The poor (making $20.00 an hour or less) cant afford to build a home or buy a old home in lower crime areas... you just cant afford a $350,000.00+ mortgage when you make a paltry $20.00 a hour. So you are stuck buying a crapshack in the $200,000 range in a questionable neighborhood that you hope is not too bad. Here is the problem. your little 1200 Sq foot crapshack was built in 1955 and has no insulation. so heating it costs you over $200.00 a month during winter months. While the rich guy in his 4800 sq foot home get's away with $180.00 a month keeping it at 72 degrees because he has low E glass, south facing windows, thermal mass, decent insulation etc....
Since when is 1200 square foot, sub $350k house built in 1955 a "crapshack"? I live in a perfectly decent 1100 square foot house (built in 1911) in a perfectly decent neighborhood in Minneapolis (not LA, but not a "non-popular metro area", either). I paid less than $200k (about $199k, actually) and I love it. I feel like you might be just a tad out of touch.
And since when is making less than $20.00/hr considered "poor"? I make quite a bit less than that and I think I'm a long way from "poor". Granted, my household has two incomes, but my wife doesn't make any more than I do.
Seriously - MS, openoffice is carving away the "Office 97 provides all our needs" segment & the collaboration market you're so eagerly chasing is... well lets say I don't think its got the potential you think it does.
Girl 1: They changed Malibu Stacy!
Girl 2: She is better than ever!
Lisa: She still embodies all the awful stereotypes she did before!
Smithers: But she's got a new hat!
I wonder if people who complain about the price of Macs apply this same logic to other aspects of their lives? When grocery shopping, do they try to find the greatest amount of calories/protein they can get for their dollar? Do they eat nothing but beans and horsemeat? Do they buy the longest CDs/DVDs, regardless of content?
It seems like Apple wants to keep the TV in the living room, with video possibly being delivered to the TV via some kind of Airport Express type of device. Someone name As Seen On TV, who used to post pretty frequently, and who seemed to be privy to some reliable inside information had this to say about video content:
...If you want to know where we're going with video playback, look not to the iPod but to its considerably less famous little brother, AirPort Express....
Yes, of course we're going to be selling new types of content via the iTunes distribution model. It may or may not happen through the "iTunes" name. On the one hand, selling movies and TV shows through a store called "iTunes" makes no sense. On the other, iTunes has HUGE brand recognition right now. It's a marketing decision.
What exactly we offer depends on whose content you're talking about. Some content will be provided to us in 720-by-486 anamorphic, which we'll encode in H.264 at between 1 and 2 megabits. (Did you notice that QuickTime 7 has additional support for anamorphic video? I knew you would.) Other content will come in at HD, and for the time being we'll scale that down to half-HD at 2 Mbps. Doing full 1080/24p at 8 Mbps just isn't practical right now given that even the fastest cable modems in the US top out at 4 Mbps; in order to get real-time streaming of full-HD content, you'd need one of those new-fangled fiber optic Internet services that the telcos are starting to roll out. That's too forward-thinking for phase one. But we can do 2 Mbps now to the same customers we're shipping iTunes songs to.
So, you might be close, but I don't think it will be a stand-alone device. Rather, I'm imagining some kind of set-top box which would allow you to stream video from your Mac to the TV.
Both evolution and intelligent design are, like all propositions based on empirical evidence, unprovable. A.J. Ayer said it best in Language, Truth & Logic:
We say that the question that must be asked about any putative statement of fact is not, Would any observations make its truth or falsehood logically certain? but simply, Would any observations be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood? (p 38 of my copy)
So, there are no observations--even in theory--that could make either creationism or evolution logically certain. People on both sides of the evolution debate act like they can prove the other side wrong, but it just isn't possible.
Really, the only kind of knowledge that is logically certain is analytical knowledge (things that are true by definition, such as 1+1=2 or "A bachelor is an unmarried man").
Thankfully, scientific theories don't have show that things are logically necessary. They just have to be useful. They have to explain observed phenomena and give us reliable criteria for predicting future phenomena. Does evolution do this? I think so. Does intelligent design?
S/he seemed to be privy to a lot of solid information and had this to say about the video iPod:
Everybody's wrong about the video iPod thing. A video iPod would be a dumb idea for lots of reasons, some technical, some psychological. If you want to know where we're going with video playback, look not to the iPod but to its considerably less famous little brother, AirPort Express.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when is 1200 square foot, sub $350k house built in 1955 a "crapshack"? I live in a perfectly decent 1100 square foot house (built in 1911) in a perfectly decent neighborhood in Minneapolis (not LA, but not a "non-popular metro area", either). I paid less than $200k (about $199k, actually) and I love it. I feel like you might be just a tad out of touch.
And since when is making less than $20.00/hr considered "poor"? I make quite a bit less than that and I think I'm a long way from "poor". Granted, my household has two incomes, but my wife doesn't make any more than I do.
Ruby
Why not try XeTeX, friend. It just made the jump from OS X to Linux and the developer is extremely helpful and responsive.
Kind of reminds me of this
Girl 2: She is better than ever!
Lisa: She still embodies all the awful stereotypes she did before!
Smithers: But she's got a new hat!
You can prove anything with statistics. Fourteen percent of people know that.
I wonder if people who complain about the price of Macs apply this same logic to other aspects of their lives? When grocery shopping, do they try to find the greatest amount of calories/protein they can get for their dollar? Do they eat nothing but beans and horsemeat? Do they buy the longest CDs/DVDs, regardless of content?
That seems plausible enough, I suppose. Does this mean, though, that his/her information w/r/t other developments should be deemed unreliable?
So, there are no observations--even in theory--that could make either creationism or evolution logically certain. People on both sides of the evolution debate act like they can prove the other side wrong, but it just isn't possible.
Really, the only kind of knowledge that is logically certain is analytical knowledge (things that are true by definition, such as 1+1=2 or "A bachelor is an unmarried man").
Thankfully, scientific theories don't have show that things are logically necessary. They just have to be useful. They have to explain observed phenomena and give us reliable criteria for predicting future phenomena. Does evolution do this? I think so. Does intelligent design?