I think you have to be a tool to eat the most common organ meats, especially right now. We're talking about the body's filters and so on.
What makes you say that? I'm not just talking about liver and kidneys, but heart, tongue, brains, etc. Such meat from more traditional or organic farmers shouldn't be too expensive if the normal sources are too questionable -- I'd never eat chicken livers from a factory farm. It's not something I do often because I'm a bit of a slacker (and the people I live with probably wouldn't be into it, which makes it harder). From what I've read, more variety in the kinds of meat is beneficial, if you do it right (apparently, polar bear liver is not safe for human consumption due to high levels of vitamin A).
I do have meat every day, or I just don't feel right. I think you need to accept that not everyone is the same.
That's true. Although, people often say such things when it comes to diet changes and I think while sometimes it is true, other times they just haven't given things a chance because they don't want to. Not necessarily saying that's the case with you, as it also depends on a person's health. I also have meat daily, as I have trouble keeping my weight up.
It must be nice not to have to deal with farm subsidies. It's a big crock, and not the nice kind that's full of butter.
Sort of. We just have different industry pressures. It's all about dairy here (our major export, which I'm allergic to). They love to put milk solids into just about everything they can. I think the US has a similar attitude, but Europe seems to be different from what I can gather by reading the ingredients on imported snack food items.
Farming in many 1st world countries is in such dire straights. We're supposed to be Clean Green New Zealand, but it's a joke -- current dairy and beef farming is causing damage to our native environment. The sad thing is that there are better ways that are not only better for the environment and local consumers, but also fits very well into a true Clean Green marketing image. But almost nobody is interested in doing things properly, it seems.
What do you mean by quality meats, exactly? I think organ meats are neglected; they're very cheap and high in nutrients, and can taste great, too. As for grass vs. grain feed beef etc. I guess I'm lucky, because where I live, grass fed beef is the standard. Of course, we don't have a subsidised corn industry in New Zealand, so I think that helps.
Also, a lot of people think they need to have meat every day and for every meal. If you limit meat to 3-4 times a week, that's going to save you quite a lot.
Maybe it's because people don't know how to make fresh vegetables interesting (since they don't come prepared in a colourful box) and they've desensitised themselves to the sugar in fruit by eating highly-processed, super-sugary junk.
Not so sure about whole grains being part of our diet for the vast majority of our evolutionary history.
That Ten One Design video doesn't say how it's done. I'm guessing it measures the size of the touch area. That's not the same as genuine pressure sensitivity that you can get from something like a Wacom stylus. I'm guessing that's also why Apple are keeping it as a private API -- it probably doesn't work as well as they would like it to.
What's wrong with the current case? I think it's the best iPhone case they've done and I'm glad they've stuck with it for a while longer. And what's wrong with the original iMac?
The only reason you need true pressure sensitivity is for art purposes--where you can control the thickness of a line, for instance, by how hard you press.
You say that as if it's a smaller market than basic written note taking.
You're also not thinking about all the potential uses developers will find for such functionality. One off the top of my head would be to press harder to write in bold -- much quicker and more intuitive than toggling the bold button at the edge of the screen.
I think it's more likely that there are more people for whom the 3.5" is the better size. Unless they're planning on having two screen size options for the next iPhone. No idea how likely that is. Apple certainly aren't going to make two sizes unless there they think it's more important than a marketing advantage, which seems to be the main reason some manufacturers are making larger phones -- to "differentiate" themselves", rather than because they spent more effort on R&D than Apple.
Many people simply don't believe MS is able to deliver. Trotting out a prototype/development tablet with a fan doesn't inspire a lot of hope. Are they really that far behind that they're still not running on their target CPU architecture, yet?
Yeah, lets forget for a second that the TouchPad was actually quite a buggy POS -- yet another unfinished product. That wouldn't have anything to do with people still going with the iPad, surely? Normal consumers just love to feel like they're special beta testers for some fancy new tech product!
If they went for $200-$300 at the moment, they'd either have to compromise on hardware, or cut their profits substantially.
The difference between Apple and Tyson is that Tyson did have some reasonable competitors. If you think Apple does, you probably don't really understand why the iPad is so popular.
Not to mention other psychological variables not taken into account for. How on earth is the experiment similar to how people choose and read stories in the real world? They've been put into an experiment, so they are obviously going to behave differently. Did any of them even care about the story they were reading? If so, would they have cared about it as much as a story they had chosen by themselves purely for the purpose of reading? It reminds me of that experiment on free will, ignoring the fact that the participants have volunteered of their own free will to submit their free will for an experiment. At least with that one the people doing the study were measuring specific neurological signs and it was probably someone else who ran with a quack conclusion/interpretation.
You make it sound as if Exxon is the only company interested in developing petroleum products. Exxon is much more replaceable than Apple. How does that make it more important?
I say Apple is way more important that Exxon. There will be plenty of people willing to make some money via the oil industry as it has proven to be quite profitable. There aren't any major tech companies out there doing what Apple does. If Apple were gone, it would just be the sea of Dells and HPs, etc, running Windows, because that's a more proven way to make money than spending years innovating and being content with a small market share until you develop a break-through product that sends your profits soaring.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's THAT simple
Only on Slashdot could you say that with some vague sense of truth to it.
I think you have to be a tool to eat the most common organ meats, especially right now. We're talking about the body's filters and so on.
What makes you say that? I'm not just talking about liver and kidneys, but heart, tongue, brains, etc. Such meat from more traditional or organic farmers shouldn't be too expensive if the normal sources are too questionable -- I'd never eat chicken livers from a factory farm.
It's not something I do often because I'm a bit of a slacker (and the people I live with probably wouldn't be into it, which makes it harder). From what I've read, more variety in the kinds of meat is beneficial, if you do it right (apparently, polar bear liver is not safe for human consumption due to high levels of vitamin A).
I do have meat every day, or I just don't feel right. I think you need to accept that not everyone is the same.
That's true. Although, people often say such things when it comes to diet changes and I think while sometimes it is true, other times they just haven't given things a chance because they don't want to. Not necessarily saying that's the case with you, as it also depends on a person's health. I also have meat daily, as I have trouble keeping my weight up.
It must be nice not to have to deal with farm subsidies. It's a big crock, and not the nice kind that's full of butter.
Sort of. We just have different industry pressures. It's all about dairy here (our major export, which I'm allergic to). They love to put milk solids into just about everything they can. I think the US has a similar attitude, but Europe seems to be different from what I can gather by reading the ingredients on imported snack food items.
Farming in many 1st world countries is in such dire straights. We're supposed to be Clean Green New Zealand, but it's a joke -- current dairy and beef farming is causing damage to our native environment. The sad thing is that there are better ways that are not only better for the environment and local consumers, but also fits very well into a true Clean Green marketing image. But almost nobody is interested in doing things properly, it seems.
What do you mean by quality meats, exactly? I think organ meats are neglected; they're very cheap and high in nutrients, and can taste great, too. As for grass vs. grain feed beef etc. I guess I'm lucky, because where I live, grass fed beef is the standard. Of course, we don't have a subsidised corn industry in New Zealand, so I think that helps.
Also, a lot of people think they need to have meat every day and for every meal. If you limit meat to 3-4 times a week, that's going to save you quite a lot.
That depends on the fish. The longer the fish lives, the more mercury they accumulate, IIRC. That's why Tuna is more of a concern than Salmon.
Maybe it's because people don't know how to make fresh vegetables interesting (since they don't come prepared in a colourful box) and they've desensitised themselves to the sugar in fruit by eating highly-processed, super-sugary junk.
Not so sure about whole grains being part of our diet for the vast majority of our evolutionary history.
I think that depends a lot on if you buy it in an interesting state or make it interesting yourself.
Then you have bad taste. Because I enjoy all the healthy food I eat. Nothing better than fresh, well prepared meat, seafood, vegetables, and fruit.
They didn't falsify anything at all. But a lot of rabid Android fans have been spinning facts, that's for sure.
Biggest threat? None of them are a threat to Apple at the moment.
Yet, somehow, all other manufacturers have managed to make a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad rip-off.
That Ten One Design video doesn't say how it's done. I'm guessing it measures the size of the touch area. That's not the same as genuine pressure sensitivity that you can get from something like a Wacom stylus. I'm guessing that's also why Apple are keeping it as a private API -- it probably doesn't work as well as they would like it to.
What's wrong with the current case? I think it's the best iPhone case they've done and I'm glad they've stuck with it for a while longer. And what's wrong with the original iMac?
The only reason you need true pressure sensitivity is for art purposes--where you can control the thickness of a line, for instance, by how hard you press.
You say that as if it's a smaller market than basic written note taking.
You're also not thinking about all the potential uses developers will find for such functionality. One off the top of my head would be to press harder to write in bold -- much quicker and more intuitive than toggling the bold button at the edge of the screen.
I think it's more likely that there are more people for whom the 3.5" is the better size. Unless they're planning on having two screen size options for the next iPhone. No idea how likely that is. Apple certainly aren't going to make two sizes unless there they think it's more important than a marketing advantage, which seems to be the main reason some manufacturers are making larger phones -- to "differentiate" themselves", rather than because they spent more effort on R&D than Apple.
Then why didn't they hand out a device with an ARM chip?
Many people simply don't believe MS is able to deliver. Trotting out a prototype/development tablet with a fan doesn't inspire a lot of hope. Are they really that far behind that they're still not running on their target CPU architecture, yet?
Wouldn't need much work to weather-proof it.
Looks completely different to even the white iPad, too me.
Then why have all the other manufactures managed to differentiate their design?
Yeah, lets forget for a second that the TouchPad was actually quite a buggy POS -- yet another unfinished product. That wouldn't have anything to do with people still going with the iPad, surely? Normal consumers just love to feel like they're special beta testers for some fancy new tech product!
If they went for $200-$300 at the moment, they'd either have to compromise on hardware, or cut their profits substantially.
Yeah, most of them are probably cheap models. Are those stats international or US only?
The difference between Apple and Tyson is that Tyson did have some reasonable competitors. If you think Apple does, you probably don't really understand why the iPad is so popular.
Not to mention other psychological variables not taken into account for. How on earth is the experiment similar to how people choose and read stories in the real world? They've been put into an experiment, so they are obviously going to behave differently. Did any of them even care about the story they were reading? If so, would they have cared about it as much as a story they had chosen by themselves purely for the purpose of reading? It reminds me of that experiment on free will, ignoring the fact that the participants have volunteered of their own free will to submit their free will for an experiment. At least with that one the people doing the study were measuring specific neurological signs and it was probably someone else who ran with a quack conclusion/interpretation.
You make it sound as if Exxon is the only company interested in developing petroleum products. Exxon is much more replaceable than Apple. How does that make it more important?
I say Apple is way more important that Exxon. There will be plenty of people willing to make some money via the oil industry as it has proven to be quite profitable. There aren't any major tech companies out there doing what Apple does. If Apple were gone, it would just be the sea of Dells and HPs, etc, running Windows, because that's a more proven way to make money than spending years innovating and being content with a small market share until you develop a break-through product that sends your profits soaring.