No, of course not, but Apple has always been a "substitute good" for a MS-WinPC. It's just been the case for a long time that it was not sufficiently better to overcome the network effect advantage of Windows. Now, it may be starting to reach that point. People who are purchasing new systems are going to give Apple more consideration. Microsoft will have to fight back if it wants to keep these customers.
But congratulations to Apple for what sounds like it will be another quality release. I personally don't plan on switching any time soon, but it pleases me to see some strong competition re-entering this marketplace. While I doubt this is the end of Microsoft, it certainly means they will have to get off their asses. The complacency of the last five years is over.
If we're going to go through all the trouble of having machine guns, heavy armor, and articulated leg mechanisms, might as well just throw in a grenade launcher an start building these, then.
Presumably $2 bills have all the usual anti-forgery protections, including the watermark and the opaque strip that could be checked in the store, as well as the micro-printing that needs a good magnifying glass to see.
I don't think so, because, like the $1 bill, it has not been redesigned to incorporate the new security features and supersized portraits.
Actually the savings would be better than that given that most internal combustion engines operate with an efficiency of about 30%
Good point! I forgot about efficiency reductions completely! (What can I say, I was tired...) It's probably even less than 30% when you factor in the mechanical-->electrical conversion.
Congress has answered this question, and the answer is, "it depends."
2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records
Release date: 2004-08-06
(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.-- A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.--
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection--(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant; or
(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity--
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;
except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705 of this title.
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.
Well, let's see...
If we assume the average headlight is, say, 50 watts, with two per car, that's 100 watts. The average daily commute is about 24 minutes, for roughly 125,000,000 workers. So the morning drive with headlights on comsumes about.04 kilowatt-hours. Multiply by 125,000,000 workers and you get 1.8*10^13 Joules per day. Gasoline has a volumetric energy density of about 9700 Watt hours per liter, which comes to 132,186,580 Joules/gallon. So, take 1.8*10^13 Joules/day, divided by 132,186,580 Joule/gallon, that comes to about 136,171 gallons/day savings, or 4,085,130 gallons of gas in a month. Not a lot, but it's something!
Well, suppose I want to write a law review article about Wikipedia, or something like that. There are plenty of reasons to want to cite to it besides using it as an authoritative source. I forgot about point B, that's a useful feature, and I don't see why that couldn't be used for citation, though it is still a bit cumbersome, I think. By using volumes or editions, you wouldn't need the url at all, which I think would be a more robust form of citation. But date alone is not good enough, I disagree with some of the standards on this. If it changes at a future time, and I don't have access to the logs, how can I prove that my citation was accurate?
why would I want stale information stored on my computer?
Because they only things you can cite to in legitimate academic or scholarly work are volumes or editions that do not change, so that anybody can use your citiation to verify your source.
First, to "lock in" decent versions of controversial articles. But second and more importantly, to be able to produce a stable, constant "edition" that can be referenced and cited to. How do you cite Wikipedia, when the content is always changing? Now you could write a paper and cite something like Person, Random, "Wikipedia Article," Wikipedia 2d ed. (2006). Very, very, important if WP is to become a legitimate source of information.
Well, when you add in the theatrical trailers, "making of" featurette, production stills, and commentary tracks...
What I want to know is, will it be in Dolby Digital 7.1?
Originally, the state legislature would appoint the Congressmen
Senate, yes, House, no. The House has always been ruled by popular vote.
Article I, Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
I'll additionally point out a benefit to the electoral college nobody else has yet: it is more robust, by confining extremely close outcomes in the popular vote to units 1/50th the size of the whole. Without it, then in the event of a close outcome,the entire nation would have to undergo manual recounts. Ugh!
Additionally, the electoral college has federalism implications, making it possible for the states to maintain their own election procedures.
In any case, it will not be changed, because Congress cannot change it.
they had a much better grasp of what it means to live a good life as part of a society than the typical American does.
And here, perhaps, is the critical difference; the socialist society you describe may indeed provide a better life for the people who think as you describe. But you presuppose that there is a right and correct vision of "the good life," and that it is the state's role to provide it. I argue that the overarching premise of the United States is that no presuppositions about what constitutes the "good life" will be made by the state; so long as they respect the integrity of others, individuals will be left alone to determine this (or not, as the case may be) for themselves. Better in some ways, worse in others. I like it, personally. You may not. But see! Under my philosophy, I don't have to believe that you are wrong.
I was told horror stories of the Soviet Union, about how to go between republics I'd have to show my papers at a checkpoint so they could track who I was and where I was going.
No, you and everyone else trotting this out are wrong. The horror was not having to provide ID all the time. That was just petty mistrust of the citizenry. The real horror was that the REASON you had to show papers was that any travel had to be PRE-AUTHORIZED by the state. By default, you were not permitted to travel anywhere, no matter how much ID you had. The "papers" from the phrase "papers, please" are not identification papers, they are AUTHORIZATION papers, passes, and permits.
As in, you're only allowed to leave if we give you permission to leave.
Where the fark did you get that from? Anyone one who wants to leave can exit immediately, no questions asked, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. All they're saying is, if you want to come back, please have this standard piece of international identification. Is that really so much to ask?
There is a difference between advocating death and threatening death. And promoting hatred, while vile, is not even similar. And in the U.S., even threats which are not "true threats," i.e., threats that could reasonably be interpreted as being able to be carried out, are protected speech.
I'm not saying Canada is evil or anything, this is usually vile speech it is prohibiting, but it certainly is less free, speechwise, than the United States.
So the removal of WMP is actually opening up a wealth of choices and as such fostering competition in the area of media players for the desktop
This is where we part ways. It actually opens up exactly zero more choices than previously existed. All it does is FORCE users to affirmatively make a choice (essentially, taking away the option of remaining rationally ignorant). I disagree with the government abrogating this power to itself.
I call BS on that. They have a larger market share because they have coerced hardware distributors to pre-package PCs with Windows.
If there were a substantial number of PC users who wanted prefabricated systems without Windows, then there would be a distributor who would fill that need - and the size of that distributor would be roughly proportional to the size of the public demand. The fact that there are no such sizeable distributors speaks against your proposition.
You are comitting a common logical fallacy of generalizing from your own experiences. Accept the fact that most PC users do not share your preferences. Perhaps due to ignorance! But the reason is irrelevant, so long as people are free to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course not, but Apple has always been a "substitute good" for a MS-WinPC. It's just been the case for a long time that it was not sufficiently better to overcome the network effect advantage of Windows. Now, it may be starting to reach that point. People who are purchasing new systems are going to give Apple more consideration. Microsoft will have to fight back if it wants to keep these customers.
I use both Windows and Linux for different functions, mostly Windows on the desktop though.
But congratulations to Apple for what sounds like it will be another quality release. I personally don't plan on switching any time soon, but it pleases me to see some strong competition re-entering this marketplace. While I doubt this is the end of Microsoft, it certainly means they will have to get off their asses. The complacency of the last five years is over.
WTF are you talking about?
Right. Just as soon as someone ports DirectX to Mac!
If we're going to go through all the trouble of having machine guns, heavy armor, and articulated leg mechanisms, might as well just throw in a grenade launcher an start building these, then.
Of course the BMW doesn't suck. But you also wouldn't (if you're being reasonable) ever say it's cheap.
I don't think so, because, like the $1 bill, it has not been redesigned to incorporate the new security features and supersized portraits.
RTFA, they apparently at least did an ink smear test. The ink smeared. Hence, suspicion.
Good point! I forgot about efficiency reductions completely! (What can I say, I was tired...) It's probably even less than 30% when you factor in the mechanical-->electrical conversion.
2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records
Release date: 2004-08-06
(a) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in Electronic Storage.-- A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Contents of Wire or Electronic Communications in a Remote Computing Service.--
(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection-- (A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant; or (B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity--(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section; except that delayed notice may be given pursuant to section 2705 of this title.
(2) Paragraph (1) is applicable with respect to any wire or electronic communication that is held or maintained on that service-- (A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such remote computing service; and(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing.
Well, let's see... If we assume the average headlight is, say, 50 watts, with two per car, that's 100 watts. The average daily commute is about 24 minutes, for roughly 125,000,000 workers. So the morning drive with headlights on comsumes about .04 kilowatt-hours. Multiply by 125,000,000 workers and you get 1.8*10^13 Joules per day. Gasoline has a volumetric energy density of about 9700 Watt hours per liter, which comes to 132,186,580 Joules/gallon. So, take 1.8*10^13 Joules/day, divided by 132,186,580 Joule/gallon, that comes to about 136,171 gallons/day savings, or 4,085,130 gallons of gas in a month. Not a lot, but it's something!
Well, suppose I want to write a law review article about Wikipedia, or something like that. There are plenty of reasons to want to cite to it besides using it as an authoritative source. I forgot about point B, that's a useful feature, and I don't see why that couldn't be used for citation, though it is still a bit cumbersome, I think. By using volumes or editions, you wouldn't need the url at all, which I think would be a more robust form of citation. But date alone is not good enough, I disagree with some of the standards on this. If it changes at a future time, and I don't have access to the logs, how can I prove that my citation was accurate?
Because they only things you can cite to in legitimate academic or scholarly work are volumes or editions that do not change, so that anybody can use your citiation to verify your source.
First, to "lock in" decent versions of controversial articles. But second and more importantly, to be able to produce a stable, constant "edition" that can be referenced and cited to. How do you cite Wikipedia, when the content is always changing? Now you could write a paper and cite something like Person, Random, "Wikipedia Article," Wikipedia 2d ed. (2006). Very, very, important if WP is to become a legitimate source of information.
Well, when you add in the theatrical trailers, "making of" featurette, production stills, and commentary tracks... What I want to know is, will it be in Dolby Digital 7.1?
If that's really the biggest difference you see, then that says all I need to know about your perception and/or judgement abilities.
I suppose you would realize some fuel savings from driving with your headlights off...
Senate, yes, House, no. The House has always been ruled by popular vote.
I'll additionally point out a benefit to the electoral college nobody else has yet: it is more robust, by confining extremely close outcomes in the popular vote to units 1/50th the size of the whole. Without it, then in the event of a close outcome,the entire nation would have to undergo manual recounts. Ugh!Additionally, the electoral college has federalism implications, making it possible for the states to maintain their own election procedures.
In any case, it will not be changed, because Congress cannot change it.
And here, perhaps, is the critical difference; the socialist society you describe may indeed provide a better life for the people who think as you describe. But you presuppose that there is a right and correct vision of "the good life," and that it is the state's role to provide it. I argue that the overarching premise of the United States is that no presuppositions about what constitutes the "good life" will be made by the state; so long as they respect the integrity of others, individuals will be left alone to determine this (or not, as the case may be) for themselves. Better in some ways, worse in others. I like it, personally. You may not. But see! Under my philosophy, I don't have to believe that you are wrong.
No, you and everyone else trotting this out are wrong. The horror was not having to provide ID all the time. That was just petty mistrust of the citizenry. The real horror was that the REASON you had to show papers was that any travel had to be PRE-AUTHORIZED by the state. By default, you were not permitted to travel anywhere, no matter how much ID you had. The "papers" from the phrase "papers, please" are not identification papers, they are AUTHORIZATION papers, passes, and permits.
Where the fark did you get that from? Anyone one who wants to leave can exit immediately, no questions asked, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. All they're saying is, if you want to come back, please have this standard piece of international identification. Is that really so much to ask?
I'm not saying Canada is evil or anything, this is usually vile speech it is prohibiting, but it certainly is less free, speechwise, than the United States.
This is where we part ways. It actually opens up exactly zero more choices than previously existed. All it does is FORCE users to affirmatively make a choice (essentially, taking away the option of remaining rationally ignorant). I disagree with the government abrogating this power to itself.
If there were a substantial number of PC users who wanted prefabricated systems without Windows, then there would be a distributor who would fill that need - and the size of that distributor would be roughly proportional to the size of the public demand. The fact that there are no such sizeable distributors speaks against your proposition.
You are comitting a common logical fallacy of generalizing from your own experiences. Accept the fact that most PC users do not share your preferences. Perhaps due to ignorance! But the reason is irrelevant, so long as people are free to choose.