I find this out 6 weeks late. When did having kids become like buying technology?

Seriously though, there are some cases where that might not be possible. My first son was an emergency c-section. I don't know how long it was before he started breathing but it felt like forever.

Thing2 was a scheduled c-section and I had him in my arms almost immediately. I honestly don't know how quickly they clamped.

Broadcom doesn't release the non-x86 chipset drivers as opensource. It's a bit more complex than that but that's the gist of it.

Nobody is stopping you NOW. That's the problem with the environment Apple is creating and to some degree enforcing.

Apple (and most companies for that matter) are arbitrary and frivolous in what they decide to get upset about. All it takes is for someone at Apple HQ to get a stick up his ass and iPad/iPod jailbreaking is toast.

How long did people sell modded game consoles before the manufacturers decided to come after them? How long did HTC have SenseUI before Apple decided to sue them?

People are capricious. The DMCA is still a law.

Mind you I hold the same grudge against Microsoft and Amazon in regards to the platforms they have. However Apple is the only one of those three vendors that has a top to bottom stack and has the backing of major media outlets to push the product.

I do fear the end of tinkering and wonder but that desire will always be there in some people. What won't always be there is the ability to do so because of legislation.

Oh really? How will you create applications for this magical new paradigm? On said magical new device?

The biggest problem I have is the attitude that something like the iPad is creating. I do NOT want to live in the world where Apple is trying to take us. Assuming that you are the type to "tinker"/write software for your "iDevice", you would have to do it:

- On Apple hardware
- Using Apple software
- Under Apple terms
- With Apple oversight

That's not the tech world I want to live in. Sure, Apple is freaking awesome for pushing open standards on the web but everything else they do screams closed. I guarantee you that the day HTML5 supports something that is directly opposed to Apple, they won't support it. Yes Hulu, Netflix, CBS, ABC and all the other apps are nice for when you have a network connection but they don't directly compete with iTunes for TV shows because I don't need a network connection.

The closest thing that competes right now is the Kindle app and I can guarantee that Apple is only allowing it for now because they don't want to attract any unwanted attention.

You can argue that someone could easily start up a project that competes with Apple down the road but do *YOU* have a patent portfolio big enough to hold em off? I didn't think so.

That's what scares me most about the iPad. Ignore all the shortcomings, those of us with a bit of foresight know EXACTLY where Apple wants to go with this.

In its current form, the iPad CANNOT replace a computer but not for any of the reasons listed.
The reason it cannot replace a computer is because you have to HAVE one to use it. I'll mirror my comments I've said elsewhere:

"All system updates have to happen via iTunes. Until it has OTA updating, you still need to have a computer that can run the bloated mess that is iTunes. So yeah, give it to grandma since she doesn't have a computer. It works great until there's a mandatory system update that prevents her from accessing the app store. You want to get stuff OFF the system? Pages documents? Spreadsheets? Gotta have iTunes to do the offloading and conversion"

It's that simple. If all you want is a cheap, fast, easy way to browse the internet then MAYBE the iPad is it but you simply cannot give this to grandma and never expect to have to support it again. At a minimum, you'll still have to either setup Wifi and an internet connection as well as a machine for updates or you'll have to hope she lives in an area with good 3G coverage. Even then you'll still need another computer.

The ONLY reason I would want something like an iPad is for Skype but it doesn't have a front facing camera. A device like this (if it had a front facing camera and OTA updates) WOULD be perfect for grandkid Skype sessions. I honestly don't care about the lack of Flash support but I can understand how that simply is a deal breaker for its most prominent use - browsing the web. As an ebook reader, the weight really is a negative as well. My wife is going to be in bed for 2 weeks recovering from another c-section and while I really did consider buying an iPad for her the weight really can't compare to her Kindle.

Really, the iPad is trying to bridge a gap with an incomplete product. Kudos to Apple for trying something new but outside of the whole tech aspect (Apple ecosystem, lack of tinkerability, restricted usage, no upgrade ability) there are plenty of reasons that the iPad doesn't make sense yet.

Sorry for not posting sooner. Sick child in the house.

Irrelevant. Those goods may be produced in Asia but they are sold by people with jobs here - advertisers, retail staff and so forth. I'm not up for getting into a massive discussion about it but take a look at http://cafehayek.com/myths-and-fallacies and some of the articles there. You should have more respect for his opinion than mine. To answer the second question, I'm not an economist but he is.

I find it interesting that you mention "Even the Austrians..." because I was just reading about that today. I really need to use some sort of web clipping addon.

Anyway, I would have to say I align myself pretty strongly with Hayek but my personal philosophy is whatever provides the greatest amount of individual economic freedom.

And I'm still looking for a good "unbiased" source of information on government spending. I hesitate to link to a third-party news source (especially News Busters) quoting Milton Friedman from a book, however this link has a subsection that is of interest:

http://newsbusters.org/node/27813/print

My google-fu isn't strong enough at this late hour but I also found an interesting statement:

"When the economy is doing fine, he estimates, $1 of government spending yields 40 cents in extra production and related jobs." - http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/does-the-return-on-government-spending-triple-in-a-depression/19200069/

In a such a short article, there's not much meat but I'm interested in seeing any corroboration and/or rebutal to the theories at the end.

Taken in light of the Friedman statements and the basic reality of where government gets its money would seem to suggest that there IS a very small window where government COULD stimulate the economy.

However that window is smaller, IMHO, than trying to hit a two-meter thermal exhaust port. On one side (spending too early) it's wasteful and takes money from the private sector. On the other side, you end up with massive inflation.

I think the safer course of action with those odds is to leave the money with the people who know how to spend it best in their situation, the people who earned it.

Calculating WHERE the money comes from is not hard at all. (I'm speaking strictly about the US here)

Government is not a wealth producer.

I don't mean that in the generic, libertarian, anti-Fed sense. I mean that in the strictest sense.

Every dollar that government has came directly from the private sector.

Government produces nothing. Government provides services (quite poorly and less efficiently than the private sector, IMHO) in "exchange" for Taxes but based on the various budget shortfalls you can make two assumptions:

- Government isn't "charging" enough for those services
or
- We're getting a terrible bargain as citizens.

Also, there's some disagreement on the impact of wartime spending:

http://reason.org/news/show/why-the-stimulus-plan-wont-wor

I'll also look and see what the peer review was like on the paper quoted about negligible increase in consumption from wartime spending.

The states don't have to have control over monetary policy to be responsible public servants. Now it's possible (as I said, I was still trying to find the numbers) that spending by state and local governments has a greater return but it still doesn't match up to spending by the private sector.

If you equate spending with fiscal power, then yes, I am asking states to reduce. Politicians in general are like kids in a candy store when they have money.

I can speak from experience here in Georgia having a wife who works for the state. I know all the dirty tricks they pull to pilfer money that was "allocated" to one "project" and then spent elsewhere.

The fact that not all states are facing budget shortfalls* should maybe be an indicator that there are ways to provide a basic functional state goverment without increased government spending or new taxation.

* http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/State_budget_issues,_2009-2010

I'm glad Texas got it right so far. Most people forget the second half of the equation in cutting/eliminating taxes which is to restrict government spending. I'm interested to see, long term, how this fairs for Texas and Austin particularly. So far it seems to be going swimmingly. Right now the economic freedom there is amazing.

Well it's obvious you went to the Keynesien school of economics.

Every dollar that goverment spends is one less dollar that the individual spends. In fact, the return on government spending is LESS than individual spending (I'm trying to dig up those numbers now).

You cannot spend your way out of a recession. That money is best left in the hands of the individuals to spend as they will. Will some people resort to the hoarder mentality? Yep but it's not an absolute.

I don't know the situation in WA but it's not like they're not in the same boat as every other state in the country - reduced revenues and all.

There really needs to be, in all states, a line by line audit of where the states are spending money and where they can cut that spending or eliminate it entirely.

Reason did an amazing series with Drew Carey about "saving Cleveland". It had some awesome ideas that have been shown to be successful in other parts of the country. They admit that what works one place may not work in another but honestly when you're faced with a $300m shortfall, maybe you should try something new?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/25/save-the-week-reason-saves-cle

There is no such thing as a "fair tax". The actual FairTax is about the closest I've seen in a while.

People need to put the screws to government. Citizens of a state need to decide exactly what public services they want the government to provide. States need to stop doing stupid shit like building arenas and halls of fame and golf courses and bowing to the the "we'll leave if you don't subsidize our sports franchise" bullshit.

Yes, state revenues will contract but so will the needs of the state. No personal income tax + low corporate taxes + limited government = prosperity.

For the same reason some of us were saying "Maybe we should find out why Al Quaeda attacked us on 9/11" as opposed to yelling about "They hate our freedoms" and "You just want to blame America". If you never get at the root cause of a problem, you'll never truly solve it.

Bin Laden had some valid reasons for hating the US that has nothing to do with our "way of life" and more with our farcical nation building policy. That doesn't mean he was right or that it was entirely our fault. However, unless we understand ALL the factors, we'll be in the same boat again.

Similarly while I, in no uncertain terms, despise what Andrew Stack did, his REASONS for doing it were valid at some level. Does it take a broken person to finally resort to his actions? Yes, but what he said about the sheer fucked-upness of our current tax "code" has merit. He was unstable but is it possible that having to deal with the shit that he did with our government pushed him over a tipping point? Absolutely.

Andrew Stack wasn't some Ted Kazynski/David Koresh whack-job. He was an unstable person who got fucked by his own government. He's not to be lauded or praised for what he did but there's a lesson to be learned in how our current system is broken.

So then let's define greed. Who decides what greed is?

I'm going to have to just agree to disagree.

For too long people have been absolved of any personal responsibility in their lives. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. I really do see that as the root cause.

We have a strange generation of people who think they are entitled to any and everything and if they can't have it then someone should give it to them.

Would I be in a bad way if my family had some sort of medical catastrophe? Probably but I cannot in good conscience expect the government to force someone to bail me out of that situation. I would do the best I could to continue to provide for my wife and kids. I would make sacrifices. I would use whatever savings I had and pull out of whatever retirement fund I could and deal with the tax penalties later. It could take years to recover but I wouldn't have done something so "immoral" as to steal from someone else to do it.

So yes, I do think that the root problem is that people have been "shielded" from having to deal with the true cost of health care. As I said earlier (maybe it was a different post) tying insurance to employment was a monumentally bad idea.

Look, people die. It sucks. I'm going to die some day and it will be a pretty bad day in my book. I hope that when I do, what I've been able to leave for my family hasn't been taxed to the ground.