Voting is tougher. In the early days of the USA, only a small minority could vote. You had to be white, male, and you had to own land at a time when most people didn't. Obviously the requirement that voters be white was plain racism, though at the time the same racism meant only whites would be educated. The exclusion of women meant that what we now call "big government" proposals had less support automatically (this has been proven and I don't care how anyone feels about facts - women tend to look for security from an external source and the government is only too happy to offer it). The exclusion of anyone who didn't own land tended to mean the voters were educated and prosperous enough that they could devote time to being active in politics.
Are you advocating that we return to some version of our initial voting rights? It is hard to tell from your statement. Are you suggesting that we take voting rights away from women? You make a reference to facts. Yet, you make no effort to provide these facts nor the evidence that supports them. That makes your analysis of these supposed facts a bit suspect. As for the landowner limitation, well..., that no longer guarantees education, nor prosperity, nor lots of free time.
What I'd like to see is some kind of very tough civics test as a requirement for voting. It should be as openly and transparently administered as possible, so that anyone who wants to study and learn could pass it but very few who didn't care to study would stand a chance. In addition, anyone currently receiving some form of "entitlement" should not get to vote because what they're going to vote for is not difficult to guess and this situation is too exploitable and too dangerous for our long-term survival. The last thing I would change is that all campaigns be publically funded, each candidate gets a very generous amount, and any other "contributions" are treasonous bribery resulting in a death penalty for the candidate and 20 years in prison for the one "contributing" the money.
I seriously doubt that you could develop such a test. If it is simple enough that anyone could pass if they study, it will make little difference with regards to the actual election process. Most voters will still lack the education to understand the complexities of our economy. Even professional economists disagree about various aspects.
I am not sure what to say about your "entitlement" statement. It occurs to me that this would include the vast majority of retired people who are taking Social Security and possibly Medicare. This means, at some point, this would include you -- unless, of course, you intend to refuse to accept your Social Security benefits.
Now, the publicly funded campaign idea is one I could get behind wholeheartedly. Of, course, we could quibble over the exact amount that candidates would receive but that is a side issue. I completely agree that outside contributions should be treated as a severe breach of our system and treated accordingly. In addition, I think all spending by the candidates must be accounted for. That will ensure that they do not spend more than the government allotment. Now, some thought must go into how or if this would apply to party primaries. Thoughts anyone?
With something like that, we could have a nation again.
You just need to use a shim like Parallels or Fusion, then add some other drivers like Windows 7.
Not much of a problem...
I see. So in order to use IE9 on my MacBook Pro, I need to spend $79.99 for Parallels and $119.99 for Windows 7. Whereas, I can use Safari, Firefox and Chrome for free. Hmmm....
Why Developers Still Prefer iOS To Android
Is there something inherently better with iOS development?
Yes. iOS has an integrated development environment including debugging tools that allow on the fly changes to the code while debugging.
I am not sure what you mean by integrated. Integrated with what? Android has a sophisticated development environment which includes a debugger that allows on the fly changes to the code while debugging. So, no advantage there to iOS.
Is the API better written?
Yes. The iOS API is more feature rich and provides things like low latency audio.
The claim is that the iOS API is more feature rich and we are given one -- just one -- example. Yes, it is true. iOS supports better low latency audio. In return, the Android API provides a MUCH richer background task capability. It also provides a tighter integration with various Google services such as Google Maps.
Is there some technological inferiority to Android? Is it cheaper to buy the development tools for iOS?
Yes, as mentioned above, there is no low latency audio support and the interface has a normal priority instead of high priority which is one of the major reasons why the UI on android phones feels sluggish at times.
Android did not even have a native SDK until recently and you were forced to write everything against the Dalvik JVM.
Well, lets see. The Android SDK was originally released in February of 2009, which coincided with their release of Android version 1.1. I guess it depends on your definition of "recently". The SDK, which is FREE, also comes with a FREE plugin for Eclipse. Eclipse is also a FREE, open source IDE. So, basically, you can have a feature rich Android development environment for FREE! The priority of the interface on Android is up to the developer.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
