But could you agree that anyone may need a handgun for self-defense against someone who illegally obtained a gun (which would suggest to be used in illegal activities, such as murder)?
I could agree with this line of reasoning. Of course, there is the side issue of government oppression. If the government has weapons to induce mass murder, then society should have weapons to defend itself in case a Hitler comes into power.
My argument here is: checks and balances. If we increase checks and balances, such that the states have the collective power to overpower the federal government, I wouldn't be so afraid of this.
Unfortunately (and I'm looking at the liberal-minded folks in the audience), we continue to reduce states' rights and their effectiveness in combating the federal government. So if and when Hitler comes to power in the USA, the states will be oppressed and the people even more so.
When one person has the power to murder, we have a few options:
1) Remove the person from society prior to the murder. 2) Remove the weapon from society by laws, hoping the murderer will not find contraband. 3) Arm society, making the murderer less effective.
I think we would all agree that number 1 would be best if we could do it correctly. Number 2 has some effectiveness at reducing weapons availability, but people who want to murder probably won't give up that easily. Plus, there is zero defense until authorities arrive well after the fact. Number 3 is effective in any case, and may thwart the attempt altogether.
Wait, I take that back. I didn't notice there were more pages to the story.
The taser wasn't excessive. She clearly resisted arrest for several minutes, and she had been told not to come back to the store on a previous occasion. Department policy allowed for the taser in that situation.
But of course:
"She was scared, she didn't understand," said John Hugo, who said he was Li's fiance'. "I was outraged. You go into a store, and you end up getting brutalized by the police.
Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit. When she took video of others she claimed were buying more, the store manager asked her to leave.
And she was asked to leave and refused:
"The management of the store asked us to have her removed. The officer approached her, told her she wasn't welcome in the store, and she refused to leave," Nashua Police Capt. Bruce Hansen said.
so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.
Metro-style apps won't be going away. They will almost surely work better and integrate better over time. But Microsoft has committed its future to supporting tablets, phones, and PCs using the same operating system.
If you are hoping Windows 9 will be Windows 7 with more polish, you are dreaming of something that will never happen.
You complain about people who work more than you to make more than you. YOU are the problem... not them.
Again, get a 40 hour per week job and get back to me.
My job may not pay much by slashdot standards, but it doesn't completely suck like most retail jobs etc. and it's at least a few bucks more than minimum wage. I don't have to deal with the public. I get to work with computers and my boss puts up with somewhat flexible hours.
If you want a job that gives you more hours and/or pays more, then you may have to take a job that isn't as nice. I once worked full-time at a fast food restaurant. I didn't like it everyday, but it paid the bills.
To be completely fair, the annual median wage in the US is a bit over $26,000 (as of 2010). At 260 working days, 8 hours a day, that comes to $12.50/hr.
If you are making $10/hr, and make only $10k/year, you are working part time. Or, at 40 hours per week, $10,000/year is only $4.80/hour... which is less than minimum wage.
Fill out your 40 hours per week and come back and talk.
(All of this was assuming you work in the US. If not, you are comparing wages in different countries, and I say at best that is an apples-to-oranges comparison.)
It depends on what you mean by monopoly. IANAL, so I don't know the legal definition. But I would argue that Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.
It's not just that browsers must wrap Safari. It's that they must use a crippled version of UIWebView, one that is much slower than Safari's Nitro engine. The result is that web pages take almost exactly double the time to load in other browsers.
OS-X is even worse as it requires complete change of hardware.
I often have found myself thinking, "At least Apple doesn't have Microsoft's enterprise and desktop market share." They lock you into hardware, software, and their entire peripheral ecosystem.
I like the products that Apple has produced, but that is all due to the fact that they had to compete with Microsoft and other device makers. It makes me shudder to think where we would be if the Macintosh had prevailed over the PC. It also makes me wonder where Microsoft would be if it had competed in the late 90s. IE got much better after it had to compete with Firefox. Microsoft is recognizing that Android and iOS are competitors, and has become more innovative with Windows.
OK, independent of the question of good or evil, wouldn't that be an opportunity for a startup which offered that service to other startups?
It would. Many regulations are opportunities for somebody.
The net effect is that the government receives tax it once didn't receive, and the service provider receives money it didn't once receive. Don't forget that the service itself is taxed by sales tax, income tax, etc. So the government receives a relatively tiny sum more.
All this extra cost is passed on to the buyer, so the buyer has less money to spend on other things he may need or want. This isn't quite the same as the broken window fallacy, as there hasn't been any value destroyed in the exchange. It seems the tax is fair, so the decision here is whether being fair to all is worth the cost passed to the consumer (the cost provided by the tax service).
How many other devices act as both a tablet and a laptop, and do justice to both use cases?
If you want a tablet OR a laptop, go get something else. If you want two devices in one, for the cost of one, Microsoft wants to sell you a Surface Pro.
It is for people who desire to purchase both a tablet and a laptop. They save a lot of money over purchasing two separate devices, and never have to worry about having left their other device at home.
Ok, so the same can be said about Windows tablets for the last decade. But older Windows tablets were too underpowered to be a laptop replacement, and their usability restricted them from much use as a mobile device. They were poorly designed for their purposes.
I would guess they'll also reduce the support duration of versions to force people to upgrade.
Name another mainstream OS that has been fully supported for as long as Windows XP. Microsoft has been overly generous on their support of older operating systems.
Besides, at ~$25 for an OS update every year vs. ~$200 for an update every 3-4 years, I'd say that's a bargain.
- OS X every year or two - Android every 6 months, sometimes 9 months to a year - iOS every year - Ubuntu every 6 months (LTS every 2 years)
You don't have to upgrade every time Microsoft puts out a new release. If they make it easier (say via Windows Update), then perhaps it won't be much more hassle than a service pack.
Imagine everyone on the freeway simply veering left all the sudden.
I imagine regulations that require triple modular redundancy. If one system disagrees with the other two, a fail-safe is implemented on the two that are in agreement to safely remove the vehicle from the roadway until it can be towed or repaired on-site.
Slashdot Mirror
So guy pulls gun on you...you pull yours....then two people die
Two people die, several others are saved.
I'm fairly certain that it is illegal to carry a gun into an elementary school already. We see how well that turned out.
But could you agree that anyone may need a handgun for self-defense against someone who illegally obtained a gun (which would suggest to be used in illegal activities, such as murder)?
I could agree with this line of reasoning. Of course, there is the side issue of government oppression. If the government has weapons to induce mass murder, then society should have weapons to defend itself in case a Hitler comes into power.
My argument here is: checks and balances. If we increase checks and balances, such that the states have the collective power to overpower the federal government, I wouldn't be so afraid of this.
Unfortunately (and I'm looking at the liberal-minded folks in the audience), we continue to reduce states' rights and their effectiveness in combating the federal government. So if and when Hitler comes to power in the USA, the states will be oppressed and the people even more so.
When one person has the power to murder, we have a few options:
1) Remove the person from society prior to the murder.
2) Remove the weapon from society by laws, hoping the murderer will not find contraband.
3) Arm society, making the murderer less effective.
I think we would all agree that number 1 would be best if we could do it correctly. Number 2 has some effectiveness at reducing weapons availability, but people who want to murder probably won't give up that easily. Plus, there is zero defense until authorities arrive well after the fact. Number 3 is effective in any case, and may thwart the attempt altogether.
So? That just proves we need to outlaw bombs and terrorism.
Oh wait...
Citation?
Yet you do not require this of the GP.
Wait, I take that back. I didn't notice there were more pages to the story.
The taser wasn't excessive. She clearly resisted arrest for several minutes, and she had been told not to come back to the store on a previous occasion. Department policy allowed for the taser in that situation.
But of course:
"She was scared, she didn't understand," said John Hugo, who said he was Li's fiance'. "I was outraged. You go into a store, and you end up getting brutalized by the police.
But the lady clearly knew what was going on:
Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit. When she took video of others she claimed were buying more, the store manager asked her to leave.
And she was asked to leave and refused:
"The management of the store asked us to have her removed. The officer approached her, told her she wasn't welcome in the store, and she refused to leave," Nashua Police Capt. Bruce Hansen said.
So why don't we have the condition that all foreign aid is delivered by our people, with our flags/branding?
Let the people revolt when they realize their leaders are the biggest asshats in the world, instead of their providers.
so they'll have more reason to get their sanity back for Windows 9, sooner.
Metro-style apps won't be going away. They will almost surely work better and integrate better over time. But Microsoft has committed its future to supporting tablets, phones, and PCs using the same operating system.
If you are hoping Windows 9 will be Windows 7 with more polish, you are dreaming of something that will never happen.
8 years later someone figured out if you swap two bytes in ram you could run upto os 10.2 on the fucker.
That's probably what killed him.
(Too soon?)
You complain about people who work more than you to make more than you. YOU are the problem... not them.
Again, get a 40 hour per week job and get back to me.
My job may not pay much by slashdot standards, but it doesn't completely suck like most retail jobs etc. and it's at least a few bucks more than minimum wage. I don't have to deal with the public. I get to work with computers and my boss puts up with somewhat flexible hours.
If you want a job that gives you more hours and/or pays more, then you may have to take a job that isn't as nice. I once worked full-time at a fast food restaurant. I didn't like it everyday, but it paid the bills.
To be completely fair, the annual median wage in the US is a bit over $26,000 (as of 2010). At 260 working days, 8 hours a day, that comes to $12.50/hr.
If you are making $10/hr, and make only $10k/year, you are working part time. Or, at 40 hours per week, $10,000/year is only $4.80/hour... which is less than minimum wage.
Fill out your 40 hours per week and come back and talk.
(All of this was assuming you work in the US. If not, you are comparing wages in different countries, and I say at best that is an apples-to-oranges comparison.)
It depends on what you mean by monopoly. IANAL, so I don't know the legal definition. But I would argue that Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.
It's not just that browsers must wrap Safari. It's that they must use a crippled version of UIWebView, one that is much slower than Safari's Nitro engine. The result is that web pages take almost exactly double the time to load in other browsers.
OS-X is even worse as it requires complete change of hardware.
I often have found myself thinking, "At least Apple doesn't have Microsoft's enterprise and desktop market share." They lock you into hardware, software, and their entire peripheral ecosystem.
I like the products that Apple has produced, but that is all due to the fact that they had to compete with Microsoft and other device makers. It makes me shudder to think where we would be if the Macintosh had prevailed over the PC. It also makes me wonder where Microsoft would be if it had competed in the late 90s. IE got much better after it had to compete with Firefox. Microsoft is recognizing that Android and iOS are competitors, and has become more innovative with Windows.
OK, independent of the question of good or evil, wouldn't that be an opportunity for a startup which offered that service to other startups?
It would. Many regulations are opportunities for somebody.
The net effect is that the government receives tax it once didn't receive, and the service provider receives money it didn't once receive. Don't forget that the service itself is taxed by sales tax, income tax, etc. So the government receives a relatively tiny sum more.
All this extra cost is passed on to the buyer, so the buyer has less money to spend on other things he may need or want. This isn't quite the same as the broken window fallacy, as there hasn't been any value destroyed in the exchange. It seems the tax is fair, so the decision here is whether being fair to all is worth the cost passed to the consumer (the cost provided by the tax service).
My favorite was always expertsexchange.com (now experts-exchange.com).
Either way, they want to take an appendage in exchange for information.
If you need just a tablet, or just a laptop, you would do well to shop elsewhere.
If you need both devices, and only want to carry one device and pay for one device, the Surface Pro is one of the better options on the market.
How many other devices act as both a tablet and a laptop, and do justice to both use cases?
If you want a tablet OR a laptop, go get something else. If you want two devices in one, for the cost of one, Microsoft wants to sell you a Surface Pro.
It is for people who desire to purchase both a tablet and a laptop. They save a lot of money over purchasing two separate devices, and never have to worry about having left their other device at home.
Ok, so the same can be said about Windows tablets for the last decade. But older Windows tablets were too underpowered to be a laptop replacement, and their usability restricted them from much use as a mobile device. They were poorly designed for their purposes.
I would guess they'll also reduce the support duration of versions to force people to upgrade.
Name another mainstream OS that has been fully supported for as long as Windows XP. Microsoft has been overly generous on their support of older operating systems.
Besides, at ~$25 for an OS update every year vs. ~$200 for an update every 3-4 years, I'd say that's a bargain.
Well, Microsoft has been in the minority here:
- OS X every year or two
- Android every 6 months, sometimes 9 months to a year
- iOS every year
- Ubuntu every 6 months (LTS every 2 years)
You don't have to upgrade every time Microsoft puts out a new release. If they make it easier (say via Windows Update), then perhaps it won't be much more hassle than a service pack.
Imagine everyone on the freeway simply veering left all the sudden.
I imagine regulations that require triple modular redundancy. If one system disagrees with the other two, a fail-safe is implemented on the two that are in agreement to safely remove the vehicle from the roadway until it can be towed or repaired on-site.
The OS scheduler allows Flash to have priority over critical processes. That's an OS problem, not a problem with Flash.