I have a wire giving me gigabit (if I want to pay for that; right now I settle for 100 Mbit) coming out of the wall. Such a cable goes to every apartment in the whole block.
And while they make more money than Microsoft on their iPhones alone, they also make as much money on their laptops as all other laptop makers make combined.
The Mac is much more already. Apple doesn't care about the budget segment. Competing on price leads to low quality products. That is nothing Apple wants to sell.
Quite so. Just like most people don't buy more expensive cars even if they would stand up to harder wear, or buy a premium overcoat even though it will take a beating and still look good enough for a board room. I spend the money on both of those as well, because they pay off with my lifestyle.
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, and with the low number of SKU's they have this means they can really optimize production. That shows. They have a high profit margin, but they are not overpriced - if you need what they offer.
First of all, what is your theory for why they are not in school? Because they are lazy? I mean, what I've read about public education in the US makes it seem like paradise on earth, so what could be keeping them from it?
And I didn't say that the kids are starving. They are part of a family, in an impoverished area, with relatives and friends who receive assistance (which they will no longer receive if they get a minimum wage job). In many families, like mine, everyone who can help out to make ends meet.
As to "stealing to eat", I never said that either. You're making stuff up, whole cloth, to create straw men. It's getting rather tiresome. They turn to crime to earn status, which is something teenagers comprehend very well. Consequences is something they comprehend a lot less well. And this is something they have been taught, and see in their surroundings.
Add to this that school does not pay (which is nuts in its own right - how can that be called civilization?) and getting a job means a risk that the family is pushed off of assistance... well, they're hardly being pushed in the right direction by the system.
Tune society so that education and work provides status for them instead and see the the turnaround. Suddenly you'll have today's youths helping you build a better country for your future.
But to do that they need a fighting chance. When their role models are successful drug dealers, their family barely has money to scrape by and they are disincentivized to get education or a job the outcome is all but assured; a permanent class of poor people, and social instability.
Only if prices of everything are fixed. Such as in a central economy. Otherwise there is this thing called a "market", which you may have heard of, which actually responds to changes in supply and demand.
Thus, it does in no way follow that increasing the amount of money the workers receive will create unemployment. The market can suddenly handle increased prices (especially of luxury goods), increasing the profit per hour worked, and thus creating work opportunities.
I think you're confusing "minimum wage" with "plan economy with fixed pricing and no functioning market". A somewhat understandable mistake.;)
Unless people have something like a guaranteed income to make sure they can actually attend education instead of having to try to find a job or resort to crime, nothing.
It all hangs together. You want to improve the country, you need to improve the people, and in order to improve the people you have to provide them with the means to do so.
If you don't care about quality, you're generally right.
But if you manage to find a competing laptop with as solid a chassis, as high a resolution screen with the same color accuracy, and as good a touch pad, you'll be looking at at best comparable prices.
If all I wanted was a specific performance envelope, a light composite chassis and a backlit keyboard, sure, I could save a chunk of money. But I travel a lot, need to rely on my laptop in many environments and after a lot of abuse, and require color accuracy and a good touchpad over gimmicks like touch screens. That leaves very few alternatives for me, especially since Lenovo went to the dark side.
One of my requirements is a solid chassis. I've handled Zenbooks, and they are incredibly flimsy compared to Macbook Pro Retinas. There used to be some Thinkpads which were comparable, but Lenovo have abandoned that track, sadly.
Also, the touchpad of the Zenbook is horrible next to the Macbook touchpad. It's better than most PC touchpads, but it's still not in the same league as the Mac ones.
And touch screen is a liability. It's one more thing that can start malfunctioning, sending spurious input to the system. I'm buying a laptop, not a tablet.
"The Mac" is not identical to "Macbook". You can't cherry pick one niche machine and by showing that a niche machine does not suit everyone then declare that the whole ranged of Macs are therefore shown not to be best.
For my needs a Macbook Pro 13 Retina is pretty near perfect. I haven't found anything from any other manufacturer which even comes close, no matter how much I am prepared to pay. A Macbook would not suit my typical work case at all, although it would be perfect the few times I spend weeks at the time on the road.
One of my colleagues finds the Macbook Pro 15 Retina to fit all his needs (including robustness) so well he just can't replace it, even if he wanted to. Granted, there is some emotional investment by now (as with all good tools), but it really works well for him.
Are there other cases where there is no Mac which fits? Definitely. But for business use, coding and graphical work there tends to be a Mac for everyone. Is it always the best choice? Too many variables to state that, but it is definitely a very good choice for a vast ranger of uses.
And that very good choice is seldom the Macbook. We know that. Apple knows that. And that's fine. When the Macbook is a good choice, it has pretty much no competition. When it isn't, there is pretty much no reason to pick it. Such are niche products.
"I hear a lot of people" is a weasel phrase. And corporations are amoral, not evil.
Yes, why would an employer do that? I sincerely doubt such an employer exists.
What is that hypothetical job which generates a fixed income irrespective of how well it's done? Scandinavia is not well known for its massive service industry, so I'm genuinely curious how you came up with such a strange job constraint?
Is that the norm in the US? Then perhaps that is where you need to fix things to make things better for all your poor people. Increase the leverage of their jobs, ensuring employers can pay them more. Something like, say, free education, perhaps? Like Finland has?
You are making the statement "The Macbook is not the best machine to run Windows, because I do not consider a fan an impediment" and extrapolating from there.
That is an underhanded tactic. No-one has claimed this. The Macbook is a niche machine, and you are stating the obvious that outside it's niche it's not worth considering. No-one needs to be told this.
The Dell has a fan. It's got a plastic base. It's got a completely different customer base than the Macbook. Comparing them is pointless. If you need what the Macbook offers, the Dell is no substitute. If you find the Dell adequate, the Macbook is no upgrade.
And why would you do that instead of moving the driver for that old hardware into the kernel? And for that matter, given how much old hardware is abandoned in newer versions of Windows, who do you expect would actually do this?
Since the system is rigged so that if they try to show initiative and get a job, they risk losing all income while not getting a job after all, how would you expect things to be otherwise?
When you doom people to either sit in silence or risk their whole future, that is horrible. Truly horrible. But a living wage does not do this, because if the person on it works hard to get a job - or even gets a part time job - the wage is not lost. It's still there if things do not work out.
Your scenario is completely different from a living wage setup. There is no comparison at all.
It's an even bigger mistake to think a serious war of the kind which will warrant the use of BVR removal of enemy fighters is not going to be with a nuclear capable enemy, or an enemy with nuclear capable allies.
And they are pretty much uniformly lowering their threshold for using nuclear weapons in a conflict. And if they start losing, even those thresholds are irrelevant.
No STOVL is VTOL? But all VTOL are STOVL? That can only be true if there are no STOVL.
Not all STOVL are VTOL, but all VTOL are STOVL. And there definitely are STOVL aircraft around. The F35, for example, is (possibly) STOVL but definitely not VTOL.
No, the F35 STOVL is not capable of VTOL. In that video it does not take off. It only lifts.
There are no videos of the F35 transferring from vertical lift to actual flight, or from flight to vertical landing (the aircraft carrier landing is done with the carrier moving) which is the definition of VTOL. The F35 has not been shown to be capable of this, and is therefore not VTOL even with low fuel load.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a wire giving me gigabit (if I want to pay for that; right now I settle for 100 Mbit) coming out of the wall. Such a cable goes to every apartment in the whole block.
Can wireless do that? Gigabit with low latency?
100 Mbps is a standard pipe these days. I can get gigabit where I live, if I wanted to pay for it. The cable in the wall can already provide it.
Wireless doesn't stand a chance against fiber.
If you think the Hugos are irrelevant, then what exactly is it you have a problem with here?
Why on earth would you live in a society where noises in the night make you want to pull out a gun!?
Single digit percentages is fine. I would love to be there while making more revenue than all other laptops combined.
http://betanews.com/2015/08/12...
Seven percent is nothing to scoff at.
And while they make more money than Microsoft on their iPhones alone, they also make as much money on their laptops as all other laptop makers make combined.
The Mac is much more already. Apple doesn't care about the budget segment. Competing on price leads to low quality products. That is nothing Apple wants to sell.
Quite so. Just like most people don't buy more expensive cars even if they would stand up to harder wear, or buy a premium overcoat even though it will take a beating and still look good enough for a board room. I spend the money on both of those as well, because they pay off with my lifestyle.
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, and with the low number of SKU's they have this means they can really optimize production. That shows. They have a high profit margin, but they are not overpriced - if you need what they offer.
First of all, what is your theory for why they are not in school? Because they are lazy? I mean, what I've read about public education in the US makes it seem like paradise on earth, so what could be keeping them from it?
And I didn't say that the kids are starving. They are part of a family, in an impoverished area, with relatives and friends who receive assistance (which they will no longer receive if they get a minimum wage job). In many families, like mine, everyone who can help out to make ends meet.
As to "stealing to eat", I never said that either. You're making stuff up, whole cloth, to create straw men. It's getting rather tiresome. They turn to crime to earn status, which is something teenagers comprehend very well. Consequences is something they comprehend a lot less well. And this is something they have been taught, and see in their surroundings.
Add to this that school does not pay (which is nuts in its own right - how can that be called civilization?) and getting a job means a risk that the family is pushed off of assistance ... well, they're hardly being pushed in the right direction by the system.
Tune society so that education and work provides status for them instead and see the the turnaround. Suddenly you'll have today's youths helping you build a better country for your future.
But to do that they need a fighting chance. When their role models are successful drug dealers, their family barely has money to scrape by and they are disincentivized to get education or a job the outcome is all but assured; a permanent class of poor people, and social instability.
Only if prices of everything are fixed. Such as in a central economy. Otherwise there is this thing called a "market", which you may have heard of, which actually responds to changes in supply and demand.
Thus, it does in no way follow that increasing the amount of money the workers receive will create unemployment. The market can suddenly handle increased prices (especially of luxury goods), increasing the profit per hour worked, and thus creating work opportunities.
I think you're confusing "minimum wage" with "plan economy with fixed pricing and no functioning market". A somewhat understandable mistake. ;)
Unless people have something like a guaranteed income to make sure they can actually attend education instead of having to try to find a job or resort to crime, nothing.
It all hangs together. You want to improve the country, you need to improve the people, and in order to improve the people you have to provide them with the means to do so.
If you don't care about quality, you're generally right.
But if you manage to find a competing laptop with as solid a chassis, as high a resolution screen with the same color accuracy, and as good a touch pad, you'll be looking at at best comparable prices.
If all I wanted was a specific performance envelope, a light composite chassis and a backlit keyboard, sure, I could save a chunk of money. But I travel a lot, need to rely on my laptop in many environments and after a lot of abuse, and require color accuracy and a good touchpad over gimmicks like touch screens. That leaves very few alternatives for me, especially since Lenovo went to the dark side.
One of my requirements is a solid chassis. I've handled Zenbooks, and they are incredibly flimsy compared to Macbook Pro Retinas. There used to be some Thinkpads which were comparable, but Lenovo have abandoned that track, sadly.
Also, the touchpad of the Zenbook is horrible next to the Macbook touchpad. It's better than most PC touchpads, but it's still not in the same league as the Mac ones.
And touch screen is a liability. It's one more thing that can start malfunctioning, sending spurious input to the system. I'm buying a laptop, not a tablet.
"The Mac" is not identical to "Macbook". You can't cherry pick one niche machine and by showing that a niche machine does not suit everyone then declare that the whole ranged of Macs are therefore shown not to be best.
For my needs a Macbook Pro 13 Retina is pretty near perfect. I haven't found anything from any other manufacturer which even comes close, no matter how much I am prepared to pay. A Macbook would not suit my typical work case at all, although it would be perfect the few times I spend weeks at the time on the road.
One of my colleagues finds the Macbook Pro 15 Retina to fit all his needs (including robustness) so well he just can't replace it, even if he wanted to. Granted, there is some emotional investment by now (as with all good tools), but it really works well for him.
Are there other cases where there is no Mac which fits? Definitely. But for business use, coding and graphical work there tends to be a Mac for everyone. Is it always the best choice? Too many variables to state that, but it is definitely a very good choice for a vast ranger of uses.
And that very good choice is seldom the Macbook. We know that. Apple knows that. And that's fine. When the Macbook is a good choice, it has pretty much no competition. When it isn't, there is pretty much no reason to pick it. Such are niche products.
"I hear a lot of people" is a weasel phrase. And corporations are amoral, not evil.
Yes, why would an employer do that? I sincerely doubt such an employer exists.
What is that hypothetical job which generates a fixed income irrespective of how well it's done? Scandinavia is not well known for its massive service industry, so I'm genuinely curious how you came up with such a strange job constraint?
Is that the norm in the US? Then perhaps that is where you need to fix things to make things better for all your poor people. Increase the leverage of their jobs, ensuring employers can pay them more. Something like, say, free education, perhaps? Like Finland has?
You are making the statement "The Macbook is not the best machine to run Windows, because I do not consider a fan an impediment" and extrapolating from there.
That is an underhanded tactic. No-one has claimed this. The Macbook is a niche machine, and you are stating the obvious that outside it's niche it's not worth considering. No-one needs to be told this.
The Dell has a fan. It's got a plastic base. It's got a completely different customer base than the Macbook. Comparing them is pointless. If you need what the Macbook offers, the Dell is no substitute. If you find the Dell adequate, the Macbook is no upgrade.
And why would you do that instead of moving the driver for that old hardware into the kernel? And for that matter, given how much old hardware is abandoned in newer versions of Windows, who do you expect would actually do this?
Would you? If so, why?
Indeed. Which is why a living wage is an excellent idea, as it cuts down on the government losses through bureaucracy.
Everybody wins, and the country improves on all fronts!
You do realize the middle class was proportionally larger and there was less government debt when there was higher taxes on the upper class and corps?
Since the system is rigged so that if they try to show initiative and get a job, they risk losing all income while not getting a job after all, how would you expect things to be otherwise?
When you doom people to either sit in silence or risk their whole future, that is horrible. Truly horrible. But a living wage does not do this, because if the person on it works hard to get a job - or even gets a part time job - the wage is not lost. It's still there if things do not work out.
Your scenario is completely different from a living wage setup. There is no comparison at all.
You mean getting paid is not an incentive?
Try paying more then. Still not enough?
Provide good benefits and even more pay. Eventually someone will do it for you.
Oh, you want it cheaper? You want to force someone to do it for you for less? Mighty nice of you, chum!
Who? Who is "lowering their threshold for using nuclear weapons in a conflict"?
Russia.
It's an even bigger mistake to think a serious war of the kind which will warrant the use of BVR removal of enemy fighters is not going to be with a nuclear capable enemy, or an enemy with nuclear capable allies.
And they are pretty much uniformly lowering their threshold for using nuclear weapons in a conflict. And if they start losing, even those thresholds are irrelevant.
No STOVL is VTOL? But all VTOL are STOVL? That can only be true if there are no STOVL.
Not all STOVL are VTOL, but all VTOL are STOVL. And there definitely are STOVL aircraft around. The F35, for example, is (possibly) STOVL but definitely not VTOL.
No, the F35 STOVL is not capable of VTOL. In that video it does not take off. It only lifts.
There are no videos of the F35 transferring from vertical lift to actual flight, or from flight to vertical landing (the aircraft carrier landing is done with the carrier moving) which is the definition of VTOL. The F35 has not been shown to be capable of this, and is therefore not VTOL even with low fuel load.