Another way to put it, since you have a bro-crush on your spinning media, a kindle fire = 8 DVDs.
so unless you live in a favela, it's hard to justify the claim "not really viable for most people."
I like the Fire, but with 6GB of expandable memory it's limited as a portable tablet for non-connected use, such as the OP's airplane example. With any of the tablets, the media costs are still incurred; so the 8 DVD reference is irrelevant. More to the point - you can no longer just rent a DVD, get one from the library, etc; now you must plan ahead and rip a selected set. In addition, the cost of ripping in time is a barrier to tablet use; and I don't want to repurchase my DVD collection simply to be able to use it on a tablet.
I think the DVD is going away, but right now it is still the most convenient and common way to distribute video to a broad audience. It's often the cheapest as well, especially with the availability of used, rental, and sale priced media. That's why I think the next step is to slim the see of the in computer DVD mechanism before it finally disappears.
/., by it's nature, attracts people with bro-crushes on the latest tech gadgets (I personally really want a new iPad but am waiting for the next-gen) who tend to forget that "newer" doesn't alway's translated to "better enough to replace the existing in the short term." I think DVD's, from a cost and convenience standpoint, are still the most viable option for most people to use when traveling. Anecdotally, I see more people using them sitting up front than I see iPads or other tablets. That will change, but not in the near term, IMHO.
Handbrake it to MP4 before I leave. And more likely than not, copy it over to a tablet that's easier to hold and watch in cattle class than breaking out a full blown laptop.
Why would I want to waste battery spinning a DVD around?
Most people don't have the time or inclination to rip DVD's to disk - especially if you simply rent them and drop them in the mail or simply rent locally. Or, if you have a full season, it's a pain to rip them them all vs carrying a cd case. In addition, as laptops get thinner and move to SSD disk space becomes more valuable - I can carry a broader selection with me than I can if I rip it to disk.
Tablets are nice but not really a viable solution for most people because of the price.
I think optical drives are on the way out - but we may see them around for a while especially if Apple decides to build one of the ultra-thin concepts they've patented.
Get some pictures from your family and friends - put together a slide show - maybe mix in some favorite music. Ad some personal thoughts throughout. Make it with the free software you put on the disk - not only will they have something they can remember, but they will see what the software can do.
.
Just, for God's sake, don't turn it into one of those "what I did last year and why my little darling is so perfect" letters you always seem to get during the holidays.
It would help if you provided some more details about what you are trying to do. What sort of statistics re you looking to analyze? or are you juts collecting statistics such as average number saved, variations by month, etc. From your post it sounds like you are looking more for activity statistics than statistical analysis; in which car a stat package would just add unneeded complication to your efforts.
A stat package isn't going to make it any easier to analyze the data; it'll just make it easier to generate results based on large data sets. With Excel, I've found it easier to break down the analysis into separate spreadsheet and then link to get results in one sheet. This cuts down calculation time since you are not dealing with a large amount of data in one worksheet.
IANAL, but here's how a real lawyer explained it to me at a previous company:
While once you know something is likely to be used in a legal action you can't destroy it; it is perfectly fine to routine destroy material that you don't want to have to share. If you routinely delete all messages once every 30 days, for example, on an ongoing basis, then you aren't try to destroy evidence since it hasn't yet become an issue in a legal proceeding. Once you reasonably would know it may become evidence, you can't destroy it; and must stop any routine destruction activity.
We routinely, as soon as the final report came out, destroyed all our working papers and the floppies that contained them. Sensitive topics were not discussed via email. In our case, it was a written policy.
There are of course, exceptions to that - if you were engaging in criminal activities the courts may take a different view of your actions.
Moral issues aside, one only compounds the stupidity of using Facebook for illicit activities and keeping the messages instead of deleting them right away.
Facebook could, of course, be ordered to turnover the deleted messages; but I would think they would fight such an order since it would potentially open them to becoming a virtual repository of evidence that they would have to retain forever at great cost to store and retrieve.
I have a different theory than the author's "death march" one: Public school is a hidebound, bureaucratic, union-strangled monstrosity that does little to nothing to prepare people for the real world. As a result, when these same students hit college and the "hard" sciences, the result is the same as a tomato hitting a brick wall at speed.
I used to be an engineering instructor, and I saw it all the time. It's one of the primary reasons that many colleges require freshman "remedial" courses upon entry, to get the students caught-up on subjects the students should have learned in public school.
True, but a major cause of that was the US deciding that end of course testing should be used to measure a school's quality, and hence class room instructing becomes aimed at ensuring students do well on the tests. Things like challenging them and getting them to learn to think are secondary to passing the tests. Teachers worry about their jobs, administrators about school funding, and good schools are forced to take kids, from "failing" schools, who often are several grade levels below where they should be in math and reading. Couple that with a general disdain for teaching (I know a teacher who was told by a parent "What do you do to earn your salary?" because their child - who doesn't do the homework, fails to pay attention in class, lies to the parent about attending study sessions the teacher set up to help the kid, etc - is failing.) and you have a system that is badly broken.
Why is there such emphasis on university degrees in the job market? I understood that employers liked to hire university grads for certain jobs because employes knew these people could learn things on their own, enjoyed learning, and in general wanted to do a good work. I later realized that a university education had class implications and employers often want employees from certain social classes. But there is nothing wrong with vocational school, training courses, or even learning on the job. Why try to pump a quarter of your population through the university system when the needs of many of the students (and their future employers,) would be as well or better served by other avenues of learning?
Signaling. A college degree tels an employer you are trainable and have the drive to slog it out through four years of college. It doesn't make you any smarter or more capable than someone else; but it does make the selection prices easier for an employer. Hence, a college degree becomes an entry requirement.
That carries through to the graduate level as well - a top student at a non-top ten business school is every bit as bright and capable as a counter part at a top 10 school (and probably smarter than the bottom half at a top school); but lacks the "pedigree" and so faces a tougher job market. Smart companies realize they can hire the top grads at a lesser known school for less money.
"and 100,000 new teachers with majors in science, technology, engineering and math"
Good luck with that. A large majority with the skills to learn said fields is probably going to laugh at a teacher's salary.
Very true. A while back I worked with a school district and one of the administrators said he can't hire math and science teachers. Anyone with the a math or science degree can make 2x as much in private industry - and so no one is interested in a teaching job.,/P>
Part of the solution lies in getting private industry to realize that a lack of qualified teachers hurts them - and convince them that they can help by offering grants to schools to pay teachers more and thus attract qualified teachers in math and science. Offering to pay off loans is another way to make teaching more attractive. Some colleges offer reduced tuition for professors and staff children - why not extend that below the college level as well? There are ways to make teaching attractive.
In the end it comes down to priorities - my school district pays coaches a bonus and they can't be moved to another school. While I think sports and and cheerleading have a place in school, the pay structure points out what is valued by the community. (Much of the tab is picked up by the booster club - and our HS has better facilities than some small colleges). Until we value math and science we'll get what we pay for in overall educational quality. I know some really great math and science teachers, but most would not encourage a kid who has the aptitude to go into teaching.
When you look at TV, you also see that most programs glamorise lawyers, cops, doctors and sports stars. When was the last TV show that starred an engineer and made it look like a great thing to do? Even in Star Trek, Scotty was a secondary character.
Big Bang Theory. While it does play on stereotypes (Duh 0 it's a comedy) - it does so in a way that makes the engineer and 3 scientists characters appealing. they actually have lives and girlfriends (or at least a girl who is a friend but not a girlfriend). Sure, they don't save the world every day but the show takes the stereotypes and presents them in a way that makes the characters appealing.
You can get a more powerful 6 core westmere for 599. That takes it down to 1600, and that's significant.
The only Westmere I could find at that price was the W3670. I tried to find some benchmarks that would let me compare real world performance vs the Mac Pro (such as photoshop, office based benchmarks) but could find none. It seems to be a decent, if unimpressive CPU (then again the iMac is probably a better machine than the Pro right now - but that includes a monitor and would not been a fair comparison for the OP's claim); but even with it it doesn't approach the OP's claim of a high end PC for about 1/2 the price of a Mac.
The mac pro line is pretty old (and over-priced, IMHO, when compared to the iMacs) some I'm not surprised you can build a system for less; I just find the OP's claim a bit suspect. It would be even harder to do for a current high end iMac - especially when you match the display, let alone a "better" one.
I routinely build high end PC's for about 1/2 the price of comparable Macs - and the machines I build have better components.
Care to price one out, to say a low end Mac Pro at @ $2500?
I get with a quick google search for components:
One$250 processor - $1220
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB - $175
1 TB HD - $70
DVD Drive - $30
Wireless Keyboard and mouse - $100
Corsair case - $150
PS - (Antec) $125
3 GB of memory - $60
MB - $250
About $2160 before the OS. So while it is cheaper - it's hardly half the cost; especially since the processor alone lists at Newegg for half the cost of the Mac pro. Sure - you might be able to save some money on the components by being cheaper products but then you aren't getting "better components".
China is complaining that it is not getting a fair share of the profits/prices. It claims more than 90% of the profits and 60% of the expenses happen outside China. Design jobs, liability insurance, warehousing, IP protection, software creation etc happen outside China. Only the brute manufacturing happens in India and China. (Surprised to learn Foxconn factory in my hometown in India is making the glass for all iPhones).
It actually strengthens your argument, "Apple could do more manufacturing in USA and still not have a huge impact on the cost of the product or bottom line". It probably will have more reliable protection of key technologies if made where trade secrets and manufacturing IP could be protected. But still it chooses to make it China.
They manufacture there because labor costs are much cheaper and they have none of the other costs associated with manufacturing in the US (payroll taxes, environmental laws, etc) that add to the costs. bringing that manufacturing here would add a lot to the costs - resulting in either a significant hit to the bottom line or much higher prices.
China is whining because they realize that they need to get more of the higher value work if they way to continue to grow their economy. At some point, someone else will be cheaper - either less developed parts of China or other 3rd world countries. They saw what Korea and Japan did as China took away manufacturing and they realize they must do the same.
Apple's playing it right - do the low profit work, that is easily transplanted as need, elsewhere where it's cheap and do the real money work at home.
Actually, it's not. Science and faith can coexist quite nicely since they really consider two different questions - the how (science) and why (faith). One can be a good scientist regardless of one's views on faith. Some religions certainly are anti - science but that does not mean all are; as Haught's viewpoint illustrates.
Doesn't science cover how (observation) and why (theory)?
Only in the very narrow context of the scientific method - which it answers as part of the larger "How does this happen" question I referred to. Faith seeks to answer to the broader "Why does this happen" question - from a philosophical, not scientific - POV. That "why" is unprovable (which is why it is faith, not science) but not in conflict with science. A person can chose to answer the why question however they want - God, random chance, the great flying spaghetti monster - without lessening or contradicting the scientific explanations. Some people try to use their beliefs to discredit science - out of a mistaken hypothesis that understanding science somehow diminishes their God - but that is Religion (with all it's trappings and problems its caused), not faith. Unfortunately, many people find it hard to separate the two (faith and Religion). Similarly, some scientists seem to think that faith somehow threatens science; a position I do not hold.
The definition of theology as the study of religion supports my argument. Why even bother studying Religion? It's the complete antithesis of science.
Actually, it's not. Science and faith can coexist quite nicely since they really consider two different questions - the how (science) and why (faith). One can be a good scientist regardless of one's views on faith. Some religions certainly are anti - science but that does not mean all are; as Haught's viewpoint illustrates.
A Theologist should have no more respect that someone who studies the writings of any other work of fiction. It's on a par with the study of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien or Lewis Carroll. Theology has no practical value except one; it's a useful tool for the Clergy to separate fools from their money and to keep them in line.
Your comment illustrates, IMHO, why the science / religion debate is pointless. People on both sides refuse to hear and understand the other's point of view; rather than debate they ridicule and attack. Of course, since I think the two positions are not polar opposites nor even in the same arena I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
While I really wash't any good at sports, I stuck it out riding the bench for 4 years in high school and earned a varsity letter as a result..
Why is this "varsity letter" important?
This exemplifies what is wrong with the thought behind US education. Why is phys ed (what we call sports education here in OZ) important to your grades? After year 10 (last year of mandatory schooling) it's 100% optional. Even before then, it's 2 hours a week out of 30. Why is such an emphasis placed on physical education compared to science, mathematics, literacy and social studies (history, geography, political and social sciences) which monopolised most of the time in Australian schools. I have to say, even arts and manual arts (shop, for Americans playing along at home) classes are more productive as it teaches you some skills.
Actually, it had nothing to do with grades, it was an after school activity.
Not that I would like to abolish phys ed, it's a nice break from classroom based study but placing undue emphasis on it detracts from a real education.
Actually, I'd argue it is an important part of education, if done right. the US has a serious obesity problem that starts at an early age. While there are many causes, it's impact is felt on people's health, well-being, and productivity. If more emphasis was placed on healthily lifestyles as part of the education process we might increase the overall health of our population throughout their lives; giving them skills as useful as math and arts.
In the end, it's as much a part of a well rounded education as any other topic - provided it's done right (which of course is true for any class).
While I am a card carrying nerd, my experience was you're only pigeonholed if you let yourself be. While I really wash't any good at sports, I stuck it out riding the bench for 4 years in high school and earned a varsity letter as a result. I had friends who were jocks as well as nerds. It's all about persistency and determination as silent Cal said.
So all it takes is to send emails to the employees telling them to execute an *.exe file? No wonder the Chinese are able to do it, this thing requires almost no skill, only enough numbers of people churning out emails. I wonder when the Chinese will stop bothering with the malware part, and just ask the employees to upload all the sensitive data.
Actually, you're comment is not that far off the mark. I once was helping a company bring a new product to market, and as part of that would call the potential competitors and ask a whole lot of questions about their products, plans etc. I told them upfront exactly what we were doing - and they still gladly answered my questions. Once I reached the engineers designing the products they would talk my ears off about their product; it also helped that as an engineer I also could talk intelligently with them on a technical basis.
But yes, I would not be surprised if an "Please send me everything about..." got a positive reply.
Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Heh, nice one, but alas that joke seems to be meaningless for modern airliners. It comes from the days of piston-engined airliners, because only piston engines "miss" (misfire in one or more cylinders).
Apparently, after every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a ‘gripe sheet’, which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems; document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humour. Here are some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas’ Pilots and the solutions recorded by maintenance engineers.
Pilots: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
Engineers: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
Pilots: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
Engineers: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
Pilots: Something loose in cockpit.
Engineers: Something tightened in cockpit.
Pilots: Dead bugs on windshield.
Engineers: Live bugs on back-order. Pilots: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
Engineers: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Pilots: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Engineers: Evidence removed.
Pilots: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Engineers: That’s what they’re for.
Pilots: Suspected crack in windshield.
Engineers: Suspect you’re right.
Pilots: Number 3 engine missing.
Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Pilots: Aircraft handles funny.
Engineers: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
Pilots: Target radar hums
Engineers: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
Pilots: Mouse in cockpit.
Engineers: Cat installed. And perhaps, the best Qantas joke Qantas
Pilot: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
I am 8 miles as the crow flies from the nearest airport, plus I have watched these aircraft from a nearby tall hill. They are not doing anything with the nearest airport. I have Flight Simulator X, and in that game 8 miles is plenty of space for even the smallest aircraft to get over 1000 feet. Not to mention that I've been to that airfield, driven by it many times, and never once have I seen a helicopter parked on it.
Even so, the 1000 ft minimum is only over congested areas (a term not defined in the FAR); otherwise it is 500ft. Helicopters, if I recall correctly, actually may operate below the 1000 ft minimum even when fixed wing can't.
Do they track any of the stats regarding the pilots that experience these events? For example, pilots are supposed to fly at least 1000 feet above residential areas. In my area, we regularly have helicopters and small planes no more than a couple hundred feet above our houses and I have observed it is the same frequent offenders every time by writing down the (clearly visible to the naked eye) numbers on the bottom of the aircraft, when such numbers are present. I have attempted to contact local air control authority types but I can't get any more than a voice mail. They are so loud that it shakes my house and I could certainly understand how those who are willing to take the law into their own hands might decide to do whatever is necessary to discourage the pilots from skimming the treetops in their neighborhoods.
First of all, you should report suspected violations to the FAA. A local FSDO handles complaints about low flying a/c.
That said, I've flown small single engine a/c years ago, from a very busy field. People would regularly complain about noise, and we tried to minimize it but sometimes it is not possible to do that - I certainly would not try a takeoff at anything less than full power. I tend to think that was preferably to them than have me barely clearing their roof; I also preferred having some extra clearance between my plane and large, stationary objects attached to the ground. Of course, the houses were built long after the airport so I had little sympathy for the homeowners (even though I also lived in the approach to a major commercial airport and thus understood what it was like to have planes roaring overhead) since they bought their homes knowing a very busy airport was next door.
Part of the problem is some realtors tend to minimize problems by showing homes when they know traffic is light and the biz jets won't be landing or taking off. Of course, once the problem is discovered, people band together to try to get the airport to change - resulting in some nasty fights.
Slashdot Mirror
Tablets are nice but not really a viable solution for most people because of the price.
[[citation needed]], i.e. I call shenanigans.
iPad 2 $500
Well, $500 is a lot of money for many people - and that's only for 16 GB or about 20 hours of video (if you have nothing else on it).
refurbished iPad $300
Out of Stock - all three models
Kindle Fire $200
Another way to put it, since you have a bro-crush on your spinning media, a kindle fire = 8 DVDs. so unless you live in a favela, it's hard to justify the claim "not really viable for most people."
I like the Fire, but with 6GB of expandable memory it's limited as a portable tablet for non-connected use, such as the OP's airplane example. With any of the tablets, the media costs are still incurred; so the 8 DVD reference is irrelevant. More to the point - you can no longer just rent a DVD, get one from the library, etc; now you must plan ahead and rip a selected set. In addition, the cost of ripping in time is a barrier to tablet use; and I don't want to repurchase my DVD collection simply to be able to use it on a tablet.
I think the DVD is going away, but right now it is still the most convenient and common way to distribute video to a broad audience. It's often the cheapest as well, especially with the availability of used, rental, and sale priced media. That's why I think the next step is to slim the see of the in computer DVD mechanism before it finally disappears.
/., by it's nature, attracts people with bro-crushes on the latest tech gadgets (I personally really want a new iPad but am waiting for the next-gen) who tend to forget that "newer" doesn't alway's translated to "better enough to replace the existing in the short term." I think DVD's, from a cost and convenience standpoint, are still the most viable option for most people to use when traveling. Anecdotally, I see more people using them sitting up front than I see iPads or other tablets. That will change, but not in the near term, IMHO.
Handbrake it to MP4 before I leave. And more likely than not, copy it over to a tablet that's easier to hold and watch in cattle class than breaking out a full blown laptop.
Why would I want to waste battery spinning a DVD around?
Most people don't have the time or inclination to rip DVD's to disk - especially if you simply rent them and drop them in the mail or simply rent locally. Or, if you have a full season, it's a pain to rip them them all vs carrying a cd case. In addition, as laptops get thinner and move to SSD disk space becomes more valuable - I can carry a broader selection with me than I can if I rip it to disk.
Tablets are nice but not really a viable solution for most people because of the price.
I think optical drives are on the way out - but we may see them around for a while especially if Apple decides to build one of the ultra-thin concepts they've patented.
Just, for God's sake, don't turn it into one of those "what I did last year and why my little darling is so perfect" letters you always seem to get during the holidays.
It would help if you provided some more details about what you are trying to do. What sort of statistics re you looking to analyze? or are you juts collecting statistics such as average number saved, variations by month, etc. From your post it sounds like you are looking more for activity statistics than statistical analysis; in which car a stat package would just add unneeded complication to your efforts.
A stat package isn't going to make it any easier to analyze the data; it'll just make it easier to generate results based on large data sets. With Excel, I've found it easier to break down the analysis into separate spreadsheet and then link to get results in one sheet. This cuts down calculation time since you are not dealing with a large amount of data in one worksheet.
So now we're defending arbitrary, silly, and unenforceable TOS and EULAs! Glad to get that cleared up!
Troops! ABOUT-FACE! March! Yes Sir!
We're simply following the /. TOS
1 Anything we like is good; unless it is used in a way we don't like or by MS
2 Logic is forbidden
IANAL, but here's how a real lawyer explained it to me at a previous company:
While once you know something is likely to be used in a legal action you can't destroy it; it is perfectly fine to routine destroy material that you don't want to have to share. If you routinely delete all messages once every 30 days, for example, on an ongoing basis, then you aren't try to destroy evidence since it hasn't yet become an issue in a legal proceeding. Once you reasonably would know it may become evidence, you can't destroy it; and must stop any routine destruction activity.
We routinely, as soon as the final report came out, destroyed all our working papers and the floppies that contained them. Sensitive topics were not discussed via email. In our case, it was a written policy.
There are of course, exceptions to that - if you were engaging in criminal activities the courts may take a different view of your actions.
Moral issues aside, one only compounds the stupidity of using Facebook for illicit activities and keeping the messages instead of deleting them right away.
Facebook could, of course, be ordered to turnover the deleted messages; but I would think they would fight such an order since it would potentially open them to becoming a virtual repository of evidence that they would have to retain forever at great cost to store and retrieve.
90% believe in a god, 55% believe they are protected by guardian angels, 54% believe in psychic abilities, 41% believe in demonic/devil possession.
People believe in a lot of really dumb things.
I believe I'll have another beer...
I have a different theory than the author's "death march" one: Public school is a hidebound, bureaucratic, union-strangled monstrosity that does little to nothing to prepare people for the real world. As a result, when these same students hit college and the "hard" sciences, the result is the same as a tomato hitting a brick wall at speed. I used to be an engineering instructor, and I saw it all the time. It's one of the primary reasons that many colleges require freshman "remedial" courses upon entry, to get the students caught-up on subjects the students should have learned in public school.
True, but a major cause of that was the US deciding that end of course testing should be used to measure a school's quality, and hence class room instructing becomes aimed at ensuring students do well on the tests. Things like challenging them and getting them to learn to think are secondary to passing the tests. Teachers worry about their jobs, administrators about school funding, and good schools are forced to take kids, from "failing" schools, who often are several grade levels below where they should be in math and reading. Couple that with a general disdain for teaching (I know a teacher who was told by a parent "What do you do to earn your salary?" because their child - who doesn't do the homework, fails to pay attention in class, lies to the parent about attending study sessions the teacher set up to help the kid, etc - is failing.) and you have a system that is badly broken.
Why is there such emphasis on university degrees in the job market? I understood that employers liked to hire university grads for certain jobs because employes knew these people could learn things on their own, enjoyed learning, and in general wanted to do a good work. I later realized that a university education had class implications and employers often want employees from certain social classes. But there is nothing wrong with vocational school, training courses, or even learning on the job. Why try to pump a quarter of your population through the university system when the needs of many of the students (and their future employers,) would be as well or better served by other avenues of learning?
Signaling. A college degree tels an employer you are trainable and have the drive to slog it out through four years of college. It doesn't make you any smarter or more capable than someone else; but it does make the selection prices easier for an employer. Hence, a college degree becomes an entry requirement.
That carries through to the graduate level as well - a top student at a non-top ten business school is every bit as bright and capable as a counter part at a top 10 school (and probably smarter than the bottom half at a top school); but lacks the "pedigree" and so faces a tougher job market. Smart companies realize they can hire the top grads at a lesser known school for less money.
"and 100,000 new teachers with majors in science, technology, engineering and math"
Good luck with that. A large majority with the skills to learn said fields is probably going to laugh at a teacher's salary.
Very true. A while back I worked with a school district and one of the administrators said he can't hire math and science teachers. Anyone with the a math or science degree can make 2x as much in private industry - and so no one is interested in a teaching job.,/P>
Part of the solution lies in getting private industry to realize that a lack of qualified teachers hurts them - and convince them that they can help by offering grants to schools to pay teachers more and thus attract qualified teachers in math and science. Offering to pay off loans is another way to make teaching more attractive. Some colleges offer reduced tuition for professors and staff children - why not extend that below the college level as well? There are ways to make teaching attractive.
In the end it comes down to priorities - my school district pays coaches a bonus and they can't be moved to another school. While I think sports and and cheerleading have a place in school, the pay structure points out what is valued by the community. (Much of the tab is picked up by the booster club - and our HS has better facilities than some small colleges). Until we value math and science we'll get what we pay for in overall educational quality. I know some really great math and science teachers, but most would not encourage a kid who has the aptitude to go into teaching.
When you look at TV, you also see that most programs glamorise lawyers, cops, doctors and sports stars. When was the last TV show that starred an engineer and made it look like a great thing to do? Even in Star Trek, Scotty was a secondary character.
Big Bang Theory. While it does play on stereotypes (Duh 0 it's a comedy) - it does so in a way that makes the engineer and 3 scientists characters appealing. they actually have lives and girlfriends (or at least a girl who is a friend but not a girlfriend). Sure, they don't save the world every day but the show takes the stereotypes and presents them in a way that makes the characters appealing.
You can get a more powerful 6 core westmere for 599. That takes it down to 1600, and that's significant.
The only Westmere I could find at that price was the W3670. I tried to find some benchmarks that would let me compare real world performance vs the Mac Pro (such as photoshop, office based benchmarks) but could find none. It seems to be a decent, if unimpressive CPU (then again the iMac is probably a better machine than the Pro right now - but that includes a monitor and would not been a fair comparison for the OP's claim); but even with it it doesn't approach the OP's claim of a high end PC for about 1/2 the price of a Mac.
The mac pro line is pretty old (and over-priced, IMHO, when compared to the iMacs) some I'm not surprised you can build a system for less; I just find the OP's claim a bit suspect. It would be even harder to do for a current high end iMac - especially when you match the display, let alone a "better" one.
I routinely build high end PC's for about 1/2 the price of comparable Macs - and the machines I build have better components.
Care to price one out, to say a low end Mac Pro at @ $2500?
I get with a quick google search for components:
One$250 processor - $1220
ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB - $175
1 TB HD - $70
DVD Drive - $30
Wireless Keyboard and mouse - $100
Corsair case - $150
PS - (Antec) $125
3 GB of memory - $60
MB - $250
About $2160 before the OS. So while it is cheaper - it's hardly half the cost; especially since the processor alone lists at Newegg for half the cost of the Mac pro. Sure - you might be able to save some money on the components by being cheaper products but then you aren't getting "better components".
China is complaining that it is not getting a fair share of the profits/prices. It claims more than 90% of the profits and 60% of the expenses happen outside China. Design jobs, liability insurance, warehousing, IP protection, software creation etc happen outside China. Only the brute manufacturing happens in India and China. (Surprised to learn Foxconn factory in my hometown in India is making the glass for all iPhones).
It actually strengthens your argument, "Apple could do more manufacturing in USA and still not have a huge impact on the cost of the product or bottom line". It probably will have more reliable protection of key technologies if made where trade secrets and manufacturing IP could be protected. But still it chooses to make it China.
They manufacture there because labor costs are much cheaper and they have none of the other costs associated with manufacturing in the US (payroll taxes, environmental laws, etc) that add to the costs. bringing that manufacturing here would add a lot to the costs - resulting in either a significant hit to the bottom line or much higher prices.
China is whining because they realize that they need to get more of the higher value work if they way to continue to grow their economy. At some point, someone else will be cheaper - either less developed parts of China or other 3rd world countries. They saw what Korea and Japan did as China took away manufacturing and they realize they must do the same.
Apple's playing it right - do the low profit work, that is easily transplanted as need, elsewhere where it's cheap and do the real money work at home.
Actually, it's not. Science and faith can coexist quite nicely since they really consider two different questions - the how (science) and why (faith). One can be a good scientist regardless of one's views on faith. Some religions certainly are anti - science but that does not mean all are; as Haught's viewpoint illustrates.
Doesn't science cover how (observation) and why (theory)?
Only in the very narrow context of the scientific method - which it answers as part of the larger "How does this happen" question I referred to. Faith seeks to answer to the broader "Why does this happen" question - from a philosophical, not scientific - POV. That "why" is unprovable (which is why it is faith, not science) but not in conflict with science. A person can chose to answer the why question however they want - God, random chance, the great flying spaghetti monster - without lessening or contradicting the scientific explanations. Some people try to use their beliefs to discredit science - out of a mistaken hypothesis that understanding science somehow diminishes their God - but that is Religion (with all it's trappings and problems its caused), not faith. Unfortunately, many people find it hard to separate the two (faith and Religion). Similarly, some scientists seem to think that faith somehow threatens science; a position I do not hold.
The definition of theology as the study of religion supports my argument. Why even bother studying Religion? It's the complete antithesis of science.
Actually, it's not. Science and faith can coexist quite nicely since they really consider two different questions - the how (science) and why (faith). One can be a good scientist regardless of one's views on faith. Some religions certainly are anti - science but that does not mean all are; as Haught's viewpoint illustrates.
A Theologist should have no more respect that someone who studies the writings of any other work of fiction. It's on a par with the study of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien or Lewis Carroll. Theology has no practical value except one; it's a useful tool for the Clergy to separate fools from their money and to keep them in line.
Your comment illustrates, IMHO, why the science / religion debate is pointless. People on both sides refuse to hear and understand the other's point of view; rather than debate they ridicule and attack. Of course, since I think the two positions are not polar opposites nor even in the same arena I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
While I really wash't any good at sports, I stuck it out riding the bench for 4 years in high school and earned a varsity letter as a result..
Why is this "varsity letter" important?
This exemplifies what is wrong with the thought behind US education. Why is phys ed (what we call sports education here in OZ) important to your grades? After year 10 (last year of mandatory schooling) it's 100% optional. Even before then, it's 2 hours a week out of 30. Why is such an emphasis placed on physical education compared to science, mathematics, literacy and social studies (history, geography, political and social sciences) which monopolised most of the time in Australian schools. I have to say, even arts and manual arts (shop, for Americans playing along at home) classes are more productive as it teaches you some skills.
Actually, it had nothing to do with grades, it was an after school activity.
Not that I would like to abolish phys ed, it's a nice break from classroom based study but placing undue emphasis on it detracts from a real education.
Actually, I'd argue it is an important part of education, if done right. the US has a serious obesity problem that starts at an early age. While there are many causes, it's impact is felt on people's health, well-being, and productivity. If more emphasis was placed on healthily lifestyles as part of the education process we might increase the overall health of our population throughout their lives; giving them skills as useful as math and arts.
In the end, it's as much a part of a well rounded education as any other topic - provided it's done right (which of course is true for any class).
While I am a card carrying nerd, my experience was you're only pigeonholed if you let yourself be. While I really wash't any good at sports, I stuck it out riding the bench for 4 years in high school and earned a varsity letter as a result. I had friends who were jocks as well as nerds. It's all about persistency and determination as silent Cal said.
So all it takes is to send emails to the employees telling them to execute an *.exe file? No wonder the Chinese are able to do it, this thing requires almost no skill, only enough numbers of people churning out emails. I wonder when the Chinese will stop bothering with the malware part, and just ask the employees to upload all the sensitive data.
Actually, you're comment is not that far off the mark. I once was helping a company bring a new product to market, and as part of that would call the potential competitors and ask a whole lot of questions about their products, plans etc. I told them upfront exactly what we were doing - and they still gladly answered my questions. Once I reached the engineers designing the products they would talk my ears off about their product; it also helped that as an engineer I also could talk intelligently with them on a technical basis.
But yes, I would not be surprised if an "Please send me everything about..." got a positive reply.
Pilots: Number 3 engine missing.
Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Heh, nice one, but alas that joke seems to be meaningless for modern airliners. It comes from the days of piston-engined airliners, because only piston engines "miss" (misfire in one or more cylinders).
True, but it is still funny, IMHO.
Pilots: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
Engineers: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
Pilots: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
Engineers: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
Pilots: Something loose in cockpit.
Engineers: Something tightened in cockpit.
Pilots: Dead bugs on windshield.
Engineers: Live bugs on back-order. Pilots: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
Engineers: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Pilots: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Engineers: Evidence removed.
Pilots: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Engineers: That’s what they’re for.
Pilots: Suspected crack in windshield.
Engineers: Suspect you’re right.
Pilots: Number 3 engine missing.
Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Pilots: Aircraft handles funny.
Engineers: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
Pilots: Target radar hums
Engineers: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
Pilots: Mouse in cockpit.
Engineers: Cat installed. And perhaps, the best Qantas joke Qantas
Pilot: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
Engineers: Took hammer away from midget
QANTAS has at least 12 fatal no-jet a/c accidents.
I am 8 miles as the crow flies from the nearest airport, plus I have watched these aircraft from a nearby tall hill. They are not doing anything with the nearest airport. I have Flight Simulator X, and in that game 8 miles is plenty of space for even the smallest aircraft to get over 1000 feet. Not to mention that I've been to that airfield, driven by it many times, and never once have I seen a helicopter parked on it.
Even so, the 1000 ft minimum is only over congested areas (a term not defined in the FAR); otherwise it is 500ft. Helicopters, if I recall correctly, actually may operate below the 1000 ft minimum even when fixed wing can't.
Do they track any of the stats regarding the pilots that experience these events? For example, pilots are supposed to fly at least 1000 feet above residential areas. In my area, we regularly have helicopters and small planes no more than a couple hundred feet above our houses and I have observed it is the same frequent offenders every time by writing down the (clearly visible to the naked eye) numbers on the bottom of the aircraft, when such numbers are present. I have attempted to contact local air control authority types but I can't get any more than a voice mail. They are so loud that it shakes my house and I could certainly understand how those who are willing to take the law into their own hands might decide to do whatever is necessary to discourage the pilots from skimming the treetops in their neighborhoods.
First of all, you should report suspected violations to the FAA. A local FSDO handles complaints about low flying a/c.
That said, I've flown small single engine a/c years ago, from a very busy field. People would regularly complain about noise, and we tried to minimize it but sometimes it is not possible to do that - I certainly would not try a takeoff at anything less than full power. I tend to think that was preferably to them than have me barely clearing their roof; I also preferred having some extra clearance between my plane and large, stationary objects attached to the ground. Of course, the houses were built long after the airport so I had little sympathy for the homeowners (even though I also lived in the approach to a major commercial airport and thus understood what it was like to have planes roaring overhead) since they bought their homes knowing a very busy airport was next door.
Part of the problem is some realtors tend to minimize problems by showing homes when they know traffic is light and the biz jets won't be landing or taking off. Of course, once the problem is discovered, people band together to try to get the airport to change - resulting in some nasty fights.
http://www.system76.com/
System76 is the closest your going to get to a Apple experience with Linux.
Right down to there site - looks like it was also heavily inspired by the Apple experience.