I'm a big a/v-phile and I dislike LCD and "flat" tv's because they don't have true black points or uniform color.
I want a CRT, and CRTs are power hungry.
This doesn't mean i'm not environmentally conscious.
I use all CFL's and avoid having anything on unless i'm making immediate use.
How about introducing power consumption rules for homes, at least maximum peak power consumption to help lessen the load on the grid by incorporating localized temporary storage?
This would also have a side benefit of helping to prevent the kind of chaos mass blackouts produce by providing a bare minimum power to, say, keep your fridge running for 24-72 hours when the grid goes.
Higher-paying jobs tend to require more effort and longer hours, produce more stress, depend on specialized skills and connections which must be maintained, etc.
I disagree with this.
Fresh off the podium in this horrible job market, I was compelled to take a bottom basement job delivering food to get by.
I work upward of 55 hours a week in incredibly stressful, time-sensitive conditions, and am basically being paid in tips to drive rush hour traffic upwards of 7 hours a day.
The job is easily more stressful than my mother's (she works worker's comp claims), and she makes 3x more than I do.
The knowledge is just as specialized: she learns regulations and insurance law, I learn a maze of streets covering a 75 sq mile area.
it would be pretty much the same for lending, credit, and money supply.
The difference though would be the little guy gets the money, and does not have to rely on debt to spend. This means freer spending, lower risks of default, and consequently more stable growth.
Not to say there wouldn't be fallout. Lots of low-wage jobs support people who provide maintenance for those huge (suddenly worthless) office buildings
There's infrastructure required to support tele-workers. People have to man warehouses and deal with routing office supplies, among other things.
Unfortunately, The trend seems to be moving away from tele-presence. Really, though, I can't call it unfortunate. Look at tele-presence from a new entrant standpoint. You want to get into this field, but everyone works from home, so who is going to train you? nobody. They won't hire you because you're not "canned and ready to go", and with a full tele-presence staff they don't have the hands-on capacity to give you proper training.
A good compromise would be "micro-cell" offices, but right now companies are just reeling from the fact that turnover in their staff is much much more painful when the entire department is scattered to the far winds.
The economy had broken down to the point of life support by the time roosevelt got to it.
Without swift and decisive action, whether it's the economy or a human being, severe injury will result in long-term debilitation or death.
By the time roosevelt got there, the golden hour was long past. Roosevelt did an excellent job with what he had, and his efforts founded one of our nation's largest cities and paved the way for the US rise to economic power following the war.
I'd like to add that, even if the banks were lending money saved by others, they would not be lending it to the people who actually need it (as if they're keen to take on new debt now anyway).
Thus, the government taking over the distribution of that money is better for the economy, providing opportunities to earn rather than borrow money.
But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).
Because we all know condensed pseudo-curricula really give adequate treatment to the nuances and complex interaction of an actual economic market.
"Read McQuack's 'Neuro-Surgery in One Lesson' for more info"
Who says what their fair share is? You? Me? Who? What does represent "their fair share? 30%? 40%? 50% of their income?
And who measures who is lazy and who is not, You? Me? Who? What does represent "lazy" According to the third quote everyone who doesn't have money deserves whatever happens to them, even if the vast majority of it is beyond their control.
The last time I checked, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of total federal taxes, and the top 1% pay 39% of total federal taxes.
and where did you check, the heritage foundation? LOL
It is a shame that you have fallen victim to class envy because if will hold you back from becoming a success in anything you desire. Now what I find ironic is that if you do end up fighting through to find our financial freedom, you will eventually see where I am right. You will see where you were one who took the risks and sacrificed, and you are the one who should enjoy the rewards of your success.
Oh, but now you're going to come right back into that social darwinist tone you have with this post, as if everyone whose "out" is pounding at the door to get "in". I say: money is important, but it isn't everything.
This said, it's not YOU that made that success. It's a combination of circumstance and luck as well. Who you know, to which family you were born, who you happened to meet and how they did. Sorry, but it's just as much luck as anything else that go you your current income and net worth.
Then there's the nature of the economy itself. Resources are limited. this means that for every one person in the high income there will be upwards of 10 in the low no matter how hard they work or how much they sacrifice. Unless you have absolutely no compassion and are absolutely viscious, you should feel some obligation to give back to the community, and not just the causes your limited imagination can assume. That means giving some of your income back as taxes to a government which can represent all of the interests at play.
Obviously it's hard for those types to get rich if taxes on income over..say.. 1 million a year are in the 80%+ bracket.
So basically you've decided how much money people should be allowed to make, after which you intend to seize the lions share of their earnings?
Let's make the exact counter-argument:
"So basically you've decided how much money people should be allowed to make, after which you intend to offshore jobs until they agree to untenable wages?"
Without consumption from a middle class to fund production there is no "economy" to make people rich.
This isn't about capping wealth, this is about maintaining a fixed ratio between maximum and minimum income to optimize both economic growth and the well-being of the populace at large.
Compare this to a vineyard... you want to grow vines as large as you can, but if you don't skim a little off your revenues to reinforce the stakes, they will eventually snap and not only won't your vines be larger, you will have to shell out considerably more than that small skim to get them back the way they were.
That standard reaganomic bullcrap is responsible for thousands of startups and IT businesses that got their startup capital and money from the income of the wealthy.
No, they get it from investment, which may or may not be part of individual assets. Those wealthy enough to do this probably do it under an umbrella corporation, which is shielded from income tax.
And the argument that building more infrastructure compels the creation of more jobs doesn't just apply to infrastructure. How many jobs did Google create, for example?
Google got its money from the income of the wealthy.
No, google got its money from the income of google, and got its startup capital from a venture capital firm, which itself was incorporated and not subject to income tax. Try again.
Under a high-tax policy, that money would have instead gone to fund bridge-building or road construction.
Do you really believe that our economy is in the dumps because we don't have enough roads or bridges?
I think our economy is in the dumps because a certain philosophy dominant since the 1980's has allowed a minority of people to accumulate and hoard away a lot of capital while freezing or depressing the wages of the vast majority of the buying populace through offshoring and other means.
For a while, people used debt to "bridge the hard times", but the hard times never ended, and eventually their capacity to carry debt gave out, thus the mass defaults and credit crunch.
I don't care about accumulation of net worth. It's a fine and worth-while thing, but hoarding it rather than using it to expand the economy is quite another. In addition, no matter how much you over-consume when you have a fat wallet you won't make up for the consumer spending of hundreds of thousands of families with slightly more income than they have now.
You won't, for instance, buy 10 economy sedans on a million dollar salary, more likely 2-4 luxury ones. This is why there is value in cushioning the capitalist system through the concept of "mixed economy".
This involves regulation to prevent fraud and abuse, progressive taxation to prevent the kind of tar-paper no-plumbing shack vs 4 mile compound nonsense we have in the third world, and investment in infrastructure to act in the general interest of EVERYONE in the cases in which individuals --even captains of industry-- feel it too expensive or too unprofitable to act on their own.
Examples of major investments in infrastructure through tax-and-spend include: the louisiana purchase, the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, the arpanet->internet, the power grid, the entire city of las vegas, and much much more.
What's further, the biggest of these infrastructure projects through deficit spending followed by higher taxes was the new deal. When last I checked it worked. (and don't bother linking that van mizes crap.. the austrian school is to economics what intelligent design is to geology, cosmology, and biology)
No it is not a win-win situation. What you are practicing is Robin Hood economics which teaches class envy. Saying that it is "Ok" to tax the rich more takes away the incentive for most people to advance since most "rich" people are not associated with a corporation: they are just employees of a corporation.
The system in the U.S. basically incentive-based, and you taking away the incentive because it is going into the pocket of the government and not in the pocket of the person working harder or taking the risk to advance.
what a fat load! it's obvious you didn't read a thing I was saying. Please read it again, and if you don't understand it call my gran and my uncle.
In addition, progressive taxation does not create wealth caps. You can still get as rich as you want, but you have to pay your fair share to society for the managment of the ever growing pool of resources you individually consume. (for example: why should the poor be forced to subsidize the greater value the rich get from police? After all, it's not the poor who are worried about people breaking in and stealing the tiffany glasswork. Let the wealthy pay their fair share for law enforcement)
Wrong. The mess we are in right now is a result of millions of people left unproductive because others are hoarding their cash. The point of a stimulus is to take that cash and use it to get those millions of adults productive again.
BINGO!
This is what most reaganites simply fail to grasp, but people who actually own their own businesses understand.
If you have a corporation, you use that corporation as a tax shelter. The higher the tax on your income, the less you will claim as an official salary from your company. That money stays WITHIN the company, and must be used in some way to avoid loss to taxes, which means investment (more credit for everyone), higher wages (more consumption->GROWTH), or more jobs (again, Growth).
What's more, those taxes taken from what they do claim don't affect their lifestyle, and the plan is to produce subsidized infrastructure.. for businesses! --They get all their tax money back indirectly.
I don't know of any competent business owner who would have a problem with the proposed policies.
By pushing down taxes on INCOME for the wealthy, reaganomics does nothing for the business OWNER.
Now, on the other hand. the executives who run but don't OWN large companies benefit a lot from these policies. Note how these types are the same types who create scandals like enron. Their motivation is not the health and well being of a company, but to siphon off as much in salary and bonuses as they can then cut loose before the collapse.
Obviously it's hard for those types to get rich if taxes on income over..say.. 1 million a year are in the 80%+ bracket.
You will get NO net jobs. Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
Standard reaganomic bullcrap.
Taxing the INCOME of the wealthy to build infrastructure actually compels the creation of MORE jobs than just the infrastructure itself.
I know these things, several of my family members own and manage incorporated entities. The more pressure you put on their personal income, the more they will keep within their corporations, which are taxed far less, resulting in more re-investment (for the layman, that means JOBS AND EXPANSION).
In addition to that, using those taxes from the wealthy to invest in infrastructure provides subsidized infrastructure for yet more growth.. ironically for all the pissing and moaning that subsidy is to the businesses of the wealthy.
It's a win-win-win situation. the economy is stabilized, jobs are created, and the wealthy get a major subsidy to their business for a little tap-dancing with their accounting.
There are power users, AV-philes, and others who want portability without sacrificing resolution or fidelity.
I'm glad they still offered anti-glare on their new 17" line, but I pushed forward with the previous revision anyway because the benchmarks showed very little appreciable power difference for better support and a greater number of connection points : )
I have one of the last of the PPC lines humming away next to me in target disk mode.. acting as an external drive enclosure for my new macbook pro.
The macbook pro is rated for 1/4 the cpu cycles but plays 1080p h.264 and wow at 30 fps at the same time. The ppc machine would be wheezing and coughing on 720p
That strata might not be around much longer, and younger people, for the most part, don't regard computer differences with quite as much difference as we have in the past.
I beg to differ. I consider this comment like comments made about communism and how subsequent generations don't have the zeal, and it's just not true.
Mac's biggest headway has been with people 25 and younger.
There have been reports of macs making up the majority of notebook sales in many major colleges. (and by "major" i don't mean "expensive")
Meh. Yes, I realize that Apple going more mainstream would mean that Apple would no longer be "cool" or "hip", but I think that at the end of the day Apple needs to broaden their market some or face extinction. They've positioned themselves as a fashion accessory. The thing is fashion accessories eventually fall out of fashion.
That would be one of the newer developments bringing them into "main stream".
I hope apple's time as a "fashion accessory" comes to a swift end, while there are still staff and managers there who understood the "premium, professional" mentality, so as not to be utterly disastrous to the company.
Quality products with simple software that did its job without bloat were the reason why I adopted apple.
If apple abandons premium all together to become a cheap piece of plastic on britney's hip I may have to start my own company to eat their previous lunch, as NOBODY will be servicing it anymore.
This post is really great, how it manages to remain on the edge of trolling, but you're not quite sure.
Well, I might be feeding the trolls today, but if the poster was serious, he also forgot that little thing, you know, what was it? "Totally destroying the resale value and second-hand market"? Yes, that's it!
That and GGP is nothing more than a thinly veiled troll as well. Pretty much all the +5's I remember from that were very simple.. "you, the author of this article, are either a moron or deliberately disingenuous"
Your reaction just proves my point. Read the article. I mean it.
I'm sorry, but the fact an article which short-sightedly bashes people for their rightful conclusions about unjust copyright law accurately predicts people being indignant about its veiled invective does not make it or its author any more correct.
"judge, that there (n-word redacted) just wants white women! Don't believe me? He'll get pissed off and indignant if you tell him he does"
Slashdot Mirror
Ad hominem:
Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false
Have a good day.
That doesn't hold true when the "something objectionable" about "Source A" involves their analysis of the issue at hand.
The Austrian school of economics has long been the "intelligent design" of the economic field.
the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history to address specific historical events......
its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, and do not generate testable implications; they argue this approach fails the test of falsifiability....
I know of a few other organizations whose philosophies take an interpretive approach to history and whose theories fail falsifiability as well.
Look, plain and simple, the austrian school is not economics, it's a religion being passed off as economics by the dogmatic and corrupt.
I think this is overstepping it a bit.
I'm a big a/v-phile and I dislike LCD and "flat" tv's because they don't have true black points or uniform color.
I want a CRT, and CRTs are power hungry.
This doesn't mean i'm not environmentally conscious.
I use all CFL's and avoid having anything on unless i'm making immediate use.
How about introducing power consumption rules for homes, at least maximum peak power consumption to help lessen the load on the grid by incorporating localized temporary storage?
This would also have a side benefit of helping to prevent the kind of chaos mass blackouts produce by providing a bare minimum power to, say, keep your fridge running for 24-72 hours when the grid goes.
You're right, there is nothing comparable to a warm cell in club fed with 3 squares a day.
Instead, you are struggling day to day WITHOUT government food or housing, either unemployed or not making enough anyway.
Your first link was to mises. you may as well have linked to intelligent design.
Have a good day.
Higher-paying jobs tend to require more effort and longer hours, produce more stress, depend on specialized skills and connections which must be maintained, etc.
I disagree with this.
Fresh off the podium in this horrible job market, I was compelled to take a bottom basement job delivering food to get by.
I work upward of 55 hours a week in incredibly stressful, time-sensitive conditions, and am basically being paid in tips to drive rush hour traffic upwards of 7 hours a day.
The job is easily more stressful than my mother's (she works worker's comp claims), and she makes 3x more than I do.
The knowledge is just as specialized: she learns regulations and insurance law, I learn a maze of streets covering a 75 sq mile area.
it would be pretty much the same for lending, credit, and money supply.
The difference though would be the little guy gets the money, and does not have to rely on debt to spend. This means freer spending, lower risks of default, and consequently more stable growth.
Not to say there wouldn't be fallout. Lots of low-wage jobs support people who provide maintenance for those huge (suddenly worthless) office buildings
There's infrastructure required to support tele-workers. People have to man warehouses and deal with routing office supplies, among other things.
Unfortunately, The trend seems to be moving away from tele-presence.
Really, though, I can't call it unfortunate. Look at tele-presence from a new entrant standpoint. You want to get into this field, but everyone works from home, so who is going to train you? nobody. They won't hire you because you're not "canned and ready to go", and with a full tele-presence staff they don't have the hands-on capacity to give you proper training.
A good compromise would be "micro-cell" offices, but right now companies are just reeling from the fact that turnover in their staff is much much more painful when the entire department is scattered to the far winds.
The economy had broken down to the point of life support by the time roosevelt got to it.
Without swift and decisive action, whether it's the economy or a human being, severe injury will result in long-term debilitation or death.
By the time roosevelt got there, the golden hour was long past. Roosevelt did an excellent job with what he had, and his efforts founded one of our nation's largest cities and paved the way for the US rise to economic power following the war.
"People sitting around doing nothing is wasted capital."
Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something. I am talking to you, Uncle Sam.
Hoover obeyed your wishes.
The US economy didn't recover until WWII rendered it the SOLE FUNCTIONING ECONOMY in the world.
I'd like to add that, even if the banks were lending money saved by others, they would not be lending it to the people who actually need it (as if they're keen to take on new debt now anyway).
Thus, the government taking over the distribution of that money is better for the economy, providing opportunities to earn rather than borrow money.
But the future spending would have the "multiplier" as well. They cancel each other out. Read Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" for more info (there is a free version online but I don't have the link handy ATM).
Because we all know condensed pseudo-curricula really give adequate treatment to the nuances and complex interaction of an actual economic market.
"Read McQuack's 'Neuro-Surgery in One Lesson' for more info"
Who says what their fair share is? You? Me? Who? What does represent "their fair share? 30%? 40%? 50% of their income?
And who measures who is lazy and who is not, You? Me? Who? What does represent "lazy" According to the third quote everyone who doesn't have money deserves whatever happens to them, even if the vast majority of it is beyond their control.
The last time I checked, the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of total federal taxes, and the top 1% pay 39% of total federal taxes.
and where did you check, the heritage foundation? LOL
It is a shame that you have fallen victim to class envy because if will hold you back from becoming a success in anything you desire. Now what I find ironic is that if you do end up fighting through to find our financial freedom, you will eventually see where I am right. You will see where you were one who took the risks and sacrificed, and you are the one who should enjoy the rewards of your success.
Oh, but now you're going to come right back into that social darwinist tone you have with this post, as if everyone whose "out" is pounding at the door to get "in". I say: money is important, but it isn't everything.
This said, it's not YOU that made that success. It's a combination of circumstance and luck as well. Who you know, to which family you were born, who you happened to meet and how they did. Sorry, but it's just as much luck as anything else that go you your current income and net worth.
Then there's the nature of the economy itself. Resources are limited. this means that for every one person in the high income there will be upwards of 10 in the low no matter how hard they work or how much they sacrifice. Unless you have absolutely no compassion and are absolutely viscious, you should feel some obligation to give back to the community, and not just the causes your limited imagination can assume. That means giving some of your income back as taxes to a government which can represent all of the interests at play.
that's "lite", and I believe the requirement is to incorporate a disgusting aftertaste.
Obviously it's hard for those types to get rich if taxes on income over..say.. 1 million a year are in the 80%+ bracket.
So basically you've decided how much money people should be allowed to make, after which you intend to seize the lions share of their earnings?
Let's make the exact counter-argument:
"So basically you've decided how much money people should be allowed to make, after which you intend to offshore jobs until they agree to untenable wages?"
Without consumption from a middle class to fund production there is no "economy" to make people rich.
This isn't about capping wealth, this is about maintaining a fixed ratio between maximum and minimum income to optimize both economic growth and the well-being of the populace at large.
Compare this to a vineyard... you want to grow vines as large as you can, but if you don't skim a little off your revenues to reinforce the stakes, they will eventually snap and not only won't your vines be larger, you will have to shell out considerably more than that small skim to get them back the way they were.
That standard reaganomic bullcrap is responsible for thousands of startups and IT businesses that got their startup capital and money from the income of the wealthy.
No, they get it from investment, which may or may not be part of individual assets. Those wealthy enough to do this probably do it under an umbrella corporation, which is shielded from income tax.
No, google got its money from the income of google, and got its startup capital from a venture capital firm, which itself was incorporated and not subject to income tax. Try again.
I think our economy is in the dumps because a certain philosophy dominant since the 1980's has allowed a minority of people to accumulate and hoard away a lot of capital while freezing or depressing the wages of the vast majority of the buying populace through offshoring and other means.
For a while, people used debt to "bridge the hard times", but the hard times never ended, and eventually their capacity to carry debt gave out, thus the mass defaults and credit crunch.
I don't care about accumulation of net worth. It's a fine and worth-while thing, but hoarding it rather than using it to expand the economy is quite another. In addition, no matter how much you over-consume when you have a fat wallet you won't make up for the consumer spending of hundreds of thousands of families with slightly more income than they have now.
You won't, for instance, buy 10 economy sedans on a million dollar salary, more likely 2-4 luxury ones. This is why there is value in cushioning the capitalist system through the concept of "mixed economy".
This involves regulation to prevent fraud and abuse, progressive taxation to prevent the kind of tar-paper no-plumbing shack vs 4 mile compound nonsense we have in the third world, and investment in infrastructure to act in the general interest of EVERYONE in the cases in which individuals --even captains of industry-- feel it too expensive or too unprofitable to act on their own.
Examples of major investments in infrastructure through tax-and-spend include:
the louisiana purchase, the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, the arpanet->internet, the power grid, the entire city of las vegas, and much much more.
What's further, the biggest of these infrastructure projects through deficit spending followed by higher taxes was the new deal. When last I checked it worked. (and don't bother linking that van mizes crap.. the austrian school is to economics what intelligent design is to geology, cosmology, and biology)
No it is not a win-win situation. What you are practicing is Robin Hood economics which teaches class envy. Saying that it is "Ok" to tax the rich more takes away the incentive for most people to advance since most "rich" people are not associated with a corporation: they are just employees of a corporation.
The system in the U.S. basically incentive-based, and you taking away the incentive because it is going into the pocket of the government and not in the pocket of the person working harder or taking the risk to advance.
what a fat load! it's obvious you didn't read a thing I was saying. Please read it again, and if you don't understand it call my gran and my uncle.
In addition, progressive taxation does not create wealth caps. You can still get as rich as you want, but you have to pay your fair share to society for the managment of the ever growing pool of resources you individually consume. (for example: why should the poor be forced to subsidize the greater value the rich get from police? After all, it's not the poor who are worried about people breaking in and stealing the tiffany glasswork. Let the wealthy pay their fair share for law enforcement)
Wrong. The mess we are in right now is a result of millions of people left unproductive because others are hoarding their cash. The point of a stimulus is to take that cash and use it to get those millions of adults productive again.
BINGO!
This is what most reaganites simply fail to grasp, but people who actually own their own businesses understand.
If you have a corporation, you use that corporation as a tax shelter. The higher the tax on your income, the less you will claim as an official salary from your company. That money stays WITHIN the company, and must be used in some way to avoid loss to taxes, which means investment (more credit for everyone), higher wages (more consumption->GROWTH), or more jobs (again, Growth).
What's more, those taxes taken from what they do claim don't affect their lifestyle, and the plan is to produce subsidized infrastructure.. for businesses! --They get all their tax money back indirectly.
I don't know of any competent business owner who would have a problem with the proposed policies.
By pushing down taxes on INCOME for the wealthy, reaganomics does nothing for the business OWNER.
Now, on the other hand. the executives who run but don't OWN large companies benefit a lot from these policies. Note how these types are the same types who create scandals like enron. Their motivation is not the health and well being of a company, but to siphon off as much in salary and bonuses as they can then cut loose before the collapse.
Obviously it's hard for those types to get rich if taxes on income over..say.. 1 million a year are in the 80%+ bracket.
You will get NO net jobs. Every penny spent on a "stimulus" must be taken from taxpayers, either directly or indirectly, either now or in the future, and that penny will NOT be spent creating jobs elsewhere. At best, you are taking away future jobs to support current ones, or, to state exactly the same thing in different terms, you are borrowing from the future to support unsustainable lifestyles now . . . which is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with.
Standard reaganomic bullcrap.
Taxing the INCOME of the wealthy to build infrastructure actually compels the creation of MORE jobs than just the infrastructure itself.
I know these things, several of my family members own and manage incorporated entities. The more pressure you put on their personal income, the more they will keep within their corporations, which are taxed far less, resulting in more re-investment (for the layman, that means JOBS AND EXPANSION).
In addition to that, using those taxes from the wealthy to invest in infrastructure provides subsidized infrastructure for yet more growth.. ironically for all the pissing and moaning that subsidy is to the businesses of the wealthy.
It's a win-win-win situation.
the economy is stabilized, jobs are created, and the wealthy get a major subsidy to their business for a little tap-dancing with their accounting.
17" laptop is ridiculous in your opinion.
There are power users, AV-philes, and others who want portability without sacrificing resolution or fidelity.
I'm glad they still offered anti-glare on their new 17" line, but I pushed forward with the previous revision anyway because the benchmarks showed very little appreciable power difference for better support and a greater number of connection points : )
You won't get far with HD on ppc macs.
I have one of the last of the PPC lines humming away next to me in target disk mode.. acting as an external drive enclosure for my new macbook pro.
The macbook pro is rated for 1/4 the cpu cycles but plays 1080p h.264 and wow at 30 fps at the same time. The ppc machine would be wheezing and coughing on 720p
That strata might not be around much longer, and younger people, for the most part, don't regard computer differences with quite as much difference as we have in the past.
I beg to differ. I consider this comment like comments made about communism and how subsequent generations don't have the zeal, and it's just not true.
Mac's biggest headway has been with people 25 and younger.
There have been reports of macs making up the majority of notebook sales in many major colleges. (and by "major" i don't mean "expensive")
Meh. Yes, I realize that Apple going more mainstream would mean that Apple would no longer be "cool" or "hip", but I think that at the end of the day Apple needs to broaden their market some or face extinction. They've positioned themselves as a fashion accessory. The thing is fashion accessories eventually fall out of fashion.
That would be one of the newer developments bringing them into "main stream".
I hope apple's time as a "fashion accessory" comes to a swift end, while there are still staff and managers there who understood the "premium, professional" mentality, so as not to be utterly disastrous to the company.
Quality products with simple software that did its job without bloat were the reason why I adopted apple.
If apple abandons premium all together to become a cheap piece of plastic on britney's hip I may have to start my own company to eat their previous lunch, as NOBODY will be servicing it anymore.
This post is really great, how it manages to remain on the edge of trolling, but you're not quite sure.
Well, I might be feeding the trolls today, but if the poster was serious, he also forgot that little thing, you know, what was it? "Totally destroying the resale value and second-hand market"? Yes, that's it!
That and GGP is nothing more than a thinly veiled troll as well. Pretty much all the +5's I remember from that were very simple.. "you, the author of this article, are either a moron or deliberately disingenuous"
Your reaction just proves my point. Read the article. I mean it.
I'm sorry, but the fact an article which short-sightedly bashes people for their rightful conclusions about unjust copyright law accurately predicts people being indignant about its veiled invective does not make it or its author any more correct.
"judge, that there (n-word redacted) just wants white women! Don't believe me? He'll get pissed off and indignant if you tell him he does"
except im not talking about length. The length of copyright protections isn't the elephant in the room.
The elephant in the room goes by the name of "DMCA section 1201: prohibitions against circumvention of technical protection measures"
There's a reason there's no box that plays everything, and everyone loves to ignore that big fat pink elephant.