Yes, when I talk to dense people I tend to try to dumb it down to their level. Apparently I need to do so even more with you.
Apple has shown itself perfectly capable of retaining market share while keeping margins high. Their competitors have not. This is because Apple positions their products at the high end and generally competes on features instead of price. They are a brand and not a chine made piece of plastic.
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Yeah, it'll be just like that thing apple used to sell. The Macbook I think it was called. Never gained enough market share so they had to kill it. Oh wait.
a) Not having 100% market share doesn't matter as long as you don't keep losing that market share indefinitely.
b) Marketshare is different from marketshare. A Ferrari and a Jetta are both cars, according to you logic that'd put them both in the same market. Apple doesn't care about people who buy $100 tablets and would have never bought an iPad.
...have you looked at the history of Vietnam before the Vietnam war at all? Ever?
Ho Chi Minh was falling out of power, those in power were very glad to side with the soviets. After all, the soviets were giving them supplies to cement their power bases with.
Or did you mean military opposition by Ho Chi Minh against his own pro-soviet government? Using weapons supplied by some magical fairy I take it or are you suddenly okay with the US interfering with the "internal" affairs of other countries?
evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
If you think the Soviet Union wasn't using every dirty trick they knew to get pro-communists in power in those same countries you listed then you're delusional. Also, if you don't think they have done every legal and illegal thing they could have to maintain their hold over those "democratic" communist parties you're even more delusional. Of course, the Soviets had no legal mandate to ever release their records of such things.
So yes there was a conspiracy in the same way as there was a giant pro-US conspiracy, a giant game of chess played across the globe at hideous cost.
What's your point again? Anything is possible but clearly since they didn't support all phones at release it's very far from trivial.
So I suppose if you're willing to spend massive amounts of money it's not an issue but most game developers don't have that luxury. More profitable to create another iOS game with those resources rather than waste them on Android.
Robotic cars would still greatly lower the accident rate and anyone with such a car would be much safer. Assuming the technology is sound.
A robotic car will never get distracted, will never tire, will never drive unsafely, will never get frustrated, will never get bored and so on. It has near perfect situational awareness and reaction times. All the time.
So if the guy in front of you slams on the breaks, the robotic car will react half a second sooner than any human could and probably a few seconds sooner than the average human. It'll know if the guy behind has enough room to stop and it will know every path to avoid an accident. Near instantly.
it's far more Earth like now and in it's past than Europa and Enceladus.
No it's not. It lacks useful amounts of water, lacks radiation protection and lacks areas of stable high temperature. And it's been that way for a couple billion years.
Europa probably has an ocean of water under it's ice, has a kilometer of ice to provide radiation protection and has volcanic activity to provide zones of high temperature. That also gives it potential for higher forms of life which Mars does not have.
Plus transplanted bacteria are a lot less interesting than independently evolved life.
So 40 Euro shipped plus tax. Versus 40 dollars (or 30 for the cheaper version) shipped for the pi. Get back to me when the concept of conversion rates sinks in to you head.
Also, let me know when you get your phone connected to hdmi and ethernet.
Then again you're an idiot who thinks a rasberry pi is a phone so I doubt there's hope for you.
By the way, I find your apparent obsession with success and failure to say more about you than anything else. I only mentioned it because you started talking about failure.
I don't think about success or failure. I think about happiness and that's a very personal thing to figure out. It's also something we're psychologically bad at judging, go look at the research. Money to around upper middle class seems to influence it on average. So does having a family and support structure. Religion does as well. Some other things as well. I am for medium to long term happiness.
Some people will never be happy while others need almost nothing to be happy. Trick seems to be to accept the situation you're in and be happy with it. See, our brains are mostly incapable of judging what will make us happy. We dread something but when it happens it simply becomes part of the routine. Or we think something will fill us with joy but nothing changes when we achieve it. In the end things rarely matter as much as we think they do.
Personally I've gotten a decent grasp on what makes me happy and why. I honestly feel bad for you if you're spent 40 years on this planet and still don't have a clue. I knew in high school that what most people attached to happiness was pure BS. Since then I've learned some of the reasons why they still do it and how not to fall in the same trap.
I stopped blaming my parents soon after I left high school for most things. I can't imagine being in my 40s and still be obsessed about something so old and so irrelevant. As I've implied in my previous posts instead of obsessing angrily about them I've learned to find the good things they've imparted in me and leverage them for my own benefit.
I don't think it's worth talking to you anymore since properly done psychological studies have repeatedly shown the influence of genetics.
What is success ? Frankly, I'm over 40, and I still don't know what is success.
So why do you claim that one approach leads to failure while the other one doesn't. How can you talk and define failure when you claim to not know what success is?
You have just claimed to not only be talking out your backside but to be a hypocrite as well. Congratulations.
Your point? Or did you take my comment as an insult against your, apparently non Asian and non Eastern European, cultural or ethnic background? If you don't understand the concept of an illustrating example then maybe you should take my comment as an insult but for other reasons.
Humans can be trained in how they think and so you fail to grasp the point of school. You also fail to see other forms of intrinsic motivation that drive the really successful people.
Work ethic is, I'd say, an intrinsic form of motivation that can be learned or ingrained. If you think otherwise go talk to some immigrants from Asian or Easter Europe. They can't not work, it's in their very blood and nothing short of death will make them stop (and in some cases they try to make sure even that isn't a barrier via instructions to their kids). As such boredom no longer applies since their intrinsic desire to be productive carries them onward.
People with strong extrinsic motivation (and who have good grades at school) tend to fail in real life, because they search for the immediate rewards.
Wow, you must have gone to some crappy school and known some crappy people. The students I knew who had good grades did it for intrinsic or long term rewards. The ones who cared about short term rewards never got good grades because grades provided no immediate enjoyment so it was difficult for them to put the effort into it. That's the whole point of your very argument, extrinsic goals aren't effective. The ones who got good grades either had ingrained work ethic/parental approval intrinsic drives and/or long term intrinsic drives. They got good grades because they knew that doing so will give them future benefits and let them meet their own future goals better.
That last one is by the way apparently genetic and correlated well with long term success. If you don't understand it then, well, sorry to hear that.
Heck, I'm getting old and I'm half deaf nowadays, and I can immediately hear the difference. There's just no comparison.
No you can't, your brain is lying to you as TFA said. Of course, it also explicitly said that this is for the end consumer and that higher quality was useful in the production pipeline. Needless to say a bad encoding would also violate the assumptions in TFA.
So no, you can't tell the difference between a proper 44/16 encoding and a 192/24 recording assuming the volume of both is identical (down to the 0.1db).
You tried to argue that wanting computer access on trips was somehow an inherently bad thing. That time spent with a book is more worthwhile than time spent reading an eBook or being online. I simply pointed out that having such access is useful and that your argument held no water.
Then you tried to argue that it's the quantity of the time spent is what matters and the nature of the trip. I've already noted that this is, depending on the individual, a good habit and so simply pointed out that wanting to keep doing a useful habit isn't a bad thing.
I'm arguing nothing, I'm simply shooting holes in your arguments.
If he's only going away for a night or two occasionally, and the trips aren't too stressful, taking any action is excessive.
Why? Why should someone have a less pleasurable and less efficient use of their time simply because it's only a few days? To prove that they can? I could book a 1 star hotel but why would I if I had other options? I could live without AC in 100+ weather but why would I if I had other options?
Your whole chain of arguments is based on the view that how he wants to spend his time is inherently bad. Trying to hide that behind other arguments doesn't change it.
A hundred dollar bill and ten thousand pennies are the same amount of money.
Little things add up which is something a lot of people seem to not understand. Then they wonder why they're broke or have no time for anything.
Wouldn't that strike you as just a little bit obsessive?
No more than your desire to read books or the hundred other habits that make up your various routines and preferences. Humans are creatures of habit, we like out routines and keeping them makes us happy.
The ancient greeks would have said the same thing about your book. What an empty life where you don't interact with people in person to transfer information.
That said, I have maybe 50 years left on this planet baring a zombie apocalypse. I'm not going to piss it away in inefficiency for the sake of some worthless philosophical concept.
Just because you're incapable of dealing and managing with flows of information doesn't mean the rest of us have the same deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you making some statements of the obvious
Yes, when I talk to dense people I tend to try to dumb it down to their level. Apparently I need to do so even more with you.
Apple has shown itself perfectly capable of retaining market share while keeping margins high. Their competitors have not. This is because Apple positions their products at the high end and generally competes on features instead of price. They are a brand and not a chine made piece of plastic.
Other competitors cut each other's throats to get the cheapest computer, monitor, phone and tablet out into the marketplace. Apple does not. In essence they are not Apple's competitors but simply each other's competitors.
Yeah, it'll be just like that thing apple used to sell. The Macbook I think it was called. Never gained enough market share so they had to kill it. Oh wait.
a) Not having 100% market share doesn't matter as long as you don't keep losing that market share indefinitely.
b) Marketshare is different from marketshare. A Ferrari and a Jetta are both cars, according to you logic that'd put them both in the same market. Apple doesn't care about people who buy $100 tablets and would have never bought an iPad.
...have you looked at the history of Vietnam before the Vietnam war at all? Ever?
Ho Chi Minh was falling out of power, those in power were very glad to side with the soviets. After all, the soviets were giving them supplies to cement their power bases with.
Or did you mean military opposition by Ho Chi Minh against his own pro-soviet government? Using weapons supplied by some magical fairy I take it or are you suddenly okay with the US interfering with the "internal" affairs of other countries?
evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
If you think the Soviet Union wasn't using every dirty trick they knew to get pro-communists in power in those same countries you listed then you're delusional. Also, if you don't think they have done every legal and illegal thing they could have to maintain their hold over those "democratic" communist parties you're even more delusional. Of course, the Soviets had no legal mandate to ever release their records of such things.
So yes there was a conspiracy in the same way as there was a giant pro-US conspiracy, a giant game of chess played across the globe at hideous cost.
The soviet union also had elections. Did wonders for them, eh?
What's your point again? Anything is possible but clearly since they didn't support all phones at release it's very far from trivial.
So I suppose if you're willing to spend massive amounts of money it's not an issue but most game developers don't have that luxury. More profitable to create another iOS game with those resources rather than waste them on Android.
So you're saying they'd need a profit margin of 500%?
I hope your comment was an utter fail of parody/sarcasm instead of being serious.
So basically it'll be like driving in India or China?
So why are you using a computer? Do you know how many people have been replaced by computers? Do you even know where the word computer came from?
Robotic cars would still greatly lower the accident rate and anyone with such a car would be much safer. Assuming the technology is sound.
A robotic car will never get distracted, will never tire, will never drive unsafely, will never get frustrated, will never get bored and so on. It has near perfect situational awareness and reaction times. All the time.
So if the guy in front of you slams on the breaks, the robotic car will react half a second sooner than any human could and probably a few seconds sooner than the average human. It'll know if the guy behind has enough room to stop and it will know every path to avoid an accident. Near instantly.
it's far more Earth like now and in it's past than Europa and Enceladus.
No it's not. It lacks useful amounts of water, lacks radiation protection and lacks areas of stable high temperature. And it's been that way for a couple billion years.
Europa probably has an ocean of water under it's ice, has a kilometer of ice to provide radiation protection and has volcanic activity to provide zones of high temperature. That also gives it potential for higher forms of life which Mars does not have.
Plus transplanted bacteria are a lot less interesting than independently evolved life.
Yes it does, apparently reading and research aren't your strong suits.
Apple charges 30% for all transaction done via an iphone.
Right now google does not.
So 40 Euro shipped plus tax. Versus 40 dollars (or 30 for the cheaper version) shipped for the pi. Get back to me when the concept of conversion rates sinks in to you head.
Also, let me know when you get your phone connected to hdmi and ethernet.
Then again you're an idiot who thinks a rasberry pi is a phone so I doubt there's hope for you.
Once again what phone was this? I take your inability to answer such a simple question as a sign that you are lying. So good day.
What phone do you have that costs under $25?
By the way, I find your apparent obsession with success and failure to say more about you than anything else. I only mentioned it because you started talking about failure.
I don't think about success or failure. I think about happiness and that's a very personal thing to figure out. It's also something we're psychologically bad at judging, go look at the research. Money to around upper middle class seems to influence it on average. So does having a family and support structure. Religion does as well. Some other things as well. I am for medium to long term happiness.
Some people will never be happy while others need almost nothing to be happy. Trick seems to be to accept the situation you're in and be happy with it. See, our brains are mostly incapable of judging what will make us happy. We dread something but when it happens it simply becomes part of the routine. Or we think something will fill us with joy but nothing changes when we achieve it. In the end things rarely matter as much as we think they do.
Personally I've gotten a decent grasp on what makes me happy and why. I honestly feel bad for you if you're spent 40 years on this planet and still don't have a clue. I knew in high school that what most people attached to happiness was pure BS. Since then I've learned some of the reasons why they still do it and how not to fall in the same trap.
I stopped blaming my parents soon after I left high school for most things. I can't imagine being in my 40s and still be obsessed about something so old and so irrelevant. As I've implied in my previous posts instead of obsessing angrily about them I've learned to find the good things they've imparted in me and leverage them for my own benefit.
I don't believe on genetics,
I don't think it's worth talking to you anymore since properly done psychological studies have repeatedly shown the influence of genetics.
What is success ? Frankly, I'm over 40, and I still don't know what is success.
So why do you claim that one approach leads to failure while the other one doesn't. How can you talk and define failure when you claim to not know what success is?
You have just claimed to not only be talking out your backside but to be a hypocrite as well. Congratulations.
Your point? Or did you take my comment as an insult against your, apparently non Asian and non Eastern European, cultural or ethnic background? If you don't understand the concept of an illustrating example then maybe you should take my comment as an insult but for other reasons.
Humans can be trained in how they think and so you fail to grasp the point of school. You also fail to see other forms of intrinsic motivation that drive the really successful people.
Work ethic is, I'd say, an intrinsic form of motivation that can be learned or ingrained. If you think otherwise go talk to some immigrants from Asian or Easter Europe. They can't not work, it's in their very blood and nothing short of death will make them stop (and in some cases they try to make sure even that isn't a barrier via instructions to their kids). As such boredom no longer applies since their intrinsic desire to be productive carries them onward.
People with strong extrinsic motivation (and who have good grades at school) tend to fail in real life, because they search for the immediate rewards.
Wow, you must have gone to some crappy school and known some crappy people. The students I knew who had good grades did it for intrinsic or long term rewards. The ones who cared about short term rewards never got good grades because grades provided no immediate enjoyment so it was difficult for them to put the effort into it. That's the whole point of your very argument, extrinsic goals aren't effective. The ones who got good grades either had ingrained work ethic/parental approval intrinsic drives and/or long term intrinsic drives. They got good grades because they knew that doing so will give them future benefits and let them meet their own future goals better.
That last one is by the way apparently genetic and correlated well with long term success. If you don't understand it then, well, sorry to hear that.
Heck, I'm getting old and I'm half deaf nowadays, and I can immediately hear the difference. There's just no comparison.
No you can't, your brain is lying to you as TFA said. Of course, it also explicitly said that this is for the end consumer and that higher quality was useful in the production pipeline. Needless to say a bad encoding would also violate the assumptions in TFA.
So no, you can't tell the difference between a proper 44/16 encoding and a 192/24 recording assuming the volume of both is identical (down to the 0.1db).
professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.
Yeah those sure sound like people who haven't trained to tell the difference. *rolls eyes*
You're a delusional moron, accept it and move on.
You saved $25. Actually since you're not OCing you could have gone with a 2500 for $210.
So no you didn't save hundreds.
You tried to argue that wanting computer access on trips was somehow an inherently bad thing. That time spent with a book is more worthwhile than time spent reading an eBook or being online. I simply pointed out that having such access is useful and that your argument held no water.
Then you tried to argue that it's the quantity of the time spent is what matters and the nature of the trip. I've already noted that this is, depending on the individual, a good habit and so simply pointed out that wanting to keep doing a useful habit isn't a bad thing.
I'm arguing nothing, I'm simply shooting holes in your arguments.
If he's only going away for a night or two occasionally, and the trips aren't too stressful, taking any action is excessive.
Why? Why should someone have a less pleasurable and less efficient use of their time simply because it's only a few days? To prove that they can? I could book a 1 star hotel but why would I if I had other options? I could live without AC in 100+ weather but why would I if I had other options?
Your whole chain of arguments is based on the view that how he wants to spend his time is inherently bad. Trying to hide that behind other arguments doesn't change it.
A hundred dollar bill and ten thousand pennies are the same amount of money.
Little things add up which is something a lot of people seem to not understand. Then they wonder why they're broke or have no time for anything.
Wouldn't that strike you as just a little bit obsessive?
No more than your desire to read books or the hundred other habits that make up your various routines and preferences. Humans are creatures of habit, we like out routines and keeping them makes us happy.
The ancient greeks would have said the same thing about your book. What an empty life where you don't interact with people in person to transfer information.
That said, I have maybe 50 years left on this planet baring a zombie apocalypse. I'm not going to piss it away in inefficiency for the sake of some worthless philosophical concept.
Just because you're incapable of dealing and managing with flows of information doesn't mean the rest of us have the same deficiency.