Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:don't really like that term (Score 1) 169

by Ixokai (#47981465) Attached to: South Australia Hits 33% Renewal Energy Target 6 Years Early

Eh? How is it not renewable? Every day it starts anew. You don't ever run out, it never stops producing. Sometimes its production is lower and sometimes its higher, but it never runs out.

Granted, coal is sorta technically "renewable" but only on a geological scale that renders the term pointless. We'll mine it all and run out of it all long before any more comes.

Comment: Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? (Score 1) 149

by Ixokai (#47890465) Attached to: Direct Sales OK Baked Into Nevada's $1.3 Billion Incentive Deal With Tesla

These things don't really apply to a specific company-- they're written like, "a company building a factory of X size employing Y people [doing Z sort of activity]" doesn't have to pay these range of taxes. The conditions are just specific enough that in practice it probably only applies to one company, but gosh darn if their competitor wants to come in and build the exact same thing they'd probably qualify for the breaks, too.

But why is this surprising? Government giving incentives (be they tax breaks or subsidies-- what's the difference, really? Forms of special protection/privilege is another form) to businesses they think will improve their economy is common everywhere, even throughout Europe. Its a question of just what form and how you do it.

Its only a bad thing if the state is acting in bad faith (ie, if the legislators are corrupt and taking bribes-- which they largely are the way elections/lobbying are working currently, admittedly). The state is doing a calculation. Take in a certain amount of reduced revenue usually for a temporary period to create X direct jobs, Y secondary jobs, and Z boost to the economy -- is the overall economic benefit to the state outweighed by the reduced temporary revenue YN?

It benefits everyone in the state for the state's economy to improve, after all.

Also, this has nothing to do with America/USofA. The states are sovereign within the fairly broad limits of the Constitution. Short of a state applying import duties to stuff coming in from other states (which is the right of the Federal Government to regulate via the Interstate Commerce clause) the federal government has very, very, very little it could say about how much or how a state taxes anyone.

Comment: Re:Boneheaded move (Score 1) 409

I think "african hospitals are not quite the hermetically sealed, pressurized clean-rooms like the CDC facilities" is a pretty glaring factor you're leaving out. And that factor is precisely why its safe to wrap these guys in plastic by people in plastic suits to take back to the plastic catacombs in Atlanta.

Comment: Re:Disengenous (Score 1) 306

by Ixokai (#47572847) Attached to: Amazon's eBook Math

The reasoning you're unpacking is in your head -- the fallacy you point out exists entirely in your restatement of the argument, not the argument itself. Amazon has many documented examples of selling for a loss, a willingness to ignore short to medium term losses if it means control of a market.

Amazon is not being merely efficient; Amazon is engaging in predatory pricing and other market-manipulations to try to control a market. That may mean their prices are lower right now, but if their other markets can cover that loss and can maintain that for long enough that they can run the loss until those businesses are destroyed, is the market well served? Is it efficiency? What contains that price after the competition is destroyed and drives efficiency then?


Apple Confirms Purchase of Beats For $3 Billion 188

Posted by Soulskill
from the throwing-down-the-big-money dept.
SimonTheSoundMan writes: "Apple has confirmed it will buy Beats Electronics and Beats Music for $3 billion. Apple will make the purchase using $2.6 billion in cash and $400 million in stock. An important part of the acquisition for Apple is absorbing the Beats subscription streaming service, even though it only has about 110k users. The Beats brand will remain intact, and will continue to sell headphones. "

Comment: Re:No bluetooth? (Score 1) 182

If you're an iPad developer, you're a sad one. The iPad has supported bluetooth for years now and shows signs of INCREASING and not decreasing support. Not only for simple things like keyboards and headphones -- things used often by iPad users for years now -- but AirDrop, a new and major feature in IOS is based on Bluetooth. Then there's the fact that Apple is totally behind supporting bluetooth, and *expanding* their support in things like Bluetooth LE which Apple's SDK's calls "iBeacons", which is a major new feature in the OS too.

I don't know what world you're in, but it isn't the real one.

Comment: Re:No bluetooth? (Score 1) 182

I have had no issues ever using random bluetooth keyboards bought from radio shack with my iPad. It works totally fine. I don't usually use a keyboard because I don't need one -- but in an emergency situation where I need to code/fix something on the run, I've stopped by random places and bought a random keyboard -- and it works perfectly.

I don't have a first generation iPad -- and never used a keyboard with one, but from at least second generation on -- no issue whatsoever.

Comment: Re:....indeed. (Score 1) 1116

by Ixokai (#46698875) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

The key word in your description is "remain" -- Prop 8 wasn't about keeping the status quo, as was the case in a lot of states who passed laws amending their constitution to define marriage as 1m1w

Prop 8 was different to a lot of people because of this distinction. The traditional legal definition of marriage was already ruled unconstitutional in California (per the state's Constitution, not the US one) -- thus, gay people in the state of California for about six months there were allowed to get married.

And Prop 8 was an attempt to *remove* that right. It's a lot harder to remove a right (and a lot more offensive) once its been recognized as being held then it is to preemptively try to keep anyone from getting it. As far as I know, California is the only state which tried to tighten up the marriage definition after a state court ruled the existing definition violated their constitution.

It might seem overly technical and nitpicky, but personally the difference between the two situations really resonates with me. As a customer/regular person, I've held people who supported Prop 8 in contempt, however mildly so, and so understand the people who were upset at Eich's elevation to such an open and progressive organization. That said, I don't actually share their feelings. The world has changed far too much, far faster then I could have imagined, for me to continue holding Prop 8 against anyone in any serious way.

Mini-rant/clarification: I do take issue with statements like, "majority of Californians" -- but I hate it when any side of an argument speaks up about a majority. To be clear, a majority of Californian's didn't side with him. Barely over 7 million out of 13.7 million voters in a state of about 36 million people did. (Heck, a big pet peeve of mine is when practically anyone speaks for The American People. Its almost always a partisan who is speaking to a segment that at least an equal segment probably aggressively opposes what's being said)

Comment: Consenting Adults (Score 1) 794

by Ixokai (#46372041) Attached to: Whole Foods: America's Temple of Pseudoscience

An adult can choose to be stupid if they want, and that's their right.

The Creation Museum and similar Creationist institutions are trying to substitute their stupid for scientific knowledge in the schools our children go to.

You can take your kids to church and teach them your religion if you want, but when you start trying to undermine basic scientific education for everyone that's a very different thing.

Comment: Re:Hindsight? (Score 1) 265

by Ixokai (#46293321) Attached to: Math Models Predicted Global Uprisings

I'm taking the "racists mush?" question to have been answered with "yes" when you go name a people "muzzies".

The point was, you're claiming Muslim rioting as a counterpoint, but even if its accepted that those riots are a part of this this trend of rioting spoken of-- they don't fit even your pattern, they *aren't* a counterpoint simply because you state it. Naming them to counter the argument is just racist handwaving at best: oh, well the Muslims (er, muzzies) are rioting, so clearly there's no pattern because, they like are muzzies, and muzzies, do that. You know. Cuz. They do. Muzzies. Riot.

There's no link between Muslims and the Ukraine and their riots unless you twist reality severely to try to force a point. The riots in the Ukraine are about (at least-- it very well may be a much more involved story) a segment of the population who has a history of successful revolution when in relation to serious belief of election fraud and corruption; and acts by the current government that are viewed as corrupt and against their interests (namely, aligning Ukraine more closely to Russia instead of the EU). Is that true? Dunno. But there's nothing Muslim about it.

To look at former Soviet satellite states and see their dislike for union with Russia as a sign of Muslim rioting just cuz, needs some serious [citation needed].

Thailand is a complex situation: they have a mix of pro-government people from varied situations, and anti-democracy forces who think there's something just wrong with their government and simple election counting when the counters have such tremendous control. Its sort of bemusing to hear some of riots which are specifically yelling: democracy bad! But, that is because of a nuanced and complicated situation they're going through, with an extremely wealthy subset seem to have democratic support of the rural masses at the cost of great disapproval in the middle classes of the city. This, of course, is a very broad stroke description of the situation. I'm not sure where to fall on the subject, and I lack seriously enough information to really have a solid idea. But.

The point is, it isn't because muslims happened. Culture happened. People happened. This is nuanced.

No comparison to the "muzzies" sheds any insight on this situation.

The because the real world is complicated, nuanced, and based on history and the context of real people living real lives.

Yes, some "muzzies" had riots, for reasons. That doesn't make every riot and every government going through growing pains because, you know, the muzzies.

Seriously, dude, you said "muzzies".

I should have just stopped there.

Racist much? Maybe not. Islamaphobic much, though?

Reads true.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan