Just pop up a little lead umbrella so there's a shady spot.

Uh-huh. Right.

You know what would be even better news for US tech hardware exporters?

If they didn't have a huge boat anchor attached in the form of NSA built-in backdoors and vulnerabilities.

Really, if you're a foreign corporation that competes in any way with US corporations/interests/research, or any government/organization/individual that US TLAs could possibly even tangentially term "of interest", would you buy stuff from US makers/manufacturers despite what's been revealed publicly over the last 20 years to present concerning US TLA activity within the US tech manufacturing/exporting industries?

Particularly in light of the recent revelations of so many unlawful and/or unconstitutional programs and activities engaged in by US intelligence organizations courtesy of the courageous whistle-blower Edward Snowden, which keep revealing new programs that violate constitutional principles and prohibitions with every new dump from the trove.

US tech companies have to overcome all that (quite understandable and logical) mistrust (good luck!), and *then* compete against other corporations that don't have that perceived millstone around their necks.

This will not turn out well for the US tech industries that need/rely on exporting their goods, and with cheap imports flowing into the US, even those who were national/regional in nature will find themselves priced out of the market.

1. Mining/Drilling - Offshored

2. Steel mfg - Offshored

3. Heavy Industries/Factories - Offshored

4. Artificial politically-motivated limits on energy production and artificially-created increases in cost.

5. ...?

I'm not liking the direction this is trending.

If it roughly parallels past similar historical scenarios, it doesn't end well for anyone in the US (well, except those 'too big to starve'), neither Left nor Right, nor atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever "ism" or party you favor.

Strat

Tegra 3 in the Ouya is still faster than a Raspberry Pi 2. (RPi2 is faster than a Tegra 2 though)

My hope was they would release an update of Ouya with the Tegra K1. But that never happened. The SHIELD console has a Tegra X1, but the base unit costs twice what Ouya did, so it's a bit hard to justify the purchase. It's certainly more than twice the performance, but is it twice the fun?

I've had my Ouya for a little over 2 years, and it's probably the longest amount of fun I've gotten out of $100 in a long time. Even if it ended today, which it won't, I will still have been happy with my purchase.

Let me guess, that's a vague, hand-waving reference to the states that are disinclined to take on the new medicare mandates? Yeah, maybe they weren't charmed by the bald-faced lies that Obama told about that piece of legislation and his counter-constitutional, politically-driven, capricious execution of it? I know, how could anyone not like it, right? After all, if we want to keep our doctors and our previous insurance, we can, period. And our rates are going to go down an average of $2500 per family, right? Yeah. Lies. Exactly the sort of state-in-the-camera-and-lie stuff that DOES make people blame the government for mishandling their trust, their money, and their well being.

Because when you buy a television and are forced to pay a tax that finances, under penalty of winding up in court, someone else's programming choices ... that's different than buying a television and NOT being subject to that tax. How is this not clear?

Ads cut into corporate profits, they are an investment, when they pay off with more sales, they are a good investment. When everyone blocks the ads, then they are simply a drain on profits and ought to be eliminated or fixed. Companies are not likely to blindly pay for ads if they are projected to lose them money.

If you think not watching ads will make everything cheaper, that seems unlikely. But if you think not watching ads will get businesses to think of different ways to promote products and stop interrupting your day with their bullshit, that seems more feasible.

Other than the part where it's the government that runs the court system that enforces your having been forced to give the BBC money whether you want to patronize them or not.

What? It can't even work without the direct involvement in the government running the courts that are necessary for the BBC to collect their unavoidable TV tax.

Here's a way that the government could be even less involved: don't DO that. Let people who want to show programs to a large audience find their own way to fund the production and dissemination of that material. Say, by selling ads or attracting sponsors, etc. Remove the court system and penalties under law for not wanting to fund everything that's broadcast from the equation entirely. Why should someone who doesn't want to fund a given program be forced to, under penalty of being dragged through court? I have zero interest in watching our many all-sports programming options (ESPN, etc). You think the "best system we have" is for the government to be the enforcer in an arrangement where I'm forced to give them money anyway?

Ah, so in Britain the government isn't involved in tax collection and enforcement. They don't do the collecting, they don't penalize people who don't pay, and they don't get involved in picking and choosing who receives those funds, or have any say, whatsoever, over how that money is allocated. That is an interesting system indeed! Who handles all of that, if not the government?

Have you actually watched Italian television?

Wouldn't it just be easier to get the British government out of the news and entertainment businesses?

It's Nintendo. Post your friend code in the comment section below and they'll send you a link in the mail.

Nice ad hominem. Last resort and all that, eh? Too bad you seem incapable of countering the concepts presented in any meaningful way.

The analytical & intellectual content of your post speaks for itself. I need not reply further.

Good day, sir!

Strat

Just...wow.

Over the top, much?

You need a lot less caffeine or some psychiatric help. Maybe both.

If there had been responsible people with guns at these mass shootings a lot of lives could have been saved.

There's one common thread in these murders. The overwhelming majority occurred in a "gun free zone" but hoplophobes refuse to acknowledge or address the fact that cowardly murderers prefer defenseless victims.

Which is what anti-gun zealots create through their fear, shortsightedness, and political/ideological agendas: Helpless victims for murdering cowards.

It's people that ignore reality and push to disarm law abiding citizens and prevent them from protecting themselves, their families, and others that create helpless victims. They share a large burden of guilt for these atrocities.

Good day, sir!