I use T-Mobile, which gives me free roaming and long distance, and unlimited weekends. I can configure mine to use standard dialup service, which is what I use at home. So I'm not paying any more for internet access than I normally would and I'm getting the same speed and functionality.
I personally like T-Mobiles plans best and I've had few problems with their service. We have comparable deals, and I did pay close attention to the deals. Your's gives you unlimited access for the internet, mine gives unlimited talk and internet access on weekends. I use mine for both and weekend communication is pretty useful for me.
There is a higher body who will fulfill your needs. I assume since you have an internet connection that you are part of a developed nation. People are constantly watching over you, its called your government. Your government provides a police force and military to make sure people don't take by force what you don't already own, and they provide laws to tell other people what they can and can't do so you aren't taken advantage of.
Your analogy again is like anarchy. In a wild setting, there's nothing to depend on except you. And if another predator comes along and steals your lunch and kills you (or maybe just stop sending you electricity and come to your house demanding double pay this month just because they can), well then your done, you can't stop it. However, in the US we'd like to think we teach each other that theft and murder are bad. You need a system of law and order to enforce that or it will never hold up.
Yes there are risks associated with Freedom... and freedom reuires responsibility, but no one is going to be responsible for anyone else unless a powerful entity stands up and tells you to be responsible.
Oh and by the way... what you NEED is what everyone else NEEDS... food, clothing, shelter, health care, maybe transportation, and a source of income to sustain that. No sane government decides that you NEED a $5000 television. My only assumption is you think the government will suddenly turn communist and tell you that you don't need this TV. Its obvious you don't need a TV, but it is what you want, and I agree a government shouldn't regulate yoour purchase of luxury goods in that manner and tell you that you should never buy it because its not a need. But it sounds like your response is implying that a social welfare safety net is about telling everyone in the society what to buy and what not to buy and live in a planned, controlled economy. Far from it. Its just an attempt to provide for those with all the amenities the rest of us are able to afford. Everyone else who can afford it can go on with your life.
You misread my point. The problem is the shirt costs the same amount of money REGARDLESS of my income. Basic mathematics shows that sals tax punishes lower incomes because the tax is based not on what you bring in, but what you spend. A better example would be to analyze your total expenses for necessities (clothes, food, shelter, utilities, transportation). Say your total yearly expenses total $10,000. Now slap a 6% sales tax on it. First of all, your out another $600. Second of all, the people selling those goods experience a reduction in overall sales, and can afford to spend less on wages, a secondary effect which is just as nasty to those same people who are trying to scratch out a living on your cheap. Income tax dos lower disposable income, but it only hits you once, not twice.
Now compare those expenses with someone who makes $20,000 a year vs. someone who makes $200,000. The person making $200,000 can afford those increases, the $20k cannot.
The bottom line is your expenses are not tied to you income. Expenses are tied to the market, and if the market pushes those expenses too high, those in lower income brackets can't afford them. Sales tax just pushes those higher. Thats the same reason a sales tax is a bad idea, because adding 30% to your purchased goods is just waaaaaaay too much money.
And there is nothing good about Saving in an economy. You need incentives to SPEND. Spending generates good economic growth as money moves around, changes hands, and open up opportunities. All taxes discourage spending so that's a moot point, but sometimes you gotta tax.
The rebates typically have you buying into internet data plans and a minimum service agreement which up your bill easily to $80 a month for your service. I pay $30 for my service, and bought my Treo 270 for $380. With a guarenteed contract of one year, that's $600 more.
1) Does the rich man deserve that money? When you look at it from a capitalist perspective, absolutely. The market valued his services at a certain amount and the market determined thats how much he should get for them. Great. However, from a sociological and humanist standpoint, are you saying that Joe Blow doesn't deserve food and water? The rich guy could work 20hrs a week and make millions as a cosmetic surgeon for media stars, and the poor guy could work 80 hrs a week as a cook making food for other people still not make enough money to feed his children. Who's more deserving?
2) You are also assuming that the government simply gives the money away, and it doesn't. Many people who receive aid are already working. Many people who receive aid are in programs to put them back to work. And you are also blind to Welfare reforms "dirty little secret." Many people on welfare are not on welfare to exploit the system. Those on welfare not going back to work are quite often not able to go back to work. There are many situations of single mothers who simply cannot go back to work because they have family to raise. Child Care is astronomical, all in the name of being a "productive." I saw a story once of a mother who's child was physically and mental a vegatable and was on welfare because her child needed 24/7 care. Under welfare reform rules in the 90s, she'd have to go back to work and find a care specialist to care for her child. How exactly is that an increase in efficiency and productivity? And why isn't raising and caring for children considered productive?
3) Obviously people need a certain level of incentive to work, A rich man buys a yacht, but who got paid off by that sale? The yacht salesman, who is also rich, or the people who constructed it, who could have possibly been paid minimum wage and can't support a family or even themselves? How about the rich media stars who pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage to work for them?
And what about rich people who inherited money and are not personally productive. They are allowed to buy and buy and buy things but you aren't allowed to give money to poor people to buy things either? How is that humanistically different? Two different people who don't work, who didn't work for their money and just buy things?
4) The answer? Wealthy people who hoard their money. Taxes DO NOT reduce the amount of wealth in society!!!! Thats a fallacy of the worst kind. Taxes take money from the society and redistribute it. What about the people who then get the money on welfare and then buy things with that? Someone had to work to make the things that welfare recipient bought. And what about the government workers employed by this money to make sure people get it? The same argument can be made for the government creating jobs as well. The idea of taxing everyone equally comes from a capitalistic perspective that assumes a lot of things are equal. This is why we have "low cost housing" because the price of housing has gone up, but people who work at McDonalds can't afford the payments of a market price house because those payments are they same whether or not they are rich or poor. Things in the US are expensive, and the poor can't afford them.
And here are points I'd like to add:
Capitalism is about providing people what they want, Democracy is about providing them what they NEED.
Society needs to look out for more than how wealthy it is. It needs to make sure that wealth does not get overbalanced in the hands of a few people and it needs to provide for its citizens. It needs to balance the ideas of a free market with the idea of social welfare. If the poor continue to be poor and have no way to gain wealth within the law, they will have no choice but to try to gain wealth OUTSIDE the law. Crime will be the choice of those people.
Now, considering all of the arguments we've made here, a lot of them are absolute. Your arguments assume that the rich people in this scenario are the good guys
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason why people advocate taxing the rich is based on the reason why the rich don't want to be taxed as much?
Rich: "Don't tax me I made all this hard earned money myself!" Government: "You want to keep all that money?" Rich: "Yes!" Government: "And not give any of it away and help Joe Blow down the street who could really use some help?" Rich: "Well, I don't have to give it away if I don't want to." Government: "Right, okay you're getting taxed." Rich: "NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Unfair Unfair I should be able to give it away to whoever I want!" Goverment: "Okay sure, feel free to give it away, we'll give you a tax break if you give your money away and you won't owe as much in taxes. Until you do that we're taxing you. Joe blow down the street needs to cloth and feed his family." Rich: "*whimper* there goes my million dollar yacht."
Actually, I hate state tax structure. The federal income tax is the only attempt at actually creating a fair tax system by way that those who can pay do so, and the wealth is redistributed for the good of the society.
State taxes usually consist of sales tax which is an unfair system, because the same $20 shirt with tax is still $20 whether you make $5000 a year or $500,000 a year.
Not to rain on this, but Steve's research has one serious flaw.
I see no reason why adding a second mouse button will push away customers, and adding a second mouse button will only attract customers. Its like the function keys on top of the apple keyboard. They are useless to non-powerusers, but people who know how to use them use them very effectively. They are additional features.
I believe this is a top down decision. Steve is known for having such deep convictions that he's made decisions on design which are not for the good of the user base, but what he thinks the user base should be doing. In the above example, for about 6 months the earliest iMacs had this sawed off crappy keyboard with no function keys. Power users screamed until they came back. Now there are a complete list of functions that the fkeys currently use in OS X.
As a power user myself, at work I make effective use of the Right mouse button every day at work on my work PC. On my home Mac I don't because Mac's control click context menu sucks compared to windows. Also, I find it absolutely vital to have a 2 button mouse to play any game these days with any degree of enjoyability.
I bought a new mac recently and I bought a decent $15 mouse which I don't mind doing, but frankly I'd rather not have to deal with that purchase and I'd like a decent right click menu on my mouse for once for the power users in us.
I should also not bring toenail clippers on the plane with me because of the chance that I could use it as a weapon right?
And I should eat with my hands because I could use the plastic knife and fork normally given to me as a means to take over the cockpit right?
I should also be wearing a tinfoil hat, right?
No, its not acceptable until real science enters the equation. Then again, I have every right not to fly, which I exercise regularly, but then there's one more person not paying your airline.
You're a pilot, now I'd like to hear from a scientist, and maybe a few statisticions. By your own admission, you use magnetic instruments. Cellular signals are not based on magnetism. Yes, this is all part of the EM spectrum, but using an X-ray on a laptop will not erase the hard drive (a popular misconception also spread by fear), and a cell phone will not swing a compass from N to S.
The problem with this whole debate is that on the airline side there is simply no hard evidence yet. Its all based on bad science. Hell, FCC regulations on spectrum bandwidth are based on bad science.
Give me hard science research that says 1 out of 100 device activations causes these problems. Show me a paper and not anecdotal information on an anecdotal article.
I bought a cell phone two years ago at the insistance of my family. I planned on using it as my regular phone but in my apartment the reception is absolutely lousy inside my apartment, of all places. Near my computer, my cell phone completely cuts out.
I'm sure its a combination of the overall interference in my apartment coupled by my computer, as I don't have the same problem near other computers, but it does happen.
However, you are right, my computer does not cut out when my cell phone is near.
Before you start spouting off about who was developing nuclear weapons, please try louding the man as a scientist. You sound like Bush, putting loosely related facts together into a great speech for the glory of the United States. Was Edward great? Sure, fine whatever, but 3/4th of your article justifies why Japan should have been bombed and blasts democrats. Stay on topic for crissake!
Okay, I'm sick and tired of people saying "pop sucks and no one wants it." What people want is peace on earth, $100 million each, and a self cleaning home with a sound proof sex-rumpus room. In the meantime, they'll settle for some other level of comfort.
The problem with the music industry is exactly that, they ARE giving people what they want. You have to look at the demographics.
First of all, people aged 25+ have a huge variety of music tastes. I've yet to meet two people who have exactly the same taste in music. In fact, of the people in this age group I know who download music the most, I see them liking just about everything they download! Now in truth, the most common thing they don't download are the cookie cutter pop idols.
So, who's paying for the pop idols? Simple, 12-18 year olds. Human beings who are still developing the logical front lobes of their brains. Human beings who tend to make decisions based on emotions rather than higher reasoning.
My appreciation of art comes from learning about art, absorbing information, and using that information to process the art in front of me. An adolescents appreciation of art starts and stops at "oh me likey, want to buy!" and its based strictly on emotional directives: identifying with the group, identifying with others who like the band, simple lyrics and songs which are easy to identify, and image. Teens, as a group, also have the largest amount of disposable income. They get money from their parents, and from their own jobs, and yet do not have to support themselves because, except in very sad instances, their parents paying the their expenses not related to clothing and entertainment.
You can see this in how Justin Timberlake and Christine Aguillera are starting to grow up and try to do something different than what they did before. They are at least making an attempt at being serious artists (I didn't say they were, just that they are making an attempt), something that their teenage brains didn't understand until now.
And the recording industry targets this, because its what teens want and its where the money is! Teens want to be different from their parents, but they want to be like other teens, and it doesn't make sense to most of us with more logical brains because we are either developing mentally more quickly (a minority in teens) or we are already grown out of this. If you want to solve this problem, have your own kid, and try to get them to appreciate your kind of music or some other kind of music and try to get them to not want to listen to Brittany or Backstreet boys. Believe me its not easy.
Once again an overzealous slashdotter fails to read as well and commits the same sin. Verbatim from the article:
"All models are AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth ready, though the highest-end model is the only iMac with these features pre-installed."
You were right to criticize the/. article for misleading information about the Macworld article, but you didn't follow up with accurate information yourself.
Any amount of a bad thing is a bad thing. Its illegal for a reason. This is not the first attempt at microsoft making a strings attached donation. Again, monopolies cannot and should not attempt to make these types of donations. Certain behavior is regulated in order to make sure they aren't taking advantage of their huge market power to eliminate competition unfairly. John D Rockefeller didn't make his empire by buying 99% of the market in 30 days. He did it over decades of careful planning.
Its just one of many tactics. I still ask why won't the Gates foundation make a cash donation?
Read both articles. The one I provided and the one in this post.
Giving away goods and services below cost or for free is a common tactic in business, in order to make up money later. The difference is that a Monopoly has an unfair advantage with this regard, and doing so as a monopoly is patently illegal. I might not be a lawyer but this is law! Read up on it! It amounts to price gouging your competitors by undercutting the fair market price in order to gain greater marketshare. In a competitive market, with dozens of companies, people can do this to their hearts content, because they are in direct competition.
The fact is, Microsoft at no time has given away the one thing its legally allowed to give away... money. If Bill is so hard up for donating things, give away some damn money!
Its all about competition... read up on your monopoly law there are hundreds of sources out there.
Well first you think I disagree with this move. I don't entirely. However, I think any move that involves "donation" of software deserves scrutiny. We've already been here before.
A typical monopolist tactic is to sell or give away software at reduced prices. This is flat out illegal for a monopoly to do. Microsoft can afford to give away software if it means making up profits by locking this school into buying future microsoft products to remain compatible. Give away the software, sell upgrades at astronomical prices.
Now, two things could be happening here, I think. The Gates foundation could be not only donating the software needed, they could be donating services and free upgrades. If Microsoft pours nothing but heart into this and expects no monetary gain out of this, then its a noble cause. Even if they expected a little mindshare I wouldn't mind.
However, if the Gates foundation says "here's a bunch of PCs with windows and office on them, see you in 2 years when you'll need to upgrade them" I expect someone to step up and cry "MONOPOLY" because this is a loophole which should be illegal. IANAL so I don't know if it is or not, but it should be.
Philadelphia I've always felt is a great city, but it suffers from a lot of problems. City wage taxes motivate companies to leave the city, which urges people to leave the city with them. It has a bit of a cleanliness problem, and the Philadelphia school district is in dire straits. Its suffered from low funds and very poor performance scores. This further urges families to leave the city and Philly has been suffering from urban blight for years. Fewer and fewer people want to live in philly because the school system sucks, and that hurts the over all economy and diversity of the city (read: it leaves poor minorities left behind while rich white people leave for the suburbs, leaving the area economically depressed).
Philly has a lot of great culture. William Penn founded it as a city not of industry, but of culture. The current status of the city is such that such a donation, not by Microsoft, but by the Gates Foundation, is very welcome.
Philly is desperate. You might want to call it a deal with the devil... but you have no idea how desperate they are.
Remember, Microsoft is a monopoly. They play by different rules. If Coke was a monopoly with 90%+ marketshare, you bet the government would be denying them any contracts to "extend" their reach into schools.
If Microsoft and Apple were 50/50 in overall dominance, it would simply be competition. Otherwise, Microsoft should be highly scrutinized when it comes to anti-competitive behavior.
But we don't. We don't because most of us would starve.
Okay stop and look at what he said:
As long as you are healthy in an H&G society, things are lot easier.
Now go back to what you said. You are right, we don't because we would all starve, but c'mon! He did say "As long as you are healthy." And he's right! Nobody said that the solution wouldn't result in the deaths of billions of humans! Fewer humans means simplier! Pure Logic!
That won't help. Any expenses that are incurred in collection of the debt are entitled to the plantiff and can be attached to the current judgement as collections or you can be sued for them in another case. This includes court and lawyer fees.
The.29 macaroni and cheese idea is pretty good though;)
Rental prices are dramatically low. Its $2 or less at Blockbuster and mom-and-pop rental stores were driven out of business because they could hardly compete on price. Chains are the only ones staying afloat due to lower costs. Most stores compete on service and selection, and supplementals.
For example, blockbuster lets you keep older rentals for a week. New rentals for several days. Most local shops let me only rent for 2 days. Blockbuster has a wide selection. The only local place that I've seen that beats their selection is a chain in Philadelphia called TLA. They have a mammoth collection that would make any movie buff cry tears of joy.
And finally, for the impulse buyers, they have new titles on sales as well as for rent, and they have previously viewed titles for the price conscious consumer.
Ondemand is about the price of old rentals, but that's because you are "paying for convenience." The prices used to be in the $10 range for PPV movies and events. That price continues to drop so I bet PPV will drop to $2 soon. If rentals can't continue to lower costs, that's when they'll be in trouble.
You must be a woman then... which is why you posted as anonymous... you are afraid every other slashdotter will figure this out and mail bomb you with requests for dates.;)
In those same innoculation products, there were exceptions which you could then click a button to ignore that specific application and always allow those programs to change themselves. This allowed you to make exceptions of some and monitor the others, under the theory that there's still a chance a monitored program would be hit even if an unmonitored one was and at least you'd know you were infected. It would also make sense to have a feature to completely disable innoculation on a machine you make lots of changes to binaries to.
The poll found little difference in the relationship between game play and income, with 39 percent of gamers reporting total household income of less than $50,000 a year and 41 percent reporting an income of more than $50,000.
Will the remaining 20% were losers spending all day at home with no income??;)
Slashdot Mirror
I use T-Mobile, which gives me free roaming and long distance, and unlimited weekends. I can configure mine to use standard dialup service, which is what I use at home. So I'm not paying any more for internet access than I normally would and I'm getting the same speed and functionality.
I personally like T-Mobiles plans best and I've had few problems with their service. We have comparable deals, and I did pay close attention to the deals. Your's gives you unlimited access for the internet, mine gives unlimited talk and internet access on weekends. I use mine for both and weekend communication is pretty useful for me.
Isn't that the definition of freedom?
No thats the definition of Anarchy.
There is a higher body who will fulfill your needs. I assume since you have an internet connection that you are part of a developed nation. People are constantly watching over you, its called your government. Your government provides a police force and military to make sure people don't take by force what you don't already own, and they provide laws to tell other people what they can and can't do so you aren't taken advantage of.
Your analogy again is like anarchy. In a wild setting, there's nothing to depend on except you. And if another predator comes along and steals your lunch and kills you (or maybe just stop sending you electricity and come to your house demanding double pay this month just because they can), well then your done, you can't stop it. However, in the US we'd like to think we teach each other that theft and murder are bad. You need a system of law and order to enforce that or it will never hold up.
Yes there are risks associated with Freedom... and freedom reuires responsibility, but no one is going to be responsible for anyone else unless a powerful entity stands up and tells you to be responsible.
Oh and by the way... what you NEED is what everyone else NEEDS... food, clothing, shelter, health care, maybe transportation, and a source of income to sustain that. No sane government decides that you NEED a $5000 television. My only assumption is you think the government will suddenly turn communist and tell you that you don't need this TV. Its obvious you don't need a TV, but it is what you want, and I agree a government shouldn't regulate yoour purchase of luxury goods in that manner and tell you that you should never buy it because its not a need. But it sounds like your response is implying that a social welfare safety net is about telling everyone in the society what to buy and what not to buy and live in a planned, controlled economy. Far from it. Its just an attempt to provide for those with all the amenities the rest of us are able to afford. Everyone else who can afford it can go on with your life.
You misread my point. The problem is the shirt costs the same amount of money REGARDLESS of my income. Basic mathematics shows that sals tax punishes lower incomes because the tax is based not on what you bring in, but what you spend. A better example would be to analyze your total expenses for necessities (clothes, food, shelter, utilities, transportation). Say your total yearly expenses total $10,000. Now slap a 6% sales tax on it. First of all, your out another $600. Second of all, the people selling those goods experience a reduction in overall sales, and can afford to spend less on wages, a secondary effect which is just as nasty to those same people who are trying to scratch out a living on your cheap. Income tax dos lower disposable income, but it only hits you once, not twice.
Now compare those expenses with someone who makes $20,000 a year vs. someone who makes $200,000. The person making $200,000 can afford those increases, the $20k cannot.
The bottom line is your expenses are not tied to you income. Expenses are tied to the market, and if the market pushes those expenses too high, those in lower income brackets can't afford them. Sales tax just pushes those higher. Thats the same reason a sales tax is a bad idea, because adding 30% to your purchased goods is just waaaaaaay too much money.
And there is nothing good about Saving in an economy. You need incentives to SPEND. Spending generates good economic growth as money moves around, changes hands, and open up opportunities. All taxes discourage spending so that's a moot point, but sometimes you gotta tax.
The rebates typically have you buying into internet data plans and a minimum service agreement which up your bill easily to $80 a month for your service. I pay $30 for my service, and bought my Treo 270 for $380. With a guarenteed contract of one year, that's $600 more.
:)
I just saved $400 bucks
1) Does the rich man deserve that money? When you look at it from a capitalist perspective, absolutely. The market valued his services at a certain amount and the market determined thats how much he should get for them. Great. However, from a sociological and humanist standpoint, are you saying that Joe Blow doesn't deserve food and water? The rich guy could work 20hrs a week and make millions as a cosmetic surgeon for media stars, and the poor guy could work 80 hrs a week as a cook making food for other people still not make enough money to feed his children. Who's more deserving?
2) You are also assuming that the government simply gives the money away, and it doesn't. Many people who receive aid are already working. Many people who receive aid are in programs to put them back to work. And you are also blind to Welfare reforms "dirty little secret." Many people on welfare are not on welfare to exploit the system. Those on welfare not going back to work are quite often not able to go back to work. There are many situations of single mothers who simply cannot go back to work because they have family to raise. Child Care is astronomical, all in the name of being a "productive." I saw a story once of a mother who's child was physically and mental a vegatable and was on welfare because her child needed 24/7 care. Under welfare reform rules in the 90s, she'd have to go back to work and find a care specialist to care for her child. How exactly is that an increase in efficiency and productivity? And why isn't raising and caring for children considered productive?
3) Obviously people need a certain level of incentive to work, A rich man buys a yacht, but who got paid off by that sale? The yacht salesman, who is also rich, or the people who constructed it, who could have possibly been paid minimum wage and can't support a family or even themselves? How about the rich media stars who pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage to work for them?
And what about rich people who inherited money and are not personally productive. They are allowed to buy and buy and buy things but you aren't allowed to give money to poor people to buy things either? How is that humanistically different? Two different people who don't work, who didn't work for their money and just buy things?
4) The answer? Wealthy people who hoard their money. Taxes DO NOT reduce the amount of wealth in society!!!! Thats a fallacy of the worst kind. Taxes take money from the society and redistribute it. What about the people who then get the money on welfare and then buy things with that? Someone had to work to make the things that welfare recipient bought. And what about the government workers employed by this money to make sure people get it? The same argument can be made for the government creating jobs as well. The idea of taxing everyone equally comes from a capitalistic perspective that assumes a lot of things are equal. This is why we have "low cost housing" because the price of housing has gone up, but people who work at McDonalds can't afford the payments of a market price house because those payments are they same whether or not they are rich or poor. Things in the US are expensive, and the poor can't afford them.
And here are points I'd like to add:
Capitalism is about providing people what they want, Democracy is about providing them what they NEED.
Society needs to look out for more than how wealthy it is. It needs to make sure that wealth does not get overbalanced in the hands of a few people and it needs to provide for its citizens. It needs to balance the ideas of a free market with the idea of social welfare. If the poor continue to be poor and have no way to gain wealth within the law, they will have no choice but to try to gain wealth OUTSIDE the law. Crime will be the choice of those people.
Now, considering all of the arguments we've made here, a lot of them are absolute. Your arguments assume that the rich people in this scenario are the good guys
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason why people advocate taxing the rich is based on the reason why the rich don't want to be taxed as much?
Rich: "Don't tax me I made all this hard earned money myself!"
Government: "You want to keep all that money?"
Rich: "Yes!"
Government: "And not give any of it away and help Joe Blow down the street who could really use some help?"
Rich: "Well, I don't have to give it away if I don't want to."
Government: "Right, okay you're getting taxed."
Rich: "NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Unfair Unfair I should be able to give it away to whoever I want!"
Goverment: "Okay sure, feel free to give it away, we'll give you a tax break if you give your money away and you won't owe as much in taxes. Until you do that we're taxing you. Joe blow down the street needs to cloth and feed his family."
Rich: "*whimper* there goes my million dollar yacht."
Actually, I hate state tax structure. The federal income tax is the only attempt at actually creating a fair tax system by way that those who can pay do so, and the wealth is redistributed for the good of the society.
State taxes usually consist of sales tax which is an unfair system, because the same $20 shirt with tax is still $20 whether you make $5000 a year or $500,000 a year.
Not to rain on this, but Steve's research has one serious flaw.
I see no reason why adding a second mouse button will push away customers, and adding a second mouse button will only attract customers. Its like the function keys on top of the apple keyboard. They are useless to non-powerusers, but people who know how to use them use them very effectively. They are additional features.
I believe this is a top down decision. Steve is known for having such deep convictions that he's made decisions on design which are not for the good of the user base, but what he thinks the user base should be doing. In the above example, for about 6 months the earliest iMacs had this sawed off crappy keyboard with no function keys. Power users screamed until they came back. Now there are a complete list of functions that the fkeys currently use in OS X.
As a power user myself, at work I make effective use of the Right mouse button every day at work on my work PC. On my home Mac I don't because Mac's control click context menu sucks compared to windows. Also, I find it absolutely vital to have a 2 button mouse to play any game these days with any degree of enjoyability.
I bought a new mac recently and I bought a decent $15 mouse which I don't mind doing, but frankly I'd rather not have to deal with that purchase and I'd like a decent right click menu on my mouse for once for the power users in us.
I should also not bring toenail clippers on the plane with me because of the chance that I could use it as a weapon right?
And I should eat with my hands because I could use the plastic knife and fork normally given to me as a means to take over the cockpit right?
I should also be wearing a tinfoil hat, right?
No, its not acceptable until real science enters the equation. Then again, I have every right not to fly, which I exercise regularly, but then there's one more person not paying your airline.
You're a pilot, now I'd like to hear from a scientist, and maybe a few statisticions. By your own admission, you use magnetic instruments. Cellular signals are not based on magnetism. Yes, this is all part of the EM spectrum, but using an X-ray on a laptop will not erase the hard drive (a popular misconception also spread by fear), and a cell phone will not swing a compass from N to S.
The problem with this whole debate is that on the airline side there is simply no hard evidence yet. Its all based on bad science. Hell, FCC regulations on spectrum bandwidth are based on bad science.
Give me hard science research that says 1 out of 100 device activations causes these problems. Show me a paper and not anecdotal information on an anecdotal article.
I bought a cell phone two years ago at the insistance of my family. I planned on using it as my regular phone but in my apartment the reception is absolutely lousy inside my apartment, of all places. Near my computer, my cell phone completely cuts out.
I'm sure its a combination of the overall interference in my apartment coupled by my computer, as I don't have the same problem near other computers, but it does happen.
However, you are right, my computer does not cut out when my cell phone is near.
Before you start spouting off about who was developing nuclear weapons, please try louding the man as a scientist. You sound like Bush, putting loosely related facts together into a great speech for the glory of the United States. Was Edward great? Sure, fine whatever, but 3/4th of your article justifies why Japan should have been bombed and blasts democrats. Stay on topic for crissake!
Okay, I'm sick and tired of people saying "pop sucks and no one wants it." What people want is peace on earth, $100 million each, and a self cleaning home with a sound proof sex-rumpus room. In the meantime, they'll settle for some other level of comfort.
The problem with the music industry is exactly that, they ARE giving people what they want. You have to look at the demographics.
First of all, people aged 25+ have a huge variety of music tastes. I've yet to meet two people who have exactly the same taste in music. In fact, of the people in this age group I know who download music the most, I see them liking just about everything they download! Now in truth, the most common thing they don't download are the cookie cutter pop idols.
So, who's paying for the pop idols? Simple, 12-18 year olds. Human beings who are still developing the logical front lobes of their brains. Human beings who tend to make decisions based on emotions rather than higher reasoning.
My appreciation of art comes from learning about art, absorbing information, and using that information to process the art in front of me. An adolescents appreciation of art starts and stops at "oh me likey, want to buy!" and its based strictly on emotional directives: identifying with the group, identifying with others who like the band, simple lyrics and songs which are easy to identify, and image. Teens, as a group, also have the largest amount of disposable income. They get money from their parents, and from their own jobs, and yet do not have to support themselves because, except in very sad instances, their parents paying the their expenses not related to clothing and entertainment.
You can see this in how Justin Timberlake and Christine Aguillera are starting to grow up and try to do something different than what they did before. They are at least making an attempt at being serious artists (I didn't say they were, just that they are making an attempt), something that their teenage brains didn't understand until now.
And the recording industry targets this, because its what teens want and its where the money is! Teens want to be different from their parents, but they want to be like other teens, and it doesn't make sense to most of us with more logical brains because we are either developing mentally more quickly (a minority in teens) or we are already grown out of this. If you want to solve this problem, have your own kid, and try to get them to appreciate your kind of music or some other kind of music and try to get them to not want to listen to Brittany or Backstreet boys. Believe me its not easy.
Once again an overzealous slashdotter fails to read as well and commits the same sin. Verbatim from the article:
/. article for misleading information about the Macworld article, but you didn't follow up with accurate information yourself.
"All models are AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth ready, though the highest-end model is the only iMac with these features pre-installed."
You were right to criticize the
Any amount of a bad thing is a bad thing. Its illegal for a reason. This is not the first attempt at microsoft making a strings attached donation. Again, monopolies cannot and should not attempt to make these types of donations. Certain behavior is regulated in order to make sure they aren't taking advantage of their huge market power to eliminate competition unfairly. John D Rockefeller didn't make his empire by buying 99% of the market in 30 days. He did it over decades of careful planning.
Its just one of many tactics. I still ask why won't the Gates foundation make a cash donation?
Read both articles. The one I provided and the one in this post.
Giving away goods and services below cost or for free is a common tactic in business, in order to make up money later. The difference is that a Monopoly has an unfair advantage with this regard, and doing so as a monopoly is patently illegal. I might not be a lawyer but this is law! Read up on it! It amounts to price gouging your competitors by undercutting the fair market price in order to gain greater marketshare. In a competitive market, with dozens of companies, people can do this to their hearts content, because they are in direct competition.
The fact is, Microsoft at no time has given away the one thing its legally allowed to give away... money. If Bill is so hard up for donating things, give away some damn money!
Its all about competition... read up on your monopoly law there are hundreds of sources out there.
Well first you think I disagree with this move. I don't entirely. However, I think any move that involves "donation" of software deserves scrutiny. We've already been here before.
A typical monopolist tactic is to sell or give away software at reduced prices. This is flat out illegal for a monopoly to do. Microsoft can afford to give away software if it means making up profits by locking this school into buying future microsoft products to remain compatible. Give away the software, sell upgrades at astronomical prices.
Now, two things could be happening here, I think. The Gates foundation could be not only donating the software needed, they could be donating services and free upgrades. If Microsoft pours nothing but heart into this and expects no monetary gain out of this, then its a noble cause. Even if they expected a little mindshare I wouldn't mind.
However, if the Gates foundation says "here's a bunch of PCs with windows and office on them, see you in 2 years when you'll need to upgrade them" I expect someone to step up and cry "MONOPOLY" because this is a loophole which should be illegal. IANAL so I don't know if it is or not, but it should be.
Philadelphia I've always felt is a great city, but it suffers from a lot of problems. City wage taxes motivate companies to leave the city, which urges people to leave the city with them. It has a bit of a cleanliness problem, and the Philadelphia school district is in dire straits. Its suffered from low funds and very poor performance scores. This further urges families to leave the city and Philly has been suffering from urban blight for years. Fewer and fewer people want to live in philly because the school system sucks, and that hurts the over all economy and diversity of the city (read: it leaves poor minorities left behind while rich white people leave for the suburbs, leaving the area economically depressed).
Philly has a lot of great culture. William Penn founded it as a city not of industry, but of culture. The current status of the city is such that such a donation, not by Microsoft, but by the Gates Foundation, is very welcome.
Philly is desperate. You might want to call it a deal with the devil... but you have no idea how desperate they are.
Double-standard red herring... caught ya!
Remember, Microsoft is a monopoly. They play by different rules. If Coke was a monopoly with 90%+ marketshare, you bet the government would be denying them any contracts to "extend" their reach into schools.
If Microsoft and Apple were 50/50 in overall dominance, it would simply be competition. Otherwise, Microsoft should be highly scrutinized when it comes to anti-competitive behavior.
But we don't. We don't because most of us would starve.
Okay stop and look at what he said:
As long as you are healthy in an H&G society, things are lot easier.
Now go back to what you said. You are right, we don't because we would all starve, but c'mon! He did say "As long as you are healthy." And he's right! Nobody said that the solution wouldn't result in the deaths of billions of humans! Fewer humans means simplier! Pure Logic!
That won't help. Any expenses that are incurred in collection of the debt are entitled to the plantiff and can be attached to the current judgement as collections or you can be sued for them in another case. This includes court and lawyer fees.
.29 macaroni and cheese idea is pretty good though ;)
The
Rental prices are dramatically low. Its $2 or less at Blockbuster and mom-and-pop rental stores were driven out of business because they could hardly compete on price. Chains are the only ones staying afloat due to lower costs. Most stores compete on service and selection, and supplementals.
For example, blockbuster lets you keep older rentals for a week. New rentals for several days. Most local shops let me only rent for 2 days. Blockbuster has a wide selection. The only local place that I've seen that beats their selection is a chain in Philadelphia called TLA. They have a mammoth collection that would make any movie buff cry tears of joy.
And finally, for the impulse buyers, they have new titles on sales as well as for rent, and they have previously viewed titles for the price conscious consumer.
Ondemand is about the price of old rentals, but that's because you are "paying for convenience." The prices used to be in the $10 range for PPV movies and events. That price continues to drop so I bet PPV will drop to $2 soon. If rentals can't continue to lower costs, that's when they'll be in trouble.
You must be a woman then... which is why you posted as anonymous... you are afraid every other slashdotter will figure this out and mail bomb you with requests for dates. ;)
In those same innoculation products, there were exceptions which you could then click a button to ignore that specific application and always allow those programs to change themselves. This allowed you to make exceptions of some and monitor the others, under the theory that there's still a chance a monitored program would be hit even if an unmonitored one was and at least you'd know you were infected. It would also make sense to have a feature to completely disable innoculation on a machine you make lots of changes to binaries to.
The poll found little difference in the relationship between game play and income, with 39 percent of gamers reporting total household income of less than $50,000 a year and 41 percent reporting an income of more than $50,000.
;)
Will the remaining 20% were losers spending all day at home with no income??