Yeah, the Xbox 360 cost $400 in 2005. The Xbox One costs $500 in 2013 and additionally includes the next gen Kinect. Both are still less than an iPad, and Apple sold more than 60 million of those in one year. And the *current* gen consoles are still selling pretty well at $300.
The fact is $400-$500 is about right for these consoles based on the hardware they include, and based on the sales of the last gen (between 70-80M each for Xbox and PS3) it's idiotic to claim "no one can afford them". It's practically guaranteed they will sell out their initial inventory almost immediately.
Well, technically patents are *supposed* to be about a method or process (which is why most software patents that just talk about user-facing design or look should be invalid). That's why you can get a patent that just modifies an existing process that you don't have a patent on - in which case you'd actually still have to license the original (assuming it's not expired) to use yours.
There are most definitely plenty of processes and equipment used in genetic testing and creating cDNA in a lab that don't exist in nature, or that combine many things that may already exist in novel ways.
Yeah, it still doesn't make sense that cDNA *itself* could be patentable based how it patents vs. copyrights, etc work (at least in my flawed understanding).
I would think a method of creating cDNA *should* be patentable, but the result is just a copy of an existing sequence. If someone else comes up with a different method to copy that sequence, it's not infringing. Sort of like how you can patent a fax machine or a photocopier, but not the copy...
Yeah, dismiss the facts because you don't like the source... pretty much out of arguments there, huh? Well, here's Wikipedia, is that a horrible site, too, regardless of the facts?
I count 3 of the 40+ Ultrabooks listed at $1500+, and maybe 6-7 total at $1400+, the rest are less, some much less. And those are MSRPs; unlike Macs, Ultrabooks are usually significantly discounted at retail.
Anyway, you are *clearly* the one confused about what an Ultrabook is. "Ultrabook" is a specification and registered trademark of Intel that can't be used unless the device meets their requirements. Netbook is just a silly industry term describing "small, cheap laptops" with no real standardization.
6 of the 10 are under $1000, and 5 of those 6 are meaningfully under $1000. NONE of them cost $1400+/$1500/whatever incorrect numbers you are quoting. Even the Chromebook only costs $1300, and for that you get a 4MP display and touch screen.
Sucks to be proven wrong! (especially when it's your whole point and not a useless nitpick)
Wait, you are trying to argue $999 is not roundable to $1000 in a comparison of Macs vs. Ultrabooks? Sigh, the fanboy comment that proves the rule...
If you really want to call $999 (good luck getting it for that in most states, and regardless I would be willing to bet you $999 that 5% of MBAs are sold without options, upgrades, or other software at that price) "sub $1000" then please join the other sheeple thinking gasoline at "$3.9999" is not basically $4 a gallon.
Wait, Ultrabooks are now "$$$$" expensive? Most of them are $1000, which is the *starting* price for a Macbook Air (there ARE no "sub $1000" Apple laptops). You can be an Apple fan but arguing on price will prove futile:)
Personally I have a MBP, but I'm not going to lie to myself that it was a great deal. It was "quite expensive", but IMO worth it...
What the hell is a "Pro" market anyway when it comes to computers?
It's like saying a car isn't made for the "Pro" market. Professional WHAT? Racing? Construction? Taxi? Pizza delivery??
I'd say the Mac Pro is made for a "Pro" market - that being professional graphic designers, who want a computer with a lot of RAM, CPU, and video capability for video and image editing, while still having an unhealthy fascination with the look of the computer almost as much as what's inside;)
Yeah, my guess is *well* over $50 - sounds like the Dyson of desktop tower cooling fans;)
But my point is if designed well, there is no reason to think it would even be the most likely first point of failure in a system - again that assumption is based on the high failure rate of crappy PC fans. The fan in my furnace has gone 30 years without being replaced, and my Patton circulator fan has a 25 year warranty...
If designed right (and it sounds like a custom-designed 6" impeller fan) 1 big high-quality fan would be a lot more reliable than 4-5 small, crappy OEM fans found in most PCs. It's not like Apple has any reason to cut costs here, this thing is going to cost a mint and have an absurd profit margin, anyway.
Did you look at the specs or just one photo? 12 Xeon cores, up to 128GB RAM, 2 GPUs w/ 6GB RAM, PCIe SSD, etc - with a single near silent fan in a 10" x 6 1/2" form factor?
I'd never buy one and I'm sure it's going to be absurdly expensive and proprietary - but "nothing pro about it"? Right. Macs have never been made for the home enthusiast upgrader market, and clearly they aren't starting now...
And... I apologize for the "duh", that was am unnecessary thing to say and wasn't helpful.
I should have just said: Eclipse uses the GNU compiler to compile and generate warnings/errors, so, to fix something like that you may need to upgrade g++ and set include paths appropriately... http://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/261489/
Still, it's not perfect—my installation at work recently went rogue and decided size_t was ambiguous. That took a lot of wrestling to fix, and I think there may still be a few system headers that it's confused about.
That's not Eclipse, that's the C compiler it's using, duh.
Because there are so many phones stolen and so many more serious crimes to investigate that the police don't give a crap about your stolen cell phone. You must not have ever had one stolen, because almost anyone who has (myself included) can confirm this complete lack of interest;)
If the police cared, the technology is already there to catch many phone thieves. But everyone knows they won't bother. It's much easier (and nearly free) just to make the phone a brick to discourage it in the first place than spend MANY thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on investigation, arrest, booking, court hearing/trial, and imprisonment for a $500 piece of electronics.
That's already completely possible and is no different from how the carrier ALREADY disables the phone on your account when you report it stolen. The only difference is the phone will remain blacklisted until you report that it wasn't in fact stolen.
And of course as someone else already stated they don't just need to know your phone number, since as I stated the phone company already has to deal with this issue and of course requires at least some form of account authentication.
Come on, seriously, modded interesting? Obviously the provider can already cut off an individual's service at will if they want to, that was never the issue. This is about disabling a stolen phone so it can't be added to a new service.
Let's say 5% of iPhone owners have had their phones stolen over all of time (which is a large number if you think of it), that would mean for all the bullshit the company has to put up with regarding a stolen phone they would make all of 5% extra on top of their normal sales. That's ridiculous if you think about it.
Apple made $80B (BILLION) dollars in iPhone revenue last year. 5% of that is $4B (FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!). You'd better fucking believe $4B in revenue is worth putting up with an UNFATHOMABLY MASSIVE amount of "bullshit".
Oh, and no need for "piss poor" anecdotes - NY and SF police have stated over 40% of all robberies in their cities now involve cell phones. So yes, tons - literally metric tons - of cell phones are stolen every year in those cities alone...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the Xbox 360 cost $400 in 2005. The Xbox One costs $500 in 2013 and additionally includes the next gen Kinect. Both are still less than an iPad, and Apple sold more than 60 million of those in one year. And the *current* gen consoles are still selling pretty well at $300.
The fact is $400-$500 is about right for these consoles based on the hardware they include, and based on the sales of the last gen (between 70-80M each for Xbox and PS3) it's idiotic to claim "no one can afford them". It's practically guaranteed they will sell out their initial inventory almost immediately.
According to this site it sold a combined 1.7M copies between PS3, Xbox 360, and PC. Mind-boggling, I would have guessed a LOT less...
Well, technically patents are *supposed* to be about a method or process (which is why most software patents that just talk about user-facing design or look should be invalid). That's why you can get a patent that just modifies an existing process that you don't have a patent on - in which case you'd actually still have to license the original (assuming it's not expired) to use yours.
There are most definitely plenty of processes and equipment used in genetic testing and creating cDNA in a lab that don't exist in nature, or that combine many things that may already exist in novel ways.
Yeah, it still doesn't make sense that cDNA *itself* could be patentable based how it patents vs. copyrights, etc work (at least in my flawed understanding).
I would think a method of creating cDNA *should* be patentable, but the result is just a copy of an existing sequence. If someone else comes up with a different method to copy that sequence, it's not infringing. Sort of like how you can patent a fax machine or a photocopier, but not the copy...
Yeah, dismiss the facts because you don't like the source... pretty much out of arguments there, huh? Well, here's Wikipedia, is that a horrible site, too, regardless of the facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook
I count 3 of the 40+ Ultrabooks listed at $1500+, and maybe 6-7 total at $1400+, the rest are less, some much less. And those are MSRPs; unlike Macs, Ultrabooks are usually significantly discounted at retail.
Anyway, you are *clearly* the one confused about what an Ultrabook is. "Ultrabook" is a specification and registered trademark of Intel that can't be used unless the device meets their requirements. Netbook is just a silly industry term describing "small, cheap laptops" with no real standardization.
Here's a list of the top 10 Ultrabooks in PC magazine as of 5/2/2013.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400007,00.asp
6 of the 10 are under $1000, and 5 of those 6 are meaningfully under $1000. NONE of them cost $1400+/$1500/whatever incorrect numbers you are quoting. Even the Chromebook only costs $1300, and for that you get a 4MP display and touch screen.
Sucks to be proven wrong! (especially when it's your whole point and not a useless nitpick)
Wait, you are trying to argue $999 is not roundable to $1000 in a comparison of Macs vs. Ultrabooks? Sigh, the fanboy comment that proves the rule...
If you really want to call $999 (good luck getting it for that in most states, and regardless I would be willing to bet you $999 that 5% of MBAs are sold without options, upgrades, or other software at that price) "sub $1000" then please join the other sheeple thinking gasoline at "$3.9999" is not basically $4 a gallon.
Wait, Ultrabooks are now "$$$$" expensive? Most of them are $1000, which is the *starting* price for a Macbook Air (there ARE no "sub $1000" Apple laptops). You can be an Apple fan but arguing on price will prove futile :)
Personally I have a MBP, but I'm not going to lie to myself that it was a great deal. It was "quite expensive", but IMO worth it...
What the hell is a "Pro" market anyway when it comes to computers?
It's like saying a car isn't made for the "Pro" market. Professional WHAT? Racing? Construction? Taxi? Pizza delivery??
I'd say the Mac Pro is made for a "Pro" market - that being professional graphic designers, who want a computer with a lot of RAM, CPU, and video capability for video and image editing, while still having an unhealthy fascination with the look of the computer almost as much as what's inside ;)
No, Apple's site itself says "...new-generation Intel Xeon E5 chipset. With configurations offering up to 12 cores of processing power..."
You're making assumptions about how I use a computer that you shouldn't make.
That's basically been Apple's driving philosophy for years... if you don't agree, get a PC!
Just because it was upgradable doesn't mean they were targeting the DIY upgrade market.
Yeah, my guess is *well* over $50 - sounds like the Dyson of desktop tower cooling fans ;)
But my point is if designed well, there is no reason to think it would even be the most likely first point of failure in a system - again that assumption is based on the high failure rate of crappy PC fans. The fan in my furnace has gone 30 years without being replaced, and my Patton circulator fan has a 25 year warranty...
If designed right (and it sounds like a custom-designed 6" impeller fan) 1 big high-quality fan would be a lot more reliable than 4-5 small, crappy OEM fans found in most PCs. It's not like Apple has any reason to cut costs here, this thing is going to cost a mint and have an absurd profit margin, anyway.
Teaching women/girls to use Ruby on Rails isn't so much sexist as downright misogynist and abusive...
Did you look at the specs or just one photo? 12 Xeon cores, up to 128GB RAM, 2 GPUs w/ 6GB RAM, PCIe SSD, etc - with a single near silent fan in a 10" x 6 1/2" form factor?
I'd never buy one and I'm sure it's going to be absurdly expensive and proprietary - but "nothing pro about it"? Right. Macs have never been made for the home enthusiast upgrader market, and clearly they aren't starting now...
And... I apologize for the "duh", that was am unnecessary thing to say and wasn't helpful.
I should have just said: Eclipse uses the GNU compiler to compile and generate warnings/errors, so, to fix something like that you may need to upgrade g++ and set include paths appropriately... http://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/t/261489/
Still, it's not perfect—my installation at work recently went rogue and decided size_t was ambiguous. That took a lot of wrestling to fix, and I think there may still be a few system headers that it's confused about.
That's not Eclipse, that's the C compiler it's using, duh.
Except one power he does have (that completely negates your point here) is the royal pardon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/9391118/Thai-king-pardons-US-car-salesman-over-royal-insult.html
But apparently he only does that for American citizens when highly pressured by the US state department, and not for his own citizens...
Wouldn't be surprised if most are sent overseas and sold somewhere no one is monitoring eBay, etc for stolen goods :)
Because there are so many phones stolen and so many more serious crimes to investigate that the police don't give a crap about your stolen cell phone. You must not have ever had one stolen, because almost anyone who has (myself included) can confirm this complete lack of interest ;)
If the police cared, the technology is already there to catch many phone thieves. But everyone knows they won't bother. It's much easier (and nearly free) just to make the phone a brick to discourage it in the first place than spend MANY thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on investigation, arrest, booking, court hearing/trial, and imprisonment for a $500 piece of electronics.
That's already completely possible and is no different from how the carrier ALREADY disables the phone on your account when you report it stolen. The only difference is the phone will remain blacklisted until you report that it wasn't in fact stolen.
And of course as someone else already stated they don't just need to know your phone number, since as I stated the phone company already has to deal with this issue and of course requires at least some form of account authentication.
Come on, seriously, modded interesting? Obviously the provider can already cut off an individual's service at will if they want to, that was never the issue. This is about disabling a stolen phone so it can't be added to a new service.
Let's say 5% of iPhone owners have had their phones stolen over all of time (which is a large number if you think of it), that would mean for all the bullshit the company has to put up with regarding a stolen phone they would make all of 5% extra on top of their normal sales. That's ridiculous if you think about it.
Apple made $80B (BILLION) dollars in iPhone revenue last year. 5% of that is $4B (FOUR BILLION DOLLARS!). You'd better fucking believe $4B in revenue is worth putting up with an UNFATHOMABLY MASSIVE amount of "bullshit".
Oh, and no need for "piss poor" anecdotes - NY and SF police have stated over 40% of all robberies in their cities now involve cell phones. So yes, tons - literally metric tons - of cell phones are stolen every year in those cities alone...
a good portion of cookie based data collection is sold as a product to the US government
Oh great, now they know about my secret snacking habits?