I see a lot of statements about how desperately Apple needed the money that don't seem to match what I've read about the situation.
I think the more important thing might have been his promise to keep making Office for the Mac for the next five years (after which it was making too much money to just drop).
You seem to think that price should be based on performance in certain areas. Buying based on price vs. performance is perfectly reasonable, and many people on Slashdot do that. However, there's lots of other potential reasons to pick out a certain computer, including aesthetics, keyboard feel, trackpad performance for laptops, UI, etc, and it's perfectly reasonable to take such factors into account. Apple computers are not just rebranded Dells, and there's lots of differences besides the logo.
Price per month is a reasonable thing to base a purchase decision on, particularly if the contract length is no shorter than the device lifetime. People have different budgeting techniques.
If you're going to use a computer a lot, it makes sense to spend extra to get something nice. If you use a computer every workday, and expect it to last two years, then paying an extra $400 for one costs $1/day of use, and that's likely to be worth it if it's a more pleasant experience.
Here in Minneapolis, the public school system does have distinct high school programs, depending on what you want to do. My son was in a college-track one, which suited him well. Some programs are designed for people to get jobs after they graduate, without a vo-tech or community college. As far as I can tell, it seems to work.
However, as long as there are jobs where a college degree is a legitimate plus, you haven't solved the problem of rising college costs.
Currently, with a checkout station, I've got a list of items to be purchased, and I can examine the pricing as it goes on. At the end, there's a total price that I explicitly pay. If there's a problem, I can bring it up on the spot, and, if it isn't resolved on the spot, I can simply refuse to purchase the item involved.
With any sort of out-the-door scan, if the store screws up in any way, it's going to be difficult to challenge. It may be difficult to detect. If there's a listed sale that's not in the system for some reason, I'm likely to miss it. I'd much rather make an itemized and formal transaction out of paying.
The original statement was that, in the US, there's a person sitting there to stop theft. In what way would having a person keeping an eye on the self-checkout lane stop that from happening?
This isn't simple. However, if you can violate the law by saying something, there has to be a line somewhere. There is a gradation between statements that are clearly threats and/or incitement and statements that are perhaps hyperbolic and hateful but definitely not credible threats or incitement. Somebody has to make the call. Similarly, the power to sue can be the power to suppress, and lots of companies have filed libel suits that are deliberately designed to be expensive and painful to defend against.
I can come up with speech that pretty much everyone will think should be illegal. As long as that's true, somebody has the ultimate responsibility of saying whether a given speech act is legal or not.
In the US legal system, hate speech would be (roughly) illegal speech (typically that inciting violence) that threatens a group. For example, "Kill him!" might well be illegal speech. "Kill him and all other faggots!" might be considered hate speech and get a more severe penalty.
It is a little known fact that ISIS and Al-Queda have executed African Blacks and Indians, and untold numbers of Persians because they were not of the same Ethnicity as Saudi Arabs. These groups are as racist, if not worse than the KKK, or the various racist Neo-Nazi militia groups in the USA.
How true is that? ISIS is notorious for murdering everyone who expresses a significant religious difference from them, or criticizes their Caliphate. Most Muslims are on their "to be murdered" list. Are they actually being racist, or is it just that few other than Arabs actually buy in to that twisted tragic parody of religion?
You're oversimplifying. Hate speech helped Hitler get into power, and Hitler wanted war. For several years, he was busy repudiating the Versailles treaty provisions he didn't like, without war. There's no reason it had to end in war, except that the Nazis got into power (partly due to hate speech) and wanted war.
I'm saying that, due to his race and gender, he has certain advantages over people not of his race and gender. That doesn't mean white males always succeed at life, or that black females always fail. It means that they will avoid certain hassles that other people will face.
For example, he's less likely to be hassled by police when driving through a good neighborhood. If found with a small amount of illegal drugs, he's more likely to get leniency from the system than if his skin were darker. This can have life-changing effects.
My take on white privilege is that I'm normally treated with respect and some willingness to believe in my honesty, and it's a shame that isn't true for everyone.
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't as bad as the German propaganda made it out to be. There was a LOT of right-wing propaganda going on, like the "stabbed-in-the-back" myth, and I'd consider that more significant than the Treaty. We seem to generally agree on the Weimar Republic.
If people learned not to care about name-calling, why did Trump say offensive things and apparently benefit from them? You seem to only be concerned about name-calling when you don't like the people being called names.
Trump and Pence also seem to be hypersensitive to microaggressions, and are demanding safe spaces in the theater.
Tracking has its good and bad sides. If I have an accident in my new car, and am incapacitated, the service I'm paying for will notify the authorities. This is good. It also means that I can't go anywhere without "them" being able to find out. This is bad.
Here in the real world, lots of people have to use software that runs only on Microsoft Windows. You seem to be saying that, if I depend, for some reason, on Windows-only software (for example, because it's absolutely necessary for my business), I am a hypocrite and there's absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft not even using lube.
It must be nice to live on a planet where all important software has Linux versions.
There's lots of things you can't legally do that aren't specifically forbidden in the Constitution. Congress has many powers, one of which is the ability to pass laws to do their Constitutional duties. The Constitution doesn't forbid you from not paying taxes. Congress does have the power to implement income taxes, and can and has passed laws saying you have to pay your taxes.
The Second doesn't apply, since there's no ban on traveling with a gun, only bringing into the cabin with you.
Almost everything I do on this job is highly specialized software that would be of no use to me on my own projects. They pay me to do this stuff, and they own it.
If I do have anything I want to keep, I make sure I've got it while I'm still employed.
I'm fairly sure I've seen pro-Russian shills on Slashdot. I haven't seen as much direct evidence for anti-Russian shills, although it's very plausible.
Being nice to Secret Service agents is almost completely orthogonal to being a good President. Do you think Jimmy Carter was a good President? He was certainly the best human being to become President in my lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
I see a lot of statements about how desperately Apple needed the money that don't seem to match what I've read about the situation.
I think the more important thing might have been his promise to keep making Office for the Mac for the next five years (after which it was making too much money to just drop).
You seem to think that price should be based on performance in certain areas. Buying based on price vs. performance is perfectly reasonable, and many people on Slashdot do that. However, there's lots of other potential reasons to pick out a certain computer, including aesthetics, keyboard feel, trackpad performance for laptops, UI, etc, and it's perfectly reasonable to take such factors into account. Apple computers are not just rebranded Dells, and there's lots of differences besides the logo.
Price per month is a reasonable thing to base a purchase decision on, particularly if the contract length is no shorter than the device lifetime. People have different budgeting techniques.
If you're going to use a computer a lot, it makes sense to spend extra to get something nice. If you use a computer every workday, and expect it to last two years, then paying an extra $400 for one costs $1/day of use, and that's likely to be worth it if it's a more pleasant experience.
Here in Minneapolis, the public school system does have distinct high school programs, depending on what you want to do. My son was in a college-track one, which suited him well. Some programs are designed for people to get jobs after they graduate, without a vo-tech or community college. As far as I can tell, it seems to work.
However, as long as there are jobs where a college degree is a legitimate plus, you haven't solved the problem of rising college costs.
Currently, with a checkout station, I've got a list of items to be purchased, and I can examine the pricing as it goes on. At the end, there's a total price that I explicitly pay. If there's a problem, I can bring it up on the spot, and, if it isn't resolved on the spot, I can simply refuse to purchase the item involved.
With any sort of out-the-door scan, if the store screws up in any way, it's going to be difficult to challenge. It may be difficult to detect. If there's a listed sale that's not in the system for some reason, I'm likely to miss it. I'd much rather make an itemized and formal transaction out of paying.
Which eight years was that, in which people didn't criticize the President? I'm pretty sure it hasn't been in my lifetime?
Or are you so biased or blind that the accusations leveled against Obama, including the ACA, foreign policy, etc., didn't register?
The original statement was that, in the US, there's a person sitting there to stop theft. In what way would having a person keeping an eye on the self-checkout lane stop that from happening?
This isn't simple. However, if you can violate the law by saying something, there has to be a line somewhere. There is a gradation between statements that are clearly threats and/or incitement and statements that are perhaps hyperbolic and hateful but definitely not credible threats or incitement. Somebody has to make the call. Similarly, the power to sue can be the power to suppress, and lots of companies have filed libel suits that are deliberately designed to be expensive and painful to defend against.
I can come up with speech that pretty much everyone will think should be illegal. As long as that's true, somebody has the ultimate responsibility of saying whether a given speech act is legal or not.
In the US legal system, hate speech would be (roughly) illegal speech (typically that inciting violence) that threatens a group. For example, "Kill him!" might well be illegal speech. "Kill him and all other faggots!" might be considered hate speech and get a more severe penalty.
How true is that? ISIS is notorious for murdering everyone who expresses a significant religious difference from them, or criticizes their Caliphate. Most Muslims are on their "to be murdered" list. Are they actually being racist, or is it just that few other than Arabs actually buy in to that twisted tragic parody of religion?
You're oversimplifying. Hate speech helped Hitler get into power, and Hitler wanted war. For several years, he was busy repudiating the Versailles treaty provisions he didn't like, without war. There's no reason it had to end in war, except that the Nazis got into power (partly due to hate speech) and wanted war.
I'm saying that, due to his race and gender, he has certain advantages over people not of his race and gender. That doesn't mean white males always succeed at life, or that black females always fail. It means that they will avoid certain hassles that other people will face.
For example, he's less likely to be hassled by police when driving through a good neighborhood. If found with a small amount of illegal drugs, he's more likely to get leniency from the system than if his skin were darker. This can have life-changing effects.
My take on white privilege is that I'm normally treated with respect and some willingness to believe in my honesty, and it's a shame that isn't true for everyone.
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't as bad as the German propaganda made it out to be. There was a LOT of right-wing propaganda going on, like the "stabbed-in-the-back" myth, and I'd consider that more significant than the Treaty. We seem to generally agree on the Weimar Republic.
More like sent off to find a reasonable citation. Facts are facts. It's possible to use made-up facts as hate speech.
Where do you propose I learn things that don't happen where I or a close friend can see them?
If people learned not to care about name-calling, why did Trump say offensive things and apparently benefit from them? You seem to only be concerned about name-calling when you don't like the people being called names.
Trump and Pence also seem to be hypersensitive to microaggressions, and are demanding safe spaces in the theater.
Tracking has its good and bad sides. If I have an accident in my new car, and am incapacitated, the service I'm paying for will notify the authorities. This is good. It also means that I can't go anywhere without "them" being able to find out. This is bad.
Many, if not most, cars come with back seat child locks that can be enabled. That doesn't mean it's impossible to leave the car.
Here in the real world, lots of people have to use software that runs only on Microsoft Windows. You seem to be saying that, if I depend, for some reason, on Windows-only software (for example, because it's absolutely necessary for my business), I am a hypocrite and there's absolutely nothing wrong with Microsoft not even using lube.
It must be nice to live on a planet where all important software has Linux versions.
Trump's already caused at least one serious diplomatic incident by talking to the top guy in Taiwan. That's not going to help us with the Chinese.
There's lots of things you can't legally do that aren't specifically forbidden in the Constitution. Congress has many powers, one of which is the ability to pass laws to do their Constitutional duties. The Constitution doesn't forbid you from not paying taxes. Congress does have the power to implement income taxes, and can and has passed laws saying you have to pay your taxes.
The Second doesn't apply, since there's no ban on traveling with a gun, only bringing into the cabin with you.
Shut up. You got a coupon worth $5 for any Microsoft product*. Be happy.
*Or, alternately, $0.89.
If they lost tens of thousands of work hours, they should have the Enterprise version, which doesn't have forced updates. Last I looked, anyway.
Almost everything I do on this job is highly specialized software that would be of no use to me on my own projects. They pay me to do this stuff, and they own it.
If I do have anything I want to keep, I make sure I've got it while I'm still employed.
I'm fairly sure I've seen pro-Russian shills on Slashdot. I haven't seen as much direct evidence for anti-Russian shills, although it's very plausible.
Being nice to Secret Service agents is almost completely orthogonal to being a good President. Do you think Jimmy Carter was a good President? He was certainly the best human being to become President in my lifetime.