It's not a rip off... totally. Customer satisfaction counts for something. To this day I was very impressed with how Apple handled a situation regarding a tower I bought over ten years ago, and I was content to pay the "Mac Tax" due to what the experience has been.
I think the main argument being had revolves around a lack of options/customized availability from Apple,particularly in the mid range (because sometimes you don't want an iMac or a MacMini) and it is justified.
True, the margins on mid level hardware aren't going to be the same as what apple is making off of the top stuff, yet they could probably move them. I'm betting it would be at the expense of those Mac Pros, and they are not having that.
Not quite true. Clone makers had a license for versions of OS 8; AFAIR They did not permit licensing of OS 9 (remember OS 8.5 became 9 to prevent clone makers from capitalizing on those license rights).
Apple conveniently provided no new licenses and allowed the existing agreements to expire.
I'm a multiple Mac owner (and semi fanboy), and I DO think the prices are out of kilter. I also agree with the above poster that the low to mid level options are either absen, or meek. Don't get me started on why I can't get a Macbook in black at the same price as the ivory (to replace my Powerbook G4) or why there isn't a mid range tower (like there used to be if you remember the days Apple did offer one).
I was all for simplification of the product line when they got sloppy in the late 90's and the company was in trouble, but there is a niche to be had that Apple appears to have no interest in.
You may think that we're nuts, but a good number of those Western European nations that now don't have such lax gun laws are social democracies that my grandparent's tax dollars (and my grandfather's blood) went toward rebuilding; remember the Marshall Plan? The Europe you know of didn't exist then; it had a pretty nasty history of out of control nationalism.
What's interesting is that nationalism is apparently on the rise again, globally this time.
While normally I'm on the other side of such an argument, as I do indeed believe the United States has lost their minds and forgotten how to treat their partner nations as peers, in this case I'm not.
Our "lax gun laws" might come in handy one day should a truly tyrannical government appear in this nation, and I prefer to have the fate of my n nation literally in the hands of the millions of citizens even if a good number of them aren't too clever.
It's the sacrifice of being in a liberal democracy and open society, versus an attempt to make it appear sterile and safe.
The last weekend in January I took a trip to Philly to pick up a car I'd bought. My eight year old daughter pleaded with me to go because she wanted to see the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, so picked up two extra one way tickets for her and my son and we flew out Friday morn.
Saturday, we spent all day at Independence hall, the National Constitution Center, and all that jazz. As we entered the building that houses the Liberty Bell (in which I had to submit to a search and I mused out loud, "I'm surrendering my liberty, in order to SEE the Liberty Bell. how ironic." The guards were not amused.) there was a large Chinese tour group ahead of us. My impatient kids ran ahead to the back of the building to see the bell; I stopped to take in the displays.
If you've not been there, there is a display with a photo of the Dalai Lama visiting the Liberty Bell. Several members of the tour group were standing there, taking photos of themselves with the photo, forming a gun with their fingers behind his head. I openly snickered in disgust when I saw what they were doing.
Of course, I'm quite sure you won't catch anyone giving the gun salute to photos of Chairman Mao in the PRC.
I don't believe that totally, but I think you're close. There is never going to be significant pressure brought to bear on the Chinese, enough so that the Tibetans engage in some sort of home rule/autonomy. Never. even now, there are those who say "What good would a boycott do? You're only punsihing the athletes." I'm not sure you can weigh an athletic event versus a significant number of people in a particular culture who don't wish to be ruled by what they perceive to be an occupying force.
That is what this is about. It's not a fixed number of rabble rousers who want a certain type of state; it's a distinct culture that was absorbed (officially) just 50 years ago. One could argue the same regarding the Palestineans, but we'll leave them out for now.
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and I agree about getting out of Iraq. The problem is that we can't just simply "get out".
But yes, essentially there's a civil/cultural war developing there. The solution for us can't be by force, and that goes back to why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The the US military is let's say a total of 2 million mobilized. the US population is 300 million. If, FSM forbid there was any sort of tyrannical government in power, they'd have some trouble subduing the masses, due to the number of firearms and other resources present and available to the populace.
I agree with the poster way up yonder as well. The 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns is no more or less valuable than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I may not agree with you on how those rights are used, but I'll defend your right to do so.
Look, there are well meaning positions all over on this; to be honest, you can say that about any position (abortion, health care, etc.). Everyone thinks they have the best answer.
There is no best answer, but I do know that Tibetans turning over one or two cars didn't dissuade China from laying a boot to the province. On the other hand if the Taiwanese could only overturn one or two cars...
If you cram six billion termites into the same relative space to size as six billion humans on this planet, I'm sure that in a good amount of time you'll see some pretty significant damage take place.
This isn't to say that it is indeed possible that there are other factors not related to our activity as causes of global warming. I am saying it seems that a lot of those who don't believe we have a significant effect on the planet tend to be the ones that don't want to either act in order to possibly mitigate the impact, or find it completely plausible that we could terraform some other world, but there's NO way we're responsible fucking up the Earth!
Didn't Mitt Romney basically do the same thing in Mass. regarding health care? Last I checked it was spun as getting others to pay on their own dime...
This might sound out of place, but isn't at some point TV (for entertainment) just...TV? While increasing resolution is something I'm sure the enthusiast can appreciate, isn't there a point where size and quality of image cease to matter?
I agree with your post... for the record though, a few 747's have gone down since the Maid of the Seas did. TWA Flight 800, and several operated by other nations. If you consider the 747 is a historically complex and large aircraft, it makes since that it might h ave a slightly higher failure rate than say, the 737 series which there's a lot more of.
I would agree with you regarding the final date you suggest (Armistice Day, 1918). With all the demands the Brits and French put on Germany, the seeds for dubya dubya eye eye were quickly sown (as well as the seeds for the Vietnam War; Ho Chi Minh was an admirer of President Wilson, and desired to petition him and the powers that be regarding his country's independence). September 1, 1939 is only the date that the Allied European powers were required to declare war due to defense agreements, and Japan was intent on having its way with Asia as a whole for almost two decades at that point.
I've played five games with any significant regularity this year: GRAW 2, Guild Wars, BF2, Lego Star Wars II (with the daughter), and Medieval II: Total War. Technically, this was released in November 2006 but hey, it didn't enter my budget until early this year, and it's still there. While not as initially satisfying as the preceding Total War games, it fed (and still feeds) my strategy jones.
I'm surprised it hasn't gotten a mention.
I've played the demos of Crysis, and BF2 and while they look amazing and fun in their own right, MII:TW will keep rolling along because it's so damned playable. I'll tell you what I'm begging for: a new version of Sonalysts' Fleet Command (or Jane's Fleet Command if you prefer that title).
Don't you think what you've said can apply to any religio-mythological text? How come here, in Slashdot a comment like this is made in reference to Judeo-Christian belief? As far as I know, Genesis says it was dark (the void), then there was light (Big Bang?) and then Earth and the Heavens (not necessarily in that order). Then the oceans (yep those came first) and the beasts (several waves of species, apparently by the fossil record), then G-d got lonely/smoked some crack and created man from dust(early storms primordial clay and amino acids?). It's a little out of order but it follows the "boomstick" rule; how would YOU explain the scientific understanding of creation to early civilized man, fresh out the trees? If you tried by explaining that all of creation was at one point in time packed into an area possibly no larger and a pinhead and there was this hyper-rapid expansion, continuing on... blah blah blah. It sounds just as fantastic IF NOT MORE.
What amazes me is that one would think we'd get past the point of trying to be absolute in the first place when it comes to belief versus science. My own personal preference is to realize that science provides the answer to HOW things happened and the measurable forces behind it. It permits us to truly understand on a equal, quantifiable level regardless of philosophical/theological belief. Belief has its place in how we see things as well; it deals more with the philosophical WHY and how/what we decide to focus this brief existence on.
Personally, I've never seen the conflict between the two and look at those on both sides who never miss an opportunity to bash each other and prove the other wrong as both amusing and tragic.
Sure, because it sounds as though according to you there is absolutely no problem with any one nation in the world who possesses nuclear weapons invading or imposing sanctions on any nation it arbitrarily feels is enriching uranium to gain the same weapons.
The reality is that you can't invade/bomb/engage in regime change in every single nation, and face the likely fact that many of those nations will then possess the means to build nuclear weapons. While it may not be in our stated strategic interests right now to allow this to happen, if anything the realities of today's world should tell you that how we determine those interests and we we intend to ensure them has to be changed.
I kind of agree. To be honest, this is how we ran into the problem regarding knowledge transfer and the Saturn rocket program, versus having to "start from scratch" now. Being able to have yesterday's engineers work hand in hand with up and coming engineers who will contribute to Orion and whatever comes next is a transfer plus.
The other thing is while yes it is important to think globally in regards to space exploration, it's not in your national security interest, nor national science interest to depend on another nation to give you a ride all the time.
Personally, I think the whole VfSE Bush plan is not daring in the least; it's really a way to push it off to the next administration, in the same way his dad did it in 1990. These guys don't care about getting off the planet, even when our survival might just depend on it.
No, he meant what he said(forgive me parent poster if it seems as though I'm speaking for you).
If there's an opposing or differing significant point of view then that point of view should be included. The problem is that when it comes to some articles they are written with a sense of absolute certainty that it borders on insulting.
For instance, when outlining/contributing to articles that pertain to historical events the only established "fact" is that the event happened. The reasoning as to why it happened, and the more pertinent events that led up to what happened are in some cases going to be subject to conjecture. A writer should leave room for a dissenting view.
This won't always be the case and yes some will exploit that expected consideration to push forward a view that most would consider fringe. That's what the moderators are there for. Now there might be a problem with moderators who can't think objectively about the subject/material at hand to the expected degree...
Nothing, nothing lasts 50 years. I can point back less than 10 years ago when the bandwidth possibilities of cable were lauded as endless. FIOS might last a bit longer, but as we begin to demand more and more services delivered via global nets in the next few years (provided civilization doesn't oh, collapse), The Next Big Thing will have come to the forefront much sooner than 2060 or so.
Oh I know all about the money he saved, but I'll tell the whole story since you're bringing up the 200 million he saved the city later on.
He saved the city money that was surrendered during the same years by corporate flight.
The following administrations' (Voinovich) solution to returning the city to solvency involved very permissive tax abatements to draw business back to downtown, or fuel renovation of existing facilities downtown. This would not have been necessary had Kucinich had the maturity to be judicious about his decision making. The major casualty of this policy was the Cleveland City School District, which required a 1.2 BILLION bond vote less than five years ago after 20 years of fiscal neglect due to the effort spent getting out of default. Let's do the numbers: saving two hundred million over a ten year period to spend 5 times as much over a twenty year period.
That enough of the story for you, from someone who lived in the city and its politics from birth? =)
Slashdot Mirror
But MS still gets a chunk of change whether you buy it with Windows or not installed. Or is that Dell?
Then they should think different about dem prices. ;)
As I noted in a post elsewhere. I was all for the simplification of the product line in the late 90's but there's no reason to pull that kinda crap.
It's not a rip off... totally. Customer satisfaction counts for something. To this day I was very impressed with how Apple handled a situation regarding a tower I bought over ten years ago, and I was content to pay the "Mac Tax" due to what the experience has been.
I think the main argument being had revolves around a lack of options/customized availability from Apple,particularly in the mid range (because sometimes you don't want an iMac or a MacMini) and it is justified.
True, the margins on mid level hardware aren't going to be the same as what apple is making off of the top stuff, yet they could probably move them. I'm betting it would be at the expense of those Mac Pros, and they are not having that.
Nope.
Why can't I get one with a 160 GB HD in black?
Not quite true. Clone makers had a license for versions of OS 8; AFAIR They did not permit licensing of OS 9 (remember OS 8.5 became 9 to prevent clone makers from capitalizing on those license rights).
Apple conveniently provided no new licenses and allowed the existing agreements to expire.
I'm a multiple Mac owner (and semi fanboy), and I DO think the prices are out of kilter. I also agree with the above poster that the low to mid level options are either absen, or meek. Don't get me started on why I can't get a Macbook in black at the same price as the ivory (to replace my Powerbook G4) or why there isn't a mid range tower (like there used to be if you remember the days Apple did offer one).
I was all for simplification of the product line when they got sloppy in the late 90's and the company was in trouble, but there is a niche to be had that Apple appears to have no interest in.
Excellent post. I concur.
Switzerland doesn't.
You may think that we're nuts, but a good number of those Western European nations that now don't have such lax gun laws are social democracies that my grandparent's tax dollars (and my grandfather's blood) went toward rebuilding; remember the Marshall Plan? The Europe you know of didn't exist then; it had a pretty nasty history of out of control nationalism.
What's interesting is that nationalism is apparently on the rise again, globally this time.
While normally I'm on the other side of such an argument, as I do indeed believe the United States has lost their minds and forgotten how to treat their partner nations as peers, in this case I'm not.
Our "lax gun laws" might come in handy one day should a truly tyrannical government appear in this nation, and I prefer to have the fate of my n nation literally in the hands of the millions of citizens even if a good number of them aren't too clever.
It's the sacrifice of being in a liberal democracy and open society, versus an attempt to make it appear sterile and safe.
Recent tale.
The last weekend in January I took a trip to Philly to pick up a car I'd bought. My eight year old daughter pleaded with me to go because she wanted to see the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, so picked up two extra one way tickets for her and my son and we flew out Friday morn.
Saturday, we spent all day at Independence hall, the National Constitution Center, and all that jazz. As we entered the building that houses the Liberty Bell (in which I had to submit to a search and I mused out loud, "I'm surrendering my liberty, in order to SEE the Liberty Bell. how ironic." The guards were not amused.) there was a large Chinese tour group ahead of us. My impatient kids ran ahead to the back of the building to see the bell; I stopped to take in the displays.
If you've not been there, there is a display with a photo of the Dalai Lama visiting the Liberty Bell. Several members of the tour group were standing there, taking photos of themselves with the photo, forming a gun with their fingers behind his head. I openly snickered in disgust when I saw what they were doing.
Of course, I'm quite sure you won't catch anyone giving the gun salute to photos of Chairman Mao in the PRC.
I don't believe that totally, but I think you're close. There is never going to be significant pressure brought to bear on the Chinese, enough so that the Tibetans engage in some sort of home rule/autonomy. Never. even now, there are those who say "What good would a boycott do? You're only punsihing the athletes." I'm not sure you can weigh an athletic event versus a significant number of people in a particular culture who don't wish to be ruled by what they perceive to be an occupying force.
That is what this is about. It's not a fixed number of rabble rousers who want a certain type of state; it's a distinct culture that was absorbed (officially) just 50 years ago. One could argue the same regarding the Palestineans, but we'll leave them out for now.
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and I agree about getting out of Iraq. The problem is that we can't just simply "get out".
But yes, essentially there's a civil/cultural war developing there. The solution for us can't be by force, and that goes back to why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The the US military is let's say a total of 2 million mobilized. the US population is 300 million. If, FSM forbid there was any sort of tyrannical government in power, they'd have some trouble subduing the masses, due to the number of firearms and other resources present and available to the populace.
I agree with the poster way up yonder as well. The 2nd Amendment and the right to own guns is no more or less valuable than the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. I may not agree with you on how those rights are used, but I'll defend your right to do so.
Look, there are well meaning positions all over on this; to be honest, you can say that about any position (abortion, health care, etc.). Everyone thinks they have the best answer.
There is no best answer, but I do know that Tibetans turning over one or two cars didn't dissuade China from laying a boot to the province. On the other hand if the Taiwanese could only overturn one or two cars...
If you cram six billion termites into the same relative space to size as six billion humans on this planet, I'm sure that in a good amount of time you'll see some pretty significant damage take place.
This isn't to say that it is indeed possible that there are other factors not related to our activity as causes of global warming. I am saying it seems that a lot of those who don't believe we have a significant effect on the planet tend to be the ones that don't want to either act in order to possibly mitigate the impact, or find it completely plausible that we could terraform some other world, but there's NO way we're responsible fucking up the Earth!
Didn't Mitt Romney basically do the same thing in Mass. regarding health care? Last I checked it was spun as getting others to pay on their own dime...
This might sound out of place, but isn't at some point TV (for entertainment) just...TV? While increasing resolution is something I'm sure the enthusiast can appreciate, isn't there a point where size and quality of image cease to matter?
I agree with your post... for the record though, a few 747's have gone down since the Maid of the Seas did. TWA Flight 800, and several operated by other nations. If you consider the 747 is a historically complex and large aircraft, it makes since that it might h ave a slightly higher failure rate than say, the 737 series which there's a lot more of.
I would agree with you regarding the final date you suggest (Armistice Day, 1918). With all the demands the Brits and French put on Germany, the seeds for dubya dubya eye eye were quickly sown (as well as the seeds for the Vietnam War; Ho Chi Minh was an admirer of President Wilson, and desired to petition him and the powers that be regarding his country's independence). September 1, 1939 is only the date that the Allied European powers were required to declare war due to defense agreements, and Japan was intent on having its way with Asia as a whole for almost two decades at that point.
That game was actually a ton of fun. I got it and enjoyed it on my Mac 7100/80 several times.
I've played five games with any significant regularity this year: GRAW 2, Guild Wars, BF2, Lego Star Wars II (with the daughter), and Medieval II: Total War. Technically, this was released in November 2006 but hey, it didn't enter my budget until early this year, and it's still there. While not as initially satisfying as the preceding Total War games, it fed (and still feeds) my strategy jones.
I'm surprised it hasn't gotten a mention.
I've played the demos of Crysis, and BF2 and while they look amazing and fun in their own right, MII:TW will keep rolling along because it's so damned playable. I'll tell you what I'm begging for: a new version of Sonalysts' Fleet Command (or Jane's Fleet Command if you prefer that title).
Don't you think what you've said can apply to any religio-mythological text? How come here, in Slashdot a comment like this is made in reference to Judeo-Christian belief? As far as I know, Genesis says it was dark (the void), then there was light (Big Bang?) and then Earth and the Heavens (not necessarily in that order). Then the oceans (yep those came first) and the beasts (several waves of species, apparently by the fossil record), then G-d got lonely/smoked some crack and created man from dust(early storms primordial clay and amino acids?). It's a little out of order but it follows the "boomstick" rule; how would YOU explain the scientific understanding of creation to early civilized man, fresh out the trees? If you tried by explaining that all of creation was at one point in time packed into an area possibly no larger and a pinhead and there was this hyper-rapid expansion, continuing on... blah blah blah. It sounds just as fantastic IF NOT MORE.
What amazes me is that one would think we'd get past the point of trying to be absolute in the first place when it comes to belief versus science. My own personal preference is to realize that science provides the answer to HOW things happened and the measurable forces behind it. It permits us to truly understand on a equal, quantifiable level regardless of philosophical/theological belief. Belief has its place in how we see things as well; it deals more with the philosophical WHY and how/what we decide to focus this brief existence on.
Personally, I've never seen the conflict between the two and look at those on both sides who never miss an opportunity to bash each other and prove the other wrong as both amusing and tragic.
Sure, because it sounds as though according to you there is absolutely no problem with any one nation in the world who possesses nuclear weapons invading or imposing sanctions on any nation it arbitrarily feels is enriching uranium to gain the same weapons.
The reality is that you can't invade/bomb/engage in regime change in every single nation, and face the likely fact that many of those nations will then possess the means to build nuclear weapons. While it may not be in our stated strategic interests right now to allow this to happen, if anything the realities of today's world should tell you that how we determine those interests and we we intend to ensure them has to be changed.
I kind of agree. To be honest, this is how we ran into the problem regarding knowledge transfer and the Saturn rocket program, versus having to "start from scratch" now. Being able to have yesterday's engineers work hand in hand with up and coming engineers who will contribute to Orion and whatever comes next is a transfer plus.
The other thing is while yes it is important to think globally in regards to space exploration, it's not in your national security interest, nor national science interest to depend on another nation to give you a ride all the time.
Personally, I think the whole VfSE Bush plan is not daring in the least; it's really a way to push it off to the next administration, in the same way his dad did it in 1990. These guys don't care about getting off the planet, even when our survival might just depend on it.
No, he meant what he said(forgive me parent poster if it seems as though I'm speaking for you).
If there's an opposing or differing significant point of view then that point of view should be included. The problem is that when it comes to some articles they are written with a sense of absolute certainty that it borders on insulting.
For instance, when outlining/contributing to articles that pertain to historical events the only established "fact" is that the event happened. The reasoning as to why it happened, and the more pertinent events that led up to what happened are in some cases going to be subject to conjecture. A writer should leave room for a dissenting view.
This won't always be the case and yes some will exploit that expected consideration to push forward a view that most would consider fringe. That's what the moderators are there for. Now there might be a problem with moderators who can't think objectively about the subject/material at hand to the expected degree...
Nothing, nothing lasts 50 years. I can point back less than 10 years ago when the bandwidth possibilities of cable were lauded as endless. FIOS might last a bit longer, but as we begin to demand more and more services delivered via global nets in the next few years (provided civilization doesn't oh, collapse), The Next Big Thing will have come to the forefront much sooner than 2060 or so.
Oh, we can shave that time in half. All we have to do is come up with "The Case for WMD's on Mars". Call up Mr. Zubrin.
Then again, maybe that interplanetary ship sailed.
Oh I know all about the money he saved, but I'll tell the whole story since you're bringing up the 200 million he saved the city later on.
He saved the city money that was surrendered during the same years by corporate flight.
The following administrations' (Voinovich) solution to returning the city to solvency involved very permissive tax abatements to draw business back to downtown, or fuel renovation of existing facilities downtown. This would not have been necessary had Kucinich had the maturity to be judicious about his decision making. The major casualty of this policy was the Cleveland City School District, which required a 1.2 BILLION bond vote less than five years ago after 20 years of fiscal neglect due to the effort spent getting out of default. Let's do the numbers: saving two hundred million over a ten year period to spend 5 times as much over a twenty year period.
That enough of the story for you, from someone who lived in the city and its politics from birth? =)