100% of everything is chemicals. But if you're insinuating that 90% of what's in bread is chemically altered or produced by some artificial means, you're insane, It's obviously mostly flower. Any preservatives they put into it are salts of one form or another. And sometimes they put high fructose corn syrup in it, which keeps it seeming fresh while lowering the water activity. But there's no need to speculate about any of this, because the ingredients are listed on the label.
That's the problem, the UI is so cluttered the user is forced to switch modes just to clear it up.
It doesn't sense to present the iTunes store and whatever devices you're managing right alongside the music playback controls. It's unlikely a user will want to be working with the two separate tasks at the same exact time. Presenting all the information at once just wastes space and confuses the user.
I just want my music presented in multiple lists so I can find what I want quickly, and basic playback controls.
So don't click the button to switch to iTunes store, but some other people may want to be able to buy new music in the same place they play it back.
You pulled those timescales right out of your ass. There's no way to know how long it will take to automate these kind of things, but it will probably take a lot longer than that (if history is any indication). Regardless, if people don't need to be doing this kind of work, keeping them at it is an inefficient use of their time.
This is the same argument you run into with every new technology. 90% of the US population used to be employed in agriculture. Now that only about 1% is, are the other 89% unemployed? No. There is always more work to do. You just don't have the imagination necessary to conceive of other possibilities. It's a good thing most people aren't as conceptually limited as you are, or most of us would probably be working the fields by hand for a living. In summary, you are an idiot, and people like you who believe this kind of nonsense are a serious threat to society in general, and social progress specifically.
that these dealers COULD get together and start their own electric auto company
That's like expecting a bunch of investment bankers to get together and make their own computer company. These people are in the sales industry, not the auto industry. It's an antiquated business model and, thanks to the internet, their services are no longer required.
Chinese companies are more willing to be self sufficient and train workers than American companies, who are constantly whining that the government should do it. And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull. Good job, assholes.
Think of it from the suppliers prospective. If they can sell the gas at $100/gallon, they can afford to do whatever it takes to get it to the area. If it's only $4/gallon, they need to wait to repair the existing pipeline pumping stations or whatever before they can make it available.
You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier. In reality, the supplier needs to set a price so that demand will match what they're able to supply, otherwise they will have shortages and they'll have to turn away potential customers.
I'm sure if Obama had just given up he wouldn't have won, but that's not the point. Working extra hard to make up for a poor debate performance is just part of the job, the same way you might stay late at work to fix a mistake you made earlier in the day. It's not like Romney and friends weren't working their butts off the whole time either. They just don't get any credit for it because they lost in the end. Saying that Romney could win is also a part of campaigning. If they said "don't worry about it, there's no way this asshole can win," which is what they were thinking, not enough of their voters would have seen fit to go to the polls.
Some of them had to say Romney was going to win, or else people would realize he didn't stand a chance. So you put a mix in there of Republicans saying Romney will definitely win, Democrats saying Obama will definitely win, and "objective" analysts saying it could go either way. It's like watching a sports game. If you get toward then end, and one team is way behind, everyone will leave. You have to preserve the notion that it's close and either team could win or everyone will lose interest.
I'm sorry, but this was all just smoke and mirrors. Romney never had the kind of support he'd need to win. I never saw a poll that firmly put him in the lead in any battleground state, or on the national level. The people who were saying he had a chance were the people with a vested interest in saying that. The two political parties were saying it in order to get their voters to the polls, the news agencies were saying it to earn viewers. No one who was being totally honest about it wold have thought Romney had a chance. His base hated him, and the opposition hated him even more.
Pundits are there to draw people to a news organization, not provide accurate information. How many people would tune into the election if they said "Obama's got this one in the bag" (which we've known ever since Romney was nominated). Of course they will say you don't know who's going to win! Otherwise no one will watch their show.
You can't really prove a probability wrong (unless it's 0% or 100%). While his most likely outcomes played out, it doesn't mean that he would have been wrong if a few of them hadn't.
It is true that the article mentions the iPhone 5 sold 6 million units, but you claimed that that the actual comparison includes iPhone 5 sales and it doesn't. Just to be clear, they compared the 16 million iPhone 4S units sold to 18 million GS3 units sold when making the statement that the GS3 outsold the iPhone 4S. They could have compared the iPhone 5's 6 million units sold, but most thinking people would realize that's not a fair comparison because it was only on sale for a small part of Q3.
The iPhone 5 went on sale on September 21st. That means it was on sale for 10 days during Q3. Most, sane, people would realize that selling 6 million phones in 10 days is pretty impressive. You think it means it was a "big dud" so what does that say about you?
I think from the parent's post it's pretty obvious he want's google maps to know his location (for directions and whatnot). I was simply pointing out it has that capability.
The thing is Apple always seems to be in such a precarious position. All their growth has been based on inventing new markets or reinventing old ones. Usually, you won't see established businesses doing this because its such a long shot. Apple's been trying to shore up their position through litigation, but it's obvious now that's not going to be successfull.
People have known for a long time Steve Jobs was going to die, so they were reluctant to invest. Now that he's gone and its apperant they can't coast on their momentum, it means apple needs to release a significant new product soon or their growth will stall. Many people don't think that's possible without Steve Jobs there.
Slashdot Mirror
100% of everything is chemicals. But if you're insinuating that 90% of what's in bread is chemically altered or produced by some artificial means, you're insane, It's obviously mostly flower. Any preservatives they put into it are salts of one form or another. And sometimes they put high fructose corn syrup in it, which keeps it seeming fresh while lowering the water activity. But there's no need to speculate about any of this, because the ingredients are listed on the label.
It doesn't sense to present the iTunes store and whatever devices you're managing right alongside the music playback controls. It's unlikely a user will want to be working with the two separate tasks at the same exact time. Presenting all the information at once just wastes space and confuses the user.
So don't click the button to switch to iTunes store, but some other people may want to be able to buy new music in the same place they play it back.
You pulled those timescales right out of your ass. There's no way to know how long it will take to automate these kind of things, but it will probably take a lot longer than that (if history is any indication). Regardless, if people don't need to be doing this kind of work, keeping them at it is an inefficient use of their time.
This is the same argument you run into with every new technology. 90% of the US population used to be employed in agriculture. Now that only about 1% is, are the other 89% unemployed? No. There is always more work to do. You just don't have the imagination necessary to conceive of other possibilities. It's a good thing most people aren't as conceptually limited as you are, or most of us would probably be working the fields by hand for a living. In summary, you are an idiot, and people like you who believe this kind of nonsense are a serious threat to society in general, and social progress specifically.
That's like expecting a bunch of investment bankers to get together and make their own computer company. These people are in the sales industry, not the auto industry. It's an antiquated business model and, thanks to the internet, their services are no longer required.
Yeah, you may want to go ahead check the totals on that one instead of the marginal rate, since that's where the costs come from.
Chinese companies are more willing to be self sufficient and train workers than American companies, who are constantly whining that the government should do it. And theyre from a communist country where the government is much more powerfull. Good job, assholes.
It's a big event, like Christmas. They make a bunch of money airing all the pollitical adds.
Think of it from the suppliers prospective. If they can sell the gas at $100/gallon, they can afford to do whatever it takes to get it to the area. If it's only $4/gallon, they need to wait to repair the existing pipeline pumping stations or whatever before they can make it available.
You're thinking that the price is arbitrary, and set by the supplier. In reality, the supplier needs to set a price so that demand will match what they're able to supply, otherwise they will have shortages and they'll have to turn away potential customers.
I'm sure if Obama had just given up he wouldn't have won, but that's not the point. Working extra hard to make up for a poor debate performance is just part of the job, the same way you might stay late at work to fix a mistake you made earlier in the day. It's not like Romney and friends weren't working their butts off the whole time either. They just don't get any credit for it because they lost in the end. Saying that Romney could win is also a part of campaigning. If they said "don't worry about it, there's no way this asshole can win," which is what they were thinking, not enough of their voters would have seen fit to go to the polls.
Some of them had to say Romney was going to win, or else people would realize he didn't stand a chance. So you put a mix in there of Republicans saying Romney will definitely win, Democrats saying Obama will definitely win, and "objective" analysts saying it could go either way. It's like watching a sports game. If you get toward then end, and one team is way behind, everyone will leave. You have to preserve the notion that it's close and either team could win or everyone will lose interest.
I'm not trying to say he got it right by chance. What I'm trying to say is that even if he'd missed a few, his analysis would still have been correct.
I'm sorry, but this was all just smoke and mirrors. Romney never had the kind of support he'd need to win. I never saw a poll that firmly put him in the lead in any battleground state, or on the national level. The people who were saying he had a chance were the people with a vested interest in saying that. The two political parties were saying it in order to get their voters to the polls, the news agencies were saying it to earn viewers. No one who was being totally honest about it wold have thought Romney had a chance. His base hated him, and the opposition hated him even more.
These are one time events. You can't check to see of Obama will win Florida in 2012 6 times out of 10.
Pundits are there to draw people to a news organization, not provide accurate information. How many people would tune into the election if they said "Obama's got this one in the bag" (which we've known ever since Romney was nominated). Of course they will say you don't know who's going to win! Otherwise no one will watch their show.
You can't really prove a probability wrong (unless it's 0% or 100%). While his most likely outcomes played out, it doesn't mean that he would have been wrong if a few of them hadn't.
It is true that the article mentions the iPhone 5 sold 6 million units, but you claimed that that the actual comparison includes iPhone 5 sales and it doesn't. Just to be clear, they compared the 16 million iPhone 4S units sold to 18 million GS3 units sold when making the statement that the GS3 outsold the iPhone 4S. They could have compared the iPhone 5's 6 million units sold, but most thinking people would realize that's not a fair comparison because it was only on sale for a small part of Q3.
The iPhone 5 went on sale on September 21st. That means it was on sale for 10 days during Q3. Most, sane, people would realize that selling 6 million phones in 10 days is pretty impressive. You think it means it was a "big dud" so what does that say about you?
Are you actually claiming the Galaxy Note fits in you pants pocket? Or did you forget to read the thread you're replying to. . .
Except these are the numbers for the 4S only, so you're completely wrong about this.
They're testing whether or not it's safe, not whether it will be effective.
Windows is moving to ARM as well.
Apple doesn't buy large companies.
I think from the parent's post it's pretty obvious he want's google maps to know his location (for directions and whatnot). I was simply pointing out it has that capability.
The thing is Apple always seems to be in such a precarious position. All their growth has been based on inventing new markets or reinventing old ones. Usually, you won't see established businesses doing this because its such a long shot. Apple's been trying to shore up their position through litigation, but it's obvious now that's not going to be successfull.
People have known for a long time Steve Jobs was going to die, so they were reluctant to invest. Now that he's gone and its apperant they can't coast on their momentum, it means apple needs to release a significant new product soon or their growth will stall. Many people don't think that's possible without Steve Jobs there.
The google maps mobile website will get your location on your iPhone.
No, but it's not good to consume and not produce. It's got to come to an end eventually.