Exactly. Depending on perspective, the iPad is either a great internet appliance, or a piss-poor portable PC. Apple's challenge will be to control that perspective - seeing how good they've been at that in the past, I'm going to say this product will be a success.
Why on Earth would you list Beck and Palin and ignore Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow? Or even Barack Obama? Surely you can't believe that Palin has been the recipient of greater publicity than Obama, or that Beck is more extreme than Olberman.
As for the nerdy meat of your comment -- sometimes, I would prefer to have simple and limiting to complex and free. I don't *need* to have complete and total control over my phone, my music player, or a simple internet device. These are items that just need to work out of the box, be aesthetically pleasing, and do the job they are intended to do. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-Free Software, but that I don't want to use it for everything that I do.
I run ArchLinux on my primary PC, and love it. I alternate between KDE 4 and ScrotWM as window managers, depending on my mood and task. I also love my iPhone, which does 95%+ of what I want out-of-the-box. For that other 5%, jailbreaking is trivial and allows complete control.
You're misunderstanding Rand's ideas - and that's understandable, as you have to read a hell of a lot of poor, dry writing to get at the crux of it.
Objectivism isn't about "self-interest", it is about "rational self-interest". Not what you'd like to do in the moment, but what careful and thoughtful planning will lead you to believe are the best actions for your long-term interest.
I sometimes identify myself as an Obectivist, but most Randists wouldn't accept me, as I reject their irrational, dogmatic atheism.
As for a family, a man's interests don't lie solely in material items - raising a child is a very fulfilling, very difficult task in and of itself. As my children grow older, I obtain the same satisfaction as when a particularly complex programming project comes together - but to a much greater degree.
In short, "looking out for yourself" has a very narrow, well-defined meaning to Objectivists, and it certainly isn't a hedonistic philosophy. Doing something that makes you think "to hell with the consequences" would be a personal failure to an Objectivist, as the whole idea is to use concrete, logical reasoning to account for those consequences.
The idea of a union in today's America is repulsive to me - but if it were truly in my own, long-term self-interest, I would join one.
I get all kinds of strange looks from people when I tell them my address. My wife's is worse: she has a dancestudio, and her email is "dance@.com". People just say "wha?"
A nuclear exchange would suck beyond belief, but it would most certainly not be the end of the species. We'd end up at an 1850's level of technology and lifestyle, with a few modern anachronisms that made it through.
I tried a Pre, such a POS. I like my iPhone, though I've shattered the stupid thing no less than three times in 6 months. Android looks very good, and if it is still on the same path in a year, I'm dumping AT&T and Apple and going with an Android device.
I am, actually. I'm just not willing to quietly let that decision be made for me.
Yeah, its a fine line, but an important one. Another important point is that some people have moral or religious objections to how their tax money may be used - e.g. abortions covered under Obamacare.
Are you suggesting that there will not be enough doctors, firefighters, or EMTs if not for subsidies?
If there were a shortage, then salaries for those professions would go up. More people would enter the field, and it all balances out.
Further, education subsidies drive the general cost of education up - do you think there would be as many people going to universities today at their current rates if not for subsidy? Of course not - universities would be forced to cut costs, and tuition would fall down to the point where profit for the universities is maximized.
All education subsidy is doing is introducing an outside, destabilizing influence into the higher education market. We would be far better off without it.
There are differing fields in philosophy - I fall in the one where I believe that certain rights are inherent in the individual simply because they are an individual.
I recognize that there are other opinions out there, and have nothing against debating the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I also noted that the 3G version is visually different from the WiFi version --- there is a dark accent on the top of the tablet, on the back.
That couldn't *possibly* be so everyone around you will instantly know if you cheaped out and got the wifi-only version, now would it?
Exactly. Depending on perspective, the iPad is either a great internet appliance, or a piss-poor portable PC. Apple's challenge will be to control that perspective - seeing how good they've been at that in the past, I'm going to say this product will be a success.
Why on Earth would you list Beck and Palin and ignore Keith Olberman, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow? Or even Barack Obama? Surely you can't believe that Palin has been the recipient of greater publicity than Obama, or that Beck is more extreme than Olberman.
As for the nerdy meat of your comment -- sometimes, I would prefer to have simple and limiting to complex and free. I don't *need* to have complete and total control over my phone, my music player, or a simple internet device. These are items that just need to work out of the box, be aesthetically pleasing, and do the job they are intended to do. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-Free Software, but that I don't want to use it for everything that I do.
I run ArchLinux on my primary PC, and love it. I alternate between KDE 4 and ScrotWM as window managers, depending on my mood and task. I also love my iPhone, which does 95%+ of what I want out-of-the-box. For that other 5%, jailbreaking is trivial and allows complete control.
You're misunderstanding Rand's ideas - and that's understandable, as you have to read a hell of a lot of poor, dry writing to get at the crux of it.
Objectivism isn't about "self-interest", it is about "rational self-interest". Not what you'd like to do in the moment, but what careful and thoughtful planning will lead you to believe are the best actions for your long-term interest.
I sometimes identify myself as an Obectivist, but most Randists wouldn't accept me, as I reject their irrational, dogmatic atheism.
As for a family, a man's interests don't lie solely in material items - raising a child is a very fulfilling, very difficult task in and of itself. As my children grow older, I obtain the same satisfaction as when a particularly complex programming project comes together - but to a much greater degree.
In short, "looking out for yourself" has a very narrow, well-defined meaning to Objectivists, and it certainly isn't a hedonistic philosophy. Doing something that makes you think "to hell with the consequences" would be a personal failure to an Objectivist, as the whole idea is to use concrete, logical reasoning to account for those consequences.
The idea of a union in today's America is repulsive to me - but if it were truly in my own, long-term self-interest, I would join one.
Its mainly a philosophical and flexibility one.
My email address is my name. As in, @.com.
I get all kinds of strange looks from people when I tell them my address. My wife's is worse: she has a dancestudio, and her email is "dance@.com". People just say "wha?"
The summary is bad - they are taxing all electricity sourced from coal, not imported electricity.
A nuclear exchange would suck beyond belief, but it would most certainly not be the end of the species. We'd end up at an 1850's level of technology and lifestyle, with a few modern anachronisms that made it through.
See, now this is cool. Props, man.
Its a cool video, but seriously? "like sugarplum fairies"?
I agree. It sounds like a great idea, but it would effectively destroy the SEO ecosystem and allow blackhats to absolutely dominate.
How is that different than the Great Schism?
(I was raised Catholic)
You're not far off. Build quality is a very important issue to me - I own a Panasonic Toughbook, if that gives you an idea.
Troll my ass. Troll != "Disagree"
Probably just my bias showing - I usually have several windows up at once, I probably just confused the conversation flow.
I think it only got 10 minutes, actually.
I tried a Pre, such a POS. I like my iPhone, though I've shattered the stupid thing no less than three times in 6 months. Android looks very good, and if it is still on the same path in a year, I'm dumping AT&T and Apple and going with an Android device.
And their self-interested motives make their actions less beneficial how?
I've used VirtualBox OSE for about a year now, and have found issues only when doing complex setups for network testing.
Yeah, I understand that, I just misworded it. I meant redistribution without source, which happens a lot.
Whether or not you use or like URL shorteners, the fact is, a lot of them are used. The Google name behind this one will give it staying power.
Sucks though, as I have a shortener in staging right now that I was about to launch to try and solve the problem of stability. Oh well.
I am, actually. I'm just not willing to quietly let that decision be made for me.
Yeah, its a fine line, but an important one. Another important point is that some people have moral or religious objections to how their tax money may be used - e.g. abortions covered under Obamacare.
Are you suggesting that there will not be enough doctors, firefighters, or EMTs if not for subsidies?
If there were a shortage, then salaries for those professions would go up. More people would enter the field, and it all balances out.
Further, education subsidies drive the general cost of education up - do you think there would be as many people going to universities today at their current rates if not for subsidy? Of course not - universities would be forced to cut costs, and tuition would fall down to the point where profit for the universities is maximized.
All education subsidy is doing is introducing an outside, destabilizing influence into the higher education market. We would be far better off without it.
Without the litigation, you lose the purpose of the GPL, though.
We don't want people embracing open source if by "embrace" they mean "take this free code, create my own product, and sell it".
There are differing fields in philosophy - I fall in the one where I believe that certain rights are inherent in the individual simply because they are an individual.
I recognize that there are other opinions out there, and have nothing against debating the issue.
Is "innocent until proven guilty" a tenet of Indian law? I'd imagine it is, but not sure.
Eminent domain is not a right, it is a power. Governments have powers, individuals have rights.
And as I have been saying - legal authority is not moral authority. The USC has its imperfections, but it's what we have.