Also, train stations tend to be where the people are (e.g., mid-town Manhattan) while airports tend to be where people aren't (e.g., Queens). So you have to factor in travel time to the airport as well as the hassles once you enter the airport.
Amazon's $9.99 model was pushing books at a loss leader, below the wholesale price, in order to keep everyone else out of the market.
That's not entirely true.
Amazon's $9.99 model was disrupted when the publishers raised wholesale prices on e-books to the same price as printed books--above $9.99. However, Amazon continued to sell certain NYT Bestselling e-books for $9.99 as loss leaders. They did not continue to sell all of their books for $9.99. Publishers were afraid that Amazon's low pricing would affect hardcover sales, so their next plan was to delay e-book versions of popular authors--including Stephen King and Sarah Palin.
All this was conspiratorial, but Apple wasn't involved.
Basically, Apple showed up and said, "Okay, here's how you beat Amazon: You adopt our plan of the using the agency model and you switch everybody over to that model and we get the best price." Apple sold this plan to the Publishers as a way to eliminate Amazon's control over pricing. Apple pushed all of the publishers to go for this plan.
Apple knew that this was important to all of the publishers. When a reporter asked Steve Jobs why people would buy from iBookstore for $14.99 when they could buy from Amazon for $9.99, Steve Jobs replied, "Well, that won't be the case." When the reporter followed up with, "You mean you won't be $14.99 or they won't be $9.99," Jobs said, "The price will be the same." This shows Apple knew that Amazon's ability to set prices would soon be eliminated.
So Apple provided a way for the conspirators to get what they want.
Assuming that Amazon had a monopoly position in e-books, the ends do not justify the means. If Amazon has this control, why not take your complaint to the DOJ?
In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.
So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.
Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.
Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault. You were trying to be safe! It's that dirty rotten person in the car who rashly assumed that a bicyclist would obey traffic laws rather than following some bizarre theory that made him feel safer.
Traffic laws provide predictability. I can drive my car down the road and when I come to an intersection where the light facing me is green, I can be assured that I don't have to worry about pedestrians, cars, or anything else crossing in front of me. If the light facing me is red, other cars can count on the fact that I'm going to stop. And considering the number of cars on the road and the number of accidents, it works pretty well.
Your theory is that, as a bicyclist, these laws don't take into account your safety and there's various excuses for why it is allegedly "safer". Actually, here's another method which I did today. I was at a stoplight and noticed a bunch of cars behind me. The road was pretty crowded and these dozen or so cars would be stuck behind me, unable to pass, and they'd probably be tempted to come close to me to get past because, let's face it, they want to go home and don't want to be stuck driving 15 MPH. So when the light turned green, I rode across the intersection and waited at the opposite side until traffic cleared before continuing. In short, I let about a dozen cars pass me until the street was clear and I could bicycle safely and not annoy other road users. I didn't have to break any laws to do it, either.
I know. "Sharing the road." What a crazy idea. I shouldn't have to consider them--they should be considering me and working to make my ride pleasant!
That's why I think the whole, "It's ultimately safer if I do it" is rubbish. It's not about safety. It's about momentum. Trust me, there's nothing I hate more than red lights--especially red lights located at the bottom of a hill. I build up all this momentum and I have to sacrifice it. It truly sucks. I agree wholeheartedly. Hell, I like to lurk at the top of hills before red lights so that when the light goes green at the bottom of the hill, I can zoom down and not lose my momentum. It usually works. Sometimes it doesn't and I end up having to jam on my brakes. Heck, this past July 4th, I had to do it three times because the timing is different on Thursday then it is on Sunday when I usually ride this stretch.
But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.
I always love this theory.
I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?
[...] drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.
Frankly, what drivers get pissy about isn't so much bicyclists running stop signs or stop lights. What makes motorists pissy is bicyclists who run stop signs and stop lights, get injured, and the bicycling community cries out about how dangerous it is on the road because cars keep hitting them and how something needs to be done because bicyclists are so vulnerable.
In these cases, what needs to be done is for bicyclists to stop at stop signs and stop lights, like all other road users. If bicyclists are so vulnerable, why do they insist on tempting fate by running red lights and stop signs? Perhaps if they did more to protect themselves--maybe starting with not running red lights and stop signs--it would be helpful.
There are definitely "road rage" incidents with bicycles. There are definitely idiots out on the road who figure they're going to pick on a bicyclist for doing things that are perfectly legal (eg, taking the lane). There are drivers who don't pay adequate attention while driving--there was one recently where the driver "accidentally drifted into the bicycle lane while going around a turn" (ie, she was texting and not paying attention to the road). When I'm out on my bicycle, that's what I worry about, because I have no control over that and I'd love to see something done about that.
But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.
Oh, they eventually get it right, but early customers are basically paying for the privilege of being their beta testers, and Apple's customers are going to find this out [...]
FTFY.
But it's okay. I'm sure Tim will write a really nice apology.
I'm US-based, but a bunch of RC planes with high-explosive payloads flown into a place where President Obama is giving a speech (say, something outdoors) could certainly be considered "State Threatening."
Depending on the situation, hitting Air Force One at take-off or landing could impact somebody's day as well.
Laugh and minimize all you want, but the one geologist to land on the Moon [wikipedia.org] managed to learn more (and faster) in his one short trip than all of the Mars rovers combined.
Well, I think you may be comparing apples and oranges (Moon vs. Mars), but your point is valid. We learned more and we learned it faster with the Apollo missions than the Soviet Union did with their plethora of lunar probes, rovers, and sample retrieval missions.
The question becomes, is it worth the money to learn more faster?
Imagine you're getting ready to enter college. You can pay, say, $400,000 and spend four years of your life attending college to gain knowledge. Or, with my handy-dandy memory device, you can spend four days in a chair and learn the same information. But it'll cost you $40,000,000. Yup, you'll be paying those college loans off for the rest of your days and then some. And you've learned the same information. But you're four years ahead of your compatriots who took the slow method.
Is it worth it?
If we sent human beings to Mars, we could find life (assuming it exists) in two months rather than puttering around with rovers which may take a generation to find life on Mars. But Mars isn't going anywhere and the life will be there in 50 years. If a Mars-killer asteroid were going to impact in 50 years, I might say it's worth the trip to determine whether there is life on Mars as quickly as possible. But without such a scenario, is it worth the money to send people to Mars?
Well, "Revenue Share" is important for investors. Not so much for customers. When was the last time you bought a product based upon how much money the company made selling the product?
The rationale behind Android is very simple for Google: they need an open platform to sell their wares.
Suppose others start doing the same thing? Could Microsoft block Google apps? Or RIM? When your money comes from selling advertising, the last thing you want is for some OS maker to arbitrarily decide to block you for whatever reason. Google needed a popular open platform for people to use or risk being cut off from the eyeballs due to some sort of corporate deal-making.
And if the eye comes over you, it's nice and clear. I remember when Gloria hit Long Island, we went outside during the eye. It was sunny and almost nice outside, although the winds were still very strong.
If you are going to show three cars being thrown around and destroyed because it is stupidly easy with computers- then the three cars should be saying something.
I'm suddenly picturing a Superman/Cars mash-up.
Superman grabs the tow-truck and slings it at the bad-guy. Mater the Tow Truck starts yelling, "I'm flyin'! I'm flyin'!" before slamming into the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Versus, say, asphyxiating on Earth?
Which is why they were so successful fighting the DOJ.
...and he gets paid to do it!
Also, train stations tend to be where the people are (e.g., mid-town Manhattan) while airports tend to be where people aren't (e.g., Queens). So you have to factor in travel time to the airport as well as the hassles once you enter the airport.
Amazon's $9.99 model was pushing books at a loss leader, below the wholesale price, in order to keep everyone else out of the market.
That's not entirely true.
Amazon's $9.99 model was disrupted when the publishers raised wholesale prices on e-books to the same price as printed books--above $9.99. However, Amazon continued to sell certain NYT Bestselling e-books for $9.99 as loss leaders. They did not continue to sell all of their books for $9.99. Publishers were afraid that Amazon's low pricing would affect hardcover sales, so their next plan was to delay e-book versions of popular authors--including Stephen King and Sarah Palin.
All this was conspiratorial, but Apple wasn't involved.
Basically, Apple showed up and said, "Okay, here's how you beat Amazon: You adopt our plan of the using the agency model and you switch everybody over to that model and we get the best price." Apple sold this plan to the Publishers as a way to eliminate Amazon's control over pricing. Apple pushed all of the publishers to go for this plan.
Apple knew that this was important to all of the publishers. When a reporter asked Steve Jobs why people would buy from iBookstore for $14.99 when they could buy from Amazon for $9.99, Steve Jobs replied, "Well, that won't be the case." When the reporter followed up with, "You mean you won't be $14.99 or they won't be $9.99," Jobs said, "The price will be the same." This shows Apple knew that Amazon's ability to set prices would soon be eliminated.
So Apple provided a way for the conspirators to get what they want.
Assuming that Amazon had a monopoly position in e-books, the ends do not justify the means. If Amazon has this control, why not take your complaint to the DOJ?
In fact, one of the reasons some cyclists blow lights is to take advantage of the relatively car-free segment of the road that lies on the other side of the light.
So I guess it's also okay that I like to follow ambulances because I can zoom through the red lights.
Because, let's face it--the whole world needs to be set up for my convenience.
Your argument is that you take the risk of going through the stop light for the added safety on the other side. The problem is, when you go through the red light and get hit, well it certainly isn't your fault. You were trying to be safe! It's that dirty rotten person in the car who rashly assumed that a bicyclist would obey traffic laws rather than following some bizarre theory that made him feel safer.
Traffic laws provide predictability. I can drive my car down the road and when I come to an intersection where the light facing me is green, I can be assured that I don't have to worry about pedestrians, cars, or anything else crossing in front of me. If the light facing me is red, other cars can count on the fact that I'm going to stop. And considering the number of cars on the road and the number of accidents, it works pretty well.
Your theory is that, as a bicyclist, these laws don't take into account your safety and there's various excuses for why it is allegedly "safer". Actually, here's another method which I did today. I was at a stoplight and noticed a bunch of cars behind me. The road was pretty crowded and these dozen or so cars would be stuck behind me, unable to pass, and they'd probably be tempted to come close to me to get past because, let's face it, they want to go home and don't want to be stuck driving 15 MPH. So when the light turned green, I rode across the intersection and waited at the opposite side until traffic cleared before continuing. In short, I let about a dozen cars pass me until the street was clear and I could bicycle safely and not annoy other road users. I didn't have to break any laws to do it, either.
I know. "Sharing the road." What a crazy idea. I shouldn't have to consider them--they should be considering me and working to make my ride pleasant!
That's why I think the whole, "It's ultimately safer if I do it" is rubbish. It's not about safety. It's about momentum. Trust me, there's nothing I hate more than red lights--especially red lights located at the bottom of a hill. I build up all this momentum and I have to sacrifice it. It truly sucks. I agree wholeheartedly. Hell, I like to lurk at the top of hills before red lights so that when the light goes green at the bottom of the hill, I can zoom down and not lose my momentum. It usually works. Sometimes it doesn't and I end up having to jam on my brakes. Heck, this past July 4th, I had to do it three times because the timing is different on Thursday then it is on Sunday when I usually ride this stretch.
But a cyclist running a stop sign has a much better read on the situation because he can actually see and hear what is around him.
I always love this theory.
I drive a convertible with the top down, meaning I can see and hear what is around me. So do I get to run stop lights, too?
[...] drivers don't seem to recognize that when they get all pissy because they just saw a cyclist run a stop sign.
Frankly, what drivers get pissy about isn't so much bicyclists running stop signs or stop lights. What makes motorists pissy is bicyclists who run stop signs and stop lights, get injured, and the bicycling community cries out about how dangerous it is on the road because cars keep hitting them and how something needs to be done because bicyclists are so vulnerable.
In these cases, what needs to be done is for bicyclists to stop at stop signs and stop lights, like all other road users. If bicyclists are so vulnerable, why do they insist on tempting fate by running red lights and stop signs? Perhaps if they did more to protect themselves--maybe starting with not running red lights and stop signs--it would be helpful.
There are definitely "road rage" incidents with bicycles. There are definitely idiots out on the road who figure they're going to pick on a bicyclist for doing things that are perfectly legal (eg, taking the lane). There are drivers who don't pay adequate attention while driving--there was one recently where the driver "accidentally drifted into the bicycle lane while going around a turn" (ie, she was texting and not paying attention to the road). When I'm out on my bicycle, that's what I worry about, because I have no control over that and I'd love to see something done about that.
But idiots who run stop signs and get hit by cars? I have no pity for them. They could have saved their own life by following the law.
Damn. Apple is really getting desperate.
What? Too soon?
You mean Carlos Estevez.
...and all those Yankee Doodle Dandies.
Well, she is from Canada, so it would make sense...
Oh, they eventually get it right, but early customers are basically paying for the privilege of being their beta testers, and Apple's customers are going to find this out [...]
FTFY.
But it's okay. I'm sure Tim will write a really nice apology.
But in 1+ year, the iPhone will still be supported by (decent) software updates
Which is great, because you'll be able to get that neat feature next year.
Depends on the plot.
I'm US-based, but a bunch of RC planes with high-explosive payloads flown into a place where President Obama is giving a speech (say, something outdoors) could certainly be considered "State Threatening."
Depending on the situation, hitting Air Force One at take-off or landing could impact somebody's day as well.
Laugh and minimize all you want, but the one geologist to land on the Moon [wikipedia.org] managed to learn more (and faster) in his one short trip than all of the Mars rovers combined.
Well, I think you may be comparing apples and oranges (Moon vs. Mars), but your point is valid. We learned more and we learned it faster with the Apollo missions than the Soviet Union did with their plethora of lunar probes, rovers, and sample retrieval missions.
The question becomes, is it worth the money to learn more faster?
Imagine you're getting ready to enter college. You can pay, say, $400,000 and spend four years of your life attending college to gain knowledge. Or, with my handy-dandy memory device, you can spend four days in a chair and learn the same information. But it'll cost you $40,000,000. Yup, you'll be paying those college loans off for the rest of your days and then some. And you've learned the same information. But you're four years ahead of your compatriots who took the slow method.
Is it worth it?
If we sent human beings to Mars, we could find life (assuming it exists) in two months rather than puttering around with rovers which may take a generation to find life on Mars. But Mars isn't going anywhere and the life will be there in 50 years. If a Mars-killer asteroid were going to impact in 50 years, I might say it's worth the trip to determine whether there is life on Mars as quickly as possible. But without such a scenario, is it worth the money to send people to Mars?
Cleveland.
I know Cleveland is in Europe. I graduated from an American High School!
(Barum bum).
I'm sorry, but England is not a random European country. It is pseudo-random.
Please try again.
"Proprietary" may be the wrong word, but Thunderbolt display output may certainly qualify.
Is there anybody other than Apple who makes a display which works with Thunderbolt?
Well, "Revenue Share" is important for investors. Not so much for customers. When was the last time you bought a product based upon how much money the company made selling the product?
The rationale behind Android is very simple for Google: they need an open platform to sell their wares.
Think back to 2009. Google's Voice app was languishing away waiting for Apple approval, which would never come. Now, I don't care about the reasons. Maybe it was a deal Apple had with AT&T. Maybe it was that the dialer would cause confusion. The reality is that Apple blocked it for whatever reasons.
Suppose others start doing the same thing? Could Microsoft block Google apps? Or RIM? When your money comes from selling advertising, the last thing you want is for some OS maker to arbitrarily decide to block you for whatever reason. Google needed a popular open platform for people to use or risk being cut off from the eyeballs due to some sort of corporate deal-making.
Outside those two businesses, I don't know what Amazon is doing. They seem to be pretty much limited to those two pillars.
Check out this crazy thing that Amazon has been doing for the past few years.
And if the eye comes over you, it's nice and clear. I remember when Gloria hit Long Island, we went outside during the eye. It was sunny and almost nice outside, although the winds were still very strong.
New Yorkers don't have cars.
If you are going to show three cars being thrown around and destroyed because it is stupidly easy with computers- then the three cars should be saying something.
I'm suddenly picturing a Superman/Cars mash-up.
Superman grabs the tow-truck and slings it at the bad-guy. Mater the Tow Truck starts yelling, "I'm flyin'! I'm flyin'!" before slamming into the wall.
well you can run whatever iOS software you want on your ipad, including any you write yourself.
Assuming you pay $99.