Macbooks and iMacs and, well, most of their personal computers are the exception. But his statement holds true for "ultrabooks" and phone and tablet markets. Apple's main bread and butter.
He was talking about the amount of panels from the raw materials, not the efficiency of the panels.
I.e. a panel that takes 10 pieces of resource X to make today, but 25 years from now, an equivalent panel might be constructable from 1 piece of resource X that may be harvest-able from the now-dead panel.
They really should be promoting the use of Nuclear alongside alternative energies, as a good base power source for the transitional period from current sources to renewable ones.
I have a legal right to blare music at exceptionally loud volumes from 9AM to 10PM, 6 days of the week, for as many weeks as I want. Having the right to do something doesn't mean I'm not still a dick for doing so.
If you're willingly and knowingly disrupting communications and computer devices for people in your area, especially when a lot of them simply might not be able to afford "good gear", then you're just being a dick.
Unless you're actively listening for such complaints and doing something to help said people or mitigate your impact, in which case, I handily withdraw my criticism.
Killing the textbook industry in its current form and replacing it from the ground up with something focused around accurate and beneficial material rather than yearly dosh would easily, vastly improve education in North America.
New revisions, giving the book account to their friends or children, etc. Newer courses and/or advanced courses (my Discrete Mathematics course book was required for one class, which covered maybe ~4% of its massive material, at best. The book, while quite terrible, has been very applicable to around 5 courses I took after the class that required it)
As well, if the student is getting a job in that field, then new and updated textbook data and studies straight from a renowned scientific journal/organization for that book's material for life, for free, is a god damned amazing deal.
Somewhere on Earth, several book publishers and schoolbook company executives' hearts skipped a beat, and the world grew as dark as a black whole for a sliver of a second.
Then they went back to eating caviar while swimming through piles of money and English interns.
Every single American breaks at least a law a week, if not daily. Because there is so much on the books that hasn't ever been invalidated. But that is a red herring...
What would it be like to have a private investigator, or the FBI or the cops following you and watching you every moment of every day?
It's just weird, and uncomfortable, and invasive. Everybody is weird, and if you're not weird, well, that's weird. Everyone has their quirks and their ideas and feelings that they generally keep to themselves, apart from what they tell and show and share with other people. These ideas influence how they react, behave and act in their daily lives as well. The rise of ever-more invasive surveillance and personal metric gathering is essentially destroying the idea that your public and private thoughts and ideas can be distinct. Or rather, it's eliminating privacy and private ongoings as a form of personal identity altogether.
Of course, you could say our notions of privacy were never really applicable to a fully digital world anyways. Privacy may in fact just be (in comparison to the rising global digital nation) an outdated concept that isn't normally compatible with a semi-singularity. Not exactly a privilege, but more like a concept that one has to both choose to desire, and pursue relentlessly to apply.
That is to say, perhaps privacy in its current form or by its current definition was on an inevitable path to ruin as the flow and sharing of information increases geometrically.
But some day soon, it will be. When there's a large enough pool of data on given subset of users "Anon" F through Q, analytical processes and programs will be able to determine when a member of said subset appears somewhere.
Using inter-subset heuristics, this information could be refined further to detail the habits of the individuals, such as Anon M.
While still technically "Anonymous", it would require a very, very small pool of data and additional research/tracking to determine who that Anonymous user actually is.
The technology is almost (if not already) there, and the real setback at the moment is simply not having all of that data yet.
A good idea, but I can see general police incompetence leading to most officers and their equipment not utilizing the right keys on disaster day and it ending in, well, disaster.
The recording/music industry boasted standard profits before taking iTunes into account. After taking it into account, they have sold more music and made more money than any other decade in history.
When they say they are being harmed by digital sales, they are 100% lying.
As I said before, if this conglomerate of rights-holders and content producers wanted, they could withhold everything they needed to stop newer ideals in their tracks; if that failed, they could simply legislate their way to total control.
Not really escaped. They could slash and burn every single content production mechanism in existence and dismantle every component of the industry, burning it to the ground and salting the Earth if they wanted to go out in a blaze. And it would work for a while. Recovery would happen, with far better models in place, but it would take a little while.
The important thing is that they learned to leash anything that proposes to use their content in a new way. In doing so, they do not need to actually care about where the industry goes as the golden goose itself is always held close to their breast.
A large part of their problems, ironically, can be blamed on iTunes. Or rather, what iTunes did.
Apple came into the market and swept a massive position of power and influence right out from under the music (or rather, content) industry's feet. Apple gained a novel and unrivaled position to dictate the terms of negotiation. They're still stinging from that.
As a byproduct, they were far more 'prepared' for Netflix. Well, not prepared, as the industry is ancient, slow, bloated and generally can't see "the next big thing" until it's already slapped them across the face and taken their daughter out to dinner. They were more Apprehensive, really. They may not have known if Netflix would be a success (by-mail services could never be a threat, and when the streaming came about, similar "on demand" services were rather mediocre) but they knew well enough to keep the reigns on a potentially unwieldy beast.
So Netflix' (possibly unexpected to the Industry) fast growth and explosion in the public mindshare did not end up giving them anywhere near the same control and leverage for negotiations with content owners and producers. Netflix did not secure a completely dominant position, and were unable to supplant the general DVD purchase/rental and theater-going parts of the industry, or at least nowhere near as successfully as iTunes snowballed over CDs.
As such, they're entirely at the whim of industry conglomerates that view them now as something of an enemy, or an annoyance that is profitable enough not to deserve a swat yet.
If the industry wasn't so generally inept, there would have been an MPA-aligned style service already out and Netflix would be deprived of most of its content almost immediately.
Netflix had ALWAYS planned to ditch their DVD service in favor of streaming; the original idea was to be done by 2007. But the general infrastructure did not progress as fast as had been forecasted. So divesting themselves of their DVD side was the logical progression. Except that their entire plan was ill-formulated and just altogether sloppy. Poorly timed, too, considering their loss of Starz and such.
Raising fees to accomodate the general paradigm shift - where the majority of their consumers and money were now mostly only streaming - was also smart. It was, on the whole, much more profitable and growth-sustaining even with a very, very modest assumption of potential customer losses.
But doing both of these very large "PR-disasters in the making" within such close proximity of each other? Jesus, that's a special level of incompetence right there.
Saying "I won't take a deal that gives my opponent 9% of what he wants for the 91% of what I want, EVER!" is obstructionist and childish, plain and simple. There's no other way to see it.
A compromise was underway. The Republicans entirely objected to anything with any form (even $1) of a tax raise. The Democrats objected to what amounted to tens of billions in tax cuts, but started to compromise on that side and add in other ideas like reviewing medicare and looking for things to cut while guaranteeing a bit more revenue streams.
Then the Republicans purposely leaked the first deal and claimed the Democrats had no proposals at all and were objecting to everything, then the Republicans claimed that they would take no compromise on said deal.
One side really, really is acting like children in this.
Slashdot Mirror
and they're running out of you!
Anywho, $60 to $100 is brazenly aggressive from what's normally expected from Apple.
Not exactly.
It may be that Apple said "We will be aggressively pricing products for black friday".
Probably almost entirely the EFF's utter thrashing of CIQ's request/demands.
Macbooks and iMacs and, well, most of their personal computers are the exception. But his statement holds true for "ultrabooks" and phone and tablet markets. Apple's main bread and butter.
He was talking about the amount of panels from the raw materials, not the efficiency of the panels.
I.e. a panel that takes 10 pieces of resource X to make today, but 25 years from now, an equivalent panel might be constructable from 1 piece of resource X that may be harvest-able from the now-dead panel.
They really should be promoting the use of Nuclear alongside alternative energies, as a good base power source for the transitional period from current sources to renewable ones.
I have a legal right to blare music at exceptionally loud volumes from 9AM to 10PM, 6 days of the week, for as many weeks as I want.
Having the right to do something doesn't mean I'm not still a dick for doing so.
If you're willingly and knowingly disrupting communications and computer devices for people in your area, especially when a lot of them simply might not be able to afford "good gear", then you're just being a dick.
Unless you're actively listening for such complaints and doing something to help said people or mitigate your impact, in which case, I handily withdraw my criticism.
Killing the textbook industry in its current form and replacing it from the ground up with something focused around accurate and beneficial material rather than yearly dosh would easily, vastly improve education in North America.
*Also, $49 is pretty bloody cheap compared to the ebook versions of Science textbooks I've seen.
New revisions, giving the book account to their friends or children, etc.
Newer courses and/or advanced courses (my Discrete Mathematics course book was required for one class, which covered maybe ~4% of its massive material, at best. The book, while quite terrible, has been very applicable to around 5 courses I took after the class that required it)
As well, if the student is getting a job in that field, then new and updated textbook data and studies straight from a renowned scientific journal/organization for that book's material for life, for free, is a god damned amazing deal.
Somewhere on Earth, several book publishers and schoolbook company executives' hearts skipped a beat, and the world grew as dark as a black whole for a sliver of a second.
Then they went back to eating caviar while swimming through piles of money and English interns.
Every single American breaks at least a law a week, if not daily. Because there is so much on the books that hasn't ever been invalidated. But that is a red herring...
What would it be like to have a private investigator, or the FBI or the cops following you and watching you every moment of every day?
It's just weird, and uncomfortable, and invasive. Everybody is weird, and if you're not weird, well, that's weird. Everyone has their quirks and their ideas and feelings that they generally keep to themselves, apart from what they tell and show and share with other people. These ideas influence how they react, behave and act in their daily lives as well.
The rise of ever-more invasive surveillance and personal metric gathering is essentially destroying the idea that your public and private thoughts and ideas can be distinct. Or rather, it's eliminating privacy and private ongoings as a form of personal identity altogether.
Of course, you could say our notions of privacy were never really applicable to a fully digital world anyways. Privacy may in fact just be (in comparison to the rising global digital nation) an outdated concept that isn't normally compatible with a semi-singularity. Not exactly a privilege, but more like a concept that one has to both choose to desire, and pursue relentlessly to apply.
That is to say, perhaps privacy in its current form or by its current definition was on an inevitable path to ruin as the flow and sharing of information increases geometrically.
Well, they're illegal, so...
Would be pretty god damned funny though.
But some day soon, it will be.
When there's a large enough pool of data on given subset of users "Anon" F through Q, analytical processes and programs will be able to determine when a member of said subset appears somewhere.
Using inter-subset heuristics, this information could be refined further to detail the habits of the individuals, such as Anon M.
While still technically "Anonymous", it would require a very, very small pool of data and additional research/tracking to determine who that Anonymous user actually is.
The technology is almost (if not already) there, and the real setback at the moment is simply not having all of that data yet.
A good idea, but I can see general police incompetence leading to most officers and their equipment not utilizing the right keys on disaster day and it ending in, well, disaster.
The recording/music industry boasted standard profits before taking iTunes into account.
After taking it into account, they have sold more music and made more money than any other decade in history.
When they say they are being harmed by digital sales, they are 100% lying.
As I said before, if this conglomerate of rights-holders and content producers wanted, they could withhold everything they needed to stop newer ideals in their tracks; if that failed, they could simply legislate their way to total control.
Not really escaped. They could slash and burn every single content production mechanism in existence and dismantle every component of the industry, burning it to the ground and salting the Earth if they wanted to go out in a blaze.
And it would work for a while. Recovery would happen, with far better models in place, but it would take a little while.
In that sense, they have control.
The important thing is that they learned to leash anything that proposes to use their content in a new way. In doing so, they do not need to actually care about where the industry goes as the golden goose itself is always held close to their breast.
A large part of their problems, ironically, can be blamed on iTunes. Or rather, what iTunes did.
Apple came into the market and swept a massive position of power and influence right out from under the music (or rather, content) industry's feet. Apple gained a novel and unrivaled position to dictate the terms of negotiation.
They're still stinging from that.
As a byproduct, they were far more 'prepared' for Netflix. Well, not prepared, as the industry is ancient, slow, bloated and generally can't see "the next big thing" until it's already slapped them across the face and taken their daughter out to dinner.
They were more Apprehensive, really.
They may not have known if Netflix would be a success (by-mail services could never be a threat, and when the streaming came about, similar "on demand" services were rather mediocre) but they knew well enough to keep the reigns on a potentially unwieldy beast.
So Netflix' (possibly unexpected to the Industry) fast growth and explosion in the public mindshare did not end up giving them anywhere near the same control and leverage for negotiations with content owners and producers. Netflix did not secure a completely dominant position, and were unable to supplant the general DVD purchase/rental and theater-going parts of the industry, or at least nowhere near as successfully as iTunes snowballed over CDs.
As such, they're entirely at the whim of industry conglomerates that view them now as something of an enemy, or an annoyance that is profitable enough not to deserve a swat yet.
If the industry wasn't so generally inept, there would have been an MPA-aligned style service already out and Netflix would be deprived of most of its content almost immediately.
That turned to crap by pursuing both at once.
Netflix had ALWAYS planned to ditch their DVD service in favor of streaming; the original idea was to be done by 2007.
But the general infrastructure did not progress as fast as had been forecasted.
So divesting themselves of their DVD side was the logical progression. Except that their entire plan was ill-formulated and just altogether sloppy. Poorly timed, too, considering their loss of Starz and such.
Raising fees to accomodate the general paradigm shift - where the majority of their consumers and money were now mostly only streaming - was also smart. It was, on the whole, much more profitable and growth-sustaining even with a very, very modest assumption of potential customer losses.
But doing both of these very large "PR-disasters in the making" within such close proximity of each other?
Jesus, that's a special level of incompetence right there.
Saying "I won't take a deal that gives my opponent 9% of what he wants for the 91% of what I want, EVER!" is obstructionist and childish, plain and simple. There's no other way to see it.
A compromise was underway. The Republicans entirely objected to anything with any form (even $1) of a tax raise. The Democrats objected to what amounted to tens of billions in tax cuts, but started to compromise on that side and add in other ideas like reviewing medicare and looking for things to cut while guaranteeing a bit more revenue streams.
Then the Republicans purposely leaked the first deal and claimed the Democrats had no proposals at all and were objecting to everything, then the Republicans claimed that they would take no compromise on said deal.
One side really, really is acting like children in this.
Under the suspicion of a higher amount of such crimes.
That he leaked it to a foreigner that promised that it would be vetted (and nothing more) rather than a domestic organization, that was quite stupid.
An automatically driving googlecar did crash.
When the owner took control for 5 minutes.