Three inches is a lot for the SEA level. If this were a bath tub, it wouldn't be. If this were a lake, it wouldn't be. But this is the fucking AT-LAN-TIC. A big fat huge body of water. Three inches in that area is way more than you'd think.
Over 400 years for a foot is immense, in global terms.
I'm on the other side of the country, and rather didn't like the beach. I didn't visit it for 10 years, even though it was 50 miles away. When I saw it, the sea level was certainly higher than I remembered. A lot higher. And the beach was shorter. Much shorter. So, to say three inches doesn't have an impact on lives is missing the point: it has an impact on the environment, the climate, and THUS lives.
100 years is a blip, if even that.
If all of the above is true, then mankind isn't causing the rise.
Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"
What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?
Does it matter?
The sea will rise, or it won't... we aren't going to stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas in either case...
I don't want the whole world to change. All I want is that when someone pays for something, they get it, and don't have to give it back
But you do want it to change, you're just not being honest about that point...
Nor are you accepting of my comment, which is anyone who can't afford to buy outright becomes homeless.
Even in your ideal world, there will be people who can't afford to buy outright, for many reasons. These people will then have no place to live.
So at the end of the day, your plan is guaranteed to cause many people to have no place to live. You also have flawed view of how things come to be. You simply assume that all existing housing would exist under your plan, but it wouldn't.
Even if it changed tomorrow, the new rules would cause people to stop building so many new houses, and apartments would dry up as well.
I'm not going to spend $100,000 to build a new apartment or house, only to be unable to sell it for at least that much.
The entire concept of what you suggest simply doesn't work. I get the idea you're thinking of, but it simply doesn't work. I take comfort in the fact that people with your viewpoints don't run the world, and the few times in the past they have had the chance to try, they have shown how bad those ideas really are.
But I know you're not alone, many people have these grand ideals, they sound so nice on paper, but don't work in the real world.
I don't want to try to force a world of equal outcomes, but I want to see a world where everyone who puts the same effort into the process gets the same results from it.
Fair enough... but I'd ask if you understand that while that sounds really nice, it just isn't going to happen. Not while we remain human beings anyway. Maybe if we become cyborgs and have computers for brains, that might happen, but as it stands, what you want has as much chance of happening as unicorns flying down from the mountains and saying hello.
What you want flies in the face of basic human nature.
It sounds like you must have taken a lot of risks and they paid off for you. No doubt it took hard work to get into a position where you were able to take advantage of such payoffs, but there's lots of other people who do the same hard work and take the same risks and fail miserably through no fault of their own, because risks are risky. (Most businesses fail.) And there's plenty of other people still who do all the same hard work, and realize what a terrible gamble the risks required for a chance to make it big represent, and take home only a mediocre payoff despite all their hard work.
It sounds like you want equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity.
As long as we remain human beings, that just isn't going to happen. The only way to have equal outcomes would be to make everyone poor. The USSR tried that and see how well that worked out?
Working hard gives you the chance of making it, not the promise of making it. If you won't let anyone fail, then no one has to try. If that happens, then we all fail.
You are completely wrong about both of these things, but I don't feel like arguing them yet again. Read some of my back posts if you really care to know why I think so.
Renting is not the only option. If you want to make money off your capital, sell it. If nobody can afford it... sell it for less, or else waste your investment in it completely. Your choice. Charging money for something and getting to still keep it and charge more money for it again indefinitely is not a valid option, and that model is the root of all the problems with capitalism.
I would submit that your views are simply not compatible with mine.
I honestly don't know what to say to you, other than... well, you're welcome to your views... you don't have to change them for me or anyone else.
But I think you're wrong, I don't agree with you, and I'm not going to change my views to suit you. So there we are.
---
The irony is that if I am not allowed to rent out property, then poor people will have no where to live, they'll be homeless. So you'd actually rather they be homeless than to have some place to live and pay rent. Ponder that one for a bit...
If those "other people" are getting the money being taken from them to give poor folks a hand up by exploiting those very poor folks in the first place, like via rent or interest, then they can go fuck themselves with their objections.
The problem with that attitude is that it won't get you very far... Rent and interest are perfectly reasonable things to exist in an economy, without them many parts of our world wouldn't function as well...
I'm not going to provide a poor person a place to live, if I can't charge rent, why would I do that? That would be a poor use of capital. Worse, someone who is just given everything will have nothing else to do but breed, thus producing more poor people.
Frankly, poor people should be having fewer kids and wealthy people should be having more kids, but we have that backwards for various reasons.
"Earned and unearned" is exactly what I mean by "deserve", and the point is that wealth and poverty are to a large extent unearned; people putting in the same effort but thrown into difference circumstances get different results, so the outcome is not purely a product of input and cannot be said to be earned.
I don't agree with your premise that it is a "large extent unearned". I worked my butt off for what I have, I wasn't given a bunch of money to start a business or invest in real estate.
In addition, I've had hard times, I've been poor, I never got a handout to get back on my feet, hard work did that. Now you might say that I've had a good education, or perhaps come from a nice family, but the reality is that I also put in the effort, a lot of people don't.
In particular, the more capital you have the greater opportunities there are for you to make unearned income and accrue even greater capital
I started my first business at 19 years old with $500 and lots of dreams. Today I'm 40 years old and have a net worth approaching a million dollars (it would be a lot more if I wasn't so stupid with money in my 20s). I wasn't given capital to start, I worked my butt off. I never finished college, I am not unique or special, I'm just someone who didn't take no for an answer and didn't blame everyone else for my problems.
Anyone can do it, in my experience, most people are their own worst enemies at improving themselves.
The statement was that things nobody is willing to pay for don't need to be done.
Ahh, I see your point... I read it slightly differently... as in, "if no one wants to pay for something, it won't get done".
The OP's comment is cold and heartless, but there is some truth to it, in terms of survival of the fittest. That being said, I would suggest that some things need to be done, but aren't, because no one wants to pay for them.
But that is a value system, and it is at the end of the day, an opinion, not a fact. Gravity's pull is a fact, values of right and wrong are not, and one of the greatest mistakes I think people make is equating their personal value system with "the way things should be, the end".
Being too poor to afford your own land and robots to do all your work for you does not imply that you are "useless".
As a human being? No, it does not.
As a productive member of future society? Perhaps it does. It all depends on what "useless" really means.
Your are a blind self-entitled prick if you think that the rich deserve their riches and the poor deserve poverty.
"deserve" is perhaps the wrong word... "have and have not" might be better words... or perhaps... "earned and unearned" is another way to look at it.
We do not have equality of opportunity, so outcomes are not only the product of hard work and intelligence. There are plenty of hard-working, intelligent, "useful" people in the world who, because of the circumstances of their birth and other bad rolls of the dice, are not fortunate enough to be in the position of the one to whom other people are deemed "useful", rather than the other way around.
While that is true, it is also true that life isn't fair, isn't likely to ever become fair, and true complete equal opportunity is a goal, not a destination. We can strive for it, but never reach it. Keep in mind that if you try too hard to make all people equal, you'll end up pulling down people in the process of trying to push others up. That is just as unfair so any built in inequality in the system.
If you come and take away half of what my kids have, to try and give other kids a "fair shot", then you've hurt my kids in the process. As you might imagine, I would resist that idea in general. If you go too far, you'll find yourself with a whole lot of people who don't like your ideas.
Helping other people who are disadvantaged sounds wonderful, until the rubber meets the road and you have to pay for it, using other people's money. Those "other people" tend to object beyond a given point.
I don't want passers by being able to connect to my home router with the hope that virgin's software is secure enough to maintain a distinction between private and public networks.
I don't generally mind the idea in principle, but as you say, "is their security really that good?"
Honestly, the history of private companies having great security... sucks...
No, this is not the failure of capitalism, it is the truth and it would be true in socialism or communism.
---
One of the reasons we have governments is to do the things that private companies won't do. Research into long term things like cancer is one of them. Building roads, the military, protecting the environment, having a space program, etc.
BUT... even with government's doing all that, we still need people willing to pay for it, as in, everyone...
NASA hasn't done much for 20 years, simply because we're not willing to pay for it. If we were, they could be given a $100 billion budget and do great things.
So this has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with what we, the voters, really care about. If it was important to all of us, we'd be demanding public funds to pay for thousands of people do the work that the OP above described.
To paraphrase a line from The Incredibles, "When everyone is college educated - no one will be."
I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of living in a world where you'll need a 4 year college degree to bag groceries, because everyone in the transportation industry was put out of work by self-driving vehicles and drones. From the looks of things, we're not even that far off.
^ Wish I could upvote you, that is 100% true... and so many people don't get it... you can't give EVERYONE a college education and expect it to mean anything...
Obviously there are huge problems in the world - e.g. poverty, disease, and conflict.
Yes, but who is willing to pay for finding solutions for them?
So, there's all this work that needs doing - finding solutions to the world's big problems.
Many things would be nice to have done, but someone has to pay for them. As it stands now, there aren't people willing to pay to solve other people's problems. Or not enough anyway.
I mean, every day somewhere around 20,000 children die of poverty. Clearly this is a terrible problem.
Yes, it is... but unless you are wealthy and want to pay to solve it, then it will keep happening. Those children don't have the money.
So why aren't there an abundance of well paying jobs finding solutions
I could repeat myself, but you get the idea...
Because no one wants to pay for them... The powers that be aren't interested in spending vast resources to solve other people's problems...
You can lament if that is good or bad all day long, but frankly unless you have a ton of money and are willing to fund it, then it won't happen.
ANd before you start bitching at me for being $HUMANCHARACTERISTIC, think about what YOU do during a disaster. What did YOU do during Katrina? Or Rita? Oh right, fucking nothing.
Actually, at the time I worked in Dallas for a local helicopter flight school. We took our Bell 206 Jetranger and our Robinson R-44 helicopters and loaded up with supplies and flew down there. We spent all day picking up people off rooftops and other locations that were trapped by water and flew them to safety and didn't charge a penny for it, the owner ate the cost.
Why?
Because that is what decent people do in times of need.
Makes $300k and can't quote... Who is this company who's throwing out that much money after dimwits?:-)
Accurate quotes on Slashdot isn't part of my job.:)
Of course that misses the point, the poster I was replying to said there aren't developers at any price, and that simply isn't true. He/she simply isn't offering enough money.
I was thinking of the dual core in the 13", my mistake...
A quad is indeed twice the performance of a dual, to be sure...
60% of the price, $1,200 vs $2,000.:) But that is getting nitpicky I suppose...
It is but one of many examples... regardless, I'll point out that the Mac has but single digit marketshare, so while some people buy them, it is is a corner of the market.
Of course, it looks huge compared to the marketshare of Linux on the desktop, and you can't really talk to those people either, they are so stuck in fanboyism.
The Mac perhaps has its place, but it is over in the corner, which is why Steve Jobs wisely opened his own stores, it wasn't getting love anywhere else.
It is better than average plastic, it is well built and very solid feeling, no flex at all.
While you're right that it isn't quite the same body, honestly, do most people care? I know I don't and based on sales, I don't think most people do.
The SSD isn't hooked up by PCI-E, but really that isn't going to make a lot of difference. Some perhaps, but for what such a machine is likely to be used for, nothing worth jumping up and down about.
The screen is beautiful and just the right size to get work done.
Oh yes, did I also mention it was a whole lot less money?:) As in, 40% less?
Acer makes a 15" version, about the same money, if you want less weight. Still not as light as the MacBook Pro, but closer.
---
Again, this comes back to the point of "a Mac is the best machine to run Windows on", where "best" is a subjective term and for many people, it is wrong anyway.
I'm not suggesting that Macs are bad, I'm suggesting they are expensive for what they really are.
You just can't find developers at any price./quote
Don't be silly, of course you can... you're just not offering enough.
Six figures sounds like a lot, but it isn't anymore. I make about $300k these days and I work 40 hours a week (I work more some weeks during crunch, but I also get 8 weeks of vacation to compensate, and I take it). It would cost $500k a year to get me to move (more if you're in CA), but if you needed my skills, I think I'd be worth it.
My college roommate has a small cannon sitting in his living room. Owning ordnance in the US is legal, you just can't own explosive projectiles.
No, you can own those too, you just have to pay a $200 stamp tax on each one and file the BATF paperwork.
I have a friend who has several high explosive rounds for his M203 40mm grenade launcher... Why? Heck, I don't know, because he can... They are expensive and I suspect he has them just because he can, I don't think he has ever fired one.
But then, Apple sells a fair amount of machines. They are world wide fifth among all PC makers (desktop and laptop) in most statistics I find
While that is true, they are only 5th due to the huge number of PC makers...
The number of machines they sell compared the total number of Windows PCs is hardly more than a rounding error...
As for profits, they make far more money on iOS devices than on Macs. I'm not even sure the Mac would be a viable platform without the iOS devices, but it might be a nice niche business...
I just think the Mac could be so much more, if they wanted it to be...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and at the rate of 3 inches per generation, their kids might have to walk inland a foot or so.
Heaven forbid...
Three inches is a lot for the SEA level. If this were a bath tub, it wouldn't be. If this were a lake, it wouldn't be. But this is the fucking AT-LAN-TIC. A big fat huge body of water. Three inches in that area is way more than you'd think.
Over 400 years for a foot is immense, in global terms.
I'm on the other side of the country, and rather didn't like the beach. I didn't visit it for 10 years, even though it was 50 miles away. When I saw it, the sea level was certainly higher than I remembered. A lot higher. And the beach was shorter. Much shorter. So, to say three inches doesn't have an impact on lives is missing the point: it has an impact on the environment, the climate, and THUS lives.
100 years is a blip, if even that.
If all of the above is true, then mankind isn't causing the rise.
Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"
What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?
Does it matter?
The sea will rise, or it won't... we aren't going to stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas in either case...
I don't want the whole world to change. All I want is that when someone pays for something, they get it, and don't have to give it back
But you do want it to change, you're just not being honest about that point...
Nor are you accepting of my comment, which is anyone who can't afford to buy outright becomes homeless.
Even in your ideal world, there will be people who can't afford to buy outright, for many reasons. These people will then have no place to live.
So at the end of the day, your plan is guaranteed to cause many people to have no place to live. You also have flawed view of how things come to be. You simply assume that all existing housing would exist under your plan, but it wouldn't.
Even if it changed tomorrow, the new rules would cause people to stop building so many new houses, and apartments would dry up as well.
I'm not going to spend $100,000 to build a new apartment or house, only to be unable to sell it for at least that much.
The entire concept of what you suggest simply doesn't work. I get the idea you're thinking of, but it simply doesn't work. I take comfort in the fact that people with your viewpoints don't run the world, and the few times in the past they have had the chance to try, they have shown how bad those ideas really are.
But I know you're not alone, many people have these grand ideals, they sound so nice on paper, but don't work in the real world.
I don't want to try to force a world of equal outcomes, but I want to see a world where everyone who puts the same effort into the process gets the same results from it.
Fair enough... but I'd ask if you understand that while that sounds really nice, it just isn't going to happen. Not while we remain human beings anyway. Maybe if we become cyborgs and have computers for brains, that might happen, but as it stands, what you want has as much chance of happening as unicorns flying down from the mountains and saying hello.
What you want flies in the face of basic human nature.
It sounds like you must have taken a lot of risks and they paid off for you. No doubt it took hard work to get into a position where you were able to take advantage of such payoffs, but there's lots of other people who do the same hard work and take the same risks and fail miserably through no fault of their own, because risks are risky. (Most businesses fail.) And there's plenty of other people still who do all the same hard work, and realize what a terrible gamble the risks required for a chance to make it big represent, and take home only a mediocre payoff despite all their hard work.
It sounds like you want equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity.
As long as we remain human beings, that just isn't going to happen. The only way to have equal outcomes would be to make everyone poor. The USSR tried that and see how well that worked out?
Working hard gives you the chance of making it, not the promise of making it. If you won't let anyone fail, then no one has to try. If that happens, then we all fail.
You are completely wrong about both of these things, but I don't feel like arguing them yet again. Read some of my back posts if you really care to know why I think so.
Renting is not the only option. If you want to make money off your capital, sell it. If nobody can afford it... sell it for less, or else waste your investment in it completely. Your choice. Charging money for something and getting to still keep it and charge more money for it again indefinitely is not a valid option, and that model is the root of all the problems with capitalism.
I would submit that your views are simply not compatible with mine.
I honestly don't know what to say to you, other than... well, you're welcome to your views... you don't have to change them for me or anyone else.
But I think you're wrong, I don't agree with you, and I'm not going to change my views to suit you. So there we are.
---
The irony is that if I am not allowed to rent out property, then poor people will have no where to live, they'll be homeless. So you'd actually rather they be homeless than to have some place to live and pay rent. Ponder that one for a bit...
If those "other people" are getting the money being taken from them to give poor folks a hand up by exploiting those very poor folks in the first place, like via rent or interest, then they can go fuck themselves with their objections.
The problem with that attitude is that it won't get you very far... Rent and interest are perfectly reasonable things to exist in an economy, without them many parts of our world wouldn't function as well...
I'm not going to provide a poor person a place to live, if I can't charge rent, why would I do that? That would be a poor use of capital. Worse, someone who is just given everything will have nothing else to do but breed, thus producing more poor people.
Frankly, poor people should be having fewer kids and wealthy people should be having more kids, but we have that backwards for various reasons.
"Earned and unearned" is exactly what I mean by "deserve", and the point is that wealth and poverty are to a large extent unearned; people putting in the same effort but thrown into difference circumstances get different results, so the outcome is not purely a product of input and cannot be said to be earned.
I don't agree with your premise that it is a "large extent unearned". I worked my butt off for what I have, I wasn't given a bunch of money to start a business or invest in real estate.
In addition, I've had hard times, I've been poor, I never got a handout to get back on my feet, hard work did that. Now you might say that I've had a good education, or perhaps come from a nice family, but the reality is that I also put in the effort, a lot of people don't.
In particular, the more capital you have the greater opportunities there are for you to make unearned income and accrue even greater capital
I started my first business at 19 years old with $500 and lots of dreams. Today I'm 40 years old and have a net worth approaching a million dollars (it would be a lot more if I wasn't so stupid with money in my 20s). I wasn't given capital to start, I worked my butt off. I never finished college, I am not unique or special, I'm just someone who didn't take no for an answer and didn't blame everyone else for my problems.
Anyone can do it, in my experience, most people are their own worst enemies at improving themselves.
The statement was that things nobody is willing to pay for don't need to be done.
Ahh, I see your point... I read it slightly differently... as in, "if no one wants to pay for something, it won't get done".
The OP's comment is cold and heartless, but there is some truth to it, in terms of survival of the fittest. That being said, I would suggest that some things need to be done, but aren't, because no one wants to pay for them.
But that is a value system, and it is at the end of the day, an opinion, not a fact. Gravity's pull is a fact, values of right and wrong are not, and one of the greatest mistakes I think people make is equating their personal value system with "the way things should be, the end".
Being too poor to afford your own land and robots to do all your work for you does not imply that you are "useless".
As a human being? No, it does not.
As a productive member of future society? Perhaps it does. It all depends on what "useless" really means.
Your are a blind self-entitled prick if you think that the rich deserve their riches and the poor deserve poverty.
"deserve" is perhaps the wrong word... "have and have not" might be better words... or perhaps... "earned and unearned" is another way to look at it.
We do not have equality of opportunity, so outcomes are not only the product of hard work and intelligence. There are plenty of hard-working, intelligent, "useful" people in the world who, because of the circumstances of their birth and other bad rolls of the dice, are not fortunate enough to be in the position of the one to whom other people are deemed "useful", rather than the other way around.
While that is true, it is also true that life isn't fair, isn't likely to ever become fair, and true complete equal opportunity is a goal, not a destination. We can strive for it, but never reach it. Keep in mind that if you try too hard to make all people equal, you'll end up pulling down people in the process of trying to push others up. That is just as unfair so any built in inequality in the system.
If you come and take away half of what my kids have, to try and give other kids a "fair shot", then you've hurt my kids in the process. As you might imagine, I would resist that idea in general. If you go too far, you'll find yourself with a whole lot of people who don't like your ideas.
Helping other people who are disadvantaged sounds wonderful, until the rubber meets the road and you have to pay for it, using other people's money. Those "other people" tend to object beyond a given point.
I don't want passers by being able to connect to my home router with the hope that virgin's software is secure enough to maintain a distinction between private and public networks.
I don't generally mind the idea in principle, but as you say, "is their security really that good?"
Honestly, the history of private companies having great security... sucks...
No, this is not the failure of capitalism, it is the truth and it would be true in socialism or communism.
---
One of the reasons we have governments is to do the things that private companies won't do. Research into long term things like cancer is one of them. Building roads, the military, protecting the environment, having a space program, etc.
BUT... even with government's doing all that, we still need people willing to pay for it, as in, everyone...
NASA hasn't done much for 20 years, simply because we're not willing to pay for it. If we were, they could be given a $100 billion budget and do great things.
So this has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with what we, the voters, really care about. If it was important to all of us, we'd be demanding public funds to pay for thousands of people do the work that the OP above described.
To paraphrase a line from The Incredibles, "When everyone is college educated - no one will be."
I'm not exactly thrilled at the prospect of living in a world where you'll need a 4 year college degree to bag groceries, because everyone in the transportation industry was put out of work by self-driving vehicles and drones. From the looks of things, we're not even that far off.
^ Wish I could upvote you, that is 100% true... and so many people don't get it... you can't give EVERYONE a college education and expect it to mean anything...
If nobody's willing to pay for it, then it doesn't need to be done.
That is a REALLY cold way to put it... but accurate... :(
Obviously there are huge problems in the world - e.g. poverty, disease, and conflict.
Yes, but who is willing to pay for finding solutions for them?
So, there's all this work that needs doing - finding solutions to the world's big problems.
Many things would be nice to have done, but someone has to pay for them. As it stands now, there aren't people willing to pay to solve other people's problems. Or not enough anyway.
I mean, every day somewhere around 20,000 children die of poverty. Clearly this is a terrible problem.
Yes, it is... but unless you are wealthy and want to pay to solve it, then it will keep happening. Those children don't have the money.
So why aren't there an abundance of well paying jobs finding solutions
I could repeat myself, but you get the idea...
Because no one wants to pay for them... The powers that be aren't interested in spending vast resources to solve other people's problems...
You can lament if that is good or bad all day long, but frankly unless you have a ton of money and are willing to fund it, then it won't happen.
ANd before you start bitching at me for being $HUMANCHARACTERISTIC, think about what YOU do during a disaster. What did YOU do during Katrina? Or Rita? Oh right, fucking nothing.
Actually, at the time I worked in Dallas for a local helicopter flight school. We took our Bell 206 Jetranger and our Robinson R-44 helicopters and loaded up with supplies and flew down there. We spent all day picking up people off rooftops and other locations that were trapped by water and flew them to safety and didn't charge a penny for it, the owner ate the cost.
Why?
Because that is what decent people do in times of need.
Makes $300k and can't quote... Who is this company who's throwing out that much money after dimwits? :-)
Accurate quotes on Slashdot isn't part of my job. :)
Of course that misses the point, the poster I was replying to said there aren't developers at any price, and that simply isn't true. He/she simply isn't offering enough money.
I was thinking of the dual core in the 13", my mistake...
A quad is indeed twice the performance of a dual, to be sure...
60% of the price, $1,200 vs $2,000. :) But that is getting nitpicky I suppose...
It is but one of many examples... regardless, I'll point out that the Mac has but single digit marketshare, so while some people buy them, it is is a corner of the market.
Of course, it looks huge compared to the marketshare of Linux on the desktop, and you can't really talk to those people either, they are so stuck in fanboyism.
The Mac perhaps has its place, but it is over in the corner, which is why Steve Jobs wisely opened his own stores, it wasn't getting love anywhere else.
It is better than average plastic, it is well built and very solid feeling, no flex at all.
While you're right that it isn't quite the same body, honestly, do most people care? I know I don't and based on sales, I don't think most people do.
The SSD isn't hooked up by PCI-E, but really that isn't going to make a lot of difference. Some perhaps, but for what such a machine is likely to be used for, nothing worth jumping up and down about.
The screen is beautiful and just the right size to get work done.
Oh yes, did I also mention it was a whole lot less money? :) As in, 40% less?
Acer makes a 15" version, about the same money, if you want less weight. Still not as light as the MacBook Pro, but closer.
---
Again, this comes back to the point of "a Mac is the best machine to run Windows on", where "best" is a subjective term and for many people, it is wrong anyway.
I'm not suggesting that Macs are bad, I'm suggesting they are expensive for what they really are.
You just can't find developers at any price./quote
Don't be silly, of course you can... you're just not offering enough.
Six figures sounds like a lot, but it isn't anymore. I make about $300k these days and I work 40 hours a week (I work more some weeks during crunch, but I also get 8 weeks of vacation to compensate, and I take it). It would cost $500k a year to get me to move (more if you're in CA), but if you needed my skills, I think I'd be worth it.
Are you offering $500K? What do you need?
My college roommate has a small cannon sitting in his living room. Owning ordnance in the US is legal, you just can't own explosive projectiles.
No, you can own those too, you just have to pay a $200 stamp tax on each one and file the BATF paperwork.
I have a friend who has several high explosive rounds for his M203 40mm grenade launcher... Why? Heck, I don't know, because he can... They are expensive and I suspect he has them just because he can, I don't think he has ever fired one.
The Constitution does not say "firearms." It says "arms."
"Arms" include firearms, electrical weapons, slingshots, bows and arrows, and any other sort of weapon.
^ This, we have a winner... /thread
And while they make more money than Microsoft on their iPhones alone
Yep, that is indeed impressive...
they also make as much money on their laptops as all other laptop makers make combined.
Citation needed...
Apple doesn't care about the budget segment. Competing on price leads to low quality products. That is nothing Apple wants to sell.
Fair enough, but then they will always remain in the single digit percentages...
But then, Apple sells a fair amount of machines. They are world wide fifth among all PC makers (desktop and laptop) in most statistics I find
While that is true, they are only 5th due to the huge number of PC makers...
The number of machines they sell compared the total number of Windows PCs is hardly more than a rounding error...
As for profits, they make far more money on iOS devices than on Macs. I'm not even sure the Mac would be a viable platform without the iOS devices, but it might be a nice niche business...
I just think the Mac could be so much more, if they wanted it to be...
Try another site that anyone has heard of, those numbers are clearly wrong.