If there's one thing that is certain in the world along with death and taxes, it's that people just don't know how to use apostrophes any more.
In 2050, I fully expect the English language to have a rule that states the apostrophe is required to be placed before any trailing s, regardless of the sentence. Word will autocorrect glass to glas's and so on and you won't be able to turn the feature off.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
Whoa, wait a minute. You think that the reason your allies can run more inclusive welfare programs and universal healthcare is because the US is taking it on the chin for the rest of the world with defence spending?
Perhaps that might be so if the US didn't spend nearly twice as much (percentage wise) on the crippled, hopeless and grossly unfair healthcare system it has currently compared to a country like the UK. We spend about 9% of our GDP on our healthcare system, you spend 16% of yours - your ineffective social systems are not in any way connected to your defence spending.
Yes, it is extremely useful to have the projected force of a US carrier group if you are involved in a war where it is required, but to state that those same carrier groups also provide sovereign defence for their allies... well. Not since WW2. The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state. We are missing a force projection carrier like the Nimitz class, but that is being addressed. In terms of defence of the nation though, we do not need to rely on the US.
ClickToFlash for Safari is *invaluable* for that sort of nonsense. I use that in combination with a custom stylesheet and have an ad-free life on the net.
As far as I can tell the Mac and PC version of iTunes are the same, have the same feature set and have no Mac-exclusive features in the past or currently.
In terms of the iPod and iTunes and the iTunes Store, they have in fact done the exact opposite of what you claim they would do just because they're Apple, since the iPod, iTunes and the iTunes store used to be Mac -only.
A computer with dual quad core Xeons could easily draw 450w+ under load.
For example, drawing a window in Excel on Vista with Aero turned on, or running the spell checker in Word, or making the second hand animate on the clock with those fancy shadows and glow effects.
I well understood the summary (and the FA), but "sending hot water around liquid filled radiators" is a very popular method of heating your home in England, centralised distribution or not.
There are examples of centralised distribution here - mostly pilot projects, since the infrastructure for houses is already here and well understood - ie, liquid pipes and metal radiators, so conversion to centralised systems is simplified.
It's really much easier if you don't misinterpret what I say and apply your own meaning.
What do you mean "excepting England" - almost all houses here have central heating based on water-filled radiators. I'm having to think very hard about the last house I visited here that *didn't* have a piped water heating system.
The water isn't usually boiling though, since the systems are almost always open circuit (so not pressurised). The one in my house uses water at about 60C, and also provides hot water for the tank for showers/dishes etc. I don't have a combi, so if you want hot water, you have to switch it on ahead of time, unless you set timers and so on, which I don't bother with.
I'm not talking about coke making their drink taste like pepsi - I'm talking about them selling actual Pepsi under the coke brand - it's not the same thing at all, and there is a major reason that they don;t taste the same. Of course they could easily make them the same, but they do not.
I also didn't say that they don't care about wholesale profit in its entirety, but good attempt at trying to deliberately twist what I did say, which is that the small amount of wholesale profit from such a hypothetical situation would not be worth the brand damage (or perceived brand damage) that resulted.
Your bolded point abut Levi is the core of my argument - I'm glad you picked up on it. Brand is everything to companies like Levi, Pepsi and Coca Cola.
No, your naivety is amusing, attempting to defend a clearly absurd position.
Pepsi doesn't care one jot about a little extra profit from wholesale sales of pepsi (as you said, they are a global company with hundreds of products and hundreds of factories).
What they do care very much about is their brand. They care nothing that Coke is giving their shareholders profit - they don't care who buys their product. They do care enormously if you dilute the brand.
Levi did it in the UK - they stopped discount retailers like Tesco from selling Levi jeans in their stores because it affected the brand image of the jeans. Tesco were buying Levis legitimately in the US, providing profit for Levi, importing them into the UK and then selling them on in their stores. Levis took them to court to prevent them from doing this - something that was actually profitable for Levi. Sure, they sell jeans in the UK at higher prices in their own store, but Tesco opened an entirely new market for them - with much more customer exposure than is possible with just their stores and authorised outlets alone, but they didn't want Levi jeans to be considered "budget" - which is the image that they believe is presented when you buy them in a grocery store.
Of course there are many companies that bottle coke and pepsi - look on any bottle and you'll see "bottled under licence from the coca cola company" and a whole string of trademark and copyright information. They take the presentation, quality and distribution of their sugar water very seriously. If Pepsi started rebottling coke and selling it, you can be damn sure they'd be stopped from doing so.
You are dreaming if you think Pepsi would be happy with their product being sold under the Coke brand, even if Coke bought it from them wholesale and was thus still making profit on the sale - I assert that it is *you* who have no idea how business works.
But there's a major difference between bankers and engineers.
Excelling at engineering doesn't involve things like hedge funds, which worked based on betting against success of other companies, or loaning large amounts of money to people who you know cannot afford it, and assumptions that the price of houses would go up indefinitely.
When you design a bridge, you don't have to bet against the universe that F=ma.
The Chernobyl accident happened because the reactor was actually dropped to exceptionally LOW POWER far less than it was supposed to operate, and in the attempts to pull the reactor's rate up, the control rods were removed (and later reinserted in an attempt to stop the reactor).
A nuclear weapon's uncontrolled fission reaction is *nothing* like the controlled conditions inside a nuclear reactor, and at no point did reactor 4 explode like a nuclear bomb - it was obviously running above criticality (it's a nuclear reactor) but it did not explode that way - the reactor was crippled by disabling several of the safety systems to attempt a test (trying to see if the reactor could be cooled by the water pumps if they were powered solely by the inertia of the turbines in the event of total power loss until the diesel generators could fire up) - the reactor was dropped lower and lower in power, until it reached a point where it suddenly spiked momentarily in a huge generation of heat.
This flashed all the water in the reactor to steam, which is much less dense than water, which blew the lid off the top of the reactor and broke all the water pipes. The graphite core, which is very hot, was now exposed to the air so burst into flames.
The burning, radioactive graphite is what belched tons and tons of radionuclides into the air (with the bulk of the reactor's guts and building debris being strewn around the immediate local area, heavily contaminating it).
Reactor 4 was never running at beyond design capacity - at any rate, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.
Initiating a nuclear bomb involves compressing a lump of radioactive material into a critical mass - a nuclear reactor is nothing like this.
The full version of Bootcamp has worked flawlessly with every intel Mac I have ever used it on, including patching up through all the various service packs with XP - there was a hiccup with SP2 (or 3, I forget which) where it would refuse to install due to some issue with the way the partitions were laid out on the Mac HD (the XP installer just assumes by default that c:/ is the first partition without checking), but this could be fixed with a 5 second google+registry entry, or by updating a newer version of bootcamp from the software updater.
If you are still using the beta version of bootcamp that Apple had up for download and were offering for no charge at the time and are expecting them to update it then what planet are you on? The full and final version of bootcamp was bundled with 10.5 and was one of the USPs. The beta ceased to be current at that time (but can still be used - it's not time limited or anything) but has, and always will have a huge disclaimer on it saying "beta software: do not use on production hardware". You do not need a new Mac to buy 10.5 (or 10.6 now) - you can buy a full retail copy of it from anywhere that sells Mac software.
I have yet to feel "screwed over" by Apple in the many years I have used them, and I'm not the "typical" Apple customer - I do my own hardware upgrades, change my own iPod batteries, and I don't even own a turtleneck. In this particular case, Apple was defending its turf - if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening - this is really no different.
Apple makes no secrets about the way it protects its brand, and the way it markets, designs and licences its products. It's not like this is at all unexpected - ie, caveat emptor. Like the people who bought iPhones which are locked and heavily controlled and then complained bitterly about it - you knew before you bought it! Either buy it because it does what you want in a product, or don;t because it doesn't have the features you need. Buying it and then bitching that it doesn't do X thing, when you knew that ahead of time is just griping for the sake of it.
...and if he votes against it, all the right wing hawks can harp on about how he "doesn't support american businesses or recovery!" and if he votes for it, they can all shout "look at how he wastes taxpayer money!"
No, it's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB, totalling something like $700B - Obama was not the president, when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.
Aye, that was my eventual point - I think Apple would say "it's not possible to install a different OS onto a Mac without booting the factory-installed copy of OS X at least once, thus you have to agree to the EULA" or something like that.
I suppose you could, since the EFI and all the fancy bootloader stuff is in the hardware - I'm just not sure you can install Windows onto a Mac without using Bootcamp to prepare the machine in the first place, since it comes from Apple with the drive already formatted in HFS+.
I'm not sure you can just put the Windows install disc in and tell it to just clean format the while drive - I think Bootcamp has to make the initial partition for the Windows disc to format or the machine just won't boot in the first place.
Maybe you can do it with a Linux install of some flavour.
Slashdot Mirror
If there's one thing that is certain in the world along with death and taxes, it's that people just don't know how to use apostrophes any more.
In 2050, I fully expect the English language to have a rule that states the apostrophe is required to be placed before any trailing s, regardless of the sentence. Word will autocorrect glass to glas's and so on and you won't be able to turn the feature off.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
Whoa, wait a minute. You think that the reason your allies can run more inclusive welfare programs and universal healthcare is because the US is taking it on the chin for the rest of the world with defence spending?
Perhaps that might be so if the US didn't spend nearly twice as much (percentage wise) on the crippled, hopeless and grossly unfair healthcare system it has currently compared to a country like the UK. We spend about 9% of our GDP on our healthcare system, you spend 16% of yours - your ineffective social systems are not in any way connected to your defence spending.
Yes, it is extremely useful to have the projected force of a US carrier group if you are involved in a war where it is required, but to state that those same carrier groups also provide sovereign defence for their allies... well. Not since WW2. The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state. We are missing a force projection carrier like the Nimitz class, but that is being addressed. In terms of defence of the nation though, we do not need to rely on the US.
ClickToFlash for Safari is *invaluable* for that sort of nonsense. I use that in combination with a custom stylesheet and have an ad-free life on the net.
Now that's just pure, baseless speculation.
As far as I can tell the Mac and PC version of iTunes are the same, have the same feature set and have no Mac-exclusive features in the past or currently.
In terms of the iPod and iTunes and the iTunes Store, they have in fact done the exact opposite of what you claim they would do just because they're Apple, since the iPod, iTunes and the iTunes store used to be Mac -only.
I saw a Zune in a store once. When I got home, 5 people had unfriended me on FaceTube.
Really cool people aren't defined by their software choices.
iTunes runs on Windows. How would making it iTunes-only restrict it to the Mac platform?
How did this get modded insightful?
A computer with dual quad core Xeons could easily draw 450w+ under load.
For example, drawing a window in Excel on Vista with Aero turned on, or running the spell checker in Word, or making the second hand animate on the clock with those fancy shadows and glow effects.
I well understood the summary (and the FA), but "sending hot water around liquid filled radiators" is a very popular method of heating your home in England, centralised distribution or not.
There are examples of centralised distribution here - mostly pilot projects, since the infrastructure for houses is already here and well understood - ie, liquid pipes and metal radiators, so conversion to centralised systems is simplified.
It's really much easier if you don't misinterpret what I say and apply your own meaning.
What do you mean "excepting England" - almost all houses here have central heating based on water-filled radiators. I'm having to think very hard about the last house I visited here that *didn't* have a piped water heating system.
The water isn't usually boiling though, since the systems are almost always open circuit (so not pressurised). The one in my house uses water at about 60C, and also provides hot water for the tank for showers/dishes etc. I don't have a combi, so if you want hot water, you have to switch it on ahead of time, unless you set timers and so on, which I don't bother with.
I'm not talking about coke making their drink taste like pepsi - I'm talking about them selling actual Pepsi under the coke brand - it's not the same thing at all, and there is a major reason that they don;t taste the same. Of course they could easily make them the same, but they do not.
I also didn't say that they don't care about wholesale profit in its entirety, but good attempt at trying to deliberately twist what I did say, which is that the small amount of wholesale profit from such a hypothetical situation would not be worth the brand damage (or perceived brand damage) that resulted.
Your bolded point abut Levi is the core of my argument - I'm glad you picked up on it. Brand is everything to companies like Levi, Pepsi and Coca Cola.
No, your naivety is amusing, attempting to defend a clearly absurd position.
Pepsi doesn't care one jot about a little extra profit from wholesale sales of pepsi (as you said, they are a global company with hundreds of products and hundreds of factories).
What they do care very much about is their brand. They care nothing that Coke is giving their shareholders profit - they don't care who buys their product. They do care enormously if you dilute the brand.
Levi did it in the UK - they stopped discount retailers like Tesco from selling Levi jeans in their stores because it affected the brand image of the jeans. Tesco were buying Levis legitimately in the US, providing profit for Levi, importing them into the UK and then selling them on in their stores. Levis took them to court to prevent them from doing this - something that was actually profitable for Levi. Sure, they sell jeans in the UK at higher prices in their own store, but Tesco opened an entirely new market for them - with much more customer exposure than is possible with just their stores and authorised outlets alone, but they didn't want Levi jeans to be considered "budget" - which is the image that they believe is presented when you buy them in a grocery store.
Of course there are many companies that bottle coke and pepsi - look on any bottle and you'll see "bottled under licence from the coca cola company" and a whole string of trademark and copyright information. They take the presentation, quality and distribution of their sugar water very seriously. If Pepsi started rebottling coke and selling it, you can be damn sure they'd be stopped from doing so.
You are dreaming if you think Pepsi would be happy with their product being sold under the Coke brand, even if Coke bought it from them wholesale and was thus still making profit on the sale - I assert that it is *you* who have no idea how business works.
But there's a major difference between bankers and engineers.
Excelling at engineering doesn't involve things like hedge funds, which worked based on betting against success of other companies, or loaning large amounts of money to people who you know cannot afford it, and assumptions that the price of houses would go up indefinitely.
When you design a bridge, you don't have to bet against the universe that F=ma.
Total, total, total rubbish.
The Chernobyl accident happened because the reactor was actually dropped to exceptionally LOW POWER far less than it was supposed to operate, and in the attempts to pull the reactor's rate up, the control rods were removed (and later reinserted in an attempt to stop the reactor).
A nuclear weapon's uncontrolled fission reaction is *nothing* like the controlled conditions inside a nuclear reactor, and at no point did reactor 4 explode like a nuclear bomb - it was obviously running above criticality (it's a nuclear reactor) but it did not explode that way - the reactor was crippled by disabling several of the safety systems to attempt a test (trying to see if the reactor could be cooled by the water pumps if they were powered solely by the inertia of the turbines in the event of total power loss until the diesel generators could fire up) - the reactor was dropped lower and lower in power, until it reached a point where it suddenly spiked momentarily in a huge generation of heat.
This flashed all the water in the reactor to steam, which is much less dense than water, which blew the lid off the top of the reactor and broke all the water pipes. The graphite core, which is very hot, was now exposed to the air so burst into flames.
The burning, radioactive graphite is what belched tons and tons of radionuclides into the air (with the bulk of the reactor's guts and building debris being strewn around the immediate local area, heavily contaminating it).
Reactor 4 was never running at beyond design capacity - at any rate, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the accident.
Initiating a nuclear bomb involves compressing a lump of radioactive material into a critical mass - a nuclear reactor is nothing like this.
Fair enough, but it was still something of a generalisation.
Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.
It's not your property, it's Apple's. They sold you a licence to use it.
The full version of Bootcamp has worked flawlessly with every intel Mac I have ever used it on, including patching up through all the various service packs with XP - there was a hiccup with SP2 (or 3, I forget which) where it would refuse to install due to some issue with the way the partitions were laid out on the Mac HD (the XP installer just assumes by default that c:/ is the first partition without checking), but this could be fixed with a 5 second google+registry entry, or by updating a newer version of bootcamp from the software updater.
If you are still using the beta version of bootcamp that Apple had up for download and were offering for no charge at the time and are expecting them to update it then what planet are you on? The full and final version of bootcamp was bundled with 10.5 and was one of the USPs. The beta ceased to be current at that time (but can still be used - it's not time limited or anything) but has, and always will have a huge disclaimer on it saying "beta software: do not use on production hardware". You do not need a new Mac to buy 10.5 (or 10.6 now) - you can buy a full retail copy of it from anywhere that sells Mac software.
I have yet to feel "screwed over" by Apple in the many years I have used them, and I'm not the "typical" Apple customer - I do my own hardware upgrades, change my own iPod batteries, and I don't even own a turtleneck. In this particular case, Apple was defending its turf - if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening - this is really no different.
Apple makes no secrets about the way it protects its brand, and the way it markets, designs and licences its products. It's not like this is at all unexpected - ie, caveat emptor. Like the people who bought iPhones which are locked and heavily controlled and then complained bitterly about it - you knew before you bought it! Either buy it because it does what you want in a product, or don;t because it doesn't have the features you need. Buying it and then bitching that it doesn't do X thing, when you knew that ahead of time is just griping for the sake of it.
That's an awfully big generalisation to make about people who buy Apple products.
Am I to infer that you run some flavour of Linux because you are just too cheap to spend money on software and hardware that works for you?
...and if he votes against it, all the right wing hawks can harp on about how he "doesn't support american businesses or recovery!" and if he votes for it, they can all shout "look at how he wastes taxpayer money!"
Cake or death really.
And thus, is all his fault, right?
No, it's actual stimulus cash signed into law by GWB, totalling something like $700B - Obama was not the president, when president GWB signed this stimulus money into law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
I mentioned that in my original post - I think that might be a way to do it.
Aye, that was my eventual point - I think Apple would say "it's not possible to install a different OS onto a Mac without booting the factory-installed copy of OS X at least once, thus you have to agree to the EULA" or something like that.
I suppose you could, since the EFI and all the fancy bootloader stuff is in the hardware - I'm just not sure you can install Windows onto a Mac without using Bootcamp to prepare the machine in the first place, since it comes from Apple with the drive already formatted in HFS+.
I'm not sure you can just put the Windows install disc in and tell it to just clean format the while drive - I think Bootcamp has to make the initial partition for the Windows disc to format or the machine just won't boot in the first place.
Maybe you can do it with a Linux install of some flavour.