You can disagree all you want, but at the end of the day, you have absolutely nothing to back up your position.
And if you're trying to hold China up as someone who respects "private property rights", then clearly you have tried too hard, and exposed yourself for the troll you are.
China is much more capitalist than almost anybody else, they have more free market than USA has.
Bullshit. They have even more of those "regulations" you love to bitch and moan about. Remember the whole thing with Google wanting to enter China, and all the shit they had to do to be allowed to do business there?
Too many people are arguing pro-Finish type of socialism, but that's why Finland is going to lose more and more jobs.
I love how this is DIRECTLY the fault of Nokia making completely ass-retarded decisions, and yet you try to find some way to pin it on government, rather than having the company take responsibility for itself.
Socialism has nothing to do with this. This is ENTIRELY the fault of Nokia making shit that people don't want.
They could go Android, sure, but Android phones are almost commodity phones, where the handset manufacturer isn't adding enough value to make them differentiators.
You know, everyone says this, and while I'm not going to argue it's not true, I will point out that Android phones are actually selling, as opposed to Windows Phones. A differentiator only matters if it can actually sell.
That is quite possibly the dumbest extension of that analogy I've seen. People are NOT dying because they don't get to choose to eat the sheep, and further, I don't give a shit how small the "minority interest" is, that doesn't justify the genocide of the minority, which is what you're trying to say.
Yeah, he mentioned that he reserved the right to overrule the popular opinion if he had "moral objections" to the way they wanted him to vote. Meaning he basically allowed himself to shove his morals on them, while seeming like he was going to do something different.
There isn't any sort of application where it makes sense.
Said the guy who doesn't think that anyone does anything other than what he needs, and just wants to hate on a company he doesn't like for no good reason.
There are people that like to be able to easily move things around, but don't need it to be "portable" in the same sense that someone who's constantly going through airports would.
What's a marvel is that you seem to think that the same things are important to everyone. Most of us don't care about "user replaceable". The other benefits of the machine outweigh any potential inconvenience.
My Phillips GoGear 30gig MP3 player didn't have a user replaceable battery either. And it used to have FM recording capabilities until they were dropped in an update. Apple is hardly the most egregious violator in this realm.
Odds are unclear that any technological benefits we may or may not receive from the military (death) industry wouldn't be put to better use in civilized society.
Computer chips are one such technological benefit.
While most of us know that games themselves don't cause violent behavior, odds are that someone who is such a pendant regarding what's ethical and what's not would fall on the side of "they cause violence," or even, "They are unethical because they depict violence."
And your book is batshit retarded. You AGREED to pay those taxes, just like you AGREED to follow all of the other laws, when you continued living there. To dispute this is to decide that a group of people does not have the right to rule themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You can disagree all you want, but at the end of the day, you have absolutely nothing to back up your position.
And if you're trying to hold China up as someone who respects "private property rights", then clearly you have tried too hard, and exposed yourself for the troll you are.
China is much more capitalist than almost anybody else, they have more free market than USA has.
Bullshit. They have even more of those "regulations" you love to bitch and moan about. Remember the whole thing with Google wanting to enter China, and all the shit they had to do to be allowed to do business there?
Too many people are arguing pro-Finish type of socialism, but that's why Finland is going to lose more and more jobs.
I love how this is DIRECTLY the fault of Nokia making completely ass-retarded decisions, and yet you try to find some way to pin it on government, rather than having the company take responsibility for itself.
Socialism has nothing to do with this. This is ENTIRELY the fault of Nokia making shit that people don't want.
Recently read that about 30% of the employers has troubles finding qualified people to fill in the functions.
A lot of that is due to not being willing to pay the needed salaries to attract those qualified people.
They could go Android, sure, but Android phones are almost commodity phones, where the handset manufacturer isn't adding enough value to make them differentiators.
You know, everyone says this, and while I'm not going to argue it's not true, I will point out that Android phones are actually selling, as opposed to Windows Phones. A differentiator only matters if it can actually sell.
Extremely different.
That is quite possibly the dumbest extension of that analogy I've seen. People are NOT dying because they don't get to choose to eat the sheep, and further, I don't give a shit how small the "minority interest" is, that doesn't justify the genocide of the minority, which is what you're trying to say.
Yeah, he mentioned that he reserved the right to overrule the popular opinion if he had "moral objections" to the way they wanted him to vote. Meaning he basically allowed himself to shove his morals on them, while seeming like he was going to do something different.
Yes, but where the fuck are you going to buy memory that's thin enough to fit in that body, let alone a slot that's thin enough to fit in there.
Only for UI widgets, like buttons. For content views, you get the full resolution to work with.
There isn't any sort of application where it makes sense.
Said the guy who doesn't think that anyone does anything other than what he needs, and just wants to hate on a company he doesn't like for no good reason.
There are people that like to be able to easily move things around, but don't need it to be "portable" in the same sense that someone who's constantly going through airports would.
Yes, because the only "pros" are the ones doing what you're doing. Nope, no one ever needs to do other stuff.
because the parts lines(in factories) came online just this spring?
So the line about being able to find laptops that are better than this in every way was a complete lie?
Where's the laptop with the retina display? That is also as thick and light as this one?
What's a marvel is that you seem to think that the same things are important to everyone. Most of us don't care about "user replaceable". The other benefits of the machine outweigh any potential inconvenience.
I like how he has an anecdote that counters yours, and you immediately try to insinuate he's lying, or he didn't actually use his device.
There's a fuckload more to making a battery "user replacable" than just wrapping the cells in plastic.
My Phillips GoGear 30gig MP3 player didn't have a user replaceable battery either. And it used to have FM recording capabilities until they were dropped in an update. Apple is hardly the most egregious violator in this realm.
His sanity? Perhaps he doesn't want to be bored out of his skull, and wants to enjoy himself every once in a while?
What if, I dunno, we didn't do things to provoke them in the first place?
That may or may not work. There are people who simply want to be pissed off at someone, regardless of whether they deserve it or not.
Odds are unclear that any technological benefits we may or may not receive from the military (death) industry wouldn't be put to better use in civilized society.
Computer chips are one such technological benefit.
While most of us know that games themselves don't cause violent behavior, odds are that someone who is such a pendant regarding what's ethical and what's not would fall on the side of "they cause violence," or even, "They are unethical because they depict violence."
In my book taxation = theft at gun point.
And your book is batshit retarded. You AGREED to pay those taxes, just like you AGREED to follow all of the other laws, when you continued living there. To dispute this is to decide that a group of people does not have the right to rule themselves.
Like the welfare of the people?