The theory behind the new DST is, in fact, intelligent and a positive sign in this otherwise bleak administration.
As for the affect on the IT industry, here where I work as a developer at a large international Fortune 500 company (think: German) it was a simple three step fix that retrofitted all Outlook appointments (or any other applicable piece of software) with the new timing, and patched the computer for the future. The process was easy (even the sales reps figured it out) and the energy payout in the long run (years and years of saving daylight) more than warrant the *slight* hassle.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but...
That was in a much younger market with far weaker competition. Those old Nomads and such were not nearly as developed as today's Treos or Blackberries. The iPod offered something no one else did in mass storage and style. Whereas today, the same features that the iPhone is offering are already prevalent in the market (and evolved far past first generation [ie. iPhone], as well). One can argue the reason the iPod rocked it so hard was because of the touch wheel, and that may very well be the case. This would mean the iPhone's success is reliant on people falling in love with the new all-screen interface. And that is a huge question mark, certainly warranting analysts' suspicion.
Ah, fresh astro turf.
Wikipedia's draw is that I can enter anything I want. This includes anything about me or my pet dog or my favorite color. But this also means I can edit the definition of the Bill of Rights, etc. This is the whole point, that I can add, edit or view anything. And the notion of using it as a viable source is completely shot down, as anyone in scholastics would tell you, because you are much better off just using the sources that are cited. This would in turn make your paper valid and much more effective than even sourcing the Britannica.
This is simply illogical. Despite what the true incentives of his donations are, the tax break these donations provide pale in comparison to other forms of estate planning that could also save him money. If Gates set up the foundation solely as to circumvent tax laws, leaving the philanthropy secondary, he would not need to give half his wealth, leaving your methodology as inefficient. The donation tax break vs. the death tax works in percentages, and never is such high a percentage as what he has donated needed to achieve this goal.
If he wanted his kids to keep "vast" wealth he could set aside $5bil each kid and still save enough money in the foundation to bypass the tax with enough money for a small island on the side. Yet it is reported he is leaving a number floating around the "low millions" ($50-200mil [I WISH I considered that "low millions"]) per child. Not to mention, every two-bit estate planner with his Series 7 knows these laws, guaranteeing almost EVERY millionaire to billionaire also takes advantage of the "donation" law. Yet none have given such high percentages or raw wealth to a charitable trust, albeit one of his own.
Flaming this act of donation as selfish is simply immature when the foundation should be revered, regardless of your view of Gates, M$ or their product.
Wasn't there some similar initial gripe about the PS2 architecture? I am not so privy myself to the details (so I actually am wondering), but I seem to remember there beeing some of the same types of comments about the PS2 hardware that, while maybe rightly so, seemed to be overcome.
Also, is it plausible that it takes time, and that maybe the PS3 came out too soon? (Or that dev kits weren't in the dev's hands soon enough? Oh wait... thats a fact.) So maybe as the kits are out and people start figuring it all out, and the ceiling rises, we get to see what the hardware can really do?
I own a 360 and am impressed by it but I cannot help but be curious as to what that sheer power in the PS3 can do, and can't help but think its a matter of time before uber programmers a la Carmack start to warm up to it.
Thoughts?
NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT FACT. What I was talking about is that within the realm of discussion of FCP v Premiere (ya know, the REAL post) it is important to define to what capacity these programs are being used./. FTW
Wow. As soon as I read that I knew I was going to get flamed for hitting the "c" which is right next to the "v." Hm, must be my ignorance though.
And seeing as reading comprehension isn't the cool thing anymore (judging by the insta-replies), let me explain. WHAT I SAID/meant is that the "drag and drop" kiddies will no doubt endorse FCP (NOT saying that FCP is not used by *any* studios), where in reality there is a very evident "ceiling" to FCP that TRUE major scale production studios will reach. So the question really is what realm are we talking about where FCP needs to worry. If its in feature length Hollywood its relevance is not strong enough to make the discussion worthwhile. If we are speaking the consumer to pro-amateur to small studio level, then Premiere is certainly comparable to FCP and it boils down to an interface/gui and components/integration, with other apps, situation.
So before you accuse me of ignorance, read the post for what it says and maybe think about it.
It isn't even a question of FCP v. Premiere. That is essentially a Win v. Mac debate, because despite the pre2003 Mac presence of Premiere, Premiere has always been the AMATEUR choice on Win. And FCP is, in fact (despite what Apple kiddies who love to drag and drop will say), an amateur video editing suite. When it boils down to it, if youre serious about video editing, neither of these are in the running because youll be using Acid.
So the debate of FCP v. Premiere is basically an interface question and any beginner editor who just bough their fresh MacBook Pro I can very well see using the Adobe path.
Slashdot Mirror
... is when a director puts Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise in a movie and attempts to make them seem normal.
The theory behind the new DST is, in fact, intelligent and a positive sign in this otherwise bleak administration.
As for the affect on the IT industry, here where I work as a developer at a large international Fortune 500 company (think: German) it was a simple three step fix that retrofitted all Outlook appointments (or any other applicable piece of software) with the new timing, and patched the computer for the future. The process was easy (even the sales reps figured it out) and the energy payout in the long run (years and years of saving daylight) more than warrant the *slight* hassle.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but... That was in a much younger market with far weaker competition. Those old Nomads and such were not nearly as developed as today's Treos or Blackberries. The iPod offered something no one else did in mass storage and style. Whereas today, the same features that the iPhone is offering are already prevalent in the market (and evolved far past first generation [ie. iPhone], as well). One can argue the reason the iPod rocked it so hard was because of the touch wheel, and that may very well be the case. This would mean the iPhone's success is reliant on people falling in love with the new all-screen interface. And that is a huge question mark, certainly warranting analysts' suspicion.
This worth more than a "2." I heard Iran is using PS3s to predict the weather...
Ah, fresh astro turf. Wikipedia's draw is that I can enter anything I want. This includes anything about me or my pet dog or my favorite color. But this also means I can edit the definition of the Bill of Rights, etc. This is the whole point, that I can add, edit or view anything. And the notion of using it as a viable source is completely shot down, as anyone in scholastics would tell you, because you are much better off just using the sources that are cited. This would in turn make your paper valid and much more effective than even sourcing the Britannica.
how is this a 5... nothing to see here.
This is simply illogical. Despite what the true incentives of his donations are, the tax break these donations provide pale in comparison to other forms of estate planning that could also save him money. If Gates set up the foundation solely as to circumvent tax laws, leaving the philanthropy secondary, he would not need to give half his wealth, leaving your methodology as inefficient. The donation tax break vs. the death tax works in percentages, and never is such high a percentage as what he has donated needed to achieve this goal. If he wanted his kids to keep "vast" wealth he could set aside $5bil each kid and still save enough money in the foundation to bypass the tax with enough money for a small island on the side. Yet it is reported he is leaving a number floating around the "low millions" ($50-200mil [I WISH I considered that "low millions"]) per child. Not to mention, every two-bit estate planner with his Series 7 knows these laws, guaranteeing almost EVERY millionaire to billionaire also takes advantage of the "donation" law. Yet none have given such high percentages or raw wealth to a charitable trust, albeit one of his own. Flaming this act of donation as selfish is simply immature when the foundation should be revered, regardless of your view of Gates, M$ or their product.
Wasn't there some similar initial gripe about the PS2 architecture? I am not so privy myself to the details (so I actually am wondering), but I seem to remember there beeing some of the same types of comments about the PS2 hardware that, while maybe rightly so, seemed to be overcome. Also, is it plausible that it takes time, and that maybe the PS3 came out too soon? (Or that dev kits weren't in the dev's hands soon enough? Oh wait... thats a fact.) So maybe as the kits are out and people start figuring it all out, and the ceiling rises, we get to see what the hardware can really do? I own a 360 and am impressed by it but I cannot help but be curious as to what that sheer power in the PS3 can do, and can't help but think its a matter of time before uber programmers a la Carmack start to warm up to it. Thoughts?
NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT FACT. What I was talking about is that within the realm of discussion of FCP v Premiere (ya know, the REAL post) it is important to define to what capacity these programs are being used. /. FTW
Wow. As soon as I read that I knew I was going to get flamed for hitting the "c" which is right next to the "v." Hm, must be my ignorance though.
And seeing as reading comprehension isn't the cool thing anymore (judging by the insta-replies), let me explain. WHAT I SAID/meant is that the "drag and drop" kiddies will no doubt endorse FCP (NOT saying that FCP is not used by *any* studios), where in reality there is a very evident "ceiling" to FCP that TRUE major scale production studios will reach. So the question really is what realm are we talking about where FCP needs to worry. If its in feature length Hollywood its relevance is not strong enough to make the discussion worthwhile. If we are speaking the consumer to pro-amateur to small studio level, then Premiere is certainly comparable to FCP and it boils down to an interface/gui and components/integration, with other apps, situation.
So before you accuse me of ignorance, read the post for what it says and maybe think about it.
It isn't even a question of FCP v. Premiere. That is essentially a Win v. Mac debate, because despite the pre2003 Mac presence of Premiere, Premiere has always been the AMATEUR choice on Win. And FCP is, in fact (despite what Apple kiddies who love to drag and drop will say), an amateur video editing
suite. When it boils down to it, if youre serious about video editing, neither of these are in the running because youll be using Acid.
So the debate of FCP v. Premiere is basically an interface question and any beginner editor who just bough their fresh MacBook Pro I can very well see using the Adobe path.