Netbooks are not even in the same league. They are too anemic to run desktop software properly and are only really useful for face booking and web email.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "netbook". I bought a ThinkPad x120e and its form factor is pretty much the same as a netbook, but it is powerful enough to replace a standard business-class laptop from a computing perspective.

I've pretty much stopped using my ThinkPad T500 as the x120e has handled everything that I've thrown at it... of course, upgrading the memory to 8 GB and the hard drive to 750 GB helped quite a bit *grin*.

As for real tablets: I bought a Kindle Fire, but I don't use if for anything other than reading books and streaming video, so I can't really attest to its usability as a general-purpose computing device.

If I were traveling, I'd carry both. The weight penalty of the Kindle Fire is minimal, and between it and the x120e all of my needs would be satisfied.

Regards,

dj

I didn't get any money from the Fed

Bullshit. Since all money in the US comes from the Fed, in one way, shape or form, yes, you did.

Yeah, but, you missed a few things, and since you're "cherry-picking", well, I think I can, too :)

Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, unless it's explicity stated, the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction. So, have fun refuting that! :)

Regards,

dj

Firearms do not belong on planes, and a good club can maim someone just as well.

So, you're proposing disarming every air marshal as well and giving them a club?

You're an idiot.

Seriously. Why don't you stop posting here until you learn how to think?

Regards,

dj

3) They are not adding 2000 new accounts, they are adding 2000 new devices to connect to the accounts.

If the 2000 accounts existed and different devices are now connecting to them then there is something fundamentally wrong with the software

That doesn't make any sense at all. I read it, re-read it and I still don't understand what you wrote. How could there be something wrong with the software just because 2000 new devices are connecting to 2000 existing accounts?

Take a typical situation in a corporation: An employee gets a new laptop. Congratulations! That's one new device connecting to one existing account. Now, scale that up through a computer refresh cycle at a large corporation... say 200 new computers each quarter. Hey that's 800 new devices per year connecting to existing accounts!

Then add in smartphones, and, as in this case, iPads.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make?

Regards,

dj

how much OT is from lack of staff?

As some times people end doing the work load of 2-3 people?

That's just another sign of ineffectual management or broken corporate culture. If you're working for a company that makes you work overtime so that you can do the work of 2-3 people, then you're being abused.

Regards,

dj

Aw, how cute! A self-professed hobbyist programmer with a UID in the nosebleed section deigns to lecture the rest of Slashdot, assuming that his life is exactly what everyone else here aspires to.

Congress hasn't declared war on either. In fact, the last formal declaration of war made by Congress was World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

I'm fairly certain that it doesn't matter either way to all of the people that have died, nor to their families and loved ones.

Regards,

dj

It's the principle of the matter.

And what principle would that be, exactly? By your own admission you don't even pay for the service, which gives you no say at all. In addition, your roommate apparently signed up without a contract establishing any terms of service at all - that makes him an idiot, and you even more so for thinking that you are entitled to complain.

No where that I am aware of did he actually agree to terms and conditions stating that his service would be throttled under X conditions, nor to what extent

Which would make sense, considering the fact that he didn't agree to any terms at all.

Did you even bother to read what you wrote before posting it? It proves the parent's point: You ARE an entitlement nag.

I should warn you that I'm also one of those _absolute_ sociopaths that finds the lack of truth in advertising seen to be appalling

I'm not sure why you'd feel the need to warn us, it's not likely that anyone here really cares, not even if your sociopathic tendencies were to turn to violence. After all, what are you going to do, kill us over the Internet with the sheer force of your moral outrage? If you were to go postal in the real world, odds are the people that you killed wouldn't be any of us. I do, however, pity your roommate...

To quote the late Warren Oates in his role as Sergeant Hulka: "Lighten up, Francis".

Regards

dj

We already have a forth branch. It is small, and not only economical, it actually generates its own revenue, and not through confiscatory taxation. It is the Federal Reserve.

Too bad they only get to vote on interest rates.

Tell me you're joking? The Federal Reserve only generates money in the sense that it earns interest on money that it creates from nothing and then loans out.

Here's a link to a post that sums it up nicely: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message592721/pg1

You can't actually get this from the Federal Reserve's Web site any longer, although years ago there was a section that dealt with fiat money and the economy which made it clear that the Federal Reserve made money from nothing. I haven't looked, but you might find it on the Wayback Machine.

Regards,

dj

Interesting concept

Thanks! There's two clarifications that I'd like to make:

"Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money." should be "Doing this ensures that all candidates have the same amount of money." I had originally thought to permit candidates to use their own money in addition, which would have resulted in the "basically the same" part... but I think that any candidate wishing to donate should do so under the same terms as anyone else.

The other clarification:

"Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord" is better stated "Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them monetarily to play fair of their own accord", which was implied but is better stated explicitly.

Regards,

dj

There's another alternative, at least at the Federal level: Mandate an election contribution system that evens the playing field for all candidates by making all contributions a part of a common pool for each elected position.

Donations would earmarked when made: "Federal Senator #1 From California", "3rd District Representative From Ohio #3", etc.

There would be a fixed time period for donations, and once the donation period ended, no more donations could be made and all of the money donated at that point would be evenly divided between all candidates that meet the electoral requirements for that position.

Doing this ensures that all candidates have basically the same amount of money.

In addition, all donations would be non-tax exempt for Federal taxation purposes, whether they came from corporations or from individuals.

Then, require that all candidates only use their share of the money from the pool for that election. Any attempts to side-step this on the part of a candidate or his/her supporters would be illegal, and if discovered would result in automatic disqualification from that election, even after the fact, and if the candidate won the election, the results would be voided and the person that came in second would take the office.

This is the only way I can see to reform campaign donations, by building checks such as these into the process itself.

And for those that would say that this isn't fair? It's eminently fair from a monetary perspective, and the candidates would then be forced to actually run on the strengths of their campaign platforms and wouldn't be able to easily "drown out" others. In addition, it helps to somewhat remove the "campaign donation as bribe" aspect that exists in the campaign donation system today.

Sadly, it's obvious that we can't trust politicians and those that support them to play fair of their own accord, and so I think that we have to resort to draconian measures such as these to force them to do so.

Regards,

dj

significant factions within our nation that take up the fight to deny us our rights, as enumerated in our Constitution

The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the states or the citizenry, it enumerates the rights of the Federal government.

The 9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Honestly, I don't know where people get the idea that the Constitution grants citizens rights - it does not. It recognizes a few of them, explicitly, and also explicitly states that those recognized are not all that there may be.

Regards,

dj br

does the constitution define the maximum powers the government has, the minimum powers it has, or exactly the powers it has?

Sure it does. The minimum and maximum powers are those enumerated in the Constitution and its Amendments, and those are exactly the powers it has. Nothing more, nothing less. There's a reason that the 10th Amendment was included, you know.

Regards,

dj

It does enumerate a number of specific powers, but adds "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" which allows for much latitude to what is allowed to do.

What you seem to be missing is that there is an amendment that specifically states that if the power isn't granted in the Constitution then the Federal Government does not have it, and that it then passes to the states or to the people

The 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, while I agree that the Federal Government has latitude in passing laws for those things over which it has authority, it has none at all over those over which it does not.

The Constitution isn't supposed to be cherry-picked: It's a comprehensive document that is supposed to be taken as a whole to determine what the limits of Federal power are.

And if you actually read the Constitution and its Amendments, you'll be surprised to discover how few rights the Federal Government has really been granted.

Regards,

dj br