> When you get cancer from all the hormone-saturated meat you eat,
Normal people already commonly live into their 70s, 80, and even 90s without your religion. You're the only smug idiot that's going to look like a fool in the end.
> He already told you junk food is far cheaper the regular food. 4 Dollars a gallon of milk.4 kids will go through 3 gallons a week
It will also be the backbone of their diet in the process. It won't just be empty calories but will be a good chunk of most of what they need to live on since we are mammals. That is what milk is actually meant for.
You also can't easily replace that calcium.
Living on real food cheaply can be done. It's just not very glamorous.
> How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms.
That's fine in theory. Except for the fact that the people that want to gut Food Stamps also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning. The openly attack the private organizations that provide birth control pills and condoms to would be welfare mothers.
> 4 boxes of lil debbie snack cakes for the cost of a lb of chicken.
No you can't. Even boneless chicken breast isn't that expensive and you don't have to fixate on that. You don't have to be a total moron when you are buying something other than junk food.
The whole "it's more expensive" argument is based entirely on the most extreme (sometimes even bogus) examples possible.
Plus the gross obesity clearly demonstrates that calorie per dollar is no the real issue. Obviously you don't need to latch onto the shittiest food people.
People with poor impulse control will just go for the junk.
Sure you can patent ideas. Patents are so broad today and juries are so generous today that you can quite effectively patent an idea. Tivo is a great example of this. They claimed ownership of some prior art and built a device that was only relevant short a short period of time. That device and whatever legitimate inventions they may have had quickly became irrelevant.
Their "innovations" were rendered moot by the advance of technology before they engaged in the first related cases of patent trolling.
It's not supposed to be that way but that's true of the patent sytsem in general.
> What can be done on a desktop or laptop PC that can't be done on a tablet PC ?
You said it yourself. You can't just plug in any peripheral you like and expect it to work. You're trying to make excuses for things you can't do anymore. That's really stupid.
You can't even make it through your own post without proving yourself wrong.
Not it wasn't. It was just heavily marketed to a bunch of idiots that think that Apple invents everything that it sells.
I got my first low profile PC in 1999 and was advocating for something like the Mac Mini right here on this website when Apple was still selling that desk lamp monstrosity.
The only difference is the outer shell. At least a Lexus has some upgraded innards when compared to a Toyota. With a Mac it's ZILCH. It's the same parts as you could get in a Dell.
There have been particular Dells used as hackintoshes for this very reason.
It's easier to talk nonsense when you have no clue what so ever and you have no idea what you're buying.
> Lots of research shows that Macs are more productive, last longer and kick PC ass when it comes to cost benefit ratios.
Research?
I prefer personal experience.
On the other hand, I have actually had Macs. I've seen how really mediocre they are. It terms of reliability, they're bottom of the heap. The "lets cook our laptop parts" approach to system design can't help.
MacOS might be interesting but god is the hardware awful. It's pretty but not practical. The same design decisions that disallow maintainability also cook your PC.
> But for $500, I want to be able to type up a document in a pinch. Plug in my USB devices. Connect to HMDI TV, plug in an SD Card, open a command prompt,
I can do all of that with my phone. I can certainly do that with an Android tablet without spending $500 on it.
> Also, if kept reasonably clean, a Mac will last way longer than the typical OEM box/laptop.
No it won't. It will become obsolete faster as it's completely unmaintainable. Anything that breaks will be harder to deal with. Obsolete components can't be swapped out.
With a PC, I can do this myself or pay someone else. This isn't an option with a Mac.
My old Mac is a doorstop. Can't even get OS updates for it. Similarly old PCs are fine, especially with an upgraded video card.
The notion of libel is based on the idea of doing some "harm" to the aggrieved party. The damage to reputation from a few unsatisfied customers or even SHILLS pales in comparison to what this company is doing to itself.
Attacking customers? That's like a reputation self-nuke.
Forget about "libel".
This company clearly deserves to die in a fire of it's own creation.
Not all vehicles are the same. Some vehicles are perfectly capable of doing 100mph while others need to be throttled back for safety reasons. This includes the characteristics of the vehicle as well as any cargo it might be hauling.
Automated cars would pass each other for the same reasons that normal ones pass each other on the autobahn.
That's not the point. Clearly Pogue has a very crude understanding of this whole "red state" versus "blue state" thing. And it doesn't take that much to get clued in either. Just watch national election coverage and pay attention to the state maps.
Yes. We know that Kodak also sold film and paper. This was also visible to the consumer. It was also a market where other smaller companies were trying to eat Kodak's lunch.
> Nobody would ever subscribe to a service that provides content, particularly DRM video.
Everyone is already used to paying upwards of $100 or more per month for that sort of thing. What works well for something that replaces cable likely won't translate to anything else.
Plus even the great successes here greatly devalue the product.
Hulu and Netflix turn a $100 product into a $9 one.
No. This joker is the one who doesn't get the point. I don't know why anyone repeats his nonsense.
The internet is not to blame for Kodak's demise. The march of technology is. Technology changed in Kodak's niche and they were ill equipped as an incumbent to deal with it. The fact that they helped invent some of this stuff doesn't alter the problem.
They were a corporate dinosaur.
They suffered from what many have suffered since the dawn of the industrial age. Tech displaced them. That's all about Sony and Canon rather than the latest overvalued web startup.
Some cranky geezer wants to rant about the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
> When you get cancer from all the hormone-saturated meat you eat,
Normal people already commonly live into their 70s, 80, and even 90s without your religion. You're the only smug idiot that's going to look like a fool in the end.
> He already told you junk food is far cheaper the regular food. 4 Dollars a gallon of milk.4 kids will go through 3 gallons a week
It will also be the backbone of their diet in the process. It won't just be empty calories but will be a good chunk of most of what they need to live on since we are mammals. That is what milk is actually meant for.
You also can't easily replace that calcium.
Living on real food cheaply can be done. It's just not very glamorous.
> How about when the girl gets on welfare with one kid you tell her "Here's the pill, here's where you can get condoms.
That's fine in theory. Except for the fact that the people that want to gut Food Stamps also want to destroy sex education and any form of family planning. The openly attack the private organizations that provide birth control pills and condoms to would be welfare mothers.
> 4 boxes of lil debbie snack cakes for the cost of a lb of chicken.
No you can't. Even boneless chicken breast isn't that expensive and you don't have to fixate on that. You don't have to be a total moron when you are buying something other than junk food.
The whole "it's more expensive" argument is based entirely on the most extreme (sometimes even bogus) examples possible.
Plus the gross obesity clearly demonstrates that calorie per dollar is no the real issue. Obviously you don't need to latch onto the shittiest food people.
People with poor impulse control will just go for the junk.
> It takes a remarkable amount of calories to run each mile. Lean meat has very few calories.
Both of these claims are simply incorrect.
Sure you can patent ideas. Patents are so broad today and juries are so generous today that you can quite effectively patent an idea. Tivo is a great example of this. They claimed ownership of some prior art and built a device that was only relevant short a short period of time. That device and whatever legitimate inventions they may have had quickly became irrelevant.
Their "innovations" were rendered moot by the advance of technology before they engaged in the first related cases of patent trolling.
It's not supposed to be that way but that's true of the patent sytsem in general.
More patent trolling doesn't achieve the original goals of the patent system.
> What can be done on a desktop or laptop PC that can't be done on a tablet PC ?
You said it yourself. You can't just plug in any peripheral you like and expect it to work. You're trying to make excuses for things you can't do anymore. That's really stupid.
You can't even make it through your own post without proving yourself wrong.
Never mind the rest of us.
> Mac mini was in its own world for years,
Not it wasn't. It was just heavily marketed to a bunch of idiots that think that Apple invents everything that it sells.
I got my first low profile PC in 1999 and was advocating for something like the Mac Mini right here on this website when Apple was still selling that desk lamp monstrosity.
...except it's THE SAME CAR.
The only difference is the outer shell. At least a Lexus has some upgraded innards when compared to a Toyota. With a Mac it's ZILCH. It's the same parts as you could get in a Dell.
There have been particular Dells used as hackintoshes for this very reason.
It's easier to talk nonsense when you have no clue what so ever and you have no idea what you're buying.
> Lots of research shows that Macs are more productive, last longer and kick PC ass when it comes to cost benefit ratios.
Research?
I prefer personal experience.
On the other hand, I have actually had Macs. I've seen how really mediocre they are. It terms of reliability, they're bottom of the heap. The "lets cook our laptop parts" approach to system design can't help.
MacOS might be interesting but god is the hardware awful. It's pretty but not practical. The same design decisions that disallow maintainability also cook your PC.
You can get a tablet that takes a stylus to help avoid that.
Not as "elegant" as just using your finger but probably much more portable than a mouse.
> But for $500, I want to be able to type up a document in a pinch. Plug in my USB devices. Connect to HMDI TV, plug in an SD Card, open a command prompt,
I can do all of that with my phone. I can certainly do that with an Android tablet without spending $500 on it.
> Also, if kept reasonably clean, a Mac will last way longer than the typical OEM box/laptop.
No it won't. It will become obsolete faster as it's completely unmaintainable. Anything that breaks will be harder to deal with. Obsolete components can't be swapped out.
With a PC, I can do this myself or pay someone else. This isn't an option with a Mac.
My old Mac is a doorstop. Can't even get OS updates for it. Similarly old PCs are fine, especially with an upgraded video card.
You know that and I know that but the guy that controls the money will have a conniption fit if you try to spend any of it.
These guys are like Eugene Crabs.
It's a common engineering problem: Theory versus Practice.
Your ideal world full of rainbow unicorns doesn't quite match up with the real one.
Less than 300K meaning $299,999.99.
The notion of libel is based on the idea of doing some "harm" to the aggrieved party. The damage to reputation from a few unsatisfied customers or even SHILLS pales in comparison to what this company is doing to itself.
Attacking customers? That's like a reputation self-nuke.
Forget about "libel".
This company clearly deserves to die in a fire of it's own creation.
> And segregation, don't forget segregation.
Only for the first half of the 20th century.
> Why would there be a need for passing?
Not all vehicles are the same. Some vehicles are perfectly capable of doing 100mph while others need to be throttled back for safety reasons. This includes the characteristics of the vehicle as well as any cargo it might be hauling.
Automated cars would pass each other for the same reasons that normal ones pass each other on the autobahn.
That's not the point. Clearly Pogue has a very crude understanding of this whole "red state" versus "blue state" thing. And it doesn't take that much to get clued in either. Just watch national election coverage and pay attention to the state maps.
> Same way Henry Ford paid for his stubborn "You can have any color you want as long as it is black" mentality
That's just urban legend.
Model-T's came in a variety of colors.
Yes. We know that Kodak also sold film and paper. This was also visible to the consumer. It was also a market where other smaller companies were trying to eat Kodak's lunch.
Fuji was notable in this regard.
> Nobody would ever subscribe to a service that provides content, particularly DRM video.
Everyone is already used to paying upwards of $100 or more per month for that sort of thing. What works well for something that replaces cable likely won't translate to anything else.
Plus even the great successes here greatly devalue the product.
Hulu and Netflix turn a $100 product into a $9 one.
No. This joker is the one who doesn't get the point. I don't know why anyone repeats his nonsense.
The internet is not to blame for Kodak's demise. The march of technology is. Technology changed in Kodak's niche and they were ill equipped as an incumbent to deal with it. The fact that they helped invent some of this stuff doesn't alter the problem.
They were a corporate dinosaur.
They suffered from what many have suffered since the dawn of the industrial age. Tech displaced them. That's all about Sony and Canon rather than the latest overvalued web startup.
Some cranky geezer wants to rant about the Internet.
They haven't used the mark in any public way.
Sounds exactly how some jack*ss tried to hijack the Linux trademark. If UK law allows for this sort of thing then that's rather sad really.