(anyone who buys the base model is going to experience lunch-bag letdown within 6 months)
That reminds me of the time my brother bought the 4GB original iPhone instead of the 8GB one, he used it until the 3G came out then sold it to me. Then I used it until the 3GS came out and I sold it to my coworker. She unlocked it so she could use it with TMobile, and she is still using it today. Is that what you mean by "lunch-bag letdown"? That doesn't sound so bad to me.
Tell you what, I wouldn't buy the base model, because I know I'd want to use 3G, but I have lots of friends with iPod touches who don't seem to mind not having 3G. I wouldn't buy the 64GB model, because I don't use a lot of space like that. So I'd spend only $630, a far cry from your outrageous $1,000 number. Remember, different people have different needs. Just because you need to buy the most pimped out model doesn't mean everyone else does.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that is the point of the iPad. iPhone users were thinking to themselves "if only this were bigger, I could do so much more with it", hence the iPad was born.
This pattern of thoughtlessness is prevalent throughout society today, and is responsible for almost all of the terrible things we do to each other. It's just a whole lot more obvious how bad it is when you see it done by the police.
I think one of the key things we can do to avoid participating in it ourselves is avoiding busyness. Usually people are thoughtless just because they think they don't have the time to be thoughtful. That is certainly the case in police investigations where there is a lot of pressure to get a conviction.
You do need to cut high fructose out of your diet completely if you want to dramatically reduce your food consumption.
You seem to be saying that the mere presence of high fructose corn syrup in food will cause your hunger not to be regulated. But if 90% of the calories come from somewhere else, and only 10% come from the high fructose corn syrup, your hunger will still be regulated, that's what I'm saying. It makes no sense to go on a vendetta against all foods containing high fructose corn syrup when you could simply avoid sugary drinks and candy and get the same result.
BTW, will you also cut fructose containing fruit out of your diet? The logic of your argument requires it.
If you're sure you could do it, why not arrange for a test and find out. There's no reason not to do it if would not impair your driving ability. In fact, I'd say that people who think they may be supertaskers should be able to take a test at the DMV to get a special license, given that their ability to react is not at all impaired. I, on the other hand, do not need to take the test to know I wouldn't pass.
The summary is short because it's supposed to be, but I don't think it's fair to call me a liar. You and a couple of other people have said that you feel I was dishonest. I was paraphrasing Lovelock, but I don't think I've misrepresented what he said. I did read the article, and I read another one containing large parts of the interview. He clearly said that democratic principles are standing in the way of combating climate change, and he certainly did conclude that they will need to be suspended before action can be taken. Am I missing something?
Regardless of whether I have understood him correctly, and I'm pretty sure I have, I have honestly represented what I think he was saying. And I have been rigorous in my investigation into the matter. You can not say that I was being sloppy or jumping to conclusions. In that light, I feel you've treated me unfairly by calling me a liar.
Not at all. But a company that is already in a position to leverage it's invention will be able to make plenty of money off of it before a competitor is able to get something out the door. Also, being the first to market gets your name associated with the technology, automatically giving you an advantage over your competitors. You don't need a monopoly to benefit from being the first to market. That's what I mean when I say they don't need patents.
That's all well and good, but it seems that Apple has spent quite a lot of time and money on the technology as well. Not to mention they've done more than anyone to popularize it. It doesn't make sense to say that Apple shouldn't have a right to sell it, patents or not. You know something's wrong when the "solution" is actually perpetuating the problem it was intended to solve.
Any competent parent or child psychologist can tell you that shielding people from adversity prevents growth and sets them up for failure. I am not going to waste my time defending what should be self-evident to a thinking person. You and whoever moderated your comment are beyond hope if you can not grasp this simple concept: Life without hardship is not worth living.
Shielding people from hardship is a fruitless endeavor that will ultimately lead to tragedy and failure. Already, many people end up requiring health-care because of poor life decisions they made because they didn't know any better. The end result of the struggle to end hardship will be a generation of adult children completely incapable of dealing the hardship we were not able to shield them from.
It is appropriate to look at medical hardship as an opportunity to express love for others through charity. In that light, this idea of medical entitlement is robbing society of ways to express love and engage in charitable acts. We are trading something good for something vile and destructive. Can you understand why I would have a problem with that? I just paid for part of my friend's mother's cancer surgery. Under this new system, my friend never would have asked me for help. What good is it if people have everything they need and never ask each other for help?
Can you see that you are the one actually promoting a "selfish" system? The system you want leaves no room for anything but selfishness. Selflessness has no place in a society where everyone is already "entitled" to everything they need
But the justification given for patents in the U.S. Constitution is basically that they "promote innovation". Large companies don't even need patent protection since they have the funding to develop new technologies. And yet, due to the expense of patent litigation, large companies are the only parties that generally benefit from patents. This situation is unacceptable, to say the least.
I have been told that I will need to take out patents in order to shield investors and customers from potential future litigation. In fact, my business partner and co-inventor has insisted on it, even while agreeing to issue a blanket license allowing anyone to use the patented technology for any reason without written consent.
This is why I don't want to take out patents for my invention. They don't seem to actually protect you from litigation, and they hinder the development and deployment of new technologies. Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad? Why should there be a million lawyers involved in developing new technology (about the only people worse for technology than politicians are lawyers). Patents are a terrible idea. All the most successful technology companies simply ignore them (in a practical sense) and leave the issue for their lawyers to deal with.
I hope not! The RTG has already been sitting at the JPL for two years due to project delays. For comparison: Voyager 1, launched in 1977, is still able to be contacted by radio.
It's important to note that one of the rovers has lost mobility due to the martian terrain. This rover will be vulnerable to that as well, despite it's virtually limitless energy supply.
I never have, but I have been to the Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon and they do indeed serve a 20 oz steak. I had assumed, however, that one may split it or eat half and take the other half home. I would be really worried about someone who could/would eat the whole thing in one sitting.
Or, they could be honest and raise the money though an old-fashioned income tax, or sales tax. But I'm sure they'd rather hide the tax burden from the people who are ultimately paying it. Gotta love the government.
I am 28, so I know that maintaining a healthy lifestyle is difficult and that everyone will have some health issues regardless. My claim was specifically that bad lifestyle choices lead to health problems. You've twisted it around to say that I've claimed health problems come from bad lifestyle choices. I did not say that.
That said, your example is not good because high cholesterol in itself is not a health problem. It is only a warning sign that indicates a potential for future health problems.
P.S. It is possible for me to post on Slashdot while I'm at work. Indeed, it's the only time I do;-) If your husband want's to pay a lot of taxes, I will respect his boundaries by not trying to stop him from paying them. I hate taxes, and I wish you would respect my boundaries by not trying to force me to pay them.
If you eat foods that only use it as a sweeter, your hunger will still be regulated and prevent you from over-eating. For example, you wouldn't eat a 24-oz steak, I hope, because you would be quite full long before you could finish). On the other hand, most people seem to have a bout as easy time drinking an 8 oz can of soda as a 24oz bottle, even though the 24-oz is 3 times larger.
The same goes for candy, if you replace if with bread, you have no hope of eating as many calories (and that's saying a lot because most people are capable of eating quite a lot of bread).
Use common sense, you don't need to cut high-fructose corn syrup out of you diet completely to dramatically reduce your consumption of it. Simply avoid eating foods where the majority of the calories come from high-fructose corn syrup and you body will take care of the rest.
Molasses it the "brown" that you refine out of brown sugar to make white sugar. So taking it out and then putting it back in is similar to leaving it there in the first place (and nutritionally identical).
Slashdot Mirror
Consumers can already buy cars that get that kind of gas mileage if they want them. This really means fewer options in car purchasing.
Translation: "People don't know what kind of car is good for them, so we will to force them to buy the right kind."
Politicians are too cynical. I'm smart enough to make decisions for myself. I didn't need the old regulations and I don't want new ones.
That reminds me of the time my brother bought the 4GB original iPhone instead of the 8GB one, he used it until the 3G came out then sold it to me. Then I used it until the 3GS came out and I sold it to my coworker. She unlocked it so she could use it with TMobile, and she is still using it today. Is that what you mean by "lunch-bag letdown"? That doesn't sound so bad to me.
Tell you what, I wouldn't buy the base model, because I know I'd want to use 3G, but I have lots of friends with iPod touches who don't seem to mind not having 3G. I wouldn't buy the 64GB model, because I don't use a lot of space like that. So I'd spend only $630, a far cry from your outrageous $1,000 number. Remember, different people have different needs. Just because you need to buy the most pimped out model doesn't mean everyone else does.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that is the point of the iPad. iPhone users were thinking to themselves "if only this were bigger, I could do so much more with it", hence the iPad was born.
This pattern of thoughtlessness is prevalent throughout society today, and is responsible for almost all of the terrible things we do to each other. It's just a whole lot more obvious how bad it is when you see it done by the police.
I think one of the key things we can do to avoid participating in it ourselves is avoiding busyness. Usually people are thoughtless just because they think they don't have the time to be thoughtful. That is certainly the case in police investigations where there is a lot of pressure to get a conviction.
You seem to be saying that the mere presence of high fructose corn syrup in food will cause your hunger not to be regulated. But if 90% of the calories come from somewhere else, and only 10% come from the high fructose corn syrup, your hunger will still be regulated, that's what I'm saying. It makes no sense to go on a vendetta against all foods containing high fructose corn syrup when you could simply avoid sugary drinks and candy and get the same result.
BTW, will you also cut fructose containing fruit out of your diet? The logic of your argument requires it.
Most of them are wrong.
If you're sure you could do it, why not arrange for a test and find out. There's no reason not to do it if would not impair your driving ability. In fact, I'd say that people who think they may be supertaskers should be able to take a test at the DMV to get a special license, given that their ability to react is not at all impaired. I, on the other hand, do not need to take the test to know I wouldn't pass.
The article you are responding to clearly states that 1 in 40 people who engage in these activities are not any more dangerous while doing it.
Indeed, they were much too effective in facilitating actual learning to be useful in a modern teaching environment. The system works!
The summary is short because it's supposed to be, but I don't think it's fair to call me a liar. You and a couple of other people have said that you feel I was dishonest. I was paraphrasing Lovelock, but I don't think I've misrepresented what he said. I did read the article, and I read another one containing large parts of the interview. He clearly said that democratic principles are standing in the way of combating climate change, and he certainly did conclude that they will need to be suspended before action can be taken. Am I missing something?
Regardless of whether I have understood him correctly, and I'm pretty sure I have, I have honestly represented what I think he was saying. And I have been rigorous in my investigation into the matter. You can not say that I was being sloppy or jumping to conclusions. In that light, I feel you've treated me unfairly by calling me a liar.
Not at all. But a company that is already in a position to leverage it's invention will be able to make plenty of money off of it before a competitor is able to get something out the door. Also, being the first to market gets your name associated with the technology, automatically giving you an advantage over your competitors. You don't need a monopoly to benefit from being the first to market. That's what I mean when I say they don't need patents.
That's all well and good, but it seems that Apple has spent quite a lot of time and money on the technology as well. Not to mention they've done more than anyone to popularize it. It doesn't make sense to say that Apple shouldn't have a right to sell it, patents or not. You know something's wrong when the "solution" is actually perpetuating the problem it was intended to solve.
Any competent parent or child psychologist can tell you that shielding people from adversity prevents growth and sets them up for failure. I am not going to waste my time defending what should be self-evident to a thinking person. You and whoever moderated your comment are beyond hope if you can not grasp this simple concept: Life without hardship is not worth living.
Shielding people from hardship is a fruitless endeavor that will ultimately lead to tragedy and failure. Already, many people end up requiring health-care because of poor life decisions they made because they didn't know any better. The end result of the struggle to end hardship will be a generation of adult children completely incapable of dealing the hardship we were not able to shield them from.
It is appropriate to look at medical hardship as an opportunity to express love for others through charity. In that light, this idea of medical entitlement is robbing society of ways to express love and engage in charitable acts. We are trading something good for something vile and destructive. Can you understand why I would have a problem with that? I just paid for part of my friend's mother's cancer surgery. Under this new system, my friend never would have asked me for help. What good is it if people have everything they need and never ask each other for help?
Can you see that you are the one actually promoting a "selfish" system? The system you want leaves no room for anything but selfishness. Selflessness has no place in a society where everyone is already "entitled" to everything they need
But the justification given for patents in the U.S. Constitution is basically that they "promote innovation". Large companies don't even need patent protection since they have the funding to develop new technologies. And yet, due to the expense of patent litigation, large companies are the only parties that generally benefit from patents. This situation is unacceptable, to say the least.
I have been told that I will need to take out patents in order to shield investors and customers from potential future litigation. In fact, my business partner and co-inventor has insisted on it, even while agreeing to issue a blanket license allowing anyone to use the patented technology for any reason without written consent.
This is why I don't want to take out patents for my invention. They don't seem to actually protect you from litigation, and they hinder the development and deployment of new technologies. Why should I have to wait until some worthless dipshit company's patent expires to buy an iPad? Why should there be a million lawyers involved in developing new technology (about the only people worse for technology than politicians are lawyers). Patents are a terrible idea. All the most successful technology companies simply ignore them (in a practical sense) and leave the issue for their lawyers to deal with.
I hope not! The RTG has already been sitting at the JPL for two years due to project delays. For comparison: Voyager 1, launched in 1977, is still able to be contacted by radio.
Or you could actually adopt. That would be the sensible solution.
It's important to note that one of the rovers has lost mobility due to the martian terrain. This rover will be vulnerable to that as well, despite it's virtually limitless energy supply.
I never have, but I have been to the Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon and they do indeed serve a 20 oz steak. I had assumed, however, that one may split it or eat half and take the other half home. I would be really worried about someone who could/would eat the whole thing in one sitting.
Children don't learn critical thinking in school because critical thinking can't be learned in a controlled environment.
Or, they could be honest and raise the money though an old-fashioned income tax, or sales tax. But I'm sure they'd rather hide the tax burden from the people who are ultimately paying it. Gotta love the government.
I am 28, so I know that maintaining a healthy lifestyle is difficult and that everyone will have some health issues regardless. My claim was specifically that bad lifestyle choices lead to health problems. You've twisted it around to say that I've claimed health problems come from bad lifestyle choices. I did not say that.
That said, your example is not good because high cholesterol in itself is not a health problem. It is only a warning sign that indicates a potential for future health problems.
P.S. It is possible for me to post on Slashdot while I'm at work. Indeed, it's the only time I do;-) If your husband want's to pay a lot of taxes, I will respect his boundaries by not trying to stop him from paying them. I hate taxes, and I wish you would respect my boundaries by not trying to force me to pay them.
If you eat foods that only use it as a sweeter, your hunger will still be regulated and prevent you from over-eating. For example, you wouldn't eat a 24-oz steak, I hope, because you would be quite full long before you could finish). On the other hand, most people seem to have a bout as easy time drinking an 8 oz can of soda as a 24oz bottle, even though the 24-oz is 3 times larger.
The same goes for candy, if you replace if with bread, you have no hope of eating as many calories (and that's saying a lot because most people are capable of eating quite a lot of bread).
Use common sense, you don't need to cut high-fructose corn syrup out of you diet completely to dramatically reduce your consumption of it. Simply avoid eating foods where the majority of the calories come from high-fructose corn syrup and you body will take care of the rest.
Molasses it the "brown" that you refine out of brown sugar to make white sugar. So taking it out and then putting it back in is similar to leaving it there in the first place (and nutritionally identical).