Yes, if you changed a few sentences in any document, you can, literally, completely change the meaning of that document.
We could change just a few sentences in an assault weapon ban, and ban all firearms completely.
We could change a few sentences in other articles of the Geneva Convention, and make it okay to literally torture people.
I don't see how this is relevant.
I realize that.
Then why did you say, above, "You'd think all of this would be illegal under" the UN convention you linked to? There's a difference between "I think this should be illegal, and the UN should add it to this convention..." and "You'd think this would be illegal under a convention which explicitly does not cover weapons like this." It'd be like pointing to an assault weapon ban and saying, "you'd think that pepper spray would be illegal under this ban."
Again, the thing you're missing is that there's lots of cases of employers providing free food, whether it be catered meals for special functions, or free donuts and snacks, and the IRS doesn't tax employees or the employer for that either.
This is clearly addressed in the guidelines. I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on the distinction. On the one hand, you're arguing that the tax code should be simplified, and on the other hand, you seem completely unaware of what the tax code says currently. Curious.
"catered meals for special functions" are exempt because they are: 1) A business function which requires people to eat on-location; 2) Not "usual" - i.e., delivered regularly; 3) Not a "goodwill / retention / attracting new hire" measure;
Google's free meals do not qualify on all three of those points, therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt. If you want to exempt "free stuff that's not money" as compensation, then you've opened the door for even more tax avoidance and abuse. If you're going to say that, then why not simply do away with the income tax entirely, and slash government spending accordingly?
Not all employees will want massages anyway (but of course will happily take the raise
And not everybody will choose to eat in the cafeterias, but of course will happily take the raise, too. So why doesn't Google simplify *everybody's* life, and simply give everybody some extra money in their paycheck, and begin charging for these services? The employees benefit (those who want to use them don't have any net loss, while those who don't want to use them can use the money on things they value more), and Google benefits in not having to go through all the tortuous process of having to account for these things
It's not the IRS' job to make sure that Google gets to save a few bucks on offering services instead of additional pay because they're banking on the fact that some % of their employees won't take advantage of those services.
So what? Google's paying taxes to buy the food, they're paying payroll and FICA and other taxes for the employees working at the cafeteria, they're just making it more efficient by not giving a bunch of money to some third-party vendor to use as profit, by doing it in-house. They also give other valuable benefits that are untaxed, such as free parking. Why should free parking be exempt, and not free lunches? Why not free bus fare?
I don't get to claim a tax deduction when I buy food in the cafeteria at my work, yet my company still "pays taxes to buy the food, pays payroll and FICA and other taxes for the employees working at the cafeteria," so why, exactly, should Googlers be exempted from paying taxes on the money they buy food with? That's the essence of what we're talking about here, and it's a question that NOBODY has answered in any way other than "but I like Google!"
As for bus fare - the IRS allows for numerous transportation benefit exemptions, including bus / mass transit fares, parking, bike commuting, and ride-sharing. These programs are ALSO generally exempted up to the $240 dollar per month amount. In cities where parking is expensive, it's quite common for employers to offer mass transit benefits - bus, subway, commuter rail, ferry, etc. (An "Unlimited 30-day" MTA card in NY will run you about $115 a month, well under the $240 per month limit. I'm sure there are still companies that offer parking stipends as well, even in New York - many of them probably cap the benefit at $240, to keep the benefit non-taxable, so the employee has a choice: keep driving & parking (and pay the difference between stipend & fees out of pocket), or take the subway. There are plenty of tax-exempt fringe benefits your company can offer instead of / in addition to a parking program. In most areas that are not smack in the middle of the business district of the closest city, on-site parking is the fringe that makes the most sense, but it's not the only one the IRS allows.
When the meals are provided every day, all day, for free, using expensive ingredients, and for the purposes of retention, goodwill, morale, and attracting new hires (the food is featured prominently in lots of their recruiting materials), it is not exempt, and is considered compensation, and thus taxable. Again, this doesn't seem unreasonable - everybody MUST eat, and their other alternatives would be brown-bagging it, or spending money on restaurants in the area. They don't have to spend on either of those, and instead can eat on site free of charge. Since this has the net effect of putting more money in the pockets of employees, Google has provided them with a significant (4000-5000 could easily be an effective 4-5% raise) additional source of income.
And this is precisely the point of my whole argument: the tax code needs to be simplified.
s/simplified/modified to provide specific benefits to Google, because they're cool and stuff./g.
THAT is the essence of your whole argument. People everywhere are expected to pay taxes on income, with a fairly
Wrong again. It's not a product, but it is a service. Services have value, and can be taxed.
It is specifically exempted as a fringe benefit, up to a certain amount ($240 per month, in 2012, I believe), and it MUST meet the "qualified parking" definition. The value of the parking at Google is far below $240/month per employee - by comparison, the average price of parking in lower Manhattan is around $400-450 per month.
If a company wants to give out free weekly massages to employees to help them work better, or free lunches, or whatever, it shouldn't have to account for this exhaustively to the IRS.
So... give your employees a pay raise that will cover the value of a weekly massage, and then offer them the option of getting the massage, or not - there's no micromanaging required. If they want to keep providing meals, then they have to set a fair market value once per year for that benefit, and withhold taxes accordingly. It doesn't require micromanagement, either - it simply requires them to declare it and set FMV.
The issue here is that Google is giving employees a valuable benefit that employees are not paying taxes on; Google is also almost certainly charging the costs of this program as an operating expense (thereby reducing their declared profits, thus reducing their own tax obligations) - and they are doing so in a way that appears as if it violates tax laws. If the gov't doesn't care to simplify the tax code, it's Google's (and its employees') obligation to come into compliance.
no, quite relevant. We are talking about taxable compensation. Google isn't "giving you" the property they own that constitutes a parking space. They are allowing you to park your vehicle on their property as long as you're an employee. The service has monetary value, but it is not compensation for your work any more than "providing electricity to power your computer" is compensation for your work. It is a precondition of you being able to work, and it is provided for work purposes by your employer.
There's tons of tech companies where sodas and other drinks are available for free.
I'm pretty sure the restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the employees of restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the suppliers of restaurants I go to pay taxes, too. Yet I'm not allowed to take a tax deduction for the value of all meals I eat at restaurants.
Yet, Google employees do get to do this, for the meals they eat at work. Stop knee-jerking over the fact that "Google" is named in this article, and engage your brain. This is an employer-provided benefit - why shouldn't it be treated as income? If I get a stock grant, that's a taxable event. If I get a corporate car for personal use, that's a taxable event. Why would meals provided by your employer exist in some sort of tax-exempt zone wrt income taxes?
"dinged for taxes on an extra $4000-5000 per year." Not "pay an extra $4000 to $5000 per year in taxes."
If they are given $4-5k in food by their employer over the course of a year, the argument is that this is a form of income, and thus they should be paying taxes on the value of that food.
Kind of a reasonable argument, actually. If "things" aren't taxable income, then can CEO's request to be paid in cars, jets, and yachts, and avoid all income taxes?
Computer and office furniture are already taxed when Google purchases them for business use - they are owned by Google, used by the employee in the course of business.
If Google instituted a policy where Googlers *owned* their Google-purchased computer & office furniture, and were able to take that stuff with them when they left, then you bet your ass that would be a taxable event that the IRS could expect you to declare as income.
Restaurants by from suppliers, and in bulk, and pay a lot less than $7/lb for quality beef, too.
So, when's the last time you had a "grass fed, organic, locally sourced, artisanal, gourmet" meal at a restaurant that *didn't* cost more than $10? And where was it, because I will certainly bring my hard-earned dollars to that restaurant.
And what will it do to people on those small boats, or if fired at a manned aerial vehicle?
The people on those small boats will probably either burn to death or drown, or maybe burn to death while drowning. Much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their engine room to disable or sink them, setting their boat on fire and sinking it.
The people in manned aerial vehicles will probably either burn to death, or die from the impact when their aircraft crashes, or burn to death while crashing - again, much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their aircraft to disable it.
I'd guess that both scenarios are probably *more* survivable than their conventional counterparts: losing control of your aircraft because a laser has burned through part of your wing and destroyed important hydraulic controls gives you time to eject. Getting hit with a Sidewinder, probably not so much time to eject. Having a hole burned in the hull of your boat might give you time to jump overboard in a lifeboat. Having the same hole put there by a ship to ship missile? Probably not so much time to jump in a lifeboat.
As far as unintended consequences go, I think the whole "killed while burning up, crashing, or sinking" is a "functions as designed" scenario. Worrying about whether enemy soldiers are killed by the weapon seems to run a little counter to its intended use as a weapon during wartime.
Evading a lock from this thing is going to require an extremely nimble and fast-moving aircraft - which is outside the parameters of this weapon to begin with. Spinning somehow to disperse the heat is going to just mean it takes longer to heat up some portion of the skin of the aircraft to the point where some aspect of control of the plane is lost. A highly reflective polished/mirrored skin would have the side effect of making you *very* visible to radar & thus easily taken out by other means. And unless you've got a VERY high quality mirror, you're going to absorb at least some energy from the laser - meaning it'll take longer to shoot you down, but you can still be shot down.
Looking at the video of the test fire, it appeared to be causing pretty significant damage (visible fire and smoke) within 5-10 seconds, and maybe 15-20 seconds before the aircraft really burst into flames, pieces started peeling off, and it started its nose-dive into the ocean.
And don't forget that this is also useful against slow moving small boats, too.
The convention you linked to specifically deals with laser weapons designed to blind - they're prohibited - and specifically omits other laser weapons which are not specifically designed to blind the target.
Yes, if your face happens to be in the path of this beam, you will probably be blinded - but that's really of minimal concern, because your head will probably also be incinerated in the process - this beam's purpose is to burn a hole in your aircraft/ship, and cause you to lose control and sink/crash.
No other world leader at the time could claim to have as much influence on Ronald Reagan as Mrs T.
I bet that the Cold War would have ended a little sooner if Mr. T. had been present at a few more diplomatic events. "President Gorbachev - look at these people in East Germany! I pity the fools! Tear down this wall - and treat your mama right!"
Last I checked, terminal programs aren't particularly resource intensive, so the specs are pretty irrelevant for the task at hand. Price is pretty comparable to all but the cheapest netbooks, and certainly competitive with most laptops that aren't "under-specced" as well.
Users very rarely use laptops on their lap, because it's incredibly uncomfortable to do so for any substantial period of time - typing with your laptop on your lap is about as attractive a proposition as using the on-screen keyboard on a tablet is - you can DO it, but you're not gonna like it for very long.
And I never said "a tablet is a laptop replacement." I asked about a very specific scenario which was brought up up-thread, where somebody asserted that it was impossible to administer servers with a tablet.
The original comment I responded to specifically referenced "administering servers," not "writing code" (though it's been established elsewhere in this thread that it's absolutely possible to write code on a tablet, as well).
If you open a terminal window to administer your server on a laptop, and I open a terminal window to administer my server on a tablet+bluetooth keyboard, the correct answer is, "there is no fucking difference."
Explain to me the essential difference between a tablet + keyboard running a terminal program, and a laptop running a terminal program? There are netbooks with smaller screens than a 10" tablet affords.
To be completely analogous, it's like buying a bike that can be operated as a unicycle OR a bicycle, and then pretending the 2nd wheel doesn't exist, never existed, hasn't even been conceived of, and is impossible to attach.
No, it's like saying "riding a unicycle is hard, if you need a vehicle to get around, why don't you put a second wheel on it, and stop whining about how hard it is to ride a fucking unicycle?"
The results suggest that placebo interventions can improve physical disease processes of peripheral organs more easily and effectively than biochemical processes. This differential response offers a good starting point for theoretical considerations on possible mediating mechanisms, and for future investigations in this field.
Not "warm fuzzy subjective feelings." "Physical disease processes" - such as blood pressure, and expiratory volume - measurable, quanitifiable improvements were demonstrated in many of these treatments. As opposed to biochemical processes - e.g., cortisol levels - in which much smaller improvements were demonstrated in the small number of cases where any improvements were noted at all.
In other words: placebo treatment may help you manage your blood pressure, but it won't magically make your cholesterol levels go down.
Dismissing placebos out of hand as bunk is just as foolish as saying they're an effective treatment for everything.
No, you see, the COMPANY saves money because they're not paying for some of that electricity. So they can claim that they're "green" and use "less electricity." When all that's really happening is that their employees are plugging the devices in and charging them at home (and paying for the electricity to do so). Then when they come to the office, the company gets a few hours of free electricity out of them!
It's really just a diabolical way to shift the costs of your energy consumption onto your employees, and claim you're "doing good" while doing it.
1) You can talk about "demographic boundaries" all you want, but that's meaningless misdirection on your part. If 18 year olds are in more crashes, you can call that "young," "old," or nothing at all, and it won't change the fact that 18, 19, and 20 year olds are absolutely involved in more fatal crashes than drivers who are OLDER than 18, 19, 20. Draw the lines wherever you like, the conclusion will be the same: drivers on the "left hand" side of the chart (lower ages) will tend to be involved in more crashes and have more fatalities from driving. And yet they will drive less (and in some cases, significantly less) than the drivers on the right hand (older ages) side of the chart.
I'm sorry to disrupt your sense of the exceptionalism of drivers outside of the US, but these proportions hold true across industrialized nations around the world.
2) Great, not only are you incapable of providing any statistics or facts to support your claims, you also act like the most annoying ex-girlfriend in the world when challenged: "If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to tell you."
I'm sorry you're unable to provide any arguments to back up your wild assertions, but don't blame me for your inability to discuss the matter in a rational manner. You can't provide a definition of what you would consider "younger" and "older," and you haven't provided any statistics that could even remotely be interpreted to support your claim. I wish I could say it's been enjoyable debating the issue with you, but it hasn't been, because it's clear you're incapable of substantiating an opinion. Good day.
1) When anybody with any knowledge of these things talks about "younger drivers" this typically means the 16-25-ish demographic. One more time, please present your statistics and definitions to support your wild-ass assertions.
2) Stereotyping what, based on what minorities?
If you're going to bother to respond to the questions I've posed or assertions I've made, you should probably provide some facts that contradict what I've said, or admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Tell you what - you provide a) a definition of "younger" and "older"; and b) credible sources that back up your claims that "younger drivers drive way more than older drivers," and then we'll talk.
Until then, the US Federal Highway Administration and the Dept of Transportation would seem to me to be quite legitimate sources, and their numbers show that "younger drivers" do not drive more than "older drivers" for any non-ludicrous definition of "younger" and "older."
More expensive cars are quite safer than cheaper cars. Both cars meeting the same basic criteria doesn't mean that one isn't safer than the other.
Okay, I know a lot of 18 year olds driving brand new toyotas and hondas on their parents' dime. And I also know a lot of 35 year olds driving beat up, 20 year old Chevys. There's very little correlation between "age" and "cost of car." It's also not that hard to get an affordable, inexpensive car. The fact that some cheap cars are less safe than some expensive cars means nothing, unless you can show that younger drivers are overwhelmingly the drivers of these unsafe vehicles.
Plenty of statistics show that younger drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a disproportionate rate. Provide some statistics to back up your assertions that this is incorrect, or kindly stop asking us to take your baseless assertions as remotely valid.
Explain how hand controls or corrective lenses required to operate vehicles fall under the category of "wearable computers with head-mounted displays," and then I'll concede that this is a very, very slippery slope, indeed.
Until then? Sorry, my friend, but GGP's concern about "outlawing wearing corrective lenses and hand controls" is simply not covered by this law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you changed a few sentences in any document, you can, literally, completely change the meaning of that document.
We could change just a few sentences in an assault weapon ban, and ban all firearms completely.
We could change a few sentences in other articles of the Geneva Convention, and make it okay to literally torture people.
I don't see how this is relevant.
Then why did you say, above, "You'd think all of this would be illegal under" the UN convention you linked to? There's a difference between "I think this should be illegal, and the UN should add it to this convention..." and "You'd think this would be illegal under a convention which explicitly does not cover weapons like this." It'd be like pointing to an assault weapon ban and saying, "you'd think that pepper spray would be illegal under this ban."
Boston Police have announced that they have no suspect in custody, as of the press conference at 6:06 pm EST.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boston-police-no-arrests-have-been-made-in
This is clearly addressed in the guidelines. I'm not sure why you're getting hung up on the distinction. On the one hand, you're arguing that the tax code should be simplified, and on the other hand, you seem completely unaware of what the tax code says currently. Curious.
"catered meals for special functions" are exempt because they are:
1) A business function which requires people to eat on-location;
2) Not "usual" - i.e., delivered regularly;
3) Not a "goodwill / retention / attracting new hire" measure;
Google's free meals do not qualify on all three of those points, therefore they shouldn't be tax exempt. If you want to exempt "free stuff that's not money" as compensation, then you've opened the door for even more tax avoidance and abuse. If you're going to say that, then why not simply do away with the income tax entirely, and slash government spending accordingly?
And not everybody will choose to eat in the cafeterias, but of course will happily take the raise, too. So why doesn't Google simplify *everybody's* life, and simply give everybody some extra money in their paycheck, and begin charging for these services? The employees benefit (those who want to use them don't have any net loss, while those who don't want to use them can use the money on things they value more), and Google benefits in not having to go through all the tortuous process of having to account for these things
It's not the IRS' job to make sure that Google gets to save a few bucks on offering services instead of additional pay because they're banking on the fact that some % of their employees won't take advantage of those services.
I don't get to claim a tax deduction when I buy food in the cafeteria at my work, yet my company still "pays taxes to buy the food, pays payroll and FICA and other taxes for the employees working at the cafeteria," so why, exactly, should Googlers be exempted from paying taxes on the money they buy food with? That's the essence of what we're talking about here, and it's a question that NOBODY has answered in any way other than "but I like Google!"
As for bus fare - the IRS allows for numerous transportation benefit exemptions, including bus / mass transit fares, parking, bike commuting, and ride-sharing. These programs are ALSO generally exempted up to the $240 dollar per month amount. In cities where parking is expensive, it's quite common for employers to offer mass transit benefits - bus, subway, commuter rail, ferry, etc. (An "Unlimited 30-day" MTA card in NY will run you about $115 a month, well under the $240 per month limit. I'm sure there are still companies that offer parking stipends as well, even in New York - many of them probably cap the benefit at $240, to keep the benefit non-taxable, so the employee has a choice: keep driving & parking (and pay the difference between stipend & fees out of pocket), or take the subway. There are plenty of tax-exempt fringe benefits your company can offer instead of / in addition to a parking program. In most areas that are not smack in the middle of the business district of the closest city, on-site parking is the fringe that makes the most sense, but it's not the only one the IRS allows.
When the meals are provided every day, all day, for free, using expensive ingredients, and for the purposes of retention, goodwill, morale, and attracting new hires (the food is featured prominently in lots of their recruiting materials), it is not exempt, and is considered compensation, and thus taxable. Again, this doesn't seem unreasonable - everybody MUST eat, and their other alternatives would be brown-bagging it, or spending money on restaurants in the area. They don't have to spend on either of those, and instead can eat on site free of charge. Since this has the net effect of putting more money in the pockets of employees, Google has provided them with a significant (4000-5000 could easily be an effective 4-5% raise) additional source of income.
s/simplified/modified to provide specific benefits to Google, because they're cool and stuff./g.
THAT is the essence of your whole argument. People everywhere are expected to pay taxes on income, with a fairly
It is specifically exempted as a fringe benefit, up to a certain amount ($240 per month, in 2012, I believe), and it MUST meet the "qualified parking" definition. The value of the parking at Google is far below $240/month per employee - by comparison, the average price of parking in lower Manhattan is around $400-450 per month.
So... give your employees a pay raise that will cover the value of a weekly massage, and then offer them the option of getting the massage, or not - there's no micromanaging required. If they want to keep providing meals, then they have to set a fair market value once per year for that benefit, and withhold taxes accordingly. It doesn't require micromanagement, either - it simply requires them to declare it and set FMV.
The issue here is that Google is giving employees a valuable benefit that employees are not paying taxes on; Google is also almost certainly charging the costs of this program as an operating expense (thereby reducing their declared profits, thus reducing their own tax obligations) - and they are doing so in a way that appears as if it violates tax laws. If the gov't doesn't care to simplify the tax code, it's Google's (and its employees') obligation to come into compliance.
no, quite relevant. We are talking about taxable compensation. Google isn't "giving you" the property they own that constitutes a parking space. They are allowing you to park your vehicle on their property as long as you're an employee. The service has monetary value, but it is not compensation for your work any more than "providing electricity to power your computer" is compensation for your work. It is a precondition of you being able to work, and it is provided for work purposes by your employer.
And these often can be exempted under the "de minimis" fringe benefit exceptions. You should review the EMPLOYEE's tax guide to fringe benefits: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf
They explain pretty clearly what conditions allow you to exclude meals and other fringe benefits from your taxable income.
I'm pretty sure the restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the employees of restaurants I go to pay taxes, and the suppliers of restaurants I go to pay taxes, too. Yet I'm not allowed to take a tax deduction for the value of all meals I eat at restaurants.
Yet, Google employees do get to do this, for the meals they eat at work. Stop knee-jerking over the fact that "Google" is named in this article, and engage your brain. This is an employer-provided benefit - why shouldn't it be treated as income? If I get a stock grant, that's a taxable event. If I get a corporate car for personal use, that's a taxable event. Why would meals provided by your employer exist in some sort of tax-exempt zone wrt income taxes?
"dinged for taxes on an extra $4000-5000 per year." Not "pay an extra $4000 to $5000 per year in taxes."
If they are given $4-5k in food by their employer over the course of a year, the argument is that this is a form of income, and thus they should be paying taxes on the value of that food.
Kind of a reasonable argument, actually. If "things" aren't taxable income, then can CEO's request to be paid in cars, jets, and yachts, and avoid all income taxes?
Computer and office furniture are already taxed when Google purchases them for business use - they are owned by Google, used by the employee in the course of business.
If Google instituted a policy where Googlers *owned* their Google-purchased computer & office furniture, and were able to take that stuff with them when they left, then you bet your ass that would be a taxable event that the IRS could expect you to declare as income.
Restaurants by from suppliers, and in bulk, and pay a lot less than $7/lb for quality beef, too.
So, when's the last time you had a "grass fed, organic, locally sourced, artisanal, gourmet" meal at a restaurant that *didn't* cost more than $10? And where was it, because I will certainly bring my hard-earned dollars to that restaurant.
The people on those small boats will probably either burn to death or drown, or maybe burn to death while drowning. Much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their engine room to disable or sink them, setting their boat on fire and sinking it.
The people in manned aerial vehicles will probably either burn to death, or die from the impact when their aircraft crashes, or burn to death while crashing - again, much the same as if you fired a few rounds from a conventional weapon into their aircraft to disable it.
I'd guess that both scenarios are probably *more* survivable than their conventional counterparts: losing control of your aircraft because a laser has burned through part of your wing and destroyed important hydraulic controls gives you time to eject. Getting hit with a Sidewinder, probably not so much time to eject. Having a hole burned in the hull of your boat might give you time to jump overboard in a lifeboat. Having the same hole put there by a ship to ship missile? Probably not so much time to jump in a lifeboat.
As far as unintended consequences go, I think the whole "killed while burning up, crashing, or sinking" is a "functions as designed" scenario. Worrying about whether enemy soldiers are killed by the weapon seems to run a little counter to its intended use as a weapon during wartime.
Evading a lock from this thing is going to require an extremely nimble and fast-moving aircraft - which is outside the parameters of this weapon to begin with. Spinning somehow to disperse the heat is going to just mean it takes longer to heat up some portion of the skin of the aircraft to the point where some aspect of control of the plane is lost. A highly reflective polished/mirrored skin would have the side effect of making you *very* visible to radar & thus easily taken out by other means. And unless you've got a VERY high quality mirror, you're going to absorb at least some energy from the laser - meaning it'll take longer to shoot you down, but you can still be shot down.
Looking at the video of the test fire, it appeared to be causing pretty significant damage (visible fire and smoke) within 5-10 seconds, and maybe 15-20 seconds before the aircraft really burst into flames, pieces started peeling off, and it started its nose-dive into the ocean.
And don't forget that this is also useful against slow moving small boats, too.
The convention you linked to specifically deals with laser weapons designed to blind - they're prohibited - and specifically omits other laser weapons which are not specifically designed to blind the target.
Yes, if your face happens to be in the path of this beam, you will probably be blinded - but that's really of minimal concern, because your head will probably also be incinerated in the process - this beam's purpose is to burn a hole in your aircraft/ship, and cause you to lose control and sink/crash.
I bet that the Cold War would have ended a little sooner if Mr. T. had been present at a few more diplomatic events. "President Gorbachev - look at these people in East Germany! I pity the fools! Tear down this wall - and treat your mama right!"
Last I checked, terminal programs aren't particularly resource intensive, so the specs are pretty irrelevant for the task at hand. Price is pretty comparable to all but the cheapest netbooks, and certainly competitive with most laptops that aren't "under-specced" as well.
Users very rarely use laptops on their lap, because it's incredibly uncomfortable to do so for any substantial period of time - typing with your laptop on your lap is about as attractive a proposition as using the on-screen keyboard on a tablet is - you can DO it, but you're not gonna like it for very long.
And I never said "a tablet is a laptop replacement." I asked about a very specific scenario which was brought up up-thread, where somebody asserted that it was impossible to administer servers with a tablet.
The original comment I responded to specifically referenced "administering servers," not "writing code" (though it's been established elsewhere in this thread that it's absolutely possible to write code on a tablet, as well).
If you open a terminal window to administer your server on a laptop, and I open a terminal window to administer my server on a tablet+bluetooth keyboard, the correct answer is, "there is no fucking difference."
That's all you had to say, really.
Explain to me the essential difference between a tablet + keyboard running a terminal program, and a laptop running a terminal program? There are netbooks with smaller screens than a 10" tablet affords.
To be completely analogous, it's like buying a bike that can be operated as a unicycle OR a bicycle, and then pretending the 2nd wheel doesn't exist, never existed, hasn't even been conceived of, and is impossible to attach.
No, it's like saying "riding a unicycle is hard, if you need a vehicle to get around, why don't you put a second wheel on it, and stop whining about how hard it is to ride a fucking unicycle?"
It's strange, typing on a tablet is identical to typing on a laptop or a desktop for me... don't they have bluetooth keyboards where you live?
Good thing you didn't have to wait too long: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/5/3
This study concluded:
Not "warm fuzzy subjective feelings." "Physical disease processes" - such as blood pressure, and expiratory volume - measurable, quanitifiable improvements were demonstrated in many of these treatments. As opposed to biochemical processes - e.g., cortisol levels - in which much smaller improvements were demonstrated in the small number of cases where any improvements were noted at all.
In other words: placebo treatment may help you manage your blood pressure, but it won't magically make your cholesterol levels go down.
Dismissing placebos out of hand as bunk is just as foolish as saying they're an effective treatment for everything.
No, you see, the COMPANY saves money because they're not paying for some of that electricity. So they can claim that they're "green" and use "less electricity." When all that's really happening is that their employees are plugging the devices in and charging them at home (and paying for the electricity to do so). Then when they come to the office, the company gets a few hours of free electricity out of them!
It's really just a diabolical way to shift the costs of your energy consumption onto your employees, and claim you're "doing good" while doing it.
1) You can talk about "demographic boundaries" all you want, but that's meaningless misdirection on your part. If 18 year olds are in more crashes, you can call that "young," "old," or nothing at all, and it won't change the fact that 18, 19, and 20 year olds are absolutely involved in more fatal crashes than drivers who are OLDER than 18, 19, 20. Draw the lines wherever you like, the conclusion will be the same: drivers on the "left hand" side of the chart (lower ages) will tend to be involved in more crashes and have more fatalities from driving. And yet they will drive less (and in some cases, significantly less) than the drivers on the right hand (older ages) side of the chart.
I'm sorry to disrupt your sense of the exceptionalism of drivers outside of the US, but these proportions hold true across industrialized nations around the world.
2) Great, not only are you incapable of providing any statistics or facts to support your claims, you also act like the most annoying ex-girlfriend in the world when challenged: "If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to tell you."
I'm sorry you're unable to provide any arguments to back up your wild assertions, but don't blame me for your inability to discuss the matter in a rational manner. You can't provide a definition of what you would consider "younger" and "older," and you haven't provided any statistics that could even remotely be interpreted to support your claim. I wish I could say it's been enjoyable debating the issue with you, but it hasn't been, because it's clear you're incapable of substantiating an opinion. Good day.
1) When anybody with any knowledge of these things talks about "younger drivers" this typically means the 16-25-ish demographic. One more time, please present your statistics and definitions to support your wild-ass assertions.
2) Stereotyping what, based on what minorities?
If you're going to bother to respond to the questions I've posed or assertions I've made, you should probably provide some facts that contradict what I've said, or admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Tell you what - you provide a) a definition of "younger" and "older"; and b) credible sources that back up your claims that "younger drivers drive way more than older drivers," and then we'll talk.
Until then, the US Federal Highway Administration and the Dept of Transportation would seem to me to be quite legitimate sources, and their numbers show that "younger drivers" do not drive more than "older drivers" for any non-ludicrous definition of "younger" and "older."
Okay, I know a lot of 18 year olds driving brand new toyotas and hondas on their parents' dime. And I also know a lot of 35 year olds driving beat up, 20 year old Chevys. There's very little correlation between "age" and "cost of car." It's also not that hard to get an affordable, inexpensive car. The fact that some cheap cars are less safe than some expensive cars means nothing, unless you can show that younger drivers are overwhelmingly the drivers of these unsafe vehicles.
Plenty of statistics show that younger drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a disproportionate rate. Provide some statistics to back up your assertions that this is incorrect, or kindly stop asking us to take your baseless assertions as remotely valid.
Explain how hand controls or corrective lenses required to operate vehicles fall under the category of "wearable computers with head-mounted displays," and then I'll concede that this is a very, very slippery slope, indeed.
Until then? Sorry, my friend, but GGP's concern about "outlawing wearing corrective lenses and hand controls" is simply not covered by this law.