If you exclude software and cosmetic customisations, you top out the Dell at $3,949. For Apple, it tops out at $4,049 - the main difference being a marginally faster processor (2.3 v 2.13), double the SSD space, and a more modern graphics card. For a hundred bucks, I'll take that.
I can't speak for the Mac owners you know, but I got my MacBook Pro in 2008, before the unibody series. I've spent $100 upgrading the RAM recently, but other than that am perfectly happy with it, and it is running just as well as it was when I got it.
My sister on the other hand has churned through 3 laptops in the same time. A keyboard began to play up, then the power began to play up. Another had a hinge that came loose and is now doing duty as a headless home theatre laptop. The third has survived a year without any issues yet.
Apple's build quality has me more than happy with my $2500 investment 3 years ago; my sister has spent probably the same over 3 years on $800 devices. The story is similar amongst my other friends - build quality matters, and Apple is consistently better. You do get what you pay for.
The idea is not to be chained to the RAID array. Get some work done with the RAID array, copy the file over to the laptop and take it over to the client's place for demonstration. Sure, you could also do the same with a desktop and a laptop in combination, but having a single device saves a fair bit of overlap.
No, you end up with loopholes like SUVs. Government is terrible at regulation because special interests have too loud a voice, objecting to anything perceived as hampering their ability to do business as cheap as possible without changing anything. Government lays down standards because they don't appear too immediately onerous and the special interests can't sell that as a "government is taking my money" story.
The government in this instance hasn't mandated a technology, they've mandated an efficiency ceiling. If you can produce incandescents under that, then go for it.
If you're going to put it that way, you're going to invite the fact that "central planners" in the US government don't quite have the power to have things go according to their plan. They work through the levers of legislation, which must be enacted with agreement from all the vested local interests of Congress and the ultimately futile 2 party system currently in operation, which is without even mentioning the influence of lobbyists and the special interests they represent.
Central planners who could hope to achieve your checklist are more likely to be found in China.
As to who is going to make a smarter decision, I'm not sure I would trust people spending their own "hard earned" money. After all, the instinct for self-serving behavior, especially once a community goes beyond a "village" size, tends to mean people will spend according to what they perceive as best for them, not necessarily for the greater collective good. I'm not saying a bureaucrat is the answer, but leaving it to its own devices certainly ain't gonna solve these problems.
Would you really prefer power be transferred back to 50 different state legislatures that make up the United States? Just imagine that scenario, especially with the nature of politicians in these state legislatures today.
The federal system may be imperfect as ever, perhaps more imperfect than before, but I'd hardly call having some more power at the federal level a total failure.
Given the fact that the founding fathers couldn't have forseen electricity distribution, let alone the idea of man influencing global temperatures and the need to act in response to that, is it really so astounding that something may have been overlooked in the constitution?
It's not that they couldn't send notices before, but before it was more of a formality. They'd send the notice on as a warning that you've been noticed doing this activity, but the burden of enforcement wasn't there. Now, there's potential for a mechanism for these notices to be legitimate and enforceable - I think unless you're a hardcore committed anti-copyright activist*, you can hardly claim this is not reasonable. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, but it makes it more sensible in that Australian-based claimants should only issue notices if they have sufficient evidence to pursue conviction. Pretty sure the US ones will continue to issue their form-letter warnings no matter what.
It'd be "doth", and the Australian constitution was written in the late 1890s so it's not quite so archaic with the wording. But that's what it boils down to, yes.
In order to talk about browser performance, we needed to standardize. We now have two machines that will be our testing machines:
For OS X: a MacBook Pro laptop, currently OS X 10.6.6, 4GB of RAM, 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7, and NVIDIA GT 330M with 512MB of RAM. For Windows: a Lenovo T410s laptop, currently Windows 7 Enterprise, 4GB of RAM, 2.53 GHz Intel Core i5, and NVIDIA NVS 3100M with 512MB of RAM. Both of these laptops are significantly less powerful than the Mac Pro the original tests were run on. In addition, the 3100M offers approximately half the performance of the 330M.
Additionally, even in the article you linked to, Safari was the fastest non-beta browser.
My point was that Chrome 10 is still Beta on Windows. Absolutely agree with your main point that the other browsers deserved to have their dev versions tested too.
Well, I think if you look at that list you'll see it's not a necessary precursor to revolution, nor is it an indicator that revolution will occur. After all, there were 8 in the US alone which resulted in no impact to politics. I think more importantly though it is an indicator that things have gotten so bad that people will contemplate self-harm as a method of political protest.
Everyone just started protesting. One guy in Tunisia immolated himself in reaction to overly harsh police treatment, triggered protests there. With their success, Egyptians thought to give it a short, succeeded very visibly. And so the dominoes continue to fall.
My thought exactly - Pratchett is surprisingly insightful! Now we just need a hamster that runs on a wheel that isn't quite in this dimension and a quill for console output and we're set...
It's still under 2% for most retailers, other than Amex which charges 3% internationally.
As to the Mall analogy, I could stomach that logic if the iPad sold at a price below cost, or provided some ongoing service for free. I've already paid Apple for the device; I've already paid my ISP for the internet service over which the content will be downloaded. I may have already paid for the app - why does Apple get a slice of the content price when they're not hosting the content, just providing a one-click gateway to processing my payment? It's as though Paypal suddenly charged a 30% fee for all transactions. You don't just "visit" your device for content - there's a quaint notion of owning it that used to be primary.
Why is that? From my understanding, their system will be delivering the product to a particular user account, generally tied to a particular iOS device. That doesn't entail any exchange of personal details that would be useful in identifying you to a marketing agency.
Most likely the information will be solicited through promotions and other freebie enticements to get you to exchange a little bit of info for a little bit of a back-rub, or at least the possibility of one.
Ultimately for me, what matters is the end price I pay. If I pay $9.99 to buy product x and it is the same price on each platform, then what matters to me is that I paid $9.99. For the publisher, their revenue is $9.99, $8.99 or $6.99 depending on which platform I bought it from.
A publisher would be insane to prefer the Apple platform, unless they can "make it up in volume" - that Apple would deliver 20% or 30% more customers.
Objectively though, what rankles is that Apple is declaring that the price on the iOS platform must be equal to or lower than the lowest price offered elsewhere for the same product. A 30% increase in costs and it's not reflected in the end-user price? No wonder publishers are upset.
Google might do some bad things with privacy and jerk-ass behavior when it comes to dealing with standards and open-source, but that doesn't mean they're somehow acting on the behalf of a socialist Kenyan anti-colonial agenda. Beck's ability to conflate the smallest trivia into a global conspiracy that somehow attacks his vision of a pure and holy land ruled by the idealogical followers of an idealised version of their Holy Father Ronald Reagan is phenomenal and something that deserves to be called out.
Slashdot Mirror
If you exclude software and cosmetic customisations, you top out the Dell at $3,949. For Apple, it tops out at $4,049 - the main difference being a marginally faster processor (2.3 v 2.13), double the SSD space, and a more modern graphics card. For a hundred bucks, I'll take that.
I can't speak for the Mac owners you know, but I got my MacBook Pro in 2008, before the unibody series. I've spent $100 upgrading the RAM recently, but other than that am perfectly happy with it, and it is running just as well as it was when I got it.
My sister on the other hand has churned through 3 laptops in the same time. A keyboard began to play up, then the power began to play up. Another had a hinge that came loose and is now doing duty as a headless home theatre laptop. The third has survived a year without any issues yet.
Apple's build quality has me more than happy with my $2500 investment 3 years ago; my sister has spent probably the same over 3 years on $800 devices. The story is similar amongst my other friends - build quality matters, and Apple is consistently better. You do get what you pay for.
The idea is not to be chained to the RAID array. Get some work done with the RAID array, copy the file over to the laptop and take it over to the client's place for demonstration. Sure, you could also do the same with a desktop and a laptop in combination, but having a single device saves a fair bit of overlap.
No, you end up with loopholes like SUVs. Government is terrible at regulation because special interests have too loud a voice, objecting to anything perceived as hampering their ability to do business as cheap as possible without changing anything. Government lays down standards because they don't appear too immediately onerous and the special interests can't sell that as a "government is taking my money" story.
The same is not true for light bulbs.
Why?
The government in this instance hasn't mandated a technology, they've mandated an efficiency ceiling. If you can produce incandescents under that, then go for it.
If you're going to put it that way, you're going to invite the fact that "central planners" in the US government don't quite have the power to have things go according to their plan. They work through the levers of legislation, which must be enacted with agreement from all the vested local interests of Congress and the ultimately futile 2 party system currently in operation, which is without even mentioning the influence of lobbyists and the special interests they represent.
Central planners who could hope to achieve your checklist are more likely to be found in China.
As to who is going to make a smarter decision, I'm not sure I would trust people spending their own "hard earned" money. After all, the instinct for self-serving behavior, especially once a community goes beyond a "village" size, tends to mean people will spend according to what they perceive as best for them, not necessarily for the greater collective good. I'm not saying a bureaucrat is the answer, but leaving it to its own devices certainly ain't gonna solve these problems.
Would you really prefer power be transferred back to 50 different state legislatures that make up the United States? Just imagine that scenario, especially with the nature of politicians in these state legislatures today.
The federal system may be imperfect as ever, perhaps more imperfect than before, but I'd hardly call having some more power at the federal level a total failure.
Given the fact that the founding fathers couldn't have forseen electricity distribution, let alone the idea of man influencing global temperatures and the need to act in response to that, is it really so astounding that something may have been overlooked in the constitution?
But they can send notices now - bad
It's not that they couldn't send notices before, but before it was more of a formality. They'd send the notice on as a warning that you've been noticed doing this activity, but the burden of enforcement wasn't there. Now, there's potential for a mechanism for these notices to be legitimate and enforceable - I think unless you're a hardcore committed anti-copyright activist*, you can hardly claim this is not reasonable. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, but it makes it more sensible in that Australian-based claimants should only issue notices if they have sufficient evidence to pursue conviction. Pretty sure the US ones will continue to issue their form-letter warnings no matter what.
It'd be "doth", and the Australian constitution was written in the late 1890s so it's not quite so archaic with the wording. But that's what it boils down to, yes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
TFA is not the one you've linked there. TFA:
Benchmarking
In order to talk about browser performance, we needed to standardize. We now have two machines that will be our testing machines:
For OS X: a MacBook Pro laptop, currently OS X 10.6.6, 4GB of RAM, 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7, and NVIDIA GT 330M with 512MB of RAM.
For Windows: a Lenovo T410s laptop, currently Windows 7 Enterprise, 4GB of RAM, 2.53 GHz Intel Core i5, and NVIDIA NVS 3100M with 512MB of RAM.
Both of these laptops are significantly less powerful than the Mac Pro the original tests were run on. In addition, the 3100M offers approximately half the performance of the 330M.
Additionally, even in the article you linked to, Safari was the fastest non-beta browser.
My point was that Chrome 10 is still Beta on Windows. Absolutely agree with your main point that the other browsers deserved to have their dev versions tested too.
Think in terms of "software engineers" - 500 million users is a hefty workload for any single site.
Chrome 10 is BETA; Chrome 11 is more like nightly/alpha.
The fastest non-BETA browser is Safari 5 on OSX. Your point?
Well, I think if you look at that list you'll see it's not a necessary precursor to revolution, nor is it an indicator that revolution will occur. After all, there were 8 in the US alone which resulted in no impact to politics. I think more importantly though it is an indicator that things have gotten so bad that people will contemplate self-harm as a method of political protest.
Everyone just started protesting. One guy in Tunisia immolated himself in reaction to overly harsh police treatment, triggered protests there. With their success, Egyptians thought to give it a short, succeeded very visibly. And so the dominoes continue to fall.
My thought exactly - Pratchett is surprisingly insightful! Now we just need a hamster that runs on a wheel that isn't quite in this dimension and a quill for console output and we're set...
It's still under 2% for most retailers, other than Amex which charges 3% internationally.
As to the Mall analogy, I could stomach that logic if the iPad sold at a price below cost, or provided some ongoing service for free. I've already paid Apple for the device; I've already paid my ISP for the internet service over which the content will be downloaded. I may have already paid for the app - why does Apple get a slice of the content price when they're not hosting the content, just providing a one-click gateway to processing my payment? It's as though Paypal suddenly charged a 30% fee for all transactions. You don't just "visit" your device for content - there's a quaint notion of owning it that used to be primary.
Why is that? From my understanding, their system will be delivering the product to a particular user account, generally tied to a particular iOS device. That doesn't entail any exchange of personal details that would be useful in identifying you to a marketing agency.
Most likely the information will be solicited through promotions and other freebie enticements to get you to exchange a little bit of info for a little bit of a back-rub, or at least the possibility of one.
Ultimately for me, what matters is the end price I pay. If I pay $9.99 to buy product x and it is the same price on each platform, then what matters to me is that I paid $9.99. For the publisher, their revenue is $9.99, $8.99 or $6.99 depending on which platform I bought it from.
A publisher would be insane to prefer the Apple platform, unless they can "make it up in volume" - that Apple would deliver 20% or 30% more customers.
Objectively though, what rankles is that Apple is declaring that the price on the iOS platform must be equal to or lower than the lowest price offered elsewhere for the same product. A 30% increase in costs and it's not reflected in the end-user price? No wonder publishers are upset.
I thought the whole genesis of Twitter was the status-updates-via-SMS?
It probably should read:
"shrunk [a program to access to the] Facebook [API via SMS] down so that it fits on a SIM" ... but I guess it's pitched towards non-technical users?
Google might do some bad things with privacy and jerk-ass behavior when it comes to dealing with standards and open-source, but that doesn't mean they're somehow acting on the behalf of a socialist Kenyan anti-colonial agenda. Beck's ability to conflate the smallest trivia into a global conspiracy that somehow attacks his vision of a pure and holy land ruled by the idealogical followers of an idealised version of their Holy Father Ronald Reagan is phenomenal and something that deserves to be called out.