But as we know, as a "home computer", the Apple II line was not quite as successful (or good) as the Atari 8 bits and Commodore's Vic 20/C64. Both of which were derived from designs for video game consoles.
Probably just as fast as gummi bears outsell Rolex watches. It's just as relevant a comparison. Except gummi bears go stale, but don't become obsolete in a year or two.
Rolex watches? Obsolete?? They're not crappy consumer electronics gadgets.
If Rolex watches don't become obsolete, why do they bring out new models all the time?
If it's that easy, Apple should support it officially. Especially given the level of investment that those systems represent.
Because if Apple says they support it, and it doesn't work for even one person, that person will demand that Apple fix his problem with a 7 year old computer.
And lets face it - even if you can install Windows on a PC, and there is any problem with it, both Microsoft and the manufacturer will put the blame on the other one even if the PC is brand new, let alone a few years old.
That's a long post, but I'm not sure if you've got the point, which is, you can't lump all birds together. If a few thousand sparrows die to cats (or windmills), no big deal.
But if a few hundred California condors die to windmills, then we have serious problems.
So we shouldn't build wind-turbines in Ohio, because of Californian condors? Anyway, collisions with power-lines, electrocutions (not the same) and poisoning (esp. lead) are at least equal a problem for condors as wind-turbines.
California Condor recovery team stated that lead poisoning was the primary cause of the condor population decline over the last 50 years. This lead in the form of bullets and shot and fishing sinkers is ingested by the birds, ground up in the gizzard and absorbed by the body.
First, it should be stated that the single most significant threat to bird populations is habitat destruction, in all of its forms and with all of its causes. The various causes of mortality outlined below kill individual birds directly, and can certainly have an adverse effect on population size, but can actually have a beneficial effect in some cases. Studies of hunting have documented that in certain cases killing small numbers of birds can improve the health and survival of the remaining birds. As long as the habitat is intact, the population has the potential to replace the lost birds.
This is what happened with a high up BlackBerry employee that jumped ship to Apple. It was shown to negotiate in bad faith as he negotiated position and raise over 3 month period with BlackBerry while in negotiations with Apple. BlackBerry won the 6 month injunction preventing him from starting at Apple until over. This was in Canadian court, IIRC. Too lazy to track down source.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.
As many of the linked articles point out, there is speculation that Apple is developing an electric car. Their stockholders brought it up with Cook on the last conference call, and also the posibility of buying Tesla. Since Apple could probably have most everything dismissed if they weren't going to complete, it may be telling that they choose to settle rather than open the subject up to discovery.
But A123 doesn't build cars. So where do they compete?
The one and only thing preventing us from having a 100% carbon free energy economy is government. Nuclear energy would have by now, if it had only been allowed to develop like McDonald's, be on its 339th generation reactor instead of 3rd or 4th.
Nobody would have developed nuclear power if it hadn't been for huge government subsidies.
The factory owner will only clean up if required to do so by law or regulation, or if some sort of cost of pollution is imposed. This is normally done by government.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
>
You are right insofar that if there were no government, people could just "handle" any polluters in a"confrontational" way, and "solve the problem" in a permanent way. Reading your other comments, that's actually your "just fine solution" to every problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Not enough that programs didn't crash all the time though.
Hey maybe using cheaper "identical" hardware sometimes doesn't work.
It must have been the first Mac then. Hey, it's been a few years.
Yeah. They had to re-seat a RAM chip on an original Mac - which had soldered RAM. I fully believe your little story.
But as we know, as a "home computer", the Apple II line was not quite as successful (or good) as the Atari 8 bits and Commodore's Vic 20/C64. Both of which were derived from designs for video game consoles.
Not to mention that they came out years later.
Probably just as fast as gummi bears outsell Rolex watches. It's just as relevant a comparison. Except gummi bears go stale, but don't become obsolete in a year or two.
Rolex watches? Obsolete?? They're not crappy consumer electronics gadgets.
If Rolex watches don't become obsolete, why do they bring out new models all the time?
Porsche belongs to VW
If it hadn't been for the recession, VW would now belong to Porsche.
If it's that easy, Apple should support it officially. Especially given the level of investment that those systems represent.
Because if Apple says they support it, and it doesn't work for even one person, that person will demand that Apple fix his problem with a 7 year old computer.
And lets face it - even if you can install Windows on a PC, and there is any problem with it, both Microsoft and the manufacturer will put the blame on the other one even if the PC is brand new, let alone a few years old.
That's a long post, but I'm not sure if you've got the point, which is, you can't lump all birds together. If a few thousand sparrows die to cats (or windmills), no big deal. But if a few hundred California condors die to windmills, then we have serious problems.
So we shouldn't build wind-turbines in Ohio, because of Californian condors? Anyway, collisions with power-lines, electrocutions (not the same) and poisoning (esp. lead) are at least equal a problem for condors as wind-turbines.
California Condor recovery team stated that lead poisoning was the primary cause of the condor population decline over the last 50 years. This lead in the form of bullets and shot and fishing sinkers is ingested by the birds, ground up in the gizzard and absorbed by the body.
http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
First, it should be stated that the single most significant threat to bird populations is habitat destruction, in all of its forms and with all of its causes. The various causes of mortality outlined below kill individual birds directly, and can certainly have an adverse effect on population size, but can actually have a beneficial effect in some cases. Studies of hunting have documented that in certain cases killing small numbers of birds can improve the health and survival of the remaining birds. As long as the habitat is intact, the population has the potential to replace the lost birds.
Cats kill at least an order of magnitude more birds than windmills do.
And windows kill even more: http://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
Doesn't stop you from moving them again. Come back to the topic.
Ahh listening to you say that reminds me of a nazi shouting juden
Keep it up
Of course you remember, you were right among them.
Dunning Kreuger alive and well.
Wow, self awareness. If you didn't show yourself to be a moron over and over again, one could get the impression there was still hope for you.
Wow. You are reaching far back in time there.
Hey, fun exercise: Without googling it, can you say how many years ago you think it was to what is commonly referred to as the "Little Ice Age"?
Far before goal posts were invented to be moved.
This is what happened with a high up BlackBerry employee that jumped ship to Apple. It was shown to negotiate in bad faith as he negotiated position and raise over 3 month period with BlackBerry while in negotiations with Apple. BlackBerry won the 6 month injunction preventing him from starting at Apple until over. This was in Canadian court, IIRC. Too lazy to track down source.
If you had, you'd seen it was Motorola, not Apple http://www.tomsguide.com/us/RIM-Sues-Motorola,news-3241.html - but maybe you did remember that ...
LOL so says the religious bigot.
You signed your post, so you are a polite moron. But you are still a moron.
Yes, output from the Not-a-Lord Monckton specifically: even taken at face value, what they predict doesn't matter compared to the cost of mitigation.
I told you, I don't care about Moncky-Boys lies. Do you actually have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion?
I guess there may be people who deny that there ever was an ice age.
Wow. You are reaching far back in time there. Usually people don't move the goalpost that far.
I never have presented such evidence because there is none.
So you admit there is no conspiracy as claimed by most deniers. At least that's a start.
Where did I advocate "no government"? +
Well, your solution would only work if there were no government - so you admit it wouldn't work as you describe it. Case closed.
I doubt the data. Because no unmassaged data shows such a rise.
Where is the "unmassaged" data you believe in?
Well buckwheat
Just to explain this simple concept to you.
I say OP is wrong about global cooling being just one article in newsweek, and present a link to another article.
Proof by contradiction.
Poster comes in and says it doesn't matter because I'm a poopy head.
Ad hominem.
There never say conservatives aren't charitable to the disadvantaged.
I thought you wanted "explain this simple concept" - you failed. And you insulted me because you failed. You are the moron. Which is a given because you are a denier, FAIL.
As many of the linked articles point out, there is speculation that Apple is developing an electric car. Their stockholders brought it up with Cook on the last conference call, and also the posibility of buying Tesla. Since Apple could probably have most everything dismissed if they weren't going to complete, it may be telling that they choose to settle rather than open the subject up to discovery.
But A123 doesn't build cars. So where do they compete?
The one and only thing preventing us from having a 100% carbon free energy economy is government. Nuclear energy would have by now, if it had only been allowed to develop like McDonald's, be on its 339th generation reactor instead of 3rd or 4th.
Nobody would have developed nuclear power if it hadn't been for huge government subsidies.
You got it backwards. The only reason the factory owner gets away with polluting the environment and imposing costs on other people is because government has given him license to do so.
>
You are right insofar that if there were no government, people could just "handle" any polluters in a"confrontational" way, and "solve the problem" in a permanent way. Reading your other comments, that's actually your "just fine solution" to every problem.
The reason carbon emissions in the US have gone down is because of fracking
Yeah, it certainly isn't because you stopped looking at numbers from 2013 on.