Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable
It was and probably is
Which is exactly what I said, before you snipped half my sentence to make it look like I didn't.
And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads
There's a difference between an iPhone and an iPad? They're the same thing in a different form factor. Hell, the iPod isn't that much different itself. If you count them as different product lines, you might as well count Microsoft's Home/Pro (or whatever they are this time round) versions as different product lines - there's about as much distinction.
Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.
Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable, but an Apple that only sold those would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. The massive upswing in Apple's profile was the iPod, and the iPhone built on that. Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell.
I agree that Apple is putting out more successful products than Microsoft, but it's focus is still very, very narrow. Cutting out Windows and Office would take out most of Microsoft's profit, but only a tiny slice of their product offerings. Taking out iPhones and iPods not only takes out the majority of Apple's profit, but also a decent chunk of their product lineup.
Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company. Same for YouTube before Google bought them. Facebook itself has millions of users who don't pay anything, and is heading towards a rather large IPO.
Just because a company gives it's major product away for free doesn't mean it doesn't have other valuable assets, and just because it's not bringing in any money now, doesn't mean it couldn't, especially if it was taken over by a company that could leverage it properly.
Yeah, I never said Siri (or voice-command agents, more generally) wouldn't replace Google's home page. I said they wouldn't replace Google (or search engines, more generally). Because the winner in the war to run the search engine back-ends, so far, is Google.
My guess is they'll just say "meh", and shrug their shoulders.
Most creationists don't have a problem with "evolution" as an adaptive mechanism, just the particular application of evolution that posits that trillions of iterations of evolution moved life from primordial sludge to sentient life.
The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.
Some of those downloaded copies will be mine. Of course, I've also bought physical copies of all his books in as they've come out, and most of the audiobooks over Audible, so he's still getting plenty of dollars from my pocket. I wonder how many else have done likewise, and how many have given him money after initial exposure via piratical means. The first I found of Dresden files was downloading a pirate audio version of Storm Front. I've spent at least $300 on them since.
Depends what you mean by uptime. If you write crap code that contention-locks the database, or smashes the CPU, or sucks up all the RAM, your site's going to be inaccessible, which is what I was referring to, even if the box is technically "up".
Looking at the quality of his software, it is pretty obvious what dismissing experience gets you.
Really? What metrics are you using to determine the quality of the software? Because from what I've seen, Facebook's uptime has been pretty good, and bugs fairly rare.
What sort of liability do you want to eliminate? Because just making an entity a LLC doesn't eliminate liability, it just defers it. In general, the liability is deferred to either: a) Creditors b) Employees c) The Public All of these cases, I'd argue, are unacceptable. For instance, in your example, if you remove liability from the LLC, then the cost of their rocket booster landing on someone's house is likely to be paid for by the public, either in the form of the homeowners, or the government. Why should some poor random shmuck pay for an entrepreneur's "right" to take risks with their property and lives, while not getting any pay-off should they succeed? Why should the tax-payers?
The answer in this case is insurance: the rocket booster company needs to insure against accidental house-flattening. If they can't insure, then either they won't get any investors because the personal risk to the investors is too great, or they'll get investors who'll lose the lot if it fails (thus reducing the pool of reckless investors who make investments without ensuring the moral behaviour of their beneficiaries). And failing to pay for catastrophic damage you might accidentally inflict on an innocent third party, is immoral.
There are variations on that; you could create a pool of money that can be drawn on to pay for the damages inflicted by LLC entities. That is essentially what our governments do now, when they pay out money to employees of a company that went bust owing them money, or repair damage inflicted by LLC to public or private property, or subsidize a health system that repairs the human damage inflicted by an LLC. Registering as an LLC would require regular dues, actuarially determined to be sufficient to cover the cost to the pool of any liability. Of course, you've just recreated an insurance company there, except that the high-risk companies are likely to be subsidized by the low-risk ones - addressing that concerns just takes you closer and closer to true insurance. Whether operating such a pool of money is a proper function of government, or should be operated more as a charity/investment in itself depends on your own libertarian philosophy, I guess.
My machine has enough RAM and GPU to run Black Ops, but the CPU is too slow, gotta upgrade the CPU if I want to play it. Wouldn't have to do that with a console.
Yes you would - the requirements are just more coarse-grained. You'd have to upgrade your PS2 to a PS3, or X-Box to X-Box360. And really, if you buy middle-tier graphics cards/CPUs when you build a computer, you're likely to get almost a console generation worth of time out of them before really being compelled to upgrade (if you're willing to accept lower graphics settings on recent games, which are still likely to be better than a console).
No, but apparently the OP does. I was only arguing about one aspect of his post (Oh no! Malthus is going to kill us all!). You could have taken the other.
Having lots of kids in an agricultural society is an advantage. Having lots of kids in an industrialized country with child labour is an advantage. Havings lots of kids in a modern industrialized nation where they're not likely to start supporting themselves until well into their twenties is a liability. People have one or two to satisfy their need for procreation, but the days of 7 - 8 kid families as standard are gone. You'll only get that in families with a religious taboo against contraception, or a certain subset of the poor, who get greater welfare payments because of it (and therefore, many children becomes an advantage again).
They may advocate a lack of regulations - but that's different to a total absence. I challenge you to find any self-identified libertarian that advocates making companies immune to charges of break-and-enter or malicious damage of property. On the other hand, I can find you several self-identified libertarians (myself included) who would advocate the revocation and prohibition of corporate charters entirely. Libertarians are generally fans of removing any sort of "special case" provisions for corporations, whether favourable or unfavourable to the corporation itself.
This seems to indicate high effectiveness of the Sparx treatment, yet it actually tells us absolutely nothing. The critically missing data is how many of the Sparx group completed four or more challenges. If it was 1%, them the overall effectiveness of Sparx may be as low as 0.44% and vastly lower than conventional treatment. If it was 100%, then Sparx has a 44% success rate and is vastly better than conventional treatment.
Only if you also adjust the conventional treatment group's statistics to reflect the recovery rate of those who only took half the course of treatment.
I think Google would probably be even bigger. IIRC, Google was quite big in search for quite a while before they discovered they were an advertising company.
Welcome, mister false dichotomy. If you don't want to be sworn at by illiterate morons when you don't execute a strategy perfectly because it's your second time playing the game, you must of necessity be a milquetoast attempting to censor everybody else into bland niceness because you can't take criticism.
The rest of her post doesn't make her opening sentence any more wrong, and you don't need to replicate public infrastructure in order to drive a vehicle. I know quite a few friend who learnt how to drive, unlicensed, on private property in a paddock basher.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in
Almost. The use of a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege, not a right. Driving around your own property (or other private property, assuming permission of the owner) is your own damn business.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable
It was and probably is
Which is exactly what I said, before you snipped half my sentence to make it look like I didn't.
And if you took away the iPhones and iPods there's still the iPads
There's a difference between an iPhone and an iPad? They're the same thing in a different form factor. Hell, the iPod isn't that much different itself. If you count them as different product lines, you might as well count Microsoft's Home/Pro (or whatever they are this time round) versions as different product lines - there's about as much distinction.
Take away any two Apple products, even product lines, and you still have a viable company.
Really? Take away iPhones and iPods, and what do you have left? Their desktop/laptop business? Yeah, that's viable, but an Apple that only sold those would be a tiny fraction of what it is now. The massive upswing in Apple's profile was the iPod, and the iPhone built on that. Without those, Apple would just be a slightly-more-expensive Dell.
I agree that Apple is putting out more successful products than Microsoft, but it's focus is still very, very narrow. Cutting out Windows and Office would take out most of Microsoft's profit, but only a tiny slice of their product offerings. Taking out iPhones and iPods not only takes out the majority of Apple's profit, but also a decent chunk of their product lineup.
Google also had millions of users who didn't pay anything, with no business model before Schmidt came on board and turned them into an advertising company. Same for YouTube before Google bought them. Facebook itself has millions of users who don't pay anything, and is heading towards a rather large IPO.
Just because a company gives it's major product away for free doesn't mean it doesn't have other valuable assets, and just because it's not bringing in any money now, doesn't mean it couldn't, especially if it was taken over by a company that could leverage it properly.
Yeah, I never said Siri (or voice-command agents, more generally) wouldn't replace Google's home page. I said they wouldn't replace Google (or search engines, more generally). Because the winner in the war to run the search engine back-ends, so far, is Google.
My guess is they'll just say "meh", and shrug their shoulders.
Most creationists don't have a problem with "evolution" as an adaptive mechanism, just the particular application of evolution that posits that trillions of iterations of evolution moved life from primordial sludge to sentient life.
The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.
Siri will replace Google in the same way keyboards have replaced computers. Siri is an interface to search, not a replacement for it.
Dude, you're a barista
Some of those downloaded copies will be mine. Of course, I've also bought physical copies of all his books in as they've come out, and most of the audiobooks over Audible, so he's still getting plenty of dollars from my pocket. I wonder how many else have done likewise, and how many have given him money after initial exposure via piratical means. The first I found of Dresden files was downloading a pirate audio version of Storm Front. I've spent at least $300 on them since.
You do give your money to Microsoft when you buy Android. Microsoft gets a slice of every Android unit sold, due to patent chokeholds.
Those are Windows 8 screenshots. GP is trolling.
Depends what you mean by uptime. If you write crap code that contention-locks the database, or smashes the CPU, or sucks up all the RAM, your site's going to be inaccessible, which is what I was referring to, even if the box is technically "up".
And according to that same survey, so is Google. Or possibly, that survey is slanted to whatever platforms have the most commonly-used APIs.
Not to mention, it was specifically about their APIs, and not their more general, customer-facing interfaces.
Looking at the quality of his software, it is pretty obvious what dismissing experience gets you.
Really? What metrics are you using to determine the quality of the software? Because from what I've seen, Facebook's uptime has been pretty good, and bugs fairly rare.
What sort of liability do you want to eliminate? Because just making an entity a LLC doesn't eliminate liability, it just defers it. In general, the liability is deferred to either:
a) Creditors
b) Employees
c) The Public
All of these cases, I'd argue, are unacceptable. For instance, in your example, if you remove liability from the LLC, then the cost of their rocket booster landing on someone's house is likely to be paid for by the public, either in the form of the homeowners, or the government. Why should some poor random shmuck pay for an entrepreneur's "right" to take risks with their property and lives, while not getting any pay-off should they succeed? Why should the tax-payers?
The answer in this case is insurance: the rocket booster company needs to insure against accidental house-flattening. If they can't insure, then either they won't get any investors because the personal risk to the investors is too great, or they'll get investors who'll lose the lot if it fails (thus reducing the pool of reckless investors who make investments without ensuring the moral behaviour of their beneficiaries). And failing to pay for catastrophic damage you might accidentally inflict on an innocent third party, is immoral.
There are variations on that; you could create a pool of money that can be drawn on to pay for the damages inflicted by LLC entities. That is essentially what our governments do now, when they pay out money to employees of a company that went bust owing them money, or repair damage inflicted by LLC to public or private property, or subsidize a health system that repairs the human damage inflicted by an LLC. Registering as an LLC would require regular dues, actuarially determined to be sufficient to cover the cost to the pool of any liability. Of course, you've just recreated an insurance company there, except that the high-risk companies are likely to be subsidized by the low-risk ones - addressing that concerns just takes you closer and closer to true insurance. Whether operating such a pool of money is a proper function of government, or should be operated more as a charity/investment in itself depends on your own libertarian philosophy, I guess.
Straw-man much? From your link:
It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.)
So changing hardware procurement policies would result in reducing the number of military personal by 99%?
My machine has enough RAM and GPU to run Black Ops, but the CPU is too slow, gotta upgrade the CPU if I want to play it. Wouldn't have to do that with a console.
Yes you would - the requirements are just more coarse-grained. You'd have to upgrade your PS2 to a PS3, or X-Box to X-Box360. And really, if you buy middle-tier graphics cards/CPUs when you build a computer, you're likely to get almost a console generation worth of time out of them before really being compelled to upgrade (if you're willing to accept lower graphics settings on recent games, which are still likely to be better than a console).
No, but apparently the OP does. I was only arguing about one aspect of his post (Oh no! Malthus is going to kill us all!). You could have taken the other.
It's not due to feminism; it's due to economics.
Having lots of kids in an agricultural society is an advantage. Having lots of kids in an industrialized country with child labour is an advantage. Havings lots of kids in a modern industrialized nation where they're not likely to start supporting themselves until well into their twenties is a liability. People have one or two to satisfy their need for procreation, but the days of 7 - 8 kid families as standard are gone. You'll only get that in families with a religious taboo against contraception, or a certain subset of the poor, who get greater welfare payments because of it (and therefore, many children becomes an advantage again).
Quite useful in the developed world, which in general, has birth rates below the replacement level.
They may advocate a lack of regulations - but that's different to a total absence. I challenge you to find any self-identified libertarian that advocates making companies immune to charges of break-and-enter or malicious damage of property. On the other hand, I can find you several self-identified libertarians (myself included) who would advocate the revocation and prohibition of corporate charters entirely. Libertarians are generally fans of removing any sort of "special case" provisions for corporations, whether favourable or unfavourable to the corporation itself.
This seems to indicate high effectiveness of the Sparx treatment, yet it actually tells us absolutely nothing. The critically missing data is how many of the Sparx group completed four or more challenges. If it was 1%, them the overall effectiveness of Sparx may be as low as 0.44% and vastly lower than conventional treatment. If it was 100%, then Sparx has a 44% success rate and is vastly better than conventional treatment.
Only if you also adjust the conventional treatment group's statistics to reflect the recovery rate of those who only took half the course of treatment.
I think Google would probably be even bigger. IIRC, Google was quite big in search for quite a while before they discovered they were an advertising company.
Welcome, mister false dichotomy. If you don't want to be sworn at by illiterate morons when you don't execute a strategy perfectly because it's your second time playing the game, you must of necessity be a milquetoast attempting to censor everybody else into bland niceness because you can't take criticism.
Or she, in this case.
The rest of her post doesn't make her opening sentence any more wrong, and you don't need to replicate public infrastructure in order to drive a vehicle. I know quite a few friend who learnt how to drive, unlicensed, on private property in a paddock basher.
The use of a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right, and it can be rescinded at any time by the state you live in
Almost. The use of a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege, not a right. Driving around your own property (or other private property, assuming permission of the owner) is your own damn business.