If you think, as the question implies, that Apple wasn't told about emergent IBM chip technologies, I'd say you're crazy.
Anyway, Apple won't grow that much with just a faster CPU. By getting Intel's support, and breaking down walls that isolate them from the Windoze world, they can more easily pull over switchers.
with their current momentum, they need to stoke the boiler, make the big bets. Their ability to roll out new technology and navigate the transition seamlessly is a huge competitive advantage.
yup... solving hard technical problems elegantly... sounds like Apple!
Let's face it, if the "Nobody ever got fired for buying" IBM hadn't been an early licensee of MSFT wares, the market (esp. corporate) might've had the courage to demand better software
there is no such thing as a scientific law. All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. Gods, on the other hand, are not portrayed by their followers as provisional or subject to change - but the multiplicity of religions and even just the Christian sects, for example, clearly demonstrates that there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the definition of God. Though God(s) should be well defined, I have yet to see a definition of God that meets the same 'disprovability' criteria that is routine in science. A definition of God as 'omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent' is akin to dividing by zero... an undefined quantity, therefore not disprovable.
so which God are you talking about, how is he/she/it defined and where can we find one piece of empirical data to support its existence?
ah, I see, now that you've tipped your hand
as an absolutist, you'll never get beyond religion, for only faith can provide the comfort you seek
At the risk of puching this too hard, can you define your God and provide a single piece of evidence of its existence?
Amen, brother!
now, if only religions and relgious people would shut the hell up and recognize that their mythology has no more validity than the next.
I'm a staunch defender of the separation of myth and state
78% did NOT choose creationism
83% did NOT choose Intelligent Design
of those expressing a prefence, 55% chose evolution while 25% chose creationism and 20% chose Intelligent Design
Doesn't sound to me like there's much debate here.
Also, to the point about folks not knowing what the heck Intelligent Design is, you have to credit the ID crowd for good branding. I doubt the ID score would be as high if they called their mythology 'Pseudo-Creationism'
After perusing insider trades, it appears that many in management positions as SCO feel like $13 per share is time to sell. They must not believe their own story.
Slashdot Mirror
aka the birthplace of the iPad
If you think, as the question implies, that Apple wasn't told about emergent IBM chip technologies, I'd say you're crazy.
Anyway, Apple won't grow that much with just a faster CPU. By getting Intel's support, and breaking down walls that isolate them from the Windoze world, they can more easily pull over switchers.
with their current momentum, they need to stoke the boiler, make the big bets. Their ability to roll out new technology and navigate the transition seamlessly is a huge competitive advantage.
yup... solving hard technical problems elegantly... sounds like Apple!
Let's face it, if the "Nobody ever got fired for buying" IBM hadn't been an early licensee of MSFT wares, the market (esp. corporate) might've had the courage to demand better software
that's what I figured thanks for playing
there is no such thing as a scientific law. All knowledge is provisional and subject to revision. Gods, on the other hand, are not portrayed by their followers as provisional or subject to change - but the multiplicity of religions and even just the Christian sects, for example, clearly demonstrates that there is a tremendous amount of subjectivity in the definition of God. Though God(s) should be well defined, I have yet to see a definition of God that meets the same 'disprovability' criteria that is routine in science. A definition of God as 'omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent' is akin to dividing by zero... an undefined quantity, therefore not disprovable. so which God are you talking about, how is he/she/it defined and where can we find one piece of empirical data to support its existence?
ah, I see, now that you've tipped your hand as an absolutist, you'll never get beyond religion, for only faith can provide the comfort you seek At the risk of puching this too hard, can you define your God and provide a single piece of evidence of its existence?
Amen, brother! now, if only religions and relgious people would shut the hell up and recognize that their mythology has no more validity than the next. I'm a staunch defender of the separation of myth and state
78% did NOT choose creationism 83% did NOT choose Intelligent Design of those expressing a prefence, 55% chose evolution while 25% chose creationism and 20% chose Intelligent Design Doesn't sound to me like there's much debate here. Also, to the point about folks not knowing what the heck Intelligent Design is, you have to credit the ID crowd for good branding. I doubt the ID score would be as high if they called their mythology 'Pseudo-Creationism'
After perusing insider trades, it appears that many in management positions as SCO feel like $13 per share is time to sell. They must not believe their own story.