All we need is oracle to open up a germ warfare division, though think he'll have to settle for the western seaboard rather than the eastern, if he's based in Hawaii?
The real plan is for him to take over his island, declare independence from Hawaii, copyright his New Hawaii and then sue the real Hawaii for infringement.
I never said I agreed with capitalism. I'm just tired of people crying about its obvious and direct consequences, and then say it's the bestest system of them all because it promotes competition and excellence.
Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands. On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
do it like the USA did with China. give them MFN status along with tax breaks for US companies to set up manufacturing and other low level operations there. its already happening in parts of africa
China was like africa not to long ago. except that i think a lot more people starved in china than in africa. tens of millions in the last century. you can thank clinton, foxconn and apple for giving them jobs outside a farm
Of course when all of those US businesses pulled out of Mexico, who had MFN status and tax breaks for US companies, the Mexican economy collapsed. Maybe we should stop subsidizing big business to carry out political policy and let market forces dictate their decisions. After all, the US says we believe in capitalism.
people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
We don't send food to Africa. We send them credits to buy food from America. The government there, sells the credits and uses the proceeds to fund their military and line their own pockets. If we actually gave them food, it would do more good as most of the underworld people who buy the credits are quite well fed.
Why is it if I tamper with the workings of my cable box or cable company's DVR that is a violation of the DMCA but if the cable company tampers with mine, it is okay?
I never said it was, I'm just saying that anyone expecting a return to a "normal" housing market where building costs alone are running 14x (after interest) median family incomes is doing the kind of wishing that only the saddest addicts in Vegas used to do.
What drove up the cost of housing was speculation. That means that the last 10 years of housing have been anything but normal. Historicaly, housing costs have run about 4x the average wage. But when people start buying houses as an investment, then prices skyrocket, as they did. Unfortunately, those who started the bubble got out before the bubble burst and the average homehowner was left holding the bag.
All that said, it doesn't change the cost of new construction. Contractors, carpenters, plumbers and electricians still get paid and labor is a major cost of new residential construction costs. The homeowner can save money by selecting laminate instead of granite countertops, but the installation cost is the same. Same with flooring, etc.
But, eventually, all of this will reach a new equilibrium.
Actually, new home sizes declined in 2009 by about 1000 sq ft, so it is probably a good number. More importantly, the cost per sq ft decreased dramatically. So regardless of the size, the cost per sq ft is accurate. The 2009 figures are what are used for industry comparisions, but if it would make you feel better, the 2011 average size was 2204 sq ft.
LOL, with median family income at $50,738 you bet your ass $350k just for the building is out of line! People wonder why the housing industry imploded, well it's because that's just not affordable.
It's not as simple as all of that. It wasn't the housing industry that drove up the cost, it was the banking industry. Basic supply and demand. Allowing people to borrow more than they should to purchase a house that normally was out of their price range, increased the demand on those houses which drove the price up as the supply was relatively fixed.
So yes, the inflated costs help the industry implode, but on the other hand, it wasn't necessarily the industry that caused the inflated costs.
I'd argue that maybe it's 'new' homes that are being built at 2094 sq feet on average. I'd bet you average house is not 2094 sq feet. That said a 1200 foot home where I live goes for around $100k and a bit farther out of the city is as low as $70k. Though outside the city 1500 and 1600 sq feet are more common.
Yes, it is new homes being built at 2094 sq ft. As the OP was talking about the cost of building a new home, those are the numbers I used. Existing homes are not as costly as new homes, then again, a lot of people end up remodeling a "new" existing home, which over it's lifetime drives the average cost up. Where I live, in the midwest, I can purchase an existing 2400 sq ft home for $125,000 - $140,000. That comes out between $52 and $58 per square foot. New construction rates here are about $85 sq ft, so to build that house would cost $204,000. Of course, if the first thing you do is purchase the existing house and then spend $40,000 renovating it, you've added $17 per square foot to purchase price (making it now $69 to $75 per sq ft).
But, in short new construction almost always cost more than purchasing an existing home.
Point being, 1000 sq ft home is not standard, nor is $250K to $350K out of line for a modest sized newly constructed home.
Bullshit. Anyone who has ever built a home knows this is garbage. You can build a huge (3000+ sq. ft.) home for less than $100k, contractors + materials. It probably depends on the area you live in, but in Alabama and Michigan both I know that to be a true fact.
Average cost per square foot for new residential construction in 2009/2010 nationwide is $118. The range was from $60 to $315 depending on location. So, in 2009/10 dollars your 3,000 square foot home would cost anywhere from $180,000 to $945,000 to build depending on your location. The weighted average cost of such a house in the United States would $354,000.
Can you build such a home for less than that, of course, but even in Birmingham, the average cost per square foot for new residential construction is $125, which is higher than the national average. Can you build a new home today for $33 square foot (which is $100,000 home, divided by 3000 square feet)? I doubt it. Even the cheapest wall to wall carpeting would end up being a significant portion of that cost.
You can go online and find construction cost estimators for any place in the US (just enter the zipcode). I think you will find that it costs a lot more than you think it does.
Building a "standard" building (1000 sq ft home) in the US costs about $250,000-350,000 without the lot (just building costs).
Nonsense. That figure might be accurate for a 3000-sq-ft McMansion, but a 1000 sq ft house is nowhere near that much, unless you're demanding that everything be WAY overbuilt.
The average sq ft of new homes constructed in 2009, according the the NAHB was 2,094. At $125 per sq/ft that comes out to be $261,750, not including lot and site preparation. Granted in some parts of the US, the cost per sq/ft may be lower, maybe $90, which brings the cost down to $188,460. Other factors to consider are whether the house is on a slab or has a basement, is ranch or multiple floors, etc.
Point being, 1000 sq ft home is not standard, nor is $250K to $350K out of line for a modest sized newly constructed home.
Clearly the decline of RIM is at the hands of Microsoft, whose Innovative(tm) Windows Phone brings consumers all of the Innovative(tm) features they've been looking for; once they had a taste of Innovative(tm) Windows Phone(tm) there was no further demand for Blackberry.
It is rumored that Apple and Google also have products in this space but they are irrelevant.
The irony in your post is that RIM would have probably been a better platform for Microsoft's Windows Phone than Nokia. Leveraging Windows Phone with RIM's corporate customers would have been something better to compete against Apple and Android which are still really directed at the consumer market. (Yes, people use iPhones and Android phones with their corporate systems all the time, but the vast development effort is on the consumer side.)
Or maybe, because the demand for the models created at this manufacturer is declining so much, that RIM doesn't need the excess manufacturing capacity. There are 4 factories producing phones for RIM. This equates to a 25% cut in manufacturing (actually less, since the other factories can pick up some if not all of the lost capacity).
Ford and GM close plants all the time and nobody shouts the sky is falling. The sky may very well be falling for RIM, but closing a plant and moving production elsewhere are not evidence of it.
Because the gamut of 24-bit RGB doesn't cover the entire range of visible colors and intensities. While we can only distinguish ~ 8M colors, we can distinguish a huge range of intensities. 24-bit displays cover 16M colors AND intensities, so in this case, 16M is not > 8M because they're counting different things.
While current displays are adequate for most purposes, they do not display all of the colors we can see, nor all the intensities we can see. Typical displays only cover 45%-75% of the AdobeRGB (1998) color-space, which itself is a subset of the visible gamut. Some (more expensive) displays cover a greater percentage of the visible range, but none cover the entire range.
As stated in another post, the color problem you are referencing is one of physics -- producing the various wavelengths. What we see, however, is one of biology and the human brain cannot differentiate between similar wavelengths. Therefore, including all of them does not mean that we will see the image any better. Intensity is an issue, but the summary is talking about color, not intensity, although they are related.
The limiting factor in all of this is not going to be the production of the visible wavelengths. It is going to be the limitations of the human brain.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've read on slashdot. You're confusing quantization with extent. The article is very obviously talking about covering a larger part of the visible color gamut. RGB is represented by the triangle in this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/CIExy1931_sRGB.svg You'll note it doesn't even cover 50% of visible colors. Most TVs and displays can't even reproduce the full RGB space. The 24-bit/16.7M merely refers to the number of colors and affects how smooth gradients are, and has nothing to do with the range of colors that can be reproduced.
For fuck's sake, I didn't expect this level of stupidity from someone with a sub-1M user ID!
Has nothing to do with how much the TV or screen can reproduce. It has everything to do with how well the brain can discriminate the various wavelengths. So while it is theoretically true that the technique may produce more colors, whatever that means exactly, if the human brain cannot discriminate between them, what good does it do?
This is not an issue of physics, but of biology, but then maybe I'm just to much of a dumb fuck to know what I'm talking about.
I think the confusion is that people think Atom is analog to ARM. People keep confusing the fact that ARM is a core processor and Atom an SoC solution. It makes no sense comparing apples to oranges. An appropriate comparison would be an SoC from TI, Qualcomm or Samsung.
But then how could they generate media hype by announcing they are outperforming intel?
The whole field of computing is built on three-primary color specification anyway. Either RGB, or HSV, or YUV, or some varient of them. Or CMYK, in which the K is really a fudge-factor used to account for real inks not behaving like mathematically ideal inks. So even if someone built a display of a wider gamut, good luck finding any content to use it. I suspect this is just marketing being allowed to write the press report.
RGB has nothing to do with computing, but everything to do with the physics of light. Printing uses CMYK also because of the physics of light. The difference is RGB is when light is emmitted and CMYK when it is reflected. That is why blue and yellow paint make green, but blue and yellow light make magenta. With light, mixing colors is additive, with painting/printing, it is subtractive.
It doesn't matter because 24 bit color produces more color variants than the human brain can actually distinguish. Having more color won't look any different.
Why do we need this? The power savings is a plus, but the human brain can only "see" and distinquish an estimated 10 million colors ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/JenniferLeong.shtml ) and current display technologiy produces 16.7M colors (24-bit True Color). Having a display show 24M colors (50% increase) won't look any different since current technology already exceeds our ability to percieve the differences.
And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?
Doing no worse than one's competition is not really a defense or a moral position. It just means that you aren't the only bad person out there, but it doesn't justify what you are doing. Prisons are full of people who didn't do anything worse than somebody else.
Slashdot Mirror
And he looks like Hank Scorpio!
All we need is oracle to open up a germ warfare division, though think he'll have to settle for the western seaboard rather than the eastern, if he's based in Hawaii?
The real plan is for him to take over his island, declare independence from Hawaii, copyright his New Hawaii and then sue the real Hawaii for infringement.
go fuck yourself, ya greedy infidel!
Learn to read.
I never said I agreed with capitalism. I'm just tired of people crying about its obvious and direct consequences, and then say it's the bestest system of them all because it promotes competition and excellence.
Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands. On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
do it like the USA did with China. give them MFN status along with tax breaks for US companies to set up manufacturing and other low level operations there. its already happening in parts of africa
China was like africa not to long ago. except that i think a lot more people starved in china than in africa. tens of millions in the last century. you can thank clinton, foxconn and apple for giving them jobs outside a farm
Of course when all of those US businesses pulled out of Mexico, who had MFN status and tax breaks for US companies, the Mexican economy collapsed. Maybe we should stop subsidizing big business to carry out political policy and let market forces dictate their decisions. After all, the US says we believe in capitalism.
people in africa have been starving since i was a kid. too bad when you send them food the government takes it
We don't send food to Africa. We send them credits to buy food from America. The government there, sells the credits and uses the proceeds to fund their military and line their own pockets. If we actually gave them food, it would do more good as most of the underworld people who buy the credits are quite well fed.
Why is it if I tamper with the workings of my cable box or cable company's DVR that is a violation of the DMCA but if the cable company tampers with mine, it is okay?
The SVGs only need to be turned into rasters at install time, storage is cheap. The display resolution is not going to change after that.
Try less trolling and more thinking.
Tell that to my phone, I am constantly getting message about being out of storage space. Storage is only cheap if you can expand it.
Why would you limit the max res like that?
Why not design it to scale from the very beginning so you don't have to hack it on later?
Why they could not support smp from the beginning had me wondering as well.
Maybe so as not to cut into sales of their new tablet?
I never said it was, I'm just saying that anyone expecting a return to a "normal" housing market where building costs alone are running 14x (after interest) median family incomes is doing the kind of wishing that only the saddest addicts in Vegas used to do.
What drove up the cost of housing was speculation. That means that the last 10 years of housing have been anything but normal. Historicaly, housing costs have run about 4x the average wage. But when people start buying houses as an investment, then prices skyrocket, as they did. Unfortunately, those who started the bubble got out before the bubble burst and the average homehowner was left holding the bag.
All that said, it doesn't change the cost of new construction. Contractors, carpenters, plumbers and electricians still get paid and labor is a major cost of new residential construction costs. The homeowner can save money by selecting laminate instead of granite countertops, but the installation cost is the same. Same with flooring, etc.
But, eventually, all of this will reach a new equilibrium.
Actually, new home sizes declined in 2009 by about 1000 sq ft, so it is probably a good number. More importantly, the cost per sq ft decreased dramatically. So regardless of the size, the cost per sq ft is accurate. The 2009 figures are what are used for industry comparisions, but if it would make you feel better, the 2011 average size was 2204 sq ft.
LOL, with median family income at $50,738 you bet your ass $350k just for the building is out of line! People wonder why the housing industry imploded, well it's because that's just not affordable.
It's not as simple as all of that. It wasn't the housing industry that drove up the cost, it was the banking industry. Basic supply and demand. Allowing people to borrow more than they should to purchase a house that normally was out of their price range, increased the demand on those houses which drove the price up as the supply was relatively fixed.
So yes, the inflated costs help the industry implode, but on the other hand, it wasn't necessarily the industry that caused the inflated costs.
I'd argue that maybe it's 'new' homes that are being built at 2094 sq feet on average. I'd bet you average house is not 2094 sq feet. That said a 1200 foot home where I live goes for around $100k and a bit farther out of the city is as low as $70k. Though outside the city 1500 and 1600 sq feet are more common.
Yes, it is new homes being built at 2094 sq ft. As the OP was talking about the cost of building a new home, those are the numbers I used. Existing homes are not as costly as new homes, then again, a lot of people end up remodeling a "new" existing home, which over it's lifetime drives the average cost up. Where I live, in the midwest, I can purchase an existing 2400 sq ft home for $125,000 - $140,000. That comes out between $52 and $58 per square foot. New construction rates here are about $85 sq ft, so to build that house would cost $204,000. Of course, if the first thing you do is purchase the existing house and then spend $40,000 renovating it, you've added $17 per square foot to purchase price (making it now $69 to $75 per sq ft).
But, in short new construction almost always cost more than purchasing an existing home.
Point being, 1000 sq ft home is not standard, nor is $250K to $350K out of line for a modest sized newly constructed home.
Bullshit. Anyone who has ever built a home knows this is garbage. You can build a huge (3000+ sq. ft.) home for less than $100k, contractors + materials. It probably depends on the area you live in, but in Alabama and Michigan both I know that to be a true fact.
Average cost per square foot for new residential construction in 2009/2010 nationwide is $118. The range was from $60 to $315 depending on location. So, in 2009/10 dollars your 3,000 square foot home would cost anywhere from $180,000 to $945,000 to build depending on your location. The weighted average cost of such a house in the United States would $354,000.
Can you build such a home for less than that, of course, but even in Birmingham, the average cost per square foot for new residential construction is $125, which is higher than the national average. Can you build a new home today for $33 square foot (which is $100,000 home, divided by 3000 square feet)? I doubt it. Even the cheapest wall to wall carpeting would end up being a significant portion of that cost.
You can go online and find construction cost estimators for any place in the US (just enter the zipcode). I think you will find that it costs a lot more than you think it does.
Building a "standard" building (1000 sq ft home) in the US costs about $250,000-350,000 without the lot (just building costs).
Nonsense. That figure might be accurate for a 3000-sq-ft McMansion, but a 1000 sq ft house is nowhere near that much, unless you're demanding that everything be WAY overbuilt.
The average sq ft of new homes constructed in 2009, according the the NAHB was 2,094. At $125 per sq/ft that comes out to be $261,750, not including lot and site preparation. Granted in some parts of the US, the cost per sq/ft may be lower, maybe $90, which brings the cost down to $188,460. Other factors to consider are whether the house is on a slab or has a basement, is ranch or multiple floors, etc.
Point being, 1000 sq ft home is not standard, nor is $250K to $350K out of line for a modest sized newly constructed home.
You are comparing the price of the *building* to the price of what? An entire lot with a home built on it? The lot is the expensive part!
Not around here, it's not. Lots run around $40,000. The house is most definitely the expensive part.
Clearly the decline of RIM is at the hands of Microsoft, whose Innovative(tm) Windows Phone brings consumers all of the Innovative(tm) features they've been looking for; once they had a taste of Innovative(tm) Windows Phone(tm) there was no further demand for Blackberry.
It is rumored that Apple and Google also have products in this space but they are irrelevant.
The irony in your post is that RIM would have probably been a better platform for Microsoft's Windows Phone than Nokia. Leveraging Windows Phone with RIM's corporate customers would have been something better to compete against Apple and Android which are still really directed at the consumer market. (Yes, people use iPhones and Android phones with their corporate systems all the time, but the vast development effort is on the consumer side.)
Or maybe, because the demand for the models created at this manufacturer is declining so much, that RIM doesn't need the excess manufacturing capacity. There are 4 factories producing phones for RIM. This equates to a 25% cut in manufacturing (actually less, since the other factories can pick up some if not all of the lost capacity).
Ford and GM close plants all the time and nobody shouts the sky is falling. The sky may very well be falling for RIM, but closing a plant and moving production elsewhere are not evidence of it.
I tend to agree with you, even if you are an A.C. Otherwise, I would think that the WWJ would be breaking this story instead.
Because the gamut of 24-bit RGB doesn't cover the entire range of visible colors and intensities. While we can only distinguish ~ 8M colors, we can distinguish a huge range of intensities. 24-bit displays cover 16M colors AND intensities, so in this case, 16M is not > 8M because they're counting different things.
While current displays are adequate for most purposes, they do not display all of the colors we can see, nor all the intensities we can see. Typical displays only cover 45%-75% of the AdobeRGB (1998) color-space, which itself is a subset of the visible gamut. Some (more expensive) displays cover a greater percentage of the visible range, but none cover the entire range.
As stated in another post, the color problem you are referencing is one of physics -- producing the various wavelengths. What we see, however, is one of biology and the human brain cannot differentiate between similar wavelengths. Therefore, including all of them does not mean that we will see the image any better. Intensity is an issue, but the summary is talking about color, not intensity, although they are related.
The limiting factor in all of this is not going to be the production of the visible wavelengths. It is going to be the limitations of the human brain.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've read on slashdot. You're confusing quantization with extent. The article is very obviously talking about covering a larger part of the visible color gamut. RGB is represented by the triangle in this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/CIExy1931_sRGB.svg You'll note it doesn't even cover 50% of visible colors. Most TVs and displays can't even reproduce the full RGB space. The 24-bit/16.7M merely refers to the number of colors and affects how smooth gradients are, and has nothing to do with the range of colors that can be reproduced.
For fuck's sake, I didn't expect this level of stupidity from someone with a sub-1M user ID!
Has nothing to do with how much the TV or screen can reproduce. It has everything to do with how well the brain can discriminate the various wavelengths. So while it is theoretically true that the technique may produce more colors, whatever that means exactly, if the human brain cannot discriminate between them, what good does it do?
This is not an issue of physics, but of biology, but then maybe I'm just to much of a dumb fuck to know what I'm talking about.
I think the confusion is that people think Atom is analog to ARM. People keep confusing the fact that ARM is a core processor and Atom an SoC solution. It makes no sense comparing apples to oranges. An appropriate comparison would be an SoC from TI, Qualcomm or Samsung.
But then how could they generate media hype by announcing they are outperforming intel?
The whole field of computing is built on three-primary color specification anyway. Either RGB, or HSV, or YUV, or some varient of them. Or CMYK, in which the K is really a fudge-factor used to account for real inks not behaving like mathematically ideal inks. So even if someone built a display of a wider gamut, good luck finding any content to use it. I suspect this is just marketing being allowed to write the press report.
RGB has nothing to do with computing, but everything to do with the physics of light. Printing uses CMYK also because of the physics of light. The difference is RGB is when light is emmitted and CMYK when it is reflected. That is why blue and yellow paint make green, but blue and yellow light make magenta. With light, mixing colors is additive, with painting/printing, it is subtractive.
It doesn't matter because 24 bit color produces more color variants than the human brain can actually distinguish. Having more color won't look any different.
Why do we need this? The power savings is a plus, but the human brain can only "see" and distinquish an estimated 10 million colors ( http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/JenniferLeong.shtml ) and current display technologiy produces 16.7M colors (24-bit True Color). Having a display show 24M colors (50% increase) won't look any different since current technology already exceeds our ability to percieve the differences.
And your proof is? Mike Daisy's narratives?
And your proof that Apple is doing anything worse than its competition is? The competition's reports on their contractors' work conditions?
Doing no worse than one's competition is not really a defense or a moral position. It just means that you aren't the only bad person out there, but it doesn't justify what you are doing. Prisons are full of people who didn't do anything worse than somebody else.
If you want a laptop, pick one or two of these:
- Compact
- Powerful
- Cheap
Your requirements are invalid, if you try all three.
He didn't request powerful, so his requirements are valid.