WikiAnswers [answers.com] claims the difference is that you can "browse the web and read ebooks" - I haven't used an iPod but I assumed you could already do those things,
You're still reading the specs. Try actually reading a book on the iPod. A whole book. Very quickly, you'll realize the same thing I realized trying to read books off my ancient Visor Edge: page size matters.
Just a bigger iPod Touch already opens up a whole slew of applications from "Possible. Good luck with it though" to "Possible. Also, comfortable." They don't need to do anything else to have a significantly different market: the people who want to use certain features of the iPod that benefit from a larger screen, and who also don't care that you can't fit that larger screen in your pocket any more.
Is it enough to justify the price? The market will decide that. Personally, I'd rather have ePaper for book reading, but if it integrates well with Apple mail and iWork, it might be a good "satellite" computer for the AARP crowd who happen to already have Macs.
The $5 monoprice cable has other advantages as well. For instance, they have a variety of lengths to choose from, so you can cut down on the cable clutter by getting one that's just-right. And if you have multiple devices, you can get multiple colors as well, to help with the organization.
I'm not sure that's how It works. I'm pretty sure that "10% reserve" means they can only loan out $900 of that $1000 in deposits, but as that will just all come back in as more deposits, they can keep re-loaning the same money.
Approximating it with an infinite sum, I guess that means that there could be 10x money out as was initially put in...
Ok, I guess you ARE right. Except that wikipedia seems to think that 10% is the max, and some lending institutions are as low 3%, or even 0%. Frightening.
Ebay is using their dominance in one market (online classified ads) to gain/maintain dominance in another market (shady credit card money transfers).
It is clearly monopolistic behavior, though it remains to be seen whether or not eBay's market control of the classified ad market is sufficient to classify as monopoly, an necessary condition to prosecution over the paypal thing.
There are two curious things about this, and they both involve the Credit Card companies.
Why do the banks allow PayPal to continue act just like a bank, except without the pesky banking regulations, using the real banks' own credit infrastructure
If they don't see PayPal as a shady, possibly illegal business model, but rather as a legitimate mode of credit card operation, why don't they set up their OWN version and cut out the middle man?
Well, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], For Men it's 1.3% for non-smokers, and 17% for smokers. Wow!
Wow, yeah! I don't think I ever remember seeing that number, I just assumed from all the hype that it was "small but measurable" and didn't see the benefits to bother starting smoking. But I definitely think that if there had been posters around school with just that number (or a big tar-colored six-sided die), a lot of my peers would also have not bothered starting.
Re:Uh... everyone seems focused on amazon but...
on
Authors' Amazon Awareness
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
an editor, proofreader, any cover art, conversion to ebook format and some quality checks, oh, and an author to spend near a year working on the book.
Wow. Isaac Asimov must have been born in like the seventeenth century!
When you say "designed with hardware decoding in mind" do you mean that "it would be fairly simple to burn an FPGA to do it" or do you mean that "it can use the features of 'modern' video hardware to decode on the graphics chip" where 'modern' is some value that includes at least one chip that is either available for sale right now, or definitely in production for sale in the near future.
Because my laptop has a chip that can do h.264, but I'm not buying another laptop just to get theora (although I would look for it as a feature on my next laptop if it was in use). I could "brute force" it with the CPU, but comparing my power usage in hardware decoding of h.264, I'd really rather not. Also, the fan is kind of noisy.
I dunno. It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs. I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters, but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them...
Unfortunately, economic concerns and strategic concerns sometimes clash. In that case, you can't simply rely on economics to produce your strategically desirable results, and it would also be unfair simply legislate a requirement that certain things must be domestically produced (where those things are much more cheaply obtained* elsewhere.)
What you need to do, if you're the strategizer, is to encourage the results you desire. Which may involve putting requirements on your own purchases, and also purchasing things in quantities that are not currently required in order to support the industry that provides the thing you're going to need in the event you do need those things.
Unfortunately, this is rightly seen as "subsidizing the military industrial complex" and demonized rather than debated.
*presuming they are not simply circumventing labor or environmental laws by relocating. If the entirety of the savings is due to loophole-seeking, then yeah, tariff the goods at the border to equalize things. Structure the tariff like an itemized bill, so that foreign countries/companies can realize lower tariffs for compliance with domestic standards immediately, and on a piecemeal basis.
You might want to watch the movie again. The fictional country in the film had non-genetic-discrimination laws as well, which were as routinely ignored as speed limits are now. Actually worse than speed limits, they barely even made pretense for the discrimination.
The problem is that neither party was really wrong. There's a civil liberties issue: you don't wan't people to get stuck in an unrewarding career track with no hope of bettering themselves because of some checks on a list, but from an economic point of view, you don't want to spend a fortune on training employees who are going to die of heart failure or something early. Companies that retain employee skills would have an advantage over the ones that didn't, and due to "genetic career counseling" are apparently also able to prevent churn by placing low-risk, high-talent employees on rewarding career tracks.
So there were a couple issues explored there that conflicted, rather than there really being a classical villain. And more importantly, it made the point that if the economic incentives are great enough, the laws are going to be ignored. It's possible it's not a problem that can be effectively solved purely through legislation.
Oh, but that was by design. Now the senators don't have to worry about state legislatures and governors recalling them over their cumulative abuses, as long as they can snooker 20% (~1/3 of their state will be partisan anyway) of the people who bother to vote in senate races, they can get away with pretty much anything for five of those six years.
Since the 17th Amendment in 1913 things have gotten progressively worse as Senators suddenly pay heed to populism
If it's that easy to break a law, then the laws are unjust and should be changed or repealed. The privacy and other protections were not put in place for you to skate by not getting caught breaking unjust laws. They were there to protect your civil rights. period.
If there are unjust laws, "not getting caught" does not make up for their injustice. The only thing that does is repeal.
Slashdot Mirror
WikiAnswers [answers.com] claims the difference is that you can "browse the web and read ebooks" - I haven't used an iPod but I assumed you could already do those things,
You're still reading the specs. Try actually reading a book on the iPod. A whole book. Very quickly, you'll realize the same thing I realized trying to read books off my ancient Visor Edge: page size matters.
Just a bigger iPod Touch already opens up a whole slew of applications from "Possible. Good luck with it though" to "Possible. Also, comfortable." They don't need to do anything else to have a significantly different market: the people who want to use certain features of the iPod that benefit from a larger screen, and who also don't care that you can't fit that larger screen in your pocket any more.
Is it enough to justify the price? The market will decide that. Personally, I'd rather have ePaper for book reading, but if it integrates well with Apple mail and iWork, it might be a good "satellite" computer for the AARP crowd who happen to already have Macs.
My wife keeps telling me that size doesn't matter
Who is she trying to convince?
They may be the same story. Just different parts of it: Sofia Stewart.
Odd that Wikipedia seems to have eliminated the article about her claims.
The $5 monoprice cable has other advantages as well. For instance, they have a variety of lengths to choose from, so you can cut down on the cable clutter by getting one that's just-right. And if you have multiple devices, you can get multiple colors as well, to help with the organization.
Ever wonder why video goes over a copper wire, but audio is so incredibly bandwidth intensive that it requires fiber for maximum fidelity?
So, every vulnerability is zero-day, then? Sounds redundant.
Keifer Southerland and that chick who opened "Mr. Show"
Aren't they the same? I mean, for all intensive purposes...
I'm not sure that's how It works. I'm pretty sure that "10% reserve" means they can only loan out $900 of that $1000 in deposits, but as that will just all come back in as more deposits, they can keep re-loaning the same money.
Approximating it with an infinite sum, I guess that means that there could be 10x money out as was initially put in...
Ok, I guess you ARE right. Except that wikipedia seems to think that 10% is the max, and some lending institutions are as low 3%, or even 0%. Frightening.
Ebay is using their dominance in one market (online classified ads) to gain/maintain dominance in another market (shady credit card money transfers).
It is clearly monopolistic behavior, though it remains to be seen whether or not eBay's market control of the classified ad market is sufficient to classify as monopoly, an necessary condition to prosecution over the paypal thing.
There are two curious things about this, and they both involve the Credit Card companies.
You vastly underestimate a politician's ability to burn through "hooker & blow" money.
Well, according to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], For Men it's 1.3% for non-smokers, and 17% for smokers. Wow!
Wow, yeah! I don't think I ever remember seeing that number, I just assumed from all the hype that it was "small but measurable" and didn't see the benefits to bother starting smoking. But I definitely think that if there had been posters around school with just that number (or a big tar-colored six-sided die), a lot of my peers would also have not bothered starting.
an editor, proofreader, any cover art, conversion to ebook format and some quality checks, oh, and an author to spend near a year working on the book.
Wow. Isaac Asimov must have been born in like the seventeenth century!
Additionally, it is curious that the oil monopoly seems to have never re-formed, yet the telecom monopoly tends to re-form every time it is broken up.
If you're logged in, you can set what sections show on the front page (one of which is an "apple" section.)
If you're using RSS, you'll have to filter it yourself, or use the individual section RSS feeds.
Oddly, if you were an astronomer, you'd express it in centimeters....
When you say "designed with hardware decoding in mind" do you mean that "it would be fairly simple to burn an FPGA to do it" or do you mean that "it can use the features of 'modern' video hardware to decode on the graphics chip" where 'modern' is some value that includes at least one chip that is either available for sale right now, or definitely in production for sale in the near future.
Because my laptop has a chip that can do h.264, but I'm not buying another laptop just to get theora (although I would look for it as a feature on my next laptop if it was in use). I could "brute force" it with the CPU, but comparing my power usage in hardware decoding of h.264, I'd really rather not. Also, the fan is kind of noisy.
If only that would punish the feds and not the people whose wallets that money comes from....
I dunno. It seems to me that financing your intelligence operations with illicit sale of personal information would be a lot easier and less risky than financing it through the sale of hardcore drugs. I suppose technically either way you involve yourself with unsavory characters, but one way you never have to actually be in the same room as them...
Unfortunately, economic concerns and strategic concerns sometimes clash. In that case, you can't simply rely on economics to produce your strategically desirable results, and it would also be unfair simply legislate a requirement that certain things must be domestically produced (where those things are much more cheaply obtained* elsewhere.)
What you need to do, if you're the strategizer, is to encourage the results you desire. Which may involve putting requirements on your own purchases, and also purchasing things in quantities that are not currently required in order to support the industry that provides the thing you're going to need in the event you do need those things.
Unfortunately, this is rightly seen as "subsidizing the military industrial complex" and demonized rather than debated.
*presuming they are not simply circumventing labor or environmental laws by relocating. If the entirety of the savings is due to loophole-seeking, then yeah, tariff the goods at the border to equalize things. Structure the tariff like an itemized bill, so that foreign countries/companies can realize lower tariffs for compliance with domestic standards immediately, and on a piecemeal basis.
You might want to watch the movie again. The fictional country in the film had non-genetic-discrimination laws as well, which were as routinely ignored as speed limits are now. Actually worse than speed limits, they barely even made pretense for the discrimination.
The problem is that neither party was really wrong. There's a civil liberties issue: you don't wan't people to get stuck in an unrewarding career track with no hope of bettering themselves because of some checks on a list, but from an economic point of view, you don't want to spend a fortune on training employees who are going to die of heart failure or something early. Companies that retain employee skills would have an advantage over the ones that didn't, and due to "genetic career counseling" are apparently also able to prevent churn by placing low-risk, high-talent employees on rewarding career tracks.
So there were a couple issues explored there that conflicted, rather than there really being a classical villain. And more importantly, it made the point that if the economic incentives are great enough, the laws are going to be ignored. It's possible it's not a problem that can be effectively solved purely through legislation.
Oh, but that was by design. Now the senators don't have to worry about state legislatures and governors recalling them over their cumulative abuses, as long as they can snooker 20% (~1/3 of their state will be partisan anyway) of the people who bother to vote in senate races, they can get away with pretty much anything for five of those six years.
Since the 17th Amendment in 1913 things have gotten progressively worse as Senators suddenly pay heed to populism
Oh, a pun! what fun!
I don't know if you want to keep putting that out there. Because a little further down you get to:
Men, on average, knew more than women, all other factors being equal
And it's apparently dramatically more than women. 45% vs. 25% "knowledge level high." That's inconvenient.
Baen's eBook price is a lot lower than $9.99...
If it's that easy to break a law, then the laws are unjust and should be changed or repealed. The privacy and other protections were not put in place for you to skate by not getting caught breaking unjust laws. They were there to protect your civil rights. period.
If there are unjust laws, "not getting caught" does not make up for their injustice. The only thing that does is repeal.