Sigh. So all the hoopla surrounding the fact that the Windows desktop OS is now designed around a touch metaphor is just bullshit? With Win 8 you can target the same application to both environments. X86 desktop and ARM tablet. No code change. No recompile. Same app.
I don't think I have read an article full of so much lies and bullshit since Mitt Romney's last speech. Sorry, but what the fuck has that article writer been drinking? Bleach? The pathetic attempt at comparison is absurd, and just full of outright lies. Sad. "Surface without any apps. - 15G free." Are you joking? No apps? Please stop lying.
"The surface is... much slower at everything". Yeah, great comparison. Please forgive me for ignoring morons with unsubstantiated claims. Someone poisoned this dudes Cool Aid with some serious hallucinogenics.
The equivalent for the Surface is 8G, and that includes what amounts to the.NET framework, which takes quite a bit of space, but enables developers to develop for a single platform rather than multiple platforms as with iOS and OSX. Good or bad one could argue either way, but the virtual machine and libraries take about 4G, so that would account for much of the difference.
Office is also something quite different than the iOS productivity apps.
I can buy a notebook that will kick Surface's ass from here to next Tuesday, with storage like ten times as great, far better horsepower
The average person works in email, browser and office. So, why does he need something that will kick Surface's ass? He doesn't do video editing in Premiere Pro, so what would he need the extra power for? The Surface does everything he needs to do and it does it fast and with no delays.
much more usable Office
So you have a much more usable Office than Office? Where?
And WTF do I need Office on a tablet for? That's why my notebook and PC
So, why would you be lugging all those things around with you? The surface does everything the typical office worker needs to do. It has Word, Excel, PP, Mail, browser. Unless you are a developer, the Surface can probably service all your PC needs. So why lug an extra laptop around?
You're not in trouble losing 2% of market share if the overall market size grew by 10%.
Yes, you are.
Market share isn't everything.
Yes it is.
The rules of business are quite different from a Mom&Pop corner shop (where market share doesn't mean much) to a global giant like Apple where market share is a crucial indicator of relevance. Particularly for the Apple of iPhones and iPods, market share is everything.
Yes, he has. As you should. If someone is giving away money and they are willing to give it to you, take it. That doesn't mean he approves of the government taking money and redistributing it though.
company reap profits from the environment we the people built with our money without giving back... that's theft.
But Mr. Marx, I though you were dead, and your ideas too.
Well, they haven't won anywhere yet. They won a case in the US, but that has yet to be appealed, and it seems quite likely it is going to be overthrown on appeal given the obvious problems in the original jury coupled with the fact that patents that the original case tried have since been rejected by the USPTO.
Remember, in the UK the courts decisions have been appeal, and Apple lost the appeal too, so that case is done and they did really lose it.
The message isn't hidden, it's right there on the page
No, it isn't. Read it again. The message is not in compliance. It would not be in compliance if it was 72pt font across the middle of the page. The words and letters used simply do not convey the message they were explicitly told to put on their page. The words on the linked-to page does, but that was not what the judge told them to do.
Yeah, 'cause Apple is such a great company they can break the law any time they wish however they wish. Were you born this retarded or did your dad beat you repeatedly over the head with a hammer when you were a child?
Actually, it appears not to be. This time the wording is wrong. Court stated the apology had to be on the first page linking to the verdict if so desired, but that is clearly not the case at the moment.
The total number of iOS-based devices is greater than the total number of Android-based devices.
Not true at all. Android phones alone have more than five times the market share of iOS phones, the iPad doesn't sell five times the iPhone, and neither does the iPod touch which is the only iPod running iOS. The total number of iPod Touches sold by EOY 2011 was 60 million, which is a relatively small number considering 136 million Android phones shipped in 3Q12 alone.
So, your notion that there are more shipped iOS devices than Android devices is not even close to true, even if you just count Android phones. Put that into your head and let it spin for a while. There are more Android phones sold than the total number of iOS devices.
Here is another important number for you. Apple's market share is falling. It dropped by 2.1 percentage points from 3Q11 to 3Q12, and all preliminary numbers from iPhone 5 sales says it is a disappointment as related to market share. If you have a 15% market share and it is dropping 2 percentage points year over year, you're in trouble.
It must really piss off the Linux community that the biggest *nix based consumer share doesn't belong to Linux, but OS X
You're on drugs man. The Android market share is five times the market share of iOS in the mobile space. Android is Linux. If you think Apple has the highest market share someone has put drugs in your CoolAid.
The basic tenet of your plan has been tested. In fact it is currently implemented here and there. The most famous implementation of your plan was in the USSR, the plan is currently at work in North Korea. It worked great in the USSR right? Perfect in North Korea? Stop living in your mothers basement and get an education!
Well, the bottom half of income earners pay zero federal tax, so giving them a federal tax break has no impact on anything whatsoever. In fact, what Romney should do is to tell the US population that he will give the bottom half a ten million dollar cash tax break. Across the board. They would vote for him and it would cost nothing at all.
Please note, I am a right-wing libertarian and wouldn't vote for the Republican party if you paid me (open to negotiations of course).
Person A has an income of $200 and is taxed at 20%. Person B has $800 and is taxed at 10%.
Sigh. That isn't the case in the US. The bottom half of earners in the US pay ZERO federal tax. ZERO. It can't be more progressive than that. The median US wage earner pays NO federal tax.
Of the total federal tax the vast majority is paid by the top 25% of earners, with the top 1% paying a huge share compared to the number of tax payers.
At a federal level, Romney can't cut taxes across the board, he can only cut taxes for the top half of earners in the US since the bottom half doesn't pay any federal tax and therefore will "receive" no benefit from a tax cut. This is what the left would call "unfair" since the bottom half won't get a tax cut. It is almost impossible to make them understand their idiocy.
Please note, I am a right-wing person and therefore can not vote for anyone from the Republican party since that party is currently governed by left-wing and Christian lunatics. Romney may be as business friendly and as capitalist as all Hell. Once in the grasp of the current Republican leadership he will have to revert to the Stalinist policies followed by the Republican party back to (at least) then 1980s.
Wooooosh. You can't re-allocate through tax cuts. Taxation is the government confiscating money from citizens, not confiscating that money is not an act of re-distribution, it is an act of stopping any possibility of re-distribution. Romney, for all his faults, have never advocated re-distribution. What you are essentially saying is that if I am a thief, and I stop stealing money from people, I am in fact giving them money, that's absurd.
Don't forget, the top earners in the US pay the vast majority of the taxes (at a federal level). The bottom half (the 47 percent'ers) do not pay any federal tax at all, while the top 1% pay more than 10% (top of my head but not far off) of the total federal tax. Please see the word "federal" in there.
This isn't particularly surprising given who is now in control of "The Right". The NeoConservative movement was never conservative, neo-cons are extreme left, not extreme right. Paul Wolfowitz, the architect behind the Iraq 2 blunder is a strong devout Leninist for cripes sakes.
If you measure by economic activity by public vs private sector, and you assign a +1 socialist for a shift from private-sector economic activity to public-sector economic activity, and add a +1 capitalist (or -1 socialist) for driving economic activity away from the public sector and over to the private sector, the past few Republican presidents we have had have been among the most socialist presidents ever. If you compare Bush Jr. to Clinton, for example, Bush was a veritable Karl Marx to Clinton's Milton Friedman. The fact that Bush Jr was all about growing the federal government and empowering his closest friends was taken straight out of the play-book that Stalin governed by. Labels do not matter when actions are the opposite of what those labels say. The current Republican party is simply a left-wing party of lunatic Christians.
It is bizarre, but true, that almost universally, since the war, public-sector spending goes up significantly with Republican leadership and either up far less, or down with Democrats in the White House. It is not strange that the red states are red, they are utterly and fatally dependent on federal hand-outs (with the exception of Texas) and could not survive capitalists in power, while the "liberal" blue states are (on average) net contributors to the federal government and would fare a lot better with a strict capitalist economic policy (they wouldn't have to pay for the dead-beats in the red states).
Slashdot Mirror
Target a tablet or a desktop, not both
Sigh. So all the hoopla surrounding the fact that the Windows desktop OS is now designed around a touch metaphor is just bullshit? With Win 8 you can target the same application to both environments. X86 desktop and ARM tablet. No code change. No recompile. Same app.
It does. Next question.
I don't think I have read an article full of so much lies and bullshit since Mitt Romney's last speech. Sorry, but what the fuck has that article writer been drinking? Bleach? The pathetic attempt at comparison is absurd, and just full of outright lies. Sad. "Surface without any apps. - 15G free." Are you joking? No apps? Please stop lying.
"The surface is ... much slower at everything". Yeah, great comparison. Please forgive me for ignoring morons with unsubstantiated claims. Someone poisoned this dudes Cool Aid with some serious hallucinogenics.
The equivalent for the Surface is 8G, and that includes what amounts to the .NET framework, which takes quite a bit of space, but enables developers to develop for a single platform rather than multiple platforms as with iOS and OSX. Good or bad one could argue either way, but the virtual machine and libraries take about 4G, so that would account for much of the difference.
Office is also something quite different than the iOS productivity apps.
I can buy a notebook that will kick Surface's ass from here to next Tuesday, with storage like ten times as great, far better horsepower
The average person works in email, browser and office. So, why does he need something that will kick Surface's ass? He doesn't do video editing in Premiere Pro, so what would he need the extra power for? The Surface does everything he needs to do and it does it fast and with no delays.
much more usable Office
So you have a much more usable Office than Office? Where?
And WTF do I need Office on a tablet for? That's why my notebook and PC
So, why would you be lugging all those things around with you? The surface does everything the typical office worker needs to do. It has Word, Excel, PP, Mail, browser. Unless you are a developer, the Surface can probably service all your PC needs. So why lug an extra laptop around?
Sure it does.
OK, I agree with you.
You're not in trouble losing 2% of market share if the overall market size grew by 10%.
Yes, you are.
Market share isn't everything.
Yes it is.
The rules of business are quite different from a Mom&Pop corner shop (where market share doesn't mean much) to a global giant like Apple where market share is a crucial indicator of relevance. Particularly for the Apple of iPhones and iPods, market share is everything.
he was profited from it. oops
Yes, he has. As you should. If someone is giving away money and they are willing to give it to you, take it. That doesn't mean he approves of the government taking money and redistributing it though.
company reap profits from the environment we the people built with our money without giving back ... that's theft.
But Mr. Marx, I though you were dead, and your ideas too.
In some places it wins, some places it doesn't
Well, they haven't won anywhere yet. They won a case in the US, but that has yet to be appealed, and it seems quite likely it is going to be overthrown on appeal given the obvious problems in the original jury coupled with the fact that patents that the original case tried have since been rejected by the USPTO.
Remember, in the UK the courts decisions have been appeal, and Apple lost the appeal too, so that case is done and they did really lose it.
The message isn't hidden, it's right there on the page
No, it isn't. Read it again. The message is not in compliance. It would not be in compliance if it was 72pt font across the middle of the page. The words and letters used simply do not convey the message they were explicitly told to put on their page. The words on the linked-to page does, but that was not what the judge told them to do.
Yeah, 'cause Apple is such a great company they can break the law any time they wish however they wish. Were you born this retarded or did your dad beat you repeatedly over the head with a hammer when you were a child?
It's posted and in full compliance
Actually, it appears not to be. This time the wording is wrong. Court stated the apology had to be on the first page linking to the verdict if so desired, but that is clearly not the case at the moment.
The total number of iOS-based devices is greater than the total number of Android-based devices.
Not true at all. Android phones alone have more than five times the market share of iOS phones, the iPad doesn't sell five times the iPhone, and neither does the iPod touch which is the only iPod running iOS. The total number of iPod Touches sold by EOY 2011 was 60 million, which is a relatively small number considering 136 million Android phones shipped in 3Q12 alone.
So, your notion that there are more shipped iOS devices than Android devices is not even close to true, even if you just count Android phones. Put that into your head and let it spin for a while. There are more Android phones sold than the total number of iOS devices.
Here is another important number for you. Apple's market share is falling. It dropped by 2.1 percentage points from 3Q11 to 3Q12, and all preliminary numbers from iPhone 5 sales says it is a disappointment as related to market share. If you have a 15% market share and it is dropping 2 percentage points year over year, you're in trouble.
You are listing three different operating systems here, who are not at all derivatives.
WinPhone (pre 8), Win CE Share nothing with...
Win NT, Win 7, Win Vista, Win XP, Win RT (is WinNT built for ARM, NT was always built to be portable), Win 2000 who share nothing with...
Win 98, Win 95, Win 3.xx, DOS
So OSX is still the biggest but you have trouble accepting reality
Yes, you are right, OSX, with a 15% market share, is MUCH bigger than Android with 75% market share. Are you that mathematically challenged?
It must really piss off the Linux community that the biggest *nix based consumer share doesn't belong to Linux, but OS X
You're on drugs man. The Android market share is five times the market share of iOS in the mobile space. Android is Linux. If you think Apple has the highest market share someone has put drugs in your CoolAid.
The basic tenet of your plan has been tested. In fact it is currently implemented here and there. The most famous implementation of your plan was in the USSR, the plan is currently at work in North Korea. It worked great in the USSR right? Perfect in North Korea? Stop living in your mothers basement and get an education!
Well, the bottom half of income earners pay zero federal tax, so giving them a federal tax break has no impact on anything whatsoever. In fact, what Romney should do is to tell the US population that he will give the bottom half a ten million dollar cash tax break. Across the board. They would vote for him and it would cost nothing at all.
Please note, I am a right-wing libertarian and wouldn't vote for the Republican party if you paid me (open to negotiations of course).
Person A has an income of $200 and is taxed at 20%. Person B has $800 and is taxed at 10%.
Sigh. That isn't the case in the US. The bottom half of earners in the US pay ZERO federal tax. ZERO. It can't be more progressive than that. The median US wage earner pays NO federal tax.
Of the total federal tax the vast majority is paid by the top 25% of earners, with the top 1% paying a huge share compared to the number of tax payers.
At a federal level, Romney can't cut taxes across the board, he can only cut taxes for the top half of earners in the US since the bottom half doesn't pay any federal tax and therefore will "receive" no benefit from a tax cut. This is what the left would call "unfair" since the bottom half won't get a tax cut. It is almost impossible to make them understand their idiocy.
Please note, I am a right-wing person and therefore can not vote for anyone from the Republican party since that party is currently governed by left-wing and Christian lunatics. Romney may be as business friendly and as capitalist as all Hell. Once in the grasp of the current Republican leadership he will have to revert to the Stalinist policies followed by the Republican party back to (at least) then 1980s.
Wooooosh. You can't re-allocate through tax cuts. Taxation is the government confiscating money from citizens, not confiscating that money is not an act of re-distribution, it is an act of stopping any possibility of re-distribution. Romney, for all his faults, have never advocated re-distribution. What you are essentially saying is that if I am a thief, and I stop stealing money from people, I am in fact giving them money, that's absurd.
Don't forget, the top earners in the US pay the vast majority of the taxes (at a federal level). The bottom half (the 47 percent'ers) do not pay any federal tax at all, while the top 1% pay more than 10% (top of my head but not far off) of the total federal tax. Please see the word "federal" in there.
This isn't particularly surprising given who is now in control of "The Right". The NeoConservative movement was never conservative, neo-cons are extreme left, not extreme right. Paul Wolfowitz, the architect behind the Iraq 2 blunder is a strong devout Leninist for cripes sakes.
If you measure by economic activity by public vs private sector, and you assign a +1 socialist for a shift from private-sector economic activity to public-sector economic activity, and add a +1 capitalist (or -1 socialist) for driving economic activity away from the public sector and over to the private sector, the past few Republican presidents we have had have been among the most socialist presidents ever. If you compare Bush Jr. to Clinton, for example, Bush was a veritable Karl Marx to Clinton's Milton Friedman. The fact that Bush Jr was all about growing the federal government and empowering his closest friends was taken straight out of the play-book that Stalin governed by. Labels do not matter when actions are the opposite of what those labels say. The current Republican party is simply a left-wing party of lunatic Christians.
It is bizarre, but true, that almost universally, since the war, public-sector spending goes up significantly with Republican leadership and either up far less, or down with Democrats in the White House. It is not strange that the red states are red, they are utterly and fatally dependent on federal hand-outs (with the exception of Texas) and could not survive capitalists in power, while the "liberal" blue states are (on average) net contributors to the federal government and would fare a lot better with a strict capitalist economic policy (they wouldn't have to pay for the dead-beats in the red states).
famous last words to choose from.... aaaargh!