In my experience, this may well indicate that someone up the food chain has some different ideas or vision about your project. Often consultants are brought in to recommend what upper management wants to happen, rather than come up with real findings. It saves them having to directly disagree with their own staff. In other words, "Look, these outside (unbiased!?) experts said we should do it this way instead." The problem is that they are often far from unbiased. One of my friends who has been a consultant to some pretty big players was often surprised at how often the 'results' were handed to him by the client after they did their analysis.
Hopefully, that isn't the situation here, but it isn't uncommon. It's something you should keep in mind.
The real issue here is the integrity of doctors and corruption in medical system. But, I'm with many of the other posters here in that I still think organ donation is the noble thing to do... and then police the system to try and keep the corruption to a minimum. The reversible vs irreversible issue is the key. More technology, will of course, push that line around. But, so long as, for the most part, doctors make good decisions based on the current bounds of medicine, I'd rather take my chance of helping someone else than fear being a victim of the corruption.
Agreed... it gave 'market confidence' because the Market is pretty much influenced by perception these days, rather than financial reality. So, this move gave the perception of stability of Apple to investors who didn't have a clue about Apple's actual value.
I really don't care all that much about using Apple TV for buying iTMS content until Hollywood gets their acts together (which I don't suspect will happen any time soon). I'll happily use one in the entertainment center, though, to stream music through or watch Netflix, etc. I currently use a PS3, but it uses a LOT more energy to do so.
However, what I think has most of us really excited about the Apple TV is Airplay, especially with it coming to OSX (it already is there on iOS). This really is a pretty big thing for folks who use Apple products. Also, for people who give presentations, the Apple TV is a great product to hook to the projector, and then just use an iPad to wirelessly give the presentation. I only with the Apple TV had a built-in wifi router to save me lugging an Airport Express. (That said, an iPad, Apple TV, and AX is already a pretty portable package!)
Reality filter? You mean, reality distortion field? Yea, Jobs was quite the influential guy and knew how to sell his vision. That distorted many people's reality. But, the truth is (as I mentioned in an above response) that if Apple had followed 10% of all the 'expert advice' they were constantly being given and continued on with CEOs who were supposedly experts in the tech sector, they WOULD have died for sure. It was Steve Jobs to really did think differently, and had the influence and sway to actually pull it off with a public company, that did save Apple. Without that, all the smarts and inventiveness of the employees (which was certainly necessary) would not have mattered.
Face it, Apple wasn't run like just about any other major company... and check their stock price. Conventional 'business wisdom' might be conventional, but it's often wrong, especially in a day where public companies are constantly being driven to short-term-thinking by the investors. Jobs, thankfully, kept Apple somewhat immune to that idiocy.
Oh, I agree. The previous several CEOs were running Apple into the ground, by doing 'business as usual' stupid stuff you always read as advice to Apple by the 'industry experts.' Also, don't forget that Microsoft needed, badly, to look less monopolistic, especially with Office. Having it on multiple platforms was VERY beneficial to Microsoft as well. Without Office, Windows would have died off long ago. Office really has been the key product that everyone in the world seems to think they can't live without.
First, a patent toll isn't a company protecting their intellectual property. A patent troll is a 'firm' that makes nothing, but simply collects patents and hires a lot of lawyers in an attempt to squeeze some cash out of the victims of such tolling.
Second, when you have BILLIONS of cash in the bank, a $150 million 'investment' is better called, a token gesture.
Small businesses would be wise not to invest in Lotus Notes (large ones would be too!). When evaluating FM, it isn't a matter of big or small, but what needs to be done. Most small-medium businesses would be fine with just FM for most things. Bigger projects can be done with FM for the rapid-development UI aspects, with other DB systems doing the 'crunching' for various aspects.
Umm... I used to work for a Fortune 100 who's main back-end system was FileMaker based. It is an incredibly powerful system due to rapid development capabilities. You can interface to other DB systems for things which need the speed and power FM can't achieve.
Or, you can do the same project with 100 developers rather than 5... your choice.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right (at least as far as the state is concerned... social or religious marriage is another matter). So, this isn't a matter of freedom... a GLBT couple is already free to form a committed relationship, live together, do what they like in the bedroom, etc. The state needs to make the decision based on achieving a stable and prosperous society. To do so, they need to promote stability in the relationship which produces the next generation. That is the reason for state marriage... not to make people happy who fall in love.
But, it isn't 'social pressures' that should be driving the government in this situation, but the interests of the government in promoting a stable and prosperous society. Government is supposed to be keeping order and promoting welfare, not trying to make each special interest group happy. Benefits and privileges like marriage cost the state money, so they want to get the best bang for their buck.
Absolutely agree here. First, your final point is well taken (and a huge basis behind OWS) that corporations already control our supposed democracy by controlling what happens in the government. The last thing we need is for them to start pushing public policy around, which may not even be the position held by the majority making up the corporation, nor any kind of majority of society in general.
What does this have to do with, "... people try[ing] to control how others feel and who they love..."? Marriage is a privilege, not a right. The state gives this privilege to suit its interests, not to make people happy. The interest of the state, in this case, is to promote a healthy and stable society; which means a healthy next generation. The best case to achieve this goal is to promote a stable male/female couple who will likely a) have children (no other combination can), and b) hopefully raise this child to be a good part of society. Hence, marriage being between a male and female. (Note: there is NOTHING religious about the above at all. Other arguments could be made if we want to go down that road, such as religious marriage in church, temple, etc. I'm strictly talking about secular marriage here.)
No one is prohibiting anything. If people of the same sex want to form a committed relationship, no one is stopping that. In many places, they can even get packages of benefits/'rights' which give them solutions to such issues as estate planning, hospital visitation, and partner benefits at the work place.
Also, the argument is not that a single male or female, or male/male, or female/female couple can't raise a child with good results. And, certainly some of these arrangements are much better than bad male/female couples. The argument is that since the male/female couple is the best (numerous studies indicate this), this should be what the state promotes. We don't want to promote sub-optimal or make it equal to in how it is viewed, as this encourages the sub-optimal (and not just that people will then take advantage of the opportunity, but also in how society views it). (Again, note: we're not talking about value of the people or relationship, or morals, etc. here... simply how it is viewed as a benefit to the state to achieve their goals, which is why they would give such a privilege in the first place. The state doesn't really care about - or at least probably can't afford to - give such a benefits package just to make Adam and Steve feel good about their relationship.)
Those are still fairly short trips and either mountain or more urban. I'd like to hear from someone who drove from, say, Minneapolis to San Antonio, or Toledo to Tucson, etc. (ie: across a couple tanks at least and with mostly true highway conditions). The record for a TDI Jetta (unofficial?) is almost 59 MPG, driving across the US and staying within 5 mph of the posted speed limits (ie: not driving really slow, etc.). So, I'm guessing that upper 40s, lower 50s shouldn't be all that hard to get on more 'normal' trips. We who live in mountainous areas are making the mileages sound low.:) Our 'highway' involved going between Vancouver B.C. and Kelowna, Osoyoos, etc. (mountain and wine country of Canada, so like 90% mountains... and a good amount of it was on little back-roads through the mountains. Fun, but not necessarily conducive to fuel economy.)
Given they said, "...punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things..." it's simply B.S. or they are mistaken in some manner (ie: bad trip computer, they don't know how to calc mileage, etc.).
Well, if you accelerate quickly at the stoplights, but there aren't too many of them and you drive like you have an egg-shell on the accelerator the rest of the time, then your average could still be fairly high. But, I agree with the others, you're not going to defy basic physics here. Modern engine or not, when you accelerate, the engine uses more fuel. Period! Yes, modern engines don't dump as much EXTRA fuel in when you tromp the throttle as older engines used to. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter how you drive.
Also, note what the original post I responded to said, "... punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things...". Sorry, but it doesn't matter how modern the engine is, that isn't going to get one anywhere near the top of the range possible for a particular vehicle. Given that the number cited was near the top (or beyond?) for the type of vehicle, I simply called B.S.! Physics people. It's kind of like the hundreds mpg carburetors the govt. confiscated. It's called urban legend taking in the uneducated or gullible. Or, as I also noted, maybe they were simply trusting a really bad trip computer.
I guess it depends on how much is enough. If I remember correctly, you're around 11 sec 0-60 mph and our 2010 is just a tad over 8 sec. Either is fairly drivable, for sure (much more than that, and I start to get nervous on free-way entrances and such, especially where we live (they tend to be quite short). If performance isn't misused, I consider it a safety feature. It just comes down to where you draw the line at that point.
Your point is well taken though, that we certainly could have bought an older model of something to bring our cost down. I wanted a 2008 Jetta TDI or newer though, so that didn't work out with the financing. Older than that, I'd probably have just gone for another early to mid-'00s Civic (what our TDI replaced).
"Around here about half of the people have at least one Subaru because they help keep you from getting dead."
Yea, I can understand that. If I lived in the mountains (well, I live REALL close... so better, if I traveled through the mountains a lot) I'd probably get and AWD as well, if for nothing else, than to avoid always having to chain-up. Some good winter tires are probably more likely to keep one from 'getting dead' than the AWD (other than getting stuck if you are in a really remote area).
I've always kind of joked that 4WD / AWD, especially with trucks, just helps you get into trouble all that much more quickly, as braking isn't much different. At least with a FWD or RWD, bad drivers often can't get going very well in the first place in bad conditions.;)
One thing I've noted in reading some of the comments so far, is that a lot of folks seem to be depending on the trip computer in the cars for their numbers. They are notoriously inaccurate (like 5-10 mpg high often, from what I've seen). If you really want to measure your fuel economy, start a log (there are some great apps for smart phones) and fill up completely at the same station and pump as often as possible. Record the fuel amount you fill up with, and the distances on the odometer. Then do the math. Over enough time, you'll get a pretty good, more accurate number for your average fuel economy. Then take into account the type of driving you do (city/highway) and how you drive (do you drive for economy or sport, etc.) and you can then start to compare to others who calculate the same way. Get enough of those stats and you start to see real-world mileage for a particular car model.
Slashdot Mirror
In my experience, this may well indicate that someone up the food chain has some different ideas or vision about your project. Often consultants are brought in to recommend what upper management wants to happen, rather than come up with real findings. It saves them having to directly disagree with their own staff. In other words, "Look, these outside (unbiased!?) experts said we should do it this way instead." The problem is that they are often far from unbiased. One of my friends who has been a consultant to some pretty big players was often surprised at how often the 'results' were handed to him by the client after they did their analysis.
Hopefully, that isn't the situation here, but it isn't uncommon. It's something you should keep in mind.
The real issue here is the integrity of doctors and corruption in medical system. But, I'm with many of the other posters here in that I still think organ donation is the noble thing to do... and then police the system to try and keep the corruption to a minimum. The reversible vs irreversible issue is the key. More technology, will of course, push that line around. But, so long as, for the most part, doctors make good decisions based on the current bounds of medicine, I'd rather take my chance of helping someone else than fear being a victim of the corruption.
Agreed... it gave 'market confidence' because the Market is pretty much influenced by perception these days, rather than financial reality. So, this move gave the perception of stability of Apple to investors who didn't have a clue about Apple's actual value.
I really don't care all that much about using Apple TV for buying iTMS content until Hollywood gets their acts together (which I don't suspect will happen any time soon). I'll happily use one in the entertainment center, though, to stream music through or watch Netflix, etc. I currently use a PS3, but it uses a LOT more energy to do so.
However, what I think has most of us really excited about the Apple TV is Airplay, especially with it coming to OSX (it already is there on iOS). This really is a pretty big thing for folks who use Apple products. Also, for people who give presentations, the Apple TV is a great product to hook to the projector, and then just use an iPad to wirelessly give the presentation. I only with the Apple TV had a built-in wifi router to save me lugging an Airport Express. (That said, an iPad, Apple TV, and AX is already a pretty portable package!)
the sequel... ;)
Reality filter? You mean, reality distortion field? Yea, Jobs was quite the influential guy and knew how to sell his vision. That distorted many people's reality. But, the truth is (as I mentioned in an above response) that if Apple had followed 10% of all the 'expert advice' they were constantly being given and continued on with CEOs who were supposedly experts in the tech sector, they WOULD have died for sure. It was Steve Jobs to really did think differently, and had the influence and sway to actually pull it off with a public company, that did save Apple. Without that, all the smarts and inventiveness of the employees (which was certainly necessary) would not have mattered.
Face it, Apple wasn't run like just about any other major company... and check their stock price. Conventional 'business wisdom' might be conventional, but it's often wrong, especially in a day where public companies are constantly being driven to short-term-thinking by the investors. Jobs, thankfully, kept Apple somewhat immune to that idiocy.
Oh, I agree. The previous several CEOs were running Apple into the ground, by doing 'business as usual' stupid stuff you always read as advice to Apple by the 'industry experts.' Also, don't forget that Microsoft needed, badly, to look less monopolistic, especially with Office. Having it on multiple platforms was VERY beneficial to Microsoft as well. Without Office, Windows would have died off long ago. Office really has been the key product that everyone in the world seems to think they can't live without.
First, a patent toll isn't a company protecting their intellectual property. A patent troll is a 'firm' that makes nothing, but simply collects patents and hires a lot of lawyers in an attempt to squeeze some cash out of the victims of such tolling.
Second, when you have BILLIONS of cash in the bank, a $150 million 'investment' is better called, a token gesture.
Because it is based off the general, not each specific case. This (hopefully) isn't China.
No kidding!
Notes is one of those really horrible things forced on poor users by idiot IT departments.
That sounds like quite a kludge... FM isn't. ;)
Small businesses would be wise not to invest in Lotus Notes (large ones would be too!).
When evaluating FM, it isn't a matter of big or small, but what needs to be done. Most small-medium businesses would be fine with just FM for most things. Bigger projects can be done with FM for the rapid-development UI aspects, with other DB systems doing the 'crunching' for various aspects.
Umm... I used to work for a Fortune 100 who's main back-end system was FileMaker based. It is an incredibly powerful system due to rapid development capabilities. You can interface to other DB systems for things which need the speed and power FM can't achieve.
Or, you can do the same project with 100 developers rather than 5... your choice.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right (at least as far as the state is concerned... social or religious marriage is another matter).
So, this isn't a matter of freedom... a GLBT couple is already free to form a committed relationship, live together, do what they like in the bedroom, etc.
The state needs to make the decision based on achieving a stable and prosperous society. To do so, they need to promote stability in the relationship which produces the next generation. That is the reason for state marriage... not to make people happy who fall in love.
But, it isn't 'social pressures' that should be driving the government in this situation, but the interests of the government in promoting a stable and prosperous society. Government is supposed to be keeping order and promoting welfare, not trying to make each special interest group happy. Benefits and privileges like marriage cost the state money, so they want to get the best bang for their buck.
Religious marriage and state marriage are really separate issues, with very different reasons behind them.
Absolutely agree here. First, your final point is well taken (and a huge basis behind OWS) that corporations already control our supposed democracy by controlling what happens in the government. The last thing we need is for them to start pushing public policy around, which may not even be the position held by the majority making up the corporation, nor any kind of majority of society in general.
What does this have to do with, "... people try[ing] to control how others feel and who they love ..."? Marriage is a privilege, not a right. The state gives this privilege to suit its interests, not to make people happy. The interest of the state, in this case, is to promote a healthy and stable society; which means a healthy next generation. The best case to achieve this goal is to promote a stable male/female couple who will likely a) have children (no other combination can), and b) hopefully raise this child to be a good part of society. Hence, marriage being between a male and female. (Note: there is NOTHING religious about the above at all. Other arguments could be made if we want to go down that road, such as religious marriage in church, temple, etc. I'm strictly talking about secular marriage here.)
No one is prohibiting anything. If people of the same sex want to form a committed relationship, no one is stopping that. In many places, they can even get packages of benefits/'rights' which give them solutions to such issues as estate planning, hospital visitation, and partner benefits at the work place.
Also, the argument is not that a single male or female, or male/male, or female/female couple can't raise a child with good results. And, certainly some of these arrangements are much better than bad male/female couples. The argument is that since the male/female couple is the best (numerous studies indicate this), this should be what the state promotes. We don't want to promote sub-optimal or make it equal to in how it is viewed, as this encourages the sub-optimal (and not just that people will then take advantage of the opportunity, but also in how society views it).
(Again, note: we're not talking about value of the people or relationship, or morals, etc. here... simply how it is viewed as a benefit to the state to achieve their goals, which is why they would give such a privilege in the first place. The state doesn't really care about - or at least probably can't afford to - give such a benefits package just to make Adam and Steve feel good about their relationship.)
Note that the post I replied to said, "... punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things... ".
Those are still fairly short trips and either mountain or more urban. I'd like to hear from someone who drove from, say, Minneapolis to San Antonio, or Toledo to Tucson, etc. (ie: across a couple tanks at least and with mostly true highway conditions). The record for a TDI Jetta (unofficial?) is almost 59 MPG, driving across the US and staying within 5 mph of the posted speed limits (ie: not driving really slow, etc.). So, I'm guessing that upper 40s, lower 50s shouldn't be all that hard to get on more 'normal' trips. We who live in mountainous areas are making the mileages sound low. :) Our 'highway' involved going between Vancouver B.C. and Kelowna, Osoyoos, etc. (mountain and wine country of Canada, so like 90% mountains... and a good amount of it was on little back-roads through the mountains. Fun, but not necessarily conducive to fuel economy.)
Given they said, "...punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things..." it's simply B.S. or they are mistaken in some manner (ie: bad trip computer, they don't know how to calc mileage, etc.).
Well, if you accelerate quickly at the stoplights, but there aren't too many of them and you drive like you have an egg-shell on the accelerator the rest of the time, then your average could still be fairly high. But, I agree with the others, you're not going to defy basic physics here. Modern engine or not, when you accelerate, the engine uses more fuel. Period! Yes, modern engines don't dump as much EXTRA fuel in when you tromp the throttle as older engines used to. But that doesn't mean it doesn't matter how you drive.
Also, note what the original post I responded to said, "... punching the gas at every stop light and doing all the "improper" things...". Sorry, but it doesn't matter how modern the engine is, that isn't going to get one anywhere near the top of the range possible for a particular vehicle. Given that the number cited was near the top (or beyond?) for the type of vehicle, I simply called B.S.! Physics people. It's kind of like the hundreds mpg carburetors the govt. confiscated. It's called urban legend taking in the uneducated or gullible. Or, as I also noted, maybe they were simply trusting a really bad trip computer.
I guess it depends on how much is enough. If I remember correctly, you're around 11 sec 0-60 mph and our 2010 is just a tad over 8 sec. Either is fairly drivable, for sure (much more than that, and I start to get nervous on free-way entrances and such, especially where we live (they tend to be quite short). If performance isn't misused, I consider it a safety feature. It just comes down to where you draw the line at that point.
Your point is well taken though, that we certainly could have bought an older model of something to bring our cost down. I wanted a 2008 Jetta TDI or newer though, so that didn't work out with the financing. Older than that, I'd probably have just gone for another early to mid-'00s Civic (what our TDI replaced).
"Around here about half of the people have at least one Subaru because they help keep you from getting dead."
Yea, I can understand that. If I lived in the mountains (well, I live REALL close... so better, if I traveled through the mountains a lot) I'd probably get and AWD as well, if for nothing else, than to avoid always having to chain-up. Some good winter tires are probably more likely to keep one from 'getting dead' than the AWD (other than getting stuck if you are in a really remote area).
I've always kind of joked that 4WD / AWD, especially with trucks, just helps you get into trouble all that much more quickly, as braking isn't much different. At least with a FWD or RWD, bad drivers often can't get going very well in the first place in bad conditions. ;)
One thing I've noted in reading some of the comments so far, is that a lot of folks seem to be depending on the trip computer in the cars for their numbers. They are notoriously inaccurate (like 5-10 mpg high often, from what I've seen). If you really want to measure your fuel economy, start a log (there are some great apps for smart phones) and fill up completely at the same station and pump as often as possible. Record the fuel amount you fill up with, and the distances on the odometer. Then do the math. Over enough time, you'll get a pretty good, more accurate number for your average fuel economy. Then take into account the type of driving you do (city/highway) and how you drive (do you drive for economy or sport, etc.) and you can then start to compare to others who calculate the same way. Get enough of those stats and you start to see real-world mileage for a particular car model.