"They sell their $2M condo in west LA, and buy a 1035-Exchange mansion in Texas, thus generating dozens of construction jobs and yet more jobs for all the trucks of furniture to fill it up."
Ignoring the arrogance of this fiction, there is absolutely nothing about this, true or not, that would suggest the raising of wages.
While you claim to have moved out of the trailer park, the trailer park has clearly not moved out of you.
With a comment this stupid you really shouldn't be participating. I would say you haven't bothered checking any model. What device are you talking about? What is "half HD"?
Don't let that stop you from posting off-topic Apple rage though, especially when all it does is display your ignorance.
"Unfortunately it was nearly impossible to convince iPhone owners and reviewers who'd drunk Apple's kool-aid of this fact, and Samsung eventually relented and used RGB versions of its OLED displays on their newer phones. So I'll shed no tears that Apple's chickens are now coming home to roost."
Right, it was "iPhone owners and reviewers" that forced Samsung to use inferior technology in their newer phones.;)
Perhaps you might consider that your understanding of the technical issues isn't as good as it could be. You might start by understanding that the eye has both color and monochrome sensors and that the difference, despite the poor article you linked to, is not specifically a difference between red, green and blue but rather a difference between luma and chroma. Then you could move on to those imaging standards you refer to where many of them don't even handle color in RGB. Most consumer video standards use less chroma bandwidth than luma but that has nothing to do with perceived differences between green, red and blue.
There may be some young'uns that believe this nonsense. Anyone old enough to remember the Amiga also remembers laughing at Amiga users like you.
How much training did it take for you to pretend you didn't have to deal with constant "Guru Meditation Numbers"?
By the time PC users had to mess with "Config.sys and Autoexec.bat" and IRQs to "get a game running" the Amiga was dead and buried, except for a few morons who exist to this day proclaiming the virtues of their NTSC computer display.
That's nonsense. The PC had originally intended to use a 68K but changed to Intel due to problems with production commitment.
Intel had already made plans to transition from x86 to a different 32 bit architecture, the 960. IBM insisted, instead, on a followup product which it primarily drove, the 286. That product sucked not because of Intel and Microsoft but because of IBM. OS software, namely OS/2, also sucked because of IBM.
Intel finally realized that x86 was important so it repurposed the 960 to embedded and developed the 386. Then Microsoft took over 32 bit development. It was their willingness to overcome IBM's failure of leadership that advanced the platform. Prior to that, IBM was far more powerful than either Intel or Microsoft.
"The Amiga was "better" in that it had dedicated video and audio processing hardware. This allowed it to do things like edit videos and music - things the PC couldn't simply because the CPU alone didn't have sufficient horsepower."
Absolutely no one edited music and video on a personal computer at that time, including the Amiga, nor was the Amiga designed for that purpose. By the time anyone even considered doing such a thing, the Amiga's NTSC output was completely inadequate for such tasks.
"The more interesting story from the time is how the PC supplanted the Apple II, seeing as Lotus 1-2-3 began as Visicalc for the Apple II. As best as I can tell, businesses didn't trust this funny little company with a colored fruit as its logo. But they trusted IBM."
The Apple II has an 8 bit, 1 MHz processor and 64K of memory so that story really isn't that interesting. Apple tried to lure business with the ill-conceived Apple III and then the Lisa which was unreasonably expensive. Then when the Mac came, it was a downmarket home machine with a 9" display. The Amiga never competed with the PC, it competed with the Mac...poorly.
I find it funny how people readily accept the value of "open source" today yet consistently fail to recognize that IBM fully documented every aspect of the PC so that it could develop clones and 3rd party support. The PC won because it was open, not because it was innovative. Nothing ever competed with the PC from the day it was introduced.
What good is sound for productivity when all you have is NTSC video incapable of more than 40 columns of text?
Amigas were never anything more than toys. Hard drives didn't work because the people who wanted Amigas, including the designers themselves, couldn't see the value enough to insist on them working properly. That tells you a lot about the kinds of applications on that platform.
I recall being told that 4 floppy drives was far more valuable than a hard drive could ever be. Seriously, Amiga users talking.
Second, IBM PCs were introduced with 80 column high resolution text displays. Amigas had NTSC output which was useless for that.
"Technical elegance, power, and simplicity of the Amiga" only applies when all you care about is low resolution, color applications, not the PC target.
"The problem was, the average business person or home computer person had no knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes or applications from bad, so the cheapest ones won every time. Sad."
You're amazingly ignorant. IBM PCs were far more expensive than Amigas and they ran the software people wanted to use. Amigas were wildly unstable and what software did they run? Toaster?
You have no idea what "knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes" even means. Had the PC lost the Amiga would still be dead. Bo platform other than the PC was open in any way. No company got it right but IBM.
"In the end it will not matter as electric car adoption will more than make up for any extra emissions from rolling back the rules."
This is not unlike saying that StuporKendall's idiot takes can be more than made up by his posting volume. Electric car adoption is not a given, rolling back regulations is an effort to thwart it.
I guess if everyone lowers their standards enough then no one will be disappointed. Here StuporKendall is way out front.
"Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?"
Smog is known to increase cancer risk. The question isn't what "most components" do or even which components might be carcinogenic. One has to wonder why you would challenge such a statement. It doesn't take a majority of combustion waste products to be a problem.
"More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other things."
Then why bother commenting on it?
It would seem you advocate for the idea that what we have is good enough, or perhaps we could stand to make some more smog. If that's not the case, you should rethink your comment strategy.
You are right that cancer isn't the most important problem to address in this respect, and it is true that this is a common trope. Nevertheless, the more important problems we face could be well addressed with an approach that drives petroleum-powered vehicles to extinction. Win-win. Let electric vehicle advocates have their poorly-considered cancer argument, what they champion will result in better quality of life for all of us even if cancer doesn't get solved as a result.
"Apple realized long ago a battle at the low end is one that leaves no victors."
Except for the victors it leaves, of course. If there were no victors there would be no low end.
Ignoring the vapid, meaningless SuperKendall rhetoric for a moment, it's also interesting to point out that Apple's initial focus in their turnaround was the low end iMac series. If it wasn't for the low end Apple would not have made it at all. Their current boutique status evolved later.
"It's a good idea to focus on finding and winning over people who are willing to pay for extra power and features. The other benefit of that approach is you are likely to find more loyal users, if you go chasing after people who ignore specs and value and just chase the cheapest model, they will have zero brand loyalty and may well not purchase your phones again when upgrading."
Complete horsesh@t, of course. Apple won no one over with "extra power and features", that was never the approach. Apple's approach has always been to exploit brand loyalty and lie about "extra power and features". There's a serious cause and effect problem here.
I'm also not sure how "ignore specs" applies to phone buyers. Apple has never competed on specs with phones, aside from how thin they are.
"To win over repeat customers means putting money into design and build that knock you right out of contention at the low end of the market."
More nonsense. Apple's high prices are a result of high margins and Apple views the high prices as a positive differentiator, much like Gucci does. Their marketing tactics, and customer service, are similar.
Apple's strategy is to tell their customers that they are better to everyone else because they have the superior intelligence and the good taste to invest in Apple products. That's where the money is spent. Apple cares so little about "extra power and features" that it allows its product lines to go stale for many years at a time despite obscene profits. Now more than ever, Apple is a lifestyle brand, not a technology company.
"A) easier to achieve when you're making such a large pack"
I don't think you should assume this. Tesla uses a small cell even for large packs.
A plane would require sufficient structure to prevent catastrophe in the event of a worst case battery failure. Big batteries aren't easier to make lightweight.
"Coral seems to have little problem re-settling as conditions change. There are coral cores that prove it, though they are little discussed for some reason?"
That's is well known, and just because YOU don't hear it discussed doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. Just because coral doesn't go extinct due to sea level changes of a meter or so a year doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned with current circumstances.
How can they "accumulate thousands of errors" when they don't make measurements? I think these thousands of errors you refer to are in your own feeble mind.
Perhaps you should choose a "physics lecturer" that isn't a homeless guy sharing your bottle of Mad Dog. Don't pretend you've any such education, you utterly fail to demonstrate it.
"If the models were as accurate as you suggest, there wouldn't be any divergence between them and actual reality,"
The claim you are referring to is explicitly clear that no such divergence exists.
"as there is in every climate model"
He didn't make a claim about climate model, he made a claim about absorption spectrum of small molecules. See...no intelligence to insult.
The problem here is that you don't know anything and it's made worse by your arrogance. Curiously, these often go together. You're a high-strutting Dunning-Kruger poster child.
My idea of a solution is not buying off "working class Americans" with tax cuts to support climate change issues and that appears to be your proposal here. The thought of any politician considering that is hysterical. If the government won't take action, it won't enact tax policies that cause voters to insist on it.
Ultimately the problem is greed, it is money corrupting the political system. The answer is not more money corrupting more people differently. You make good points, but what you advocate would never happen and would not get the job done anyway.
It sure doesn't seem like you agree with him entirely. At most charitable, it would seem you are helping make his point by being exactly the kind of person he is describing.
Except that doesn't explain what "Overrated" and "Underrated" are for. These require an explicit judgement of the content even when it is on-topic.
It's not as though this problem is new, either. It was broken when it was first implemented, as are all similar reader voting schemes for the same reasons. No one should expect popularity contests to produce good results.
Society is hyper-partisan. You expect moderation to be corrupted by that, not be a solution for it.
"People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories..."
Exactly what this is targeting, despite your inability to understand it. People are not fat because of the desire to consume more, they desire to consume more because something is wrong.
One of the oldest, tired-est cliches among the pretend intelligencia here is "correlation is not causation". Well, eating more certainly correlates with obesity but "correlation is not causation". I find it interesting how no one here ever seems to get that when it comes to weight management. Could it be that they've never experienced it themselves?
The solution to obesity is understanding and addressing causation, not correlation. Eating less is already known as ineffective except to those who lack experience. A treatment that solved the underlying cause would result in less consumption, not more.
LOL what a stupid take. If put more intelligently put it could qualify as a troll.
Perhaps what we need is mandatory gene therapy for/. trolls that ensures non-curable cancer by age 40. This would reduce burden on society, reduce consumption, and ease pressure on fresh water and toilets. I'm quite sure this would be a very very good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"They sell their $2M condo in west LA, and buy a 1035-Exchange mansion in Texas, thus generating dozens of construction jobs and yet more jobs for all the trucks of furniture to fill it up."
Ignoring the arrogance of this fiction, there is absolutely nothing about this, true or not, that would suggest the raising of wages.
While you claim to have moved out of the trailer park, the trailer park has clearly not moved out of you.
"They shift votes blueward in two ways:"
That wasn't the question, nor was there any question regarding political bias.
When the question is "How do illegal immigrants vote", the answer isn't how American citizens find themselves voting for Democrats 20+ years from now.
"The priority of rights should be: Individual > Local > State > National"
Sounds good, got any defense for that?
Any assertion that doesn't consider right and wrong is not interesting.
"This isn't the national government overriding states' rights. It is the national government protecting individual rights."
No, it's not, it's the "national government" protecting corporate interests.
"the image is sent to the device as half HD"
With a comment this stupid you really shouldn't be participating. I would say you haven't bothered checking any model. What device are you talking about? What is "half HD"?
Don't let that stop you from posting off-topic Apple rage though, especially when all it does is display your ignorance.
"Unfortunately it was nearly impossible to convince iPhone owners and reviewers who'd drunk Apple's kool-aid of this fact, and Samsung eventually relented and used RGB versions of its OLED displays on their newer phones. So I'll shed no tears that Apple's chickens are now coming home to roost."
Right, it was "iPhone owners and reviewers" that forced Samsung to use inferior technology in their newer phones. ;)
Perhaps you might consider that your understanding of the technical issues isn't as good as it could be. You might start by understanding that the eye has both color and monochrome sensors and that the difference, despite the poor article you linked to, is not specifically a difference between red, green and blue but rather a difference between luma and chroma. Then you could move on to those imaging standards you refer to where many of them don't even handle color in RGB. Most consumer video standards use less chroma bandwidth than luma but that has nothing to do with perceived differences between green, red and blue.
...and that was true in its heyday!
There may be some young'uns that believe this nonsense. Anyone old enough to remember the Amiga also remembers laughing at Amiga users like you.
How much training did it take for you to pretend you didn't have to deal with constant "Guru Meditation Numbers"?
By the time PC users had to mess with "Config.sys and Autoexec.bat" and IRQs to "get a game running" the Amiga was dead and buried, except for a few morons who exist to this day proclaiming the virtues of their NTSC computer display.
That's nonsense. The PC had originally intended to use a 68K but changed to Intel due to problems with production commitment.
Intel had already made plans to transition from x86 to a different 32 bit architecture, the 960. IBM insisted, instead, on a followup product which it primarily drove, the 286. That product sucked not because of Intel and Microsoft but because of IBM. OS software, namely OS/2, also sucked because of IBM.
Intel finally realized that x86 was important so it repurposed the 960 to embedded and developed the 386. Then Microsoft took over 32 bit development. It was their willingness to overcome IBM's failure of leadership that advanced the platform. Prior to that, IBM was far more powerful than either Intel or Microsoft.
"The Amiga was "better" in that it had dedicated video and audio processing hardware. This allowed it to do things like edit videos and music - things the PC couldn't simply because the CPU alone didn't have sufficient horsepower."
Absolutely no one edited music and video on a personal computer at that time, including the Amiga, nor was the Amiga designed for that purpose. By the time anyone even considered doing such a thing, the Amiga's NTSC output was completely inadequate for such tasks.
"The more interesting story from the time is how the PC supplanted the Apple II, seeing as Lotus 1-2-3 began as Visicalc for the Apple II. As best as I can tell, businesses didn't trust this funny little company with a colored fruit as its logo. But they trusted IBM."
The Apple II has an 8 bit, 1 MHz processor and 64K of memory so that story really isn't that interesting. Apple tried to lure business with the ill-conceived Apple III and then the Lisa which was unreasonably expensive. Then when the Mac came, it was a downmarket home machine with a 9" display. The Amiga never competed with the PC, it competed with the Mac...poorly.
I find it funny how people readily accept the value of "open source" today yet consistently fail to recognize that IBM fully documented every aspect of the PC so that it could develop clones and 3rd party support. The PC won because it was open, not because it was innovative. Nothing ever competed with the PC from the day it was introduced.
What good is sound for productivity when all you have is NTSC video incapable of more than 40 columns of text?
Amigas were never anything more than toys. Hard drives didn't work because the people who wanted Amigas, including the designers themselves, couldn't see the value enough to insist on them working properly. That tells you a lot about the kinds of applications on that platform.
I recall being told that 4 floppy drives was far more valuable than a hard drive could ever be. Seriously, Amiga users talking.
First off, Gates was not involved.
Second, IBM PCs were introduced with 80 column high resolution text displays. Amigas had NTSC output which was useless for that.
"Technical elegance, power, and simplicity of the Amiga" only applies when all you care about is low resolution, color applications, not the PC target.
"The problem was, the average business person or home computer person had no knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes or applications from bad, so the cheapest ones won every time. Sad."
You're amazingly ignorant. IBM PCs were far more expensive than Amigas and they ran the software people wanted to use. Amigas were wildly unstable and what software did they run? Toaster?
You have no idea what "knowledge to discriminate good computers or OSes" even means. Had the PC lost the Amiga would still be dead. Bo platform other than the PC was open in any way. No company got it right but IBM.
"In the end it will not matter as electric car adoption will more than make up for any extra emissions from rolling back the rules."
This is not unlike saying that StuporKendall's idiot takes can be more than made up by his posting volume. Electric car adoption is not a given, rolling back regulations is an effort to thwart it.
I guess if everyone lowers their standards enough then no one will be disappointed. Here StuporKendall is way out front.
"Most of the combustion exhaust components that contribute to SMOG are not cancer causing, at least not directly. I was asking for a specific component in exhaust that was of concern?"
Smog is known to increase cancer risk. The question isn't what "most components" do or even which components might be carcinogenic. One has to wonder why you would challenge such a statement. It doesn't take a majority of combustion waste products to be a problem.
"More to the point, the issue isn't really cancer, but other things."
Then why bother commenting on it?
It would seem you advocate for the idea that what we have is good enough, or perhaps we could stand to make some more smog. If that's not the case, you should rethink your comment strategy.
You are right that cancer isn't the most important problem to address in this respect, and it is true that this is a common trope. Nevertheless, the more important problems we face could be well addressed with an approach that drives petroleum-powered vehicles to extinction. Win-win. Let electric vehicle advocates have their poorly-considered cancer argument, what they champion will result in better quality of life for all of us even if cancer doesn't get solved as a result.
"Apple realized long ago a battle at the low end is one that leaves no victors."
Except for the victors it leaves, of course. If there were no victors there would be no low end.
Ignoring the vapid, meaningless SuperKendall rhetoric for a moment, it's also interesting to point out that Apple's initial focus in their turnaround was the low end iMac series. If it wasn't for the low end Apple would not have made it at all. Their current boutique status evolved later.
"It's a good idea to focus on finding and winning over people who are willing to pay for extra power and features. The other benefit of that approach is you are likely to find more loyal users, if you go chasing after people who ignore specs and value and just chase the cheapest model, they will have zero brand loyalty and may well not purchase your phones again when upgrading."
Complete horsesh@t, of course. Apple won no one over with "extra power and features", that was never the approach. Apple's approach has always been to exploit brand loyalty and lie about "extra power and features". There's a serious cause and effect problem here.
I'm also not sure how "ignore specs" applies to phone buyers. Apple has never competed on specs with phones, aside from how thin they are.
"To win over repeat customers means putting money into design and build that knock you right out of contention at the low end of the market."
More nonsense. Apple's high prices are a result of high margins and Apple views the high prices as a positive differentiator, much like Gucci does. Their marketing tactics, and customer service, are similar.
Apple's strategy is to tell their customers that they are better to everyone else because they have the superior intelligence and the good taste to invest in Apple products. That's where the money is spent. Apple cares so little about "extra power and features" that it allows its product lines to go stale for many years at a time despite obscene profits. Now more than ever, Apple is a lifestyle brand, not a technology company.
"A) easier to achieve when you're making such a large pack"
I don't think you should assume this. Tesla uses a small cell even for large packs.
A plane would require sufficient structure to prevent catastrophe in the event of a worst case battery failure. Big batteries aren't easier to make lightweight.
"Coral seems to have little problem re-settling as conditions change. There are coral cores that prove it, though they are little discussed for some reason?"
That's is well known, and just because YOU don't hear it discussed doesn't mean there's a conspiracy. Just because coral doesn't go extinct due to sea level changes of a meter or so a year doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned with current circumstances.
How can they "accumulate thousands of errors" when they don't make measurements? I think these thousands of errors you refer to are in your own feeble mind.
Perhaps you should choose a "physics lecturer" that isn't a homeless guy sharing your bottle of Mad Dog. Don't pretend you've any such education, you utterly fail to demonstrate it.
Again, wrong. Try catching up. Everything said in that post is well presented and uncontroversial.
Again, a poster child of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
"...but don't insult my intelligence..."
nothing to insult.
"If the models were as accurate as you suggest, there wouldn't be any divergence between them and actual reality,"
The claim you are referring to is explicitly clear that no such divergence exists.
"as there is in every climate model"
He didn't make a claim about climate model, he made a claim about absorption spectrum of small molecules. See...no intelligence to insult.
The problem here is that you don't know anything and it's made worse by your arrogance. Curiously, these often go together. You're a high-strutting Dunning-Kruger poster child.
It used to be that "software devs" went to school. Not so much anymore.
My idea of a solution is not buying off "working class Americans" with tax cuts to support climate change issues and that appears to be your proposal here. The thought of any politician considering that is hysterical. If the government won't take action, it won't enact tax policies that cause voters to insist on it.
Ultimately the problem is greed, it is money corrupting the political system. The answer is not more money corrupting more people differently. You make good points, but what you advocate would never happen and would not get the job done anyway.
It sure doesn't seem like you agree with him entirely. At most charitable, it would seem you are helping make his point by being exactly the kind of person he is describing.
Except that doesn't explain what "Overrated" and "Underrated" are for. These require an explicit judgement of the content even when it is on-topic.
It's not as though this problem is new, either. It was broken when it was first implemented, as are all similar reader voting schemes for the same reasons. No one should expect popularity contests to produce good results.
Society is hyper-partisan. You expect moderation to be corrupted by that, not be a solution for it.
"People need to figure out ways to ingest less calories..."
Exactly what this is targeting, despite your inability to understand it. People are not fat because of the desire to consume more, they desire to consume more because something is wrong.
One of the oldest, tired-est cliches among the pretend intelligencia here is "correlation is not causation". Well, eating more certainly correlates with obesity but "correlation is not causation". I find it interesting how no one here ever seems to get that when it comes to weight management. Could it be that they've never experienced it themselves?
The solution to obesity is understanding and addressing causation, not correlation. Eating less is already known as ineffective except to those who lack experience. A treatment that solved the underlying cause would result in less consumption, not more.
LOL what a stupid take. If put more intelligently put it could qualify as a troll.
Perhaps what we need is mandatory gene therapy for /. trolls that ensures non-curable cancer by age 40. This would reduce burden on society, reduce consumption, and ease pressure on fresh water and toilets. I'm quite sure this would be a very very good thing.