I have done a poor job of communicating, because that is not what I meant to claim at all. The British Navy was pretty much supreme for a long time. WWI marked the rise of the American navy and sparked (or accelerated) a battleship arms race that the Brits could ill afford to keep pace with, nor lose. The American population mostly wanted nothing to do with it, either - thus the arms control treaties.

Using the word "ally" here insinuates that the British-US relationship was as close as it is today. In fact, the WWI relationship was not nearly as cozy. The US provided the UK with massive amounts of war material, but at great cost. It's not absurd to say that a century or so of accrued wealth flowed from London to NYC. As a result of the UK's near-suffocation at the hands of German U-boats, they developed a healthy new respect for having a top-notch navy. Their problem was that the now very wealthy US also learned how important a top-notch navy was, and proceeded to get into an arms race with their ally. There was a very real fear that the new power would necessarily get into a conflict with the old power - kind of the same fears you hear about Sino-US relations today, though the analogy is not perfect. This tension was diffused quite a bit by the Washington Naval Treaty and follow-on treaties, but hopefully this illustrates that the relationship was not the same as it is today.

I've used it with CallCentric. It works, but as others have stated it really sucks down your battery life. Instead I now just have an Obi device plugged into regular cordless phones, and I have the unit ring my cell and work desk phone as well. The result is that I get away with using T-Mobile's $30/mo prepay plan that only includes 100 minutes, but has 5GB high speed/ unlimited Edge and unlimited texts.

I got both of my kids vaccinated, because I'm not an ignorant asshole.

Yes, I agree.

The problem is that most of those "severe vaccine reactions" are hard to prove. They are so infrequent that they could statistically have happened by chance after a person was vaccinated. Are you aware of one where my statement isn't true? I don't want to be coming from a position of ignorance.

Completely agree. For a brief time, Chrome had vertical tabs built-in as a beta feature. They killed it, and so too they killed my use of Chrome.

Right, but it is extremely unlikely to come up if everyone is vaccinated - thus my claim that a societal solution is needed.

I don't think it should be mandatory, either. But I think that employers should be able to discriminate based on vaccination status. I think that, when there is an outbreak of the disease, non-vaccinated children should not be allowed in school.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it should just be recognized that, on balance, public health efforts such as the measles vaccination program are a big part of why your life expectancy is 80 and not 45.

You guys in Seattle, whether you know it or not, are actually known for your incredibly poor broadband options.

There is one more element to consider: measles is easily wiped out with a universal vaccine program. I have never heard anyone seriously claim that the flu could be wiped out with existing technology. In my opinion, there is a moral distinction between someone who, by their inaction, thwarts the eradication of a disease and someone who simply makes the pragmatic choice of going to work with a flu/cold because of societal pressures.

But in any event, epidemic disease cannot be fought within the framework of individuals. It has to be a collective effort, so libertarian arguments are mostly academic. By the time Disney responded to negative publicity and whatnot, the disease had already spread. The Libertarian argument that the financial incentive not to kill customers will save the day is not very convincing - Disneyland could close today and the disease has already spread... their future behavior is largely irrelevant. Other businesses cannot simply become scared and require vaccines because other financial concerns (of being sued, etc.) pull in the other direction.

I was at work when I typed that or I would have run a test. I just ran the Ookla test and got 23 down / 6 up. Technically I pay something like $53 for the internet, but that includes a $10 discount for having cable, which costs about $10 for limited basic. Without cable, it would be $63 - so I get it for "free" I guess. Taxes and fees and a $2 box rental bring me up to $69.95.

Really, really pricey - but it's good to have a monopoly.

I pay around $70 for Comcast, after all of the taxes and whatnot, for "Performance Internet" only. As far as I can tell, that's 25Mbps down and they don't advertise the up but it is nowhere near symmetric. I think you have a slightly better (though still crappy) deal.

Whatever the battery life, the idea of a $60 computer that can run full-blown windows still kind of blows my mind. I remember when my co-workers and I would come back from Asia with Librettos because we thought they were so mind-blowingly small. :)

Is that the iView? My understanding is that there is a battery life penalty. 2/3 to 1/2 that of a comparable ARM system.

Most of MS's initial attempts are "worthless abortions". I was hoping that they would stick with it in the boneheaded way that they always do to provide another competitive option. You see iOS and Android borrow from MS and from each other. I mourn the loss of competition, not the product itself.

And no, I don't consider the full-blown Surface to be real competition for most Android tablets. It's in the price range of the iPads, but has half the battery life. You have to actually need Windows in order for it to be an attractive option. Interface design is subjective, but the necessity to flip between tablet-land and the traditional desktop seriously hurts usability IMHO. Both Android and iOS are simpler.