What I'm trying to tell you is that there are certain features I'd like to be able to have that are found only in Snow Leopard, and certain applications I'd like to be able to run (e.g. the latest version of iMovie)... but I can't. Not because my machine wouldn't be capable of it, but because Steve J. has decided he'd rather have me buy a new Mac. This is nothing more than forced obsolescence.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, AT&T felt perfectly free to screw over its customers since they landed the iPhone deal. They didn't stop until the government got involved, and there's absolutely no reason to believe they would EVER have changed this policy without the FCC's interest.
So in answer to your question: no, I'm not tired of this "crap". This is a perfect example of what the government is SUPPOSED to do. What I get tired of is knee-jerk responses that the government is always the problem, when in fact, more/better government is frequently the solution.
And although AT&T has had the iPhone for years, and could have made this move at any time, the fact that they only did it when the FCC started sniffing around is purely coincidental. Let's face it - this has nothing to do with market pressure, and everything to do with the threat of government intervention. Customers have had alternatives to the iPhone all along, but only when the FCC got involved did anything happen.
... if you just want to use this for home heating/hot water, you don't need to worry about Stirling engines. Just run the heated water through pipes in your floor, or through a heat exchanger in your water heater, and you're good to go. Of course, if you live in California, such a system would be less useful - but in, say, the Midwest, you could substantially cut your heating bill.
I have a Powerbook G4, bought a year or so before the Intel Macs came out, so it's, what, 5 years old? There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's had its last OS upgrade, because Steve won't release Snow Leopard and followon versions for PowerPC Macs. And even before that, Apple started crippling versions of the iLife products for PowerPC Macs. It really pisses me off that a computer that's otherwise fine is doomed to obsolescence years before it either became too slow to use or physically broke.
10 years, well, that's maybe pushing things as far as I'm concerned. I've got a Windows box of that vintage too (upgraded to XP at some point in its life). It's so behind the times that I just don't find it that useful anymore. I do like to wring as much use from my machines as I can, but at some point I do want to replace them.
It's still obviously a cost consideration. If you pay $300 for a Windows PC, or save up $1,000 for a Mac over the next 4 months, you're still spending over 3x as much for the Mac.
And if you're spending $10 for a pocket calculator, and $1,000 for a Mac, why, you've spent a hundred times as much for the Mac! Imagine that! Dude, the point here is that Macs and ultra-low-end PCs are different products. Some are right for some people, and others are right for others. If your budget and needs are such that the cheapest possible machine from Tiger Direct is the right choice, then, as you say, more power to you. People who need/want/can afford something better are not going to bother with the cheapo machine no matter how cheap it is.
If Apple wants a larger market share, they will have to make their pricing competitive. It's still not competitive enough, so they will continue to make a larger profit per unit with a smaller number of units.
As has been pointed out (over and over), Mac pricing is quite competitive when you compare (ahem) apples to apples. Which is why Mac market share in the mid-range and high end continues to grow. The concept of competitive pricing at the ultra-low-end is N/A... because Apple has decided not to go there. Which in turn is fine for Apple shareholders, who are making money hand over fist.
If you have the 1 million dollar customers, if one goes away, that hurts a lot. If you have the 1 dollar profit customers, a whole bunch can jump ship, and more will come in because your prices (and profit margin) is smaller.
Apple has (wisely, in my view) decided that they don't want to and/or can't beat the Dells of the world in making the cheapest computers. And that's ok, because making a higher quality/higher priced product is also a perfectly fine way to make a profit... it's working for Apple.
But hey, if you want to save up your pennies and buy a Mac, more power to you. It'll be a nice fixture in the back of your car, when you get fired in the next round of downsizing next week, and you find yourself homeless.
Yeah, and not only does Mac ownership lead to homelessness, but also asteroid strikes and cannibalism! I mean, come on. If I bought a computer this week and became homeless next week, I doubt the first thought on my mind would be "Alas! If only I had bought a cheap PC!". If people are that nervous about being downsized, they probably shouldn't be buying PCs either. Probably your remark was meant to be funny, but it comes across as overwrought.
Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.
Contrary to popular opinion, the 1st Amendment does not mean that you can say absolutely anything you like. There is all kinds of law out there that forbids false and misleading advertising, for one thing. While IANAL, it seems to me that it's at least possible that you could make a case that this kind of behavior constitutes false advertising.
It's not that private companies are inherently incapable of doing space travel. The fact is that space travel simply isn't profitable, and therefore, there's no reason for private companies to do it. This is also why the various prize programs to encourage space technology development are not really having that much of an impact. The companies with the most experience with this kind of thing (your Boeings, Lockheeds, etc) have already figured out the cost/benefit situation here, and have rationally decided not to bother. Until someone can figure out how space can be made profitable, all the X prizes in the world aren't going to have much of an effect. And ironically, if we do solve the profitability problem, you wouldn't need the X prize any more.
Rowing, for instance, should be a fun exercise that keeps you fit, improves your social life, and makes you aware of your environment in new ways. It's turned into something where people listen to canned music while working exercise machines in gyms, trying to turn themselves into machines.
I'm certainly onboard (so to speak) with the idea that "real" rowing is more fun and environmentally enlightening than rowing-machine rowing. But the thing is, if you're trying to get your exercise over your lunch hour, there's essentially no way for you to do any real rowing. By the time you get dressed, get yourself to an appropriate body of water, launch, and begin rowing, you've already burned up half your available time. Most people can get to the gym more easily than to a boat launch, and you don't have to lug around a boat, either. Similarly, the weather won't always support running outdoors... therefore, treadmills. Yes, "fake" rowing and running is not nearly as interesting, but it's better than not exercising at all.
Finally, what's with the dismissal of playing with the numbers? This is slashdot, after all - we like doing that kind of thing. If playing with data is fun for you, then by definition it's not a waste of your life.
While I agree with the idea that communicating with alien life forms would be a lot harder than people think... I had to laugh at the next line. I'm pretty sure that insects don't have "language" at all - at least not in any reasonable definition of the term. There's simply not enough intellligence there.
This cycle [of deficit spending] is a bit part of the reason the great depression lasted so long (ie until WWII).
This particular bit of idiocy, while commonly spouted by right-wing nutjobs, is not accepted by any reputable economist. In fact, the order of events was 1) economy cratered. 2) Roosevelt began the New Deal, with attendant large deficits. 3) Economy began to recover rather quickly. 4) Roosevelt, thinking the problem was solved, cut spending dramatically. 5) Economy cratered again. 6) Dithering ensured. 7) Economy remained stagnant. 8) WWII broke out, with attendant large deficit spending. 9) Economy recovered rapidly.
If you are successful and get people to stop buying soda - your tax revenue goes away. This creates another problem because the revenue starts being counted on (see cigarette and alcohol taxes for example) and the vicious cycle continues with the government looking for other things to tax (all in the name of your well being mind you) to make up for the loss of the revenue which should have been expected. When the taxation goes too far you start to create an underground economy in the taxed product and enforcement of taxation starts to take up a signifigant amount of the revenue.
I know this is a tough concept to understand, but there are other values of soda consumption besides 1) our current level and 2) zero. The object of the game isn't to drop soda consumption to zero, it's just to reduce it. Not being complete morons, it's also possible (and done for most other product specific taxes) for those implementing the tax to estimate what the equilibrium level of consumption will be after the tax is in place, and plan revenues accordingly. Finally, the key phrase here is "if the taxation goes too far". Well, call me when it does, and then we can talk about what to do about it. For now, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
These are hard times and the government needs to SHRINK just like every other sector of the economy. Why should the government not feel the same pain and be forced to make hard decisions that every other entity is?
Jesus, more idiocy. The answer: because, obviously, government is, you know, DIFFERENT from every other sector of the economy. Where as YOU have a limited lifespan, a limited earning power, can't borrow infinite amounts of money, and as an individual, have an infinitesimal influence on the economy; the government is immortal, can print money, can take money from anyone it wants to by force, and can have a major effect in stimulating said economy. It's Econ 101, baby - when the economy is in the tank, everyone cuts spending, which sends the economy further into the tank. Only the government can break the cycle by borrowing money and spending freely.
But hey, why bother with the facts when you can just fall back on the "market good, government BAAAD" ideology.
Then pay the freakin' $.05 per can. Not to unload on you personally, but I'm really getting tired of all the "ZOMG soda taxes == SLAVERY!!!1!1ONE!" in these threads.
The conclusion was that when one factors in lost earnings and student loans, the person who got a job right out of high school will do better on average than someone who gets a Bachelors degree.
Per this article, a bachelor's degree is worth almost twice a high school diploma in lifetime earning power: $1.2M over a lifetime for a HS grad, $2.1M lifetime for a BS.
I sit here, and I watch one element of earlier human civilisation after another, slowly die. Every time it happens, there is always some ignorant, barbaric, bombastic American who revels in his own supposed intelligence and sophistication as he cheers the continued cultural erradication on.
This is how Hitler will ultimately win. Perhaps 70 years after his death, perhaps 200. The precise date doesn't really matter.
Yeah, first they came for cursive, and I didn't write in cursive, so I didn't say anything. Dude, seriously. Overwrought much? Writing systems have managed to change quite a few times over the course of history, but I'm pretty sure that didn't have anything to do with the rise of fascism. But I'm just a barbaric American, so what the hell do I know.
I suppose that is the Iranian government's *own* right but it's not what the majority consider a global right and thus the concern. Do you believe that it's acceptable for the head of a household in the next town to kill all but themselves and one other family member to cleanse their household?
No, I don't believe that. I also don't believe I'm a police officer with the legal right and duty to do something about it. Similarly, I don't believe the US has the responsibility to police all the world's bad states.
Sorry, no. Moral relativism is complete bullshit. Some things are morally wrong ABSOLUTELY. One of them is supressing your populace's ability to communicate. I'm sick and tired of people justifying morally corrupt behavior just because it's state-sanctioned. Sorry, forcing women they have to wear a head-dress is absolutely not acceptable. Denying them basic human rights is absolutely not acceptable.
Sure, I agree that all that stuff is bad. But all this crap about "moral relativsm" just confuses the issue. Practically no one in the western world thinks it's OK to stone people for being gay, or for the government to cut off people's means of communication, or to force women into submission, or any of that. What people disagree about is what to do about this. I, for one, do not believe that because the government in country X is misbehaving, that the US is automatically required to go to war with country X to fix this situation. We need to balance the needs of people in other countries for freedom, with our capability to do something about it. Realistically speaking, the government of Iran is not going to change their ways because we ask them to, or because we impose sanctions on them, or any other action we take short of outright toppling their government. And our experience with the aftermath of that sort of thing has never been very good - the population of Iran would certainly not be thanking us. And it would be ruinously expensive in terms of money expended and lives lost.
It's all very well to get on your high horse about misbehavior of other governments. But 1) we don't have any realistic capability to do anything about it, and 2) before we worry about the mote in Iran's eye, shouldn't we attend to the beam in our own? The US government hasn't exactly been a paragon of virtue over the past few years, either.
Technology often makes other technology easier, so you have an exponential chain reaction.
I hear a lot about the "exponential" growth of technology. I'm not sure whether technology is really growing exponentially, but I do know this: exponentially growing processes don't go on forever - they can't. Rather quickly, they hit upon some underlying limitation in the physical world, and progress stops. I think it's much more likely that growth in technology follows a logistic curve, which grows pseudo-exponentially for a while, but then plateaus. We're just in the steep part of the curve right now.
However, I think it is a bit premature to claim that space doesn't have anything that couldn't be obtained cheaper on Earth.
"Yeah, I can't think of anything profitable out there either."
Dude, when you think of something, then maybe you and the space mining investors can have a meeting. In the meantime, nobody's sending a mining expedition into space just in case something worthwhile might be out there. Someone in another of the interminable slashdot space mining threads did the math. At the current costs of getting stuff back and forth from space, even if, say, the surface of Mars was covered in platinum bullion, it still wouldn't be cost effective to go pick it up.
... we figure out how to actually produce energy from He3 (hint: fusion is, as always, at least 20 years away), and a way to economically extract it from the moon (hint: it's still at a concentration of.01 ppm in the lunar regolith) and return it to earth (hint: moving the mining equipment is going to be really, really expensive. So is the return of material to earth). I'll be holding my breath.
The amount of need minerals/metals in the asteriod belt would make ANY venture worth it, assuming you have the capital to hold out for the long haul.
Ludicrous. Again - the asteroids are made of the same stuff as the earth - silicate minerals, iron, nickel, and small amounts of other stuff. What material are you proposing that we could acquire in space more economically than on earth?
- Tourism. Don't laugh. Many cities/states build their entire economies around tourism (why else would someone go to Wyoming), and I don't see any reason why the Moon or Mars would be any different. It could be very profitable to set-up vacations to these distant worlds, especially if you target Hollywood stars who seem to have plenty of money to throw-away.
I'm laughing. You're just wrong - there are very few people on earth who can even afford the Russian space tourism venture (to the ISS). With a tourist stream of only a few people a year, you couldn't even afford to build a hotel on Earth, much less in space.
- Raw materials. Not just on the moon and mars, but the asteroid belt could be mined as well.
Dude, read the original post again. The moon, Mars, and Earth are all made out of the same stuff. What materials do you propose that we could obtain in space more economically than we can get them on earth?
- Services for the tourists and miners, like housing, food, and entertainment.
There is no need for such services, as we've already established that the tourism-in-space market is too small to support them. Same goes for mining./p.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm trying to tell you is that there are certain features I'd like to be able to have that are found only in Snow Leopard, and certain applications I'd like to be able to run (e.g. the latest version of iMovie)... but I can't. Not because my machine wouldn't be capable of it, but because Steve J. has decided he'd rather have me buy a new Mac. This is nothing more than forced obsolescence.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, AT&T felt perfectly free to screw over its customers since they landed the iPhone deal. They didn't stop until the government got involved, and there's absolutely no reason to believe they would EVER have changed this policy without the FCC's interest.
So in answer to your question: no, I'm not tired of this "crap". This is a perfect example of what the government is SUPPOSED to do. What I get tired of is knee-jerk responses that the government is always the problem, when in fact, more/better government is frequently the solution.
And although AT&T has had the iPhone for years, and could have made this move at any time, the fact that they only did it when the FCC started sniffing around is purely coincidental. Let's face it - this has nothing to do with market pressure, and everything to do with the threat of government intervention. Customers have had alternatives to the iPhone all along, but only when the FCC got involved did anything happen.
... if you just want to use this for home heating/hot water, you don't need to worry about Stirling engines. Just run the heated water through pipes in your floor, or through a heat exchanger in your water heater, and you're good to go. Of course, if you live in California, such a system would be less useful - but in, say, the Midwest, you could substantially cut your heating bill.
I have a Powerbook G4, bought a year or so before the Intel Macs came out, so it's, what, 5 years old? There's nothing wrong with it at all, but it's had its last OS upgrade, because Steve won't release Snow Leopard and followon versions for PowerPC Macs. And even before that, Apple started crippling versions of the iLife products for PowerPC Macs. It really pisses me off that a computer that's otherwise fine is doomed to obsolescence years before it either became too slow to use or physically broke.
10 years, well, that's maybe pushing things as far as I'm concerned. I've got a Windows box of that vintage too (upgraded to XP at some point in its life). It's so behind the times that I just don't find it that useful anymore. I do like to wring as much use from my machines as I can, but at some point I do want to replace them.
And if you're spending $10 for a pocket calculator, and $1,000 for a Mac, why, you've spent a hundred times as much for the Mac! Imagine that! Dude, the point here is that Macs and ultra-low-end PCs are different products. Some are right for some people, and others are right for others. If your budget and needs are such that the cheapest possible machine from Tiger Direct is the right choice, then, as you say, more power to you. People who need/want/can afford something better are not going to bother with the cheapo machine no matter how cheap it is.
As has been pointed out (over and over), Mac pricing is quite competitive when you compare (ahem) apples to apples. Which is why Mac market share in the mid-range and high end continues to grow. The concept of competitive pricing at the ultra-low-end is N/A... because Apple has decided not to go there. Which in turn is fine for Apple shareholders, who are making money hand over fist.
Apple has (wisely, in my view) decided that they don't want to and/or can't beat the Dells of the world in making the cheapest computers. And that's ok, because making a higher quality/higher priced product is also a perfectly fine way to make a profit... it's working for Apple.
Yeah, and not only does Mac ownership lead to homelessness, but also asteroid strikes and cannibalism! I mean, come on. If I bought a computer this week and became homeless next week, I doubt the first thought on my mind would be "Alas! If only I had bought a cheap PC!". If people are that nervous about being downsized, they probably shouldn't be buying PCs either. Probably your remark was meant to be funny, but it comes across as overwrought.
Contrary to popular opinion, the 1st Amendment does not mean that you can say absolutely anything you like. There is all kinds of law out there that forbids false and misleading advertising, for one thing. While IANAL, it seems to me that it's at least possible that you could make a case that this kind of behavior constitutes false advertising.
It's not that private companies are inherently incapable of doing space travel. The fact is that space travel simply isn't profitable, and therefore, there's no reason for private companies to do it. This is also why the various prize programs to encourage space technology development are not really having that much of an impact. The companies with the most experience with this kind of thing (your Boeings, Lockheeds, etc) have already figured out the cost/benefit situation here, and have rationally decided not to bother. Until someone can figure out how space can be made profitable, all the X prizes in the world aren't going to have much of an effect. And ironically, if we do solve the profitability problem, you wouldn't need the X prize any more.
I'm certainly onboard (so to speak) with the idea that "real" rowing is more fun and environmentally enlightening than rowing-machine rowing. But the thing is, if you're trying to get your exercise over your lunch hour, there's essentially no way for you to do any real rowing. By the time you get dressed, get yourself to an appropriate body of water, launch, and begin rowing, you've already burned up half your available time. Most people can get to the gym more easily than to a boat launch, and you don't have to lug around a boat, either. Similarly, the weather won't always support running outdoors... therefore, treadmills. Yes, "fake" rowing and running is not nearly as interesting, but it's better than not exercising at all.
Finally, what's with the dismissal of playing with the numbers? This is slashdot, after all - we like doing that kind of thing. If playing with data is fun for you, then by definition it's not a waste of your life.
I have polydactyly, you insensitive clod!
While I agree with the idea that communicating with alien life forms would be a lot harder than people think... I had to laugh at the next line. I'm pretty sure that insects don't have "language" at all - at least not in any reasonable definition of the term. There's simply not enough intellligence there.
... this is your library on Congress... any questions?
Cue the global warming jokes in 3... 2... 1...
This particular bit of idiocy, while commonly spouted by right-wing nutjobs, is not accepted by any reputable economist. In fact, the order of events was 1) economy cratered. 2) Roosevelt began the New Deal, with attendant large deficits. 3) Economy began to recover rather quickly. 4) Roosevelt, thinking the problem was solved, cut spending dramatically. 5) Economy cratered again. 6) Dithering ensured. 7) Economy remained stagnant. 8) WWII broke out, with attendant large deficit spending. 9) Economy recovered rapidly.
I know this is a tough concept to understand, but there are other values of soda consumption besides 1) our current level and 2) zero. The object of the game isn't to drop soda consumption to zero, it's just to reduce it. Not being complete morons, it's also possible (and done for most other product specific taxes) for those implementing the tax to estimate what the equilibrium level of consumption will be after the tax is in place, and plan revenues accordingly. Finally, the key phrase here is "if the taxation goes too far". Well, call me when it does, and then we can talk about what to do about it. For now, you're assuming facts not in evidence.
Jesus, more idiocy. The answer: because, obviously, government is, you know, DIFFERENT from every other sector of the economy. Where as YOU have a limited lifespan, a limited earning power, can't borrow infinite amounts of money, and as an individual, have an infinitesimal influence on the economy; the government is immortal, can print money, can take money from anyone it wants to by force, and can have a major effect in stimulating said economy. It's Econ 101, baby - when the economy is in the tank, everyone cuts spending, which sends the economy further into the tank. Only the government can break the cycle by borrowing money and spending freely.
But hey, why bother with the facts when you can just fall back on the "market good, government BAAAD" ideology.
Then pay the freakin' $.05 per can. Not to unload on you personally, but I'm really getting tired of all the "ZOMG soda taxes == SLAVERY!!!1!1ONE!" in these threads.
Per this article, a bachelor's degree is worth almost twice a high school diploma in lifetime earning power: $1.2M over a lifetime for a HS grad, $2.1M lifetime for a BS.
Yeah, first they came for cursive, and I didn't write in cursive, so I didn't say anything. Dude, seriously. Overwrought much? Writing systems have managed to change quite a few times over the course of history, but I'm pretty sure that didn't have anything to do with the rise of fascism. But I'm just a barbaric American, so what the hell do I know.
No, I don't believe that. I also don't believe I'm a police officer with the legal right and duty to do something about it. Similarly, I don't believe the US has the responsibility to police all the world's bad states.
Sure, I agree that all that stuff is bad. But all this crap about "moral relativsm" just confuses the issue. Practically no one in the western world thinks it's OK to stone people for being gay, or for the government to cut off people's means of communication, or to force women into submission, or any of that. What people disagree about is what to do about this. I, for one, do not believe that because the government in country X is misbehaving, that the US is automatically required to go to war with country X to fix this situation. We need to balance the needs of people in other countries for freedom, with our capability to do something about it. Realistically speaking, the government of Iran is not going to change their ways because we ask them to, or because we impose sanctions on them, or any other action we take short of outright toppling their government. And our experience with the aftermath of that sort of thing has never been very good - the population of Iran would certainly not be thanking us. And it would be ruinously expensive in terms of money expended and lives lost.
It's all very well to get on your high horse about misbehavior of other governments. But 1) we don't have any realistic capability to do anything about it, and 2) before we worry about the mote in Iran's eye, shouldn't we attend to the beam in our own? The US government hasn't exactly been a paragon of virtue over the past few years, either.
I hear a lot about the "exponential" growth of technology. I'm not sure whether technology is really growing exponentially, but I do know this: exponentially growing processes don't go on forever - they can't. Rather quickly, they hit upon some underlying limitation in the physical world, and progress stops. I think it's much more likely that growth in technology follows a logistic curve, which grows pseudo-exponentially for a while, but then plateaus. We're just in the steep part of the curve right now.
"Yeah, I can't think of anything profitable out there either."
Dude, when you think of something, then maybe you and the space mining investors can have a meeting. In the meantime, nobody's sending a mining expedition into space just in case something worthwhile might be out there. Someone in another of the interminable slashdot space mining threads did the math. At the current costs of getting stuff back and forth from space, even if, say, the surface of Mars was covered in platinum bullion, it still wouldn't be cost effective to go pick it up.
... we figure out how to actually produce energy from He3 (hint: fusion is, as always, at least 20 years away), and a way to economically extract it from the moon (hint: it's still at a concentration of .01 ppm in the lunar regolith) and return it to earth (hint: moving the mining equipment is going to be really, really expensive. So is the return of material to earth). I'll be holding my breath.
From your link, it exists at .01 ppm in the lunar regolith. And as of now, we have no earthly use for it. Bzzzt! But thanks for playing!
Ludicrous. Again - the asteroids are made of the same stuff as the earth - silicate minerals, iron, nickel, and small amounts of other stuff. What material are you proposing that we could acquire in space more economically than on earth?
I'm laughing. You're just wrong - there are very few people on earth who can even afford the Russian space tourism venture (to the ISS). With a tourist stream of only a few people a year, you couldn't even afford to build a hotel on Earth, much less in space.
Dude, read the original post again. The moon, Mars, and Earth are all made out of the same stuff. What materials do you propose that we could obtain in space more economically than we can get them on earth?
There is no need for such services, as we've already established that the tourism-in-space market is too small to support them. Same goes for mining./p.