companies could make money on really long-term research, that might help with the problem. Perhaps, you could say that a patent is only worth some multiple of what the R&D cost, and that amount increases over time.
Broadband technology is not ready for HD content delivery. The fastest systems could just barely deliver 640x480 in real time. That means you could download HD in 1/4 time (approximately). Care to wait 12 hours to download The Return of the King? Jobs knows better than to bring a product to market before it is ready. The only way this could work is with higher compression, or some kind of groundbreaking broadband technology.
Though I do agree that there is more to the Mac Mini than Jobs is letting on.
"they have the same weight and size as the iMAc mini. Only the videocard is better in the iMac mini, otherwise ePC-2-3 are better, more ports (e-PC3-2 firewire, 4Highspeed USB, serial, parallel,video out AND A PC CARD SLOT. IN ADDITION USERS ARE ALLOWED TO OPEN THE BOX"
Well, that's all well and good if you only want ports, but lets look at the facts.
EZ-GO ePC-2 (Base System)
Processor: 1.1Ghz intel celeron
memory: 128 MB SDRAM
video: integrated video (11.8MB max shared)
HD: 40GB
Optical Drive: 24x CD-ROM
Price: $589
mac mini (Base System)
Processor 1.25Ghz Power PC G4
memory: 256 MB
Video: Radeon 9200 w/ 32MB memory
HD: 40GB
Optical Drive: DVD ROM/CD-RW
Price: $499
It looks to me like the mac mini is a superior system in almost every way, and costs $90 less.
Okay, first of all, you're not "paying federal taxes to fund tax cuts for the rich." That is an absurd piece of political rhetoric that is as nonsensical as it is false. The wealthy people in this country are taxed at a higher rate than the non-wealthy, first of all. Secondly, almost every tax cut I've seen cuts more of the tax burden from people making less than average income than from people making more than average income. It's only through obscure statistical voodoo that people can claim that the Bush tax cut only saves money for wealthy.
Fairness is central to the idea of Social Security. It is the notion that everyone is entitled enjoy a fair standard of living in retirement, regardless of their current financial situation. All I'm saying is that it is not fair to deny people the choice of participating social security. I'm sure that I can do a better job with my money than the government can, and I think I should be allowed that choice.
No, social security is not fine. It may be solvent, but it's not fair that everyone it forced to pay into a social security system that not everyone wants.
Besides, that article is filled with misleading statements. For example, it says that personal accounts would yield typically 4.5% where as social security yields 6%. What's misleading? It says later that the personal account number is after inflation and the social security number is in nominal dollars (3.5% after inflation).
They also assume that social security SHOULD be indexed to wages rather than inflation. This is an absurd argument. Inflation is proportional to cost of living (by definition), so providing the same benefits in inflation adjusted dollars will provide the same quality of living. The only reason wages (in real dollars) rise over time is because of advances in technology (which make living less resource intensive-or cheaper). This is not crazy thing to do, indexing benefits to inflation makes perfect sense and is a good alternative for lowering the cost of social security.
From the standpoint that the US is a place that honors personal liberty, private accounts and indexing benefits to inflation make perfect sense. It allows personal accounts, and will not let the social security administration grow over time.
It may be that this man is a sexist, misogynistic pig, but it is an important question to ask regardless. We know that women think and reason differently than men, and we know that most scientists and engineers are men. What we don't know is how men and women are different, and if women are getting a fair chance at achieving their full potential in the fields of math and science.
If women are indeed achieving their full potential in these fields, then the number of successful women scientists would seem to indicate that there are, in fact, innate differences which keep women from succeeding.
But if they aren't, then research needs to be done to figure out why, and what can be done to help more women reach their full potential in these fields. It's hard to imagine that political correctness can go any farther in promoting women's issues than it already has. What is needed now is objectivity. We need to find out why more women aren't going into math and science, and what must be done about it.
The first step of the scientific method is to determine the problem (and whether or not there is a problem), and the way to do that is to ask (and answer) the questions that need to be asked.
Oh, I'm 22, and I've never used an audio cassette, so that never even occurred to me.
I wonder if apple felt that including the feature for normal audio tracks would just confuse people. I know that when you import audio books from CD's they come in lots of 4-5 minute tracks, so there is no real need for bookmarking there. Where do you get 45 minute mp3 files?
I don't know where you got the impression that was a citation. That was an example I created to demonstrate the nature of theories.
Your assertion that I am "just pulling these ideas out of [my] ass" very strange given the context of my statement, but it is factual. My whole argument is that statement is not a fact (hence the label theory). Thus the appearance of such a statement where it is not presented as a theory would be unlikely to occur in a text book. That would be, as you and I have both pointed out, inappropriate.
So basically, what you've said here is that that statement is appropriately described as a theory, much like the theory of evolution. It's strange that you've chosen to state this in such an offensive manner (then again, it is equally strange that you post at +2 if this is the typical form of your comments), but I'm glad you agree with my argument.
It is a fact that there is a lot of evidence that supports the theory if evolution. This means that evolution is a good theory to use in trying to predict the changes in species which occur over time.
This, like any other scientific theory, does not necessarily mean that it is applicable in all cases. For example it does not preclude the possibility species will become less adapted to their environment over time (which could happen given the correct arrangement of random events, especially over a small period of time). Also, theories which try to formulate the mechanism of evolution are only theories. It is possible that evolution could come about by another means than mutation and natural selection (a good example of this is genetic manipulation on the part of humans).
One could describe the theory of evolution as a law (such as the laws of thermodynamics, or Moors' law). But describing it as fact is not appropriate. No one would describe the laws of thermodynamics as facts, while there is a much greater of abundance of information supporting these laws than supporting evolution. There are many individual occurrences where evolution accurately describes facts, but these do not render evolution itself fact.
Your very authoritative sources do not counter my argument as outlined here. Simply saying that the term "theory" does not do evolution justice does not make it acceptable to describe evolution as fact. Perhaps you cold dry to popularize the description of evolution as a law (but "law of evolution" does not roll off the tongue as easily as "theory of evolution" in much the same way as the "law of relativity" doesn't seem as good as the "theory or relativity"), but describing evolution as fact is not correct.
Now, the whole premise of this court case is that calling evolution a theory denigrates it. If this true, why then is it not derogatory when people refer to relativity as a theory? Moreover, why is it not derogatory when scientists refer to evolution as a theory? I think the intent of the sticker was to encourage students to view evolution as a scientific theory and not as a direct contradiction to their established beliefs. This is good because often people will reject a direct contradiction to their beliefs out of hand.