Apple doesn't sell their own products directly in Israel, they have a distributor there. Every iPad brought in represents a lost sale for them. Sounds like they're angry about not getting the device quickly enough and losing early sales.
The first Isreali soldier that kills a passive non-violent Arab protester, the entire world will come to their aid (probably in spirit only, but that is very powerful).
Israelis have killed many "passive non-violent Arab protesters". You don't even have to be Arab, just a protester. Rachel Corrie was an American protester who was killed when a Caterpillar bulldozer ran over her. Fact is is Zionists will do almost anything to create a Jewish state for Jews only.
apparently this is newsworthy here because it's about Apple.
As the subject line says, this has nothing to do with Apple. If I went to Israel, or any other country, and I had my laptop or anything else confiscated I'd be mighty upset. I may come back and demand my own government ban stuff from that nation and make sure they knew that. It would be even worse if I were on a business trip.
yaaaay revisionist history that they teach in schools now! Wooooot!
Agreed, but probably differently that what you mean.
Yeah, nevermind that it was France in the war there for the first decade, it was their mess we were trying to clean up, and that they had been in that area since LOOOOOOONG before 1955.
However France did have a plan to clean it up, when Eisenhower stepped in. The Geneva Conference (1954) worked out an agreement between France, North Vietnam and South Vietnam to hold an election in the north and south on whether to reunify. Eisenhower did not agree to this so he sent then Col Edward Lansdale to arm and train South Vietnamese who opposed the accord. "How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam" does into more detail.
The problem was around long before the US involvement. Started by Eisenhower? Really?
Eisenhower opposed democracy and stopped the Geneva accord so it that sense he did start it.
Proudly libertarian, small "l", I'm not registered as a Libertarian. The Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land. Of course just as there are those who break some laws, there are those including politicians who break the Constitution.
The difference between libertarians and conservatives is that libertarians take it a bit further.
Other differences have to do with religion, many conservatives want prayer in school for instance. And as I said other differences are in what part of government is big. For many conservatives law enforcement and the military are big.
Eliminating foreign aid and bringing, withdrawing from NATO and the UN and bringing all troops home would be a libertarian ideal.
Eliminating governmental foreign aid yes but not civilian aid. On the other hand I thought Obama using Navy ships to aid Haiti was okay as well as the aid Bush gave after the tsunami, airlifts and such. As for NATO, it's purpose was as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The SU has not existed for more than a decade so NATO is irrelevant. And while I don't like all of the things the UN does I disagree with withdrawing from it. Lastly I agree with withdrawing almost all military units from overseas, including the Navy. It's past tyme other countries pay their own way.
I agree with you about liberals. I would probably be one if pseudo-Communists hadn't taken the idea over.
I am a liberal. However I state I'm using the original meaning just as Thomas Jefferson did, liberty and small government.
When the ACLU interprets the Second and Tenth Amendments as loosely as they do the First and defend them as vigorously, they will truly be a Liberal organization.
I don't like it the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd and 10th amendments but what they do stand up for they do pretty well. And though I'm not a member I support the NRA. Now I don't known of any non-profits that defends the 10th amendment.
It was, as I stated in my post there is more than one scientific theory about the universe and it's future.
The explanation is too long for a post on slashdot, but I highly recommend you watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss for an explanation of why the universe will end with a whimper.
Here's one, by the same person you cited, Lawrence M Krauss. The End of Cosmology?. And a video of it. Now it's not playing in my browser so I don't know if it's the same video as the one you link to however it's subtitle is "An accelerating universe wipes out traces of its own origins". Now that does sound like a whimper. Oh, yea at more than an hour the video you link to is too long.
Will it? Last year SciAm had an article on what may happen to the universe in the future. If I recall right of 5 theories or scenarios only one had the universe collapse on itself. Another one had the universe continually expanding. While today we can see other galaxies in the future humans, if we still exist, won't be able to see beyond our galaxy.
why do you have to invest in space travel now, when you have all those empty oceans?
Why can't we do both? Private enterprises that is, not the government.
I take it as a given that is what government does. It wastes money. Period. If people actually found the things government did useful, they would voluntarily fund it... like they choose to buy food or clothing...
Except big agriculture businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. When most people go grocery shopping they do not pay the full price of the food at the register.
I'm not an expert on a national grid. Suffice to say either one would be a good choice. I would personally go for more space funding as electricity seems to work just fine for me. Yet, we still can't get to space easily. But that's just me. maybe your wish is a national grid.
Failures in the grid cost US businesses billions of dollars a year. The print edition of A Solar Grand Plan had a side bar saying $80 Billion was lost a year. An investment to rebuild the grid will pay back before many other investments.
The federal government doesn't even have the authority to create NASA.
I'd rather have my tax money go to people working at NASA pushing the envelope of space and engineering, than have people paid to do nothing productive (unemployed, bureaucracy, lawyers...).
I prefer liberty and small government. Let people and businesses push the envelope of science and engineering. Here we've had government running the space program for more than 40 years and where have we gotten since 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon? Now look where computing has gone. My 3 year old laptop and it's CPU has more power than computers did in 1969. Hell, I bet my 10 year old PC under my desk has more power.
Oh, and both Obama and I support infrastructure projects, however where Obama has the federal government paying for them I believe most should be done by local and state governments. And things like rail roads and trains, private businesses not government should be paying them. Without the use of eminent domain.
When will it be a priority? When China lands on Mars? When the EU, China or Russia colonize the Moon? When we detect an incoming asteroid?
This is shortsighted policy at it's finest.
What is shortsighted is treating the Constitution of the USA as toilet paper. Nowhere in it does it give the federal government the authority for NASA.
That, the Constitution of the USA, is my political priority. Liberty and small government. Let businesses go to into space. Oh and if it's not clear, I opposed the health insurance bill, the Iraqi invasion, and the bank bailout.
They never said that we could reach the Moon/Mars cheaper if we scratched Ares and Orion; they said that we should not GO to the Moon/Mars.
Even Fox News says Obama's plan includes the goals of returning to the moon and going to Mars.
I agree that we need a heavy lifter. But the cost to start from scratch will exceed the cost to finish Ares. But since the current administration doesn't believe we need a heavy lift capability, it really doesn't matter, now does it?
While I support going back to the moon and on to Mars, I dispute the government should do it. What the government can do is encourage private enterprises to do it. Start with Virgin Galactic fairing passenger contractors to Hotel Bigelow. Those contractors then build a space craft capable of going to the moon and coming back. Heck Bigelow can build Hotel Bigelow Moon where more contractors live while they build settlements on the moon.
the sole point of complete disagreement is his vision, or lack thereof, for NASA. I've heard the arguments that the "new" NASA will somehow develop all the necessary interplanetary exploration technologies instead of wasting money returning to the moon
Besides returning to the moon part of Obama's plan is to go to Mars. Bush wanted the same thing.
It just seems like yet another step in the long, slow decline of our space program since the Challenger accident.
As far as I'm concerned the space program was declining when the first Space Shuttle was delivered.
That is if the purpose of the space program is to explore space. However NASA has done quite a bit of research of earth itself.
You can't read the Constitution without reading the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution to be federal powers are reserved for the states.
You like many others miss a vary important clause in the 10th Amendment, "or to the people". Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
most Libertarians and Conservatives are not anti-government, they are pro-Constitution.
Libertarians yes. But not conservatives. Many are fiscally conservatives who will make laws restricting civil rights. The big things different about them and so called liberals, who are not real liberals, is in what part of government is big. Real classical liberals believe in liberty and small government.
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way.
The second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, disagrees. He said "the strategy will allow NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other destinations 'as quickly as possible.'"
Myself, I support space programs. By businesses and such not by the federal government. Here in the US the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to institute NASA.
There are plenty of GOOD risk potential home owners just waiting for housing prices to come back down to earth so they can reasonably afford a reasonably priced home that they can make payments on. Keeping idiots in their homes artificially that shouldn't have been in to begin with, is only prolonging the pain, and keeping recovery in the housing market from ramping up again.
I agree and disagree. I opposed the bank bailout, however since they were bailed out the money should of been used to help those who were having trouble with their mortgages. The bank themselves should not have been given billions of dollars directly. And they should of been allowed to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple doesn't sell their own products directly in Israel, they have a distributor there. Every iPad brought in represents a lost sale for them. Sounds like they're angry about not getting the device quickly enough and losing early sales.
And travelers don't take stuff with them?
Falcon
The first Isreali soldier that kills a passive non-violent Arab protester, the entire world will come to their aid (probably in spirit only, but that is very powerful).
Israelis have killed many "passive non-violent Arab protesters". You don't even have to be Arab, just a protester. Rachel Corrie was an American protester who was killed when a Caterpillar bulldozer ran over her. Fact is is Zionists will do almost anything to create a Jewish state for Jews only.
Falcon
apparently this is newsworthy here because it's about Apple.
As the subject line says, this has nothing to do with Apple. If I went to Israel, or any other country, and I had my laptop or anything else confiscated I'd be mighty upset. I may come back and demand my own government ban stuff from that nation and make sure they knew that. It would be even worse if I were on a business trip.
Falcon
yaaaay revisionist history that they teach in schools now! Wooooot!
Agreed, but probably differently that what you mean.
Yeah, nevermind that it was France in the war there for the first decade, it was their mess we were trying to clean up, and that they had been in that area since LOOOOOOONG before 1955.
However France did have a plan to clean it up, when Eisenhower stepped in. The Geneva Conference (1954) worked out an agreement between France, North Vietnam and South Vietnam to hold an election in the north and south on whether to reunify. Eisenhower did not agree to this so he sent then Col Edward Lansdale to arm and train South Vietnamese who opposed the accord. "How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam" does into more detail.
The problem was around long before the US involvement. Started by Eisenhower? Really?
Eisenhower opposed democracy and stopped the Geneva accord so it that sense he did start it.
Falcon
Proudly libertarian, small "l", I'm not registered as a Libertarian. The Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land. Of course just as there are those who break some laws, there are those including politicians who break the Constitution.
Falcon
The difference between libertarians and conservatives is that libertarians take it a bit further.
Other differences have to do with religion, many conservatives want prayer in school for instance. And as I said other differences are in what part of government is big. For many conservatives law enforcement and the military are big.
Eliminating foreign aid and bringing, withdrawing from NATO and the UN and bringing all troops home would be a libertarian ideal.
Eliminating governmental foreign aid yes but not civilian aid. On the other hand I thought Obama using Navy ships to aid Haiti was okay as well as the aid Bush gave after the tsunami, airlifts and such. As for NATO, it's purpose was as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The SU has not existed for more than a decade so NATO is irrelevant. And while I don't like all of the things the UN does I disagree with withdrawing from it. Lastly I agree with withdrawing almost all military units from overseas, including the Navy. It's past tyme other countries pay their own way.
I agree with you about liberals. I would probably be one if pseudo-Communists hadn't taken the idea over.
I am a liberal. However I state I'm using the original meaning just as Thomas Jefferson did, liberty and small government.
When the ACLU interprets the Second and Tenth Amendments as loosely as they do the First and defend them as vigorously, they will truly be a Liberal organization.
I don't like it the ACLU doesn't defend the 2nd and 10th amendments but what they do stand up for they do pretty well. And though I'm not a member I support the NRA. Now I don't known of any non-profits that defends the 10th amendment.
Falcon
I'm assuming that was a serious question.
It was, as I stated in my post there is more than one scientific theory about the universe and it's future.
The explanation is too long for a post on slashdot, but I highly recommend you watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss for an explanation of why the universe will end with a whimper.
Here's one, by the same person you cited, Lawrence M Krauss. The End of Cosmology?. And a video of it. Now it's not playing in my browser so I don't know if it's the same video as the one you link to however it's subtitle is "An accelerating universe wipes out traces of its own origins". Now that does sound like a whimper. Oh, yea at more than an hour the video you link to is too long.
Falcon
We need to be smart and use our resources in the most useful way.
So long as a person, business, etc., isn't harming another they should be able to do whatever they want with their own money and other resources.
Falcon
Politicians don't care what is cheaper in the long run. They care what is cheaper in the short term.
No they don't, otherwise they would not have authorized not one but two wars. Those costs are approaching $1 Trillion.
Falcon
What is, NASA? NASA is not constitutionally authorized.
Falcon
Will it? Last year SciAm had an article on what may happen to the universe in the future. If I recall right of 5 theories or scenarios only one had the universe collapse on itself. Another one had the universe continually expanding. While today we can see other galaxies in the future humans, if we still exist, won't be able to see beyond our galaxy.
why do you have to invest in space travel now, when you have all those empty oceans?
Why can't we do both? Private enterprises that is, not the government.
Falcon
I take it as a given that is what government does. It wastes money. Period. If people actually found the things government did useful, they would voluntarily fund it... like they choose to buy food or clothing...
Except big agriculture businesses like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill get billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. When most people go grocery shopping they do not pay the full price of the food at the register.
I'm not an expert on a national grid. Suffice to say either one would be a good choice. I would personally go for more space funding as electricity seems to work just fine for me. Yet, we still can't get to space easily. But that's just me. maybe your wish is a national grid.
Failures in the grid cost US businesses billions of dollars a year. The print edition of A Solar Grand Plan had a side bar saying $80 Billion was lost a year. An investment to rebuild the grid will pay back before many other investments.
Falcon
Innovative solutions to problems that NASA solved decades ago?
Like how NASA spends $80 Million for a launch that costs $60 Million in Russia? And how private businesses may be able to do cheaper?
Falcon
The federal government doesn't even have the authority to create NASA.
I'd rather have my tax money go to people working at NASA pushing the envelope of space and engineering, than have people paid to do nothing productive (unemployed, bureaucracy, lawyers...).
I prefer liberty and small government. Let people and businesses push the envelope of science and engineering. Here we've had government running the space program for more than 40 years and where have we gotten since 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon? Now look where computing has gone. My 3 year old laptop and it's CPU has more power than computers did in 1969. Hell, I bet my 10 year old PC under my desk has more power.
Oh, and both Obama and I support infrastructure projects, however where Obama has the federal government paying for them I believe most should be done by local and state governments. And things like rail roads and trains, private businesses not government should be paying them. Without the use of eminent domain.
Falcon
When will it be a priority? When China lands on Mars? When the EU, China or Russia colonize the Moon? When we detect an incoming asteroid?
This is shortsighted policy at it's finest.
What is shortsighted is treating the Constitution of the USA as toilet paper. Nowhere in it does it give the federal government the authority for NASA.
That, the Constitution of the USA, is my political priority. Liberty and small government. Let businesses go to into space. Oh and if it's not clear, I opposed the health insurance bill, the Iraqi invasion, and the bank bailout.
Falcon
Yea, I saw your self reply after I posted my own.
Falcon
They never said that we could reach the Moon/Mars cheaper if we scratched Ares and Orion; they said that we should not GO to the Moon/Mars.
Even Fox News says Obama's plan includes the goals of returning to the moon and going to Mars.
I agree that we need a heavy lifter. But the cost to start from scratch will exceed the cost to finish Ares. But since the current administration doesn't believe we need a heavy lift capability, it really doesn't matter, now does it?
While I support going back to the moon and on to Mars, I dispute the government should do it. What the government can do is encourage private enterprises to do it. Start with Virgin Galactic fairing passenger contractors to Hotel Bigelow. Those contractors then build a space craft capable of going to the moon and coming back. Heck Bigelow can build Hotel Bigelow Moon where more contractors live while they build settlements on the moon.
Falcon
So to all those that willing to dismiss these three well educated, extremely brillant, and wise men I just want you to think about it long and hard.
But you're willing to dismiss Buzz Aldrin who has his Sc D degree in Astronautics from MIT.
As for Neil Armstrong, he worked for Morton Thiokol. Morton Thiokol made the Space Shuttle booster's O-ring, the one that caused the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. And Morton Thiokol stands to lose when the Ares I launch vehicle and Project Constellation are cut. So I wouldn't say Armstrong is impartial.
Falcon
the sole point of complete disagreement is his vision, or lack thereof, for NASA. I've heard the arguments that the "new" NASA will somehow develop all the necessary interplanetary exploration technologies instead of wasting money returning to the moon
Besides returning to the moon part of Obama's plan is to go to Mars. Bush wanted the same thing.
It just seems like yet another step in the long, slow decline of our space program since the Challenger accident.
As far as I'm concerned the space program was declining when the first Space Shuttle was delivered.
That is if the purpose of the space program is to explore space. However NASA has done quite a bit of research of earth itself.
Falcon
You can't read the Constitution without reading the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers that are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution to be federal powers are reserved for the states.
You like many others miss a vary important clause in the 10th Amendment, "or to the people".
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
most Libertarians and Conservatives are not anti-government, they are pro-Constitution.
Libertarians yes. But not conservatives. Many are fiscally conservatives who will make laws restricting civil rights. The big things different about them and so called liberals, who are not real liberals, is in what part of government is big. Real classical liberals believe in liberty and small government.
Falcon
the spin-off benefits of developing the autonomous AI necessary to do the exploration for us would be tremendous.
The spin-off benefits of human space flight was tremendous. For an intro into medical benefits read Who benefits from space medicine research?.
Falcon
He is about the ONLY astronaut that is speaking up that does not have a vested interest via their job.
He who? Neil Armstrong? Neil Armstrong worked for Morton-Thiokol, the company that built the Space Shuttle boosters.
Falcon
go...its just that any commercial venture will have the same issues with rockets that NASA does.
Not all of the same issues. Commercial businesses have to make money to stay in business whereas governments can tax people to death.
Until we have the technology to escape the gravity well of Earth reliably, space flight is an expensive luxury at best...
It will be businesses and private enterprises that will lower the cost of space flight not government.
more then likely we will end up sinking just as much money in some commercial company as we would into NASA.
If so, which I doubt, the money will be from investors and not taxpayers.
Falcon
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way.
The second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, disagrees. He said "the strategy will allow NASA and other space agencies to send humans to Mars and other destinations 'as quickly as possible.'"
Myself, I support space programs. By businesses and such not by the federal government. Here in the US the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to institute NASA.
Falcon
There are plenty of GOOD risk potential home owners just waiting for housing prices to come back down to earth so they can reasonably afford a reasonably priced home that they can make payments on. Keeping idiots in their homes artificially that shouldn't have been in to begin with, is only prolonging the pain, and keeping recovery in the housing market from ramping up again.
I agree and disagree. I opposed the bank bailout, however since they were bailed out the money should of been used to help those who were having trouble with their mortgages. The bank themselves should not have been given billions of dollars directly. And they should of been allowed to fail.
Falcon