Their silence? The link you provided goes to Apple's support pages hosted on their website. A link within those support pages goes to a solution provided by Apple to fix the problem. Yeah, it's a hassle that you have to do some manual fixing with a few mouse clicks, but I wouldn't call that "silence" on the issue.
Hate to disappoint, but Barrier to Entry is a completely valid point. Citing Tesla Motors as an example against it proves nothing, since Tesla hasn't stood any test of entry yet. They've produced a single model vehicle (that I'm aware of) and gotten some additional funding, but are effectively still a niche company like custom made motorcycles or something. That isn't a success story (in a sense of truly making change in the auto industry), and certainly hasn't broken the barrier to entry. Look at Tucker, or for that matter Edsel (actually owned by Ford and it still failed) and DeLorian (less valid example since it failed for slightly more complex reasons--including criminal charges for John DeLorian) for more realistic examples.
"Foriegn companies, some of which are government backed" are exactly the success stories you've seen. Datsun (Nissan), Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, these guys rolled into the market having a huge customer base which effectively removed the Barrier to Entry because they had a large cash base to project from. Barrier to entry doesn't apply to these examples because they were already big companies. It applies to the guy making custom cars out of his garage that comes up with a great idea but can't ever get it to the streets "en-masse" because he can't break out of the custom niche without millions or billions of dollars to get started manufacturing and through safety inspections.
Radically changing your manufacturing process will cause a loss in investment. Saying the GP is wrong doesn't make it so. If you change your process, you spend money to retrain, to buy new equipment, and to get rid of your old equipment that still had some value to your company (unless it was broken) which doubles the loss because it's no longer producing products. It's a huge consideration in why car manufacturers don't do more radical designs except as "concept cars" for shows.
Yeah, most folks even from the 80s can't but I hedged my bets. There's always some smartass who will pipe up with an answer and miss the point entirely, just to prove you wrong.
Per capita isn't really relavent when comparing countries with such substantial poulation differences either. India has approximately 1 Billion people (2001 census) and the US has approximately 300 million people (2006 estimates). I don't know overall output of pollutants (my guess is US is higher overall) but saying per capita numbers is meaningless in this sense because you're comparing drastically different things. The US, on average, has a better standard of living (ie more general access to and availability of things likely to be considered pollutants) and a much lower population, so we're going to have an obviously higher per capita rate of pollution.
Now, that's not to say we shouldn't enforce our standards and be the world leader that we like to claim we are. We should definitely do more than we are, but saying we're the worst polluter without taking socio-economics into consideration is simply short-sighted. All governments need to look at getting tougher on this issue, but the simple fact is, we're only "better" at it because we've moved further along in our industrial progress than countries like Mexico and India who have traditionally horrible environmental practices (as many other "developing" countries do.
That makes sense for you, but the GP post mentioned not one, but three large vehicles, with two drivers. It certainly makes sense to have a vehicle capable of hauling people/stuff if you need it, but realistically having multiple vehicles like that is just wasteful. I won't even start on the whole ego association of "mine is bigger than yours" etc.
On the flip side, I drive a Honda Accord and have been hit (rear-ended) by two people driving big trucks and SUVs and cut off by countless people in SUVs, trucks, and mini-vans. All of these people were talking on the phone, not paying attention because "these type of people are always rushing around, trying to get here or there as fast as they can, you know, because they are important." I've also been cut off by countless people in small sedans, motorcycles (much less common) large sedans, and everything else on the road.
Your justification for your big vehicles is all well and good for your own ego and for inflating your self-righteousness but it's still just that...hot air inflating your opinion of yourself. There are people of all types driving all types of vehicles, and that includes assholes. There is no correlation between the types of vehicles people drive and their ability to drive well, or courteously. That's just your personal bias showing through, just like my personal bias when I see you driving your big 1500 with oversize tires makes me spew vulgar language at you when you cut me off (or I cut you off) on the commute to work.
While I agree that safety standards should be increased, modern sedans are much safer than even a few years ago with "crash zones" (or whatever they call the auto designs that take impact in the car instead of the car staying in shape and ejecting passengers) air bags and other new safety standards. They're getting better all the time, too so your insistance that you bought your big vehicles for "safety" is just a fallacy.
Maybe it's just me, but the school's policy is "no illegal file sharing", and they sent an email to Every student telling them what's "going on". So where exactly is it that this is bad for the little guy? And by little guy you mean the kid that has ignored the stated network policy and written warning received from network administrators? They've received plenty of "advance warning".
I don't like the RIAA's policies any more than anyone else, but let's not pretend that people who've received plenty of notice about "illegal" filesharing are victims. They aren't. They're just the people who got caught. Sure there are plenty of people doing it who don't get caught, but I'd venture to say that fully 98% of people file sharing movie/music industry products these days are completely aware that they aren't supposed to be. Especially on a campus network where you have all kinds of paperwork involved (usually) with getting access to said network.
If they choose to continue downloading questionably legal copies of Justin Timberlake, they deserve the "punishment" they receive. Of course I think the punishment should be forcing them to listen to Justin Timberlake and pay me for subjecting me to actually knowing who he is, but obviously they have a different idea of what punishment is.
And why should they? Times change, people's understanding of technology changes. Find one kid born after 1990 or so that can tell you how much space 200 records takes up. Or how much you can store (in data) on a cassette tape.
People use currently applicable "measurements" because people simply have no idea what a gigabyte is. For most of the population a gigabyte is meaningless because it simply doesn't matter in their lives. So knowing that a gigabyte can hold X number of songs brings relavence of size to them.
It's like the distance from one end of the solar system to the other. Most people simply can't comprehend the difference because they don't need to and they have no association. If you compare that distance to something we understand and can actually grasp, say the distance from London to New York, then it becomes an almost imaginable thing.
True, but many of the places I've been, disposable cameras weren't on hand easily. I understand though, since for me smell is the trigger. I always remember the smell of a place I've been and if I ever smell anything similar again, it takes me back. But smells are much harder to provide at will, so I take a lot of pictures too.
So what's fair compensation for losing your leg...or being on dialysis for the rest of your life...or for having your spouse/child die? That's the problem with "fair"--people have vastly different concepts of what is or isn't "fair" compensation.
"Those places your friend would never see have been documented by thousands of people before you. Your friends had already seen the interesting ones." Perhaps, but there's a big difference between 3-hand accounts (or just pictures) and direct personal experiences. With recounted memories or stories of funny situations, the pictures take on more life than just a shot in a magazine, or whatever. Camera's are essential, not just for sharing with other people, but for helping you remember things yourself. You won't be young forever, and pictures really help bring back the memories (and stories) as you age.
"No one has ever of their own accord asked you to show them the photos (unless they were trying to get in your pants)."
Hate to disappoint you, but that's simply not true. I've been asked by many friends, and asked many friends, what their trips were like and enjoyed their photographs. Certainly not 100% of the time, but often enough.
While I've carried my laptop on several trips, it was primarily for communication back to family and friends. For journaling, I've found I'm more apt to use a good old fashioned paper journal and pencil (still writes when wet) which only ways a quarter pound and fits easily in a big cargo pocket on my pants.
I completely agree with the "keep it cheap enough to lose" principle, but totally disagree with not taking a camera. Having a camera, whether you're a good photographer or not, is essential to helping remember a good trip, in my opinion.
I definitely think a cheap digital camera that's small enough to carry in a pocket is the way to go...mediocre pictures maybe, but it's about the memory, not the quality of the shot. Even grainy pictures from a low-res camera with no zoom still take me back to a particular garden, temple, or theme park and I can smell the air and remember the smiles on my girlfriend's and my daughter's faces. Nothing can replace that.
So buy a cheap camera and a bunch of memory cards for it, and go to town. Remember to get one with long battery life or buy an extra battery too. Far lighter than carrying a laptop and more important (for long term sharing of memories and stories) than a PDA, in my opinion.
I don't know where in Asia you may have traveled, but every place I've been had no problems with power, except in some places power was turned off at certain times of the day/night. As for adapters, the Macbooks have a "universal" power brick so the only concern is mating the plug, not the actual type of power. You can get a plug adapter set for about $15 US in most travel related stores like Brookstone, REI etc or if you want to pay a little more you can buy them in most international airports.
Your comments about weight and security are completely valid, though, as are those about the proliferation of internet cafes (in most places...less so in China from what I've seen).
I would say gadgetry wise, it really depends on what the OP means by "backpacking". If technical backpacking/climbing etc, I would recommend GPS of some sort and an EPIRB if planning any solo trekking. A PDA would probably be sufficient for doing most things a laptop would be used for, and definitely a lot lighter.
I was just about to ask about that specific scenario. What would be the liability of someone posting a reading from a book. You know, a "book on tape" that was unauthorized. In theory, it could be considered a "performance" and offered for free with no liability to the copyright holder (I think) as long as it was distinguished from "authorized" readings.
I'll disagree with that statement as well, considering I work with plenty of immigrants who never had to do anything more than I did, other than renounce their previous governments, to gain access to the same programs. Maybe that's not the norm, but I've been doing this for 20 years and never found anyone who had to do anything particularly out of the ordinary.
Not sure how you think my comment indicated a belief that you were talking about a partisan position. As I said, the system is broken and anyone who votes strictly based on a party is missing the boat. That includes both republicans and democrats. Your last statement pretty much indicates any career politician I've ever read about. The only people who are truly doing good work as politicians don't last as politicians.
Not to mention, a large portion of the work force simply doesn't get up early enough to need the lights any more now (or in a week or two at most) than they did last week. If most people go to work at 9am they don't get up until 7 at the earliest (usually) so they have about 15 minutes without light. Furthermore, as you stated, most people simply don't use as much energy in the morning as they do at the end of their work day.
That happens every year...no big surprise and certainly not evidence of any kind of conspiracy. Welcome to "summer". People hybernate all winter and when the weather starts to turn pretty again, they come out and do things. That means they drive more, gas demand goes up, price goes up. Simple rule.
Or maybe they should study a period of time (and location) that wasn't offset with the express purpose of accomodating the Olympics, which would automatically require higher energy consumption than "normal" for a given region. Seems to me their study might have overlooked a couple factors, if it was as simple as the linked article suggests.
Slashdot Mirror
Insane does not equal stupid. Other than that, I had the same question about basis for the "smart" statement.
Their silence? The link you provided goes to Apple's support pages hosted on their website. A link within those support pages goes to a solution provided by Apple to fix the problem. Yeah, it's a hassle that you have to do some manual fixing with a few mouse clicks, but I wouldn't call that "silence" on the issue.
Hate to disappoint, but Barrier to Entry is a completely valid point. Citing Tesla Motors as an example against it proves nothing, since Tesla hasn't stood any test of entry yet. They've produced a single model vehicle (that I'm aware of) and gotten some additional funding, but are effectively still a niche company like custom made motorcycles or something. That isn't a success story (in a sense of truly making change in the auto industry), and certainly hasn't broken the barrier to entry. Look at Tucker, or for that matter Edsel (actually owned by Ford and it still failed) and DeLorian (less valid example since it failed for slightly more complex reasons--including criminal charges for John DeLorian) for more realistic examples.
"Foriegn companies, some of which are government backed" are exactly the success stories you've seen. Datsun (Nissan), Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, these guys rolled into the market having a huge customer base which effectively removed the Barrier to Entry because they had a large cash base to project from. Barrier to entry doesn't apply to these examples because they were already big companies. It applies to the guy making custom cars out of his garage that comes up with a great idea but can't ever get it to the streets "en-masse" because he can't break out of the custom niche without millions or billions of dollars to get started manufacturing and through safety inspections.
Radically changing your manufacturing process will cause a loss in investment. Saying the GP is wrong doesn't make it so. If you change your process, you spend money to retrain, to buy new equipment, and to get rid of your old equipment that still had some value to your company (unless it was broken) which doubles the loss because it's no longer producing products. It's a huge consideration in why car manufacturers don't do more radical designs except as "concept cars" for shows.
Ack. It's weird when my worlds collide. Hello from rec.climbing...though I haven't been there in a while.
Yeah, most folks even from the 80s can't but I hedged my bets. There's always some smartass who will pipe up with an answer and miss the point entirely, just to prove you wrong.
Per capita isn't really relavent when comparing countries with such substantial poulation differences either. India has approximately 1 Billion people (2001 census) and the US has approximately 300 million people (2006 estimates). I don't know overall output of pollutants (my guess is US is higher overall) but saying per capita numbers is meaningless in this sense because you're comparing drastically different things. The US, on average, has a better standard of living (ie more general access to and availability of things likely to be considered pollutants) and a much lower population, so we're going to have an obviously higher per capita rate of pollution.
Now, that's not to say we shouldn't enforce our standards and be the world leader that we like to claim we are. We should definitely do more than we are, but saying we're the worst polluter without taking socio-economics into consideration is simply short-sighted. All governments need to look at getting tougher on this issue, but the simple fact is, we're only "better" at it because we've moved further along in our industrial progress than countries like Mexico and India who have traditionally horrible environmental practices (as many other "developing" countries do.
Now I've forgotten my point so I'll stop.
That makes sense for you, but the GP post mentioned not one, but three large vehicles, with two drivers. It certainly makes sense to have a vehicle capable of hauling people/stuff if you need it, but realistically having multiple vehicles like that is just wasteful. I won't even start on the whole ego association of "mine is bigger than yours" etc.
On the flip side, I drive a Honda Accord and have been hit (rear-ended) by two people driving big trucks and SUVs and cut off by countless people in SUVs, trucks, and mini-vans. All of these people were talking on the phone, not paying attention because "these type of people are always rushing around, trying to get here or there as fast as they can, you know, because they are important." I've also been cut off by countless people in small sedans, motorcycles (much less common) large sedans, and everything else on the road.
Your justification for your big vehicles is all well and good for your own ego and for inflating your self-righteousness but it's still just that...hot air inflating your opinion of yourself. There are people of all types driving all types of vehicles, and that includes assholes. There is no correlation between the types of vehicles people drive and their ability to drive well, or courteously. That's just your personal bias showing through, just like my personal bias when I see you driving your big 1500 with oversize tires makes me spew vulgar language at you when you cut me off (or I cut you off) on the commute to work.
While I agree that safety standards should be increased, modern sedans are much safer than even a few years ago with "crash zones" (or whatever they call the auto designs that take impact in the car instead of the car staying in shape and ejecting passengers) air bags and other new safety standards. They're getting better all the time, too so your insistance that you bought your big vehicles for "safety" is just a fallacy.
Maybe it's just me, but the school's policy is "no illegal file sharing", and they sent an email to Every student telling them what's "going on". So where exactly is it that this is bad for the little guy? And by little guy you mean the kid that has ignored the stated network policy and written warning received from network administrators? They've received plenty of "advance warning".
I don't like the RIAA's policies any more than anyone else, but let's not pretend that people who've received plenty of notice about "illegal" filesharing are victims. They aren't. They're just the people who got caught. Sure there are plenty of people doing it who don't get caught, but I'd venture to say that fully 98% of people file sharing movie/music industry products these days are completely aware that they aren't supposed to be. Especially on a campus network where you have all kinds of paperwork involved (usually) with getting access to said network.
If they choose to continue downloading questionably legal copies of Justin Timberlake, they deserve the "punishment" they receive. Of course I think the punishment should be forcing them to listen to Justin Timberlake and pay me for subjecting me to actually knowing who he is, but obviously they have a different idea of what punishment is.
And why should they? Times change, people's understanding of technology changes. Find one kid born after 1990 or so that can tell you how much space 200 records takes up. Or how much you can store (in data) on a cassette tape.
People use currently applicable "measurements" because people simply have no idea what a gigabyte is. For most of the population a gigabyte is meaningless because it simply doesn't matter in their lives. So knowing that a gigabyte can hold X number of songs brings relavence of size to them.
It's like the distance from one end of the solar system to the other. Most people simply can't comprehend the difference because they don't need to and they have no association. If you compare that distance to something we understand and can actually grasp, say the distance from London to New York, then it becomes an almost imaginable thing.
Attorney fees aren't privileged, as far as I know. Especially when they are up for payment in a case such as this.
True, but many of the places I've been, disposable cameras weren't on hand easily. I understand though, since for me smell is the trigger. I always remember the smell of a place I've been and if I ever smell anything similar again, it takes me back. But smells are much harder to provide at will, so I take a lot of pictures too.
So what's fair compensation for losing your leg...or being on dialysis for the rest of your life...or for having your spouse/child die? That's the problem with "fair"--people have vastly different concepts of what is or isn't "fair" compensation.
"Those places your friend would never see have been documented by thousands of people before you. Your friends had already seen the interesting ones."
Perhaps, but there's a big difference between 3-hand accounts (or just pictures) and direct personal experiences. With recounted memories or stories of funny situations, the pictures take on more life than just a shot in a magazine, or whatever. Camera's are essential, not just for sharing with other people, but for helping you remember things yourself. You won't be young forever, and pictures really help bring back the memories (and stories) as you age.
"No one has ever of their own accord asked you to show them the photos (unless they were trying to get in your pants)."
Hate to disappoint you, but that's simply not true. I've been asked by many friends, and asked many friends, what their trips were like and enjoyed their photographs. Certainly not 100% of the time, but often enough.
Just don't try to return home (at least to the USA) with one. At least from Asia.
While I've carried my laptop on several trips, it was primarily for communication back to family and friends. For journaling, I've found I'm more apt to use a good old fashioned paper journal and pencil (still writes when wet) which only ways a quarter pound and fits easily in a big cargo pocket on my pants.
Maybe it's just me though.
I completely agree with the "keep it cheap enough to lose" principle, but totally disagree with not taking a camera. Having a camera, whether you're a good photographer or not, is essential to helping remember a good trip, in my opinion.
I definitely think a cheap digital camera that's small enough to carry in a pocket is the way to go...mediocre pictures maybe, but it's about the memory, not the quality of the shot. Even grainy pictures from a low-res camera with no zoom still take me back to a particular garden, temple, or theme park and I can smell the air and remember the smiles on my girlfriend's and my daughter's faces. Nothing can replace that.
So buy a cheap camera and a bunch of memory cards for it, and go to town. Remember to get one with long battery life or buy an extra battery too. Far lighter than carrying a laptop and more important (for long term sharing of memories and stories) than a PDA, in my opinion.
I don't know where in Asia you may have traveled, but every place I've been had no problems with power, except in some places power was turned off at certain times of the day/night. As for adapters, the Macbooks have a "universal" power brick so the only concern is mating the plug, not the actual type of power. You can get a plug adapter set for about $15 US in most travel related stores like Brookstone, REI etc or if you want to pay a little more you can buy them in most international airports.
Your comments about weight and security are completely valid, though, as are those about the proliferation of internet cafes (in most places...less so in China from what I've seen).
I would say gadgetry wise, it really depends on what the OP means by "backpacking". If technical backpacking/climbing etc, I would recommend GPS of some sort and an EPIRB if planning any solo trekking. A PDA would probably be sufficient for doing most things a laptop would be used for, and definitely a lot lighter.
I was just about to ask about that specific scenario. What would be the liability of someone posting a reading from a book. You know, a "book on tape" that was unauthorized. In theory, it could be considered a "performance" and offered for free with no liability to the copyright holder (I think) as long as it was distinguished from "authorized" readings.
I'll disagree with that statement as well, considering I work with plenty of immigrants who never had to do anything more than I did, other than renounce their previous governments, to gain access to the same programs. Maybe that's not the norm, but I've been doing this for 20 years and never found anyone who had to do anything particularly out of the ordinary.
Not sure how you think my comment indicated a belief that you were talking about a partisan position. As I said, the system is broken and anyone who votes strictly based on a party is missing the boat. That includes both republicans and democrats. Your last statement pretty much indicates any career politician I've ever read about. The only people who are truly doing good work as politicians don't last as politicians.
Not to mention, a large portion of the work force simply doesn't get up early enough to need the lights any more now (or in a week or two at most) than they did last week. If most people go to work at 9am they don't get up until 7 at the earliest (usually) so they have about 15 minutes without light. Furthermore, as you stated, most people simply don't use as much energy in the morning as they do at the end of their work day.
That happens every year...no big surprise and certainly not evidence of any kind of conspiracy. Welcome to "summer". People hybernate all winter and when the weather starts to turn pretty again, they come out and do things. That means they drive more, gas demand goes up, price goes up. Simple rule.
Or maybe they should study a period of time (and location) that wasn't offset with the express purpose of accomodating the Olympics, which would automatically require higher energy consumption than "normal" for a given region. Seems to me their study might have overlooked a couple factors, if it was as simple as the linked article suggests.
If you think it's a good thing to have work calling you at 4am, that's great. For the rest of us, that sounds horrible.