> I hate to break it to you, but the Mac mini isn't really part of their core business any more. Apple knows the Mac is essentially over.
It doesn't have to be your core business to still be something you can do. All it takes is a bit of effort. Complacency kills companies. Just go message someone on your Blackberry about it. Oh, wait...
But it is. That loaned money will still end up elsewhere. $100000 loaned dollars go into buying bitcoins means that someone selling bitcoins gets that $100000. The fact that the purchaser now has to service a loan outside of the bitcoin transactions is not relevant to the zero sum of bitcoin.
That only worked in feudal days because everyone lived hand to mouth and 90%+ of the population were out in farms, out of touch with each other. Those farms are automated to a ridiculous degree now and don't need anywhere near the same amount of labor. And let's not even get into how the peasants back then had no second amendment. If push comes to shove, it will get ugly.
I know it goes contrary to the narrative, but the McDs around here that have introduced automated kiosks haven't laid anyone off. Instead they've switched their whole ordering process to use a "pick up counter" approach complete with a call board, and as a result they're able to handle higher volume in conjunction with the automatic ordering kiosks. More volume = more people needed behind the counter to prep and move the food = more revenue. Store owners are happy, staff are happy because they're not taking orders manually at the counter for the most part, and the customers are happy because they see exactly what they want on the board as they order it.
> I am sure that the fact that it consumes vast resources and stressing infrastructure on something with no tangible value to society is a part of the reason China is taking it off line
I'm sure that's what their justification will be, but the simple truth behind the move is that China has had a problem with wealth fleeing the country under the table, and cryptocurrency has made that far easier to do. This crackdown is all about controlling money leaving their borders.
> An activity which consumes vast physical resources for no tangible benefit
There are a ton of these that people seem to participate in anyway. Diamond mining for example. I don't think cryptocurrency mining is anywhere near as resource wasteful as that all things considered, especially the blood costs.
I hadn't bought any AMD chips since the Athlon days as well, but I picked up a Ryzen 1600 a few months ago and am very pleased with the performance. AMD is once again back within shouting distance of Intel's best and for way less money. And as you mention competition is never a bad thing for the end users.
> The Google [web] Store [google.com] doesn't sell Amazon devices.
Are you seriously attempting to compare the Google Web store that only exists to sell Google products - to Amazon whose proclaimed mission is to sell "everything from A to Z" ? My supermarket doesn't sell Amazon devices either! Nor does the local corner store, or the gas station. When will the madness end?
> and they refuse to sell Amazon's products in it.
You might have missed this part, but Google's store doesn't sell ANYONE ELSE'S products. Amazon, however DOES. They sell Roku, Apple TV, a thousand different Android TV boxes, WebOS boxes, just NOT Google products. And they go further by BARRING 3rd party Amazon sellers from selling them too.
We're ovbiously not going to agree on this but it's pretty clear that Amazon is a bad actor in this.
> Because really, if you run a store, and you turn a profit on items sold, why voluntarily remove a popular item?
Rational actors wouldn't, but in this case Amazon thought they could promote their hardware at everyone else's expense - for a while they also weren't selling Apple TVs, though *that* was in retaliation to Apple not allowing the Prime streaming app for Apple TV... seems this behavior goes deeper, but the common denominator is Amazon.
> Apple can get away with it, because.. it's Apple.
They also get away with it because they're not in a monopoly position on anything other than phones that run iOS and computers that run OSX. AFAIK there is nothing exclusive content-wise in Apple's library that you can't get elsewhere.
>So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Deeds, not words. Last time there was a Nazi rally, who got killed? Hint - it wasn't a Nazi, it was the Nazi doing the killing.
Horseshit. They used a left leaning name, but were fascist through and through. This technique is still in use today - in British Columbia for example the provincial Liberal party is in reality a right wing corporatist party. And people still get fooled "But, duh, it says 'Liberal' in their name!!!"
So what would you have done differently? Alphabet(Google) is doing this because Amazon decided that they were not going to sell Chromecast or other Google devices on Amazon - nor would they allow Amazon Resellers to sell them. If a brick and mortar mall was owned by AT&T and they banned the sale of any non-AT&T telecommunications products from the premesis I imagine that would be inviting an antitrust lawsuit of some sort, correct? Amazon is the largest non-brick and mortar "mall" online by far.
There probably should have been a lawsuit filed already, but if the rumors of Amazon's position softening are true then it seems tit-for-tat is far more effective. People want their boxes to be able to view the online content they pay for, and blocking the biggest video source online sounds like a pretty good way to get a percentage of your customers to return your box. Why just last night I was witness to a relative having a full on meltdown because smart TV 'x' had a CraveTV app (budget Canada Netflix) but new Christmas TV 'y' doesn't so IT MUST GO BACK TO THE STORE TOMORROW!!!!!11!!1! followed by a 10 minute rant speculating on the parentage of the higher ups at TV 'y''s C level execs.
> Is it good for healthy societies to have one or two giant for-profit companies controlling most of the news people see?
It's not, but I thought we were talking about Google and Facebook?
Almost all media in the US is controlled by a handful of corporations, so if you think Google and Facebook having a hand in delivering just the online portion is a problem, you should probably sit down with a drink before reading this chart:
> the government will be able to off 1 million political dissidents a year without anyone batting an eye. Driverless cars and by extension Uber (since their entire business model is built around buying time until they can replace their fleet with driverless cars) are corrupt by nature.
Whoa there... now we're veering way into tinfoil hat territory.
So to paraphrase your position it's that Uber will be used to kill enemies of the government? Do you not see how most people might think that's a bit of a crazy thing to say?
> create algorithms to take advantage of drivers and riders alike
If you think Uber was taking advantage of riders, you've never used the cab companies in Vancouver. Based on my usage of Uber in other cities (Vancouver has yet to get with the 21st century), I'd be happy to let them think they're screwing me as they'd still be half the price of a cab here AND faster.
> Everytime I try to research the Switch to see if there was an extensive game library etc, I constantly keep running across the demo of 1-2-Switch. Im sorry If I offend anyone but IMO the marketing for the Switch via 1-2-Switch is the absolute worst marketing mistake of all times. You dont even look at the TV and you do retarded shit like pretend to shave or milk a fucking cow. I am 46 years old
Also sorry to offend you, as you're a couple of years older than me (just a couple..) but where the hell are you looking and doing it so very incompetently?
I mean, just type "switch game library" into Google and this is the first link returned:
https://www.nintendo.com/games/switch
Which lists in big marketing panels:
Zelda: Breath of the Wild Xenoblade Chronicles 2 Super Mario Odyssey Rocket League Fire Emblem Warriors Splatoon 2 Fifa 18 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Skyrim
and many more under those in the categories. How is this such a challenge?
Serious question, why is it not OK? Seems Google is only doing this in response to Amazon going out of their way to stop selling Google products. Note that with Amazon, it's not just Amazon directly that are no longer selling Google products (and haven't been for a while), Amazon also specifically forbid any of their resellers to sell any Google hardware like the Chromecast.
If the argument is that it's OK for Amazon to forbid sales of Google's hardware through their site because they don't want to "help a competitor", then Google blocking Amazon hardware seems to be more of the same.
"If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. "
That's not piracy dumbass. That's Epic allowing someone to 'sign' a contract despite not legally being able to. And that is a huge can of worms for Epic and all other game companies to one day deal with as in that situation EPIC IS AT FAULT for allowing it. Just like if your 12 year old kid walks into a phone store and signs a contract for a phone. If that happens someone is in legal shit, and that someone is the phone store.
Slashdot Mirror
> I hate to break it to you, but the Mac mini isn't really part of their core business any more. Apple knows the Mac is essentially over.
It doesn't have to be your core business to still be something you can do. All it takes is a bit of effort. Complacency kills companies. Just go message someone on your Blackberry about it. Oh, wait...
Same with diamonds, which are artificially valued far higher than their utility price.
But it is. That loaned money will still end up elsewhere. $100000 loaned dollars go into buying bitcoins means that someone selling bitcoins gets that $100000. The fact that the purchaser now has to service a loan outside of the bitcoin transactions is not relevant to the zero sum of bitcoin.
Q2 2012 release? Yeah pretty old. Then again I'm typing this from a 2017 Ryzen so I might be biased.
That only worked in feudal days because everyone lived hand to mouth and 90%+ of the population were out in farms, out of touch with each other. Those farms are automated to a ridiculous degree now and don't need anywhere near the same amount of labor. And let's not even get into how the peasants back then had no second amendment. If push comes to shove, it will get ugly.
I know it goes contrary to the narrative, but the McDs around here that have introduced automated kiosks haven't laid anyone off. Instead they've switched their whole ordering process to use a "pick up counter" approach complete with a call board, and as a result they're able to handle higher volume in conjunction with the automatic ordering kiosks. More volume = more people needed behind the counter to prep and move the food = more revenue. Store owners are happy, staff are happy because they're not taking orders manually at the counter for the most part, and the customers are happy because they see exactly what they want on the board as they order it.
*Some* AMDs are bricked, older chips.
> I am sure that the fact that it consumes vast resources and stressing infrastructure on something with no tangible value to society is a part of the reason China is taking it off line
I'm sure that's what their justification will be, but the simple truth behind the move is that China has had a problem with wealth fleeing the country under the table, and cryptocurrency has made that far easier to do. This crackdown is all about controlling money leaving their borders.
> An activity which consumes vast physical resources for no tangible benefit
There are a ton of these that people seem to participate in anyway. Diamond mining for example. I don't think cryptocurrency mining is anywhere near as resource wasteful as that all things considered, especially the blood costs.
All new processors come with those. But I've got an old P4 based machine I can let you have cheap. It's only about 14 years old...
I hadn't bought any AMD chips since the Athlon days as well, but I picked up a Ryzen 1600 a few months ago and am very pleased with the performance. AMD is once again back within shouting distance of Intel's best and for way less money. And as you mention competition is never a bad thing for the end users.
> The Google [web] Store [google.com] doesn't sell Amazon devices.
Are you seriously attempting to compare the Google Web store that only exists to sell Google products - to Amazon whose proclaimed mission is to sell "everything from A to Z" ? My supermarket doesn't sell Amazon devices either! Nor does the local corner store, or the gas station. When will the madness end?
> and they refuse to sell Amazon's products in it.
You might have missed this part, but Google's store doesn't sell ANYONE ELSE'S products. Amazon, however DOES. They sell Roku, Apple TV, a thousand different Android TV boxes, WebOS boxes, just NOT Google products. And they go further by BARRING 3rd party Amazon sellers from selling them too.
We're ovbiously not going to agree on this but it's pretty clear that Amazon is a bad actor in this.
> Because really, if you run a store, and you turn a profit on items sold, why voluntarily remove a popular item?
Rational actors wouldn't, but in this case Amazon thought they could promote their hardware at everyone else's expense - for a while they also weren't selling Apple TVs, though *that* was in retaliation to Apple not allowing the Prime streaming app for Apple TV... seems this behavior goes deeper, but the common denominator is Amazon.
> Apple can get away with it, because .. it's Apple.
They also get away with it because they're not in a monopoly position on anything other than phones that run iOS and computers that run OSX. AFAIK there is nothing exclusive content-wise in Apple's library that you can't get elsewhere.
>So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Deeds, not words. Last time there was a Nazi rally, who got killed? Hint - it wasn't a Nazi, it was the Nazi doing the killing.
> The Nazis were left wing as well.
Horseshit. They used a left leaning name, but were fascist through and through. This technique is still in use today - in British Columbia for example the provincial Liberal party is in reality a right wing corporatist party. And people still get fooled "But, duh, it says 'Liberal' in their name!!!"
So what would you have done differently? Alphabet(Google) is doing this because Amazon decided that they were not going to sell Chromecast or other Google devices on Amazon - nor would they allow Amazon Resellers to sell them. If a brick and mortar mall was owned by AT&T and they banned the sale of any non-AT&T telecommunications products from the premesis I imagine that would be inviting an antitrust lawsuit of some sort, correct? Amazon is the largest non-brick and mortar "mall" online by far.
There probably should have been a lawsuit filed already, but if the rumors of Amazon's position softening are true then it seems tit-for-tat is far more effective. People want their boxes to be able to view the online content they pay for, and blocking the biggest video source online sounds like a pretty good way to get a percentage of your customers to return your box. Why just last night I was witness to a relative having a full on meltdown because smart TV 'x' had a CraveTV app (budget Canada Netflix) but new Christmas TV 'y' doesn't so IT MUST GO BACK TO THE STORE TOMORROW!!!!!11!!1! followed by a 10 minute rant speculating on the parentage of the higher ups at TV 'y''s C level execs.
Sounds good. I'm an IT person and read the occasional comic. I am also over 40.
> Given the quality and bias of news that is passed on to the public, neither do these 'news' agencies.
OK Donald. I thought you had other things to do today like give Ajit Pai the medal of freedom or something?
> Is it good for healthy societies to have one or two giant for-profit companies controlling most of the news people see?
It's not, but I thought we were talking about Google and Facebook?
Almost all media in the US is controlled by a handful of corporations, so if you think Google and Facebook having a hand in delivering just the online portion is a problem, you should probably sit down with a drink before reading this chart:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/78/5e/50785e25356a72df377e02287c90f8ed.png
> the government will be able to off 1 million political dissidents a year without anyone batting an eye. Driverless cars and by extension Uber (since their entire business model is built around buying time until they can replace their fleet with driverless cars) are corrupt by nature.
Whoa there... now we're veering way into tinfoil hat territory.
So to paraphrase your position it's that Uber will be used to kill enemies of the government? Do you not see how most people might think that's a bit of a crazy thing to say?
> create algorithms to take advantage of drivers and riders alike
If you think Uber was taking advantage of riders, you've never used the cab companies in Vancouver. Based on my usage of Uber in other cities (Vancouver has yet to get with the 21st century), I'd be happy to let them think they're screwing me as they'd still be half the price of a cab here AND faster.
> Everytime I try to research the Switch to see if there was an extensive game library etc, I constantly keep running across the demo of 1-2-Switch. Im sorry If I offend anyone but IMO the marketing for the Switch via 1-2-Switch is the absolute worst marketing mistake of all times. You dont even look at the TV and you do retarded shit like pretend to shave or milk a fucking cow. I am 46 years old
Also sorry to offend you, as you're a couple of years older than me (just a couple..) but where the hell are you looking and doing it so very incompetently?
I mean, just type "switch game library" into Google and this is the first link returned:
https://www.nintendo.com/games/switch
Which lists in big marketing panels:
Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Xenoblade Chronicles 2
Super Mario Odyssey
Rocket League
Fire Emblem Warriors
Splatoon 2
Fifa 18
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
Skyrim
and many more under those in the categories. How is this such a challenge?
Do you honestly think Amazon can meet their delivery targets with a modest pool of part timers?
Also
> it's something women
What the fuck is this, 1930?
Serious question, why is it not OK? Seems Google is only doing this in response to Amazon going out of their way to stop selling Google products. Note that with Amazon, it's not just Amazon directly that are no longer selling Google products (and haven't been for a while), Amazon also specifically forbid any of their resellers to sell any Google hardware like the Chromecast.
If the argument is that it's OK for Amazon to forbid sales of Google's hardware through their site because they don't want to "help a competitor", then Google blocking Amazon hardware seems to be more of the same.
"If he did click the agreement without permission he would have no right to use the software. That would be piracy. "
That's not piracy dumbass. That's Epic allowing someone to 'sign' a contract despite not legally being able to. And that is a huge can of worms for Epic and all other game companies to one day deal with as in that situation EPIC IS AT FAULT for allowing it. Just like if your 12 year old kid walks into a phone store and signs a contract for a phone. If that happens someone is in legal shit, and that someone is the phone store.