Yes, but the article infers that the product isn't very good, so it doesn't merit the $500 price. My contention is that if it sucks at $500, it still sucks at $99 because, well, it sucks. Now if it were pretty good, but slightly expensive at $500, it would be a great value at $99. But this thing isn't good to begin with, regardless of the price. Maybe for $99 the value is that you could see it to someone else for a profit?
The goodness (or in this case, sucky-ness) of a device is independent of its price. If these things are $500 or $99, their quality isn't any better or worse just because you change the price.
The sinuses drying can feel suffocating. The motion of the air, also, can interrupt the breathing rhythm. Both of these things can be a contributing factor in death for elderly or invalid people...And the body does partially lose its ability to regulate its temperature during sleep. A constant breeze can screw up temperature regulation as well, and the combination can give a person serious chills on a hot day. (I've felt those chills.) Again, this can combine with other problems and cause death.
Dude. Stop. Just....stop. You are proving his point quite nicely. I can't sleep WITHOUT a fan. Does that make me a vampire or something dead?
But I'm going to assume that the people who really believe the weird theories are among the fringe, which every country has its share of.
Sounds like you are part of that same fringe, based on what I cited above.
That's because we Americans are cheap and actually prefer inferior cars to better ones because they are generally cheaper.
I'd love to buy an American car if they'd just make one that isn't engineered with bottom line choices taking priority over the choice to make a nice vehicle (even if it costs a little more to do so).
This is an example of how OS X is inherently superior to Windows for security, without even arguing the technical underpinnings.
Windows developers can't even write a dialog box that doesn't confuse the user (and Microsoft does nothing to help them conform, like Apple does). It's all downhill from there.
A product is priced based on what people are willing to pay. The fact that the iDrones are buying iPads at lower costs than usually inferior products, I guess they aren't as mindless as you suggest.
I don't care about mpg, obviously. It doesn't bother me that big trucks and SUVs get bad gas mileage. It bothers me that they are dangerous vehicles to their drivers and other drivers and they take up so much space on the roads. It especially bothers me that most people who drive them, don't need them (yourself excluded). I'm talking the stay-at-home mom in Texas who puts one kid on the bus and drives the other to daycare, then goes and gets a mani/pedi/coffee in her Cadillac Escalade.
B.S. journalist doesn't know anything, just repeating what other journalists say. Every user I know spends 99.99% of their time in safari, mail, facebook app, or the video/music player. With an honorable mention of the kindle app.
Yay!!! Somebody finally gets it. You've succinctly explained Apple's success. See, it's not the shiny hardware; it's the nice stuff that comes preinstalled, no mucking about, that people are buying. Surprisingly enough, fewer iOS users are shallow hipsters with too much money than the average slashdotter is willing to admit.
This is why many Apple fans don't mind the supposed lock-in, because what they are locked into works 99.99% of the time for them. Of course the App Store is just icing for those folks. I've found the most vocal opponents to iOS/OS X are ones who don't appreciate the quality of the built-in functionality in the first place.
Apple fans have too much money, huh? That must explain why many of the iPad competitors actually cost more?
The fact you are, 1) calling the iPad a "tablet", and b) comparing its hardware specs to a netbook, tells me you don't get what makes the iPad the dominant device in its segment.
Well 1L cars aren't possible here because nobody sells one. It's not that they aren't legal, it's they aren't available.
Granted, I don't want one either (I'm buying a Fiesta soon, which is about as small of a car and engine I can see as viable here in big bad Texas), but to say it wouldn't be possible is projecting.
Yes, exactly. I want them to not drive too fast and not drive too slow that they endanger everyone else. This is equally true for all drivers, but SUV especially, given their irresponsible choice of vehicle.
I don't think a vehicle like an SUV, although more inherently dangerous than a lower center of gravity, lower weight vehicle, should have any problem maneuvering a corner at the posted speed limits. Speed limits are set artificially low for this exact reason.
I didn't say anything about them being maniacs. I said they can't be expected to demonstrate good judgment--part of which is operating your vehicle at safe speeds for the conditions--not 15 mph slower than everyone else around you.
Look higher up in this thread. You are wrong. Europe does have an appreciably lower number of car fatalities per capita DESPITE having smaller cars, more congestion and narrower roads.
Something tells me you've never driven a small displacement modern vehicle. You think a 1 liter car can't exceed even the highest speed limit ANYWHERE in the United States? Ok, if it's got the typically sized American driving it, then yeah, probably not, but otherwise you should easily hit 100mph in that sort of vehicle (speed rating of tires dependent).
I can afford the big vehicles but choose not to buy them. I think they should cost even more...maybe the people who can barely afford them now, yet do so anyway because it's a redneck status symbol here in the US would stop buying them, making us all safer.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people who get them don't really use them that often. And realistically, when they do, it's to browse the web.
You are talking about laptops, right?
Yes, but the article infers that the product isn't very good, so it doesn't merit the $500 price. My contention is that if it sucks at $500, it still sucks at $99 because, well, it sucks. Now if it were pretty good, but slightly expensive at $500, it would be a great value at $99. But this thing isn't good to begin with, regardless of the price. Maybe for $99 the value is that you could see it to someone else for a profit?
The goodness (or in this case, sucky-ness) of a device is independent of its price. If these things are $500 or $99, their quality isn't any better or worse just because you change the price.
A "several hundred dollar" office suite shouldn't even exist. Especially in 2011.
The sinuses drying can feel suffocating. The motion of the air, also, can interrupt the breathing rhythm. Both of these things can be a contributing factor in death for elderly or invalid people...And the body does partially lose its ability to regulate its temperature during sleep. A constant breeze can screw up temperature regulation as well, and the combination can give a person serious chills on a hot day. (I've felt those chills.) Again, this can combine with other problems and cause death.
Dude. Stop. Just....stop. You are proving his point quite nicely. I can't sleep WITHOUT a fan. Does that make me a vampire or something dead?
But I'm going to assume that the people who really believe the weird theories are among the fringe, which every country has its share of.
Sounds like you are part of that same fringe, based on what I cited above.
The way it's been colored in the Apple photo has been darkened.
Apple, having the Creatives market sewn up, would know best how to make black even more black, for sure!
Do you honestly think that if you put the two side by side that the average consumer would be unable to see the difference?
You grossly over-estimate the intelligence of the "average consumer".
That's because we Americans are cheap and actually prefer inferior cars to better ones because they are generally cheaper.
I'd love to buy an American car if they'd just make one that isn't engineered with bottom line choices taking priority over the choice to make a nice vehicle (even if it costs a little more to do so).
This is an example of how OS X is inherently superior to Windows for security, without even arguing the technical underpinnings.
Windows developers can't even write a dialog box that doesn't confuse the user (and Microsoft does nothing to help them conform, like Apple does). It's all downhill from there.
While I agree there are Android tablets that have better hardware, and others that have lower price, but I haven't seen any that have both.
A product is priced based on what people are willing to pay. The fact that the iDrones are buying iPads at lower costs than usually inferior products, I guess they aren't as mindless as you suggest.
I don't care about mpg, obviously. It doesn't bother me that big trucks and SUVs get bad gas mileage. It bothers me that they are dangerous vehicles to their drivers and other drivers and they take up so much space on the roads. It especially bothers me that most people who drive them, don't need them (yourself excluded). I'm talking the stay-at-home mom in Texas who puts one kid on the bus and drives the other to daycare, then goes and gets a mani/pedi/coffee in her Cadillac Escalade.
B.S. journalist doesn't know anything, just repeating what other journalists say. Every user I know spends 99.99% of their time in safari, mail, facebook app, or the video/music player. With an honorable mention of the kindle app.
Yay!!! Somebody finally gets it. You've succinctly explained Apple's success. See, it's not the shiny hardware; it's the nice stuff that comes preinstalled, no mucking about, that people are buying. Surprisingly enough, fewer iOS users are shallow hipsters with too much money than the average slashdotter is willing to admit.
This is why many Apple fans don't mind the supposed lock-in, because what they are locked into works 99.99% of the time for them. Of course the App Store is just icing for those folks. I've found the most vocal opponents to iOS/OS X are ones who don't appreciate the quality of the built-in functionality in the first place.
Apple fans have too much money, huh? That must explain why many of the iPad competitors actually cost more?
The fact you are, 1) calling the iPad a "tablet", and b) comparing its hardware specs to a netbook, tells me you don't get what makes the iPad the dominant device in its segment.
Well 1L cars aren't possible here because nobody sells one. It's not that they aren't legal, it's they aren't available.
Granted, I don't want one either (I'm buying a Fiesta soon, which is about as small of a car and engine I can see as viable here in big bad Texas), but to say it wouldn't be possible is projecting.
Yes, exactly. I want them to not drive too fast and not drive too slow that they endanger everyone else. This is equally true for all drivers, but SUV especially, given their irresponsible choice of vehicle.
I don't think a vehicle like an SUV, although more inherently dangerous than a lower center of gravity, lower weight vehicle, should have any problem maneuvering a corner at the posted speed limits. Speed limits are set artificially low for this exact reason.
I passed mine in 2006. They had the reaction test on there that was kind of dumb. What's a "skid-pan course?
Because they cause traffic congestion and increase the differences in rates of speed with the vehicles around them.
Your confirmation bias is showing. You hate the vehicle, so the drivers must be hateful, too.
So close, it's the drivers I hate (and their incessant rationalization of their choice of vehicle), not the vehicle.
I didn't say anything about them being maniacs. I said they can't be expected to demonstrate good judgment--part of which is operating your vehicle at safe speeds for the conditions--not 15 mph slower than everyone else around you.
Look higher up in this thread. You are wrong. Europe does have an appreciably lower number of car fatalities per capita DESPITE having smaller cars, more congestion and narrower roads.
Something tells me you've never driven a small displacement modern vehicle. You think a 1 liter car can't exceed even the highest speed limit ANYWHERE in the United States? Ok, if it's got the typically sized American driving it, then yeah, probably not, but otherwise you should easily hit 100mph in that sort of vehicle (speed rating of tires dependent).
I asked because most of these SUV drivers seem to be fat people with fat children.
It's the fish/plants growth-theory...get a bigger fish tank or plant vase and the fish and plants grow bigger.
I can afford the big vehicles but choose not to buy them. I think they should cost even more...maybe the people who can barely afford them now, yet do so anyway because it's a redneck status symbol here in the US would stop buying them, making us all safer.
Why the fuck would you take a corner too fast?
So that explains the horde of SUV drivers ahead of me that consistently drive 15 mph under the speed limit at first sight of a hill or curve.