There are so many people (read: managers and unexperienced IT drones) that think saving $200 to $500 once on a piece of equipment that can be written off as capital expense and has a useable lifetime of 4+ years is a great idea in comparison to the literally hundreds of hours of operational expense salary wasted looking at an hourglass / spinning wheel by the person using that piece of equipment.
It's shockingly stupid, and it's the same thought pattern being displayed by the GP poster.
In case it wasn't abundantly clear, more RAM today means a computer that can actually reach the end of the proposed service lifetime, as software bloat is a function of time. This is without even considering high memory pressure apps such as VMs, test database engines, container services, large data sets, video workflows, parallel processing operations that require their own memory footprint, etc.
1. Internet is not always available, so "the cloud" is a bad solution for some problems. 2. There are things that "the cloud" are not ideal for, like optimized I/O to storage sitting right next to you. 3. For various definitions of "pro" there are many different toolsets and workflows. Ever test a python / django app that needs to talk to a massive database in the cloud? Like having reports that run for 25 minutes just to be wrong, and have to tweak your query and run it again for 25 minutes, when it would be done massively faster against a local install of the database, even if that database is running in a container service?
Don't forget to discount how many of those 300m users are automated bots specifically for the purpose of "following for profit", or the bullshit mentioned in this story.
I find it hard to believe that even 150m people find enough value in Twitter's service to continue using it month after month.
The purpose they serve is to generate activity, so Twitter can point to the activity and claim people are using the service. Bots tweet, other bots retweet. Further bots counter-tweet, with another set of bots that retweet. It's a giant bandwidth and energy consuming automated clusterfuck with a signal-to-noise ratio rapidly approaching zero.
Can't imagine why someone doesn't want to throw $billions at this fine service.
Yeah, because a private corporation absolutely cannot be a pawn of political power. What's the privately owned cable news channel that the left loves to bash as being a mouthpiece for the right, again?
I agree with a lot of what you've said, except for your last paragraph - Democrats that vote for Hillary are not hoping for change at all. They are hoping for status quo. Hillary has been attempting to position herself as the successor to the Obama administration, who already disappointed on the hope / change meter 4 years ago. It's possible that some people are still looking for that check to be cashed in during the next 4 years, but the reality is that the current administration wasted all their political capital that they could have used to effect any meaningful change on passing incredibly flawed health care legislation that has been the cornerstone of gridlock in Congress for the subsequent 6 years, and has just been revealed to not be saving anyone any money on health care.
What many Democrats will be disappointed with in 4 years time will be that they fell for the sham that Clinton will follow through on any of the promises of Obama, or any promises she is currently making. We already know what this administration will look like - you said most of it - a President with a history of personal enrichment at the expense of the public, who has been proven time and again to say whatever it takes to get elected, and then immediately accomplish nothing of value.
There's a reason she has a "trust" issue that has been insurmountable thus far - there are predominantly two kinds of voters out there: voters that don't trust Hillary but hate Trump more; and voters that have so little trust for Hillary that they are voting for Trump no matter what sleazy shit he says / said / does / did.
As for the rest of what you've said about reversing the course, there's really only one way that gets done: a comprehensive election reform bill to amend the Constitution, which reverses the Citizens United decision and formally declares that unlimited money cannot be poured into elections, and establishes term limits for members of Congress.
By the way, it's worth noting that whoever is sitting in the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is inconsequential to such an effort, as the amount of votes in Congress needed to amend the Constitution is the same amount of votes necessary to override a Presidential Veto. And ultimately, the States get the final decision, as there would need to be 38 of the States to ratify as well before it takes effect. The Executive has nothing to do with Congressional amendment, other than taking a position on it and being a cheerleader.
The Tea Party of 2011 isn't anywhere remotely what the "Tea Party" of today is.
In 2011 it was a populist non-violent response to a government that wasn't listening too good. By the 2012 midterm election it was co-opted by monied interests, the religious right, and politicians desperate to remain relevant like Sarah Palin. Now, it's become a group of people that just want to stamp their feet and say "no" like a 4 year old.
The ones that bitch the most about George Soros having undue influence in politics are doing it with donations from the Koch brothers. Isn't Citizens United wonderful?
It tells you something about the candidates when they do better by shutting the fuck up. Trump would win by a landslide if his campaign would steal his phone and duct tape him to one of those gawdy golden chairs in Trump Tower.
It's not silly to take a response off the table that involves tens of thousands of civilian casualties and amazing environmental damage, let alone massive global outcry and what would be the worst foreign policy blunder the country ever committed.
Nuclear weapons are for posturing, and in a sane world are meant for retaliation against a similar strike. There's many reasons they were never used after 1945, even when top generals wanted to in Korea.
They liked the machine that the round mouse shipped with. Even Jobs admitted during a keynote that it was a horrible mouse when he announced the replacement.
Cool screed, bro. For someone that calls others 'retards', 'autistic', 'pieces of shit', 'fucking retards', 'stupid aspies', and 'highly specialized retards' you sure don't display a whole lot of intelligence or high function yourself.
But hey, thanks for wasting a few more bits of storage on the Internet, I hope you got a little anger release out of it, because it looks like you could really use it.
Their cables have strain relief. It's just not adequate. My girlfriend just today had to toss a Lightning cable because the rubber was splitting apart *just after* the strain relief on the USB end.
Oh well, replaced it with a $6 10 foot braided cable from Amazon that basically cannot fail in the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
There are so many people (read: managers and unexperienced IT drones) that think saving $200 to $500 once on a piece of equipment that can be written off as capital expense and has a useable lifetime of 4+ years is a great idea in comparison to the literally hundreds of hours of operational expense salary wasted looking at an hourglass / spinning wheel by the person using that piece of equipment.
It's shockingly stupid, and it's the same thought pattern being displayed by the GP poster.
In case it wasn't abundantly clear, more RAM today means a computer that can actually reach the end of the proposed service lifetime, as software bloat is a function of time. This is without even considering high memory pressure apps such as VMs, test database engines, container services, large data sets, video workflows, parallel processing operations that require their own memory footprint, etc.
"IT dev is just code"
I guess you don't believe in testing then? With real data? Using an actual database engine?
Hint: databases need memory.
1. Internet is not always available, so "the cloud" is a bad solution for some problems.
2. There are things that "the cloud" are not ideal for, like optimized I/O to storage sitting right next to you.
3. For various definitions of "pro" there are many different toolsets and workflows. Ever test a python / django app that needs to talk to a massive database in the cloud? Like having reports that run for 25 minutes just to be wrong, and have to tweak your query and run it again for 25 minutes, when it would be done massively faster against a local install of the database, even if that database is running in a container service?
Database engines and container services require what, predominantly? Oh, that's right. RAM.
You do know that quad-core mobile Kaby Lake CPUs aren't available yet, right?
Probably not. That would actually involve knowing wtf you're talking about, rather than AC shitposting some super clever (read: tired) memes.
Don't forget to discount how many of those 300m users are automated bots specifically for the purpose of "following for profit", or the bullshit mentioned in this story.
I find it hard to believe that even 150m people find enough value in Twitter's service to continue using it month after month.
So what you are saying is that Twitter exists as a marketplace for parasites, and offers no value whatsoever. Sounds about right.
At least YouTube has some content available on it.
The purpose they serve is to generate activity, so Twitter can point to the activity and claim people are using the service. Bots tweet, other bots retweet. Further bots counter-tweet, with another set of bots that retweet. It's a giant bandwidth and energy consuming automated clusterfuck with a signal-to-noise ratio rapidly approaching zero.
Can't imagine why someone doesn't want to throw $billions at this fine service.
It's a hell of a positioning strategy - if you take all the positions, you can't be thumped with not following through on what you said you'd do!
Yeah, because a private corporation absolutely cannot be a pawn of political power. What's the privately owned cable news channel that the left loves to bash as being a mouthpiece for the right, again?
I agree with a lot of what you've said, except for your last paragraph - Democrats that vote for Hillary are not hoping for change at all. They are hoping for status quo. Hillary has been attempting to position herself as the successor to the Obama administration, who already disappointed on the hope / change meter 4 years ago. It's possible that some people are still looking for that check to be cashed in during the next 4 years, but the reality is that the current administration wasted all their political capital that they could have used to effect any meaningful change on passing incredibly flawed health care legislation that has been the cornerstone of gridlock in Congress for the subsequent 6 years, and has just been revealed to not be saving anyone any money on health care.
What many Democrats will be disappointed with in 4 years time will be that they fell for the sham that Clinton will follow through on any of the promises of Obama, or any promises she is currently making. We already know what this administration will look like - you said most of it - a President with a history of personal enrichment at the expense of the public, who has been proven time and again to say whatever it takes to get elected, and then immediately accomplish nothing of value.
There's a reason she has a "trust" issue that has been insurmountable thus far - there are predominantly two kinds of voters out there: voters that don't trust Hillary but hate Trump more; and voters that have so little trust for Hillary that they are voting for Trump no matter what sleazy shit he says / said / does / did.
As for the rest of what you've said about reversing the course, there's really only one way that gets done: a comprehensive election reform bill to amend the Constitution, which reverses the Citizens United decision and formally declares that unlimited money cannot be poured into elections, and establishes term limits for members of Congress.
By the way, it's worth noting that whoever is sitting in the big chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is inconsequential to such an effort, as the amount of votes in Congress needed to amend the Constitution is the same amount of votes necessary to override a Presidential Veto. And ultimately, the States get the final decision, as there would need to be 38 of the States to ratify as well before it takes effect. The Executive has nothing to do with Congressional amendment, other than taking a position on it and being a cheerleader.
Sorry - 2012 wasn't a midterm - that was a Presidential. Need more coffee.
The Tea Party of 2011 isn't anywhere remotely what the "Tea Party" of today is.
In 2011 it was a populist non-violent response to a government that wasn't listening too good. By the 2012 midterm election it was co-opted by monied interests, the religious right, and politicians desperate to remain relevant like Sarah Palin. Now, it's become a group of people that just want to stamp their feet and say "no" like a 4 year old.
The ones that bitch the most about George Soros having undue influence in politics are doing it with donations from the Koch brothers. Isn't Citizens United wonderful?
It tells you something about the candidates when they do better by shutting the fuck up. Trump would win by a landslide if his campaign would steal his phone and duct tape him to one of those gawdy golden chairs in Trump Tower.
It's not silly to take a response off the table that involves tens of thousands of civilian casualties and amazing environmental damage, let alone massive global outcry and what would be the worst foreign policy blunder the country ever committed.
Nuclear weapons are for posturing, and in a sane world are meant for retaliation against a similar strike. There's many reasons they were never used after 1945, even when top generals wanted to in Korea.
Wow, splitting hairs much?
You don't have to deal with poor application support
I thought we were talking about Windows...
Yeah, how dare they comply with legal court orders rather than risk contempt fines and sanctions!
So use AirDrop. After all, if this is a problem, you have both a new MacBook Pro and an iPhone.
Hint: AirDrop uses TLS on an ad-hoc WiFi network set up between the devices.
If TLS isn't secure enough for you, stop using the Internet right now.
If you aren't buying an iPhone, then you won't have the problem with the MacBook. So either you don't understand the problem, or you are just a hater.
They liked the machine that the round mouse shipped with. Even Jobs admitted during a keynote that it was a horrible mouse when he announced the replacement.
Cool screed, bro. For someone that calls others 'retards', 'autistic', 'pieces of shit', 'fucking retards', 'stupid aspies', and 'highly specialized retards' you sure don't display a whole lot of intelligence or high function yourself.
But hey, thanks for wasting a few more bits of storage on the Internet, I hope you got a little anger release out of it, because it looks like you could really use it.
well, there's always "adapter".
Didn't have to stretch the thinking meats too much to come up with that...
Their cables have strain relief. It's just not adequate. My girlfriend just today had to toss a Lightning cable because the rubber was splitting apart *just after* the strain relief on the USB end.
Oh well, replaced it with a $6 10 foot braided cable from Amazon that basically cannot fail in the same way.
Profit = margin * quantity.
Nobody ever kept a product line alive based on margin alone.
You said:
Hence there are no ear phones which will work with both your mac an your iPhone.
Bluetooth "ear phones" still exist. And they work with both MacBook Pro and iPhone 7.
You are wrong.