Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).
Except that's not true, the USA Constitution sets specific limits on what the federal government can do, if a power is not enumerated it does not have that power. The "Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government--all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives." James Madison said "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis ours)". Quotes from others on that page also support the constitutional idea that the federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it. Federalist #45, mentioned above states:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Quite simply states had to be convinced the federal government would not have unlimited government otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.
In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.
Health is one of the things individual states pretty much control, that's in part why there are problems with the affordability of medicine and health care. Each state decides who can sell insurance in the state, and what the insurance must cover. If I, living in one state, cross the state line and find cheaper insurance in another state I can not buy that insurance to use in the state I live in. There is no free market in insurance, but did the Health Insurance reform bill congress passed and Obama signed change that? No.
Why should States have more say than their citizens?
Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had.
No, it is very pertinent, why should states have more power than citizens? States already appoint the electoral college. All state citizens can vote for federally is their representative. And saying they can move doesn't cut it. If you believe differently you are free to move yourself, to China, Cuba, or Zimbabwe. You'll probably find local governments have more say in those places than citizens there.
... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?
The difference between then and now is that Nevadans didn't want nuclear waste dumped there but once they know about geothermal they probably will want it developed. I don't know how much geothermal energy can be harvested there, TFA does not say and neither does Harry Reid, but according to MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands "the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."
'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'
Neither the TFA nor Harry Reid back up that claim. Until facts such as how many terawatts geothermal can generate in Nevada versus California and Hawaii then Nevada will remain behind CA and HA in capacity. As for a Saudi Arabia of Geothermal energy, that title belongs to Iceland. However TFA MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands says:
"You'll be happy to know that the United States is ahead of the rest of the world, being the largest producer of geothermal energy. And, according to Nafi Toksöz, a geophysicist at MIT, the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."
Those rural/poor areas don't need the same amount of electricity as your house to make a world of difference.
Really? Homes in the city or suburbia require large screen TVs whereas homes in rural locations don't? Satellite dishes originally were used in rural locations, large analogue dishes, but now digital dishes are found in the middle of cities. Me, while the large TV would be nice, I want servers, a lab, and workshops. I also want a greenhouse.
A roof covered with 1% effecient solar cells plus a deep cycle battery would power lights, run a radio, and charge cell phones.
Rural locations in Africa and South Asia do better than that now. Hell I read of one village that used a stationary mounted bike for pedal power. Using a point to point wireless connection it was enough to power the equipment for net access. Elsewhere a person started a business assembling solar energy systems with a small panel, inverter, and battery which was then sold to villagers. One villager could buy a system, with micro-financing, and then could put it in the workshop. Being able to do metal, or wood, work while it was dark would increase the workman's pay.
I think that this is the best use for small energy systems. Such systems can raise poor rural people's living standards.
come out, I look forward to digging up the specific details of the technology and am left wanting. It seems like no researchers offer any insight into the lifetime of their new, super-duper technology.
Perhaps that's because they are research papers and the tech has not reached practical application yet. And perhaps that's the difference between scientists and engineers, scientists want to know what's possible whereas engineers want the practical application. Without the other neither one gets very far.
It still takes about 5 years to recoup the cost of a residential solar system-- even with huge government subsidies!
But energy is free after that whereas you have to keep paying for distributed power, even with huge government subsidies to coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Solar panels are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years. I think the shortest warranty for hardware are on batteries, yet Surrette/Rolls has a 10 year warranty. On the other hand Enersys Batteries only have a 5 year warranty. Even if you have to replace the batteries every 5 years, you still save money.
Seems like I keep hearing of breakthroughs, but nothing ever seems to fucking change!
Prices have changed. According to Solarbuzz per watt costs have dropped from about 5.40 euros or a little over that in US dollars in December 2001 to about 4.20 euros or a little less US dollars for June 2010. Further it says "there are now 488 solar module prices below $4.00 per watt (3.24 euros per watt)". Efficiency has also increased. In 2001 conversion efficiency pushed 12%, in 2009 SunPower sold panels with conversion efficiencies of 19.3%, the highest in the industry.
alright, you are absolutely retarded, I destyoed all of these arguments in another part of this threat against another Mac head. I provided direct links to identical computers from Apple.com and Dell.com, that explicitly show apple to have a pretty constant extra 50% added to their price, for the entire computer.
No, you are absolutely retarded. I did the exact same thing as you did showing Macs were comparable in prices. However when I did it I not only compared Macs to Dells, but to Alienware PCs, HPs, and others. I posted my results several tymes on slashdot. Ballmer Scorns Apple As a $500 Logo is one place, specifically in this post. That's from more than a year ago. How about now? Let's see...
Total price, $994.00. As with the above Dell this one is cheaper but does not meet the Mac's specs. You want a faster CPU and higher resolution display you'll have to get something else.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-540M Dual Core processor (2.53GHz, 3MB L3 Cache) with Turbo Boost up to 3.06GHz
4GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
FREE Upgrade to 500GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive with HP ProtectSmart Hard Drive Protection
1GB ATI Mobility Radeon(TM) HD 5650 switchable graphics
17.3" diagonal HD+ High-Definition HP LED BrightView Widescreen Display (1600 x 900)
Total price, $1,333.98. Again though lower priced, it does not meet the Mac's specs.
The OS itself, doesn't matter much because installing an Apple OS on a non-Apple computer is a dangerous thing, compatibility and stability die instantly.
I don't think blaming the cost and poor service of Insurance companies on government interference, is really supported by the facts
Facts? You don't want facts, you want what supports your beliefs. Fact is is I am covered by government insurance and it sucks. Well, that's not really a fact, it is my opinion, but many others share it. If government wants to make sure people can afford insurance allow people to cross state lines to buy insurance then give people that buy insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance to employees. Health insurance for individuals cost is high because there is no free market in it. Employers get tax deductions for offering insurance but if the employer wants to pay employees more, so the employee can buy their own insurance, both employer and employee pay more in taxes. With potentially millions of people wanting to buy health insurance on their own they way they want it, instead of being given a limited choice by their employer, then insurance companies will compeat with each other for those millions of people.
Another thing government could do, for those who still could not afford insurance, give them money so they can buy their own insurance. If I could afford it I'd buy catastrophic health insurance for major expenses but use a health savings account to pay for normal expenses. Many doctors, and other medical professionals, will lower their bills if the patient pays out of pocket. That is because it cost money to file insurance claims. So by paying when the doc is seen lowers the doc's expenses and they'll offer lower cost services themselves.
More directly, insurance premiums have risen at a scale completely unrelated to their costs. Including the cost of malpractice suits, which - despite the hype - have remained relatively stable. There has not been an increase in government interference from 2000 to 2009 - why did their premiums rise?
First it's not just insurance premiums that have risen, so has costs. I known you say one is unrelated to the other but they are related. Second, there is no free market in health insurance. When an employer offers health insurance to employees government gives that employer a tax deduction. Does government give someone a tax deduction if they buy insurance on their own? Say if you go to Mutual of Omaha where you buy health insurance, do you think government will give you a tax deduction? If you thought "yes" you are wrong, you will not get a tax deduction. Next, do you think you and your employer will pay as much in taxes if your employer pays you more so you can buy insurance? Not only will neither of you get a deduction but you'll both have to pay more taxes. This is a massive intervention in the markets. Another intervention is from the state governments. Each state decides which companies can sell insurance in the state, if knowing crossing a state line I could buy cheaper insurance I should be able to, but I can not.
It seems to me more like a case that they raised the premiums because they could - and their customers have no choice but to either pay or lose their insurance
They can get away with it because there is little competition.
"Allowing people to make their own choice" is not part of the curriculum.;-)
Neither is requiring a computer for most classes. I went through more than 12 years of classes not needing one. Heck when I first wrote programs I used pen and paper before touching a keyboard.
And if you want to settle upon a single standard, consider something free (as in speech and beer), open (files will still work in 10 years) and multiplatform (runs on any computer), like *gasp* OpenOffice.
Why require a computer at all? For more than 12 years I turned in work written by hand, with pen and paper. I even got a math teacher upset because I used a pen and not pencil.
As for OpenOffice, I used that when I had a Windows or Linux PC but now that I use a Mac I use NeoOffice, the native Mac port of OpenOffice. Using it I've only had one problem opening a document created in MS Office, I couldn't open one.docx file but it was suggested I update Open Office. After I did the file opened up fine. Oh there is another problem but I haven't had it yet, Open Office doesn't work with MS Office macros.
Except that would require the school/teachers have Microsoft Word and open office and be smart enough to open the right one in the right program...
No, all it requires is a pen or pencil and paper. No computer, word processing software, or printer needed. If I were an English, math, or science teacher I'd probably want work done that way but if not then assignments would be turned in printed.
Of course, it can be argued that the focus is even better maintained if a lowest-common-denominator plain-ASCII editor is used. Or maybe even a pencil and paper...
I don't know about you but pen/pencil and paper worked best while I was in school. I even turned on multi-page papers and reports written by hand. We even used pen or pencil and paper for programming. If we felt like it we'd sketch a flowchart by hand them write pseudo-code. I know this was many, many, years ago. Even for Java we drew UML diagrams by hand.
Neither I nor many others want to gamble with other people's money
Then you either have insurance and are whining about nothing at all or you have several million dollars on tap and are whining about pocket change.
WOW, you know me. NOT!!!
Neither, I have insurance, specifically Medicare so I know how bad government insurance is. I'm broke too.
What I want is the choice as to how I will spend my own money. So long as I am not harming anyone else I should be able to do what I want, and when I do harm anyone then charge me with a crime.
Without insurance, if you get hit with cancer or a bad accident you're all but certain to be unable to afford to pay the bill yourself, which means other people pay or we let you die.
Ignoramus, I was hit in an accident without insurance and am now disabled. Do I want you or any one else who was not at fault to pay for it? No I don't I wanted the guilty party to pay. For those who through no fault of their own have an accident or become sick and can not afford treatment, I want civil society to help. Did the government start or does it operate St. Jude Children's Research Hospital? No, it was started by the actor and comedian Danny Thomas. The hospital treats children whether they or their parents can pay or not it does not ask to be paid. How are bills paid? By donations. Large businesses, small businesses, sports teams, and individuals donate to the hospital. Here's a partial list of funders. How about Shriners Hospitals for Children? Government didn't start it, and neither funds nor runs it. All that was done by the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, Shriners for short.
I would much rather donate wealth to them, or heck even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, than have government take my money at the point of a gun.
You want to pay out of pocket for the small stuff? Then get catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for the small stuff, same as me. Congratulations! You got what you want and have complied with the law.
Yes, that could have been done before, but the new law has "essential health benefit" requirements. Does catastrophic coverage meet those requirements? I admit I don't know.
Seriously? Those stories are supposed to show how not having insurance isn't gambling with other people's money?
No, they were to show that even those who can not now pay still get medical treatment. See unlike the boy in the movie John Q those who can not pay still get treatment.
It's the public school administrators who oppose choice,
Public school administrators, some but not all, do oppose school choice but many parent have concerns. One concern is transportation. How far are parents willing to let their children travel to go to school?
The main reason the economy collapsed was because of the troubles in the housing mortgage market, and guess when that started... During Clinton's term of office.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Better that than command and control markets. What kicked workers balls, and breasts, the Soviet Union? Government. In NAZI Germany? Government. In China, government. In Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe, ie government. When has a free market kicked anyone's balls or teats? Never, no free market exists.
You were arguing about things other than Macs. Neither iPhone, iPad nor iPods are Macs.
Would you have purchased exports and endorsed the Nazi party in Germany
Guess what? Jews did buy from German businesses before and during WWII. Jews financially supported the NAZIs. The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was an agreement reached in 1933 between Jewish leaders in Europe and the NAZIs for Jews to emigrate to Palestine. Any Jew who wanted to move there would have the NAZIs buy their property then the proceeds of the sale would be deposited in a German bank with a branch of the bank in Palestine. Once there Jews could then withdraw money to buy German made goods. Not only that but Jewish terrorists groups like the Irgun and the Stern Group or Lehi offered to the NAZIs to fight against the British to help the NAZIs.
My comparison was Apple to Win7. In terms of this, Apple will never even come close to value per dollar price.
You compare a company to an OS? How about apples to apples or oranges to oranges? Now if you want to try that, compare OS X Snow Leopard to Windows 7. The cheapest Win7 is Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade at $120, an upgrade, whereas the Snow Leopard upgrade is $29. The basic Windows is $90 more. How about the price of the full versions, Windows 7 Home Premium cost $200 whereas Snow Leopard is $29. And a family pack? The Snow Leopard Family Pack, which allows it to be installed on up to 5 Macs, costs $49. How much does the Windows family pack cost? Oops, I don't see a family pack. So, to upgrade 5 PCs it wold cost $600.
The Apple OS is ugly, it can not be significantly altered for user enjoyment, and is much harder to learn than windows.
All that is your subjective judgment and is not based on fact. I and many others prefer the look of OS X. OS X has as many alteration options as Windows, but it's easier to decide which version to get. And many people find OS X easier to use than Windows as well.
I learned how to use a windows computer in about 5 minutes
I learned to use a Mac in 5 minutes.
and I can use thousands of alternate set up types and arrangements for my specific utility.
If I wanted to use thousands of alternate set up types I could do that with Macs.
I can be using several dozen large programs at once, switching between them and moving files in a fraction of a second, with insane productivity levels.
Oh really? Forget having dozens of programs, who needs that many large or small programs running at the same tyme, just having two or three Windows programs running would cause my Windows PCs to have a fit. If I ran too many applications they would crash.
I use my windows computer for everything from web browing, simulation programming and design, virtual prototyping, mathematical modeling, word processing, gaming, communication, finding my way around the countries roads, learning, and anything else I want to do with it. I have yet to find anything that I can't do on my computer that a Mac can
I have yet to find something I can not do on my Mac I could do on my Windows PCs. That is except go for days and weeks without suffering a crash, which I DO NOT want to happen.
So you want to teach kids computer skills on a non/standard operating system, and allow them to turn in papers with dozens of different incompatible file types.
One, I'd rather have people taught computer skills instead of the dominating OS. Two, paper does not have incompatible file types. Paper is paper and can be read by anyone able to see. Now if you meant electronic document file types, I can think of two, three, problems with proprietary file types. The first is as you say incompatibility. I can not open a.docx created with MS Office 2010 with my copy of MS Office 97. But I can and have opened.docx files from 2008 with NeoOffice. Not only that but I'm not locked into the endless and expensive MS Office upgrade path.
Windows may have the majority of the market, but it is good.
HAHA!!! NOT!!! I and others have switched from Windows because it's a piece of crap. When it got to the point where I had to replace my desktop PC, because I was tired of constantly having to reinstall Windows after getting many, many, Blue Screen of Deaths I replaced it with a Linux desktop. Then when I got a new laptop I bought a MacBook Pro. I have had it almost 3 years and in that tyme I've had less problems with it than I had with Windows PCs in their first year.
Plus, at least microsoft only has a monopoly on the OS, which can be customized and adapted to fit a large variety of needs, unlike Mac, and it runs more programs better than Mac or Linux.
Another lie. A Windows PC can only run Windows software. My Linux PC can run Linux and Windows software. And my Mac can run Linux, Windows, and Mac software. If I wanted to I could install Windows itself on both my Linux PC and my Mac. I can install, and plan on doing so, Linux on my Mac.
Apple uses its OS to create a monopoly on the culture of its users
What monopoly? As I state above I can install Windows/Windows programs and Linux on my Mac. If I felt inclined I could install Windows or Linux and never use OS X on my Mac. Of course, where would I? Leopard simply works for me.
regulating how and where they get their programs (at least for the iPhone, iPad, and iPods)
Ah, there's something we agree with, while I can install many things on my Mac that Apple has no control over that's not true for iPads, iPhones, and iPods. That is one reason, but not the only one, I do not own and have no interest in buying any of them. Actually as I've said elsewhere I have no interest in getting an iPad, because it runs a crippled OS. Before it's release I was looking forward to seeing the iPad, but I was expecting something more like the Modbook Pro, a modified MacBook Pro.
As for functionality per dollar? Windows is the best value for the dollar.
Again wrong!!! For general purposes Linux is the best value for the dollar. For specific purposes Macs may be better. For instance Photoshop does not have a version for Linux, while GIMP is fine for many people on the web it can not do what some pro print artists need or want. Heck, Windows beats Linux there because at least Photoshop runs on Windows.
Plus, windows is often illegal, so the OS itself can be free sometimes.
Free does not make something better, legal or illegal.
Sadly, your wonderful little reality is very impractical, the compatibility is just not there.
Sadly you fail to look beyond your small sphere of knowledge.
Also, I might add that apples hardware is pretty much set in stone.
One, that's not destroying competition. Two, Apple is a systems integration vendor, hardware and software are made to work well together.
No upgradability without crippling the OS
Say what? My MacBook Pro came with instructions on how users can upgrade their RAM. That's on a laptop. Lowendmac has the article Know Your Mac's Upgrade Options. Googling upgrading macs returned more than 5 million more results. And while many may be complainers like you complaining Macs are not upgradable I bet many say exactly how Macs can be upgraded. Another one is Upgrading Your Mac's Internal HDD (To An External One), it explains how to replace the internal drive with another then use the old drive as an external one. TFA is dated 5 January 2010, a year before that I replaced the internal drive in my Mac, from the 160 GB it came with to a 320 GB drive, then I bought bought a docking station that accepts internal drives then plugs into a USB socket for use as an external drive. Mac Pros are even easier to upgrade. Now if you mean the all-in-one Macs like the iMac and Mac mini are hard to upgrade try upgrading Dell's XPS One all-in-one. All-in-one PCs are not meant to be easily upgradable.
or paying Apples insanely inflated prices
1999 is calling and wants it's mime back. For years and years Mac prices had been comparable with Windows PC prices. Before I ever got my MBP I made a list of requirements a new computer had to meet, I then comfigured and compared several different laptops with those specs. A couple of laptops were about $100 less and a couple of others were several hundred dollars more than the MBP I eventually bought.
My home built epic-computer can be upgraded whenever I want, in any number of different ways. it is flexible and wonderful, and I don't have to buy a new one just to meet the demands of one newfangled program, until the system is too old to do anything.
Good for you, though I haven't built my own PC I have upgraded and expanded PCs. And the same can be done with a Mac Pro. A new Mac just can't be legally built by anyone other than Apple. People build their owe hackintoches, Hackintoch gives instructions and tutorials on how to do so.
It's an economies of scale thing. If you had decent capacity on the train things may be different, but the travel time really kills it, so not enough people are willing to ride it to make it worthwhile.
I doubt that's why trains cost as much as planes, because of low ridership. People still use bus lines like Greyhound, and they're even slower than trains.
I rode a train once, ages ago. Well back in the '70s. An uncle worked for a railroad so he got me a ticket from Detroit, MI where I was visiting to Springfield, MA where I lived. I had wanted to ride one again, about 12 years ago I moved from Florida to Minnesota, but I wanted to take my truck. However the Autotrain only runs between Lorton, VA, near Washington DC and Sanford, FL, outside of Orlando. I'd love to be able to drive my car on the train and go wherever now.
If the school had said windows there would be many comments like:
You missed one, Microsoft is a convicted monopoly.
Now this being Apple, I've read similar things,
Apple is evil,...
Now instead of mandating an OS why not say what tasks need to be done? Students need to write papers? How about pen/pencil and paper, or a word processor? Then let the students/parents decide how to meet those needs? Those who want to write a paper can use a pen and paper, MS Office, or Open Office.
The only reason an OS or program should be required is because that is what the class teaches, MS Windows for an Intro to MS Windows class. Final Cut for a Final Cut class. Photoshop for a Photoshop class.
everything that is useful in business except for graphic design and web design is run on a PC using Windows XP or Windows 7.
Really? There is no Microsoft Office for Macs? Nor any other office suite? Then I must of been mistaken when I got my Mac and saw a 30 day trial of MS Office installed on it, and I don''t have NeoOffice or Eclipse on it now.
I suppose the next ideal evolution will be getting the textbooks onto the computers. That would be an entirely new level of awesome.
I read where that's already being done. Some schools in Africa had satellite dishes installed. Then instead of having to distribute new editions of printed books, ebook are quickly downloaded and copied to laptops. This is both quicker and cheaper. An article on a World Bank blog asks "Can eBooks replace printed books in Africa? An experiment".
Slashdot Mirror
Although the 10th Amendment seems to make things clear, the remainder of the Constitution is vague enough to grant the federal government almost unlimited power (ie. the interstate commerce clause -- virtually no business is conducted exclusively within state lines today).
Except that's not true, the USA Constitution sets specific limits on what the federal government can do, if a power is not enumerated it does not have that power. The "Jeffersonian philosophy is clearly one of reason, individualism, liberty, and limited government--all of which are, in different ways, anathema to modern liberals and conservatives." James Madison said "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce;... the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperities of the people. (The Federalist, #45, emphasis ours)". Quotes from others on that page also support the constitutional idea that the federal government only has the powers specifically granted to it. Federalist #45, mentioned above states:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Quite simply states had to be convinced the federal government would not have unlimited government otherwise they would never have ratified the Constitution.
In many cases, it also makes no sense for individual states to manage things like environmental and health policy on a one-by-one basis. With one or two exceptions, the USA has functioned as a singular entity for over 100 years.
Health is one of the things individual states pretty much control, that's in part why there are problems with the affordability of medicine and health care. Each state decides who can sell insurance in the state, and what the insurance must cover. If I, living in one state, cross the state line and find cheaper insurance in another state I can not buy that insurance to use in the state I live in. There is no free market in insurance, but did the Health Insurance reform bill congress passed and Obama signed change that? No.
Falcon
Why should States have more say than their citizens?
Straw man. States have the least power they have ever had.
No, it is very pertinent, why should states have more power than citizens? States already appoint the electoral college. All state citizens can vote for federally is their representative. And saying they can move doesn't cut it. If you believe differently you are free to move yourself, to China, Cuba, or Zimbabwe. You'll probably find local governments have more say in those places than citizens there.
Falcon
... that kind of kills it for me. Any politician making such proclamations must be taken with a pound of salt. Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?
The difference between then and now is that Nevadans didn't want nuclear waste dumped there but once they know about geothermal they probably will want it developed. I don't know how much geothermal energy can be harvested there, TFA does not say and neither does Harry Reid, but according to MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands "the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."
Falcon
'Northern Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of geothermal energy.'
Neither the TFA nor Harry Reid back up that claim. Until facts such as how many terawatts geothermal can generate in Nevada versus California and Hawaii then Nevada will remain behind CA and HA in capacity. As for a Saudi Arabia of Geothermal energy, that title belongs to Iceland. However TFA MIT STUDY: GeoThermal to Supply 10% of Energy Demands says:
"You'll be happy to know that the United States is ahead of the rest of the world, being the largest producer of geothermal energy. And, according to Nafi Toksöz, a geophysicist at MIT, the combined energy of geothermal plants in California, Hawaii, Utah and Nevada is comparable to all the solar and wind power produced throughout the U.S."
Falcon
Those rural/poor areas don't need the same amount of electricity as your house to make a world of difference.
Really? Homes in the city or suburbia require large screen TVs whereas homes in rural locations don't? Satellite dishes originally were used in rural locations, large analogue dishes, but now digital dishes are found in the middle of cities. Me, while the large TV would be nice, I want servers, a lab, and workshops. I also want a greenhouse.
A roof covered with 1% effecient solar cells plus a deep cycle battery would power lights, run a radio, and charge cell phones.
Rural locations in Africa and South Asia do better than that now. Hell I read of one village that used a stationary mounted bike for pedal power. Using a point to point wireless connection it was enough to power the equipment for net access. Elsewhere a person started a business assembling solar energy systems with a small panel, inverter, and battery which was then sold to villagers. One villager could buy a system, with micro-financing, and then could put it in the workshop. Being able to do metal, or wood, work while it was dark would increase the workman's pay.
I think that this is the best use for small energy systems. Such systems can raise poor rural people's living standards.
Falcon
come out, I look forward to digging up the specific details of the technology and am left wanting. It seems like no researchers offer any insight into the lifetime of their new, super-duper technology.
Perhaps that's because they are research papers and the tech has not reached practical application yet. And perhaps that's the difference between scientists and engineers, scientists want to know what's possible whereas engineers want the practical application. Without the other neither one gets very far.
Falcon
If I had a tribble for every time one of these solar energy articles came out with their pages full of nothing....
Your starship would be full of tribbles. Then it's tyme to call Klingons.
Falcon
It still takes about 5 years to recoup the cost of a residential solar system-- even with huge government subsidies!
But energy is free after that whereas you have to keep paying for distributed power, even with huge government subsidies to coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels. Solar panels are warrantied 20, 25, even 30 years. I think the shortest warranty for hardware are on batteries, yet Surrette/Rolls has a 10 year warranty. On the other hand Enersys Batteries only have a 5 year warranty. Even if you have to replace the batteries every 5 years, you still save money.
Some, like you?, complain about subsidies for alternative energy but you say nothing about subsidies for "conventional" energy. Coal? It gets billions of dollars in subsidies, here's, Chevron's CEO agreeing with the Sierra Club to lobby to end coal subsidies. Rep Edward Markey practically brags that My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'. He details some of the subsidies nuclear power and other's get. How about this: Global Dirty Energy Subsidies Top $550 Billion Per Year. A blog entry on the Financial Times website says The cost of fossil fuel subsidies: $557bn. How about the US? The Policy Archive says that between 2002 and 2008 "Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion."
If you want to complain about subsidies complain about the subsidies conventional energy, and agricultural businesses, get. A Reason blog entry says Agricultural Subsidies: Corporate Welfare for Farmers.
Falcon
Seems like I keep hearing of breakthroughs, but nothing ever seems to fucking change!
Prices have changed. According to Solarbuzz per watt costs have dropped from about 5.40 euros or a little over that in US dollars in December 2001 to about 4.20 euros or a little less US dollars for June 2010. Further it says "there are now 488 solar module prices below $4.00 per watt (3.24 euros per watt)". Efficiency has also increased. In 2001 conversion efficiency pushed 12%, in 2009 SunPower sold panels with conversion efficiencies of 19.3%, the highest in the industry.
Falcon
alright, you are absolutely retarded, I destyoed all of these arguments in another part of this threat against another Mac head. I provided direct links to identical computers from Apple.com and Dell.com, that explicitly show apple to have a pretty constant extra 50% added to their price, for the entire computer.
No, you are absolutely retarded. I did the exact same thing as you did showing Macs were comparable in prices. However when I did it I not only compared Macs to Dells, but to Alienware PCs, HPs, and others. I posted my results several tymes on slashdot. Ballmer Scorns Apple As a $500 Logo is one place, specifically in this post. That's from more than a year ago. How about now? Let's see...
MacBook Pro 17-inch
Total price: $2,549.00
Now for a Dell...
The only 17+ inch Dell laptops I see are two, the Vostro 3700s, and FastTrack Elite Vostro 3700s,. What are their configurations? Let's see...
Vostro 3700s,
Total price, $713.00. While lower cost, it is slower, has less RAM, lower resolution display, and a smaller HDD.
How about the FastTrack Elite Vostro 3700s
Total price, $994.00. As with the above Dell this one is cheaper but does not meet the Mac's specs. You want a faster CPU and higher resolution display you'll have to get something else.
How about an HP...
G72t series
Total price, $1,333.98. The CPU is slower and display resolution lower but the HDD is bigger.
And the dv7tse series
Total price, $1,333.98. Again though lower priced, it does not meet the Mac's specs.
The OS itself, doesn't matter much because installing an Apple OS on a non-Apple computer is a dangerous thing, compatibility and stability die instantly.
The OS does matter. After years and
I don't think blaming the cost and poor service of Insurance companies on government interference, is really supported by the facts
Facts? You don't want facts, you want what supports your beliefs. Fact is is I am covered by government insurance and it sucks. Well, that's not really a fact, it is my opinion, but many others share it. If government wants to make sure people can afford insurance allow people to cross state lines to buy insurance then give people that buy insurance the same tax deductions employers get for offering insurance to employees. Health insurance for individuals cost is high because there is no free market in it. Employers get tax deductions for offering insurance but if the employer wants to pay employees more, so the employee can buy their own insurance, both employer and employee pay more in taxes. With potentially millions of people wanting to buy health insurance on their own they way they want it, instead of being given a limited choice by their employer, then insurance companies will compeat with each other for those millions of people.
Another thing government could do, for those who still could not afford insurance, give them money so they can buy their own insurance. If I could afford it I'd buy catastrophic health insurance for major expenses but use a health savings account to pay for normal expenses. Many doctors, and other medical professionals, will lower their bills if the patient pays out of pocket. That is because it cost money to file insurance claims. So by paying when the doc is seen lowers the doc's expenses and they'll offer lower cost services themselves.
More directly, insurance premiums have risen at a scale completely unrelated to their costs. Including the cost of malpractice suits, which - despite the hype - have remained relatively stable. There has not been an increase in government interference from 2000 to 2009 - why did their premiums rise?
First it's not just insurance premiums that have risen, so has costs. I known you say one is unrelated to the other but they are related. Second, there is no free market in health insurance. When an employer offers health insurance to employees government gives that employer a tax deduction. Does government give someone a tax deduction if they buy insurance on their own? Say if you go to Mutual of Omaha where you buy health insurance, do you think government will give you a tax deduction? If you thought "yes" you are wrong, you will not get a tax deduction. Next, do you think you and your employer will pay as much in taxes if your employer pays you more so you can buy insurance? Not only will neither of you get a deduction but you'll both have to pay more taxes. This is a massive intervention in the markets. Another intervention is from the state governments. Each state decides which companies can sell insurance in the state, if knowing crossing a state line I could buy cheaper insurance I should be able to, but I can not.
It seems to me more like a case that they raised the premiums because they could - and their customers have no choice but to either pay or lose their insurance
They can get away with it because there is little competition.
Falcon
"Allowing people to make their own choice" is not part of the curriculum. ;-)
Neither is requiring a computer for most classes. I went through more than 12 years of classes not needing one. Heck when I first wrote programs I used pen and paper before touching a keyboard.
Falcon
And if you want to settle upon a single standard, consider something free (as in speech and beer), open (files will still work in 10 years) and multiplatform (runs on any computer), like *gasp* OpenOffice.
Why require a computer at all? For more than 12 years I turned in work written by hand, with pen and paper. I even got a math teacher upset because I used a pen and not pencil.
As for OpenOffice, I used that when I had a Windows or Linux PC but now that I use a Mac I use NeoOffice, the native Mac port of OpenOffice. Using it I've only had one problem opening a document created in MS Office, I couldn't open one .docx file but it was suggested I update Open Office. After I did the file opened up fine. Oh there is another problem but I haven't had it yet, Open Office doesn't work with MS Office macros.
Falcon
Except that would require the school/teachers have Microsoft Word and open office and be smart enough to open the right one in the right program...
No, all it requires is a pen or pencil and paper. No computer, word processing software, or printer needed. If I were an English, math, or science teacher I'd probably want work done that way but if not then assignments would be turned in printed.
Falcon
Of course, it can be argued that the focus is even better maintained if a lowest-common-denominator plain-ASCII editor is used. Or maybe even a pencil and paper...
I don't know about you but pen/pencil and paper worked best while I was in school. I even turned on multi-page papers and reports written by hand. We even used pen or pencil and paper for programming. If we felt like it we'd sketch a flowchart by hand them write pseudo-code. I know this was many, many, years ago. Even for Java we drew UML diagrams by hand.
Falcon
Neither I nor many others want to gamble with other people's money
Then you either have insurance and are whining about nothing at all or you have several million dollars on tap and are whining about pocket change.
WOW, you know me. NOT!!!
Neither, I have insurance, specifically Medicare so I know how bad government insurance is. I'm broke too.
What I want is the choice as to how I will spend my own money. So long as I am not harming anyone else I should be able to do what I want, and when I do harm anyone then charge me with a crime.
Without insurance, if you get hit with cancer or a bad accident you're all but certain to be unable to afford to pay the bill yourself, which means other people pay or we let you die.
Ignoramus, I was hit in an accident without insurance and am now disabled. Do I want you or any one else who was not at fault to pay for it? No I don't I wanted the guilty party to pay. For those who through no fault of their own have an accident or become sick and can not afford treatment, I want civil society to help. Did the government start or does it operate St. Jude Children's Research Hospital? No, it was started by the actor and comedian Danny Thomas. The hospital treats children whether they or their parents can pay or not it does not ask to be paid. How are bills paid? By donations. Large businesses, small businesses, sports teams, and individuals donate to the hospital. Here's a partial list of funders. How about Shriners Hospitals for Children? Government didn't start it, and neither funds nor runs it. All that was done by the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine, Shriners for short.
I would much rather donate wealth to them, or heck even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, than have government take my money at the point of a gun.
You want to pay out of pocket for the small stuff? Then get catastrophic coverage and pay out of pocket for the small stuff, same as me. Congratulations! You got what you want and have complied with the law.
Yes, that could have been done before, but the new law has "essential health benefit" requirements. Does catastrophic coverage meet those requirements? I admit I don't know.
Seriously? Those stories are supposed to show how not having insurance isn't gambling with other people's money?
No, they were to show that even those who can not now pay still get medical treatment. See unlike the boy in the movie John Q those who can not pay still get treatment.
Falcon
It's the public school administrators who oppose choice,
Public school administrators, some but not all, do oppose school choice but many parent have concerns. One concern is transportation. How far are parents willing to let their children travel to go to school?
Falcon
The economy WOULDN'T have improved without Obama
Proof it.
The main reason the economy collapsed was because of the troubles in the housing mortgage market, and guess when that started... During Clinton's term of office.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
Better that than command and control markets. What kicked workers balls, and breasts, the Soviet Union? Government. In NAZI Germany? Government. In China, government. In Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe, ie government. When has a free market kicked anyone's balls or teats? Never, no free market exists.
Falcon
What do you mean what is my argument?
You were arguing about things other than Macs. Neither iPhone, iPad nor iPods are Macs.
Would you have purchased exports and endorsed the Nazi party in Germany
Guess what? Jews did buy from German businesses before and during WWII. Jews financially supported the NAZIs. The Haavara (Transfer) Agreement was an agreement reached in 1933 between Jewish leaders in Europe and the NAZIs for Jews to emigrate to Palestine. Any Jew who wanted to move there would have the NAZIs buy their property then the proceeds of the sale would be deposited in a German bank with a branch of the bank in Palestine. Once there Jews could then withdraw money to buy German made goods. Not only that but Jewish terrorists groups like the Irgun and the Stern Group or Lehi offered to the NAZIs to fight against the British to help the NAZIs.
My comparison was Apple to Win7. In terms of this, Apple will never even come close to value per dollar price.
You compare a company to an OS? How about apples to apples or oranges to oranges? Now if you want to try that, compare OS X Snow Leopard to Windows 7. The cheapest Win7 is Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade at $120, an upgrade, whereas the Snow Leopard upgrade is $29. The basic Windows is $90 more. How about the price of the full versions, Windows 7 Home Premium cost $200 whereas Snow Leopard is $29. And a family pack? The Snow Leopard Family Pack, which allows it to be installed on up to 5 Macs, costs $49. How much does the Windows family pack cost? Oops, I don't see a family pack. So, to upgrade 5 PCs it wold cost $600.
The Apple OS is ugly, it can not be significantly altered for user enjoyment, and is much harder to learn than windows.
All that is your subjective judgment and is not based on fact. I and many others prefer the look of OS X. OS X has as many alteration options as Windows, but it's easier to decide which version to get. And many people find OS X easier to use than Windows as well.
I learned how to use a windows computer in about 5 minutes
I learned to use a Mac in 5 minutes.
and I can use thousands of alternate set up types and arrangements for my specific utility.
If I wanted to use thousands of alternate set up types I could do that with Macs.
I can be using several dozen large programs at once, switching between them and moving files in a fraction of a second, with insane productivity levels.
Oh really? Forget having dozens of programs, who needs that many large or small programs running at the same tyme, just having two or three Windows programs running would cause my Windows PCs to have a fit. If I ran too many applications they would crash.
I use my windows computer for everything from web browing, simulation programming and design, virtual prototyping, mathematical modeling, word processing, gaming, communication, finding my way around the countries roads, learning, and anything else I want to do with it. I have yet to find anything that I can't do on my computer that a Mac can
I have yet to find something I can not do on my Mac I could do on my Windows PCs. That is except go for days and weeks without suffering a crash, which I DO NOT want to happen.
Falcon
So you want to teach kids computer skills on a non/standard operating system, and allow them to turn in papers with dozens of different incompatible file types.
One, I'd rather have people taught computer skills instead of the dominating OS. Two, paper does not have incompatible file types. Paper is paper and can be read by anyone able to see. Now if you meant electronic document file types, I can think of two, three, problems with proprietary file types. The first is as you say incompatibility. I can not open a .docx created with MS Office 2010 with my copy of MS Office 97. But I can and have opened .docx files from 2008 with NeoOffice. Not only that but I'm not locked into the endless and expensive MS Office upgrade path.
Windows may have the majority of the market, but it is good.
HAHA!!! NOT!!! I and others have switched from Windows because it's a piece of crap. When it got to the point where I had to replace my desktop PC, because I was tired of constantly having to reinstall Windows after getting many, many, Blue Screen of Deaths I replaced it with a Linux desktop. Then when I got a new laptop I bought a MacBook Pro. I have had it almost 3 years and in that tyme I've had less problems with it than I had with Windows PCs in their first year.
Plus, at least microsoft only has a monopoly on the OS, which can be customized and adapted to fit a large variety of needs, unlike Mac, and it runs more programs better than Mac or Linux.
Another lie. A Windows PC can only run Windows software. My Linux PC can run Linux and Windows software. And my Mac can run Linux, Windows, and Mac software. If I wanted to I could install Windows itself on both my Linux PC and my Mac. I can install, and plan on doing so, Linux on my Mac.
Apple uses its OS to create a monopoly on the culture of its users
What monopoly? As I state above I can install Windows/Windows programs and Linux on my Mac. If I felt inclined I could install Windows or Linux and never use OS X on my Mac. Of course, where would I? Leopard simply works for me.
regulating how and where they get their programs (at least for the iPhone, iPad, and iPods)
Ah, there's something we agree with, while I can install many things on my Mac that Apple has no control over that's not true for iPads, iPhones, and iPods. That is one reason, but not the only one, I do not own and have no interest in buying any of them. Actually as I've said elsewhere I have no interest in getting an iPad, because it runs a crippled OS. Before it's release I was looking forward to seeing the iPad, but I was expecting something more like the Modbook Pro, a modified MacBook Pro.
As for functionality per dollar? Windows is the best value for the dollar.
Again wrong!!! For general purposes Linux is the best value for the dollar. For specific purposes Macs may be better. For instance Photoshop does not have a version for Linux, while GIMP is fine for many people on the web it can not do what some pro print artists need or want. Heck, Windows beats Linux there because at least Photoshop runs on Windows.
Plus, windows is often illegal, so the OS itself can be free sometimes.
Free does not make something better, legal or illegal.
Sadly, your wonderful little reality is very impractical, the compatibility is just not there.
Sadly you fail to look beyond your small sphere of knowledge.
Falcon
Censorship on some of their products.
So, what competitors did Apple destroy?
Also, I might add that apples hardware is pretty much set in stone.
One, that's not destroying competition. Two, Apple is a systems integration vendor, hardware and software are made to work well together.
No upgradability without crippling the OS
Say what? My MacBook Pro came with instructions on how users can upgrade their RAM. That's on a laptop. Lowendmac has the article Know Your Mac's Upgrade Options. Googling upgrading macs returned more than 5 million more results. And while many may be complainers like you complaining Macs are not upgradable I bet many say exactly how Macs can be upgraded. Another one is Upgrading Your Mac's Internal HDD (To An External One), it explains how to replace the internal drive with another then use the old drive as an external one. TFA is dated 5 January 2010, a year before that I replaced the internal drive in my Mac, from the 160 GB it came with to a 320 GB drive, then I bought bought a docking station that accepts internal drives then plugs into a USB socket for use as an external drive. Mac Pros are even easier to upgrade. Now if you mean the all-in-one Macs like the iMac and Mac mini are hard to upgrade try upgrading Dell's XPS One all-in-one. All-in-one PCs are not meant to be easily upgradable.
or paying Apples insanely inflated prices
1999 is calling and wants it's mime back. For years and years Mac prices had been comparable with Windows PC prices. Before I ever got my MBP I made a list of requirements a new computer had to meet, I then comfigured and compared several different laptops with those specs. A couple of laptops were about $100 less and a couple of others were several hundred dollars more than the MBP I eventually bought.
My home built epic-computer can be upgraded whenever I want, in any number of different ways. it is flexible and wonderful, and I don't have to buy a new one just to meet the demands of one newfangled program, until the system is too old to do anything.
Good for you, though I haven't built my own PC I have upgraded and expanded PCs. And the same can be done with a Mac Pro. A new Mac just can't be legally built by anyone other than Apple. People build their owe hackintoches, Hackintoch gives instructions and tutorials on how to do so.
Falcon
It's an economies of scale thing. If you had decent capacity on the train things may be different, but the travel time really kills it, so not enough people are willing to ride it to make it worthwhile.
I doubt that's why trains cost as much as planes, because of low ridership. People still use bus lines like Greyhound, and they're even slower than trains.
I rode a train once, ages ago. Well back in the '70s. An uncle worked for a railroad so he got me a ticket from Detroit, MI where I was visiting to Springfield, MA where I lived. I had wanted to ride one again, about 12 years ago I moved from Florida to Minnesota, but I wanted to take my truck. However the Autotrain only runs between Lorton, VA, near Washington DC and Sanford, FL, outside of Orlando. I'd love to be able to drive my car on the train and go wherever now.
Falcon
If the school had said windows there would be many comments like:
You missed one, Microsoft is a convicted monopoly.
Now this being Apple, I've read similar things,
Apple is evil,...
Now instead of mandating an OS why not say what tasks need to be done? Students need to write papers? How about pen/pencil and paper, or a word processor? Then let the students/parents decide how to meet those needs? Those who want to write a paper can use a pen and paper, MS Office, or Open Office.
The only reason an OS or program should be required is because that is what the class teaches, MS Windows for an Intro to MS Windows class. Final Cut for a Final Cut class. Photoshop for a Photoshop class.
Falcon
everything that is useful in business except for graphic design and web design is run on a PC using Windows XP or Windows 7.
Really? There is no Microsoft Office for Macs? Nor any other office suite? Then I must of been mistaken when I got my Mac and saw a 30 day trial of MS Office installed on it, and I don''t have NeoOffice or Eclipse on it now.
Falcon
I suppose the next ideal evolution will be getting the textbooks onto the computers. That would be an entirely new level of awesome.
I read where that's already being done. Some schools in Africa had satellite dishes installed. Then instead of having to distribute new editions of printed books, ebook are quickly downloaded and copied to laptops. This is both quicker and cheaper. An article on a World Bank blog asks "Can eBooks replace printed books in Africa? An experiment".
Falcon