You just don't see them that often because people don't want them. The PC market provides what people demand. Apple provides what's Apple wants to sell.
This is free market, right? If Apple did not offer products that consumers did not want, their sales would tank. But looking at their sales, they seem to be offering pretty desireable products.
Um... You can get both a 13" and 15" Mac laptop with integrated graphics. The addition of integrated graphics in the 15" form factor was one of the things I liked about the last refresh. Even if you get a higher end 15" model or the 17" model you still get integrated graphics in addition to the discrete graphics so while you can't avoid the cost of the discrete graphics on these higher end systems you don't need to suffer the battery penalty discrete graphics brings.
If you don't want discrete graphics, you could always leave it unused. The models with discrete graphics also had integrated graphics, so you could use that instead.
Why would someone for whom a $599 Dell is sufficient want to pay $1,150 for the cheapest MacBook?
If $599 Dell is sufficient for your needs, great! But it's not comparable to the $1150 MBP. MBP might cost more, but it's also more pleasant to use. I have tried out those uber-cheap lapstops. They look and feel cheap. They are clumsy, big and heavy.
The Dell (or whatever) might be cheap. But using it would not be a pleasant experience. I'm willing to pay extra for a computer that is enjoyable to use and lasts for a long time.
I own an iPhone because Safari is pretty much the best mobile browser in a phone out there and because the app store is fantastic.
It doesn't even support Flash/Javascript like the browser on my Nokia does:/.
So? At least the browser on my Nokia E71 is utter crap. I might use it if I'm desperate, but there's no way in hell I would use it for casual browsing. But the browser on my iPod touch is very, very good. Hell, I bet that I do most of my browsing with my iPod these days! Even when I'm at home.
Just because Nokia-browser supports some buzzwords does not mean that it's actually a better browser.
Exactly. If we look at cars VAG makes, they range from Skoda Fabia to Bugatti Veyron. Hell, both Fabia and Veyron has four wheel and internal combustion engine, so by that logic they must be more or less identical?
Monopoly? No. By latest estimates they have about 75% of the mp3-player market. 75% is not a monopoly and Apple has no "stranglehold". There are plenty of competitors both in players and marketplaces (many of those marketplaces are interoperable even, like Amazon). And the music sold in iTunes is interoperable as well (video is not, however).
Palm is doing what is necessary to provide compatibility.
Bullshit. Palm could do what RIM or Microsoft does: write their own syncing-software that scrapes the iTunes-libary and makes it available for syncing to the device. Of course that would require that Palm writes their own software, as opposed to leeching software made by others....
If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that, and to sue Apple and USB-IF if they continue the cat-and-mouse game.
There's nothing stopping Palm from using the iTunes-library for syncing. It's just a bunch of files and folder on the HD. They could write their own software that uses those files and folders in syncing the device.
They're going to end up with an anti-trust suit if they persist.
Since Apple is not a monopoly, I fail to see how they could end up in court over this.
Actually I was saying that the iPod is an overpriced, shiny toy with fewer features than many of its competitors.
If that is the case, why does iPod have 75% market-share? And don't give me that BS about advertising or something like that. Could it be because those other players are cheap and flimsy pieces of shit? Sure, they might have all the features you could possibly ever want, but their UI's are crap, and their design is crap. Who cares about zillion features if those features are tedious and cumbersome to use?
If iPod has 75% market-share, then obviously the buying public does not think that they are overpriced. If iPod had a tiny market-share, then you might be on to something.
The iPod just has that je ne sais quoi/popular cool factor that makes people want it, not because it's better on features or price.
Why do people want to have one? Do you really think that they want to have it because they see a bunch of dancing silhouettes on an ad? Did it ever occur to you that there's more to mp3-players that just features and price?
Every now and then a 'designer' unveils a jacket or whatever with some kind of technology built into it (for the past ten years at least), and says that its 'new' and 'amazing' or whatever, and that its going to change the world.
IT WON'T. People DON'T WANT that stuff built-in to their clothing. It's uneconomic to build that stuff in to clothing.
Patria is a defence and aerospace-company. So you wont be seeing this technology on some average jeans, but you might see it in military flight-vests, uniforms and the like.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
None of which has anything to do with cancer.
So it's OK for second hand smoke to cause all kinds of health-problems, as long as it doesn't cause cancer? Gotcha.
Everything contains carcinogens. Including that burger you grilled.
And by that logic we should just agree to be exposed to even more carcinogens?
Could you explain me why the smoke from the cigarette is dangerous when the smoker inhales it, but it's NOT dangerous when that very smoke smoke is spread in the smokers immediate surroundings?
I wouldn't argue that anyone should be trapped in an enclosed space with a smoker.
Why not? After all, second hand smoke causes no danger, right?
Smoking bans in public places are a good idea. Smoking bans in private establishments are not.
FInland banned smoking in restaurants and nightclubs, and it has worked out well. Non-smoking clients (which was about 80% of all clients) are overjoyed, and the remaining 20% complained but adapted. And many smokers were happy as well, when they discovered that their clothes didn't smell like shit anymore after a night out clubbing.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.
"The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."
"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."
"Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."
"Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades."
And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!
And even if we assume that there is no risk when exposed to second hand smoke, what rights do smokers have to expose others to smoke that smells like shit, makes clothes smell like shit, makes other cough and generally feel bad etc. etc.? By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway. Sure, it might smell bad, but there's no harm, right? Therefore others have no right to tell me what to do.
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 1
WTF do you people do? "Hey, look! A smoker! Let's go stand next to him!" Do you really encounter enough people smoking on a daily basis that you feel it's negatively impacting your health?
Um, yes? Bus-stops, train-stations (even when there are big fat "NO SMOKING"-signs everywhere!), streets. Hell, even at home! My neighbour smokes constantly, and quite often the smoke carries over to our place. But hey, I could always move, right?
Worst example I saw was a couple smoking in their car with windows closed. On the backseat they had a baby strapped in to a safety-seat. Needless to say the car was filled with smoke... WTF people?!?!?!
Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it.
Someone talking on the phone might be annoying, but it does not actively harm the people around him. Unlike smoking. Please try to come up with valid comparisons, OK?
Re:Do we need the anti-smoking jab
on
A Geek Funeral
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.
And the solution of in making sure you don't get robbed in the street is to make sure that you are not near any robbers?
Instead of that, how about making sure that smokers don't smoke when there are non-smokers nearby? Why do the smokers have the greater right to pollute their immediate surroundings, instead of non-smokers rights of enjoying air that is not filled with carcinogens?
Smokers right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, that would mean banning smoking in public places.
Because the op I responded to said "Signed, all of Europe." You can follow along can't you
Talking about entire Europe is dumb. And I bet that even the person talking about "all of Europe" was most likely talking about EU, as opposed to talking about places like Georgia.
NO, it's the I can pull useless numbers out of real ones and pretend they are significant too argument.
The significant number here is the number of cars when compared to number of people. You then tarted talking about geographic and the like. And now when that argument does not work, you start to backpedal....
No, actually, that's your logic.
No it's not. Your argument of "cars per square mile" is totally retarded. I have NEVER seen anyone make that comparison when talking about these issues.
I made a connection to the area of the country/group and the amount of cars to get people around in it. Population density and cars do not have a direct connection. Neither does area/car.
Then why are you doing area/car-comparisons here?
And Finland is not Europe, it's Finland.
But your "theory" should work in FInland as well? And why could we compare "Europe" to USA but not Finland?
No, it is not. Difference of 76% is not "about the same"
Yes, it is. When you consider usage. your grasping for straws and it isn't working.
Anyone who claims that difference of 76% is "about the same" is a retard. The only one grasping at straws around here is you.
And yet, there are plenty of people there enjoying their lives with cars just fine. What's your point.
That you do not need cars to enjoy life? Duh! Sure, you can have a car and enjoy life, I never made any claims that lack of cars is required for happy life. Hell, I own a car as well! But you do not NEED one to enjoy life.
The op I replied to made an absolute statement that Europe didn't need cars.
Then he's either a retard, or he was talking about EU, as opposed to talking about all of Europe which stretches to the Urals.
I showed that wasn't the case and in fact, usage is pretty similar to the US.
It's still not "pretty similar".... Difference of 76% is not "about the same". Would you mind paying 76% more taxes? After all, isn't it "about the same", right?
Some people need/want cars, some do not.
And people in EU needs cars less than they do in USA. And don't start with the size/cars comparison, since that's bullshit.
For one, the EU is not Europe. I didn't make a claim for just part of Europe, I made the claim for all of Europe in general.
Wh Europe? Why not whole of Eurasia? Why the arbitary selection? Fact remains that EU matches USA in lifestyle and purchasing-power better than whole of Europe does.
For two, considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a cars as many people in the EU.
IS this the "population-density"-argument? Fine, let's play that game:
Population-density in USA: 31/km2 Population-density in Finland: 16/km2
So, population-density is 50% of that of USA. So by your logic there should be more cars in Finland than there is in USA: Yet that is not the case.
As for about the same, it is about the same.
No, it is not. Difference of 76% is not "about the same"
The differences in car ownership in Europe has more to do with the expense then people magically not needing them to enjoy life.
Yet they are enjoying their lives just fine without cars....
But don't you think those old cars have a certain something that makes them worth taking care of?[/quote]
Just about all old items have certain value in them, even if that value is not monetary. But again: for every "great item" from the past, there's dozens of items not worth a damn.
[quote]I drive a 2000 Mitsubishi Colt (Mirage for all you 'Merkins) and I seriously doubt that in forty years time there will be a single one left.[/quote]
And there were lots of crappy cars in the fifties that are more or less vanished from the face of the planet. So what's your point?
Besides, in 50 years your Mitsubishi Colt would also be a rare car, and that rarity would also make it valuable.
Perhaps you need a definition for about as many. I didn't say it was exact, and nothing you linked to proved other then it wasn't exact. Outside the increased costs of owning a car in Europe, there is surprisingly high usage numbers comparable to the US.
There are 229.500.000 cars in USA. In comparison, there are 211.600.000 cars in EU. Let's do some calculations:
There are 307,497,000 people living in the USA. So that's 74.6 cars for every 100 people.
There are 499,794,855 people living in the EU. So that's 42.3 cars per 100 people.
That's a quite a difference. The per-capita figure for USA is about 76% higher than the figure for the EU. Increase of 76% is NOT "about the same".
And no-one expected a Bel-Air to last 51 yeas either. If they did, why do we have all these complaints about wrecking a car that is so rare? Could it be that overwhelming majority of 51 year old Bel-Airs are in the heap, and only few are still around? I bet same thing applies to modern cars in 50 years. Overwhelming majority are gone, and few remain.
People look at old things and think "they build those things to last!", while they fail to understand that most of them have failed over time, and only handful remain. And since the thing in question (be it car, radio or whatever) is so rare, the few remaining are taken good care of, giving us the illusion that they are somehow more durable.
"replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" = multitudinous connector types + 1;
That would be true of most companies. But this is Apple we're talking about. They nearly went out of business back in 1997 because they got rid of standard serial/keyboard/mouse/parallel/SCSI connectors and replaced them with USB (and occasionally Firewire).
What exactly makes you think that Apple went nearly bankrupt (they didn't) because they dropped legacy-ports? Besides, if Apple went nearly bankrupt in 1997, I fail to see how it applies, since it was the iMac that dropped legacy technology (floppy, and only expansion-ports it had were USB). iMac was released in 1998.... And last time I checked, it was pretty popular....
So the whole "Doomsday Machine" thing was an automated system based on ground sensors to launch the missiles in case US attacks.
I still wonder were alive in this world after all the shit humans have pulled off... Wonder whats next.
Not quite. First of all, it had to be turned specificly on. By default it was off, and therefore did nothing. If it were turned on, it would start monitoring USSR for signs of nuclear attack (sudden rise in temperature, radiation etc.). If it detected those signs, it would try to communicate with Soviet high command. If communications worked, it would do nothing. If communications did not work, it would assume that the high command had been neutralized. At that point the person manning the system would have the power to launch the missiles. If he decided to do so, the first missiles to launch were special command missiles, that would radio other remaining nukes to launch at their predetermined targets.
So it's not like the system could all of a suddenly decide to launch missiles on it's own.
This is why the Japanese have been stuck in a recession since 1990. They like to buy all these shiny-new gadgets, even if they make no sense economically.
The reason why Japan has been in a recession is because Japanese are unproductive workers. It sounds crazy, but it's true:
The Finnish Army has a training-area in Northern Finland. The area is HUGE, and they use it (among other things) artillery-practice with live rounds. Quite often a flock of reindeers wanders in to the target-area... Apparently the resulting mess is a good way to demonstrate the effect of artillery-barrages on living targets.
Actually, no. The only thing he got from the US was trucks.
So he was supported by USA? besides, Wikipedia sez this:
"In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying "dual-use" equipment and vehicles."
I think this would be a good time to stop your revisionism....
Your attempting to say the US sponsored 9/11 because two of the hijackers went to American schools. It's just wrong.
I'm not claiming that USA sponsored 9/11. But maybe we wouldn't have the problem with militant islam if USA had handled it's support properly?
I think we're going around in circles here. Let's get back to basics. It is wrong for the BBC to claim to be impartial and then not be impartial about contentious issues.[/quote]
Like I said: by that logic BBC should spend considerable airtime telling about positive qualities of Osama bin Laden.
And is global warming really "contentious"?
It is wrong for the BBC to use our tax money to broadcast propaganda.
So shoudl the be silent? Should they devote equal airtime to deniers, even though they are an onverwheliming minority in the scientific community? I guess BBC should alsu run documentaries about how moon-landings were faked, since some people think that they were faked?
they are reporting what the Government says, and using our money to do it, while falsely claiming to be impartial.
I always thought that they are reporting what the scientist are reporting.... And maybe, just maybe the government is also reporting what the scientists are reporting?
Should BBC always take the opposite viewpoint than what the government is saying? What if there is a legion of scientiest telling them somethine, should they refuse to report that, just because the government is also reporting the same thing?
Slashdot Mirror
You just don't see them that often because people don't want them. The PC market provides what people demand. Apple provides what's Apple wants to sell.
This is free market, right? If Apple did not offer products that consumers did not want, their sales would tank. But looking at their sales, they seem to be offering pretty desireable products.
Um... You can get both a 13" and 15" Mac laptop with integrated graphics. The addition of integrated graphics in the 15" form factor was one of the things I liked about the last refresh. Even if you get a higher end 15" model or the 17" model you still get integrated graphics in addition to the discrete graphics so while you can't avoid the cost of the discrete graphics on these higher end systems you don't need to suffer the battery penalty discrete graphics brings.
If you don't want discrete graphics, you could always leave it unused. The models with discrete graphics also had integrated graphics, so you could use that instead.
Why would someone for whom a $599 Dell is sufficient want to pay $1,150 for the cheapest MacBook?
If $599 Dell is sufficient for your needs, great! But it's not comparable to the $1150 MBP. MBP might cost more, but it's also more pleasant to use. I have tried out those uber-cheap lapstops. They look and feel cheap. They are clumsy, big and heavy.
The Dell (or whatever) might be cheap. But using it would not be a pleasant experience. I'm willing to pay extra for a computer that is enjoyable to use and lasts for a long time.
It doesn't even support Flash/Javascript like the browser on my Nokia does :/.
So? At least the browser on my Nokia E71 is utter crap. I might use it if I'm desperate, but there's no way in hell I would use it for casual browsing. But the browser on my iPod touch is very, very good. Hell, I bet that I do most of my browsing with my iPod these days! Even when I'm at home.
Just because Nokia-browser supports some buzzwords does not mean that it's actually a better browser.
Exactly. If we look at cars VAG makes, they range from Skoda Fabia to Bugatti Veyron. Hell, both Fabia and Veyron has four wheel and internal combustion engine, so by that logic they must be more or less identical?
Monopoly? No. By latest estimates they have about 75% of the mp3-player market. 75% is not a monopoly and Apple has no "stranglehold". There are plenty of competitors both in players and marketplaces (many of those marketplaces are interoperable even, like Amazon). And the music sold in iTunes is interoperable as well (video is not, however).
Palm is doing what is necessary to provide compatibility.
Bullshit. Palm could do what RIM or Microsoft does: write their own syncing-software that scrapes the iTunes-libary and makes it available for syncing to the device. Of course that would require that Palm writes their own software, as opposed to leeching software made by others....
If Apple and USB Interoperability Forum have worked to make the system deliberately incompatible, Palm has the legal right to circumvent that, and to sue Apple and USB-IF if they continue the cat-and-mouse game.
There's nothing stopping Palm from using the iTunes-library for syncing. It's just a bunch of files and folder on the HD. They could write their own software that uses those files and folders in syncing the device.
They're going to end up with an anti-trust suit if they persist.
Since Apple is not a monopoly, I fail to see how they could end up in court over this.
Actually I was saying that the iPod is an overpriced, shiny toy with fewer features than many of its competitors.
If that is the case, why does iPod have 75% market-share? And don't give me that BS about advertising or something like that. Could it be because those other players are cheap and flimsy pieces of shit? Sure, they might have all the features you could possibly ever want, but their UI's are crap, and their design is crap. Who cares about zillion features if those features are tedious and cumbersome to use?
If iPod has 75% market-share, then obviously the buying public does not think that they are overpriced. If iPod had a tiny market-share, then you might be on to something.
The iPod just has that je ne sais quoi/popular cool factor that makes people want it, not because it's better on features or price.
Why do people want to have one? Do you really think that they want to have it because they see a bunch of dancing silhouettes on an ad? Did it ever occur to you that there's more to mp3-players that just features and price?
Every now and then a 'designer' unveils a jacket or whatever with some kind of technology built into it (for the past ten years at least), and says that its 'new' and 'amazing' or whatever, and that its going to change the world.
IT WON'T. People DON'T WANT that stuff built-in to their clothing. It's uneconomic to build that stuff in to clothing.
Patria is a defence and aerospace-company. So you wont be seeing this technology on some average jeans, but you might see it in military flight-vests, uniforms and the like.
None of which has anything to do with cancer.
So it's OK for second hand smoke to cause all kinds of health-problems, as long as it doesn't cause cancer? Gotcha.
Everything contains carcinogens. Including that burger you grilled.
And by that logic we should just agree to be exposed to even more carcinogens?
Could you explain me why the smoke from the cigarette is dangerous when the smoker inhales it, but it's NOT dangerous when that very smoke smoke is spread in the smokers immediate surroundings?
I wouldn't argue that anyone should be trapped in an enclosed space with a smoker.
Why not? After all, second hand smoke causes no danger, right?
Smoking bans in public places are a good idea. Smoking bans in private establishments are not.
FInland banned smoking in restaurants and nightclubs, and it has worked out well. Non-smoking clients (which was about 80% of all clients) are overjoyed, and the remaining 20% complained but adapted. And many smokers were happy as well, when they discovered that their clothes didn't smell like shit anymore after a night out clubbing.
No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
"The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."
"Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen)."
"Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide."
"Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades."
And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!
And even if we assume that there is no risk when exposed to second hand smoke, what rights do smokers have to expose others to smoke that smells like shit, makes clothes smell like shit, makes other cough and generally feel bad etc. etc.? By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway. Sure, it might smell bad, but there's no harm, right? Therefore others have no right to tell me what to do.
WTF do you people do? "Hey, look! A smoker! Let's go stand next to him!" Do you really encounter enough people smoking on a daily basis that you feel it's negatively impacting your health?
Um, yes? Bus-stops, train-stations (even when there are big fat "NO SMOKING"-signs everywhere!), streets. Hell, even at home! My neighbour smokes constantly, and quite often the smoke carries over to our place. But hey, I could always move, right?
Worst example I saw was a couple smoking in their car with windows closed. On the backseat they had a baby strapped in to a safety-seat. Needless to say the car was filled with smoke... WTF people?!?!?!
Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it.
Someone talking on the phone might be annoying, but it does not actively harm the people around him. Unlike smoking. Please try to come up with valid comparisons, OK?
Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.
And the solution of in making sure you don't get robbed in the street is to make sure that you are not near any robbers?
Instead of that, how about making sure that smokers don't smoke when there are non-smokers nearby? Why do the smokers have the greater right to pollute their immediate surroundings, instead of non-smokers rights of enjoying air that is not filled with carcinogens?
Smokers right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, that would mean banning smoking in public places.
Because the op I responded to said "Signed, all of Europe." You can follow along can't you
Talking about entire Europe is dumb. And I bet that even the person talking about "all of Europe" was most likely talking about EU, as opposed to talking about places like Georgia.
NO, it's the I can pull useless numbers out of real ones and pretend they are significant too argument.
The significant number here is the number of cars when compared to number of people. You then tarted talking about geographic and the like. And now when that argument does not work, you start to backpedal....
No, actually, that's your logic.
No it's not. Your argument of "cars per square mile" is totally retarded. I have NEVER seen anyone make that comparison when talking about these issues.
I made a connection to the area of the country/group and the amount of cars to get people around in it. Population density and cars do not have a direct connection. Neither does area/car.
Then why are you doing area/car-comparisons here?
And Finland is not Europe, it's Finland.
But your "theory" should work in FInland as well? And why could we compare "Europe" to USA but not Finland?
Yes, it is. When you consider usage. your grasping for straws and it isn't working.
Anyone who claims that difference of 76% is "about the same" is a retard. The only one grasping at straws around here is you.
And yet, there are plenty of people there enjoying their lives with cars just fine. What's your point.
That you do not need cars to enjoy life? Duh! Sure, you can have a car and enjoy life, I never made any claims that lack of cars is required for happy life. Hell, I own a car as well! But you do not NEED one to enjoy life.
The op I replied to made an absolute statement that Europe didn't need cars.
Then he's either a retard, or he was talking about EU, as opposed to talking about all of Europe which stretches to the Urals.
I showed that wasn't the case and in fact, usage is pretty similar to the US.
It's still not "pretty similar".... Difference of 76% is not "about the same". Would you mind paying 76% more taxes? After all, isn't it "about the same", right?
Some people need/want cars, some do not.
And people in EU needs cars less than they do in USA. And don't start with the size/cars comparison, since that's bullshit.
For one, the EU is not Europe. I didn't make a claim for just part of Europe, I made the claim for all of Europe in general.
Wh Europe? Why not whole of Eurasia? Why the arbitary selection? Fact remains that EU matches USA in lifestyle and purchasing-power better than whole of Europe does.
For two, considering that the EU is geographically smaller then the US by about 2,124,259 square miles (56.6% smaller), there is less need for a cars as many people in the EU.
IS this the "population-density"-argument? Fine, let's play that game:
Population-density in USA: 31/km2
Population-density in Finland: 16/km2
So, population-density is 50% of that of USA. So by your logic there should be more cars in Finland than there is in USA: Yet that is not the case.
As for about the same, it is about the same.
No, it is not. Difference of 76% is not "about the same"
The differences in car ownership in Europe has more to do with the expense then people magically not needing them to enjoy life.
Yet they are enjoying their lives just fine without cars....
But don't you think those old cars have a certain something that makes them worth taking care of?[/quote]
Just about all old items have certain value in them, even if that value is not monetary. But again: for every "great item" from the past, there's dozens of items not worth a damn.
[quote]I drive a 2000 Mitsubishi Colt (Mirage for all you 'Merkins) and I seriously doubt that in forty years time there will be a single one left.[/quote]
And there were lots of crappy cars in the fifties that are more or less vanished from the face of the planet. So what's your point?
Besides, in 50 years your Mitsubishi Colt would also be a rare car, and that rarity would also make it valuable.
Perhaps you need a definition for about as many. I didn't say it was exact, and nothing you linked to proved other then it wasn't exact. Outside the increased costs of owning a car in Europe, there is surprisingly high usage numbers comparable to the US.
There are 229.500.000 cars in USA. In comparison, there are 211.600.000 cars in EU. Let's do some calculations:
There are 307,497,000 people living in the USA. So that's 74.6 cars for every 100 people.
There are 499,794,855 people living in the EU. So that's 42.3 cars per 100 people.
That's a quite a difference. The per-capita figure for USA is about 76% higher than the figure for the EU. Increase of 76% is NOT "about the same".
And no-one expected a Bel-Air to last 51 yeas either. If they did, why do we have all these complaints about wrecking a car that is so rare? Could it be that overwhelming majority of 51 year old Bel-Airs are in the heap, and only few are still around? I bet same thing applies to modern cars in 50 years. Overwhelming majority are gone, and few remain.
People look at old things and think "they build those things to last!", while they fail to understand that most of them have failed over time, and only handful remain. And since the thing in question (be it car, radio or whatever) is so rare, the few remaining are taken good care of, giving us the illusion that they are somehow more durable.
"replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" = multitudinous connector types + 1;
That would be true of most companies. But this is Apple we're talking about. They nearly went out of business back in 1997 because they got rid of standard serial/keyboard/mouse/parallel/SCSI connectors and replaced them with USB (and occasionally Firewire).
What exactly makes you think that Apple went nearly bankrupt (they didn't) because they dropped legacy-ports? Besides, if Apple went nearly bankrupt in 1997, I fail to see how it applies, since it was the iMac that dropped legacy technology (floppy, and only expansion-ports it had were USB). iMac was released in 1998.... And last time I checked, it was pretty popular....
So the whole "Doomsday Machine" thing was an automated system based on ground sensors to launch the missiles in case US attacks.
I still wonder were alive in this world after all the shit humans have pulled off... Wonder whats next.
Not quite. First of all, it had to be turned specificly on. By default it was off, and therefore did nothing. If it were turned on, it would start monitoring USSR for signs of nuclear attack (sudden rise in temperature, radiation etc.). If it detected those signs, it would try to communicate with Soviet high command. If communications worked, it would do nothing. If communications did not work, it would assume that the high command had been neutralized. At that point the person manning the system would have the power to launch the missiles. If he decided to do so, the first missiles to launch were special command missiles, that would radio other remaining nukes to launch at their predetermined targets.
So it's not like the system could all of a suddenly decide to launch missiles on it's own.
Plus its proprietary and relatively difficult to setup.
Um, NX is GPL-licensed....
This is why the Japanese have been stuck in a recession since 1990. They like to buy all these shiny-new gadgets, even if they make no sense economically.
The reason why Japan has been in a recession is because Japanese are unproductive workers. It sounds crazy, but it's true:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,395413,00.html
The Finnish Army has a training-area in Northern Finland. The area is HUGE, and they use it (among other things) artillery-practice with live rounds. Quite often a flock of reindeers wanders in to the target-area... Apparently the resulting mess is a good way to demonstrate the effect of artillery-barrages on living targets.
Actually, no. The only thing he got from the US was trucks.
So he was supported by USA? besides, Wikipedia sez this:
"In 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, supplying it with intelligence, economic aid, normalizing relations with the government (broken during the 1967 Six-Day War), and also supplying "dual-use" equipment and vehicles."
I think this would be a good time to stop your revisionism....
Your attempting to say the US sponsored 9/11 because two of the hijackers went to American schools. It's just wrong.
I'm not claiming that USA sponsored 9/11. But maybe we wouldn't have the problem with militant islam if USA had handled it's support properly?
I think we're going around in circles here. Let's get back to basics. It is wrong for the BBC to claim to be impartial and then not be impartial about contentious issues.[/quote]
Like I said: by that logic BBC should spend considerable airtime telling about positive qualities of Osama bin Laden.
And is global warming really "contentious"?
It is wrong for the BBC to use our tax money to broadcast propaganda.
So shoudl the be silent? Should they devote equal airtime to deniers, even though they are an onverwheliming minority in the scientific community? I guess BBC should alsu run documentaries about how moon-landings were faked, since some people think that they were faked?
they are reporting what the Government says, and using our money to do it, while falsely claiming to be impartial.
I always thought that they are reporting what the scientist are reporting.... And maybe, just maybe the government is also reporting what the scientists are reporting?
Should BBC always take the opposite viewpoint than what the government is saying? What if there is a legion of scientiest telling them somethine, should they refuse to report that, just because the government is also reporting the same thing?