You're the second person to post this information. The only problem is you contradict each other on whether 3G will work, and neither of you offer a source to verify against.
Agree that this is interesting and is information that should have been in the article or available through the summary. Do you have a source for this information? I'm interested to know if this is a problem that can be fixed, or if it is a strict limitation of the hardware.
More and more mobile carriers are moving to plans where they do not subsidize the cost of the phone. I could buy three of these for the price of one iPhone, and most Android phones at this price point are utter garbage. If the 3G or 4G were working, these would look like a very solid option.
While you may disagree with the price exacted by advertisers, they are still providing you with something in exchange. They help pay for the website you are visiting. Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.
Counter argument: Ads on a website inherently cause the website to be in a considerably less useful form.
I think it's important to point out that just because a work of fiction is about something does not mean it encourages it. Romeo and Juliet doesn't encourage suicide, SIlence of the Lambs doesn't encourage serial killing, etc..
To generate extra energy to power my devices? I could see myself enjoying that:D
We've already been on that merry-go-round with trying to shove corn into automobile fuel tanks. In all likelihood, powering your device this way will be dirtier and less fuel efficient than burning coal for the same amount of power.
Money spent buying coal from West Virginia stays in our economy, while oil bought abroad does not.
Well, sure, assuming the person you pay for the coal doesn't buy any clothing, electronics, or cars. The world economy just doesn't work this way any more.
The purpose of criticism is not to tell you whether you will like something or not. It may touch on this, but that is a side affect, not the main purpose. For a variety of reasons, movie reviews sometimes are about whether you will like the movie or not, and offer nothing in the way of criticism (in the traditional academic sense). Sometimes reviewers who combine both, sometimes in the same review. I can see how this can create confusion for the casual review reader, as you have to try to figure out when a review is offering criticism and when it is just a review.
Movies made purely for entertainment often don't have anything worth critical appraisal, other than technical execution, which is why those sorts of movies often have poorer receptions from the critics than from the public. (Personally, I prefer a movie that has a bit more meat on the bone, and offers something to think about critically. I recall enjoying the first Avengers movie, but I can't recall a single thing that happened in it.)
You're supposed to cross at an intersection if possible, and if not, at least where you have a clear line of sight in both directions. You're also supposed to wait until it's safe to cross. If you can't see if it's safe to cross, you're doing it wrong.
Translation: Never ever cross the street in New York City.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds. When Fox news viewers consistently score worse on questions about current events facts than those who watch no news at all, this raises the question of what counts as an "informed mind".
Wow, I can't believe two AC comments for this, and both modded down. People post openly their opinions on guns, abortion, and corporate taxation, but apparently saying the Simpsons is not good crosses a line.
Too bad. I agree with them 100%. I can probably quote nearly every line of dialogue from the first 7-10 seasons of the Simpsons. Everything after that (at least, as far as I have seen) is worse than average TV sitcom.
They might. The current system does not necessarily give them incentive to _do_ what's best though. Still, modern medicine beats whatever is in second place by a long long way.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Of course it does. Everyone knows there are only two positions for every possible topic. That's why the two party system is such a huge success, and why everyone loves it so much.(Excepting of course commies, who prefer a one-party system... see, there's the two options for how many political parties a system can have!)
The idea that there could be a third viewpoint is inconceivable.
I was under the impression that it is not possible to enter a contract which violates the law. If you give your written consent to allow an illegal action to be performed against you, that contract (or at least that portion of it) is not valid.
Meanwhile, a rough estimate of your income after taxes means you're probably taking $100-$125,000 a year home.
I'd guess 125k is absolute worst case tax situation, based on this.
There are people out there that have to feed a family of 3 on $25,000 a year.
Yeah, this. You're quoting an income that puts you in the top 8% of Americans. If you're finding it hard to get by, I'm curious to know what your imagination thinks average wage earners do to survive.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the second person to post this information. The only problem is you contradict each other on whether 3G will work, and neither of you offer a source to verify against.
Agree that this is interesting and is information that should have been in the article or available through the summary. Do you have a source for this information? I'm interested to know if this is a problem that can be fixed, or if it is a strict limitation of the hardware.
More and more mobile carriers are moving to plans where they do not subsidize the cost of the phone. I could buy three of these for the price of one iPhone, and most Android phones at this price point are utter garbage. If the 3G or 4G were working, these would look like a very solid option.
Solitaire was originally put in Windows to train users how to use a mouse.
It now functions to train users on how to find free alternatives to the software they want.
While you may disagree with the price exacted by advertisers, they are still providing you with something in exchange. They help pay for the website you are visiting. Without their ads, the site likely wouldn't exist, or would exist in a considerably less useful form.
Counter argument: Ads on a website inherently cause the website to be in a considerably less useful form.
On the other hand, the resurgence in supply has had a dramatic impact on heroin usage rates in US recently.
Oh, and if you think the US "War on Drugs" was primarily directed at supply side, you're somewhat... misinformed.
I think it's important to point out that just because a work of fiction is about something does not mean it encourages it. Romeo and Juliet doesn't encourage suicide, SIlence of the Lambs doesn't encourage serial killing, etc..
To generate extra energy to power my devices? I could see myself enjoying that :D
We've already been on that merry-go-round with trying to shove corn into automobile fuel tanks. In all likelihood, powering your device this way will be dirtier and less fuel efficient than burning coal for the same amount of power.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government...
Aren't all services "a service that is needed by people"?
Money spent buying coal from West Virginia stays in our economy, while oil bought abroad does not.
Well, sure, assuming the person you pay for the coal doesn't buy any clothing, electronics, or cars. The world economy just doesn't work this way any more.
The purpose of criticism is not to tell you whether you will like something or not. It may touch on this, but that is a side affect, not the main purpose. For a variety of reasons, movie reviews sometimes are about whether you will like the movie or not, and offer nothing in the way of criticism (in the traditional academic sense). Sometimes reviewers who combine both, sometimes in the same review. I can see how this can create confusion for the casual review reader, as you have to try to figure out when a review is offering criticism and when it is just a review.
Movies made purely for entertainment often don't have anything worth critical appraisal, other than technical execution, which is why those sorts of movies often have poorer receptions from the critics than from the public. (Personally, I prefer a movie that has a bit more meat on the bone, and offers something to think about critically. I recall enjoying the first Avengers movie, but I can't recall a single thing that happened in it.)
You're supposed to cross at an intersection if possible, and if not, at least where you have a clear line of sight in both directions. You're also supposed to wait until it's safe to cross. If you can't see if it's safe to cross, you're doing it wrong.
Translation: Never ever cross the street in New York City.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds. When Fox news viewers consistently score worse on questions about current events facts than those who watch no news at all, this raises the question of what counts as an "informed mind".
Posturing histrionics.
Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
Yes. Collecting it is sufficient to constitute inappropriate use.
Wow, I can't believe two AC comments for this, and both modded down. People post openly their opinions on guns, abortion, and corporate taxation, but apparently saying the Simpsons is not good crosses a line.
Too bad. I agree with them 100%. I can probably quote nearly every line of dialogue from the first 7-10 seasons of the Simpsons. Everything after that (at least, as far as I have seen) is worse than average TV sitcom.
They might. The current system does not necessarily give them incentive to _do_ what's best though. Still, modern medicine beats whatever is in second place by a long long way.
Insert lecture on the difference between technical and pointlessly pedantic here...
We hear the same thing all the time about balancing the budget and paying down the deficit ever since Reagan, but neither one has happened yet.
At least 50% false (because I have no idea what was done with the "surplus" in those years): http://www.heritage.org/multim...
I guarantee you what they paid for this one was less expensive than changing all the documentation to reflect a later version of windows.
Except, they will still have to do this eventually, and now they are paying for both.
So, you're saying the media backed Bush both times? That's so weird, I'd heard rumors they had a liberal bias.
Law abiding gun owners have never been a problem.
This phrase is a meaningless tautology. It is also arguably false, unless accidental gun deaths don't count as deaths.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Of course it does. Everyone knows there are only two positions for every possible topic. That's why the two party system is such a huge success, and why everyone loves it so much.(Excepting of course commies, who prefer a one-party system... see, there's the two options for how many political parties a system can have!)
The idea that there could be a third viewpoint is inconceivable.
I was under the impression that it is not possible to enter a contract which violates the law. If you give your written consent to allow an illegal action to be performed against you, that contract (or at least that portion of it) is not valid.
Oops, left out a link in above post. Re: tax costs: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ke...
Meanwhile, a rough estimate of your income after taxes means you're probably taking $100-$125,000 a year home.
I'd guess 125k is absolute worst case tax situation, based on this.
There are people out there that have to feed a family of 3 on $25,000 a year.
Yeah, this. You're quoting an income that puts you in the top 8% of Americans. If you're finding it hard to get by, I'm curious to know what your imagination thinks average wage earners do to survive.