Target even made more than microsoft coming in at 50 bil.
Target did not make 50 billion last year. They aren't even *worth* fifty billion. They had fifty billion in revenue, but only 4.3 billion in profit. MSFT had 14.5 billion in profit.
where I live is rather rural and there are only so many tech jobs.
That's one of those factors you have to weigh when you choose to live in a rural area. You can't get away from urban life and yet still have everything available. If you could then it wouldn't be rural.
Nope, the slaves would farm the land (that was stolen from them) themselves.
I've no doubt that that happens, and in those cases I agree with any sort of boycott. The more general case, such as in the Latin American banana industry, no theft of land took place, and the people that work in that industry have plenty of other options. I personally know a couple of banana workers, and while it's hard work for not much money, it's the best job available to them. If they were better educated of course things would be different, and that's (one of) the real source of the problem. But that's a whole different set of problems.
It's a complicated issue, and the "simple" answer of boycotting the evil exploiters, while it may make people feel good, directly harms the ones they'd like to help. If those banana workers had to find other work then their children would have even less of an opportunity to get an education, extending the problem to the next generation.
but the Real Life Sugar Cane Plantation Barons in Latin America who exploit peasant labor for pennies a day.
Nobody is forced to work on the sugar cane plantations. So obviously, the people who do work there don't have a better alternative, or else they wouldn't work there. If the sugar cane work was not available then the workers, the very people you'd like to help, would be the ones most harmed.
Without coercion there can not be exploitation. As long as people can choose to not work there, then they are better off having the choice.
Clearly the Plantation Barons are offering an option that is at least as good, if not better than, anything else available to the workers.
and would not be produced by peasants toiling in slave labor.
So you're saying it would be bad for them to have the extra opportunity of work? You make it sound like if it weren't for the Evil Theoretical Sugar Beet Barons then life would be just fine.
People don't take "slave labor" jobs by force. They take them because it's better than anything else they might do. So the problem is not the work, but the situation. And taking away the work certainly does not make things better. You make it sound like *not* using third world products somehow improves the third world condition.
Sugercane is about 7 times more efficient than corn
As efficient, not more efficient. "More" is broken for this type of comparison. If it were twice as efficient would you say "two times more efficient?" Of course not. That would be retarded. So to conform to the pattern you'd have to say "one time more efficient." But if you do that, then seven times "as efficient" would be the same as six times "more efficient." And now you're slinging around ambiguity. The "as efficient" form is clear and unambiguous.
Quicktime for Mac doesn't even do full screen (you have to get QT Pro for that, because, y'know, full screen is a pro function.
Quicktime is not an application. Apple's free player uses Quicktime to play movies, and they chose to leave out some features unless you pay. Or more specifically, unless you enter a "Pro" registration.
But Quicktime, on both OS X and Windows, supports full screen playback, content editing and saving, format conversion, and a whole lot more.
Well I almost always mean to be a little funny, even when I'm trying to make a point. But that "two times more powerful!" stuff is a pet peeve of mine. And every once in a while it gets out of its cage. (There. that last part was me trying to be a little funny. Very little, I know.)
Stick a "be" in there for me, would ya? Anyway, as long as I'm following up on my own post, I'l try to restate it in a less pompous way. What would "two times less" mean? It certainly shouldn't mean half as much, but it would have to in order to be able to state one tenth as "ten times less." So the original comparison form is simply broken.
If you really could replicate Windows for $200 Million
I meant half of the billions. And implementing the API is not the same thing as replicating Windows.
The value of doing it must be absurdly huge. Look what happened in the two days following "boot camp." The stock gained nine billion dollars in market cap. And that's just for booting it. How much would it be worth to seamlessly run Windows apps along side Mac apps? They couldn't produce the computers fast enough. They'd be flying off the shelves.
So, it's ridiclous to work on some crazy Win32-on-Mac implementation when the real thing could be shipped for under $100/box.
At current levels Apple will sell 4,500,000 computers this year. So that software would be more than 400 million dollars in the first year, and billions after that. Steve, give me a call. I'll do it for half price. Hurry, offer ends soon.
The way it works is, you have a big bonfire. Throwing $20 into the bonfire gives you one point.
It'll never take off unless you come out with a line of instructional videos show the proper way to throw the money into the fire. And then of course some Throw Monitoring equipment to tell the player what he's doing wrong.
So less spin overall creates less hook/slice, but in some cases less distance.
The more backspin, the straighter the shot. You're right about the aerodynamics, but the spin also creates a gyroscopic affect. That's why it's so much easier to hit a wedge straight than a long iron. It's not just that it's a shorter shaft, it's all that extra spin created by the loft of the club. It's also easier to hit a more lofted driver straight, and yet so many amateurs think they should hit a 9 degree driver (which is doubly wrong.)
Slashdot Mirror
Target did not make 50 billion last year. They aren't even *worth* fifty billion. They had fifty billion in revenue, but only 4.3 billion in profit. MSFT had 14.5 billion in profit.
That's one of those factors you have to weigh when you choose to live in a rural area. You can't get away from urban life and yet still have everything available. If you could then it wouldn't be rural.
I've no doubt that that happens, and in those cases I agree with any sort of boycott. The more general case, such as in the Latin American banana industry, no theft of land took place, and the people that work in that industry have plenty of other options. I personally know a couple of banana workers, and while it's hard work for not much money, it's the best job available to them. If they were better educated of course things would be different, and that's (one of) the real source of the problem. But that's a whole different set of problems.
It's a complicated issue, and the "simple" answer of boycotting the evil exploiters, while it may make people feel good, directly harms the ones they'd like to help. If those banana workers had to find other work then their children would have even less of an opportunity to get an education, extending the problem to the next generation.
I agree completely.
Nobody is forced to work on the sugar cane plantations. So obviously, the people who do work there don't have a better alternative, or else they wouldn't work there. If the sugar cane work was not available then the workers, the very people you'd like to help, would be the ones most harmed.
Without coercion there can not be exploitation. As long as people can choose to not work there, then they are better off having the choice.
Clearly the Plantation Barons are offering an option that is at least as good, if not better than, anything else available to the workers.
So you're saying it would be bad for them to have the extra opportunity of work? You make it sound like if it weren't for the Evil Theoretical Sugar Beet Barons then life would be just fine.
People don't take "slave labor" jobs by force. They take them because it's better than anything else they might do. So the problem is not the work, but the situation. And taking away the work certainly does not make things better. You make it sound like *not* using third world products somehow improves the third world condition.
As efficient, not more efficient. "More" is broken for this type of comparison. If it were twice as efficient would you say "two times more efficient?" Of course not. That would be retarded. So to conform to the pattern you'd have to say "one time more efficient." But if you do that, then seven times "as efficient" would be the same as six times "more efficient." And now you're slinging around ambiguity. The "as efficient" form is clear and unambiguous.
Which has nothing to do with this, except that it used to bug me. And still does, apparently.
Maybe you're right. Let's take a peek at his resumé:
S.B. (Electrical Engineering) MIT 1967
S.B. (Applied Mathematics) MIT 1968
Ph.D. (Computer Science) Stanford University, 1975
So I guess it wasn't until after 1975 that Stanford added loops and algorithms to their doctoral requirements.
I just realized that in my entire life I've never once knowingly avoided the plague.
I learn something every day here on the slashdot. I also didn't know I could get a six foot wide roll if necessary. I could wallpaper the house.
A little bit of duct tape would fix that right up. Or maybe electrical tape, depending on the color of your VCR.
Quicktime is not an application. Apple's free player uses Quicktime to play movies, and they chose to leave out some features unless you pay. Or more specifically, unless you enter a "Pro" registration.
But Quicktime, on both OS X and Windows, supports full screen playback, content editing and saving, format conversion, and a whole lot more.
I think it's simpler to just use the median, 344.03.
I take it that price is for paying developers, not those at the free level. (The link didn't work for me.)
So you're saying my theory's no good? Dang.
If that were the case I'd start looking over my shoulder if I came up with something really popular.
You left off "harmful or fatal if swallowed."
Well I almost always mean to be a little funny, even when I'm trying to make a point. But that "two times more powerful!" stuff is a pet peeve of mine. And every once in a while it gets out of its cage. (There. that last part was me trying to be a little funny. Very little, I know.)
Stick a "be" in there for me, would ya? Anyway, as long as I'm following up on my own post, I'l try to restate it in a less pompous way. What would "two times less" mean? It certainly shouldn't mean half as much, but it would have to in order to be able to state one tenth as "ten times less." So the original comparison form is simply broken.
At least. It might one eleventh. Numerical comparisons using less and more, rather than the accurate "as much" form, tend to be ambiguous.
I meant half of the billions. And implementing the API is not the same thing as replicating Windows.
The value of doing it must be absurdly huge. Look what happened in the two days following "boot camp." The stock gained nine billion dollars in market cap. And that's just for booting it. How much would it be worth to seamlessly run Windows apps along side Mac apps? They couldn't produce the computers fast enough. They'd be flying off the shelves.
At current levels Apple will sell 4,500,000 computers this year. So that software would be more than 400 million dollars in the first year, and billions after that. Steve, give me a call. I'll do it for half price. Hurry, offer ends soon.
It'll never take off unless you come out with a line of instructional videos show the proper way to throw the money into the fire. And then of course some Throw Monitoring equipment to tell the player what he's doing wrong.
The more backspin, the straighter the shot. You're right about the aerodynamics, but the spin also creates a gyroscopic affect. That's why it's so much easier to hit a wedge straight than a long iron. It's not just that it's a shorter shaft, it's all that extra spin created by the loft of the club. It's also easier to hit a more lofted driver straight, and yet so many amateurs think they should hit a 9 degree driver (which is doubly wrong.)