Totally disagree. You will save far more by doing it yourself. The reason is that you will save little by finding a deduction here or there. You will save far more by actually understanding the tax law, and restructuring your financial life to take advantage of that knowledge
Fine, let me know when you finish that 4 year degree and become a CPA (and how much it cost you). Then tell me how long it takes for you to become intimately familiar with the tax code and then tell me how long you spend keeping up on the changes to the tax code.
Meanwhile I'll continue to spend a whopping $140 per year (which I claim on next years tax return, as well as the petrol I used getting from my home to his office) to have someone who does this for a living do it all for me and spend my time doing something I'd like to.
So you think it's worth a 4 year degree, to save $140 a year... I'm sorry but after that I dont think it's a good idea to take tax advice from you.
BTW: $140 p/a is expensive for a personal tax return in Oz, but this guy is brilliant.
...but obviously, if an accident punctures a battery there's a chance of fire just as there is one if you puncture a gas tank.
How likely is one to puncture the gas tank though, and how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric vehicles and have mulled doing a conversion on my quarter-ton pickup, but I don't like the idea of high-centering on a foreign object causing a fire.
The risk of a fire from a ruptured petrol tank is actually quite low.
You need a source of ignition as petrol wont auto ignite until 280 deg C. I live in a place where tarmac is exposed to 40 Degrees C heat and petrol will not ignite if poured onto that.
The key difference is that inside a petrol tank there is no chemical reaction, however inside a Li battery there is. So a rupture to a fuel tank and a rupture to a battery are two very different risks.
I, also am not against the idea of EV's but a battery is no analogous to a fuel tank in terms of risk and should be treated differently by designers because of this. A rupture to a fuel tank is a low risk as your biggest problem with be running out of petrol before the user notices the leak, however a ruptured battery has a more significant risk of ignition.
No. No, I won't save more money than I earn at my job in a month. There's not that much more to save. And I earn a lot. Enough that I've decided not to spend my leisure time becoming a tax accountant - you know, someone whose *job* it is to know taxes. Software doesn't mean shit, it's the person using it *and* their knowledge.
I could also paint my entire house, but I don't feel like doing that either.
I don't regard spending time learning tax regulations as time well spent. And, wrong again... she didn't find the deduction using tax software, but by looking at our returns, how we work, and then interviewing us. You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well.
This, a good tax accountant saves you more than doing it yourself because they know all the loopholes and deductions you can claim without being flagged for an audit.
Apparently you had Sarah Palin as a reading comprehension teacher.
He is comparing the American health care system with the European health care system.
Which is far superior by every measure.
Erm, there is not European health care system. There isn't even an EU health care system.
There are health care systems in countries in Europe, most of which are superior to the US. The US lingers at the bottom of developed countries when it comes to health care, which is surprising as the US tends to spend more on health care than many European nations.
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
This is true, for vehicles designed to use Ethanol or flex fuel.
Ethanol has two major problems however,
1. A lot of vehicles have components that degrade when using ethanol, most often hoses and fuel pumps. Even some vehicles as new as 2007/2008 have this issue as designs weren't updated.
2. The US gets it's ethanol from corn. Corn's a pretty bad source and takes away from food production.
Australia gets it's ethanol from waste sugar cane, so dealing with number 2 for the US is political. Number 1 deals with itself in time, mostly. Also in Australia, if you dont want to use E10 you can opt for the higher grades of petrol (RON 95 and 98) which dont contain ethanol but are at least A$0.10 per litre more expensive than E10/RON 91, this is good for people who like to run older performance cars.
lots of people claimed that it didn't really matter because nobody is interested in benchmarks. And now we have this whole article and huge discussions because of benchmark results. Quite interesting.
Any opinions whether benchmarks matter or not are welcome. On the other hand, there was an old joke about a potential customer asking what was the horse power and top speed of a Rolls Royce. Answer: "Enough".
You see, it's quite interesting to us.
But for the other 99% of phone buyers they couldn't care less. Taking your car analogy, there are realistically only two types of people who buy a Subaru Turbo Impreza WRX, those who have poured over the spec's and know exactly how many Horsepowers and Torques it has and the other 99% who just like the loud BROOOM, BROOOM noise it makes. The same is true with phone buyers.
I personally don't trust benchmarks these days, every company is rigging their test phones (and if you think Apple isn't one of the worst, I have a bridge to sell you). I'm more interested to see how the N5 performs in the real world, more specifically how well it performs on Australian mobile networks.
Use iTunes match and just play everything on whatever device you want?
Hold on,
I have to go back to a computer that has Itunes on it and is authourised with this phone (usually this is a trip home, unfortunately home is 14,000 KM away at the moment) and then wait for it to load (takes ages because I dont waste money on overpriced Mac's) then wait for it to sync. Finally it chucks an error and wipes my device.
Try just plugging your phone into any computer with a standard USB micro cable, Windows, Linux or Mac and have it just work as a MTP device. You can transfer whatever you like in less time than it take Itunes to load an just have done with.
There are reasons for people buying iPhones despite all this. Chief amongst them is that the average Joe DOES NOT CARE about what the numbers are with synthetic benchmarks, number of pixels on screen, etc. They care about how well a device performance the functions they want it to do. Despite what many in the slashdot crowd may think, things like look and feel, UI consistency, battery life and integration with other devices and services is important.
LoL,
I love it when Slashdot nerds think they know what the average person thinks.
The Parent poster doesn't have a clue about average people, they dont give a shit about UI, battery life, integration serivces or benchmarks.
The only reason a normal (non-fanboy) person buys an Iphone is because their friend Jamie has an Iphone and they want to be part of that crowd. End of story. Iphones have always had terrible battery life in the real world, are difficult for the average person to use (yes, watch one struggle trying to understand the "do it all for you" wifi hotspot) and become completely dumbfounded over the simplest operation before giving up and doing something else. The only reason they bought an Iphone is because they think it will make them cool.
BTW, you shouldn't separate the art from the creator because to do so removes a lot of the meaning from the work. Its like saying we should never consider why an artist painted what they did and only accept that they did paint it.
That's an interesting point, however what does Ender's Game have to do with homosexuality? Not every facet of the creator is relevant to every artwork he produces. I read Ender's Game in total ignorance of anything whatsoever about the author, and found the book interesting and entertaining regardless. I experience all sorts of visual arts without knowing the context of the artist's production of the work, and they aren't devoid of meaning or value because of that.
Also an interesting point.
However an artists work is the result of the beliefs and ideas that they hold. Like you, I also read Enders Game before I knew much about Orson Scott Card and I still think the book was good. A work cant really be separated from it's artist. The closest thing we have are artists who submit their works anonymously, their work is still the product of their beliefs, ideas and experiences but they simply don't want people to know who made it.
However this is not why I'm boycotting the film. I'm boycotting it because I know of Card's feeling towards the issue of homosexuality and I disagree with them strongly enough that I do not wish to support him in any way. Paying to see Enders Game will ensure that some of my money goes to Card and this I feel betrays my own beliefs that homosexuals should not be treated differently.
True phobias can be treated, they can be managed and they can be cured.
This is another thing that separates homophobia from true phobias like arachnophobia or agoraphobia, part of the treatment for these phobias is exposure to the things they're afraid of. Expose a "homophobic" person to homosexuals and you'll get an argument over why homosexuality wrong, not someone stressing out and trying to run away.
Homophobia is not a phobia, its just being a cunt and there's no cure for being a cunt.
They are afraid homosexuals will destroy their view of marriage based on no evidence. Hence, homophobic.
Plus phobia doesn't mane 'scared' or 'fear' it's a type of anxiety disorder
Homophobia is not an acutal phobia. Having a "concern" over homosexuals with no evidence or logical reasoning is not an anxiety disorder defined under DSM 4.
What you have described is not an actual phobia, rather a cognitive bias, basically being an arse.
True phobias are typically accompanied by involuntary reactions. To use the classical example, agoraphobia or a fear of open spaces. People who have agoraphobia have little to no control over their reactions in situations where they are put under stress. The thing is, someone who is agoraphobic wont have any clue why they are afraid of open spaces, it's not logical, on the contrary it's completely irrational and their actions end up being irrational. Unlike "homophobics", agoraphobics wont have justifications for their fear of open spaces, they wont try to convince the open spaces that they are wrong they will simply get scared and run back to an area of comfort.
"Homophobics" tend to have very accurate reactions and long, rational sounding justifications for their so called "phobia" which is the complete opposite of agoraphobics. This goes doubly for those who feel they have to attack and harm gays because they feel "it's morally degrading and threatens the sanctity of marriage and will destroy society... blah, blah, blah".
So unless a person has an actual panic attack upon seeing a gay person and cant explain why they don't have a real phobia, they're just a cock.
If you see to men kissing does that create an anxiety* ?
Not at all, what other people do is their own business.
I'm not a fan of tuna, I dont like the smell of it. So much to the point where I tend to dry wretch if I get too close to it. Am I a "tunaphobic" and should I campaign to have tuna removed from stores everywhere because of my phobia?
Or is it simply something I don't like and should do the rational thing and just not eat tuna myself.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
Yes, it really is the leaks. The Indonesian security services and government would have known of this all along. Australia and Indonesia have never had the coziest relationship. We've been shooting at each other in Borneo, new Guinea and Timor, which neither side wanted to publicise.
But with the leaks, the Indonesians have to be "shocked, shocked I tell you" for internal political reasons.
And they would have to start cooperating with Australia before they could stop.
Howard fixed relations with the Indonesians back in the 90's. It was fine through Howard, Rudd and Gillard. However Abbott fucked it up on day 1 by threatening Indonesian sovereignty (yes, Australian warships dragging vessels into Indonesian ports or waters without permission is a threat to a nations sovereignty).
You must be one of the fools who swallowed the "stop the boats" rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Thanks to people like you we now have a prime minister with no idea about economics or diplomacy. You failed to realise that the whole "stop the boats" campaign was a ruse to prevent you from thinking about issues that actually do affect Australia. We might fill the MCG with asylum seekers in 30-50 years, however the real threat to Australia will come through Abbott's economic mismanagement costing Australia jobs and investment money by pissing off our trading partners as well as the erosion of workers rights.
Have you even thought about how much Abbott's idiotic plan will cost in terms of raw Australian Dollars? It isn't cheap to keep the navy out there all the time, for what benefit? What is the actual gain to Australia? Fewer evil brown people (most of which weren't settled here under the Labor govt). At the same time Abbott is increasing middle class welfare whilst claiming we'll pay less tax, how does Abbott indeed to pay for it?
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
Not really, the true threat to these talks is Tony Abbott and the Liberal party's rhetoric.
He was elected on a platform of xenophobia ("stop the boats") to disguise the fact his party had no real policies. His first act was to proclaim that he would do whatever he wanted to "stop the boats" which included towing them back to Indonesian ports (later watered down to Indonesian waters) and openly stated that he would do this without the permission of the Indonesian government.
Now who the fuck is surprised the Indonesians have a problem with this?
Espionage with Indonesia has never been an issue in the past. In fact, they're one of our closest neighbors and trade partners. However our "esteemed" new Prime Minister made it his first act to alienate them.
Abbott's rhetoric is what got us into this mess yet he still wont give up. I'm not a religious man but I'm praying for a double dissolution (under the Westminster system, when the houses of parliament reach an impasse similar to that which shut down the US govt, both houses are dissolved and a general election is called).
Firstly, homophobic is a ridiculous word -- inaccurate as hell. You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
You're right, but not for the reason you stated.
Homophobia is a ridiculous word simply because it's not a phobia. It's just someone being an arrogant jerk because of something they dont like.
If you're a straight male (such as me) how does homosexuality or homosexual people actually affect you? Well they dont, if you're straight and dont like gays it's extremely easy to avoid them.
Personally I cant give two shits about whether someone is gay or not, the more sensitive ones have confused this with homophobia but the reality is I couldn't care less and dont see why they need to be treated any differently.
Secondly, it's a shame so many people will reject this movie because the author doesn't share their views or beliefs. Separating art from the creator is all too often a very important skill, that too many people lack.
You're also very wrong here.
I will boycott this movie because I cannot in good conscience support the authors beliefs, even if he's only being a complete jerk I still don't want to be party to that and that is a good enough reason as any to avoid this film.
BTW, you shouldn't separate the art from the creator because to do so removes a lot of the meaning from the work. Its like saying we should never consider why an artist painted what they did and only accept that they did paint it.
You ostensibly have a sports car (a pretty one at that) but the Model S is a sedan and it will still spank your '86 in the 0-60 (3.9s vs 6.0s) and 1/4 mile (12.4s vs 14.7s). It all depends what the machine is optimized for.
Don't race a Model S for pink slips.
Assuming you're talking about the Toyobaru twins.
Whilst incredibly fun to drive, they aren't meant for racing competitively. Other naturally aspirated I4's will beat them off the line and around corners... Of course not for the 86's price (the brilliant part of the 86 is the amount of car you get for the price).
With being challenged to a race, I have one condition, I'll race you between any two points of your choosing, but I'll pick the route back. I'm confident I can outrun a Model S in my old Honda Integra under those conditions.
not really, no. In that amount of time, a lot of cars can do 0-100. New hybrid mclaren will do 0-60 in 2.8, but can't remember what it's 0-100 is, but it does a standing quarter mile in 10.2 seconds at 145mph
So you're saying it's not impressive because it's not as quick as the top-tier, 7-digit-price hypercars?
Tough crowd...
Not sure what the GP is saying but I'll say it's not impressive for it's price bracket. Around US$100,000 will get you a Tesla Model S... Or a Nissan GT-R or a Porsche 911 Carrera. $100K is entry level supercar money. It wont buy you a McLaren, but it will buy you a GT-R and those things are not slouches in any way shape or form.
The Model S isn't really a supercar. Cars half it's price will match it in performance, I'm not saying it's a bad car but I am saying it isn't a performance vehicle in it's price bracket. What separates it from a 911 or GT-R is that it isn't petrol powered.
I believe it, but I bet it would be pretty close. Especially since the Tesla is way more aerodynamic than most saloons. At those speeds air resistance will be a major factor.
Oh no you dont.
Compare like to like.
There are plenty of sports sedans/saloons out there. The Nissan Skyline 350 GT whilst being a 6.8 second car can manage 155 MPH with a 3.7L V6 and get 2-3 hours out of it's tank. Now the Skyline 350GT is an average car where as the Telsa is selling for Porsche 911 Carrera money, or a Nissan GT-R both of which will utterly smoke a Tesla (even in aerodynamics, they are designed to be supercars). Realistically a Subaru Impreza WRX STI or Mitsubishi Lancer EVO will outperform the Model S and outrun it at 130 MPH and they costs under US$40,000 for the top model. The only thing that separates the Model S from its petrol powered contemporaries is that it isn't petrol powered.
A Shell station I used to go to at another job had brand new pumps installed in 2008. These "new" and "improved" pumps would start playing ads the second you took the nozzle off the cradle and started pumping.
Result? I haven't been to that station in 7 years. To hell with intrusive adverts to a captive audience.
Erm, if you haven't been there in 7 years, how do you know they installed new pumps in 2008.
OK, mathematical errors aside, the sad part is that for the average person, they accept ads as a part of daily life and simply put up with them. They're happy to be subjected to the ads for a mere one or two pence of the litre. Worse yet, the majority of these people believe they can filter out advertisements and aren't affected by it. This is utter bollocks and what advertising execs rely on to get people, the minute you no longer realise who is advertising what to you is the minute you become really vulnerable to it. I am affected by ads, I've stopped watching commercial TV because of ads, I install adblock on every browser because of ads precisely because I know I'm being advertised to and simply dont like it.
The average person is far too dumb to believe that ads affect them, so they'll happily accept this technology if it saves them a few pennies. People will line up for 1/2 an hour, idling at a petrol station that has a few cents less than the one down the road that costs a few cents more. $0.04 per litre more is only $2, hard to believe that your time is only worth $4 per hour but still, some people swear black and blue over the savings they get.
In the UK some shops sue their customers if they suspect them of shoplifting. No trial, either pay up, face harassment for the "debt", or go to court and pay to defend yourself. They prefer it to reporting the crime to the police since they don't have to offer conclusive proof, and the police really don't give a fuck about people stealing from Tesco anyway.
Presumably once facial recognition is widely available the major chains will get together and blacklist people completely from most high streets (which only contain chain stores).
And hello deformation law suits as soon as one of these cameras mistakenly identifies Middle Class James Average as common crook Jack Chav.
This is why high street retailers or even tesco wont use them to bar customers. The scarier prospect is that they'll tie your face to your purchases so you'll be bombarded with ads as soon as you enter the store. Getting people to buy store brands (or preferred brands where the store makes maximum profit) is worth more to chain retailers than theft. A hell of a lot more.
Imagine if you will, you're walking into the toilet paper section, pick up a packet of your favourite "softex" brand toilet rolls and all of a sudden, the voice of a middle aged British woman erupts from the trolley:
"Now, now, wouldn't you prefer our brand of toilet paper?"
"I think you should put those back and select a packet of Tesco(TM) sandpaper toilet tissue."
"Oh dont just put those into the trolley and ignore me, didn't your mother ever teach you some manners."
"Such a naught person you are, you wouldn't like your mummy to find out about those lewd magazines you bought last week. You know, the one with that dreadful Katie Price on the cover, such crass material really."
"Yes, put those back, you'll be much happier with our brand"
"You're a good boy now aren't you"
Highway speed limits were introduced to save oil, not to keep people safe. Germany doesn't have speed limits on large stretches of its highways, and much higher speed limits where it does, and yet fewer people get killed per million vehicle miles.
Actually, most of the Autobahn has speed limits from 80 KPH to 130.
What this guy did was clearly reckless, but that's because he was driving at different speeds from the rest of traffic, not because he was going fast.
So what you're trying to say here is that speed limits are in place to keep people safe.
Also, going fast is very often reckless because it exceeds the capabilities of the car or more often, the driver. Very few people are actually capable of handling 100 MPH+ for extended periods of time and most SUV's and econoboxes definitely aren't.
Everything is related to money. Even if you don't believe it's to generate ticket revenue (and that is a bit of a stretch) why does the government care if you speed?
Because it's the government that has to scrape the remains of you and your car off the road.
Because it's the government who cops the blame when the remains of you and your car close down a major highway.
So the government has a vested interest in you not crashing.
No issues for me understanding what they meant with that headline. And I'm not even a native English speaker.
Well, good for you. Maybe it helps that you're not a native English speaker, and are less familiar with the alternate meanings of some words. I happen to have a very good handle on the written word, so maybe that's why I'm overly sensitive to these things.
My point is not that the headline is more likely to be misread than read correctly (although I suspect this particular one might be), but that ambiguity can and should be avoided regardless.
His English is fine, the headlines English is fine. Yours is terrible if you cant understand context, which is central to the English language.
Words in English have multiple meanings and connotation depending on where and how they are used, if you didn't understand what the GP meant by "Learning" and "Reading" then your English is just not up to the task. You seem to be treating English as a language free of ambiguity that only has one definition per word, this is horribly, horribly wrong. Context is important and you're taking words out of context to make a point, this means your point is wrong (because you had to remove context to make it).
Now the headline uses colloquialisms that make perfect sense to anyone who understands western culture, so most people will read it correctly. Now whether colloquialisms should be used in headlines, that's an actually a real and quite valid debate but considering this is Slashdot and fairly informal it doesn't really apply here and it's not the point you're making.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, let me know when you finish that 4 year degree and become a CPA (and how much it cost you). Then tell me how long it takes for you to become intimately familiar with the tax code and then tell me how long you spend keeping up on the changes to the tax code.
Meanwhile I'll continue to spend a whopping $140 per year (which I claim on next years tax return, as well as the petrol I used getting from my home to his office) to have someone who does this for a living do it all for me and spend my time doing something I'd like to.
So you think it's worth a 4 year degree, to save $140 a year... I'm sorry but after that I dont think it's a good idea to take tax advice from you.
BTW: $140 p/a is expensive for a personal tax return in Oz, but this guy is brilliant.
How likely is one to puncture the gas tank though, and how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?
Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric vehicles and have mulled doing a conversion on my quarter-ton pickup, but I don't like the idea of high-centering on a foreign object causing a fire.
The risk of a fire from a ruptured petrol tank is actually quite low.
You need a source of ignition as petrol wont auto ignite until 280 deg C. I live in a place where tarmac is exposed to 40 Degrees C heat and petrol will not ignite if poured onto that.
The key difference is that inside a petrol tank there is no chemical reaction, however inside a Li battery there is. So a rupture to a fuel tank and a rupture to a battery are two very different risks.
I, also am not against the idea of EV's but a battery is no analogous to a fuel tank in terms of risk and should be treated differently by designers because of this. A rupture to a fuel tank is a low risk as your biggest problem with be running out of petrol before the user notices the leak, however a ruptured battery has a more significant risk of ignition.
No. No, I won't save more money than I earn at my job in a month. There's not that much more to save. And I earn a lot. Enough that I've decided not to spend my leisure time becoming a tax accountant - you know, someone whose *job* it is to know taxes. Software doesn't mean shit, it's the person using it *and* their knowledge.
I could also paint my entire house, but I don't feel like doing that either.
I don't regard spending time learning tax regulations as time well spent. And, wrong again... she didn't find the deduction using tax software, but by looking at our returns, how we work, and then interviewing us. You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well.
This, a good tax accountant saves you more than doing it yourself because they know all the loopholes and deductions you can claim without being flagged for an audit.
Apparently you had Sarah Palin as a reading comprehension teacher.
He is comparing the American health care system with the European health care system.
Which is far superior by every measure.
Erm, there is not European health care system. There isn't even an EU health care system.
There are health care systems in countries in Europe, most of which are superior to the US. The US lingers at the bottom of developed countries when it comes to health care, which is surprising as the US tends to spend more on health care than many European nations.
Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).
Second nearest is Tasmania, followed by Indonesia.
As much as we dont like the situation, Tasmania is still part of Australia and technically, not a neighbour.
Ethanol can be a good fuel for internal combustion engines. It burns clean, tolerates high compression ratios without problems and - in contrast to what many sources state - stores well. Its energy content per litre is lower than that of petrol, which in turn has a lower energy content per litre than diesel. This in itself is not a problem but it does lead to higher specific fuel consumption rates and with that more fuel for the petrol lobby.
This is true, for vehicles designed to use Ethanol or flex fuel.
Ethanol has two major problems however,
1. A lot of vehicles have components that degrade when using ethanol, most often hoses and fuel pumps. Even some vehicles as new as 2007/2008 have this issue as designs weren't updated.
2. The US gets it's ethanol from corn. Corn's a pretty bad source and takes away from food production.
Australia gets it's ethanol from waste sugar cane, so dealing with number 2 for the US is political. Number 1 deals with itself in time, mostly. Also in Australia, if you dont want to use E10 you can opt for the higher grades of petrol (RON 95 and 98) which dont contain ethanol but are at least A$0.10 per litre more expensive than E10/RON 91, this is good for people who like to run older performance cars.
lots of people claimed that it didn't really matter because nobody is interested in benchmarks. And now we have this whole article and huge discussions because of benchmark results. Quite interesting.
Any opinions whether benchmarks matter or not are welcome. On the other hand, there was an old joke about a potential customer asking what was the horse power and top speed of a Rolls Royce. Answer: "Enough".
You see, it's quite interesting to us.
But for the other 99% of phone buyers they couldn't care less. Taking your car analogy, there are realistically only two types of people who buy a Subaru Turbo Impreza WRX, those who have poured over the spec's and know exactly how many Horsepowers and Torques it has and the other 99% who just like the loud BROOOM, BROOOM noise it makes. The same is true with phone buyers.
I personally don't trust benchmarks these days, every company is rigging their test phones (and if you think Apple isn't one of the worst, I have a bridge to sell you). I'm more interested to see how the N5 performs in the real world, more specifically how well it performs on Australian mobile networks.
Use iTunes match and just play everything on whatever device you want?
Hold on, I have to go back to a computer that has Itunes on it and is authourised with this phone (usually this is a trip home, unfortunately home is 14,000 KM away at the moment) and then wait for it to load (takes ages because I dont waste money on overpriced Mac's) then wait for it to sync. Finally it chucks an error and wipes my device.
Try just plugging your phone into any computer with a standard USB micro cable, Windows, Linux or Mac and have it just work as a MTP device. You can transfer whatever you like in less time than it take Itunes to load an just have done with.
There are reasons for people buying iPhones despite all this. Chief amongst them is that the average Joe DOES NOT CARE about what the numbers are with synthetic benchmarks, number of pixels on screen, etc. They care about how well a device performance the functions they want it to do. Despite what many in the slashdot crowd may think, things like look and feel, UI consistency, battery life and integration with other devices and services is important.
LoL,
I love it when Slashdot nerds think they know what the average person thinks.
The Parent poster doesn't have a clue about average people, they dont give a shit about UI, battery life, integration serivces or benchmarks.
The only reason a normal (non-fanboy) person buys an Iphone is because their friend Jamie has an Iphone and they want to be part of that crowd. End of story. Iphones have always had terrible battery life in the real world, are difficult for the average person to use (yes, watch one struggle trying to understand the "do it all for you" wifi hotspot) and become completely dumbfounded over the simplest operation before giving up and doing something else. The only reason they bought an Iphone is because they think it will make them cool.
BTW, you shouldn't separate the art from the creator because to do so removes a lot of the meaning from the work. Its like saying we should never consider why an artist painted what they did and only accept that they did paint it.
That's an interesting point, however what does Ender's Game have to do with homosexuality? Not every facet of the creator is relevant to every artwork he produces. I read Ender's Game in total ignorance of anything whatsoever about the author, and found the book interesting and entertaining regardless. I experience all sorts of visual arts without knowing the context of the artist's production of the work, and they aren't devoid of meaning or value because of that.
Also an interesting point.
However an artists work is the result of the beliefs and ideas that they hold. Like you, I also read Enders Game before I knew much about Orson Scott Card and I still think the book was good. A work cant really be separated from it's artist. The closest thing we have are artists who submit their works anonymously, their work is still the product of their beliefs, ideas and experiences but they simply don't want people to know who made it.
However this is not why I'm boycotting the film. I'm boycotting it because I know of Card's feeling towards the issue of homosexuality and I disagree with them strongly enough that I do not wish to support him in any way. Paying to see Enders Game will ensure that some of my money goes to Card and this I feel betrays my own beliefs that homosexuals should not be treated differently.
Further more,
True phobias can be treated, they can be managed and they can be cured.
This is another thing that separates homophobia from true phobias like arachnophobia or agoraphobia, part of the treatment for these phobias is exposure to the things they're afraid of. Expose a "homophobic" person to homosexuals and you'll get an argument over why homosexuality wrong, not someone stressing out and trying to run away.
Homophobia is not a phobia, its just being a cunt and there's no cure for being a cunt.
They are afraid homosexuals will destroy their view of marriage based on no evidence. Hence, homophobic.
Plus phobia doesn't mane 'scared' or 'fear' it's a type of anxiety disorder
Homophobia is not an acutal phobia. Having a "concern" over homosexuals with no evidence or logical reasoning is not an anxiety disorder defined under DSM 4.
What you have described is not an actual phobia, rather a cognitive bias, basically being an arse.
True phobias are typically accompanied by involuntary reactions. To use the classical example, agoraphobia or a fear of open spaces. People who have agoraphobia have little to no control over their reactions in situations where they are put under stress. The thing is, someone who is agoraphobic wont have any clue why they are afraid of open spaces, it's not logical, on the contrary it's completely irrational and their actions end up being irrational. Unlike "homophobics", agoraphobics wont have justifications for their fear of open spaces, they wont try to convince the open spaces that they are wrong they will simply get scared and run back to an area of comfort. "Homophobics" tend to have very accurate reactions and long, rational sounding justifications for their so called "phobia" which is the complete opposite of agoraphobics. This goes doubly for those who feel they have to attack and harm gays because they feel "it's morally degrading and threatens the sanctity of marriage and will destroy society... blah, blah, blah".
So unless a person has an actual panic attack upon seeing a gay person and cant explain why they don't have a real phobia, they're just a cock.
If you see to men kissing does that create an anxiety* ?
Not at all, what other people do is their own business.
I'm not a fan of tuna, I dont like the smell of it. So much to the point where I tend to dry wretch if I get too close to it. Am I a "tunaphobic" and should I campaign to have tuna removed from stores everywhere because of my phobia? Or is it simply something I don't like and should do the rational thing and just not eat tuna myself.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
Yes, it really is the leaks. The Indonesian security services and government would have known of this all along. Australia and Indonesia have never had the coziest relationship. We've been shooting at each other in Borneo, new Guinea and Timor, which neither side wanted to publicise.
But with the leaks, the Indonesians have to be "shocked, shocked I tell you" for internal political reasons.
And they would have to start cooperating with Australia before they could stop.
Howard fixed relations with the Indonesians back in the 90's. It was fine through Howard, Rudd and Gillard. However Abbott fucked it up on day 1 by threatening Indonesian sovereignty (yes, Australian warships dragging vessels into Indonesian ports or waters without permission is a threat to a nations sovereignty).
You must be one of the fools who swallowed the "stop the boats" rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Thanks to people like you we now have a prime minister with no idea about economics or diplomacy. You failed to realise that the whole "stop the boats" campaign was a ruse to prevent you from thinking about issues that actually do affect Australia. We might fill the MCG with asylum seekers in 30-50 years, however the real threat to Australia will come through Abbott's economic mismanagement costing Australia jobs and investment money by pissing off our trading partners as well as the erosion of workers rights.
Have you even thought about how much Abbott's idiotic plan will cost in terms of raw Australian Dollars? It isn't cheap to keep the navy out there all the time, for what benefit? What is the actual gain to Australia? Fewer evil brown people (most of which weren't settled here under the Labor govt). At the same time Abbott is increasing middle class welfare whilst claiming we'll pay less tax, how does Abbott indeed to pay for it?
Forget the boats, we need to stop the Libs.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
Not really, the true threat to these talks is Tony Abbott and the Liberal party's rhetoric.
He was elected on a platform of xenophobia ("stop the boats") to disguise the fact his party had no real policies. His first act was to proclaim that he would do whatever he wanted to "stop the boats" which included towing them back to Indonesian ports (later watered down to Indonesian waters) and openly stated that he would do this without the permission of the Indonesian government.
Now who the fuck is surprised the Indonesians have a problem with this?
Espionage with Indonesia has never been an issue in the past. In fact, they're one of our closest neighbors and trade partners. However our "esteemed" new Prime Minister made it his first act to alienate them.
Abbott's rhetoric is what got us into this mess yet he still wont give up. I'm not a religious man but I'm praying for a double dissolution (under the Westminster system, when the houses of parliament reach an impasse similar to that which shut down the US govt, both houses are dissolved and a general election is called).
Firstly, homophobic is a ridiculous word -- inaccurate as hell. You can be against homosexuality (generally due to religious beliefs) and not have a phobia about it.
You're right, but not for the reason you stated.
Homophobia is a ridiculous word simply because it's not a phobia. It's just someone being an arrogant jerk because of something they dont like.
If you're a straight male (such as me) how does homosexuality or homosexual people actually affect you? Well they dont, if you're straight and dont like gays it's extremely easy to avoid them.
Personally I cant give two shits about whether someone is gay or not, the more sensitive ones have confused this with homophobia but the reality is I couldn't care less and dont see why they need to be treated any differently.
Secondly, it's a shame so many people will reject this movie because the author doesn't share their views or beliefs. Separating art from the creator is all too often a very important skill, that too many people lack.
You're also very wrong here.
I will boycott this movie because I cannot in good conscience support the authors beliefs, even if he's only being a complete jerk I still don't want to be party to that and that is a good enough reason as any to avoid this film.
BTW, you shouldn't separate the art from the creator because to do so removes a lot of the meaning from the work. Its like saying we should never consider why an artist painted what they did and only accept that they did paint it.
My car can do 140 mph with only 200 horse power.
You ostensibly have a sports car (a pretty one at that) but the Model S is a sedan and it will still spank your '86 in the 0-60 (3.9s vs 6.0s) and 1/4 mile (12.4s vs 14.7s). It all depends what the machine is optimized for.
Don't race a Model S for pink slips.
Assuming you're talking about the Toyobaru twins.
Whilst incredibly fun to drive, they aren't meant for racing competitively. Other naturally aspirated I4's will beat them off the line and around corners... Of course not for the 86's price (the brilliant part of the 86 is the amount of car you get for the price).
With being challenged to a race, I have one condition, I'll race you between any two points of your choosing, but I'll pick the route back. I'm confident I can outrun a Model S in my old Honda Integra under those conditions.
not really, no. In that amount of time, a lot of cars can do 0-100. New hybrid mclaren will do 0-60 in 2.8, but can't remember what it's 0-100 is, but it does a standing quarter mile in 10.2 seconds at 145mph
So you're saying it's not impressive because it's not as quick as the top-tier, 7-digit-price hypercars?
Tough crowd...
Not sure what the GP is saying but I'll say it's not impressive for it's price bracket. Around US$100,000 will get you a Tesla Model S... Or a Nissan GT-R or a Porsche 911 Carrera. $100K is entry level supercar money. It wont buy you a McLaren, but it will buy you a GT-R and those things are not slouches in any way shape or form.
The Model S isn't really a supercar. Cars half it's price will match it in performance, I'm not saying it's a bad car but I am saying it isn't a performance vehicle in it's price bracket. What separates it from a 911 or GT-R is that it isn't petrol powered.
Citation?
I believe it, but I bet it would be pretty close. Especially since the Tesla is way more aerodynamic than most saloons. At those speeds air resistance will be a major factor.
Oh no you dont.
Compare like to like.
There are plenty of sports sedans/saloons out there. The Nissan Skyline 350 GT whilst being a 6.8 second car can manage 155 MPH with a 3.7L V6 and get 2-3 hours out of it's tank. Now the Skyline 350GT is an average car where as the Telsa is selling for Porsche 911 Carrera money, or a Nissan GT-R both of which will utterly smoke a Tesla (even in aerodynamics, they are designed to be supercars). Realistically a Subaru Impreza WRX STI or Mitsubishi Lancer EVO will outperform the Model S and outrun it at 130 MPH and they costs under US$40,000 for the top model. The only thing that separates the Model S from its petrol powered contemporaries is that it isn't petrol powered.
A Shell station I used to go to at another job had brand new pumps installed in 2008. These "new" and "improved" pumps would start playing ads the second you took the nozzle off the cradle and started pumping.
Result? I haven't been to that station in 7 years. To hell with intrusive adverts to a captive audience.
Erm, if you haven't been there in 7 years, how do you know they installed new pumps in 2008.
OK, mathematical errors aside, the sad part is that for the average person, they accept ads as a part of daily life and simply put up with them. They're happy to be subjected to the ads for a mere one or two pence of the litre. Worse yet, the majority of these people believe they can filter out advertisements and aren't affected by it. This is utter bollocks and what advertising execs rely on to get people, the minute you no longer realise who is advertising what to you is the minute you become really vulnerable to it. I am affected by ads, I've stopped watching commercial TV because of ads, I install adblock on every browser because of ads precisely because I know I'm being advertised to and simply dont like it.
The average person is far too dumb to believe that ads affect them, so they'll happily accept this technology if it saves them a few pennies. People will line up for 1/2 an hour, idling at a petrol station that has a few cents less than the one down the road that costs a few cents more. $0.04 per litre more is only $2, hard to believe that your time is only worth $4 per hour but still, some people swear black and blue over the savings they get.
In the UK some shops sue their customers if they suspect them of shoplifting. No trial, either pay up, face harassment for the "debt", or go to court and pay to defend yourself. They prefer it to reporting the crime to the police since they don't have to offer conclusive proof, and the police really don't give a fuck about people stealing from Tesco anyway.
Presumably once facial recognition is widely available the major chains will get together and blacklist people completely from most high streets (which only contain chain stores).
And hello deformation law suits as soon as one of these cameras mistakenly identifies Middle Class James Average as common crook Jack Chav.
This is why high street retailers or even tesco wont use them to bar customers. The scarier prospect is that they'll tie your face to your purchases so you'll be bombarded with ads as soon as you enter the store. Getting people to buy store brands (or preferred brands where the store makes maximum profit) is worth more to chain retailers than theft. A hell of a lot more.
Imagine if you will, you're walking into the toilet paper section, pick up a packet of your favourite "softex" brand toilet rolls and all of a sudden, the voice of a middle aged British woman erupts from the trolley:
"Now, now, wouldn't you prefer our brand of toilet paper?"
"I think you should put those back and select a packet of Tesco(TM) sandpaper toilet tissue."
"Oh dont just put those into the trolley and ignore me, didn't your mother ever teach you some manners."
"Such a naught person you are, you wouldn't like your mummy to find out about those lewd magazines you bought last week. You know, the one with that dreadful Katie Price on the cover, such crass material really."
"Yes, put those back, you'll be much happier with our brand"
"You're a good boy now aren't you"
Someone showing up looking like Queen Mother? At a Hot Topic? Let me go mircowave some pop corn first.
They'd immediately start advertising FUBU and Tommy Hilfiger because that's the kind of crap someone who acts like a twat buys.
Highway speed limits were introduced to save oil, not to keep people safe. Germany doesn't have speed limits on large stretches of its highways, and much higher speed limits where it does, and yet fewer people get killed per million vehicle miles.
Actually, most of the Autobahn has speed limits from 80 KPH to 130.
What this guy did was clearly reckless, but that's because he was driving at different speeds from the rest of traffic, not because he was going fast.
So what you're trying to say here is that speed limits are in place to keep people safe.
Also, going fast is very often reckless because it exceeds the capabilities of the car or more often, the driver. Very few people are actually capable of handling 100 MPH+ for extended periods of time and most SUV's and econoboxes definitely aren't.
Everything is related to money. Even if you don't believe it's to generate ticket revenue (and that is a bit of a stretch) why does the government care if you speed?
Because it's the government that has to scrape the remains of you and your car off the road.
Because it's the government who cops the blame when the remains of you and your car close down a major highway.
So the government has a vested interest in you not crashing.
No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.
Wrong.
Speed limits are there try to get everyone doing the same speed. Speed differential increases the likelihood of crashes significantly.
This is why there are significantly less fatalities in counties were limits are properly enforced and not treated as a joke as they are in the US.
Learning (v.? n.?) reading (v.? n.?) comprehension helps too.
Gah!
No issues for me understanding what they meant with that headline. And I'm not even a native English speaker.
Well, good for you. Maybe it helps that you're not a native English speaker, and are less familiar with the alternate meanings of some words. I happen to have a very good handle on the written word, so maybe that's why I'm overly sensitive to these things.
My point is not that the headline is more likely to be misread than read correctly (although I suspect this particular one might be), but that ambiguity can and should be avoided regardless.
His English is fine, the headlines English is fine. Yours is terrible if you cant understand context, which is central to the English language.
Words in English have multiple meanings and connotation depending on where and how they are used, if you didn't understand what the GP meant by "Learning" and "Reading" then your English is just not up to the task. You seem to be treating English as a language free of ambiguity that only has one definition per word, this is horribly, horribly wrong. Context is important and you're taking words out of context to make a point, this means your point is wrong (because you had to remove context to make it).
Now the headline uses colloquialisms that make perfect sense to anyone who understands western culture, so most people will read it correctly. Now whether colloquialisms should be used in headlines, that's an actually a real and quite valid debate but considering this is Slashdot and fairly informal it doesn't really apply here and it's not the point you're making.