The MacBook is slower and requires extra money for port extenders than the high-end MacBook Air. You're not getting extra battery life. You're basically getting an $899 MacBook Air with a retina display. Now, again, I won't short change the retina display, but that's pretty much the only thing that is "better" about the MacBook. Everything else is either worse or equal.
Again, going back to the dark ol' days, you ran into the problem about the difference between a high-end Macintosh Performa and a low-end Power Macintosh. Really the only difference was that the Power Mac had a faster hard-drive (7200 RPM SCSI drives versus 5400 RPM ATA). Pretty much everything else was the same.
The MacBook is for those people who want an ultra-light portable with a retina display and care about nothing else. It feels a bit like the PowerMac Cube--you're trading in too much to get too little.
The theory is that by excluding the ports, the laptop can be made thinner and lighter. While "thinner" may be for the aesthete, "lighter" certainly has real world advantages.
Now, that said, I tend to agree that there is a happy medium between 1 port and 356 ports. In theory, Apple is supposed to be good at finding this happy medium.
That you could try just buying what you what that does what you want and not bitch about the alternatives?
Because, little by little, Apple has stopped making machines that I want. And this truly sucks when I've spent the last 25 years of my life developing Macintosh software.
I'm typing this on a 17" MacBook Pro from 2010. It's not like I have a choice of buying another 17" laptop because Apple stopped making them. And having to set up a rube-goldberg arrangement of adapters to adapters (at ridiculous prices) is certainly not what I would call an elegant solution. And, yes, I'm a long-time Apple customer. My first "Mac" was a Macintosh.
As I said in a post above, I'm seeing the product line turning into a mess. Consider the new MacBook for a moment. It's thin, it's light, it's sexy. Okay, fine. Why isn't it a MacBook Air?
Contrast it with an $1149 MacBook Air. 8GB of RAM and a Dual Core i7. Same memory, same storage. Same battery life. Faster CPU. And a tenth of an inch thicker at the highest point and an extra 5 ounces. It also has 2 USB 3 ports and 2 Thunderbolt ports. And it's $50 cheaper.
What does the new MacBook give me? A tenth of an inch thinner at the highest point (it's actually thicker at the lowest point) and a larger (by 0.4 inch) Retina display. Of course, if you run the Retina display at retina quality, it's actually an 1152 x 720 display--smaller than the MacBook Air's 1366 x 768. The Retina display is gorgeous, I'll agree, but is it worth giving up CPU performance and connectivity? Why can't Apple give me a retina display on a MacBook Air? Why do I have to give up my Thunderbolt ports to get a retina display?
When Steve Jobs came to Apple, it's product line was a mess. I agree wholeheartedly. He cleaned it up into something that made sense. Consumer and Pro. Good, Better, and Best. Little by little, it's being turned back into a mess again. Why would I buy a MacBook over a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro?
A piece of paper is considerably thinner and lighter than a MacBook. But it doesn't do nearly as much. I'd be fine with a laptop that's an extra 4 ounces but has all of those things included rather than having to buy them separately and carry them around with the laptop, which negates any weight-loss that I got.
Apple is anorexic. They're more than willing to remove useful features in order to shave off millimeters and pounds. Then they stand up in front of the crowd and say, "Ooh! Look at me! I'm so pretty and thin!"
Way back when, you had the iBook and the PowerBook. You then went to the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. You now have the MacBook Air, MacBook, and MacBook Pro.
What's the difference? Weight? The MacBook is lighter than the MacBook Air. CPU? The MacBook Air's i7 is faster. Battery life is about the same. The MacBook has a retina display, which the MacBook Air doesn't have. The MacBook Air has a Thunderbolt port that the MacBook doesn't have.
Where's the rhyme and reason? Way back when, Apple had a line up that made sense. Pro and Consumer. Good, Better, and Best. Simple. Straightforward. Now? They're all over the place.
Knowing the bugs is nice. Fixing them would be better.
I have reported all sorts of issues with OS X. The bugs usually sit there in bug reporter for a year and, when Apple releases a new version of the OS, they get marked as closed because Apple isn't going to fix them.
So what'll happen is that they'll just have more reported bugs. They won't have the people to fix the problems and they're not going to hold up shipping in order to fix them. So it's basically a PR move.
Disagree. For most people, it's about the "Out of Box Experience."
I go buy a phone with a camera in it, I expect to take it out of the box and start taking pictures. I don't expect to have to go find a camera app and do the research before taking my first photo.
That said, I should be able to remove said camera app and replace it with one that I think is better.
"God, you know our situation. My husband is in the hospital. I can't find a job. Our kids are hungry. Our house is in foreclosure. We have no money to pay the bills. Please, God, if you would let me win the lottery, all of our problems would be solved."
Lottery comes and goes and the woman doesn't win. So she goes back to church and prays again.
"God, our situation has gotten worse. My husband is home from the hospital but is sick. All of the kids are now sick as well as hungry. The bank says they're going to kick us out of the house. The power and gas have been shut off. Please, God, let me win the lottery so that we can be happy and we will only take what we need to get back on our feet and then donate the rest to the church!"
Lottery comes and goes and the woman doesn't win. So she goes back to church and prays some more.
"God, we're in desperate straits. The police have kicked us out of our home. They bank has taken all of our posessions to pay off the debt. My husband and children are living in the park, but the police have threatened to kick us out of there. Please, God, don't forsake us! Help us by letting me win the lottery!"
You are essentially asking for something that would allow you to make your kid the caretaker of your wife.
I'm seeing lots of people saying this, but I don't see it.
I would think this would be a good thing for the child to know and have something to do if this happens. I'd imagine a two year-old watching Mommy convulsing on the floor and having no idea what to do would be far more traumatizing than knowing that she should immediately go press the big purple button and then wait by the phone for Daddy to call her (which he will do as soon as he's called 911).
By the way, most of the issues with "parentification" are when the child is the sole caregiver. Obviously, she isn't--her father is also involved. Also, Mommy isn't an invalid--she's probably still making lunches and doing other things. So this is more for the possible case where Mommy collapses.
As for the concern about your child feeling responsible, that's mostly going to be based on how it's presented to the child. Personally, I wouldn't rely on the child being the only alarm. That much, I do agree with. Not so much that a child is somehow unable to give the alarm but that the child may be absorbed in something else and miss things as well.
I'd also add a wrist-mounted accelerometer or something like that which would send the same signal as the big purple button if his wife were to start flailing her arms around.
Since he didn't specify the existence of a primary method of notification [...]
Which is why it's always a good idea to read the summary:
I've set up cameras so I can monitor the house [...]
Camera is primary system of notification. If he notices the wife flailing about, he can call appropriate people. If he doesn't notice because he's otherwise occupied, the child is a back-up.
Reading: It's FUNdamental.
As someone else said, before we got all this high-fallutin' technology, the solution would be to make an arrange with the nice lady next door so that if Mom is being unresponsive, the kid can go over there and get help.
What kind of long term trauma is that going to cause?
None.
Which sort of makes the rest of your point moot.
First, reread the summary:
I've set up cameras so I can monitor the house [...]
Thus, he is monitoring the house and his wife. This button is the equivalent of a "Daddy!" yell. So if the child sees that Mom is convulsing, she can hit the "Daddy!" button and Daddy will look in to see what's going on, just in case he was away from his computer or was looking at something else (eg, code).
Frankly, this is a reality in their household and it's best that the child knows what to do. Giving kids responsibility isn't a bad thing. Depending on a two year old to be responsible isn't necessary the smartest move, I would agree. But that's what the cameras are for.
Actually, I'd also go for the arm-band with an accelerometer or something. So if she's having a seizure, it can signal him to look at the camera as well. Don't know how many false positives it can generate--is the wife Italian?
Well, Thor blinking his eyes and people disappearing doesn't seem to happen--even in his own movies.
As for the recent films...
Where were Thor and Cap during Iron Man 3? Well, Thor was in Asgard. Cap, we'll say was at SHIELD HQ.
So why didn't Cap get off his ass and help Tony? Well, for one, Tony was dead according to most people. So Cap wouldn't necessarily be involved until the President was kidnapped. But it's not like they had much information to go on. Heck, it was quite possible that the President was dead after Air Force 1 blew up. I'm sure everything was pretty confused.
Where were Iron Man and Cap during Thor 2? The United States.
Keep in mind that the action in Thor 2 took place in London. Let's assume, for a moment, that Iron Man was in New York. Well, nobody called him, so he wouldn't even think of showing up until he saw the bad guys on the TV. Now he's in New York, he puts on his armor and takes off. If you time the movie, the last bit takes about 20 minutes. Assuming none of the action takes place simultaneously, that means Iron Man has to fly about 10,500 MPH to show up in time for everything to be over. We don't really know the top speed of Iron Man, but I don't think he could manage New York to London in 10 minutes in order to make any kind of difference.
Where were Thor and Iron Man during Cap 2? Well, Thor was in London and Iron Man was in Malibu and we have the same time problem as in Thor 2.
Keep in mind that the Avengers went their own ways after New York. Tony doesn't play well with others--yeah, he's really gonna call Cap and Thor for help. It's just not in his nature. Cap isn't going to call Tony for help because he can't trust him--remember "Trust No One?" Remember that Stark provided the repulsors for the new helicarriers? Tony could be in on it. And I'm not sure that any of them know that Thor is back on Earth.
Where was Spiderman during the Chitauri Invasion? He was fighting Chitauri over on the west side of New York. But since he wasn't wired into the Avengers radio network, he didn't know they were there.
This actually has me somewhat curious regarding reusability. While I appreciate what SpaceX is doing--and I think it's a good idea--I wonder about things like launch windows and the like. Suppose I'm launching some asteroid probe and it needs to leave on Thursday for appropriate gravitational boosts. But my launch gets cancelled because it would be too windy to retrieve the first stage.
I'd imagine that SpaceX has "launch now" pricing where you end up paying for the first stage so that it will launch regardless. I wonder if you get a refund if the weather turns out to be nice and they can retrieve the first stage...
As I understand it, the "Uncanny Valley" refers to things are that very close to human behavior--close enough that the mind shifts from this being an imperfect representation of a human to being an imperfect human.
Personally, I'm not sure there would really be an issue with "uncanny valley" in regards to speech recognition. It's good if it recognizes what you're saying. It's bad if it doesn't. There isn't really a middle ground where it's off in a way you can't really identify, which is where "uncanny valley" comes from.
What he seems to be talking about is the "personification" of "digital assistants" like Siri and Alexa (Amazon Echo) which will eventually create an "uncanny valley." But I'm not sure that it's really that big of an issue. Just because I call something by name doesn't mean I expect it to behave in a human fashion. I don't get frustrated with my dog when I say, "Fido, change the oil in my car" and the dog just lies there and licks his balls, so I don't expect I'll ever get that frustrated because Siri can't tell me what time the sun will set next Tuesday--or, if I do, my frustration will be aimed at the people at Apple who believe that sunrise and sunset is part of the weather.
Siri and Alexa have a long way to go before someone would mistake them for humans.
Back in the 80s and 90s, there was sort of a stigma to having a cell phone in America--namely only rich/important people had cell phones because wired phones in the home were relatively inexpensive. We spent a ton of money wiring America back in the 1930s and 1940s because that was the only way to do it back then. So people had telephones in their houses because the government essentially subsidized the expense of a phone.
Compared with the expense of running wires all over the place, cell towers are a heck of a lot cheaper. Build a tower over here, serve 1000 people. No need to run 1000 wires. Which is why they became popular in countries which didn't have the infrastructure to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if we put down a giant monolith...
good = air
better = macbook
best = pro
But that's sort of my argument.
The MacBook is slower and requires extra money for port extenders than the high-end MacBook Air. You're not getting extra battery life. You're basically getting an $899 MacBook Air with a retina display. Now, again, I won't short change the retina display, but that's pretty much the only thing that is "better" about the MacBook. Everything else is either worse or equal.
Again, going back to the dark ol' days, you ran into the problem about the difference between a high-end Macintosh Performa and a low-end Power Macintosh. Really the only difference was that the Power Mac had a faster hard-drive (7200 RPM SCSI drives versus 5400 RPM ATA). Pretty much everything else was the same.
The MacBook is for those people who want an ultra-light portable with a retina display and care about nothing else. It feels a bit like the PowerMac Cube--you're trading in too much to get too little.
The theory is that by excluding the ports, the laptop can be made thinner and lighter. While "thinner" may be for the aesthete, "lighter" certainly has real world advantages.
Now, that said, I tend to agree that there is a happy medium between 1 port and 356 ports. In theory, Apple is supposed to be good at finding this happy medium.
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
Assuming it's battery lasts that long.
That you could try just buying what you what that does what you want and not bitch about the alternatives?
Because, little by little, Apple has stopped making machines that I want. And this truly sucks when I've spent the last 25 years of my life developing Macintosh software.
I'm typing this on a 17" MacBook Pro from 2010. It's not like I have a choice of buying another 17" laptop because Apple stopped making them. And having to set up a rube-goldberg arrangement of adapters to adapters (at ridiculous prices) is certainly not what I would call an elegant solution. And, yes, I'm a long-time Apple customer. My first "Mac" was a Macintosh.
As I said in a post above, I'm seeing the product line turning into a mess. Consider the new MacBook for a moment. It's thin, it's light, it's sexy. Okay, fine. Why isn't it a MacBook Air?
Contrast it with an $1149 MacBook Air. 8GB of RAM and a Dual Core i7. Same memory, same storage. Same battery life. Faster CPU. And a tenth of an inch thicker at the highest point and an extra 5 ounces. It also has 2 USB 3 ports and 2 Thunderbolt ports. And it's $50 cheaper.
What does the new MacBook give me? A tenth of an inch thinner at the highest point (it's actually thicker at the lowest point) and a larger (by 0.4 inch) Retina display. Of course, if you run the Retina display at retina quality, it's actually an 1152 x 720 display--smaller than the MacBook Air's 1366 x 768. The Retina display is gorgeous, I'll agree, but is it worth giving up CPU performance and connectivity? Why can't Apple give me a retina display on a MacBook Air? Why do I have to give up my Thunderbolt ports to get a retina display?
When Steve Jobs came to Apple, it's product line was a mess. I agree wholeheartedly. He cleaned it up into something that made sense. Consumer and Pro. Good, Better, and Best. Little by little, it's being turned back into a mess again. Why would I buy a MacBook over a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro?
A piece of paper is considerably thinner and lighter than a MacBook. But it doesn't do nearly as much. I'd be fine with a laptop that's an extra 4 ounces but has all of those things included rather than having to buy them separately and carry them around with the laptop, which negates any weight-loss that I got.
Apple is anorexic. They're more than willing to remove useful features in order to shave off millimeters and pounds. Then they stand up in front of the crowd and say, "Ooh! Look at me! I'm so pretty and thin!"
Fair enough. Add that cost--and weight--to your analysis of the laptop.
Because it's starting to get confusing?
Way back when, you had the iBook and the PowerBook. You then went to the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. You now have the MacBook Air, MacBook, and MacBook Pro.
What's the difference? Weight? The MacBook is lighter than the MacBook Air. CPU? The MacBook Air's i7 is faster. Battery life is about the same. The MacBook has a retina display, which the MacBook Air doesn't have. The MacBook Air has a Thunderbolt port that the MacBook doesn't have.
Where's the rhyme and reason? Way back when, Apple had a line up that made sense. Pro and Consumer. Good, Better, and Best. Simple. Straightforward. Now? They're all over the place.
Totally. It was way gnarly.
Mars once had a magnetic field that was obviously strong enough to prevent solar erosion for some amount of time.
...or...
Mars was producing more gas than it was losing due to solar winds.
Knowing the bugs is nice. Fixing them would be better.
I have reported all sorts of issues with OS X. The bugs usually sit there in bug reporter for a year and, when Apple releases a new version of the OS, they get marked as closed because Apple isn't going to fix them.
So what'll happen is that they'll just have more reported bugs. They won't have the people to fix the problems and they're not going to hold up shipping in order to fix them. So it's basically a PR move.
Great movie! See, these Cylons go to some planet...
He was thinking of Capricorn One.
I can't speak for the Model 3, but the Model S claims 295 miles per charge. Doubling that would be 590.
I don't get 590 miles on my car. Do you?
Disagree. For most people, it's about the "Out of Box Experience."
I go buy a phone with a camera in it, I expect to take it out of the box and start taking pictures. I don't expect to have to go find a camera app and do the research before taking my first photo.
That said, I should be able to remove said camera app and replace it with one that I think is better.
Would it have windows?
Yes. Yes you will.
Wow...So I could die playing the lottery...?
EXTREME LOTTERYING! Gnarly, dude!
So this woman goes in to church and prays to God.
"God, you know our situation. My husband is in the hospital. I can't find a job. Our kids are hungry. Our house is in foreclosure. We have no money to pay the bills. Please, God, if you would let me win the lottery, all of our problems would be solved."
Lottery comes and goes and the woman doesn't win. So she goes back to church and prays again.
"God, our situation has gotten worse. My husband is home from the hospital but is sick. All of the kids are now sick as well as hungry. The bank says they're going to kick us out of the house. The power and gas have been shut off. Please, God, let me win the lottery so that we can be happy and we will only take what we need to get back on our feet and then donate the rest to the church!"
Lottery comes and goes and the woman doesn't win. So she goes back to church and prays some more.
"God, we're in desperate straits. The police have kicked us out of our home. They bank has taken all of our posessions to pay off the debt. My husband and children are living in the park, but the police have threatened to kick us out of there. Please, God, don't forsake us! Help us by letting me win the lottery!"
Suddenly, she hears a booming voice say:
"Meet me halfway! Buy a ticket!"
Thanks. I'll be here all week.
You are essentially asking for something that would allow you to make your kid the caretaker of your wife.
I'm seeing lots of people saying this, but I don't see it.
I would think this would be a good thing for the child to know and have something to do if this happens. I'd imagine a two year-old watching Mommy convulsing on the floor and having no idea what to do would be far more traumatizing than knowing that she should immediately go press the big purple button and then wait by the phone for Daddy to call her (which he will do as soon as he's called 911).
By the way, most of the issues with "parentification" are when the child is the sole caregiver. Obviously, she isn't--her father is also involved. Also, Mommy isn't an invalid--she's probably still making lunches and doing other things. So this is more for the possible case where Mommy collapses.
As for the concern about your child feeling responsible, that's mostly going to be based on how it's presented to the child. Personally, I wouldn't rely on the child being the only alarm. That much, I do agree with. Not so much that a child is somehow unable to give the alarm but that the child may be absorbed in something else and miss things as well.
I'd also add a wrist-mounted accelerometer or something like that which would send the same signal as the big purple button if his wife were to start flailing her arms around.
Since he didn't specify the existence of a primary method of notification [...]
Which is why it's always a good idea to read the summary:
I've set up cameras so I can monitor the house [...]
Camera is primary system of notification. If he notices the wife flailing about, he can call appropriate people. If he doesn't notice because he's otherwise occupied, the child is a back-up.
Reading: It's FUNdamental.
As someone else said, before we got all this high-fallutin' technology, the solution would be to make an arrange with the nice lady next door so that if Mom is being unresponsive, the kid can go over there and get help.
What kind of long term trauma is that going to cause?
None.
Which sort of makes the rest of your point moot.
First, reread the summary:
I've set up cameras so I can monitor the house [...]
Thus, he is monitoring the house and his wife. This button is the equivalent of a "Daddy!" yell. So if the child sees that Mom is convulsing, she can hit the "Daddy!" button and Daddy will look in to see what's going on, just in case he was away from his computer or was looking at something else (eg, code).
Frankly, this is a reality in their household and it's best that the child knows what to do. Giving kids responsibility isn't a bad thing. Depending on a two year old to be responsible isn't necessary the smartest move, I would agree. But that's what the cameras are for.
Actually, I'd also go for the arm-band with an accelerometer or something. So if she's having a seizure, it can signal him to look at the camera as well. Don't know how many false positives it can generate--is the wife Italian?
Well, Thor blinking his eyes and people disappearing doesn't seem to happen--even in his own movies.
As for the recent films...
Where were Thor and Cap during Iron Man 3? Well, Thor was in Asgard. Cap, we'll say was at SHIELD HQ.
So why didn't Cap get off his ass and help Tony? Well, for one, Tony was dead according to most people. So Cap wouldn't necessarily be involved until the President was kidnapped. But it's not like they had much information to go on. Heck, it was quite possible that the President was dead after Air Force 1 blew up. I'm sure everything was pretty confused.
Where were Iron Man and Cap during Thor 2? The United States.
Keep in mind that the action in Thor 2 took place in London. Let's assume, for a moment, that Iron Man was in New York. Well, nobody called him, so he wouldn't even think of showing up until he saw the bad guys on the TV. Now he's in New York, he puts on his armor and takes off. If you time the movie, the last bit takes about 20 minutes. Assuming none of the action takes place simultaneously, that means Iron Man has to fly about 10,500 MPH to show up in time for everything to be over. We don't really know the top speed of Iron Man, but I don't think he could manage New York to London in 10 minutes in order to make any kind of difference.
Where were Thor and Iron Man during Cap 2? Well, Thor was in London and Iron Man was in Malibu and we have the same time problem as in Thor 2.
Keep in mind that the Avengers went their own ways after New York. Tony doesn't play well with others--yeah, he's really gonna call Cap and Thor for help. It's just not in his nature. Cap isn't going to call Tony for help because he can't trust him--remember "Trust No One?" Remember that Stark provided the repulsors for the new helicarriers? Tony could be in on it. And I'm not sure that any of them know that Thor is back on Earth.
Where was Spiderman during the Chitauri Invasion? He was fighting Chitauri over on the west side of New York. But since he wasn't wired into the Avengers radio network, he didn't know they were there.
This actually has me somewhat curious regarding reusability. While I appreciate what SpaceX is doing--and I think it's a good idea--I wonder about things like launch windows and the like. Suppose I'm launching some asteroid probe and it needs to leave on Thursday for appropriate gravitational boosts. But my launch gets cancelled because it would be too windy to retrieve the first stage.
I'd imagine that SpaceX has "launch now" pricing where you end up paying for the first stage so that it will launch regardless. I wonder if you get a refund if the weather turns out to be nice and they can retrieve the first stage...
As I understand it, the "Uncanny Valley" refers to things are that very close to human behavior--close enough that the mind shifts from this being an imperfect representation of a human to being an imperfect human.
Personally, I'm not sure there would really be an issue with "uncanny valley" in regards to speech recognition. It's good if it recognizes what you're saying. It's bad if it doesn't. There isn't really a middle ground where it's off in a way you can't really identify, which is where "uncanny valley" comes from.
What he seems to be talking about is the "personification" of "digital assistants" like Siri and Alexa (Amazon Echo) which will eventually create an "uncanny valley." But I'm not sure that it's really that big of an issue. Just because I call something by name doesn't mean I expect it to behave in a human fashion. I don't get frustrated with my dog when I say, "Fido, change the oil in my car" and the dog just lies there and licks his balls, so I don't expect I'll ever get that frustrated because Siri can't tell me what time the sun will set next Tuesday--or, if I do, my frustration will be aimed at the people at Apple who believe that sunrise and sunset is part of the weather.
Siri and Alexa have a long way to go before someone would mistake them for humans.
I went to Jamaica in 2001, and all those poor, poor Jamaicans running the tourist nick nack stalls had cell phones.
But did they have refrigerators?
Back in the 80s and 90s, there was sort of a stigma to having a cell phone in America--namely only rich/important people had cell phones because wired phones in the home were relatively inexpensive. We spent a ton of money wiring America back in the 1930s and 1940s because that was the only way to do it back then. So people had telephones in their houses because the government essentially subsidized the expense of a phone.
Compared with the expense of running wires all over the place, cell towers are a heck of a lot cheaper. Build a tower over here, serve 1000 people. No need to run 1000 wires. Which is why they became popular in countries which didn't have the infrastructure to begin with.