The Fifth Amendment does not protect the password (it's just a sequence of characters); the amendment protects the "testimonial" aspect that you knew that particular sequence of characters was significant. Once that fact is entered into evidence through some other means, the Fifth Amendment's "due process" requirements have been satisfied.
That interpretation is absurd; all of ones testimony is "just a sequence of characters" yet one is protected from having to provide it by the Fifth Amendment. Further this is not a due process issue, due process requirements have been met prior to the confiscation of the hard disks and other items. It is only after which they have been taken that the investigators determine they cannot make anything ineligible from the data which they have lawfully taken. To demand that the suspect interprets the data (or provides a key by which another individual could interpret it) for them in such a way as to potentially incriminate himself is outside the scope of their authority. This is specifically what is protected by the applicable portion of the fifth amendment.
The issue people are having with this is related specifically to their understanding of data on a hard disk. Because it is not tangible in the same way as stack of photos people have a hard time determining how to apply past precedent. Being required to provide a key which allows for the understanding of data is the equivalent of a defendant in a murder trial being required to state where the presumptive body is buried. Remember, the suspect has complied with the warranted requests for the hard disks themselves, he is under no obligation to help the investigators make sense of what was taken. If the encryption key was written on a piece of paper and it was discovered by the police there would no longer be any issue, in the same way as if a map of where the body was buried had been found.
They have to do this because... California can't raise taxes enough, thanks to Proposition 13.
And I suppose the person with 50k in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure is also in that situation because they can't raise enough income?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the million dollar house and their insatiable desire for new goods. A good rule of thumb for people (and states for this matter) in debt is to first create a budget that reduces spending below ones income. Not to figure out a way to make more money. This is not rocket science.
Forget claims holding no water, how about blatant bigoted statements. "the freedom to be gun toting, slave owning warlords, accountable to no one"
If you want to keep using Somalia as the small-government-advocate's dream, fine, it is asinine, but that's your choice.
Why don't we take a look at America and its laws, its constitution, and its history. Where do you find this freedom to create massive social programs riddled with debt, to restrict what schools one may attend, to make someone's race or genitalia the criteria for a job over their qualifications, to take over a private corporation or dictate what one may be paid, the list is endless, who crowned you king to make these decisions? Is this freedom?
These are simple questions, yet you are unable to answer them, you simply feel that because you are able to elect like-minded people into office that suddenly all restrictions and checks can be thrown out the window, that you become free to take over the lives of those you mean to serve. Your elected officials are not tyrants, they must still abide by our laws and our set precedent and must exercise prudence in making decisions rather than pushing with full force their radical agendas. And this is apparently not clear.
If you think "America is not necessarily the best at anything" then name for me a country where more freedoms are actually guaranteed by law than this country. Many people take their freedom for granted, as many willingly give up their freedoms for perceived security. It is fine to have the debates as to what level of social programs are necessary, or how much control the government should be able to hold over a private corporation, or what speech is not considered protected, debate is what led to this country being founded as it was, I'm sure you understand this. Even the people who wrote our constitution fiercely debated each issue, and those on both sides raised many concerns with the constitution that they ultimately ratified.
I'm sure that when people who hold views differing from yours have been in office you have appreciated the checks and balances that exist in our form of government, yet why when someone is on your side do you feel that all that may simply be tossed aside?
What you don't understand is that small government advocates do not say government should be abolished. Some level of governance is absolutely necessary, but any government will cease to serve and turn to tyranny when the freedoms of the people are not explicitly protected by limiting what the government may do.
This (America) is the best choice the world has to offer in terms of a limited government and a federalist system whereby we the people may actually govern themselves at the lowest level possible for the particular matter. Towns can't deal with foreign affairs or interstate commerce but they can create their own hiring practices and policies, for example. And the beauty in that is if the people in this Montana town want to hire only those who will give up every piece of personal information then by all means, but I won't be living there. And likely those who do live there will make changes to their elected officials or leave the town. That my friend is referred to as freedom, having the government make all my decisions for me and compelling my participation is not. This "better choice" that we deserve is here, and we are hanging on to it by threads trying to keep it that way. I counter that if you feel you deserve a "better choice" i.e. a socialist utopia, may I suggest many of the fine countries Europe has to offer? You may still even access slashdot, of course that is if the government acting in your best interest deems it appropriate.
And FYI, the problem with operating a "socialist collective" in a free market system is that in order to do that you must first demolish the free market.
Absolutely, not only is the entire concept that a biological reaction occurs best at a specific temperature a given (if not stupidly obvious), the "discovery" is just another eco feel-good science project that basically tries to humanize plants by showing that they like certain temperatures just like us. Hardly news worthy, perhaps useful as a 5th grade science-fair project to teach certain fundamentals about biology.
People really need to start investing in sustainable renewable energy No one "needs" to invest in anything, last I checked an investment consists of committing money to a company or similar for the purpose of gaining a positive net financial return. Throwing your money into something for feel good points does not qualify as an investment, that would be what we call charity.
Similarly no one goes around saying "we need to invest in GM, they are hurting, we all should invest in them so they can make better cars." We invest in businesses as we see fit, and only where we see the potential for return. Not because someone said we need to.
People will invest in anything when they feel it has a chance of success, if you want investments in renewable resources you need to first prove its financial viability.
US Constitutional rights are afforded to all persons on US soil, whether citizen, alien, criminal, or otherwise.
US Constitutional rights do not (in most cases) however, apply to those on the soil of a foreign nation. Just as when in a NYC bar you do not expect the dry laws of the Emirates to apply to you, as clearly that would be absurd.
If you hate America so, why not move to Europe, it surely must be greater, no?
There is actually substantial legal precedent that goes against this decision. The issue is not about giving detainees a proper hearing or trial, it is about jurisdiction. In all prior cases, and yes this has come before the SCOTUS before, the court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over prisoners held outside of the United States, and as such they do not have the constitutional rights that would normal be afforded to a person (citizen or not) in the US.
One may disagree with the holding of prisoners in Gitmo, or the military tribunals that some have been afforded, however that issue should have nothing to do with the constitutional issue at hand, and this should be noted.
This is not simply an issue of the SCOTUS dealing a blow to the Bush administration. The holding of POWs or otherwise in foreign prisons has been done by prior administrations in all foreign fought wars, for the express purpose of not needing to prove to a civilian jury that beyond a reasonable doubt the persons in question were aiding the enemy. As one might imagine, it is rather difficult to flight a battle and capture the enemy, let alone while gathering evidence on top of that to substantiate your actions to a judge and jury.
The many of current crop of Republican congressmen do act like big government Democrats as did Pres. Bush with several of the programs he created/reformed. This in large part resulted in the mass-exodus from from Republican Party during last years congressional elections, and while deserved, has done nothing to benefit the country.
The policies of Obama would grow government at an even more drastic rate and sadly, McCain is, as you imply, also of the big government type.
Specifics aside, the key is that the election will not be won by any action on the side of McCain (short of potentially picking an excellent running-mate to excite the conservative base). It will come down to votes either for or against Obama. McCain may just be the lucky opposition.
McCain has his strongest appeal to those who fear Obama's sweeping change rhetoric. While McCain is hardly a conservative, his policies (short of his support of cap and trade) represent a much safer ground for a large portion of the conservative minded voting population, both republican and democrat.
Obama's tax increases on the wealthy (those making over 200-250,000), his removal of the cap on social security, his tax increases on businesses, his taking over of the private health care system (beyond its already heavy regulation today), his decreases in military spending, among many other things, will have a strong negative effect on the economy, on quality of life, military preparedness, and job growth. Corporate tax increases alone will cause decreased job growth and higher consumer prices as the increases are always passed to the consumer, rather causing a reduction in profit.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency. This notwithstanding the fact that Obama with his scant resume would not even be considered to run any top company in the US, yet he thinks he has a chance at the highest level of government. He has strong appeal, however those who listen to his words will out number those who are wooed by his Clinton-like speaking abilities and their dis-taste for Pres. Bush.
Higher gas prices means fewer gas consumers whilst lower prices brings more consumption. You have this backwards, less supply brings higher prices as people demand the product but less is available. When more product floods the market the price in turn falls as the merchant needs to reduce the price to stay competitive.
Moreover, higher gas prices means that other source of energy that are arguably "better" from a sustainability/environmental perspective but previously unworkable given the price of gasoline become much more appealing. High gas prices do not make "sustainable" or other energy sources more workable. Ethanol, the current enviro-lovechild of fuels, uses at least 1 gallon of petroleum based fuel for each gallon of produced ethanol, thus its price will closely follow that of oil/gasoline, barring any subsidies used to artificially lower the cost.
Besides, an increase in domestic production would have such a SMALL impact on the overall cost of gasoline and any impact would be fleetingly short lived. The US simply does not have enough oil reserves to make much of a lasting impact. The US is the 3rd largest producer of oil, our resources are vast, with new pockets being discovered regularly. To illustrate the absurdity of your point, let's assume that the Saudis ceased oil production, the supply would fall dramatically, and inarguably the price would skyrocket as a result of oil suddenly becoming even more precious. Likewise, if the Saudis increased their oil production the increase of supply would drive market prices downward. This regularly happens on a small scale as OPEC meet and set production rates, increases in production lower the per barrel cost, while decreases cause the cost to climb. This is market trend is clear. Now say the increase in supply came from the US, the effect is the same.
Of course you say there is a "really good" argument to not use US resources, which must also be a "really good" secret as the reason why they are not being tapped is because of environmental activists and their ability to convince people that drilling for oil will destroy any region's ecosystem.
So what AMD are trying to say is that they are getting into the game console business except that their system will run Windows and have upgradeable hardware.
I never said there was no difference. No, you didn't and my differentiation of the two never implied that you did. However, supposing I had mis-read your statement, how does that prove your point? Unless an insight is now a flame.
There is a considerable difference between driving like an idiot, i.e. recklessly, and driving fast, i.e. above the speed limit when conditions allow. Making the argument to drive faster is not irrational given one is driving safely.
I love the way the Thinkpad looks, and love the various features which are elegantly designed into it, however often find myself at odds with people saying they are ugly and stuck in the 80's. Either way a great machine as I expect the x300 will similarly prove to be.
I agree with you that the Air feels tough, and probably is, but it definitely looks like it was built with looks being the first priority, and given its lack of optical drive, network port, etc. I think that point is reinforced. That doesn't make it a bad choice or suggest that designing for looks is a bad motive but for someone who wants functionality it has its drawbacks.
If he is willing to push an unfinished product to market at a huge loss to his company just so that he can leave his current post for a higher paying one, what is to say he won't simply rinse and repeat. People like this are more a liability than an asset.
How is that an engineering feat? Seems more like a people feat.
Ever heard of social engineering? Social engineering is a word, however it is a distinctly different use of the word "engineering." Engineering as in the scope of TFA is referring to the application of math and physics to solve a problem, where social engineering would refer to a calculated manipulation of people to achieve some desired outcome, not equivalent uses.
So, while I am a strong believer that the supreme court has had its share of overreaching rulings that weren't strictly constitutional, I think that pales in comparison to the abuses that the other branches have managed to pull off. Congress and the President can choose to abuse their power in any number of ways, however, they are elected, and thus accountable to the people who put them in office. The Supreme Court is made up of unelected, unaccountable, justices, making them far more powerful and their abuses far worse. With the stroke of the pen just 5 individuals (assuming the other 4 dissent) can make far reaching legislation that can attack any number of freedoms we enjoy. The Court has intervened in issues of national security, intra-state commerce, freedom of political expression, even personal private behavior in ones own bedroom. Their actions would make one think they must be experts in all issues, knowing what is best for the country in every which way. The Court's wild interpretations of the law and the Constitution, their inserting of their own personal feelings and beliefs into the opinions they write all point to the dangerous abuses which have become second nature to many of the Courts members. They have shown that nothing is beyond their reach and no branch less powerful than their own.
I'm not saying it's all bad... we have it better than most... but if you think there is anything "equitable" about our economic or legal policy, you have a lot of learning to do. I agree our current economic and legal policies both leave much to be desired, they are overbearing, over-regulating, and stifle growth. We each believe, and thats all it is, a belief, that one direction or the other as far as policy and regulation are concerned will lead to a more successful country. The question is which philosophy will lead us in the right direction. I argue it is less government, you argue it is more. One thing for sure, our country's founders would have argued with me.
All moves which deprive the residents of Washington money they need for social services. Why not just drop the "needed" social services and let the people pay for what they need, sure keep a temporary safety net for the small group of people who hit bottom, but I disagree that much of the social services are necessary at all. Getting rid of public education would not cause M$ to lose their educated work force, people would simply pay for private schools, what a novel idea, oh you couldn't afford it? You could if you had your 10k of property taxes back in your pocket. At least then you could pick a good school for your children instead of being locked into paying for crap. Don't even begin to talk about transit and roads, WA especially does a hideous at best job of both and they tax the hell out of everything that has a dime. We don't need more taxes, we need less spending. Cutting worthless social programs is a great start.
Being that you likely tend toward the left wing agenda, it is important to point out that your side of the spectrum always props up the policies of foreign socialist countries, however you should know that the United States is the only prominent country to have a corporate tax. Your socialist friends do not, and for good reason. You can call it double taxation if you want, but I frankly see no purpose for that. I agree with you that the argument can be (poorly, but nonetheless) made that one pays taxes on taxes on taxes and that is a never ending circle with each dollar eventually ending up in Uncle Sam's endless pocket. However, there is no need to argue that it is a taxed twice situation, any tax whatsoever is money that could be otherwise better spent. And a corporations ability to re-invest capital in itself is crucial to growth. And as I have never worked for a poor man it is critical that these corporations such as Microsoft are given every possible chance to produce wealth. More wealth on the producing end will ultimately drive a successful economy, please explain how taking more of a companies profits will lead to a better economy. When the stock market starts sliding because already regulation-squeezed corporations are being taxed to bankrupcy, it is a sign of an weakening economy, not the strength of the government The job of the government in this situation is to provide the best atmosphere for success, succinctly, stay out of the way. That will boost a weakening economy among countless other things, allowing a corporation to keep more of its earnings will have nothing but a positive effect. But of course thats right-wing and therefore absurd, how foolish of me.
Your numbers are way off and they speak of paranoia and hate.
My numbers are made up to make a point, in actuality I would pay approximately 47k to the Canadian government if I lived in Ontario, or, in the US I pay approximately 25k to the government. However, numbers so not speak paranoia or hate, that is an absurd statement, but I digress.
Beyond that I have trouble dignifying anyone who claims "Sicko" as an in depth analysis of health care, but I will respond broadly.
There are rich Canadians, however, in a system which takes close to 50% of a persons earnings to pay for "necessary" services and government programs it is nearly impossible to elevate ones self from middle class wealth to upper class wealth. In the US it is possible, 25% of ones earnings is still quite high, however, the competitive market can provide many of these "necessary" services for far less money than that which would be government provided. There are always exceptions, however few and far between. Largely government programs have little accountability as even the elected officials who start them are long out of office before the programs spiral out of fiscal control. My thought, and the primary issue with socialist society is I want to be responsible for myself, and I want to choose where and to whom my money goes.
That said, this has nothing to do with Vonage, so, back to Vonage, the patent office has an important job, however given certain technologies the process of issuing patents needs to be revised, and I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fifth Amendment does not protect the password (it's just a sequence of characters); the amendment protects the "testimonial" aspect that you knew that particular sequence of characters was significant. Once that fact is entered into evidence through some other means, the Fifth Amendment's "due process" requirements have been satisfied.
That interpretation is absurd; all of ones testimony is "just a sequence of characters" yet one is protected from having to provide it by the Fifth Amendment. Further this is not a due process issue, due process requirements have been met prior to the confiscation of the hard disks and other items. It is only after which they have been taken that the investigators determine they cannot make anything ineligible from the data which they have lawfully taken. To demand that the suspect interprets the data (or provides a key by which another individual could interpret it) for them in such a way as to potentially incriminate himself is outside the scope of their authority. This is specifically what is protected by the applicable portion of the fifth amendment.
The issue people are having with this is related specifically to their understanding of data on a hard disk. Because it is not tangible in the same way as stack of photos people have a hard time determining how to apply past precedent. Being required to provide a key which allows for the understanding of data is the equivalent of a defendant in a murder trial being required to state where the presumptive body is buried. Remember, the suspect has complied with the warranted requests for the hard disks themselves, he is under no obligation to help the investigators make sense of what was taken. If the encryption key was written on a piece of paper and it was discovered by the police there would no longer be any issue, in the same way as if a map of where the body was buried had been found.
And I suppose the person with 50k in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure is also in that situation because they can't raise enough income?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the million dollar house and their insatiable desire for new goods. A good rule of thumb for people (and states for this matter) in debt is to first create a budget that reduces spending below ones income. Not to figure out a way to make more money. This is not rocket science.
Forget claims holding no water, how about blatant bigoted statements. "the freedom to be gun toting, slave owning warlords, accountable to no one"
If you want to keep using Somalia as the small-government-advocate's dream, fine, it is asinine, but that's your choice.
Why don't we take a look at America and its laws, its constitution, and its history. Where do you find this freedom to create massive social programs riddled with debt, to restrict what schools one may attend, to make someone's race or genitalia the criteria for a job over their qualifications, to take over a private corporation or dictate what one may be paid, the list is endless, who crowned you king to make these decisions? Is this freedom?
These are simple questions, yet you are unable to answer them, you simply feel that because you are able to elect like-minded people into office that suddenly all restrictions and checks can be thrown out the window, that you become free to take over the lives of those you mean to serve. Your elected officials are not tyrants, they must still abide by our laws and our set precedent and must exercise prudence in making decisions rather than pushing with full force their radical agendas. And this is apparently not clear.
If you think "America is not necessarily the best at anything" then name for me a country where more freedoms are actually guaranteed by law than this country. Many people take their freedom for granted, as many willingly give up their freedoms for perceived security. It is fine to have the debates as to what level of social programs are necessary, or how much control the government should be able to hold over a private corporation, or what speech is not considered protected, debate is what led to this country being founded as it was, I'm sure you understand this. Even the people who wrote our constitution fiercely debated each issue, and those on both sides raised many concerns with the constitution that they ultimately ratified.
I'm sure that when people who hold views differing from yours have been in office you have appreciated the checks and balances that exist in our form of government, yet why when someone is on your side do you feel that all that may simply be tossed aside?
What you don't understand is that small government advocates do not say government should be abolished. Some level of governance is absolutely necessary, but any government will cease to serve and turn to tyranny when the freedoms of the people are not explicitly protected by limiting what the government may do.
This (America) is the best choice the world has to offer in terms of a limited government and a federalist system whereby we the people may actually govern themselves at the lowest level possible for the particular matter. Towns can't deal with foreign affairs or interstate commerce but they can create their own hiring practices and policies, for example. And the beauty in that is if the people in this Montana town want to hire only those who will give up every piece of personal information then by all means, but I won't be living there. And likely those who do live there will make changes to their elected officials or leave the town. That my friend is referred to as freedom, having the government make all my decisions for me and compelling my participation is not. This "better choice" that we deserve is here, and we are hanging on to it by threads trying to keep it that way. I counter that if you feel you deserve a "better choice" i.e. a socialist utopia, may I suggest many of the fine countries Europe has to offer? You may still even access slashdot, of course that is if the government acting in your best interest deems it appropriate.
And FYI, the problem with operating a "socialist collective" in a free market system is that in order to do that you must first demolish the free market.
Absolutely, not only is the entire concept that a biological reaction occurs best at a specific temperature a given (if not stupidly obvious), the "discovery" is just another eco feel-good science project that basically tries to humanize plants by showing that they like certain temperatures just like us. Hardly news worthy, perhaps useful as a 5th grade science-fair project to teach certain fundamentals about biology.
Similarly no one goes around saying "we need to invest in GM, they are hurting, we all should invest in them so they can make better cars." We invest in businesses as we see fit, and only where we see the potential for return. Not because someone said we need to.
People will invest in anything when they feel it has a chance of success, if you want investments in renewable resources you need to first prove its financial viability.
US Constitutional rights are afforded to all persons on US soil, whether citizen, alien, criminal, or otherwise.
US Constitutional rights do not (in most cases) however, apply to those on the soil of a foreign nation. Just as when in a NYC bar you do not expect the dry laws of the Emirates to apply to you, as clearly that would be absurd.
If you hate America so, why not move to Europe, it surely must be greater, no?
There is actually substantial legal precedent that goes against this decision. The issue is not about giving detainees a proper hearing or trial, it is about jurisdiction. In all prior cases, and yes this has come before the SCOTUS before, the court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction over prisoners held outside of the United States, and as such they do not have the constitutional rights that would normal be afforded to a person (citizen or not) in the US.
One may disagree with the holding of prisoners in Gitmo, or the military tribunals that some have been afforded, however that issue should have nothing to do with the constitutional issue at hand, and this should be noted.
This is not simply an issue of the SCOTUS dealing a blow to the Bush administration. The holding of POWs or otherwise in foreign prisons has been done by prior administrations in all foreign fought wars, for the express purpose of not needing to prove to a civilian jury that beyond a reasonable doubt the persons in question were aiding the enemy. As one might imagine, it is rather difficult to flight a battle and capture the enemy, let alone while gathering evidence on top of that to substantiate your actions to a judge and jury.
The many of current crop of Republican congressmen do act like big government Democrats as did Pres. Bush with several of the programs he created/reformed. This in large part resulted in the mass-exodus from from Republican Party during last years congressional elections, and while deserved, has done nothing to benefit the country.
The policies of Obama would grow government at an even more drastic rate and sadly, McCain is, as you imply, also of the big government type.
Specifics aside, the key is that the election will not be won by any action on the side of McCain (short of potentially picking an excellent running-mate to excite the conservative base). It will come down to votes either for or against Obama. McCain may just be the lucky opposition.
McCain has his strongest appeal to those who fear Obama's sweeping change rhetoric. While McCain is hardly a conservative, his policies (short of his support of cap and trade) represent a much safer ground for a large portion of the conservative minded voting population, both republican and democrat.
Obama's tax increases on the wealthy (those making over 200-250,000), his removal of the cap on social security, his tax increases on businesses, his taking over of the private health care system (beyond its already heavy regulation today), his decreases in military spending, among many other things, will have a strong negative effect on the economy, on quality of life, military preparedness, and job growth. Corporate tax increases alone will cause decreased job growth and higher consumer prices as the increases are always passed to the consumer, rather causing a reduction in profit.
McCain is a relatively weak candidate from the conservative perspective however he is the only choice when considering the big government collectivist policy changes that would be implemented by an Obama presidency. This notwithstanding the fact that Obama with his scant resume would not even be considered to run any top company in the US, yet he thinks he has a chance at the highest level of government. He has strong appeal, however those who listen to his words will out number those who are wooed by his Clinton-like speaking abilities and their dis-taste for Pres. Bush.
Moreover, higher gas prices means that other source of energy that are arguably "better" from a sustainability/environmental perspective but previously unworkable given the price of gasoline become much more appealing. High gas prices do not make "sustainable" or other energy sources more workable. Ethanol, the current enviro-lovechild of fuels, uses at least 1 gallon of petroleum based fuel for each gallon of produced ethanol, thus its price will closely follow that of oil/gasoline, barring any subsidies used to artificially lower the cost. Besides, an increase in domestic production would have such a SMALL impact on the overall cost of gasoline and any impact would be fleetingly short lived. The US simply does not have enough oil reserves to make much of a lasting impact. The US is the 3rd largest producer of oil, our resources are vast, with new pockets being discovered regularly. To illustrate the absurdity of your point, let's assume that the Saudis ceased oil production, the supply would fall dramatically, and inarguably the price would skyrocket as a result of oil suddenly becoming even more precious. Likewise, if the Saudis increased their oil production the increase of supply would drive market prices downward. This regularly happens on a small scale as OPEC meet and set production rates, increases in production lower the per barrel cost, while decreases cause the cost to climb. This is market trend is clear. Now say the increase in supply came from the US, the effect is the same.
Of course you say there is a "really good" argument to not use US resources, which must also be a "really good" secret as the reason why they are not being tapped is because of environmental activists and their ability to convince people that drilling for oil will destroy any region's ecosystem.
So what AMD are trying to say is that they are getting into the game console business except that their system will run Windows and have upgradeable hardware.
I believe it would be called "free speech."
There is a considerable difference between driving like an idiot, i.e. recklessly, and driving fast, i.e. above the speed limit when conditions allow. Making the argument to drive faster is not irrational given one is driving safely.
I love the way the Thinkpad looks, and love the various features which are elegantly designed into it, however often find myself at odds with people saying they are ugly and stuck in the 80's. Either way a great machine as I expect the x300 will similarly prove to be.
I agree with you that the Air feels tough, and probably is, but it definitely looks like it was built with looks being the first priority, and given its lack of optical drive, network port, etc. I think that point is reinforced. That doesn't make it a bad choice or suggest that designing for looks is a bad motive but for someone who wants functionality it has its drawbacks.
The X300 is like a tank, the Air like a sculpture, one is purpose built to get the job done, the other is purpose built to woo the eyes.
If he is willing to push an unfinished product to market at a huge loss to his company just so that he can leave his current post for a higher paying one, what is to say he won't simply rinse and repeat. People like this are more a liability than an asset.
Being that you likely tend toward the left wing agenda, it is important to point out that your side of the spectrum always props up the policies of foreign socialist countries, however you should know that the United States is the only prominent country to have a corporate tax. Your socialist friends do not, and for good reason. You can call it double taxation if you want, but I frankly see no purpose for that. I agree with you that the argument can be (poorly, but nonetheless) made that one pays taxes on taxes on taxes and that is a never ending circle with each dollar eventually ending up in Uncle Sam's endless pocket. However, there is no need to argue that it is a taxed twice situation, any tax whatsoever is money that could be otherwise better spent. And a corporations ability to re-invest capital in itself is crucial to growth. And as I have never worked for a poor man it is critical that these corporations such as Microsoft are given every possible chance to produce wealth. More wealth on the producing end will ultimately drive a successful economy, please explain how taking more of a companies profits will lead to a better economy. When the stock market starts sliding because already regulation-squeezed corporations are being taxed to bankrupcy, it is a sign of an weakening economy, not the strength of the government The job of the government in this situation is to provide the best atmosphere for success, succinctly, stay out of the way. That will boost a weakening economy among countless other things, allowing a corporation to keep more of its earnings will have nothing but a positive effect. But of course thats right-wing and therefore absurd, how foolish of me.
Your numbers are way off and they speak of paranoia and hate.
My numbers are made up to make a point, in actuality I would pay approximately 47k to the Canadian government if I lived in Ontario, or, in the US I pay approximately 25k to the government. However, numbers so not speak paranoia or hate, that is an absurd statement, but I digress.
Beyond that I have trouble dignifying anyone who claims "Sicko" as an in depth analysis of health care, but I will respond broadly.
There are rich Canadians, however, in a system which takes close to 50% of a persons earnings to pay for "necessary" services and government programs it is nearly impossible to elevate ones self from middle class wealth to upper class wealth. In the US it is possible, 25% of ones earnings is still quite high, however, the competitive market can provide many of these "necessary" services for far less money than that which would be government provided. There are always exceptions, however few and far between. Largely government programs have little accountability as even the elected officials who start them are long out of office before the programs spiral out of fiscal control. My thought, and the primary issue with socialist society is I want to be responsible for myself, and I want to choose where and to whom my money goes.
That said, this has nothing to do with Vonage, so, back to Vonage, the patent office has an important job, however given certain technologies the process of issuing patents needs to be revised, and I don't see it happening anytime soon.