Re:Nice upgrade, but no big surprises in the new i
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Everyone who ever took a photo cares about white balance. They might not know the phrase white balance. But they care if the pictures look too orangey or too blue. And auto white balance means that problem is mostly fixed without ever having to learn what white balance means.
Re:Nice upgrade, but no big surprises in the new i
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That's OK. iPad is still in the rapid growth phase. They need to appeal to people who don't yet have an iPad, not people who already have a slightly older model.
In 1997, Apple was going out of business. In such a situation of course they cut any non-business related optional outlay.
Your link makes the point that Jobs spent all his time on Apple. That was his cause. To make the field of computing better for ordinary people. And he achieved that, big time.
Now, with some justification you can criticise that that is only making the world better for those people in the developed world that can afford it. But it's up to people to choose their own objectives in life. Few people spend more than a tiny fraction of their time on helping charitable causes.
Gates didn't do any of his philanthropy until after he stepped down as CEO of Microsoft. Then he found a new aim, found religion, felt guilty for Microsoft or something, and put the energy he formally put towards Microsoft into philanthropy. Jobs kept on working until he was too sick to do so.
Jobs lack of philanthropy is far more typical of the ultra-wealthy than Gates. Gates is the outlier, not Jobs.
Apparently what they're mostly looking at is patrolling shopping areas and forensic analysis, which are already farmed out to private companies anyway.
This is a new pilot project, worth billions. How the hell can it be for services that are already private?
No, the USA has a completely different system where the legislature will pass any law they are paid to.
That's not a different system that's the same system.
But in the US, it's within limits. The US constitution describes basic freedoms that the legislature cannot take away. There is no such protection in the UK, and as a result we're seeing a continuous erosion of our freedoms.
The person I was replying to was talking about PRIOR to the mid 1800s. Which is when the Met Police started. At time when "Law was generally enforced (in the Anglosphere anyway) by citizens"
The witchhunts were indeed prior to the Met Police in a time when law was enforced by citizens. Including witchcraft law.
What I said was correct. You seem to have confused it with a claim something like: "the state police started at a time when there were witch hunts". And that's not what I said, nor meant.
If that a question? Yes, burning at the stake was worse.
Though I agree the current laws to punish people for consuming herbal products are not so dissimilar from punishing women as "witches" because they made herbal remedies.
"The UK" is not getting a private police force. Two small police forces in England are planning on contracting out patrolling some areas like city centre shopping districts to private firms.
And also other police duties such as investigation of crime. In what way is this NOT privatisation of the police? This is exactly the way that privatisation that are contrary to the will of the people are done. Piecemeal.
As it turns out, it's not actually legally possible for them to do this, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Anything is legal if the government pass a law to make it legal. Unlike the USA, Britain doesn't have a written constitution to limit what legislators may do.
It means their estimate of how many they would sell in 2012 was way off. But even if 2012 is totally flat for sales they will still sell more than they did in 2011.
The Republican 9^H10 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) Litigate against scientists that don't follow the Republican party line. 7) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 8) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 9) ???? 10) Profit.
Right, so between $60K and $120K per annum, without working. Not too shabby considering the average salary is about $45K.
Now one could work too. And on average bump that up to $105K - $165K. But that's mean losing 40-50 hours a week of ones time. Or one could start up one's own business, and work 70-80 hours a week.
The decider is whether one enjoys the work one does. If yes, one would probably continue to do it. If no, one wouldn't.
It happens every week when people win the lottery. Some continue working, some don't.
Who the hell wants to rub shoulders with the likes of Paris Hilton. Well there's probably a lot here that would like to fuck her. But socialise? Probably not.
The point you're missing is that you have to work to maintain your better than $60,000 income. The person with 6 mil in the bank gets that and doesn't have to work.
And that's the most pessimistic figure of 1% on investment. At the modest 5% on investment he'll be getting $300,000, and still not having to work like you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who ever took a photo cares about white balance. They might not know the phrase white balance. But they care if the pictures look too orangey or too blue. And auto white balance means that problem is mostly fixed without ever having to learn what white balance means.
That's OK. iPad is still in the rapid growth phase. They need to appeal to people who don't yet have an iPad, not people who already have a slightly older model.
You're just pissed no one is queuing up to buy Gameboys any more.
There's no libertarianism in giving private companies elements of police power. Quite the contrary.
Well we don't know that he didn't do that. Where's the public record of your charitable giving?
Thanks for that. I misremembered the sequence of events.
In 1997, Apple was going out of business. In such a situation of course they cut any non-business related optional outlay.
Your link makes the point that Jobs spent all his time on Apple. That was his cause. To make the field of computing better for ordinary people. And he achieved that, big time.
Now, with some justification you can criticise that that is only making the world better for those people in the developed world that can afford it. But it's up to people to choose their own objectives in life. Few people spend more than a tiny fraction of their time on helping charitable causes.
Gates didn't do any of his philanthropy until after he stepped down as CEO of Microsoft. Then he found a new aim, found religion, felt guilty for Microsoft or something, and put the energy he formally put towards Microsoft into philanthropy. Jobs kept on working until he was too sick to do so.
Jobs lack of philanthropy is far more typical of the ultra-wealthy than Gates. Gates is the outlier, not Jobs.
Apparently what they're mostly looking at is patrolling shopping areas and forensic analysis, which are already farmed out to private companies anyway.
This is a new pilot project, worth billions. How the hell can it be for services that are already private?
No, the USA has a completely different system where the legislature will pass any law they are paid to.
That's not a different system that's the same system.
But in the US, it's within limits. The US constitution describes basic freedoms that the legislature cannot take away. There is no such protection in the UK, and as a result we're seeing a continuous erosion of our freedoms.
The person I was replying to was talking about PRIOR to the mid 1800s. Which is when the Met Police started. At time when "Law was generally enforced (in the Anglosphere anyway) by citizens"
The witchhunts were indeed prior to the Met Police in a time when law was enforced by citizens. Including witchcraft law.
What I said was correct. You seem to have confused it with a claim something like: "the state police started at a time when there were witch hunts". And that's not what I said, nor meant.
If that a question? Yes, burning at the stake was worse.
Though I agree the current laws to punish people for consuming herbal products are not so dissimilar from punishing women as "witches" because they made herbal remedies.
I expect if Scotland does vote for independence, there will be quite a lot of English people moving there.
Sure, the constitution can be ammended. But that needs a much higher degree of approval than merely creating a law.
Witch hunts were also common back then. Real ones, where they'd take women who'd committed no crime and burn them at the stake.
"The UK" is not getting a private police force. Two small police forces in England are planning on contracting out patrolling some areas like city centre shopping districts to private firms.
And also other police duties such as investigation of crime. In what way is this NOT privatisation of the police? This is exactly the way that privatisation that are contrary to the will of the people are done. Piecemeal.
As it turns out, it's not actually legally possible for them to do this, so it's unlikely to happen any time soon.
Anything is legal if the government pass a law to make it legal. Unlike the USA, Britain doesn't have a written constitution to limit what legislators may do.
And so Britain sinks further into Fascism.
Jan/Feb is hardly peak car buying season.
It means their estimate of how many they would sell in 2012 was way off. But even if 2012 is totally flat for sales they will still sell more than they did in 2011.
Model year has got fuck all to do with it. It says "in 2011" and "in 2012... so far".
Read again. It's 8K (precisely 7,671) out of 10K for 2011.
2012 is far from being finished.
Looks like I've got to add a step to the list.
The Republican 9^H10 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) Litigate against scientists that don't follow the Republican party line.
7) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
8) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
9) ????
10) Profit.
That's just not true. Most wealth is hereditary. The number one cause of being rich is having rich parents.
Right, so between $60K and $120K per annum, without working. Not too shabby considering the average salary is about $45K.
Now one could work too. And on average bump that up to $105K - $165K. But that's mean losing 40-50 hours a week of ones time. Or one could start up one's own business, and work 70-80 hours a week.
The decider is whether one enjoys the work one does. If yes, one would probably continue to do it. If no, one wouldn't.
It happens every week when people win the lottery. Some continue working, some don't.
Who the hell wants to rub shoulders with the likes of Paris Hilton. Well there's probably a lot here that would like to fuck her. But socialise? Probably not.
The point you're missing is that you have to work to maintain your better than $60,000 income. The person with 6 mil in the bank gets that and doesn't have to work.
And that's the most pessimistic figure of 1% on investment. At the modest 5% on investment he'll be getting $300,000, and still not having to work like you do.
I've never had cancer. Clearly cancer isn't a risk then.
In the stupidly big vehicles lots of people drive these days, the blind spots are huge, even if you turn to look. Kids can easily be there.