The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime. If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible. Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be. Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts. Thought crime should be reserved for dystopian fiction. Hate crime laws have been passed to pander to special interest groups and do not serve the public in general.
Nothing was shown conclusively, but it sure is fun to dredge up old innuendo. How about this one? In Chicago (Bill Daley's hometown), which used the same machines that Daley condemned so vociferously in Florida and which have shown to have a voter error rate of several percent (people carelessly voting for someone other than the intended candidate) in nine of fifty Wards the Republicans got less than 2% of the vote, and in many precincts, it was 0% which is statistically very unlikely. But we all know that Chicagoans are simply more careful than the rest of the nation.
By full extent, I can only assume that you mean not only jail-broken, but also with a custom OS? It's great hardware after all. So why don't you divulge these "profoundly useful" tasks, because the ones I have read about - I think that they are super cool, but not really much more useful than a good programmable remote or something I've done with my laptop and/or server for years.
Who says I hate marketing? Actually my disdain is primarily directed at the consumer who is constantly compelled to buy the newest shiny toy, and then goes on to preach its gospel. Note that I said. "you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized", not, "marketing types will attempt to make you to feel increasingly marginalized." I'm looking at you/me as the problem (resources consumed/pollution/landfills/trade balance), not the marketing people.
No, the contention is that if you chose not to have a tablet, you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized, just as if you chose not to have a Pet Rock, Chia Pet, Billy the Big Mouth Bass, computer, a cell phone, or some form of transportation. If you will be a luddite or intelligent enough not to buy into the hype, that is your right, but it comes with some costs and many benefits.
Increasingly in other areas such as automobiles, useless features are appearing that are only accessible to those with iPhones or iPads, they are really cool the first three times you use them, they cost almost nothing to the manufacturer, but add to both the purchase price and maintenance costs of the product and they will only be supported for a few years. It's like not having a PC in the 1990s: sure, you don't have to have one, but there is a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't care about and won't be able to do as a result. It's your choice how to make that tradeoff. Stay in the past, if you'd prefer, but don't bitch about the things you can't do as society moves on, or you can keep up with the Joneses / modern life, which is increasingly mobile-centric, and that's only going to accelerate paralleling the decline of modern society / education / freedom over the next decade.
Larger than three ounce bombs may be able to destroy a plane, but they do not aid in hijacking. Therefore, by your logic, there is no need for restrictions now.
The correlation between the party in control of the House and budget deficit/surplus is far stronger than that of the party of the President. Unfortunately this doesn't tell the whole story. Clinton was smart enough to execute Congress' legislative intent very well instead of spending his time whining about Congress. Clinton was an executive, we should look for that quality in a President.
The second link states, "the study revealed that... teaching qualifications significantly influenced the teaching effectiveness of the academic staff." You might want to reconsider your opinion or your citation.
Weak correlation is not no correlation. In the absence of better information (about which teacher is the best), better schools tend to hire more qualified teachers. Teachers who are less qualified are on average lazier than those who have continued their own education; some teachers continue their education solely to get higher salary and they weaken this correlation. Lazy teachers are generally poor teachers. Tenure and other external factors also weaken the correlation. There is a correlation, it simply is not as definitive as some claim, nor is it absent as you claim. The real question is,"Is the additional cost of more qualified teachers paid back by the results in the classroom?" And I believe the answer is probably not; within the framework of the systems I know about, the incentives of higher salary make too many bad teachers get more qualifications. The original observation that highly qualified teachers were better was made before there was a financial incentive to become more qualified, throwing money into the equation alters the results. As with too many governmental activities, the desired results are not achieved because of the actions of governmental body itself.
Apparently you and most of your classmates did not understand that those "story problems" in math class were about decision making and weighing options. If you never realized that you are supposed to set up your own story problems relevant to your own life, and you are relying on the advise of others then you got a bad education, you are lazy, and you're NOT getting smarter. What are you going to do when you parents die? Stop blaming others for your myopia.
You just don't get it. If they hired from each other, the employees who changed jobs get 20% or greater pay increases with each jump. Because they are paid more their "peers" demand more and they get 10% or more pay increases. Eventually college students, seeing how the pay scale is rising, go into the field, causing an adequate employee supply and reducing the upward pressure on pay. The pay scale for these employees would be significantly higher than it is today. By avoiding this cycle, the companies reduce their payroll costs significantly and they are doing so through collusion.
This is why the Government should stop trying to promote STEP because they keep trying to keep the cost of engineers down by granting visas to foreign workers and Mr. Obama announced in the State of the Union Address that he wants to keep foreign born US educated engineers here, which will only decrease the pay scale for all engineers. If we need more engineers then we need to let the market make it more attractive to become one, not dangle citizenship to fill the gap.
I did some work on my niece's Win 7 computer last week, and on updates from Microsoft had to reboot three times, in addition to the three to get rid of some malware. I remember hearing the claim that rebooting was supposed to be a thing of the past and realized that Microsoft was talking about its competitors.
Absolutely! Competition is bad! Idiot! Of course some developers want few platforms to work on, that way they only do the job once and sell the same old shit forever. On the other hand as long as there is a moving target, the developer has a job developing for the new and improved OS and sells something new to someone who bought his program for his last phone. In other words, the developers you cite should be ignored because they do not know what is good for them. As long as manufacturers are trotting out significant improvements every year, fragmentation is a GOOD thing.
Google does NOT give it away. There are lots of strings attached, strings that were not there before, as this example aptly demonstrates. Since the iPhone predates the Android phone, your complaint about fragmentation should be lodged against Google rather than Apple. Of course RIM beat them, and Microsoft beat RIM, and Palm beat Microsoft and... all the way back to the IBM Simon. Though I think MS Windows Mobile ca. 2002 Audiovox Thera / Toshiba 2032 is the first modern smartphone.
This action by Google reminded of Princess Leia's, " The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." I do not see this as the solution to anything, it is posturing (marketing) by Google so that some dissatisfied Android customers will go for another ride.
Venezuela springs to mind. They used to export power (also food), now they import and roll blackouts. Viva la revolucion! And yes, there is a lot of money still.
The previous poster did not point out that development was ridiculously easy. He did however say, "Winphone 7 isn't *that* good."
A great UI means nothing without decent apps for the user to interface with. I am not interested in pissed-off avians or whatever game clones may be available for WP7, I want tools not entertainment. Most of the quality app makers for WM have jumped ship for Android or iOS, and WP7 won't catch up anytime soon.
First, I would like to point out that I did not claim that Apple was not more expensive for the same hardware, I disputed Endo13's specious claim that the difference was 90-100% more. I do not understand why you and others who claim that the difference in price is substantial do not choose a laptop with Blu-Ray and simply say that Apple can't match that. You wouldn't get any argument from me, even if it never made any inroads into business use. But you instead argue that inferior somehow is equal. Get closer to equal and we'll discuss the size of the premium Apple charges. Missing one feature is close, two is iffy, three is just misleading when you don't offer any offsetting advantages in your "equivalent product".
Thunderbolt and SDXC offer a bit of future-proofing. I agree that a USB 3 port is slightly more useful than Thunderbolt today, but only because you can buy a cheap USB 3 to SATA controller/enclosure. Many PC computers will be getting Thunderbolt next year and I believe that it will be more widely supported than USB 3 due to its daisy chain configuration and support for monitors. The combination of USB 2, Firewire 800 (you ignored that one) and Thunderbolt is as useful as USB 2 and 3, depending on what types of devices you wish to plug into your computer. With the exception of the cheap external drives, I see few devices that are USB 3 compatible that make use of the bandwidth (Why bother otherwise?) that do not have an equivalent Thunderbolt device available. I could be wrong, and if so, I would appreciate your pointing them out to me - certainly they will not be monitors, video editing devices or RAID drives.
I do not believe either Olympus or Fuji are currently using xD, nor is Sony using Memory Stick Pro, they are are not trivial brands, but those cards are obsolescent, those manufacturers shifted to SDHC a few years ago, and SDXC more recently. It also depends on what kind of camera you will have, and that puts the Acer at a disadvantage for most consumers.
I have had a backlit keyboard on my last several laptops, and I would be very hesitant to give it up, and others who have used backlit keys agree. It is very handy in a darkened room, be that a conference room during a PowerPoint presentation, or the family room in front of the TV. Other manufacturers charge $100 or more to add this feature (Apple did). Before you scoff at the usefulness of a device you might want to remember those famous words, "Nobody will ever need more than 640K!"
Slashdot Mirror
The whole concept of hate crime is ludicrous. Hate is motive, separate from the crime. If the prosecution can show that the accused hated the person they allege he/she acted against, they have a motive to show the jury which makes their allegation more credible. Making such hatred a separate crime violates equal protection and the basic freedom to think as one pleases regardless of how warped those thoughts may be. Laws are designed to punish actions, not thoughts. Thought crime should be reserved for dystopian fiction. Hate crime laws have been passed to pander to special interest groups and do not serve the public in general.
Are you stupid? I clearly identified the comment as innuendo. Also, not my party.
Don't you mean iANAL?
DMCA?
And, if they (the lawyers) work it right, ProView will pay American lawyers twice what they get from Apple.
Nothing was shown conclusively, but it sure is fun to dredge up old innuendo. How about this one? In Chicago (Bill Daley's hometown), which used the same machines that Daley condemned so vociferously in Florida and which have shown to have a voter error rate of several percent (people carelessly voting for someone other than the intended candidate) in nine of fifty Wards the Republicans got less than 2% of the vote, and in many precincts, it was 0% which is statistically very unlikely. But we all know that Chicagoans are simply more careful than the rest of the nation.
By full extent, I can only assume that you mean not only jail-broken, but also with a custom OS? It's great hardware after all. So why don't you divulge these "profoundly useful" tasks, because the ones I have read about - I think that they are super cool, but not really much more useful than a good programmable remote or something I've done with my laptop and/or server for years.
Who says I hate marketing? Actually my disdain is primarily directed at the consumer who is constantly compelled to buy the newest shiny toy, and then goes on to preach its gospel. Note that I said. "you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized", not, "marketing types will attempt to make you to feel increasingly marginalized." I'm looking at you/me as the problem (resources consumed/pollution/landfills/trade balance), not the marketing people.
No, the contention is that if you chose not to have a tablet, you will be made by marketing types to feel increasingly marginalized, just as if you chose not to have a Pet Rock, Chia Pet, Billy the Big Mouth Bass, computer, a cell phone, or some form of transportation. If you will be a luddite or intelligent enough not to buy into the hype, that is your right, but it comes with some costs and many benefits.
Increasingly in other areas such as automobiles, useless features are appearing that are only accessible to those with iPhones or iPads, they are really cool the first three times you use them, they cost almost nothing to the manufacturer, but add to both the purchase price and maintenance costs of the product and they will only be supported for a few years. It's like not having a PC in the 1990s: sure, you don't have to have one, but there is a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't care about and won't be able to do as a result. It's your choice how to make that tradeoff. Stay in the past, if you'd prefer, but don't bitch about the things you can't do as society moves on, or you can keep up with the Joneses / modern life, which is increasingly mobile-centric, and that's only going to accelerate paralleling the decline of modern society / education / freedom over the next decade.
FTFY
Thanks, but we have the TSA for our theater of security, no need for more - it costs too much already.
Clearly a case where TL/DR does not apply.
Larger than three ounce bombs may be able to destroy a plane, but they do not aid in hijacking. Therefore, by your logic, there is no need for restrictions now.
The correlation between the party in control of the House and budget deficit/surplus is far stronger than that of the party of the President. Unfortunately this doesn't tell the whole story. Clinton was smart enough to execute Congress' legislative intent very well instead of spending his time whining about Congress. Clinton was an executive, we should look for that quality in a President.
The second link states, "the study revealed that ... teaching qualifications significantly influenced the teaching effectiveness of the academic staff." You might want to reconsider your opinion or your citation.
Weak correlation is not no correlation. In the absence of better information (about which teacher is the best), better schools tend to hire more qualified teachers. Teachers who are less qualified are on average lazier than those who have continued their own education; some teachers continue their education solely to get higher salary and they weaken this correlation. Lazy teachers are generally poor teachers. Tenure and other external factors also weaken the correlation. There is a correlation, it simply is not as definitive as some claim, nor is it absent as you claim. The real question is,"Is the additional cost of more qualified teachers paid back by the results in the classroom?" And I believe the answer is probably not; within the framework of the systems I know about, the incentives of higher salary make too many bad teachers get more qualifications. The original observation that highly qualified teachers were better was made before there was a financial incentive to become more qualified, throwing money into the equation alters the results. As with too many governmental activities, the desired results are not achieved because of the actions of governmental body itself.
Apparently you and most of your classmates did not understand that those "story problems" in math class were about decision making and weighing options. If you never realized that you are supposed to set up your own story problems relevant to your own life, and you are relying on the advise of others then you got a bad education, you are lazy, and you're NOT getting smarter. What are you going to do when you parents die? Stop blaming others for your myopia.
You just don't get it. If they hired from each other, the employees who changed jobs get 20% or greater pay increases with each jump. Because they are paid more their "peers" demand more and they get 10% or more pay increases. Eventually college students, seeing how the pay scale is rising, go into the field, causing an adequate employee supply and reducing the upward pressure on pay. The pay scale for these employees would be significantly higher than it is today. By avoiding this cycle, the companies reduce their payroll costs significantly and they are doing so through collusion.
This is why the Government should stop trying to promote STEP because they keep trying to keep the cost of engineers down by granting visas to foreign workers and Mr. Obama announced in the State of the Union Address that he wants to keep foreign born US educated engineers here, which will only decrease the pay scale for all engineers. If we need more engineers then we need to let the market make it more attractive to become one, not dangle citizenship to fill the gap.
Captain, this appears to be a silicone based life form. /spock
Assuming she gets from 83 deg south to her goal.
I did some work on my niece's Win 7 computer last week, and on updates from Microsoft had to reboot three times, in addition to the three to get rid of some malware. I remember hearing the claim that rebooting was supposed to be a thing of the past and realized that Microsoft was talking about its competitors.
Yeah, Cuba doesn't get any aid from Venezuela.
Yes, I am proud to own a phone built in the USA ... by Western Electric ... in 1974.
Absolutely! Competition is bad! Idiot! Of course some developers want few platforms to work on, that way they only do the job once and sell the same old shit forever. On the other hand as long as there is a moving target, the developer has a job developing for the new and improved OS and sells something new to someone who bought his program for his last phone. In other words, the developers you cite should be ignored because they do not know what is good for them. As long as manufacturers are trotting out significant improvements every year, fragmentation is a GOOD thing.
Google does NOT give it away. There are lots of strings attached, strings that were not there before, as this example aptly demonstrates. Since the iPhone predates the Android phone, your complaint about fragmentation should be lodged against Google rather than Apple. Of course RIM beat them, and Microsoft beat RIM, and Palm beat Microsoft and ... all the way back to the IBM Simon. Though I think MS Windows Mobile ca. 2002 Audiovox Thera / Toshiba 2032 is the first modern smartphone.
This action by Google reminded of Princess Leia's, " The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." I do not see this as the solution to anything, it is posturing (marketing) by Google so that some dissatisfied Android customers will go for another ride.
Venezuela springs to mind. They used to export power (also food), now they import and roll blackouts. Viva la revolucion! And yes, there is a lot of money still.
The previous poster did not point out that development was ridiculously easy. He did however say, "Winphone 7 isn't *that* good."
A great UI means nothing without decent apps for the user to interface with. I am not interested in pissed-off avians or whatever game clones may be available for WP7, I want tools not entertainment. Most of the quality app makers for WM have jumped ship for Android or iOS, and WP7 won't catch up anytime soon.
The second amendment provides the people with recourse.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson
First, I would like to point out that I did not claim that Apple was not more expensive for the same hardware, I disputed Endo13's specious claim that the difference was 90-100% more. I do not understand why you and others who claim that the difference in price is substantial do not choose a laptop with Blu-Ray and simply say that Apple can't match that. You wouldn't get any argument from me, even if it never made any inroads into business use. But you instead argue that inferior somehow is equal. Get closer to equal and we'll discuss the size of the premium Apple charges. Missing one feature is close, two is iffy, three is just misleading when you don't offer any offsetting advantages in your "equivalent product".
Thunderbolt and SDXC offer a bit of future-proofing. I agree that a USB 3 port is slightly more useful than Thunderbolt today, but only because you can buy a cheap USB 3 to SATA controller/enclosure. Many PC computers will be getting Thunderbolt next year and I believe that it will be more widely supported than USB 3 due to its daisy chain configuration and support for monitors. The combination of USB 2, Firewire 800 (you ignored that one) and Thunderbolt is as useful as USB 2 and 3, depending on what types of devices you wish to plug into your computer. With the exception of the cheap external drives, I see few devices that are USB 3 compatible that make use of the bandwidth (Why bother otherwise?) that do not have an equivalent Thunderbolt device available. I could be wrong, and if so, I would appreciate your pointing them out to me - certainly they will not be monitors, video editing devices or RAID drives.
I do not believe either Olympus or Fuji are currently using xD, nor is Sony using Memory Stick Pro, they are are not trivial brands, but those cards are obsolescent, those manufacturers shifted to SDHC a few years ago, and SDXC more recently. It also depends on what kind of camera you will have, and that puts the Acer at a disadvantage for most consumers.
I have had a backlit keyboard on my last several laptops, and I would be very hesitant to give it up, and others who have used backlit keys agree. It is very handy in a darkened room, be that a conference room during a PowerPoint presentation, or the family room in front of the TV. Other manufacturers charge $100 or more to add this feature (Apple did). Before you scoff at the usefulness of a device you might want to remember those famous words, "Nobody will ever need more than 640K!"