The price of the vehicle is roughly equivalent to the amount of fuel required to build the vehicle. Some of that fuel might be in the from of food to power the engineers working on the car, but that food came from farm equipment burning oil.
The Volt comes in at $20,000 more than a similarly equipped Malibu, which has essentially the same body style. Back the my earlier point, the Volt takes almost twice the amount of energy to build when compared to the equivalent gas model.
Over the lifetime of the vehicles, you might, if you try really hard, burn $20,000 worth of gasoline in the Malibu, but the energy to power the Volt does not come free either. In terms of impact on the least amount of environmental impact, the Malibu wins by a long shot.
Electric vehicles come with benefits, but if the environment is your concern, as it seems to be in CA, the Volt, or even the Leaf, at least with current technology, is a pretty poor choice.
I do Photoshop work with the touchpad all of the time. I prefer it over using a mouse. Though a pen is most prefered for freehand drawing. Moving the pointer to where you want it to go is not nearly as difficult as you are making it sound.
I accept that games are easier using a mouse, which is why I said most circumstances. I will also agree that a pen beats a touchpad for graphic manipulation, but we were not talking about pens.
I'm not sure what problems you have with pixel manipulation. My Macbook Pro touchpad is fine in that regard. I assume this new touchpad behaves much the same way. Perhaps there are some touchpads of lesser quality out there that do not behave as well, but they are not really indicative of what is possible with touchpads anyway.
There is no "whole market." PCs (in the not-Mac sense) are used by completely different people than Macs. Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.
For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example. You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job. And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?
I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.
It is kind of like saying McDonalds has 8% of the apple pie market. While it might be true, I don't think you are going to head to McDonalds to pick up an apple pie for your next family gathering. That is not their market. It is not a meaningful metric to observe if you want to determine who sells the most homestyle pies.
I am a designer. I see no reason to get angry. It is why I do not pigeonhole myself into one career. If design jobs dry up, I'll put more energy into one of my other lines of work. No big deal.
Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.
False. 65000 iPhones activated a day. 150,000 android phones get activated every day.
And I could have 1,000,000 activations of my phone each day if I was to give it away for free. Number of activations don't mean anything with respect to profit.
Apple's share of the US consumer market is approximately 30% based on the numbers I can find. Apple doesn't compete in the corporate market, so looking at that market does not tell us much.
There is nothing wrong with highly skilled people charging top dollar. The problem is that I cannot hire an unskilled lawyer to take my case.
If I want to hire a random guy off the street who is willing to represent me for $50/hr., so be it. It is my fault for choosing to use his services in the first place if something goes horribly wrong. Or maybe he will actually be really good at the work it and I will have saved a fortune.
I recall reading about a case where a lawyer got into a lot of trouble for practising without the bar. What was most notable is that the article said he was really good at what he did. Why is the bar even necessary in cases like that? The bar does not have to be eliminated for those who want to have credentials to back up their services. That is how the free market is supposed to work.
I bought my iPhone because I wanted an iPod touch that had mobile broadband capabilities. I am really not concerned about how it behaves as a phone. If I wanted a phone, I would get a phone, not a handheld computer.
Apple has said since day one of this problem that if you do not like your phone, you are free to return it with 30 days. Nobody has owned an iPhone 4 for more than 30 days yet. If this is really a problem, take it back and get a phone without the problems.
What is interesting is that Flash developers do not hold back. Try using a version of Flash that is a version or two out of date and you will quickly hit a site forcing you to upgrade. Why is it okay to force users to upgrade Flash to watch your video, but not their browser to watch your video?
Furthermore, Internet Explorer will display your content just fine if you remove your CSS and Javascript declarations. That is the beauty of HTML. It automatically degrades for those using older browsers. You do not have to hold back on the latest and greatest features just because some people choose to use browsers that do not include the full feature-set.
If you are trying to backport your "new-fangled" features and styles to an ancient browser like IE6, you are doing it wrong. Someone still using IE6 today really doesn't really care what your website looks like or your little Javascript trinkets anyway, else they would not be using IE6. Give them plain HTML and let them do what they want to do: Access your content.
Then why doesn't it happen when the aerial is not being touched.
My point wasn't that it isn't a problem, but that it is allegedly only a problem in cases where an iPhone 3Gs is unlikely to get a signal at all. If true, your iPhone 4 is, at worst, able to perform as well as the iPhone 3Gs.
I do not disagree that the design could have been improved. However, if the iPhone 4's antenna is never worse than the iPhone 3Gs, is this really the problem people are making it out to be?
I'm out nothing but some time; I didn't pay any money
What is the difference? If you don't like your iPhone, you are only out the time it takes to earn back the cost of the phone. Money is really just a physical representation of your time.
The issue, according to Apple, is that shorting the antenna while reception is already poor will cause the phone to drop the signal. The software is the problem because the iPhone is reporting that the signal is strong when it really is not. In normal coverage areas, touching the antenna should have no real effect.
I have not used an iPhone 4, so I cannot comment about the accuracy of Apple's claims. However, most reviews that I have read on the matter do confirm what Apple has stated.
While I am in Canada, our local yields are well above the US national average. If an above average farm cannot turn a profit, I'm not sure who is supposed to be growing the stuff?
The problem is not limited to corn. At current market prices you might be able to break even on wheat, and maybe even turn a tiny profit on soybeans; though not really enough to cover your time and certainly not enough to reinvest back into the farm for new equipment and other necessities.
With that said, I have discussed at great length on this site the pitfalls of growing corn. I don't think any farmer actually likes growing corn, but it has become a necessary evil. I'm am actually quite curious as to what crop you suggest take its place?
If the world has such a glut of food, why is starvation so prevalent, even in countries without closed borders?
I would like to know the answer to this as well. The USDA is always reporting surpluses on food when they release their reports. If there are countries that are open to receiving those crops, why is it not getting there?
Actually, a similar show, Ace of Cakes, inspired me to give cake building a try as an experiment. I literally had never baked any kind of cake beforehand. Impressed with my work, I received requests for and fulfilled a handful of orders for friends and family. I posted pictures of those cakes on the internet and started getting orders from people I had never even met before. I believe I could have turned it into a viable business, but found it to be too time consuming amongst my other ventures.
The moral of the story is that cable television most certainly can increase your earning potential if you are willing to turn it off and try out some of the things that you have seen.
I am talking about the actual trade of food commodities, not the price you see at the grocery store. Corn, for example, costs approximately $4.50 per bushel to produce (from the field to the grain elevator). Right now, the best I can do on the sale of a bushel of corn is $3.65. Based on current market bids, a farmer in my region will lose almost a dollar on every bushel produced.
If food is even nearing scarcity, why is nobody willing to pay at least a fair market value for the food? The laws of supply and demand seem to indicate that we have an incredible amount of food that we have no idea what to do with. Biofuels at least find a home for all of that excess crop that is going to be grown anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The price of the vehicle is roughly equivalent to the amount of fuel required to build the vehicle. Some of that fuel might be in the from of food to power the engineers working on the car, but that food came from farm equipment burning oil.
The Volt comes in at $20,000 more than a similarly equipped Malibu, which has essentially the same body style. Back the my earlier point, the Volt takes almost twice the amount of energy to build when compared to the equivalent gas model.
Over the lifetime of the vehicles, you might, if you try really hard, burn $20,000 worth of gasoline in the Malibu, but the energy to power the Volt does not come free either. In terms of impact on the least amount of environmental impact, the Malibu wins by a long shot.
Electric vehicles come with benefits, but if the environment is your concern, as it seems to be in CA, the Volt, or even the Leaf, at least with current technology, is a pretty poor choice.
I do Photoshop work with the touchpad all of the time. I prefer it over using a mouse. Though a pen is most prefered for freehand drawing. Moving the pointer to where you want it to go is not nearly as difficult as you are making it sound.
Recent versions of Clang do not require @synthesize anymore.
So basically you are looking for Ruby, which has syntax closer to that of Python, but implementing all of the same Smalltalk concepts as Objective-C?
I accept that games are easier using a mouse, which is why I said most circumstances. I will also agree that a pen beats a touchpad for graphic manipulation, but we were not talking about pens.
I'm not sure what problems you have with pixel manipulation. My Macbook Pro touchpad is fine in that regard. I assume this new touchpad behaves much the same way. Perhaps there are some touchpads of lesser quality out there that do not behave as well, but they are not really indicative of what is possible with touchpads anyway.
Trackpads are more enjoyable to use under most circumstances.
You don't have to make love to the product. If the product is useful to you, buy it. If not, do not buy it. Who cares what marketing has to say?
There is no "whole market." PCs (in the not-Mac sense) are used by completely different people than Macs. Sure, there is some overlap, but that does not mean that Apple computers overlap into all the markets other PC vendors enter.
For instance, in industry, I see a lot of PC systems controlling machinery. They are often HP or Dell systems, for example. You will never see a Mac here. It is the wrong tool for the job. And yet, those computers still are included in your "whole market" numbers. Why?
I welcome more accurate consumer market numbers. Like I said, Apple does not compete in the corporate space. To determine where Apple stands, you must look at the consumer market exclusively.
It is kind of like saying McDonalds has 8% of the apple pie market. While it might be true, I don't think you are going to head to McDonalds to pick up an apple pie for your next family gathering. That is not their market. It is not a meaningful metric to observe if you want to determine who sells the most homestyle pies.
I am a designer. I see no reason to get angry. It is why I do not pigeonhole myself into one career. If design jobs dry up, I'll put more energy into one of my other lines of work. No big deal.
Whoops. Slashdot needs to ad vbcode support or I just need to remember to always preview my posts. Article here.
Apple had [url=http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consumer-market-share-now-21-percent/]21% share in 2008[/url]. Plus the increases that have been reported since equals to about 30%. It is some estimation on my part because the real numbers have not been released since 2008, unfortunately. Either way, it is significantly more than 8% in the consumer market.
And I could have 1,000,000 activations of my phone each day if I was to give it away for free. Number of activations don't mean anything with respect to profit.
Also, I believe he was referring to this article. http://www.businessinsider.com/you-cant-appreciate-how-completely-apple-has-humiliated-rim-nokia-and-the-rest-of-the-gadget-industry-until-you-see-these-charts-2010-7
Apple's share of the US consumer market is approximately 30% based on the numbers I can find. Apple doesn't compete in the corporate market, so looking at that market does not tell us much.
There is nothing wrong with highly skilled people charging top dollar. The problem is that I cannot hire an unskilled lawyer to take my case.
If I want to hire a random guy off the street who is willing to represent me for $50/hr., so be it. It is my fault for choosing to use his services in the first place if something goes horribly wrong. Or maybe he will actually be really good at the work it and I will have saved a fortune.
I recall reading about a case where a lawyer got into a lot of trouble for practising without the bar. What was most notable is that the article said he was really good at what he did. Why is the bar even necessary in cases like that? The bar does not have to be eliminated for those who want to have credentials to back up their services. That is how the free market is supposed to work.
I bought my iPhone because I wanted an iPod touch that had mobile broadband capabilities. I am really not concerned about how it behaves as a phone. If I wanted a phone, I would get a phone, not a handheld computer.
Apple has said since day one of this problem that if you do not like your phone, you are free to return it with 30 days. Nobody has owned an iPhone 4 for more than 30 days yet. If this is really a problem, take it back and get a phone without the problems.
What is interesting is that Flash developers do not hold back. Try using a version of Flash that is a version or two out of date and you will quickly hit a site forcing you to upgrade. Why is it okay to force users to upgrade Flash to watch your video, but not their browser to watch your video?
Furthermore, Internet Explorer will display your content just fine if you remove your CSS and Javascript declarations. That is the beauty of HTML. It automatically degrades for those using older browsers. You do not have to hold back on the latest and greatest features just because some people choose to use browsers that do not include the full feature-set.
If you are trying to backport your "new-fangled" features and styles to an ancient browser like IE6, you are doing it wrong. Someone still using IE6 today really doesn't really care what your website looks like or your little Javascript trinkets anyway, else they would not be using IE6. Give them plain HTML and let them do what they want to do: Access your content.
My point wasn't that it isn't a problem, but that it is allegedly only a problem in cases where an iPhone 3Gs is unlikely to get a signal at all. If true, your iPhone 4 is, at worst, able to perform as well as the iPhone 3Gs.
I do not disagree that the design could have been improved. However, if the iPhone 4's antenna is never worse than the iPhone 3Gs, is this really the problem people are making it out to be?
What is the difference? If you don't like your iPhone, you are only out the time it takes to earn back the cost of the phone. Money is really just a physical representation of your time.
The issue, according to Apple, is that shorting the antenna while reception is already poor will cause the phone to drop the signal. The software is the problem because the iPhone is reporting that the signal is strong when it really is not. In normal coverage areas, touching the antenna should have no real effect.
I have not used an iPhone 4, so I cannot comment about the accuracy of Apple's claims. However, most reviews that I have read on the matter do confirm what Apple has stated.
Why? It really doesn't matter what you signal indicator says. You either have service or you don't.
While I am in Canada, our local yields are well above the US national average. If an above average farm cannot turn a profit, I'm not sure who is supposed to be growing the stuff?
The problem is not limited to corn. At current market prices you might be able to break even on wheat, and maybe even turn a tiny profit on soybeans; though not really enough to cover your time and certainly not enough to reinvest back into the farm for new equipment and other necessities.
With that said, I have discussed at great length on this site the pitfalls of growing corn. I don't think any farmer actually likes growing corn, but it has become a necessary evil. I'm am actually quite curious as to what crop you suggest take its place?
I would like to know the answer to this as well. The USDA is always reporting surpluses on food when they release their reports. If there are countries that are open to receiving those crops, why is it not getting there?
Actually, a similar show, Ace of Cakes, inspired me to give cake building a try as an experiment. I literally had never baked any kind of cake beforehand. Impressed with my work, I received requests for and fulfilled a handful of orders for friends and family. I posted pictures of those cakes on the internet and started getting orders from people I had never even met before. I believe I could have turned it into a viable business, but found it to be too time consuming amongst my other ventures.
The moral of the story is that cable television most certainly can increase your earning potential if you are willing to turn it off and try out some of the things that you have seen.
I am talking about the actual trade of food commodities, not the price you see at the grocery store. Corn, for example, costs approximately $4.50 per bushel to produce (from the field to the grain elevator). Right now, the best I can do on the sale of a bushel of corn is $3.65. Based on current market bids, a farmer in my region will lose almost a dollar on every bushel produced.
If food is even nearing scarcity, why is nobody willing to pay at least a fair market value for the food? The laws of supply and demand seem to indicate that we have an incredible amount of food that we have no idea what to do with. Biofuels at least find a home for all of that excess crop that is going to be grown anyway.