That is a fundamental disagreement you have then with those who founded our country and wrote the Constitution. This document carefully enumerates these fundamental human rights and constrains government from taking them away.
If those rights are "unalienable", then government can't take them away. But as we've seen, government can take them away. Hence, they aren't unalienable. It doesn't matter what certain founders of the Constitution believe, empirical evidence contradicts the assertion.
(....If you want those "inalienable" rights, then you need to work for them...)
How exactly do you propose to do that?
By exercising your rights.
What if what you think your rights are, conflict with those of what your neighbor thinks they ought to be? Since we live in a democratic society, are the ideas of your neighbors automatically correct ones, as far as what rights are concerned, if they are the majority? Does might make right? If not, why?
The Constitution handles those relatively well. Why should I reinvent the wheel here?
Put these same kids on an existing program that is a year late and already has a team of 20 programmers working on it. Get back to me in 6 months telling me just how fine things are.
It's more than that. Apple doesn't market to people who want to buy the cheapest possible computer at Wal-mart either. Both their products and marketing are squarely aimed at people who are willing to spend a bit more to get something that works a bit better. If you're an individual to whom price is the primary criterion, you're not really a potential Apple customer. If you're a business that's big enough to have an IT department to set everything up, maintain everything, and train the users, you're probably not going to care much about Apple's value adds and you're going to go for the cheap commodity computers. If you're a small business without an IT department, you're likely more interested in what Apple brings to the table.
Your point is interesting - the major market might be shifting more towards people who need systems that are easier to set up, use and maintain. Microsoft seems to be putting more effort into that market segment, but Apple has a head start on targeting those people.
The truth is, Apple is a marketing based company even more than Microsoft is. That's not an insult at all (I happen to think marketing and sales are as important as the tech itself).
The truth is, that's what steve jobs said when he, woz, and the other guy founded apple.
Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.
So, Facebook will immediately replicate the ability for external sites to both aggregate updates and supply them using open protocols that Buzz has now?
Buzz's approach is an anti-walled-garden approach that goes directly against Facebook's entire approach to business. To replicate Buzz's attractive features, Facebook would have to fundamentally change its entire approach. Which would be a win for Google of a different type.
You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.
Or, better, if you aren't happy, stop giving them your eyeballs, which is the product they sell to their customers, who are their advertisers.
Just because a service is free of monetary charge doesn't mean you aren't giving the provider of the service something that is of value to them in order to use it.
The whole "its free, so you can't expect anything" argument is fundamentally flawed; things that are free of charge aren't free of cost (particularly, the opportunity cost of choosing to use it instead of doing something else), and a for-profit business that offers something "free" still is expecting to receive something of value to the business in exchange. If its not providing a value that justifies the opportunity cost, the business isn't going to keep getting the thing of value that it wants out of the deal. A business that takes users of a "free" service for granted while relying on them for the resource it is selling to its paying customers is in for a rude awakening when someone provides a superior competing service and steals the "free" users away.
I only rarely look back at notes I've taken, and then, usually only for specific details: due dates, a URL or book title the instructor mentioned, and so forth. Nevertheless, I take notes in most of my classes -- because the effort to maintain focus on what the instructor is saying, think about how to express it, and write it out, is a significant aid to memory. I find that lectures in which I thought I was paying close attention, but did not take notes, I do not remember as well as the ones for which I took notes -- despite my not reviewing the notes.
I use pen and paper, but mostly because I don't own a laptop anyway. As far as that goes, I'd think, whatever works for you.
So the stupid driver who was texting on their mobile phone or eating a burger is fine, great. What about the ten year old old they've just thumped into with their SUV? Does it help them at all?
Hopefully a foam bumper will help minimise the damage to the kid who has just been torn off their bike by a stupid auto driver, though my suspicion is that the laws of physics will say getting hit by a ton of metal moving at 28mph is still going to damage somebody really badly. I'd be interested to hear about the benefits the foam offers to people being hit by the car, as well as the person inside and already wearing a seat belt, with crumple zones and air bags.
Agreed with the other post which includes the quote about spikes in the middle of steering wheels being more likely to encourage careful driving than technological improvements which mean you can be a total idiot and smash into anyone or anything and walk away, because you're all right Jack and you don't care who you hit.
several times, including with windows. This isn't news, and doesn't belong on slashdot.
This, however, isn't a non-monopoly - you only have two real players in the desktop OS market (yes, I know linux is out there, and it's so cute *pat pat*).
Let's say you're right and the OS market is a monopoly (or oligopoly). What about all the other software out there which is constructed in a similar fashion? While this particular bug is an OS flaw, aren't many others in software created by non-monopolies?
I should also mention, that I consider it a given that is people are going to scavenge nuclear waste dumps for nuclear materials they aren't going to be too scared to use breeder reactors and transmute things.
You have a message from the operator.