I wasn't arguing whether it was substantial. I was arguing the following post was a gross exaggeration:
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps. And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.
Which features of XP Pro does Vista Home Premium lack that Vista Business does not? Which crippled features are you talking about. Looking at Microsoft's compatibility chart and my own experience, about the only discrepancy would be Remote Desktop. I submit that comparing XP Pro and Vista Home Premium is still accurate.
Even so, the difference between $300 and $400 is still a $100 difference, which is not insignificant. And its still a far cry from what the original poster claimed:
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps
Implying you need to pay $500 for Vista when there are $300 and (cheaper options available which may suite your needs) does border on dishonest. A more honest assessment would be to say you would have to pay between $200 and $300 (unless you buy system builder boxes, which I would not fault anyone for leaving out). But its fairly common to cherry-pick facts to portray Vista in the most negative light possible, so I really should be used to this by now.
In what way is it disingenuous? XP Home and XP Professional are not really all that different, and the version set of XP doesn't necessarily map the same way in Vista. I'd say, at least, Vista Home Premium covers the features of XP Pro, short of remote desktop. Even if you choose the Ultimate version of Vista, it still doesn't come out to $400.
In what way do the basic versions of Vista not match XP Home? From a feature perspective, they are roughly equivalent (and even have similar UIs). And Ultimate is not $400.
I also quoted the price of Home Premium System Builder. And you can look up the price of Home Premium Retail fairly easily, and it too is less than $400 (its $250, which is a good $150 less than the quoted price of $400).
Home Premium for System Builders (if you build your own PC) is $100. Home Premium Retail is $230. Whether or not thats worth it is a personal call (personally I agree that its not worth $230), but $230 is less than $400. That's only 58% of what the original poster claimed Vista costs.
Vista Home Basic Retail is around $180, and the system builder copies go for $100. I believe that you are covered under the system builder license as long as you build the PC yourself. At the very least, the few times I've built a PC I've used the system builder versions (before I had MSDN).
Regardless of the legality of system builder licenses, the cost of Vista is nowhere near $400, and it was dishonest of the original poster who stated this to suggest otherwise.
Never show a prototype that looks nice and works well to management. Make the UI look like trash and throw in a couple of bugs. That sets the expectation that this is not a final product and still requires work.
Or the reality of the treatment may not live up to the claims. It isn't exactly peer-reviewed, and its not uncommon for the media and companies to talk up the benefits to generate interest.
From what I've heard, banning embryonic stem cells would slow research, because they are the most useful in doing theoretical work in what treatments are promising. Of course, when developing the actual treatments, adult stem cells are greatly preferable, because they have far less cancer and rejection risks.
But the issue is moot because Bush's ban wasn't a ban. It was a caveat on newly funded research, and it still left researchers with four options: use embryonic cells from the existing lines, use adult stem cells exclusively, get your funding from state governments or private ventures, and, more recently, use recently developed techniques to create stem cells that behave like embryonic stem cells. I'm not going to say that it didn't impact the research, because it certainly seems like it did, but not to the degree that the critics claim.
Of course, I'm also for embryonic stem cell research, assuming sane regulations are put into place.
As I remember it, he didn't even stop federal funding on new lines of ESC per se. There was no funding to begin with, and they OK-ed funding stem cell research, with the caveat that you couldn't use embryos developed from new lines. That restriction put several real limits on the research, but at the same time its not even close to a ban. Private and state level funding were two perfectly viable options if you simply needed to create new lines.
Unless there are significant natural barriers to entry, such as requiring large amounts of up-front capital, at which point larger companies can use price dumping and other predatory tactics. The new company cannot both compete on price and pay the up-front capital at the same time, and so goes out of business. The prices are then raised back up to their monopoly amount.
Plenty of monopolies have managed to form and maintain themselves through anti-competitive tactics without government intervention. That's exactly the reason we have anti-trust laws. History simply doesn't bear out your argument that monopolies cannot be maintained without government interference.
Apparently there was enough demand to take out loans, lay out the infrastructure, and then run it break-even without using any tax money, all at better service and reduced cost. I guess claims of insufficient demand are bullshit, eh? That TW is a lying, greedy, hypocritical company shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's ever dealt with their service.
The Federalist papers were written to argue for and explain the logic behind the Constitution, so they are immensely helpful in clarifying certain ideas. In this case, the GP is right: the general welfare clause was never meant to give the federal government blanket permission to do these things.
That the government does things that violate the Constitution is no surprise. If these things are necessary at the federal level, then we should follow proper legal procedure and amend the Constitution. Otherwise, I don't see why its such a problem to let state and municipal governments (through the 10th Amendment) handle these things. The internet service in question, after all, is being handled by the local government, after all, and local governments tend to be far more responsive to their constituents' needs than the federal government.
Back in college I had to see a specialist and had a 2 month wait. My insurance company refused to let me see anyone else except for the one guy, and he was booked solid.
Care to prove your statement that it can't? In my experience, it certainly can, as long as we quite appointing people who believe the government is evil, inefficient, and worthless to positions in the same government that they seem to despise. Certainly the US postal service has worked well, as well as the roads. Public transport works well in places in which people believe it can and should work well.
Well the other day I mailed some important documents to Japan through the US Postal Service. I then used the government-sponsored buses to ride to my apartment on the government-maintained roads. All around, excellent service. Oh, and the much-maligned DMV has often been an efficient experience for me, sans one community where it was under-staffed and under-funded.
That centrally planned economies are demonstratively terrible does not mean that an economy with no regulation is the best solution. Its possible for the optimal point to be somewhere in the middle. We moved to where we are for a reason, and before I throw my lot in with complete and total laissez-faire I'd like to see evidence that the original issues behind the regulation we have can be addressed.
Ok, so you're claiming his evidence is wrong. Now the burden is on you: show your evidence. Not anecdote, not "everyone knows," actual evidence please. Statistics and accompanying analysis would be nice. As it his, his poor evidence beats your no-evidence.
As you could tell from my post above, I did look up the numbers. You have given me no information beyond your own blatantly inaccurate world-view. I think you're going to have to do better than "Lah lah lah your information means nothing and I'm right, you didn't look up the right facts."
You conveniently skipped over nearly all my post. I'll take that to mean that you don't have a rebuttal to the evidence that Europe can, indeed, be a pretty darn nice place to live. But its ok, I'm sure that every European state will fail in the next couple years so you don't have to deal with that reality. Just ignore the fact that there's no evidence that such a thing is happening (oh wait, you already are!).
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't arguing whether it was substantial. I was arguing the following post was a gross exaggeration:
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps, while XP was a $100 way of running Windows apps. And compared to XP, Vista also needed $400 worth of hardware.
Which features of XP Pro does Vista Home Premium lack that Vista Business does not? Which crippled features are you talking about. Looking at Microsoft's compatibility chart and my own experience, about the only discrepancy would be Remote Desktop. I submit that comparing XP Pro and Vista Home Premium is still accurate.
Even so, the difference between $300 and $400 is still a $100 difference, which is not insignificant. And its still a far cry from what the original poster claimed:
Of course, Vista and 7 tried to be a $500 way of running Windows apps
Implying you need to pay $500 for Vista when there are $300 and (cheaper options available which may suite your needs) does border on dishonest. A more honest assessment would be to say you would have to pay between $200 and $300 (unless you buy system builder boxes, which I would not fault anyone for leaving out). But its fairly common to cherry-pick facts to portray Vista in the most negative light possible, so I really should be used to this by now.
In what way is it disingenuous? XP Home and XP Professional are not really all that different, and the version set of XP doesn't necessarily map the same way in Vista. I'd say, at least, Vista Home Premium covers the features of XP Pro, short of remote desktop. Even if you choose the Ultimate version of Vista, it still doesn't come out to $400.
In what way do the basic versions of Vista not match XP Home? From a feature perspective, they are roughly equivalent (and even have similar UIs). And Ultimate is not $400.
I also quoted the price of Home Premium System Builder. And you can look up the price of Home Premium Retail fairly easily, and it too is less than $400 (its $250, which is a good $150 less than the quoted price of $400).
Home Premium for System Builders (if you build your own PC) is $100. Home Premium Retail is $230. Whether or not thats worth it is a personal call (personally I agree that its not worth $230), but $230 is less than $400. That's only 58% of what the original poster claimed Vista costs.
Vista Home Basic Retail is around $180, and the system builder copies go for $100. I believe that you are covered under the system builder license as long as you build the PC yourself. At the very least, the few times I've built a PC I've used the system builder versions (before I had MSDN).
Regardless of the legality of system builder licenses, the cost of Vista is nowhere near $400, and it was dishonest of the original poster who stated this to suggest otherwise.
You can get Vista for $100 at newegg.
Never show a prototype that looks nice and works well to management. Make the UI look like trash and throw in a couple of bugs. That sets the expectation that this is not a final product and still requires work.
Change "he can't make bits copyable" to "he can't make bits uncopyable".
The point of his rant was that he knows he can't make bits copyable, despite the fact that he wishes otherwise. It was in TFS...
And spun is pointing out that the Penny Arcade strip has nothing to do with the summary. I think your critical reading is in question, not his.
Or the reality of the treatment may not live up to the claims. It isn't exactly peer-reviewed, and its not uncommon for the media and companies to talk up the benefits to generate interest.
From what I've heard, banning embryonic stem cells would slow research, because they are the most useful in doing theoretical work in what treatments are promising. Of course, when developing the actual treatments, adult stem cells are greatly preferable, because they have far less cancer and rejection risks.
But the issue is moot because Bush's ban wasn't a ban. It was a caveat on newly funded research, and it still left researchers with four options: use embryonic cells from the existing lines, use adult stem cells exclusively, get your funding from state governments or private ventures, and, more recently, use recently developed techniques to create stem cells that behave like embryonic stem cells. I'm not going to say that it didn't impact the research, because it certainly seems like it did, but not to the degree that the critics claim.
Of course, I'm also for embryonic stem cell research, assuming sane regulations are put into place.
As I remember it, he didn't even stop federal funding on new lines of ESC per se. There was no funding to begin with, and they OK-ed funding stem cell research, with the caveat that you couldn't use embryos developed from new lines. That restriction put several real limits on the research, but at the same time its not even close to a ban. Private and state level funding were two perfectly viable options if you simply needed to create new lines.
Unless there are significant natural barriers to entry, such as requiring large amounts of up-front capital, at which point larger companies can use price dumping and other predatory tactics. The new company cannot both compete on price and pay the up-front capital at the same time, and so goes out of business. The prices are then raised back up to their monopoly amount.
Plenty of monopolies have managed to form and maintain themselves through anti-competitive tactics without government intervention. That's exactly the reason we have anti-trust laws. History simply doesn't bear out your argument that monopolies cannot be maintained without government interference.
Apparently there was enough demand to take out loans, lay out the infrastructure, and then run it break-even without using any tax money, all at better service and reduced cost. I guess claims of insufficient demand are bullshit, eh? That TW is a lying, greedy, hypocritical company shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's ever dealt with their service.
The Federalist papers were written to argue for and explain the logic behind the Constitution, so they are immensely helpful in clarifying certain ideas. In this case, the GP is right: the general welfare clause was never meant to give the federal government blanket permission to do these things.
That the government does things that violate the Constitution is no surprise. If these things are necessary at the federal level, then we should follow proper legal procedure and amend the Constitution. Otherwise, I don't see why its such a problem to let state and municipal governments (through the 10th Amendment) handle these things. The internet service in question, after all, is being handled by the local government, after all, and local governments tend to be far more responsive to their constituents' needs than the federal government.
Back in college I had to see a specialist and had a 2 month wait. My insurance company refused to let me see anyone else except for the one guy, and he was booked solid.
Cite please?
Care to prove your statement that it can't? In my experience, it certainly can, as long as we quite appointing people who believe the government is evil, inefficient, and worthless to positions in the same government that they seem to despise. Certainly the US postal service has worked well, as well as the roads. Public transport works well in places in which people believe it can and should work well.
Well the other day I mailed some important documents to Japan through the US Postal Service. I then used the government-sponsored buses to ride to my apartment on the government-maintained roads. All around, excellent service. Oh, and the much-maligned DMV has often been an efficient experience for me, sans one community where it was under-staffed and under-funded.
Are you advocating we leave those 7 children to die? Are they responsible for their situation?
That centrally planned economies are demonstratively terrible does not mean that an economy with no regulation is the best solution. Its possible for the optimal point to be somewhere in the middle. We moved to where we are for a reason, and before I throw my lot in with complete and total laissez-faire I'd like to see evidence that the original issues behind the regulation we have can be addressed.
Ok, so you're claiming his evidence is wrong. Now the burden is on you: show your evidence. Not anecdote, not "everyone knows," actual evidence please. Statistics and accompanying analysis would be nice. As it his, his poor evidence beats your no-evidence.
As you could tell from my post above, I did look up the numbers. You have given me no information beyond your own blatantly inaccurate world-view. I think you're going to have to do better than "Lah lah lah your information means nothing and I'm right, you didn't look up the right facts."
You conveniently skipped over nearly all my post. I'll take that to mean that you don't have a rebuttal to the evidence that Europe can, indeed, be a pretty darn nice place to live. But its ok, I'm sure that every European state will fail in the next couple years so you don't have to deal with that reality. Just ignore the fact that there's no evidence that such a thing is happening (oh wait, you already are!).