TFA says, Mac subscribers can continue browsing with IE for a month after the support ceases.
Since support officially ends Dec. 31, the article is implying that the app will somehow stop functioning on Jan. 31, 2006.
Does Micro$oft have some kind of "remote-controlled self destruct mechanism" in the app? Unlikely, but why else would the article mention a one-month time limit? This doesn't seem to be the type of thing one can blame on Engrish.
TFA says, More than 80 percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled using this technology.
That's a poorly-explained statistic. A lot of people are going to think they mean, "80% of the heat energy that would have gone out the tailpipe is instead converted to mechanical energy," and that's just not possible.
The Carnot Limit gives the maximum theoretical efficiency for conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy. And the very best real-world heat engines are lucky to approach 50% of the Carnot Limit.
Well, the Carnot Limit by itself is less than 80%. Then cut that at least in half because we're using a real-world engine. Bottom line is, nowhere near 80% of the exhaust heat is getting utilized.
you could potentially make even more money by lowering the price, because the drop in price could attract more than enough customers to make up for the loss in revenue.
That statement is true for all songs -- the wildly popular ones as well as the real dogs. For every song, there is an optimum price that will maximize profits. The fact that supply is infinite when information is distributed digitally is irrelevant to this truth.
But when you say that the optimum price is higher for songs with low demand than it is for songs with red-hot demand, you're just wrong. The average consumer is willing to pay a premium for the latest huge hits. In a brick-and-mortar music store, most of the CDs in the bargain bin are crap. There's a reason for that.
Virginia Tech's cluster of G5 Macs used to be in the Top 5. If lowest cost per teraflop is your figure of merit, Virgina Tech's rig ranked #1 at the time... that may still be true, not sure.
Currently, G5 Mac clusters hold the #15 and #20 spots on the Top 500 list.
I've never been able to afford a cutting edge Apple computer
Fortunately, few people need a cutting edge Apple computer.
Four years ago, I bought a PowerMac G4 (400 MHz) on eBay for only $400. Since then I've spend $75 to upgrade to a Radeon graphics card (enabling Quartz Express) and $369 to upgrade the processor to 2.0 GHz.
I expect this 2 GHz machine to be useful for another four years or so. Total outlay for my Mac fix: about $100 per year.
Over the life of the Shuttle program (beginning in the 1970s) we have spent over $200 billion on it. And what do we have to show for it? Certainly not reliable, inexpensive access to space.
Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods
You're right... I wish Bush would stop ordering beheadings, blowing up civilian office buildings, hijacking aircraft, kidnapping innocent people, sabotaging infrastructure, and laying roadside bombs.
Because you shouldn't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror.
Instead, I wish Bush would take down brutal dictators and extremist regimes, and funnel billions of dollars toward the reconstruction and democratization of those places.
I've never tried to boot from one. Since flash drives are solid-state, are they faster than a real hard drive?
(I assume that if you're connecting it to a USB 1.0 port, the USB connection would be the bottleneck, and you'd get much faster boot times connecting to a USB 2.0 port.)
If Apple charged the same price for their unsupported PC version as for their supported Mac version, Apple would never hear the end of the complaints.
And it just makes economic sense that, should they offer an unsupported version, they charge less for it. Their support costs would be nil, and they should pass some of those savings along to the customer.
(Yes, I already posted this, but it really fits as a reply to your post.) __________________
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS) - Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X) - Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity - Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations - Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
Why not sell the full version for full price and don't do any tech support for the people installing it on their white box machines?
Because it would be a crapshoot whether the full version would work well with any given hardware configuration. People don't like paying full price for a crapshoot. The "safe mode-like" version, on the other hand, would have an excellent chance of working with their hardware.
It's hard to underestimate the public's intelligence, but I think you people are doing it when you suggest that the users would totally ignore the glossy brochure that I described in the grandparent post, and conclude that OS X on a Mac would suck as much as the $19.95 trial version for PCs.
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS) - Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X) - Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity - Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations - Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
It's pretty simple, actually. If Company X operates predominantly in areas where three-bedroom houses cost $130,000 instead of $600,000, and Company Y does not, you would expect statistics to show that the average Company X employee earns less than the average Company Y employee. And that does not necessarily mean that Company X employees have less buying power.
Company X will not be able to expand into areas where three-bedroom houses cost $600,000, unless it offers employees in those areas wages that are competitive with Company Y. Period.
When that's hand-in-hand with 20% lower wages, there's no benefit.
The problem with your argument is, Wal-Mart has lowered the wages of precious few people. 100% of consumers benefit from Wal-Mart's lower prices, but only the employees of small mom-n-pop retailers have seen downward pressure on their wages as a result of Wal-Mart (and I would guess those people constitute less than 2% of all consumers). Definitely a net gain for the average person.
That supercenter is cheaper now because it's in the "destroy the competition" phase of its lifetime. When all the other supermarkets in the area go out of business (putting people out of work) you'll see those prices go up.
Sheer paranoia. Wal-Mart has been in business for 43 years. Just when do you think it will get past the "destroy the competition" phase?
In recent years Wal-Mart has built three stores in my city, and competing supermarkets have built seven.
True, living wages would have an effect on consumer pricing, because big business would simply pass the costs on to the consumer instead of taking as much as a 1% hit to their profits.
Here your desire for socialism actually would have been helped by a deeper understanding of economics. When a well-run business encounters increased costs, it never passes 100% of the increase along to its customers. Only if demand were perfectly inelastic would it be in the business's best interests to do so. Similarly, when a business encounters reduced costs, it tends to pass some but not all of its savings along to its customers.
the majority of people working at Wal-Mart, despite working full-time hours, 1) qualify for food stamps/welfare/WIC/$socialProgram, which costs the taxpayer money, and 2) do not have health insurance
They would qualify for even more social programs if they weren't working at all. You seem to think that Wal-Mart holds a gun to its employees' heads, threatening to pull the trigger if the employee accepts a job down the street that pays higher wages. That is not the case. People accept job offers from Wal-Mart because no one else offered them a better job offer. And there's no way you can blame Wal-Mart for that.
You are exactly correct about the positive effects Wal-Mart's had on the economy. It's dismaying that Slashdotters are too filled with kneejerk liberalism to appreciate your post.
1. Why don't they spray the insulating foam on the inside of the tank, rather than the outside? There are no aerodynamic forces to rip apart the foam inside the tank.
2. Be politically incorrect and use the old Freon-foamed insulation. Non-Freon-based foam "causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam," according to engineer Robert Garmong. The 1997 mission, STS-87, was the first to use a new method of 'foaming' the tanks. The shift came as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was ordering many industries to phase out the use of Freon.
I personally think its a dangerous escalation. If the authorities start firing this at people then it can surely only be a matter of time until they start firing back.
I don't think our enemies will adopt this weapon, because it's non-lethal and doesn't instill the fear that a good beheading or car bombing does. But we can always hope...
simply never miss having a second mouse button in OS X.
Then I don't think you're using OS X very effectively. When I use OS X with a one-button mouse, I find myself issuing the Control-click combination -- a *two-handed* operation -- quite frequently. So I bought a two-button mouse, which turns that into a *one-finger* operation.
And don't you miss having a scroll wheel? If your answer is no, an Apple two-button, scroll-wheelin' mouse would be Pearls Before Swine for you!
Slashdot Mirror
TFA says, Mac subscribers can continue browsing with IE for a month after the support ceases.
Since support officially ends Dec. 31, the article is implying that the app will somehow stop functioning on Jan. 31, 2006.
Does Micro$oft have some kind of "remote-controlled self destruct mechanism" in the app? Unlikely, but why else would the article mention a one-month time limit? This doesn't seem to be the type of thing one can blame on Engrish.
TFA says, More than 80 percent of the heat energy contained in the exhaust gases is recycled using this technology.
That's a poorly-explained statistic. A lot of people are going to think they mean, "80% of the heat energy that would have gone out the tailpipe is instead converted to mechanical energy," and that's just not possible.
The Carnot Limit gives the maximum theoretical efficiency for conversion of heat energy to mechanical energy. And the very best real-world heat engines are lucky to approach 50% of the Carnot Limit.
Well, the Carnot Limit by itself is less than 80%. Then cut that at least in half because we're using a real-world engine. Bottom line is, nowhere near 80% of the exhaust heat is getting utilized.
you could potentially make even more money by lowering the price, because the drop in price could attract more than enough customers to make up for the loss in revenue.
That statement is true for all songs -- the wildly popular ones as well as the real dogs. For every song, there is an optimum price that will maximize profits. The fact that supply is infinite when information is distributed digitally is irrelevant to this truth.
But when you say that the optimum price is higher for songs with low demand than it is for songs with red-hot demand, you're just wrong. The average consumer is willing to pay a premium for the latest huge hits. In a brick-and-mortar music store, most of the CDs in the bargain bin are crap. There's a reason for that.
Virginia Tech's cluster of G5 Macs used to be in the Top 5. If lowest cost per teraflop is your figure of merit, Virgina Tech's rig ranked #1 at the time... that may still be true, not sure.
Currently, G5 Mac clusters hold the #15 and #20 spots on the Top 500 list.
Wow, I didn't know about Google Suggest until I read your post. It IS great!
I've never been able to afford a cutting edge Apple computer
Fortunately, few people need a cutting edge Apple computer.
Four years ago, I bought a PowerMac G4 (400 MHz) on eBay for only $400. Since then I've spend $75 to upgrade to a Radeon graphics card (enabling Quartz Express) and $369 to upgrade the processor to 2.0 GHz.
I expect this 2 GHz machine to be useful for another four years or so. Total outlay for my Mac fix: about $100 per year.
Over the life of the Shuttle program (beginning in the 1970s) we have spent over $200 billion on it. And what do we have to show for it? Certainly not reliable, inexpensive access to space.
Hey, fighting terrorism is a good idea, but you can't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror. You've got to use other methods
You're right... I wish Bush would stop ordering beheadings, blowing up civilian office buildings, hijacking aircraft, kidnapping innocent people, sabotaging infrastructure, and laying roadside bombs.
Because you shouldn't fight terrorism with the weapons of terror.
Instead, I wish Bush would take down brutal dictators and extremist regimes, and funnel billions of dollars toward the reconstruction and democratization of those places.
Oh wait...
I've never tried to boot from one. Since flash drives are solid-state, are they faster than a real hard drive?
(I assume that if you're connecting it to a USB 1.0 port, the USB connection would be the bottleneck, and you'd get much faster boot times connecting to a USB 2.0 port.)
If Apple charged the same price for their unsupported PC version as for their supported Mac version, Apple would never hear the end of the complaints.
And it just makes economic sense that, should they offer an unsupported version, they charge less for it. Their support costs would be nil, and they should pass some of those savings along to the customer.
(Yes, I already posted this, but it really fits as a reply to your post.)
__________________
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
- Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
Why not sell the full version for full price and don't do any tech support for the people installing it on their white box machines?
Because it would be a crapshoot whether the full version would work well with any given hardware configuration. People don't like paying full price for a crapshoot. The "safe mode-like" version, on the other hand, would have an excellent chance of working with their hardware.
It's hard to underestimate the public's intelligence, but I think you people are doing it when you suggest that the users would totally ignore the glossy brochure that I described in the grandparent post, and conclude that OS X on a Mac would suck as much as the $19.95 trial version for PCs.
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
- Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
I don't know how you're figuring that.
It's pretty simple, actually. If Company X operates predominantly in areas where three-bedroom houses cost $130,000 instead of $600,000, and Company Y does not, you would expect statistics to show that the average Company X employee earns less than the average Company Y employee. And that does not necessarily mean that Company X employees have less buying power.
Company X will not be able to expand into areas where three-bedroom houses cost $600,000, unless it offers employees in those areas wages that are competitive with Company Y. Period.
When that's hand-in-hand with 20% lower wages, there's no benefit.
The problem with your argument is, Wal-Mart has lowered the wages of precious few people. 100% of consumers benefit from Wal-Mart's lower prices, but only the employees of small mom-n-pop retailers have seen downward pressure on their wages as a result of Wal-Mart (and I would guess those people constitute less than 2% of all consumers). Definitely a net gain for the average person.
That supercenter is cheaper now because it's in the "destroy the competition" phase of its lifetime. When all the other supermarkets in the area go out of business (putting people out of work) you'll see those prices go up.
Sheer paranoia. Wal-Mart has been in business for 43 years. Just when do you think it will get past the "destroy the competition" phase?
In recent years Wal-Mart has built three stores in my city, and competing supermarkets have built seven.
True, living wages would have an effect on consumer pricing, because big business would simply pass the costs on to the consumer instead of taking as much as a 1% hit to their profits.
Here your desire for socialism actually would have been helped by a deeper understanding of economics. When a well-run business encounters increased costs, it never passes 100% of the increase along to its customers. Only if demand were perfectly inelastic would it be in the business's best interests to do so. Similarly, when a business encounters reduced costs, it tends to pass some but not all of its savings along to its customers.
the majority of people working at Wal-Mart, despite working full-time hours, 1) qualify for food stamps/welfare/WIC/$socialProgram, which costs the taxpayer money, and 2) do not have health insurance
They would qualify for even more social programs if they weren't working at all. You seem to think that Wal-Mart holds a gun to its employees' heads, threatening to pull the trigger if the employee accepts a job down the street that pays higher wages. That is not the case. People accept job offers from Wal-Mart because no one else offered them a better job offer. And there's no way you can blame Wal-Mart for that.
You are exactly correct about the positive effects Wal-Mart's had on the economy. It's dismaying that Slashdotters are too filled with kneejerk liberalism to appreciate your post.
1. Why don't they spray the insulating foam on the inside of the tank, rather than the outside? There are no aerodynamic forces to rip apart the foam inside the tank.
2. Be politically incorrect and use the old Freon-foamed insulation. Non-Freon-based foam "causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam," according to engineer Robert Garmong. The 1997 mission, STS-87, was the first to use a new method of 'foaming' the tanks. The shift came as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was ordering many industries to phase out the use of Freon.
Quote from this report: "The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the Pentagon..."
While there are many books that teach written skills...
I'm pretty sure the submitter meant "writing skills."
inhumane weaponry like this
If you call a non-lethal weapon like this "inhumane," I'd hate to see what you call a cluster bomb or a tactical nuke.
Wonder if making people feel like they're being burned alive counts as torture?
I'd rather have this weapon used on me than a conventional, lethal weapon. Wouldn't you?
I personally think its a dangerous escalation. If the authorities start firing this at people then it can surely only be a matter of time until they start firing back.
I don't think our enemies will adopt this weapon, because it's non-lethal and doesn't instill the fear that a good beheading or car bombing does. But we can always hope...
Sounds good... please tell me how to do that!
How the heck could his vision be implemented electro-mechanically, instead of digitally? I don't think it could be done. Do you?
simply never miss having a second mouse button in OS X.
Then I don't think you're using OS X very effectively. When I use OS X with a one-button mouse, I find myself issuing the Control-click combination -- a *two-handed* operation -- quite frequently. So I bought a two-button mouse, which turns that into a *one-finger* operation.
And don't you miss having a scroll wheel? If your answer is no, an Apple two-button, scroll-wheelin' mouse would be Pearls Before Swine for you!