G5's were discontinued in August 2006 - so, 5 years old.
Still, my Dell laptop is 5 years old and I finally put Windows 7 and Office 2010 on it a couple months ago. I'd be pissed if I was no longer able to run the most recent software on it, since it runs them just fine.
Then again, I had an Apple IIgs in the 80's, so I learned my lesson about Apple dropping support for hardware prematurely (and leaving customers SOL) over 25 years ago...
Absolutely! I don't understand why these types of issues are always solved by taxpayer-funded governmental agencies paying out a bunch of money, inevitably punishing the victims more than the offenders. In the end this was due to the idiotic decisions of individuals, and so those who created and implemented these computer spying policies should be the ones paying for it with their jobs, fines, or worse - as I'm pretty sure computer invasion of privacy in various forms is a criminal act.
if a nuclear reactor explodes, a rare but possible occurrence
If there's anything that SimCity has taught us, it's that nuclear reactor meltdowns are a "rare but inevitable occurrence". Being attacked by Godzilla is a rare but possible occurrence.
The Macbook Air has an SSD, so it's almost instant-on from standby already. And the battery life when, say, browsing the web is ~7 hours on the Air and ~10 hours on the iPad. Seems well worth a 3x performance difference to me.
But anyway, you don't really think Apple makes major product line decisions based on advantages to the *customer*? As I said, it needs to be a significant advantage to *Apple*. If they decide a low-performance, less-expensive netbook fits into their product line, they'll do it. But Apple has rarely been one to go for price over style and performance - they have left the low-end, low-margin market to Android tablets and the cheap Taiwanese (Asus, Acer, etc) netbook makers.
You can currently get a 64-bit 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo and 4GB RAM in a Macbook Air; that also comes with half-decent NVidia discrete graphics w/ 256MB VRAM (and I'm pretty sure the majority of buyers tend to go for the high end in the Air line). Even the *next gen* ARM Cortex-A15 core can't match that.
But basically you are hypothesizing a big iPad with a keyboard - if it has a 10" screen and runs iOS on an ARM, that's what it is:)
So the question is, would Apple build that device? My guess would be - only if it fills a *new* niche at a different price point from either the iPad or the Air. They really don't want their customers to make choices in the end, they want them to buy multiple products (and based on their revenue have already proved that strategy works!) Apple has been careful not to compete against itself so far, I don't think they would break that rule lightly...
The Macbook Pro is already a "professional" level computer - millions of developers use it for development. You can get a high end model for a bit over $2000. And take a look at their laptop product line, it's almost perfectly distributed with offerings between $1000 and $2500. iPads cover the range just below that, from $500 to $830; iPod Touches (and subsidized iPhones) right below that from $200 to $400. You can get an AppleTV for $100. None of this is by accident! The don't want consumers to choose one of these devices, they want them to buy all of them. And the iCloud announcement made this even clearer...
Apple has become the 2nd largest company in the world (by market cap) by almost completely giving up the budget segment of the market to others and focusing on customer loyalty and a self-contained ecosystem. Why would they suddenly change that strategy?
True, honestly I think the OS is not that big of a deal, since as you say they are based on the same foundation.
The really far fetched part about this rumor is using the A5 chip in a "real" laptop. A dual core 1GHz ARM is pretty nice for an embedded processor, but it gets you about half the performance of a Core 2 Duo from 2006. And it's not even CLOSE to a Core i5 or i7 in the Macbooks (the ARM isn't even 64-bit!) Not to mention it's an entirely different instruction set, and there is no way in hell it's going to be able to emulate x86 apps, which would kill the 3rd party software market (I really want to see Adobe port Photoshop to the ARM and then graphic artists happily run it on their new crippled ARM-based laptops...)
I was going to recommend this, too. I bought a GameCube pretty much just to play Wind Waker (well, and Metroid Prime).
You can get a GameCube on eBay for less than $30, and a copy of Wind Waker for less than $20 - adds up to no more than the price of a new PC or console game...
The OP is right (more or less - they didn't "wait" for people to leave before shooting, they killed plenty trying to get to the square); this wasn't a secret. Even the Wikipedia article about the massacre shows this fact was known for a while:
BBC 2 June 2009 James Miles, who was the BBC's Beijing correspondent at the time, stated: I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square... Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops (Only a handful of journalists were on hand to witness this moment [...]). [...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.
You already replied to another comment of mine (with nothing useful, unfortunately...) but I'll assume it's just because you are interested in the subject...
Anyway, still not sure how your comments are relevant to the Constitutional in what I see is a case of basic criminal activity by the police. You even mention that the Constitution is for "US govt powers" and the rest is up to the states - these were definitely not federal officers, so it's not *directly* a Constitutional issue.
But honestly, I don't disagree that in the end it may *have* to become a Constitutional issue (see several other discussions on this thread). The problem is really that it should be a local criminal issue, but no one wants to prosecute police officers no matter how blatant their crimes. So the only recourse is falling back to Constitutional law in a Federal civil suit. Completely not ideal, but I admit it's better than letting them get away with (sometimes literally) murder. Guess anything more is just wishful thinking on my part...
My point was this is not really a Constitutional matter, it's a criminal matter. As you say, the main problem is police officers are just plain not prosecuted as much as they should be when they violate the law like anyone else. And I guess I also agree that the Constitution has more or less become the fall back to get justice in these cases when local prosecutors fail to do their job... just wish it didn't have to go that far...
The problem is the first Amendment is NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE. That was my point. How the Constitution have anything to do with some asshole cop making a bad decision??
If a cop "violates the Constitution", but doesn't get prosecuted, what happens? Maybe some civil suit where the public ends up paying a bunch of money. Well, screw that. I don't want to pay a bunch of money because some cop did something wrong any more than I want to pay because some random person broke the law. Make the cop pay, or put him in prison - which is only possible if you convict him of a criminal statute.
Why does everyone have to bring up the Constitution in cases like this?? Please show me where in the constitution is says anything about recording police behavior, let alone cell phone cameras.
Not that I don't agree that the whole thing is disgusting and I hope the police get everything they deserve (though I doubt it). But this is a case of assault, destruction of property, harrassment, wrongful arrest - and possibly excessive use of force on both the witnesses and the victim. But these are just common crimes committed by criminals (yes, cops can be criminals, too), not "Constitutional violations". When you overuse it like that, it starts to lose meaning...
You can't make it more against the law such that they won't do it.
You absolutely can. "Against the law" has nothing to do with convictions and punishment. We entrust (and pay) these police officers to enforce the law, and yet when they clearly break the law it's a LOT harder to get anyone to prosecute, let alone convict them. They'll probably get suspended WITH pay, and at best fired, more likely fined. The chances of them getting convicted of an actual crime are pretty low...
Make destruction of potential evidence of negligence or abuse by a police officer a felony with mandatory jail time (ie. worse than the original crime) and you will make them think twice. In fact, make felony crimes by police officers equivalent to laws that double sentences for crimes committed with a gun. They have a gun, and if they committed and are convicted of a crime, what's the difference?
Quake and Quake 2 (and everything id has done since, really) had some fun multiplayer, but the single player was a joke, mostly a way to advertise the engine for others (Half-Life) to make a real single player experience with it. If you are going to call it "DOOM-esque" you might as well try to call every 3DFPS "DOOM-esque" because it's... (sort of) 3D, and it's... a shooter!
Duke Nukem was IMO the first "3D" FPS where you *were* the character, not just some random anonymous soldier or "space marine".
And besides having a single player shooter experience that *was* beyond many of the others at the time, the multiplayer was just plain *fun*. It was less about the ridiculous run around frantically shooting, kill or die, respawn, repeat, and more about sneaking around, setting traps (the laser trip mines were awesome), humiliating your opponents (shrink ray!), etc.
Basically, different interests for different people. You don't have to like it, I think a lot of people really did *at the time* and it has nothing to do with hindsight...
It's definitely an expense and hassle for out of state retailers selling to Californians. But as a Californian whose state's debt is at least partly (estimated at almost $2B a year - still not going to fix the problem, but it sure won't hurt) due to lost sales tax revenue in recent years from online purchases, I'm fine with that (and with paying sales taxes on those purchases, as long as it's enforced on everyone). Sorry, cost of doing business...
I'm sure Steve Jobs throws chairs all the time. The difference is, he hits what he is aiming at, but then very large tattooed "Apple PR reps" secretly buries the bodies under the Infinite Loop late at night. And no one ever hears about it...
The bill affects Californians buying products from out-of-state products. It only affects the retailers in that they no longer get unfair competition vs. businesses located *in* California. Sales tax is paid by the buyer - it's just usually collected by the seller, since the buyer can't be trusted to pay it. CA has always taxed these purchases and buyers are supposed to report their purchases, it just hasn't had a way of enforcing it...
Slashdot Mirror
G5's were discontinued in August 2006 - so, 5 years old.
Still, my Dell laptop is 5 years old and I finally put Windows 7 and Office 2010 on it a couple months ago. I'd be pissed if I was no longer able to run the most recent software on it, since it runs them just fine.
Then again, I had an Apple IIgs in the 80's, so I learned my lesson about Apple dropping support for hardware prematurely (and leaving customers SOL) over 25 years ago...
Absolutely! I don't understand why these types of issues are always solved by taxpayer-funded governmental agencies paying out a bunch of money, inevitably punishing the victims more than the offenders. In the end this was due to the idiotic decisions of individuals, and so those who created and implemented these computer spying policies should be the ones paying for it with their jobs, fines, or worse - as I'm pretty sure computer invasion of privacy in various forms is a criminal act.
If there is anything SimCity taught me, it's to turn off disasters!
And Shift-FUND
Which is pretty close to the US government's best plan to reduce the deficit...
if a nuclear reactor explodes, a rare but possible occurrence
If there's anything that SimCity has taught us, it's that nuclear reactor meltdowns are a "rare but inevitable occurrence". Being attacked by Godzilla is a rare but possible occurrence.
That wasn't technically "Godwin's Rule", I think it was more "Godwin baiting"...
The Macbook Air has an SSD, so it's almost instant-on from standby already. And the battery life when, say, browsing the web is ~7 hours on the Air and ~10 hours on the iPad. Seems well worth a 3x performance difference to me.
But anyway, you don't really think Apple makes major product line decisions based on advantages to the *customer*? As I said, it needs to be a significant advantage to *Apple*. If they decide a low-performance, less-expensive netbook fits into their product line, they'll do it. But Apple has rarely been one to go for price over style and performance - they have left the low-end, low-margin market to Android tablets and the cheap Taiwanese (Asus, Acer, etc) netbook makers.
You can currently get a 64-bit 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo and 4GB RAM in a Macbook Air; that also comes with half-decent NVidia discrete graphics w/ 256MB VRAM (and I'm pretty sure the majority of buyers tend to go for the high end in the Air line). Even the *next gen* ARM Cortex-A15 core can't match that.
But basically you are hypothesizing a big iPad with a keyboard - if it has a 10" screen and runs iOS on an ARM, that's what it is :)
So the question is, would Apple build that device? My guess would be - only if it fills a *new* niche at a different price point from either the iPad or the Air. They really don't want their customers to make choices in the end, they want them to buy multiple products (and based on their revenue have already proved that strategy works!) Apple has been careful not to compete against itself so far, I don't think they would break that rule lightly...
Highly doubtful.
The Macbook Pro is already a "professional" level computer - millions of developers use it for development. You can get a high end model for a bit over $2000. And take a look at their laptop product line, it's almost perfectly distributed with offerings between $1000 and $2500. iPads cover the range just below that, from $500 to $830; iPod Touches (and subsidized iPhones) right below that from $200 to $400. You can get an AppleTV for $100. None of this is by accident! The don't want consumers to choose one of these devices, they want them to buy all of them. And the iCloud announcement made this even clearer...
Apple has become the 2nd largest company in the world (by market cap) by almost completely giving up the budget segment of the market to others and focusing on customer loyalty and a self-contained ecosystem. Why would they suddenly change that strategy?
True, honestly I think the OS is not that big of a deal, since as you say they are based on the same foundation.
The really far fetched part about this rumor is using the A5 chip in a "real" laptop. A dual core 1GHz ARM is pretty nice for an embedded processor, but it gets you about half the performance of a Core 2 Duo from 2006. And it's not even CLOSE to a Core i5 or i7 in the Macbooks (the ARM isn't even 64-bit!) Not to mention it's an entirely different instruction set, and there is no way in hell it's going to be able to emulate x86 apps, which would kill the 3rd party software market (I really want to see Adobe port Photoshop to the ARM and then graphic artists happily run it on their new crippled ARM-based laptops...)
I was going to recommend this, too. I bought a GameCube pretty much just to play Wind Waker (well, and Metroid Prime).
You can get a GameCube on eBay for less than $30, and a copy of Wind Waker for less than $20 - adds up to no more than the price of a new PC or console game...
Yes, and the cyber war will be fought via World of Warcraft.
Now we know the real reason China has been forcing prisoners in its labor camps to gold farm...
especially if they were harassing and looting.
You haven't been to D.C. lately, have you? ;)
The OP is right (more or less - they didn't "wait" for people to leave before shooting, they killed plenty trying to get to the square); this wasn't a secret. Even the Wikipedia article about the massacre shows this fact was known for a while:
BBC 2 June 2009 James Miles, who was the BBC's Beijing correspondent at the time, stated:
I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square... Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops (Only a handful of journalists were on hand to witness this moment [...]). [...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre.
You already replied to another comment of mine (with nothing useful, unfortunately...) but I'll assume it's just because you are interested in the subject...
Anyway, still not sure how your comments are relevant to the Constitutional in what I see is a case of basic criminal activity by the police. You even mention that the Constitution is for "US govt powers" and the rest is up to the states - these were definitely not federal officers, so it's not *directly* a Constitutional issue.
But honestly, I don't disagree that in the end it may *have* to become a Constitutional issue (see several other discussions on this thread). The problem is really that it should be a local criminal issue, but no one wants to prosecute police officers no matter how blatant their crimes. So the only recourse is falling back to Constitutional law in a Federal civil suit. Completely not ideal, but I admit it's better than letting them get away with (sometimes literally) murder. Guess anything more is just wishful thinking on my part...
I think I mostly agree with you :)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2212342&cid=36338840
My point was this is not really a Constitutional matter, it's a criminal matter. As you say, the main problem is police officers are just plain not prosecuted as much as they should be when they violate the law like anyone else. And I guess I also agree that the Constitution has more or less become the fall back to get justice in these cases when local prosecutors fail to do their job... just wish it didn't have to go that far...
The problem is the first Amendment is NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE. That was my point. How the Constitution have anything to do with some asshole cop making a bad decision??
If a cop "violates the Constitution", but doesn't get prosecuted, what happens? Maybe some civil suit where the public ends up paying a bunch of money. Well, screw that. I don't want to pay a bunch of money because some cop did something wrong any more than I want to pay because some random person broke the law. Make the cop pay, or put him in prison - which is only possible if you convict him of a criminal statute.
Why does everyone have to bring up the Constitution in cases like this?? Please show me where in the constitution is says anything about recording police behavior, let alone cell phone cameras.
Not that I don't agree that the whole thing is disgusting and I hope the police get everything they deserve (though I doubt it). But this is a case of assault, destruction of property, harrassment, wrongful arrest - and possibly excessive use of force on both the witnesses and the victim. But these are just common crimes committed by criminals (yes, cops can be criminals, too), not "Constitutional violations". When you overuse it like that, it starts to lose meaning...
You can't make it more against the law such that they won't do it.
You absolutely can. "Against the law" has nothing to do with convictions and punishment. We entrust (and pay) these police officers to enforce the law, and yet when they clearly break the law it's a LOT harder to get anyone to prosecute, let alone convict them. They'll probably get suspended WITH pay, and at best fired, more likely fined. The chances of them getting convicted of an actual crime are pretty low...
Make destruction of potential evidence of negligence or abuse by a police officer a felony with mandatory jail time (ie. worse than the original crime) and you will make them think twice. In fact, make felony crimes by police officers equivalent to laws that double sentences for crimes committed with a gun. They have a gun, and if they committed and are convicted of a crime, what's the difference?
Quake and Quake 2 (and everything id has done since, really) had some fun multiplayer, but the single player was a joke, mostly a way to advertise the engine for others (Half-Life) to make a real single player experience with it. If you are going to call it "DOOM-esque" you might as well try to call every 3DFPS "DOOM-esque" because it's... (sort of) 3D, and it's... a shooter!
Duke Nukem was IMO the first "3D" FPS where you *were* the character, not just some random anonymous soldier or "space marine".
And besides having a single player shooter experience that *was* beyond many of the others at the time, the multiplayer was just plain *fun*. It was less about the ridiculous run around frantically shooting, kill or die, respawn, repeat, and more about sneaking around, setting traps (the laser trip mines were awesome), humiliating your opponents (shrink ray!), etc.
Basically, different interests for different people. You don't have to like it, I think a lot of people really did *at the time* and it has nothing to do with hindsight...
Porn server, of course!
Because nothing makes an office more productive than large quantities of porn.
Speak for yourself. My company used to encode porn for streaming. The more porn in the office, the more productive the office was!
It's not even an *up to date* browser - with slashdot you have to be careful about being too old OR too new...
It's definitely an expense and hassle for out of state retailers selling to Californians. But as a Californian whose state's debt is at least partly (estimated at almost $2B a year - still not going to fix the problem, but it sure won't hurt) due to lost sales tax revenue in recent years from online purchases, I'm fine with that (and with paying sales taxes on those purchases, as long as it's enforced on everyone). Sorry, cost of doing business...
Give them away?
I'm sure Steve Jobs throws chairs all the time. The difference is, he hits what he is aiming at, but then very large tattooed "Apple PR reps" secretly buries the bodies under the Infinite Loop late at night. And no one ever hears about it...
The bill affects Californians buying products from out-of-state products. It only affects the retailers in that they no longer get unfair competition vs. businesses located *in* California. Sales tax is paid by the buyer - it's just usually collected by the seller, since the buyer can't be trusted to pay it. CA has always taxed these purchases and buyers are supposed to report their purchases, it just hasn't had a way of enforcing it...