Tablets are horrendously overpriced. The samsung galaxy Tab 10.1 costs around $170 to manufacture.
It's pretty standard to have items retail for 2 times the wholesale cost. There's too much competition in the market to believe that tablets are overpriced by a large amount.
However, we are quite free to refer to other sources for such information, such as, the particular nature of NDE experiences, probability of relative success at prescience (i.e. prophecy), strength of claims on the basis of willing martyrdom, etc.
Near death experience is anecdotal at best and would be heavily influenced by religious upbringing, and even then wouldn't tell you the exact nature of conditions for afterlife. Prophecy's are notoriously vague and suffer from self-fulfillment. Willing martyrdom is evident across a wide variety of religions, and sometimes just principles that have nothing to do with religion.
There may be infinite imaginable "gods", but there are not infinite equally-plausible ones.
I agree, but there are plenty of ones to choose from that have already been believed in by followers, including many variations of the Abrahamic religions.
But let's resolve this question immediately. Which god are we talking about, or do we have no idea what the topic here is?
The topic is Pascal's Wager, so it's the Christian god where it's proposed that by believing in him you are granted eternal happiness.
I just use AdBlocker and don't worry about it for the most part. I also am not worried about ads in scientific papers. The people who host PDFs could put ads in now by prepending pages. They don't.
PDFs don't flow text, which makes them crap for online reading. I also really hate when the PDF author decides he wants two columns, which really sucks when you have to scroll down and then up to continue reading.
So "mob rage" is the answer to people violating personal freedoms? The fact is we still have the right to vote, but enough people don't care to make change happen.
And, yes, betting on a stock with a huge upside and no downside is still the rational choice, and note I've said nothing about knowing what the stock will do as an issue of fact about the future.
But you've presumed there's no downside, which just can't be asserted as true with Pascal's Wager. There are an infinite number of imaginable gods. Pascal's Wager is based on the assumptions of a particular god, one who punishes you for not believing. Another god could punish you for believing based on fear alone.
Then there's also the downside of living your life by dogma instead of your own rational thoughts.
Judging by that page, he was indeed murdered, but not "a few years later", but 15 years later after he had published a book on the topic. Meanwhile, the original researchers are still alive today.
There are lots of people who became rich by being smart, working hard, and providing stuff that people wanted. It's easy to sit on your ass or just be a worker bee without initiative and throw stones at people who became rich. Sure, some people behaved unethically, but not everybody.
Just because some people are too lazy to work doesn't mean they won't pop out kids. As to giving them free drugs of their choice, are you seriously suggesting a policy that will create a dependent, addict society?
What's to stop the ever-growing number of people who don't produce anything to demand it?
Also let's put an end to those who want more, demanding other people work for it.
Funny, that's my argument.
Surplus productivity is not meant to be wasted in the vain attempt to feed the insatiable greed of the rich 1% but meant to produce more leisure time for the 99%.
People who become rich often do so by working harder or smarter than other people. That's not the only reason, but it's common enough. People who just want to sit on their ass, don't take initiative or risk, or provide a commodity function will never get rich. There's no reason why people on welfare should have big-screen TVs.
If they didn't care at all then things could be much worse.
Do governments prevent natural disasters? No.
Sure they do, to some extent. They build dykes, enforce building codes for earthquakes, have fire departments. Can they prevent every single disaster? Of course not, but lots are.
Can government stop revolutions? Look at the middle east.
Sure, go ahead and look. It's a mixed bag. Remember the Iranian revolution in 2009? Crushed. Egypt, for all its gains, still has a military junta in charge. The Libyan revolution only succeeded because of NATO intervention. Syria and Yemen haven't toppled yet. Look at history. There have been countless rebellions put down.
But it can't give you what you don't already have.
You mean things like roads, bridges, highways, power, sewer, and the Internet?
Again, you have cited no evidence. If it were true, you'd think you'd be able to find at least one merchant who said this online, or some discussion of policy.
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants. They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
How about you cite some evidence I can actually access? I don't know about checking the ID, but I don't believe for a minute that merchants aren't allowed to check the signature, which would be in direct contradiction to Visa published guidelines.
I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
Slashdot Mirror
Then read the mainstream news, as this affects any potential traveler to Australia. There's nothing particular to Slashdot nerds for this story.
Citizens United doesn't have a vote. If the people really cared, and most of them don't, then the TSA abuses could be overturned.
Tablets are horrendously overpriced. The samsung galaxy Tab 10.1 costs around $170 to manufacture.
It's pretty standard to have items retail for 2 times the wholesale cost. There's too much competition in the market to believe that tablets are overpriced by a large amount.
filter your categories appropriately
You raise some good points, but note that this was posted under the "tech" category.
It's implied by the word nerd:
"2. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept."
Science and occasional math stories, sure. Union disputes in Australia? No.
The real fix is uninstalling this app because they abused your trust.
I'm just not worried about ads that would appear in traditional sources of PDFs. I'm much more concerned about being able to flow text properly.
However, we are quite free to refer to other sources for such information, such as, the particular nature of NDE experiences, probability of relative success at prescience (i.e. prophecy), strength of claims on the basis of willing martyrdom, etc.
Near death experience is anecdotal at best and would be heavily influenced by religious upbringing, and even then wouldn't tell you the exact nature of conditions for afterlife. Prophecy's are notoriously vague and suffer from self-fulfillment. Willing martyrdom is evident across a wide variety of religions, and sometimes just principles that have nothing to do with religion.
There may be infinite imaginable "gods", but there are not infinite equally-plausible ones.
I agree, but there are plenty of ones to choose from that have already been believed in by followers, including many variations of the Abrahamic religions.
But let's resolve this question immediately. Which god are we talking about, or do we have no idea what the topic here is?
The topic is Pascal's Wager, so it's the Christian god where it's proposed that by believing in him you are granted eternal happiness.
"No taxation without representation." We have representation. That the people don't make it a priority is their fault.
I just use AdBlocker and don't worry about it for the most part. I also am not worried about ads in scientific papers. The people who host PDFs could put ads in now by prepending pages. They don't.
If people cared enough they'd vote for Ron Paul. They don't.
PDFs don't flow text, which makes them crap for online reading. I also really hate when the PDF author decides he wants two columns, which really sucks when you have to scroll down and then up to continue reading.
So "mob rage" is the answer to people violating personal freedoms? The fact is we still have the right to vote, but enough people don't care to make change happen.
It's vigilante justice and makes you just as bad as the people you are railing against.
And, yes, betting on a stock with a huge upside and no downside is still the rational choice, and note I've said nothing about knowing what the stock will do as an issue of fact about the future.
But you've presumed there's no downside, which just can't be asserted as true with Pascal's Wager. There are an infinite number of imaginable gods. Pascal's Wager is based on the assumptions of a particular god, one who punishes you for not believing. Another god could punish you for believing based on fear alone.
Then there's also the downside of living your life by dogma instead of your own rational thoughts.
Judging by that page, he was indeed murdered, but not "a few years later", but 15 years later after he had published a book on the topic. Meanwhile, the original researchers are still alive today.
Name the date. I'll dig up the articles and compare.
There are lots of people who became rich by being smart, working hard, and providing stuff that people wanted. It's easy to sit on your ass or just be a worker bee without initiative and throw stones at people who became rich. Sure, some people behaved unethically, but not everybody.
Just because some people are too lazy to work doesn't mean they won't pop out kids. As to giving them free drugs of their choice, are you seriously suggesting a policy that will create a dependent, addict society?
I'm done with this conversation.
Those who want more, will work for it.
What's to stop the ever-growing number of people who don't produce anything to demand it?
Also let's put an end to those who want more, demanding other people work for it.
Funny, that's my argument.
Surplus productivity is not meant to be wasted in the vain attempt to feed the insatiable greed of the rich 1% but meant to produce more leisure time for the 99%.
People who become rich often do so by working harder or smarter than other people. That's not the only reason, but it's common enough. People who just want to sit on their ass, don't take initiative or risk, or provide a commodity function will never get rich. There's no reason why people on welfare should have big-screen TVs.
How is google being sued for using free software?
They're not using the GPL'd software, so any patent grants they would have gotten from that doesn't apply.
Most of the comments in this thread are accurate enough (or at least defensible), but miss the point of the article.
You're exactly right with regards to the comments. As usual, they're "I read the summary" or perhaps even just the title comments.
The government doesn't give a shit about you.
If they didn't care at all then things could be much worse.
Do governments prevent natural disasters? No.
Sure they do, to some extent. They build dykes, enforce building codes for earthquakes, have fire departments. Can they prevent every single disaster? Of course not, but lots are.
Can government stop revolutions? Look at the middle east.
Sure, go ahead and look. It's a mixed bag. Remember the Iranian revolution in 2009? Crushed. Egypt, for all its gains, still has a military junta in charge. The Libyan revolution only succeeded because of NATO intervention. Syria and Yemen haven't toppled yet. Look at history. There have been countless rebellions put down.
But it can't give you what you don't already have.
You mean things like roads, bridges, highways, power, sewer, and the Internet?
Again, you have cited no evidence. If it were true, you'd think you'd be able to find at least one merchant who said this online, or some discussion of policy.
Go read actual contracts signed by actual merchants.
They all specifically preculde merchants from checking ID or the signature, even if the signature is blank.
How about you cite some evidence I can actually access? I don't know about checking the ID, but I don't believe for a minute that merchants aren't allowed to check the signature, which would be in direct contradiction to Visa published guidelines.
I'm also glad whenever a store checks my ID or the signature on the back of my card (which they are specifically forbidden from doing in their contracts with visa/american express/master card/discover).
http://usa.visa.com/merchants/risk_management/card_present.html
"6. Check the signature. Be sure that the signature on the card matches the one on the sales draft. Do not accept an unsigned card."