It's not a matter of being able to. Development can be done on a 9" netbook screen; I've done it. However, I would never choose to do such a thing if I had an alternative.
Options for either a simple-low-power-integrated GPU, or a high performance (ATI/nVidia) card. Many developers won't need the latter, many will.
I like the trend of having both, and switching back and forth depending on what's actually being done at the moment. My laptop does this, and even though I generally lock it to the integrated graphics, it's very nice when I need the dedicated ones.
Again, all that shows is that you don't have any way to dispute him. Considering you're always the one advocating for shit like this, you damn well had better have answers to the problems brought up if you wish to convince anyone.
But of course, that would take actual thought, and distract you from your mindless, and often times off topic government bashing.
- they were all straw man arguments, which you constructed and then implied that I made a comment on them, while I didn't.
No, they are quite important, as those questions are some of the basis for how society functions. Are you seriously trying to say that it doesn't matter how society functions?
first of all, you are saying it like it was a bad thing that only landowners could vote.
It was. There is nothing special about owning land that gives you a better insight into government. Saying that poor people shouldn't vote is just begging to return to a class based system, where only those of nobility are considered people.
Only capitalist free market could create that.
After they were forced to by the labor movement. Capitalists would have absolutely no problem working their employees to the bone, as they are expendable.
This so called 'trickle down economics' is the ONLY economics that works.
And that's why everyone is prospering soooooo much right now. Oh wait.
straw man.
No, you personally said it. Only the rich should vote. Whether or not someone pays income tax IS COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.
Someone who doesn't pay tax still has a huge interest in how the government works.
bullshit. The freest country was formed, under the Constitution.
And daily life for regular people still did not change.
It's not free anymore
Said someone who's never had to live in some place like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
You are so eager to denounce people who are looking for more freedoms today,
No, we're denouncing people who don't learn from history. If you weren't on top during that time you like to dream about, life was incredibly fucking shitty for you. How'd you like to be paid in Company Dollars, which can only be spent at the Company Store? Oh, don't like it? Tough. There are no other jobs around.
well, except for the blacks, who obviously were not freed even under the Constitution (the reason I wouldn't have ratified it with that in it), the people who could vote were people who would have voted under the King as well - land owners, because they were the ones actually participating in the economy, bearing the burden of whatever taxes and decisions by the gov't.
I love it when you reveal your true nature, and show that you're really just all about fucking the poor. Yeah, those people don't deserve to vote anyway! Neither do women!
AFAIC people who aren't paying federal taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections.
Because being poor is something that should be punished, right? We should be able to send them off to battle in a draft, but fuck them trying to have a voice in their government.
Denying the right to vote to ANYONE of age because of your idiotic restrictions is WRONG.
Yes, but every citizen of that underwater city would be collectively dependent on those multiple systems. It's not like you're going to have competing firms offering breathable air.
Well, just about anywhere else on dry land has orders of magnitude less collective dependencies on such things than a huge fucking dome with something like 7 miles worth of ocean on top of it.
In terms of government, Libertarians simply want to take over - and then leave you alone. That's the extent of it.
And by "leave you alone", they mean allowing any employer to mistreat you as much as they want, and giving you no fucking recourse whatsoever. They mean allowing any company to pour whatever toxic sludge in the environment that they want, and forcing YOU to bear the burden of trying to prove they did some harm, against their legion of highly trained lawyers.
You have no clue whatsoever what the people in charge of the "Libertarians" think. You cannot learn from history, and see how bad this shit would be.
Regardless, why is it that statists like yourself and others (". May real pirates raid this libertarian haven; ") have such a dick in your mouth over other people living freely?
Because history has shown us that, unless you're on top, most people are NOT going to be "living freely". Why the fuck are you people so against learning from history?
Given the choice of two jobs, one where you must sleep with ugly superiors and one where you can tell them to fuck off, people will generally prefer the non-prostitution job.
Why yes, they probably would. Doesn't mean they'd actually have much choice in the matter, however. You're going to reply with some bullshit about quitting, and then I'm going to remind you that the subordinate in question needs the job in order to keep a roof over their head, and to feed their family. And that jobs are quite scarce.
You are honestly forgetting the entirety of why the labor movement started. Do you honestly think that if it was so easy as to just "quit and find a new job", that the labor movement would still have gone on?
You can remotely access and program pretty much any system you'd ever work on in an offshoring relationshing. Your physical location has little or nothing to do with the ability to provide the contracted services.
Yes, but physical location does have a good amount to do with your ability to meet with investors. And there are still some customers who don't like the idea of someone all the way around the world providing their services.
So wait, a company should be able to say whatever they want, just so long as they put a "disclaimer" on it? Whatever happened to holding people accountable?
Generally in class action lawsuits, the "victims" weren't harmed for a lot individually to start with. Thus, without the class action, each of them would have had to sue the defendant individually, meaning they all had to separately pay for lawyers, which may or may not have been cost effective.
I'd like to hear your ideas on a better way to compensate a large group of people who had been harmed, but not to a large extent.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of being able to. Development can be done on a 9" netbook screen; I've done it. However, I would never choose to do such a thing if I had an alternative.
Not everyone develops in .NET, or on Windows. Granted, if I were a .NET guy, I'd be all over Visual Studio. But I'm not, so I use other stuff.
Options for either a simple-low-power-integrated GPU, or a high performance (ATI/nVidia) card. Many developers won't need the latter, many will.
I like the trend of having both, and switching back and forth depending on what's actually being done at the moment. My laptop does this, and even though I generally lock it to the integrated graphics, it's very nice when I need the dedicated ones.
Again, all that shows is that you don't have any way to dispute him. Considering you're always the one advocating for shit like this, you damn well had better have answers to the problems brought up if you wish to convince anyone.
But of course, that would take actual thought, and distract you from your mindless, and often times off topic government bashing.
And how the actual fuck am I supposed to enforce that? Especially if someone the size of Dow Chemical moves in next door?
- they were all straw man arguments, which you constructed and then implied that I made a comment on them, while I didn't.
No, they are quite important, as those questions are some of the basis for how society functions. Are you seriously trying to say that it doesn't matter how society functions?
Seriously, you crying "straw man" to everything just shows that you don't have any way to dispute him.
first of all, you are saying it like it was a bad thing that only landowners could vote.
It was. There is nothing special about owning land that gives you a better insight into government. Saying that poor people shouldn't vote is just begging to return to a class based system, where only those of nobility are considered people.
Only capitalist free market could create that.
After they were forced to by the labor movement. Capitalists would have absolutely no problem working their employees to the bone, as they are expendable.
This so called 'trickle down economics' is the ONLY economics that works.
And that's why everyone is prospering soooooo much right now. Oh wait.
straw man.
No, you personally said it. Only the rich should vote. Whether or not someone pays income tax IS COMPLETELY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.
Someone who doesn't pay tax still has a huge interest in how the government works.
bullshit. The freest country was formed, under the Constitution.
And daily life for regular people still did not change.
It's not free anymore
Said someone who's never had to live in some place like Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
You are so eager to denounce people who are looking for more freedoms today,
No, we're denouncing people who don't learn from history. If you weren't on top during that time you like to dream about, life was incredibly fucking shitty for you. How'd you like to be paid in Company Dollars, which can only be spent at the Company Store? Oh, don't like it? Tough. There are no other jobs around.
well, except for the blacks, who obviously were not freed even under the Constitution (the reason I wouldn't have ratified it with that in it), the people who could vote were people who would have voted under the King as well - land owners, because they were the ones actually participating in the economy, bearing the burden of whatever taxes and decisions by the gov't.
I love it when you reveal your true nature, and show that you're really just all about fucking the poor. Yeah, those people don't deserve to vote anyway! Neither do women!
AFAIC people who aren't paying federal taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote in federal elections.
Because being poor is something that should be punished, right? We should be able to send them off to battle in a draft, but fuck them trying to have a voice in their government.
Denying the right to vote to ANYONE of age because of your idiotic restrictions is WRONG.
It just shows to what extent the governments of the world have pushed the people that they are willing to spend time and money into this
Yup, those pesky governments, pushing people away.
Oh shit, pirates!
Governments, can you please come help us?
This cruise ship idea is simply based on the idea of escaping the United States extremely high corporate tax
And by "extremely high", you mean one of the lowest in the civilized world, right?
But how will they browse /.?
Given that it's Silicon Valley startups, I'm sure their computer equipment would be worth some fat coin.
Many, if not most, economists agree that free markets, when they work, provide higher quality goods and services at lower prices than the state can
Except 1). There are many differing definitions of "working" for free markets, and 2). Economists have very little evidence showing this is true.
Yes, but every citizen of that underwater city would be collectively dependent on those multiple systems. It's not like you're going to have competing firms offering breathable air.
Well, just about anywhere else on dry land has orders of magnitude less collective dependencies on such things than a huge fucking dome with something like 7 miles worth of ocean on top of it.
Again, you're assuming perfect markets. That shit doesn't happen in reality.
In terms of government, Libertarians simply want to take over - and then leave you alone. That's the extent of it.
And by "leave you alone", they mean allowing any employer to mistreat you as much as they want, and giving you no fucking recourse whatsoever. They mean allowing any company to pour whatever toxic sludge in the environment that they want, and forcing YOU to bear the burden of trying to prove they did some harm, against their legion of highly trained lawyers.
You have no clue whatsoever what the people in charge of the "Libertarians" think. You cannot learn from history, and see how bad this shit would be.
Regardless, why is it that statists like yourself and others (". May real pirates raid this libertarian haven; ") have such a dick in your mouth over other people living freely?
Because history has shown us that, unless you're on top, most people are NOT going to be "living freely". Why the fuck are you people so against learning from history?
Given the choice of two jobs, one where you must sleep with ugly superiors and one where you can tell them to fuck off, people will generally prefer the non-prostitution job.
Why yes, they probably would. Doesn't mean they'd actually have much choice in the matter, however. You're going to reply with some bullshit about quitting, and then I'm going to remind you that the subordinate in question needs the job in order to keep a roof over their head, and to feed their family. And that jobs are quite scarce.
You are honestly forgetting the entirety of why the labor movement started. Do you honestly think that if it was so easy as to just "quit and find a new job", that the labor movement would still have gone on?
You can remotely access and program pretty much any system you'd ever work on in an offshoring relationshing. Your physical location has little or nothing to do with the ability to provide the contracted services.
Yes, but physical location does have a good amount to do with your ability to meet with investors. And there are still some customers who don't like the idea of someone all the way around the world providing their services.
So wait, a company should be able to say whatever they want, just so long as they put a "disclaimer" on it? Whatever happened to holding people accountable?
Generally in class action lawsuits, the "victims" weren't harmed for a lot individually to start with. Thus, without the class action, each of them would have had to sue the defendant individually, meaning they all had to separately pay for lawyers, which may or may not have been cost effective.
I'd like to hear your ideas on a better way to compensate a large group of people who had been harmed, but not to a large extent.
The difference is, Android phones still sell. Windows Phones do not.
I suggest you look at the marketshare statistics. WP7 has somewhere around 5% of the smartphone market, if that.