Foreign Policy has a reporter at Russia's main "national-security brain trust" and apparently Russia's top leaders are very scared that Clinton will start a war with Russia: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-beli... So it's not surprising that they continue to sabre rattle.
Especially considering that creating a 'no-fly zone' in Russia is being thrown around by a number of American politicians and seemed to be a core Hillary position regarding Syria. A US general recently said that doing so would basically involve starting a war with Russia and Syria: https://youtu.be/8mNgElVy7eQ?t=3m20s
I another recently heard on the War Nerd podcast that an influential US foriegn adviser was talking on Twitter (can't find the tweet just now) that we shouldn't be so scared of Russian's air defense in Syria since their S-300 [1] has been around since the 1970s, and surely we know their weaknesses by now. But this weapon is still a serious threat and this isn't even considering the fact S-400 could also be deployed. It's scary to see these threats downplayed by the people who have politician's ears while the military still takes them seriously.
So I really hope the US treads carefully in the future because the world doesn't really benefit from an escalation here. It's sad that Russia is being used as a political gambit rather carelessly. Considering there's almost always a diplomatic avenue that could be taken to avoid war but it takes careful handling which I feel is largely ignored, likely because they don't see a war with Russia as a real possibility so they don't feel the need to hold back their vitriol. But it seems those words are being taken seriously in Russia by the people who matter.
The article discusses some great points. I think one of the big issues effecting college grad underemployement is also that there not as many people going into technical schools. Those are careers which are almost always in demand much like the STEM fields the article discusses but there is somewhat of a stigma about going for technical things vs. liberal arts or the full on STEM areas.
Couldn't you just buy one the $60 tablets and use that? I get your point about appreciating the tablet more than a notebook, but even if e-notebooks were dropped in price, I couldn't see it falling much below the price of the tablets in the $60 range.
I imagine that there is also a ton less demand for e-notebooks then there are for tablets, which is probably one of the major factors as to why no one is trying to mass produce them and lower the price.
My point is if my passport had empty pages there is no chance I would bring it around and use it as notebook so tablet and e-notebook can't go to same category?
I think each student in any level of education has at least 2-3 notebooks around with them. Isn't it demand attractive?
Yeah, but most would probably prefer to just buy a tablet and use that instead since they can use it for more then just an e-notebook, unless there was a way to make e-notebooks cost similar to traditional notebooks which I just can't see happening.
The only problem I see with that is that one of the reasons notebooks are so cheap is because you almost constantly need new ones. They either get filled up or worn out relatively quickly. Therefore, companies know you will have to buy more to replace the ones you've already bought. That is part of the reason they are so cheap.
The same probably wouldn't be true for e-notebooks. They could hold tons more notes and hopefully be more durable than notebooks. Due to those factors, a company who produces them knows they aren't going to have as many reoccurring sales in the future to replace the e-notebook, so they are going to likely charge more up front.
In my opinion, ads wouldn't be so bad if people didn't abuse them and make them so intrusive. The sites that love pop-ups, spam ads, and tons a flashy banners and what not ruins it for any site that tries to be responsible with their ads.
