CalBoy
May 3, 09:14 PM
Semantics. Your argument boils down to the pain of change.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that � it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
This reminds me of the Dvorack keyboard layout vs the familiar QWERTY.
The Dvorack is objectively superior because it allows for higher wpm speeds than QWERTY. At the time of keyboard construction, however, Dvorack was prone to a lot more jamming by typists who were too fast for the physical limitations of the machine. Obviously that isn't a problem in the digital era, so logically we should switch to Dvorack if were had the option of starting from the beginning.
But, we're not starting from the beginning, are we? At this point switching to a new keyboard layout would be a huge undertaking for perhaps minimal gain.
The same applies to the metric system. At best it can offer minimal gains for the average person (something which, as I have pointed out above, may not be true in all cases) while costing a great deal. Even in the best of times, I think it would foolish to squander billions over such a petty thing when companies are free to shift production to be maximally efficient for themselves. If a company will make more money (or save it) using metric, then it will. There's no need to mandate it across every facet of life.
I mean, it's not as if we prevent companies from selling goods in metric quantities; if that was the case, then you'd have a good point.
Again, the real crux of your argument is that people are 'comfortable' with what they already know. If you were to put that aside and judge between the two systems objectively, I can't see how anyone would actually choose imperial over metric. Metric is the future. No, check that � it's actually the present. You're living in the past Tomorrow.
This reminds me of the Dvorack keyboard layout vs the familiar QWERTY.
The Dvorack is objectively superior because it allows for higher wpm speeds than QWERTY. At the time of keyboard construction, however, Dvorack was prone to a lot more jamming by typists who were too fast for the physical limitations of the machine. Obviously that isn't a problem in the digital era, so logically we should switch to Dvorack if were had the option of starting from the beginning.
But, we're not starting from the beginning, are we? At this point switching to a new keyboard layout would be a huge undertaking for perhaps minimal gain.
The same applies to the metric system. At best it can offer minimal gains for the average person (something which, as I have pointed out above, may not be true in all cases) while costing a great deal. Even in the best of times, I think it would foolish to squander billions over such a petty thing when companies are free to shift production to be maximally efficient for themselves. If a company will make more money (or save it) using metric, then it will. There's no need to mandate it across every facet of life.
I mean, it's not as if we prevent companies from selling goods in metric quantities; if that was the case, then you'd have a good point.
Multimedia
Sep 16, 10:02 AM
MacBook please.C2D MB by Thanksgiving Nov 23 :D
Snowy_River
Jul 22, 12:29 AM
...
The iBooks got a big case revision when they moved into the Intel MacBook world, the MacBook-Pros-that-look-like-PowerBooks should, too.
Just so long as they don't make the glossy screen standard on the MBP, like they did on the MB. I can't stand that glare ridden, reflective surface finish!
The iBooks got a big case revision when they moved into the Intel MacBook world, the MacBook-Pros-that-look-like-PowerBooks should, too.
Just so long as they don't make the glossy screen standard on the MBP, like they did on the MB. I can't stand that glare ridden, reflective surface finish!
Small White Car
May 4, 02:55 PM
Wasn't there some talk about Lion having a recovery partition? I would wager, if it did, that is how you would reinstall it without burning a disc.
Correct, but people are still reaonably concerned with total drive-failures where you have to pull the whole thing out.
Not as often as you like. You buy one copy of Snow Leopard and it is good for one Mac. Family pack gets you 5.
Nope, there's no restriction.
Look, I'm not talking about what's allowed. I'm talking about what's possible. The post I'm replying to specifically said "abuse" in it. If we're talking about people breaking the rules, the question is: What's going to stop them?
With Snow Leopard the answer is nothing, really.
Correct, but people are still reaonably concerned with total drive-failures where you have to pull the whole thing out.
Not as often as you like. You buy one copy of Snow Leopard and it is good for one Mac. Family pack gets you 5.
Nope, there's no restriction.
Look, I'm not talking about what's allowed. I'm talking about what's possible. The post I'm replying to specifically said "abuse" in it. If we're talking about people breaking the rules, the question is: What's going to stop them?
With Snow Leopard the answer is nothing, really.
McBeats
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
compared to sony, apple is damn near supporting the jailbreak community
totally agreed...
------
Anyway it's ********** ugly!
EXACTLY. Sorry Toyota, but it's pretty rough.
totally agreed...
------
Anyway it's ********** ugly!
EXACTLY. Sorry Toyota, but it's pretty rough.
the vj
Apr 26, 03:18 PM
Usually Apple likes to be a "more exclusive platform".
PecanEater
Apr 5, 01:03 PM
Lame. You can be sure Toyota will capitulate to the Apple strong arm.
GFLPraxis
Aug 7, 03:12 PM
LAME
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
Eidorian
Jul 22, 09:56 PM
Does this current set of chips include some very low power consumption chips for use in the Apple ultra-portable I want so badly?:confused:No
Apple 26.2
Apr 21, 04:14 PM
Hello enterprise... it's nice to meet you!
redsoxunixgeek
Dec 31, 08:51 PM
I use Sophos. And it is awesome, easy to use, and would recommend it to everyone, including their pure message mail sanitizing program. Best on the Market, especially when used with a Barracuda Firewall.
Now My VPN policy for ALL users, is when they sign on to the VPN they have a host check that verifies
1. Anti Virus Software is installed
2. The Machine signing in has been scanned for viruses within the last 3 days prior to sign in.
3. The AV software is updated with the latest updates.
If all 3 pass, (plus their RSA Key and their Digital Certificate) then they can sign in,
If not, they go to download it.
This is just common sense in my opinion, and good practice for those of us that are short staffed and need to protect our network resources.
Now My VPN policy for ALL users, is when they sign on to the VPN they have a host check that verifies
1. Anti Virus Software is installed
2. The Machine signing in has been scanned for viruses within the last 3 days prior to sign in.
3. The AV software is updated with the latest updates.
If all 3 pass, (plus their RSA Key and their Digital Certificate) then they can sign in,
If not, they go to download it.
This is just common sense in my opinion, and good practice for those of us that are short staffed and need to protect our network resources.
*LTD*
Apr 5, 07:51 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
I wonder why Apple gives a hoot? This couldn't be hurting them could it?:confused:
It makes no difference. For starters, Toyota is violating the User Agreement. That in itself is grounds for immediate rejection. Second, it sends the wrong message. You want to do business with Apple, it has to be above-board. This should be obvious.
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
robotx21
Sep 17, 01:11 AM
I think new displays are a STRONG possibility. Digital Photos need NICE big displays :-D Just like video editing does. I think we will definately see new displays announced.
res1233
May 6, 05:05 AM
I would like to hear what sorts of reason Apple would use to make such a decision, if believable at all. If the architecture is headed in the right direction, then it would be nice to know why. At the end of the day, the ppc to intel switch had a relatively small impact on the rest of us.
Apple may very well have inside-knowledge of future ARM processors, just like they seem to have had with the Core series processors. If the past is any indication, and knowing what ARM CPUs are good at, they may make the switch for power efficiency, assuming their performance can be boosted to something reminiscent of a real computer. If windows will run on ARM, then that sure is some pretty sweet icing on the cake. The future will tell I guess.
Apple may very well have inside-knowledge of future ARM processors, just like they seem to have had with the Core series processors. If the past is any indication, and knowing what ARM CPUs are good at, they may make the switch for power efficiency, assuming their performance can be boosted to something reminiscent of a real computer. If windows will run on ARM, then that sure is some pretty sweet icing on the cake. The future will tell I guess.
Grokgod
Aug 7, 07:13 PM
Is this whole heat sinked ram issue for real?
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
ct2k7
May 9, 12:05 PM
There are changes coming to MobileMe, but I can't say anymore due to an NDA.
Hamilton Town Center#39;s White House/Black Market
Black and White: Hot Spring and Summer Fashion. White House Black Market
mcrain
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
That is a fair point.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
gavers
Mar 31, 09:21 AM
They sold well over 1 million desktops/workstation units last quarter and will surpass that quite handily this quarter.
Over 4 million.
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html
Over 4 million.
Source: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/01/18results.html
pizzafunghi
May 7, 03:45 PM
Then they better improve the performance first. If they offered it free then more users would really bog down the current MobileMe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA
cube
May 6, 07:06 AM
AMD is currently a bang for buck chip maker, I doubt you'll see them CPUs in Apple products. Plus until Fusion develops some more the thermal envelope isn't too good.
The TDP of Bobcat Fusion includes fast DX11 graphics. The TDP of Atom does not include graphics.
Bobcat Fusion is at 40nm bulk. Atom is at 45nm.
In some months Atom will shrink to 32nm with DX10 graphics.
By the turn of the year Bobcat+ Fusion will be out on 28nm bulk.
The TDP of Bobcat Fusion includes fast DX11 graphics. The TDP of Atom does not include graphics.
Bobcat Fusion is at 40nm bulk. Atom is at 45nm.
In some months Atom will shrink to 32nm with DX10 graphics.
By the turn of the year Bobcat+ Fusion will be out on 28nm bulk.
GoodWatch
Apr 5, 01:53 PM
"Toyota had agreed to do so to "maintain their good relationship with Apple," "
Toyota has a relationship with Apple, good or bad? Why? I don't see the connection.
The upcoming iPrius ;)
Toyota has a relationship with Apple, good or bad? Why? I don't see the connection.
The upcoming iPrius ;)
twoodcc
Aug 3, 07:23 AM
It's not a "chintzy marketing ploy by Intel". It's a scientific test conducted by two Intel Marketing engineers which I always believe because Intel employees are honest people with families and friends who love them. :)
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
intel employees don't lie? please tell me you didn't just say that
Eso
Mar 27, 04:44 AM
Like I said earlier... If they are released right away in the school year, the other students and staff would be in an uproar because they would say we should have seen this coming and blah blah blah, we should have waited until the start of the year.
Well you'll probably have to buy more in the fall anyways. I mean, have you ever seen public school textbooks?
Well you'll probably have to buy more in the fall anyways. I mean, have you ever seen public school textbooks?
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий