Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Nope.
It's the system which is insane:
*watches the entire video*
Wow, xeno! I didn't realize you had so much in common with Mister Spock! (Not even joking. Even the video's suggested solution is Kemp 101)
When shall we take a vote on my sanity vs the sanity of our civilization's paradigm?
Allow me to be the first!
I vote civilization's sane. 
The Great Eye wrote:*facepalms*
Then why did you waste our time with 25 posts about the "deficiency" you demonstrated in the OP if you're not even going to acknowledge that as a part of this debate? (by which I mean that specific deficiency cited in post 1, post 8, and post 10, rather than "deficiencies" in a generalized sense)
Because it is true that the item is deficient. It is a result of the item not fulfilling the want or need well enough that requires there to be another similar item.
You're backpedaling again. Post 21. "Please answer this," where I lay out the fact that what you're describing is not technologically possible right now, to which you replied "it's not about the tablet."
Now you're backpedaling on your backpedal... so again reaffirming the OP...
Which again brings me to say... answer post 12. Without that answer, what you call "deficient" is simply the realities of technology.
*facepalms*
Then why did you waste our time with 25 posts about the "deficiency" you demonstrated in the OP if you're not even going to acknowledge that as a part of this debate? (by which I mean that specific deficiency cited in post 1, post 8, and post 10, rather than "deficiencies" in a generalized sense)
Even if it's 100% unrelated, I need an answer:
Are you agreeing that, just from a perspective of the end product's utility to a consumer, the tablet and laptop each have their own respective uses, which could lead a consumer to rationally purchase each?
I should additionally note that, considering you are the one which made this discussion to where there are implications on the matter of whether or not you admit to being wrong, we cannot simply drop an issue such as this, particularly when it's you who brought it up. The issue has larger implications, and we can't begin to honestly discuss issues unless parties are willing to admit when an issue they raise may be incorrect (since you've made yourself the judge of whether or not you are correct, the discussion requires you to admit when you're wrong before considering other areas. Otherwise, honest discourse is impossible).
So again... are you admitting you were wrong on the technical production specifications of the tablet/laptop debate, cited in post 1?
1: Except that the tablet is a representation of that paradigm, in your words. If the production of the tablet can be shown to be not as you describe, it punctures a hole in the legitimacy of your stance.
2: You used this particular issue of the tablet as your argument that the world was insane. This is a 100% backpedaling from the stance that the specific complaint you lodged in OP was a material issue.
3: I should add here, you're also distracting in the issue of discussion. Your tablet discussion was an issue of final products. Now you're getting into issues of production, which while possibly related, only relate insofar as both "defunct production" and "defunct products" have the same word "defunct."
Then answer this:
If that was possible with current technology, it would be done.
Why do I say this? Because there's no loss by doing exactly what you described, if possible. Apple and Google top the tablet market. Dell, HP, and other companies top the laptop market. Notice the utter lack of overlap? Well, Apple produces both... but their share of the computer industry is diminishing greatly. If Dell were to come out with a tablet that replaced both deficient tablets and deficient laptops, as you describe them, Dell would utterly dominate both markets, become filthy stinkin' rich, and they'd win. Dell wouldn't lose on the tablet side because they don't have a massive presence in the tablet market. Moreover, even if they did, neither of their shares are dominant enough to where they would be willing to risk a competitor beating them to the market on exactly that.
In fact, for that reason, I have no doubt that what you're describing is in the works, but it's just a pragmatic question of research. Remember, it took time to make a tablet. It took time to make an affordable laptop. Hell, Microsoft almost discounted the personal computer as impossible (the company quickly shifted gears, but they were mere months away from being utterly obsolete).
Are you actually alleging that modern businesses have the capacity to build whatever they want, without technological inhibitions? If you're not, then your analogy is utterly non-responsive and pointless. If your argument hinges on that assumption, though, I'm pretty sure we can begin searching for a clinic.
Wait... isn't the withdrawal of aid to Egypt exactly what you asked for in your OP?
If that was possible with current technology, it would be done.
Why do I say this? Because there's no loss by doing exactly what you described, if possible. Apple and Google top the tablet market. Dell, HP, and other companies top the laptop market. Notice the utter lack of overlap? Well, Apple produces both... but their share of the computer industry is diminishing greatly. If Dell were to come out with a tablet that replaced both deficient tablets and deficient laptops, as you describe them, Dell would utterly dominate both markets, become filthy stinkin' rich, and they'd win. Dell wouldn't lose on the tablet side because they don't have a massive presence in the tablet market. Moreover, even if they did, neither of their shares are dominant enough to where they would be willing to risk a competitor beating them to the market on exactly that.
In fact, for that reason, I have no doubt that what you're describing is in the works, but it's just a pragmatic question of research. Remember, it took time to make a tablet. It took time to make an affordable laptop. Hell, Microsoft almost discounted the personal computer as impossible (the company quickly shifted gears, but they were mere months away from being utterly obsolete).
and an instant app that would send 20 gigajoules of energy sparking through Undeath on command
We need to get an app developer on this immediately!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24470121
So apparently, the answer is "inertia," i.e., "don't expect governments to do what you think they should do immediately."
This is insane. It isn't me. Prove otherwise, and I'll get myself committed.
Seriously.
Just want to get this on the record to prevent possible edit issues in the future.
Now I'll have to look at this later.
No, I mean the "posting links and telling me to do my own research to find out the basis of your argument is when you know what the basis of your argument is" thing. 
(Yes, walls of 100 global warming links leave me to not even click one).
Also, I know Zarf hates me
Truer words have never been spoken! ^_^
Links! Everyone start posting em here, because there's no other way you can prove your argument, so you're both left with "you're wrong," "no, you're wrong."
Oh hell no. You are not pulling a Flint on me here. 
I wish I knew more about Breaking Bad so I could start the series of inevitable jokes to come.
Only I get to troll this place with obscure literal nuances!
Holy crap. Lemme rephrase xeno's statement to prevent THAT can of worms from being opened:
Not all countries in the UN attempt to illicit the consideration of their population in some form as a method of determining either policy or the individuals who decide policy.
Actually, I should just put this out here first and foremost:
You have presented absolutely no argument which makes the existence of an overwhelming political base primarily concerned with the US petrodollar position a more likely story than, say, a political base that's legitimately concerned with the threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Short of that evidence, your argument (i.e., the thing I'm critiquing) is little more than a characterization. Just because the events at hand fit into your story, it doesn't make your story valid (particularly when the gap in your story is the psyche of particular individuals).
Wait... so you want to legitimize the NSA as a permanent institution?
The Great Eye wrote:Does that mean you'd start paying US income tax regardless of citizenship?
Also, you are aware China doesn't even have binding elections for its own national officials, yes? Are you saying we should uproot the Chinese government completely, or are you saying foreign nations should get more voice in China's government than their own people?
In a sense, people around the world already do pay a sort of tax to the US in the form of the depreciation of their currency due to the 'quantitative easing' measures taken by US Federal reserve.
So do Americans, via inflation. Now, are you going to pay equal taxes to Americans?
Does that mean you'd start paying US income tax regardless of citizenship?
Also, you are aware China doesn't even have binding elections for its own national officials, yes? Are you saying we should uproot the Chinese government completely, or are you saying foreign nations should get more voice in China's government than their own people?
Imperial Forum → Posts by The Great Eye
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.