wrong. they still can't regulate things they have no authority to regulate.
You've taken my answer out of context. I was referring that while the original poster said that the constitution only gave congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the people mandated that it shall be done.
Furthermore, Congress should represent the wishes of the people that they represent. It is up to the judicial branch to determine the legality of the legislation passed by congress, and the executive branch also gets a say in the matter too.
Which can't be worse than making generalities based on where you perceive someone may stand.
From the lack of additional information from you, I had to assume you were for the exact opposite of the grandparent post.
I am in favor of cutting subsidies on both domestic oil and and alternative energy exploration.
Now that wasn't hard was it?
Here is an example of how things work for you. The argument that companies do not do R&D is false because it is incomplete.
Who said companies didn't do R&D? Please no straw man arguments.
How it is done now is that companies vie for government grants to do research. So now there is a reduced R&D line but an increased revenue line. The R&D is still there, just not reflected in the financials. The cost is there, but a as a cost of sales rather than an R&D expense.
Okay so you're saying that R&D funding from the government amounts to corporate welfare? I can see that argument could have some merit. I think it would be more accurate to say that government solicit proposals from public and private entities for solutions to a given problem, and the proposal that provides the most value to the tax payer wins. I think most republicans would agree with that system since it introduces privatization of research. The government still needs to be involved so that the research that is funded by taxpayers should benefit all tax payers not just the company that discovers the solution.
The bad part is that government takes in tax dollars at 100%, squanders a significant portion to administer the redistribution of wealth, and then funds actual research at 40%-50% of what was taken in in taxes.
Sounds like hyperbole, and your percentage of tax payers money going toward research is off by a magnitude. Anyway, care to back up these percentages? You'd be surprised how small the portion of the budget that "Obamacare" takes. When I hear "redistribution of wealth" a little red flag indicating bullshit goes off in my head. Let's try to leave the flamboyant talking points to the republican pundits. I could expound on how I also believe entitlement programs are eating up a good portion of our budget. Despite how juicy a topic that would be, it really doesn't apply to research funding does it? It's just a distraction from the main topic. Besides we wouldn't be talking about the real source of our current deficit which is tax payer money going to fund two foreign wars and the previous administration's unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the wars which was unprecedented. I guess when Pres. Bush talked about sacrifice he wasn't talking to the millionaires. See how distracting and off topic that was?
Even worse, the research is now not funded by the applicability or merit of the work, but by the whim of the bureaucrat administering the program. Pet projects get funded while other, more useful projects that could be commercialized die.
Most of the proposals I've seen were vetted by a experts within the field of research. Sure there are some oddball studies like the viscosity of condiments, but there might actually be justification for such a study within the scope of the agency responsible for regulating the naming of retail foods. Otherwise, what would prevent clamato from being labeled as ketchup? Luckily the overwhelming majority of the research grants being awarded are for legitimate mainstream science research and development.
Now let's get rid of another straw man: the unnamed government bureaucrat. It's another boogie man that fills the republican talking points. I bet you'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of non-competitive grants issued are from earmarks allocated by senators (from both parties republican and democrats alike).
Case in point, the latest complaint about disabling the virtualization permanently in BIOS that found from HP is the HP Pavilion DV2 which sports a AMD Athlon Neo MV-40.
I think you unfairly blamed Intel for the actions of HP.
Ahem. "The Congress shall have Power To..." is authority, not a mandate. The Congress can choose not to exercise its power in a given area if it wishes.
While we are talking semantics, Congress has the authority to do what the people mandate. If the people believe that the government should regulate interstate commerce then the congress has a constitutional obligation to regulate it.
The idea behind a republic is that the congress should act on the wishes of the people they represent not what their party dictates. It seems the parties have forgotten what a representative government really means. Now a days, the congressmen seem to represent lobbyists who aren't necessarily within the geographical region they are suppose to represent instead of the voters who placed them in office. And while I'm on the subject, the congressman has a moral and legal obligation to represent the views of all voters within his district regardless of their vote casted.
I currently work in education, and I would say ditto for the department of education. I teach at a community college, and we get 100% of our funding from state and local taxes. Education is not a traditional or proper field for the federal government to be involved in. The federal government does fund research at universities, but that's not education, it's research. (Yes, the two do overlap, but only partially.) If we ever needed a demonstration of what can go wrong when the feds get involved in education, NCLB was it.
You may want to reconsider what you just said. The department of education just issued another round of grants totaling over $500 million to community colleges for targeted training and workforce development. Not to mention, your community college benefits from your state's four year colleges ability to solicit alternative sources of funding. Otherwise, the budget amount that supports your community college will shrink due to more money going to the four year institutions. I think you'll find that your state places a higher priority on funding the four-year institutions than they do on the two-year institutions.
Don't take my word for it. Consult your representative of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) or its affiliated National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC). Better yet actually visit the department of education website using keyword community-college.
On earthquake research, there are a number of universities (many of which claim to be privately funded/endowed) that compete with each other on prestige that would likely continue this research.
You should have done your homework before using this example. Universities get their funding through grants issued by NOAA, USGS, NSF, and other agencies. The university system is a partner in the government research program not a competitor.
It's OK though. Stick your head and the sand and wait for bigger government to save you from big government.
It can't be worse than you insulting people that disagree with you instead of contributing to a civil dialog with people who don't necessarily share your point of view.
I find the "big government" argument from the right very questionable since when it comes to budget cuts they only promote cuts in areas favored by the left. Yet the programs they favor continue at previous or even more generous spending levels. For example, what makes ensuring continued domestic oil and exploration with generous subsidies an important national issue and not diversifying our energy portfolio by spending money on research and development by government laboratories?
I'm sure North Dakota doesn't contribute as much to the federal budget as California and Oregon. Also I consider these monitoring programs as essential to providing for a national defense and promotes the general welfare of the citizens in states subject to these types of disasters.
It's starting to look like one of Android's greatest weaknesses is that people flame manufacturers, but don't mention their name yet do mention Android's name in spite of the fact that Android had nothing to do with the problem they had.
That's because pretty much ALL of the Android phones have this problem. The only phones I know that *may* not have a problem are the ones commissioned by Google.
Dude: name names. Someone sold you an un-upgradable phone and you won't say who? Thanks, now they will be free to pull the same bullshit on me.
Okay: HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Pretty much any Android phone sold through a phone carrier.
If we were talking about desktop computers instead of phones, you wouldn't be talking shit about the OS not being upgradable; you'd be warning the world against the desktop computer manufacturer and their user-hostile BIOS.
Two totally different things. Nice try deflecting blame but we all knew this was going to happen when manufacturers were allowed to make changes to the OS in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the other Android phones.
This is just the nature of the beast. You can't have a pseudo-open phone OS and not expect fragmentation caused by the hardware makers. If you use your desktop computer comparison, you could think of these modifications as one step above the crapware pre-installed on your PC computer.
Also why would a manufacturer spend money updating your phone when they rather you buy a new one? The only way this can be solved is by Google owning up to the task of building the OS and pushing it out to the manufacturer to install on their phone (like OEM MS Windows). I don't see this happening in the near future, so the best advice I can give you is to accept the limitations of the Android universe and don't take it personally when people point it out.
Maybe because a QNX based OS would give them a more responsive phone capable of doing media and network intensive operations that consumers seem to crave. If it comes with a HTML5 compliant browser with Adobe Flash then it would satisfy around 90% (RHE) of the consumer needs.
Why the fear of another mobile OS? Especially one base on a mature hard real time kernel.
I don't see what the choice of desktop environment has to do with picking a distro.
A distro will pick its official desktop and all the programs will be better integrated with that particular desktop. The only real negative that I experienced is some distro (eg. Ubuntu) do a poor job with their packaging of alternative desktops and lead to runtime errors that aren't being experienced by folks who use a distro that supports it better.
On the bright side (if you can call it that), the EU ruling could effectively give Sky satellite the ability to be the sole provider of English football league. I think it is more realistic that the EU ruling means that all satellite providers will now pay the same price regardless of their primary coverage area. So it may be more of a win for English football league.
In the end, Greece may have cut off its nose to spite its face. When time to renew the contract comes around, they may not get a discounted price. Thanks to this ruling, the FA games will consider the fact that Greece is now legally able to sell to subscribers anywhere in the EU when negotiating the price of the broadcast rights.
This will either mean games will become less available in other countries as the big countries don't want to cannibalize their own market, or there will be a massive revenue hit as everyone picks up a satellite to broadcast games from the least expensive country.
More likely that Greece would no longer be able to afford the broadcast rights or at least not be able to get them as cheaply. With the whole EU open to them, the broadcasters will no longer consider Greece's geographical borders and internal TV market as a factor for pricing.
This ruling will benefit UK subscribers in the short term, but Greece may ultimately suffer from it.
Btw, this is *not* a free market solution because it is the government imposing a restriction on what may be agreed upon between consenting parties.
Depends on what you mean by "free market solution". You are absolutely correct about this not being a laissez-faire economy. However, laissez-faire doesn't necessarily equate to free market capitalism. It just moves monopolistic powers from the government to the private entities.
The EU ruling prevents the private parties from creating monopolies amongst themselves. When most people talk about a "free market solution", they mean a market where open competition exists. The EU ruling reenforces that economy at least in the EU.
It also sits in the Nevada Test Site. The NTS is a HUGE tract of the (uninhabitable) Nevadan desert reserved for the government. It's a no fly zone, it's a no-go zone, and it's generally one of the most secure pieces of land in the world. If you don't believe me, I suggest you try to drive there. (No, really, don't - you're likely to be shot.)
Perhaps the reason analysts thought that is because there would be no point whatsoever of having a service that JUSt stores pictures and music when other out there do everything already.
You're right. No sense creating a new mp3 player since Creative, Sansa and Sony had products on the market. No sense creating a smart phone since Handspring and Windows CE were already in the market. No sense working on Linux since Unix already existed./sarcasm
Technology progresses in an evolutionary fashion. Marketing wants us to believe that all advances are revolutionary. Occasionally some evolutionary advances warrant the "revolutionary" tag. I'm not saying iCloud is revolutionary. What I am saying is iCloud is an evolutionary advance from mac.com and MobileMe. Remember those? They existed before DropBox and other "cloud" services. Marketing will always spin it as revolutionary. The Apple ecosystem may be revolutionary but each individual part is mostly evolutionary.
Anyway, Apple saw a need to make it easier for their customers to keep all their Apple devices synced. Apple added services to their web offerings to solve this problem. The change of methodology used with this advance warranted the iCloud name change since MobileMe doesn't necessarily apply in all use cases (not to mention the word "cloud" is hot atm ).
I think the real reasons "analysts" got it wrong were because:
1. They are pundits and are just giving us glorified personal opinions.
2. The more sensational they make their predictions, the more eyeballs they attract to their sites.
Now I'm surprised about the article saying no PDF storage, because I thought iBook would take care of that. No to mention I have a "Documents & Data" option in my iCloud preferences. I have PDFs as books and I have it on both my iTunes and mobile devices... I'll have to test to see if it really works.
Amazon will find another state that will give them tax free status.
I don't buy anything from Amazon. I don't mind if you do. I just like supporting small independent publishers like "Pragmatic Programming" directly and my local book store. Having a healthy competition with multiple vendors is the best way to create and keep jobs in this economy. Consolidation is what kills jobs. Taxes don't kill jobs. Government don't create jobs. Economy creates or kills jobs and by extension Banks influence job creation.
Taxes did not destroy jobs, nor did they cause this recession. Unregulated banking put us in this position and the republicans will do everything to try to divert your attention from that fact. Despite having a massive government bailout, the banking system decided to tighten up lending to businesses and reduce their "floor plan" portfolio. Without short term loans borrowed against receivables, business had to make labor cuts in order to continue to make payables. This effect reverberated throughout our economy.
Continue to support your favorite brand of bullshitter (republican or democrat) but please try to not let the rhetoric dissuade you from the real reasons why we are fucked.
First, you would have to get every vendor to agree to this. Not a single one will. Oracle has spent time making enemies of most people required for such a plan to succeed, and their mission statement completely conflicts with the goals of the rest of the people that would be needed.
Who are these enemies? Apple, IBM, and SAP are members of the OpenJDK project. Sure Google chose to make their own bastardization of the JVM and call it Dalvik which used a different byte-code format that is almost a one-to-one byte code replacement to the JVM format. They also are not using the standard class libraries either.
Google isn't the entire IT ecosphere despite what they wish. Now Google and their fanboys are astroturfing the comment boards a lot, but it still doesn't reflect the reality of Java's continued and dominate use in enterprise.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the old saying: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Yay! Samsung and Motorola finally and recently upgraded to Android 2.3. Yet here we are talking about Android 4.0.
You've taken my answer out of context. I was referring that while the original poster said that the constitution only gave congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, the people mandated that it shall be done.
Furthermore, Congress should represent the wishes of the people that they represent. It is up to the judicial branch to determine the legality of the legislation passed by congress, and the executive branch also gets a say in the matter too.
From the lack of additional information from you, I had to assume you were for the exact opposite of the grandparent post.
Now that wasn't hard was it?
Who said companies didn't do R&D? Please no straw man arguments.
Okay so you're saying that R&D funding from the government amounts to corporate welfare? I can see that argument could have some merit. I think it would be more accurate to say that government solicit proposals from public and private entities for solutions to a given problem, and the proposal that provides the most value to the tax payer wins. I think most republicans would agree with that system since it introduces privatization of research. The government still needs to be involved so that the research that is funded by taxpayers should benefit all tax payers not just the company that discovers the solution.
Sounds like hyperbole, and your percentage of tax payers money going toward research is off by a magnitude. Anyway, care to back up these percentages? You'd be surprised how small the portion of the budget that "Obamacare" takes. When I hear "redistribution of wealth" a little red flag indicating bullshit goes off in my head. Let's try to leave the flamboyant talking points to the republican pundits. I could expound on how I also believe entitlement programs are eating up a good portion of our budget. Despite how juicy a topic that would be, it really doesn't apply to research funding does it? It's just a distraction from the main topic. Besides we wouldn't be talking about the real source of our current deficit which is tax payer money going to fund two foreign wars and the previous administration's unwillingness to raise taxes to pay for the wars which was unprecedented. I guess when Pres. Bush talked about sacrifice he wasn't talking to the millionaires. See how distracting and off topic that was?
Most of the proposals I've seen were vetted by a experts within the field of research. Sure there are some oddball studies like the viscosity of condiments, but there might actually be justification for such a study within the scope of the agency responsible for regulating the naming of retail foods. Otherwise, what would prevent clamato from being labeled as ketchup? Luckily the overwhelming majority of the research grants being awarded are for legitimate mainstream science research and development.
Now let's get rid of another straw man: the unnamed government bureaucrat. It's another boogie man that fills the republican talking points. I bet you'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of non-competitive grants issued are from earmarks allocated by senators (from both parties republican and democrats alike).
Thanks to Obamacare, he can! :P
So you should avoid HP.
Case in point, the latest complaint about disabling the virtualization permanently in BIOS that found from HP is the HP Pavilion DV2 which sports a AMD Athlon Neo MV-40.
I think you unfairly blamed Intel for the actions of HP.
While we are talking semantics, Congress has the authority to do what the people mandate. If the people believe that the government should regulate interstate commerce then the congress has a constitutional obligation to regulate it.
The idea behind a republic is that the congress should act on the wishes of the people they represent not what their party dictates. It seems the parties have forgotten what a representative government really means. Now a days, the congressmen seem to represent lobbyists who aren't necessarily within the geographical region they are suppose to represent instead of the voters who placed them in office. And while I'm on the subject, the congressman has a moral and legal obligation to represent the views of all voters within his district regardless of their vote casted.
This is news to me. Please explain.
You may want to reconsider what you just said. The department of education just issued another round of grants totaling over $500 million to community colleges for targeted training and workforce development. Not to mention, your community college benefits from your state's four year colleges ability to solicit alternative sources of funding. Otherwise, the budget amount that supports your community college will shrink due to more money going to the four year institutions. I think you'll find that your state places a higher priority on funding the four-year institutions than they do on the two-year institutions.
Don't take my word for it. Consult your representative of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) or its affiliated National Council of State Directors of Community Colleges (NCSDCC). Better yet actually visit the department of education website using keyword community-college.
You should have done your homework before using this example. Universities get their funding through grants issued by NOAA, USGS, NSF, and other agencies. The university system is a partner in the government research program not a competitor.
It can't be worse than you insulting people that disagree with you instead of contributing to a civil dialog with people who don't necessarily share your point of view.
I find the "big government" argument from the right very questionable since when it comes to budget cuts they only promote cuts in areas favored by the left. Yet the programs they favor continue at previous or even more generous spending levels. For example, what makes ensuring continued domestic oil and exploration with generous subsidies an important national issue and not diversifying our energy portfolio by spending money on research and development by government laboratories?
I'm sure North Dakota doesn't contribute as much to the federal budget as California and Oregon. Also I consider these monitoring programs as essential to providing for a national defense and promotes the general welfare of the citizens in states subject to these types of disasters.
I was expressing the attitude of HTC and Motorola. Apple doesn't have this attitude.
That's because pretty much ALL of the Android phones have this problem. The only phones I know that *may* not have a problem are the ones commissioned by Google.
Okay: HTC, Motorola, and Samsung. Pretty much any Android phone sold through a phone carrier.
Two totally different things. Nice try deflecting blame but we all knew this was going to happen when manufacturers were allowed to make changes to the OS in an attempt to differentiate themselves from the other Android phones.
This is just the nature of the beast. You can't have a pseudo-open phone OS and not expect fragmentation caused by the hardware makers. If you use your desktop computer comparison, you could think of these modifications as one step above the crapware pre-installed on your PC computer.
Also why would a manufacturer spend money updating your phone when they rather you buy a new one? The only way this can be solved is by Google owning up to the task of building the OS and pushing it out to the manufacturer to install on their phone (like OEM MS Windows). I don't see this happening in the near future, so the best advice I can give you is to accept the limitations of the Android universe and don't take it personally when people point it out.
Maybe because a QNX based OS would give them a more responsive phone capable of doing media and network intensive operations that consumers seem to crave. If it comes with a HTML5 compliant browser with Adobe Flash then it would satisfy around 90% (RHE) of the consumer needs. Why the fear of another mobile OS? Especially one base on a mature hard real time kernel.
A distro will pick its official desktop and all the programs will be better integrated with that particular desktop. The only real negative that I experienced is some distro (eg. Ubuntu) do a poor job with their packaging of alternative desktops and lead to runtime errors that aren't being experienced by folks who use a distro that supports it better.
On the bright side (if you can call it that), the EU ruling could effectively give Sky satellite the ability to be the sole provider of English football league. I think it is more realistic that the EU ruling means that all satellite providers will now pay the same price regardless of their primary coverage area. So it may be more of a win for English football league.
In the end, Greece may have cut off its nose to spite its face. When time to renew the contract comes around, they may not get a discounted price. Thanks to this ruling, the FA games will consider the fact that Greece is now legally able to sell to subscribers anywhere in the EU when negotiating the price of the broadcast rights.
More likely that Greece would no longer be able to afford the broadcast rights or at least not be able to get them as cheaply. With the whole EU open to them, the broadcasters will no longer consider Greece's geographical borders and internal TV market as a factor for pricing.
This ruling will benefit UK subscribers in the short term, but Greece may ultimately suffer from it.
Depends on what you mean by "free market solution". You are absolutely correct about this not being a laissez-faire economy. However, laissez-faire doesn't necessarily equate to free market capitalism. It just moves monopolistic powers from the government to the private entities.
The EU ruling prevents the private parties from creating monopolies amongst themselves. When most people talk about a "free market solution", they mean a market where open competition exists. The EU ruling reenforces that economy at least in the EU.
Can a guy have fun?
Quit being a buzz kill
It's secure due mostly to health concerns. You can tour the NTS.
You're right. No sense creating a new mp3 player since Creative, Sansa and Sony had products on the market. No sense creating a smart phone since Handspring and Windows CE were already in the market. No sense working on Linux since Unix already existed. /sarcasm
Technology progresses in an evolutionary fashion. Marketing wants us to believe that all advances are revolutionary. Occasionally some evolutionary advances warrant the "revolutionary" tag. I'm not saying iCloud is revolutionary. What I am saying is iCloud is an evolutionary advance from mac.com and MobileMe. Remember those? They existed before DropBox and other "cloud" services. Marketing will always spin it as revolutionary. The Apple ecosystem may be revolutionary but each individual part is mostly evolutionary.
Anyway, Apple saw a need to make it easier for their customers to keep all their Apple devices synced. Apple added services to their web offerings to solve this problem. The change of methodology used with this advance warranted the iCloud name change since MobileMe doesn't necessarily apply in all use cases (not to mention the word "cloud" is hot atm ).
I think the real reasons "analysts" got it wrong were because:
1. They are pundits and are just giving us glorified personal opinions.
2. The more sensational they make their predictions, the more eyeballs they attract to their sites.
Now I'm surprised about the article saying no PDF storage, because I thought iBook would take care of that. No to mention I have a "Documents & Data" option in my iCloud preferences. I have PDFs as books and I have it on both my iTunes and mobile devices... I'll have to test to see if it really works.
Amazon will find another state that will give them tax free status.
I don't buy anything from Amazon. I don't mind if you do. I just like supporting small independent publishers like "Pragmatic Programming" directly and my local book store. Having a healthy competition with multiple vendors is the best way to create and keep jobs in this economy. Consolidation is what kills jobs. Taxes don't kill jobs. Government don't create jobs. Economy creates or kills jobs and by extension Banks influence job creation.
Taxes did not destroy jobs, nor did they cause this recession. Unregulated banking put us in this position and the republicans will do everything to try to divert your attention from that fact. Despite having a massive government bailout, the banking system decided to tighten up lending to businesses and reduce their "floor plan" portfolio. Without short term loans borrowed against receivables, business had to make labor cuts in order to continue to make payables. This effect reverberated throughout our economy.
Continue to support your favorite brand of bullshitter (republican or democrat) but please try to not let the rhetoric dissuade you from the real reasons why we are fucked.
That's being obtuse. Data format has nothing to do with implementation. One attribute has nothing to do with the other. Try again.
Who are these enemies? Apple, IBM, and SAP are members of the OpenJDK project. Sure Google chose to make their own bastardization of the JVM and call it Dalvik which used a different byte-code format that is almost a one-to-one byte code replacement to the JVM format. They also are not using the standard class libraries either.
Google isn't the entire IT ecosphere despite what they wish. Now Google and their fanboys are astroturfing the comment boards a lot, but it still doesn't reflect the reality of Java's continued and dominate use in enterprise.