There is no such thing as "setting retail prices high enough to guarantee profit." You see, if you set the price too high, you'll have very few buyers (i.e., your market share will be very small) and you won't be able to recoup your development costs.
If it was possible to "guarantee profit" by setting a sufficiently high price, I could dig up a worthless rock in my yard, sell it for an astronomically high price, and retire. Wouldn't that be nice.
A big part of the art of business is trying to ascertain the "sweet spot" that maximizes profit. * If your price is higher than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, and your market share will be lower. * If your price is lower than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, but your market share will be higher.
Therefore it makes sense to err on the side of higher market share. In my opinion, Apple perhaps doesn't understand that principle.
Apple sells an OS X "Family Pack" where the EULA says you can install it on up to 5 Macs in one household. It costs less than twice as much as a Single User copy of OS X -- thereby giving the multi-Mac household a price break. AFAIK, the only difference between the Family Pack and the regular distribution is the content of the EULA. Apple intends for you to buy the Family Pack if you are going to install it on anywhere from two to five Macs in a household.
Now -- since you believe the seller's intent doesn't matter -- would it be OK with you if all five-Mac households consider only their own self-interest, buy a Single User copy, and install it on all five Macs? In other words, is the concept of a "Family Pack" a naive and foolish construct in your world? (If it's OK to disregard the provision about using it only on Apple hardware, hey, why not disregard the provision where a Single User license allows installation on only one computer?)
Those Molex power plugs can get impossibly stuck. One time I had to tug on one with a great deal of force for literally 30 minutes before it loosened up.
I think somebody makes a Molex-pulling tool, but I haven't been able to find it.
What they care about is living a better life than the people they're around.
Poverty is relative. The average American whose income is just under the "poverty line" owns a car and has cable TV, running water, air conditioning, and access to penicillin. But because poverty is relative, they'll bitch and moan about how bad off they are, without giving a thought to the fact that even the kings of 400 years ago couldn't purchase these amenities at any price.
the additive binds the nitrogen oxide particles emitted by car exhausts and turns them into harmless nitrates. "With one rain shower everything is washed clean," the institution said
Hmm... the New York Times says nitrates are "a dangerous and increasingly widespread pollutant... reaching dangerous levels in groundwater".
It seems environmentalists hold wildly diverging opinions on this.
If the NYT is correct, it's fortunate that this "air purifying concrete" is not likely to be very effective. You see, only a small percentage of the NOx molecules are going to come in contact with the road surface (which makes them eligible for conversion to nitrates). The titanium dioxide in the concrete is not able to reach out and grab NOx molecules floating one meter or even one millimeter above the road. I predict the air quality measurements will show very little difference, and the media will never report on this idea again.
The only reason gold has any value is that we assign it value
Reminds me of this true factoid: in Napoleon's day, aluminum was rare and more valuable than gold. He proudly displayed a set of aluminum cutlery... the ultimate status symbol in the mid-1800s.
When we look up at the moon, it moon looks like a pretty bright, reflective object. But in images containing both the earth and moon, you can see that the moon looks positively dim and dingy compared to the cloud-covered portions of Earth.
I've read Consumer Reports for 25 years. They way they report on Apple products is a mixed blessing for Apple. For years, they've consistently reported statistics showing that (1) Apple's reliability is significantly higher than Dell's, HP's, etc. and (2) customers are much more satisfied with Apple's tech support than Dell's, HP's, etc.
On the other hand, the models CR chooses to test are always taken from the upper end of Apple's product line. As such, there's always a jarring price differential between Macs and PCs: based on the CR ratings, readers would think they'd have to shell out $1,799 for an iMac -- there's no indication that another model is available for $1,199. And in its ratings, CR assigns no value whatsoever to OS X (or the fact that Macs can boot both OS X and Windows). (Personally, I ascribe $1500 of value to OS X. In other words, I would switch from Mac to Windows if I could buy a Windows-only machine for $1500 less than a comparably-equipped Mac.)
That windbelt generates 40 milliwatts, which means that in order to "generate enough electricity to keep an average american home electric-bill free," you'd have to put about fifty thousand windbelts on the roof of every home. (More, if you want to generate surplus power to compensate for periods of no wind.)
The American Superconductor CEO asserts that "in the long run, the cost of superconductor transmission cables will be below that of adding new aboveground copper power lines," but does anyone know of any independent studies which say this can be cost-effective?
What's in the composition of these cables which makes them a high-temperature superconductor? TFA says they are coated with silver, and the next-generation cables will be coated with copper, but neither of these metals are high-temp superconductors. The cable's core must be made of something more exotic.
High voltage AC transmission lines are famously inductive, such that transmission line workers where metal mesh in their suits so they don't get the weird feeling of the oscilating magnetic field through their bodies.
That's wild... it is news to me that humans are able to directly perceive even very strong magnetic fields. For example, I don't think patients feel anything when undergoing an MRI procedure. Can you cite a source for this information? Thanks
Should it really have taken until 2007 before flutter belts came along? Is it really that hard to engineer a device that would take advantage of rooftop wind energy?
I Googled "flutter belt" and didn't come up with any energy-related products.
Many problems simply can't be parallelized. 95% of the time, throwing more cores at the problem doesn't help me. I hope per-core performance picks up a little pretty soon.
Right you are... OS X and all Universal Binary apps support both platforms, x86 and PowerPC. The work to accomplish this is done, in the bag. To maintain support for both platforms going forward would be relatively easy. As non-Universal apps fall by the wayside, users care less and less about what kind of processor happens to be under the hood.
has cranked up POWER6 to 5.0 GHz in its servers, way beyond Intel's best, so it's still an architecture with a lot of interesting advantages.
Indeed. It would make sense to put POWER6 in Xserves. Maintaining the ability to resume building PPC Macs would be a tremendous advantage for Apple. The assembly line could make the switch often: this week we're installing PPC processors, but the buyers have a batch of Intel processors on order, and next week we'll install those. Whichever happens to offer the best price / performance ratio at the moment. Always riding the horse that's out in front.
Now for an unlikely scenario: there once was a version of Windows NT that ran on PPC machines. If POWER's performance lead becomes large enough, it would be in M$'s interest to revive that project. (Granted, it would have to be a pretty darn large performance lead.)
Shell points out that "it would be possible for the winning Shell Eco-Marathon UK car to travel three times around the equator on the same amount of fuel that Concorde needed to reach the end of the runway.
OS X and all Universal Binary apps support both platforms, x86 and PowerPC. The work to accomplish this is done, in the bag. To maintain support for both platforms going forward would be relatively easy. As non-Universal apps fall by the wayside, users care less and less about what kind of processor happens to be under the hood.
With another breakthrough like this, IBM would pull ahead of the x86 players -- which would be a tremendous advantage for Apple, if it maintains the ability to resume building PPC Macs. The assembly line could make the switch often: this week we're installing PPC processors, but the buyers have a batch of Intel processors on order, and next week we'll install those. Whichever happens to offer the best price / performance ratio at the moment. Always riding the horse that's out in front.
Now for an unlikely scenario: there once was a version of Windows NT that ran on PPC machines. If IBM's performance lead becomes large enough, it would be in M$'s interest to revive that project. (Granted, it would have to be a pretty darn large performance lead.)
As I understand it, a "hole" is just the absence of an electron, which leads to a net positive charge for a particular atom. Kind of like a positive ion, but I think use of the term "ion" is limited to liquid solutions/gases/plasmas.
An electron can move and fill a hole, but leaves another hole behind in the location it just departed. So a "hole" moving in one direction is entirely equivalent to an electron moving in the opposite direction, is it not?
If so, why does this term have any usefulness, if, instead of saying "the hole moved from point A to point B" you could just as easily say "the electron moved from point B to point A"?
Help me understand why much ado is made about holes.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no such thing as "setting retail prices high enough to guarantee profit." You see, if you set the price too high, you'll have very few buyers (i.e., your market share will be very small) and you won't be able to recoup your development costs.
If it was possible to "guarantee profit" by setting a sufficiently high price, I could dig up a worthless rock in my yard, sell it for an astronomically high price, and retire. Wouldn't that be nice.
A big part of the art of business is trying to ascertain the "sweet spot" that maximizes profit.
* If your price is higher than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, and your market share will be lower.
* If your price is lower than that optimum price, your profit will be suboptimal, but your market share will be higher.
Therefore it makes sense to err on the side of higher market share. In my opinion, Apple perhaps doesn't understand that principle.
A seller's intent does not enter into it.
Apple sells an OS X "Family Pack" where the EULA says you can install it on up to 5 Macs in one household. It costs less than twice as much as a Single User copy of OS X -- thereby giving the multi-Mac household a price break. AFAIK, the only difference between the Family Pack and the regular distribution is the content of the EULA. Apple intends for you to buy the Family Pack if you are going to install it on anywhere from two to five Macs in a household.
Now -- since you believe the seller's intent doesn't matter -- would it be OK with you if all five-Mac households consider only their own self-interest, buy a Single User copy, and install it on all five Macs? In other words, is the concept of a "Family Pack" a naive and foolish construct in your world? (If it's OK to disregard the provision about using it only on Apple hardware, hey, why not disregard the provision where a Single User license allows installation on only one computer?)
FireWire 800 is on its way out, because FireWire S3200 (3.2 Gbit/s) is on its way in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire#FireWire_S1600_and_S3200
Those Molex power plugs can get impossibly stuck. One time I had to tug on one with a great deal of force for literally 30 minutes before it loosened up.
I think somebody makes a Molex-pulling tool, but I haven't been able to find it.
What they care about is living a better life than the people they're around.
Poverty is relative. The average American whose income is just under the "poverty line" owns a car and has cable TV, running water, air conditioning, and access to penicillin. But because poverty is relative, they'll bitch and moan about how bad off they are, without giving a thought to the fact that even the kings of 400 years ago couldn't purchase these amenities at any price.
A staggering 20,000 fatalities per year.
the additive binds the nitrogen oxide particles emitted by car exhausts and turns them into harmless nitrates. "With one rain shower everything is washed clean," the institution said
Hmm... the New York Times says nitrates are "a dangerous and increasingly widespread pollutant... reaching dangerous levels in groundwater".
It seems environmentalists hold wildly diverging opinions on this.
If the NYT is correct, it's fortunate that this "air purifying concrete" is not likely to be very effective. You see, only a small percentage of the NOx molecules are going to come in contact with the road surface (which makes them eligible for conversion to nitrates). The titanium dioxide in the concrete is not able to reach out and grab NOx molecules floating one meter or even one millimeter above the road. I predict the air quality measurements will show very little difference, and the media will never report on this idea again.
Spin up a flywheel during the day. Compress air in a tank during the day. Charge a lead-acid battery during the day... etc
The only reason gold has any value is that we assign it value
Reminds me of this true factoid: in Napoleon's day, aluminum was rare and more valuable than gold. He proudly displayed a set of aluminum cutlery... the ultimate status symbol in the mid-1800s.
When we look up at the moon, it moon looks like a pretty bright, reflective object. But in images containing both the earth and moon, you can see that the moon looks positively dim and dingy compared to the cloud-covered portions of Earth.
I have wondered about this. The H2 and O2 are stored in seperate tanks. Wouldn't they have to be well-mixed before an explosion could take place?
I've read Consumer Reports for 25 years. They way they report on Apple products is a mixed blessing for Apple. For years, they've consistently reported statistics showing that (1) Apple's reliability is significantly higher than Dell's, HP's, etc. and (2) customers are much more satisfied with Apple's tech support than Dell's, HP's, etc.
On the other hand, the models CR chooses to test are always taken from the upper end of Apple's product line. As such, there's always a jarring price differential between Macs and PCs: based on the CR ratings, readers would think they'd have to shell out $1,799 for an iMac -- there's no indication that another model is available for $1,199. And in its ratings, CR assigns no value whatsoever to OS X (or the fact that Macs can boot both OS X and Windows). (Personally, I ascribe $1500 of value to OS X. In other words, I would switch from Mac to Windows if I could buy a Windows-only machine for $1500 less than a comparably-equipped Mac.)
That windbelt generates 40 milliwatts, which means that in order to "generate enough electricity to keep an average american home electric-bill free," you'd have to put about fifty thousand windbelts on the roof of every home. (More, if you want to generate surplus power to compensate for periods of no wind.)
The American Superconductor CEO asserts that "in the long run, the cost of superconductor transmission cables will be below that of adding new aboveground copper power lines," but does anyone know of any independent studies which say this can be cost-effective?
What's in the composition of these cables which makes them a high-temperature superconductor? TFA says they are coated with silver, and the next-generation cables will be coated with copper, but neither of these metals are high-temp superconductors. The cable's core must be made of something more exotic.
High voltage AC transmission lines are famously inductive, such that transmission line workers where metal mesh in their suits so they don't get the weird feeling of the oscilating magnetic field through their bodies.
That's wild... it is news to me that humans are able to directly perceive even very strong magnetic fields. For example, I don't think patients feel anything when undergoing an MRI procedure. Can you cite a source for this information? Thanks
Should it really have taken until 2007 before flutter belts came along? Is it really that hard to engineer a device that would take advantage of rooftop wind energy?
I Googled "flutter belt" and didn't come up with any energy-related products.
Many problems simply can't be parallelized. 95% of the time, throwing more cores at the problem doesn't help me. I hope per-core performance picks up a little pretty soon.
Elephant Memory Systems: http://dcymbal.metabarn.com/ems/index.html
The new Nvidia cards... the new electric car... the unit of magnetic flux density... the high-voltage coil...
Right you are... OS X and all Universal Binary apps support both platforms, x86 and PowerPC. The work to accomplish this is done, in the bag. To maintain support for both platforms going forward would be relatively easy. As non-Universal apps fall by the wayside, users care less and less about what kind of processor happens to be under the hood.
has cranked up POWER6 to 5.0 GHz in its servers, way beyond Intel's best, so it's still an architecture with a lot of interesting advantages.
Indeed. It would make sense to put POWER6 in Xserves. Maintaining the ability to resume building PPC Macs would be a tremendous advantage for Apple. The assembly line could make the switch often: this week we're installing PPC processors, but the buyers have a batch of Intel processors on order, and next week we'll install those. Whichever happens to offer the best price / performance ratio at the moment. Always riding the horse that's out in front.
Now for an unlikely scenario: there once was a version of Windows NT that ran on PPC machines. If POWER's performance lead becomes large enough, it would be in M$'s interest to revive that project. (Granted, it would have to be a pretty darn large performance lead.)
Widescreen is perfect for watching DVDs, and perfectly wrong for coding and word processing.
Can anybody recommend an inexpensive VESA mount that turns a regular LCD display into a pivoting display?
...12,665 MPG, achived by a Swiss Eco-marathon competitor in 2005. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Marathon )
Gotta love this quote...
Shell points out that "it would be possible for the winning Shell Eco-Marathon UK car to travel three times around the equator on the same amount of fuel that Concorde needed to reach the end of the runway.
OS X and all Universal Binary apps support both platforms, x86 and PowerPC. The work to accomplish this is done, in the bag. To maintain support for both platforms going forward would be relatively easy. As non-Universal apps fall by the wayside, users care less and less about what kind of processor happens to be under the hood.
With another breakthrough like this, IBM would pull ahead of the x86 players -- which would be a tremendous advantage for Apple, if it maintains the ability to resume building PPC Macs. The assembly line could make the switch often: this week we're installing PPC processors, but the buyers have a batch of Intel processors on order, and next week we'll install those. Whichever happens to offer the best price / performance ratio at the moment. Always riding the horse that's out in front.
Now for an unlikely scenario: there once was a version of Windows NT that ran on PPC machines. If IBM's performance lead becomes large enough, it would be in M$'s interest to revive that project. (Granted, it would have to be a pretty darn large performance lead.)
... was actually a poor sod of a civilization that turned on its own Large Hadron Collider for the first time.
As I understand it, a "hole" is just the absence of an electron, which leads to a net positive charge for a particular atom. Kind of like a positive ion, but I think use of the term "ion" is limited to liquid solutions/gases/plasmas.
An electron can move and fill a hole, but leaves another hole behind in the location it just departed. So a "hole" moving in one direction is entirely equivalent to an electron moving in the opposite direction, is it not?
If so, why does this term have any usefulness, if, instead of saying "the hole moved from point A to point B" you could just as easily say "the electron moved from point B to point A"?
Help me understand why much ado is made about holes.