fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
dodge this
Apr 12, 10:32 PM
Any word on Motion? I use it alot.
superleccy
Sep 20, 08:48 AM
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future.
This may the furture as Apple sees it, but I really hope not. If it were, it wouldn't work in the UK. No way.
No, I am not already paying for the that episode of Lost. In the UK, it is broadcast on C4 & E4, which are commercial, free (non-subscription) and stations. And jolly good they are too. The compulsary TV licence fee we pay all goes to the BBC (bless them). I don't have a cable or a satellite dish. Don't want them, don't need them, never will do.
The day that Apple replaces my need for EyeTV will be the day that every single TV programme is available on iTunes (from Lost to Coronation Street, from Live Snooker to Local News) for free. And not even Apple can make that happen. I don't think they are idealistic or stupid enough.
SL
balamw
Sep 21, 12:27 AM
I was assuming this "family of four" included younger kids (possibly one age 4 and one age 9). ...They do watch a boatload of TV. Between the two of them they could easily watch 8 different series.
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
In my experience, video on demand is exactly what younger kids want. My boys (3 and 5, so not that far off your model family) watch more than their share of TV, but they tend to be quite "clumpy" in what they watch since they've grown up with PVRs all their life, they tend to watch lots of the same show, and rewatch things over and over. For instance tonight we were treated to 3 back-to-back episodes of "The Batman" from a recently released DVD and one episode of "Teen Titans" from the TiVo. I don't have to keep buying those shows, since once purchased or recorded, I have them. Tomorrow will be the younger one's choice, so my guess is we get to watch the Wiggles on DVD for the umpteenth time.
I do buy some shows on DVD of from iTunes just to get them off the PVR, to reward the content provider for things we enjoy, and create some space for new stuff to be recorded. For instance I bought two seasons worth of Dora The Explorer (49 shows) for $60.This works out to an average cost per episode of $1.22. On DVD they sell 4 episodes for $10-$16 which means a minimum cost per episode of $2.50, and up to $4. I no longer have to TiVo these and have them at my fingertips.
I would assume they each have one or two daily show(s) that they like to watch (which is where I was counting most of the monthly cost). For example, "The Daily Show" is $20 a month multiplied by 3 different shows, equals $60/month. Plus, it would also be expected that they should watch a few series (probably at least 5 between the two).
You're also still way off on your prices. The "multi-pass" for The Daily Show or Colbert is $9.99 for 16 shows (i.e. 4 weeks Monday-Thursday). You don't pay $2/show for them unless you're a masochist. Note also that you don't pay anything for half of the year since they are in reruns about half the time, so it works out to ~$60/year per show. (BTW What's the third TDS show? I guess I haven't been watching lately. :o)
News and sports are a completely different matter though.
B
FightTheFuture
Feb 26, 05:31 AM
The thing is, do Apple care about being outpaced sales-wise? They may just be content to make their products smoother and sexier than the better Android phones and be the Mercedes.
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
baryon
May 6, 01:42 PM
This is ridiculous, I have never had a dropped call in my life with O2 here in the UK, or with T-Mobile in the rest of Europe, except when going into tunnels, but that's totally normal!
citizenzen
Apr 23, 11:37 PM
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ...
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're an idiot.
You simply made a statement that I'm not willing to make.
rasmasyean
Mar 15, 02:07 AM
Someone has a Geiger Counter reading set up in Tokyo (I assume that is the location). If someone can explain this that would be wonderful.
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
http://www.geigercounters.com/AboutGgr.htm
CPM
Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute.
http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12154991
As to why theres that peak thing? Maybe a was the wind change.
:::::
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
LINK (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/geiger_index.html)
http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg (http://park18.wakwak.com/~weather/uploaddata/radiation.jpg)
http://www.geigercounters.com/AboutGgr.htm
CPM
Counts per minute (cpm) is a measure of radioactivity. It is the number of atoms in a given quantity of radioactive material that are detected to have decayed in one minute.
http://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12154991
As to why theres that peak thing? Maybe a was the wind change.
:::::
Come to think of it...it wouldn't be too bad if Japan had to mass evacuate because of contamination. I mean, that place might eventually like blow up and flood at some point in the future right? It looks like it's on the verge of happening actually.
That would be pretty cool if they evacuated now. I mean, where would they go you may ask? I think they would mostly come the the US. I mean, we sort of helped them build their country up after WWII and we've always had pretty strong ties. Our economy is similar too.
Hey, we'll take Toyota, and Sony, and Mitsubishi...and heck, whatever can fit on the barges. :) I think it would be pretty symbiotic too as we use a lot of their crap anyway so might as well bring it all home. They have like the best manufacturing in the world and the US can use some of that today. We have lots of barren land all over the place that can be used for industry and Japanese ppl have the money to build here, rather than in the expensive cramped up island of theirs. Jobs for all! woot!
Moyank24
Mar 18, 01:43 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer and your carrier designed it.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
RaNdOm
Mar 18, 09:51 AM
So just took a look at my bill and I see that there are two charges on there for 1Kb under "wap.cingular" for the two times that I tested tether on my jailbroken phone using the TetherMe app from Cydia. All other data charges like streaming Pandora or other radio apps just show up at "phone" on my bill. So it seems that they have indeed started breaking out the type of data traffic used to monitor tethering. I don't know if it would then be possible to start masking the tethering as Pandora. I currently stream radio and video on my phone to the tune of 3+Gb a month and haven't tethered other than to test the function.
nozebleed
May 5, 10:51 AM
I still believe its just where you are at in the country. This graph is the exact opposite of what I experience. Verizon work phone - SHITE. Dropped calls so bad I forwarded the number to my iPhone. AT&T personal phone - no dropped calls.
SirOmega
Sep 26, 12:49 AM
Anandtech already reported the 4 core chips WILL WORK in the Mac Pro.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
I can definately see how this is going to work out model wise. We'll see the current $2499 model and the up and down options, plus one quad core model at $3299 or possibly less depending on the dual core price drop.
Also, 8 cores would be insane for rendering workstations. 4 cores for rendering in the background, 2 for OS, 2 for other work.
torbjoern
Apr 23, 09:54 PM
You do not think it takes any faith to say that NO God exists? Or that NO supernatural power exists? That you can 100% prove a lack of God?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural). Everything we can see is derived from nature. Status quo should be that there is no God - in the sense of an almighty God who stands above nature, far less a God by whom nature would be created and defined. Where would God come from then? You see - we might as well accept that the laws of nature are the highest order in the entire universe. If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Why should I believe something which isn't even supposed to make sense to me?
wnurse
Mar 19, 10:41 PM
That when you do things like this, it hurts apple. Apple has a market to protect. If people keep doing this enough until the RIAA gets pissed and won't let apple sell music any more. It's just like complaining that apple hass had to change their DRM policies. It's not apple that is doing it, it's pressure from the Recording Industry. Apple has to walk an extremely fine line, and they do a goo djob of it, so those folks need to lighten up.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
I know this comes as a shock to you but not a lot of people care whether Apple is hurt or not. While apple fans are loyal to apple, pc fans are loyal to no one and a lot of people who would use this app are pc fans. Also not everyone who uses a mac cares about apple. After all, what do they care if apple survives?. They still get the same paycheck. It's not like if apple gets richer, we get richer. It's the same with every company. Customer loyalty is fleeting.
starflyer
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
Maybe they hit negative because they think it's sad that something like this even has to exist.
hcho3
Apr 20, 05:35 PM
Good to hear Jobs isn't planning to retire. The question about Android being like Windows was to the Mac to iOS was probably the dumbest question of the call.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
Dumbest question was about product cycle on iPod and iphone.
Tim and Peter would never comment on future products.
superslashers
Jun 22, 12:03 PM
What is it with AT&T and dropped calls? They are starting to make people REALLY MAD I think AT&T has to step there game or people are going to go to T-Mobile lol they will just have to unlock there iPhones!
Evangelion
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
gugy
Aug 29, 02:50 PM
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:
Periastron
Apr 6, 01:15 PM
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but Command-Up does this.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
econgeek
Apr 12, 11:14 PM
Adobe Photoshop and After Effects are not 'pro'
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
We're talking video editing software, and you didn't mention Photoshop, but you bring it up now.
I was expressing my personal opinion, and yes, I think Premier and After Effects are absolute junk. I know many people love them and after sufficient training can get good stuff out of them, much like people love windows and are able to make it work.
But I have trouble taking anyone seriously as an "expert" who argues that Windows, with its terrible UI-- is "professional" while the mac is "a toy". Though of course, back in the day, many did so.
I feel the same way about After Effects (And Premier to a lesser extent). They are so poorly designed that to call them superior makes me question the motivations and perspective (and professionalism) of the person doing so-- as a blanket statement. Making more specific statements, however, I'll likely not dispute. (Eg: a particular algorithm being better, sure.)
A professional seeks tools that allow them to accomplish the job in question with minimum wasted effort, time and resources. The low usability of Adobe solutions (in video) undermines this goal. Seeing somethign that allows one to more quikly develop a professional product as being "toylike" *because* it is more efficient, in favor of poor quality tools, is not a perspective that I associate with those of a professional-- who is more concerned with the end result than protecting sunk educational costs invested to overcome terrible usability.
Sounds Good
Apr 14, 10:15 PM
Nah, no feathers were ruffled.
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
Just trying to show some FEELING by using UPPER CASE words. ;)
Toneaphone
Feb 25, 03:39 PM
Even though Android has more potential users, they will never be as successful as the iPhone until they improve their app capabilities. Once they do this, developers will make better apps and games, and customers will buy more. It ultimately boils down to the degree of consumption per user rather than the quantity of potential customers. One person can easily install 150+ apps for the iPhone in no time. Over 3 billion apps have been downloaded to date...It will be an extremely long time until Android meets that milestone.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar