No soup for you!
No soup for you!
Wanting to tax people to support the infrastructure that allows them to earn money is, however, not bad.
Because people want all food, cheap, unblemished in any way, all year round, no matter how tasteless or lacking in nutrition.
Maybe the people who would answer this question are still waiting in line to buy one so that they can post to
... we'd probably save 100,000 lives next year.
A properly set up health care system could probably save a million.
It's when they pay you to write software! Yes; pay you! But you generally don't get to pick what the software is to do
I am the admin for a small HS and am quite happy with our Google Apps right now
Maybe that's because it's your students', rather than your, personal information that's being sold by Google.
Create a company.
Put together some MIT licensed software and create yet another OS.
Designed computers after 70's Braun industrial design.
Made it work well.
Got people to buy his products due to great marketing.
Decided not to want Flash.
Decided it could only be programmed with their own API's.
So what's so revolutionary about making a sleek tablet pc? Nothing.
I like that he wants to kill Flash, but that's about it. So in the meantime I can browse the web freely with my Linux netbook and desktop and not have to worry about an electronics company.
You and your two friends can enjoy not buying apple products, but to my mind a new class of product by definition introduces more CHOICE to the market than was previously available.
Apple has not introduced a new class of product. Tablet PCs existed before, and they could be locked down to have as little CHOICE (I can put stuff in caps, too) as was desirable for the user to have. Thus, your entire comment is a waste of bits, as it is based upon a false premise.
here's what indispensable about the N1: upgrades.
the single biggest complaint about android is fragmentation across OS versions. in other words, manufacturers aren't spending the $ to upgrade the version of android for their phones, and carriers don't even want them to anyway because that just means they have to educate their support staff again.
apple of course already figured this out. they get away with releasing a phone every year, where at the end of the cycle it's down right outdated. nobody complains though because over that year they are continuously getting bug fixes and feature updates delivered to their phone. not only do they not complain, they are happy to pay a premium for such a phone because unlike almost every other phone out there it's not a throw-away after a year.
We definitely agree more than we disagree. I personally grew up in better circumstances than you describe. I'm also living in (probably) worse circumstances that you are now (with a family to support).
"you're just privileged card" with me either.
I didn't play that card, nor did I imply it. You found it yourself. I was simply speaking of others. I know plenty of folks doing substantially differently than their economic upbringing.
In the meantime, my dad was working his tail off to get an education and still provide for us.
And that example (of character) is worth
When most people say, "we can't afford for mom to stay home," what they really mean is, "we can't afford for mom to stay home, and still have two late-model cars, America's Favorite 500 Channels cable package, a 56-inch flatscreen television, a separate media room with surround sound, a PS3 with scores of games, and three eat-outs a week."
I'm disgusted by that, myself. I also think it is a caricature. In contrast to your opinions below, most of the folks I know (including faculty at small colleges) are not in the scenario you describe of deciding about luxury goods. They are driving older, second hand cars, scrounging left and right, and generally struggling to get by. I mention this group of workers because (1) their household incomes are above median and (2) they (generally) have less interest in "stuff" and more interest in substance. Generally.
But that's not true for most people I know, and probably not true for most families in America. Most families I know could find a way to do it if it was important to them.
It's a choice that we made.
If I might rephrase your claim: most families in America could afford to live on a single income (for the purpose of having one parent at home with the kids).
Hummmm. I really don't know about that. I really don't. My brother (with a family of 4) does manage it. But, many of the families I know certainly don't have much to go around (on two incomes). I'm very curious if you live in or are familiar with folks that live in an area that has very cold winters. Seriously. The cost of heating can literally put a family in debt.
Tieing this back to the existence of an (implicit) selection process in American education, I'd like to reiterate my question from above:
What if some children are raised in an economically poor environment without examples of character (and the importance of education)?
I think the answer is that they are going to be very unlikely to pursue any sort of personal advancement in terms of college or technical education.
In fact, from spending a lot of time working with first generation college students (and their peers that are not 1st generation), there is dramatic difference in perspective and, often, ability. Hard work seems more evenly distributed but I'd probably give the nod to the 1st generation students. They know what they are fighting against.
It's hard to argue against someone who is basically an example of the "American Dream". I just don't think success for folks from less than ideal circumstances is that obtainable for the majority -- and it's not from a lack of hard work and due to too many 56" TVs.
My idea of roughing it turning the air conditioner too low.