so when Google released their 7" tablet in July 2012, I bought one.
Then, in October 2012, Apple did a "me too!" and announced the iPad mini. I still think it was a reactionary move and I doubt the iPad mini would have surfaced at all if someone else hadn't released it first.
Wait, you think the iPad mini was approved, designed, engineered, mass manufactured and released in four months?
The two notable things (other than the quality of teaching) about his class: infinite time is given to take exams (exams started at 7pm and a teaching assistant would stay until the last student left - the record during my tenure was 5:00am, or so I heard) and he provide free Tosci's ice cream during the exam.
During the Bose factory tours, he showed off Project Sound a decade before it was revealed to the press. And inevitably a student would challenge some of the concepts the Bose company popularized (direct/reflecting, lack of tone controls, etc) and Dr. Bose would gently, but convincingly slap down the student using a blizzard of engineering arguments (rumor has it that Ken Kantor was the only student that could successfully go toe-to-toe with Dr. Bose).
RIP Dr. Bose.
The original iPhone was an iPod Touch enhanced with the 3G network and a camera. My wife was looking at getting one but we didn't want the data network. My cousin (an Apple employee at the time) suggested the iPod Touch instead, and then use WiFi+Skype for calls..
I think it would be more accurate to say "the original iPod Touch was and iPhone without the phone" given the iPhone came to market first (June 2007 vs September 2007).
A portable version would be a help. Hooked to an aiming system, it could ruin a sniper's day.
A portable (well, vehicle-mounted) system also exists, although it could always be smaller.
Link to Original Source
None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.
So long as we're going to resort to generalities...
No, they would just rather project your right to confront and shoot kids for the heinous crime of playing their music too loud (or the even more heinous crime of wearing a hoodie in rainy weather while carrying a can of iced tea).
Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.
That attitude is one of the reasons that DRM still exists.
I suspect that if Swartz had stopped the first couple of times MIT tried to block him, that would have been the end of it.
(No, Swartz did not deserve years in jail for what he did and the whole situation was a tragedy. I'm just noting that you were warned and you stopped. Swartz was warned and he kept at it).
Then we were politely told by security to cut it out. Enough fun. We weren't arrested.
Now what would have happened if you kept doing it?
But would you vote for an ignorant Republican and throw the people to the wolves?
Well, no...I'd not vote an 'ignorant' Republican...but from what I've seen, I don't think Romney has shown himself to be an ignorant person.
At the very least, he seems to have much more on the ball than, say...Joe Biden, who can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth...and is only one heart attack away from the presidency.
Obama is a center-right president, which of course upsets both the left and the extreme-insane-fallen-off-the-map-right. There's a real danger that we could wind up with wingnut throwbacks in charge just because modern people aren't quite satisfied with Obama.
I have to heartily disagree with you in my view of Obama. Perhaps you are describing him from a European point of view, not the US view on liberal vs conservative.
I think Obama is one of the most left leaning, divisive and ideological people I've ever seen in power in the US, much less in the presidency. I think he is so very stuck to his ideals based agenda, that he cannot truly compromise or even see when things he tries and supports just do not work. I think he is so bent on going with fundamentally changing the US, its principals...etc...that he wants to keep pushing it even to the detriment of our country and its people.
Let's look at some of his more signature accomplishments:
- Health care legislation: based on ideas from a Republican Governor and the Heritage Foundation (although both of those had public option aspects).
- ARRA: half tax cuts
- Immigration: has set records for deporting illegal immigrants
- WoT: continued and expanded Bush policies for internet-warfare, targeted killings, warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention
- Gun bans: nothing proposed, enacted or even discussed
About the only thing he has been to the left on is gay rights, and even that was basically half-hearted until very recently.
Following up - another post reminded me about the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton had a significant lead among black voters in the early going. Things started shifting when Bill started running his mouth in South Carolina.
Every single survey, poll, etc that was on the news at the time had between 96 and 98% of american black voters voting for him. That means they ignored all policy, all politics, all financial plans, all qualifications, all personal history, all things in general he said he'd do, and just for him based on the color of his skin.
What you mean is "96 and 98% of american black voters" voted for the Democrat - the 96% Obama got is consistent with the 90% that Gore got, the 88% Kerry got, the 90% Mondale and Dukakis got, the 94% Johnson got etc.
If blacks were voting overwhelmingly based on race, than you should see overwhelming support for Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, etc. That's not the case.
What the governments shouldn't do is announce specific groups of people protected, and enact quotas and other ways to promote those groups ahead of other groups, on the basis that they have been historically discriminated against, and now need an unfair advantage in order to "even out" things. That is segregation and discrimination, and it is no less evil when it's done in favor of the minority rather than the majority. That is what affirmative action is.
Since incorporation means that you obligate yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else, it is not much of a stretch to say it also effectively obligates you to evil.
Uh, no. Maybe you can argue that an IPO or accepting outside investment obligates yourself to the pursuit of profit over all else, but not incorporation in and of itself. If my LLC cared about profit over all else, I'd be charging a lot more for my services.