Ahh, so your response is that one of the 8 or so different Macs that are offered has been update nearly every year, never mind the others are on a 2+ year cycle... Got it!
Add a pair of Samsung 1 TB SSD drives for $289 each (fully redundant RAID for better data integrity than the Mac).
Add a pair of 28" 4K Samsung monitors for $369 each. Why I would want a non-standard "5K" display is beyond me, when 4K is the standard for all video content etc. I'd love to have a full second monitor for whatever else I wanted to look at/read/use as well.
Total comes to $6516. It's a faster graphics platform, more CPU horsepower, double the RAM, more storage (redundant at that), and much more screen real-estate. And it's nearly $1000 less. AND - I can still add more drives, more graphics cards, etc. since it's a tower configuration. And I can save $1000. What's not to like?
Funny, I get updates on my Samsung Note 5 fairly regularly... Last update was November 28th, and prior to that was November 1st. This is for a 3 year old phone. Battery still gets me through the entire day, too!
Too bad they use Creo and Solidworks... As I've consistently pointed out to YOU... Face it, Apple is now just a mobile platform company, and the Mac line exists solely as a way to suppose those mobile devices. It's why they get a refresh maybe every 3-4 years, compared to annually for the mobile devices.
So all that means is that GDP growth even in the case of declining population further shows the pie as a whole can grow. Which was my point all along! You've ended up making my own case for me.
And? How did that affect the fact that the GDP grew - in real and absolute terms - during the Reagan years? And it grew faster than inflation and population combined. The size of the GDP is not fixed. We accumulate wealth because we produce more than we consume. That's why the GDP is outpacing inflation and population growth - well, other than the last 8 moribund years...
US population went from 229 million in 1981 to 244 million in 1988.That is a ~7% growth. Add that to inflation, and you're at 41%. Yet the GDP grew by 62%. How can that happen, unless GDP and wealth is more than just inflation and people, that it is not a static thing?
In fact, if increases in the US Federal budget was held at just inflation plus population growth, we would grow out of the deficit in a matter of a few years, and out of debt in a few decades. The GDP tends to grow faster - typically by a factor of 2. Hauser's Law would basically ensure we'd have revenue growth faster than inflation plus population, which means decreasing deficits and ultimately surpluses.
And you can do the same thing on Android, with "OK Google". Of course, for every person using Siri for navigation on iOS, there is probably 7 or more doing the same thing on Android, so... And I know several people who use Google Maps on iOS - and none the other way, so the ratio is probably even greater in terms of map domination.
The Saturn V did have 13 successful launches - and one that blew up. The Space Shuttle had 135 flights, only 133 were successful without deaths. I dunno, but I think modern jet airplanes manage a little better than 2-8% of all flights failing... Were these accidents caused by the use of LH2? The Saturn V may have been - but the others were worsened by the fact they were strapped to a huge tank of LH2 and LO2...
STOP RIGHT THERE. We can turn CO2 into gasoline. Given that MANY applications (such as airplanes) simply aren't viable without the extreme energy density of fossil fuels relative to batteries, trying to eliminate all fossil fuel use seems like folly. Given that we can actually make gasoline and kerosene from CO2, why isn't there more effort put into that?
Ahh, the pie cannot grow! I guess that's why the GDP went from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988. That's a 62.5% growth. The GINI ratio went from 0.406 to 0.426; under President Clinton it went from 0.433 to 0.466 - a much bigger jump. Money comes from creating wealth; if it didn't, we'd still have a sub-$1 trillion GDP.
Change the GDP growth, and the tax receipt growth changes. The "additional" doesn't matter - the baseline will do it on its own. A total GDP growth of 3.5% will result in a surplus after 4 years. That's the point - assuming we just return to historical GDP growth levels, this tax plan gets us out of deficit spending. Assuming a baseline of 1.6% (or even 2%) and adding on your 0.9% bump - that's still well under the historical average and what we are seeing today. A GDP growth of 3.5%
will result in a surplus.
As far as President Obama not giving $1.7 trillion to the wealthiest Americans? Quantitative Easing was a $2 trillion giveaway - and the ACA forced everyone to give thousands of dollars to health insurance companies. That's why the GINI ratio reached an all-time high under President Obama - the rich did MUCH better with his policies than pretty much anyone else.
Lastly, about GDP? Per the BEA, current dollar GDP growth was 4.1% in Q2 and 5.5% in Q3.
The CBO scoring assumes we'll maintain the wonderful 1.6% growth we had with President Obama. Rescoring with the historical average (and what we've seen this year) of 3.5%, and the tax bill creates a surplus in 4 years. Bad talking points for the Left, though, so they stick with the Debbie Downer approach.
The Reagan tax cuts actually worked. Real Federal tax receipts increased by 28% in constant dollars. The problem is that Tip O'Neill and the rest of Congress raised spending by 36% in constant dollars. Federal income doubled, but spending more than doubled. That was the issue. GDP growth after the tax cuts returned to the historical 3.5-3.6% levels, rather than the 1.6% for the 1973-1982 timeframe. And the rich ended up shouldering even more of the Federal tax load, moving from 18% in 1981 to 28% of all Federal income taxes.
The CBO scoring of the plan assumed a 1.9% GDP growth rate. Historically, the US GDP growth is closer to 3.6% annually, and if you use that as your baseline - there is an elimination of the deficit and a surplus after 4 years. So using the wonderful Bush/Obama baseline, we add debt; using the baseline of all other Presidents, we turn a surplus. Personally, I believe 1.9% is NOT the new normal; witness this year with 3%+ every single quarter. A baseline more like the historical 3.6% average should have been used.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep! Absolutely. Of course, you still need Windows to do that work, don't you?
Ahh, so your response is that one of the 8 or so different Macs that are offered has been update nearly every year, never mind the others are on a 2+ year cycle... Got it!
Lenovo P910 with a pair of 10 core Xeon processors (better, faster than a single 18 core), 64 GB of RAM, 512 GB SSD for boot drive. Price is $4500.
Add a better video card (GForce GTX1080 is a faster, better video card than the Vega 56 in the Mac) for $700 from NewEgg
Add a pair of Samsung 1 TB SSD drives for $289 each (fully redundant RAID for better data integrity than the Mac).
Add a pair of 28" 4K Samsung monitors for $369 each. Why I would want a non-standard "5K" display is beyond me, when 4K is the standard for all video content etc. I'd love to have a full second monitor for whatever else I wanted to look at/read/use as well.
Total comes to $6516. It's a faster graphics platform, more CPU horsepower, double the RAM, more storage (redundant at that), and much more screen real-estate. And it's nearly $1000 less. AND - I can still add more drives, more graphics cards, etc. since it's a tower configuration. And I can save $1000. What's not to like?
Different model. They don't throttle the battery like some other iCompanies...
Funny, I get updates on my Samsung Note 5 fairly regularly... Last update was November 28th, and prior to that was November 1st. This is for a 3 year old phone. Battery still gets me through the entire day, too!
Are you talking about that $7400 iMac Pro you just pointed to in another post? That "not a ripoff" offering?
Too bad they use Creo and Solidworks... As I've consistently pointed out to YOU... Face it, Apple is now just a mobile platform company, and the Mac line exists solely as a way to suppose those mobile devices. It's why they get a refresh maybe every 3-4 years, compared to annually for the mobile devices.
Yep, that's a $7400 dollar machine from Apple! I guess that's a hint at what it will take to run that iOS-ified version of Macs in the future...
So all that means is that GDP growth even in the case of declining population further shows the pie as a whole can grow. Which was my point all along! You've ended up making my own case for me.
And? How did that affect the fact that the GDP grew - in real and absolute terms - during the Reagan years? And it grew faster than inflation and population combined. The size of the GDP is not fixed. We accumulate wealth because we produce more than we consume. That's why the GDP is outpacing inflation and population growth - well, other than the last 8 moribund years...
Just develop your iOS app like you would design an iOS device's hardware - on Windows (Creo/NX and Altium).
US population went from 229 million in 1981 to 244 million in 1988.That is a ~7% growth. Add that to inflation, and you're at 41%. Yet the GDP grew by 62%. How can that happen, unless GDP and wealth is more than just inflation and people, that it is not a static thing?
In fact, if increases in the US Federal budget was held at just inflation plus population growth, we would grow out of the deficit in a matter of a few years, and out of debt in a few decades. The GDP tends to grow faster - typically by a factor of 2. Hauser's Law would basically ensure we'd have revenue growth faster than inflation plus population, which means decreasing deficits and ultimately surpluses.
A dollar in 1981 was was worth $1.34 in 1988. So that's a 34% increase. Of course, the GDP grew by 62% - more than inflation. Hey, the pie DID grow!
Apple confirms it's a mobile device company, and is going to finally rid itself of the antiquated albatross that is the Mac line.
Apart from one logical thing, why would you think more advanced aliens would be stupider than us.
Because as we've seen in movies, we can easily infect their systems with malware!
And you can do the same thing on Android, with "OK Google". Of course, for every person using Siri for navigation on iOS, there is probably 7 or more doing the same thing on Android, so... And I know several people who use Google Maps on iOS - and none the other way, so the ratio is probably even greater in terms of map domination.
help Apple market to customers
Read: Advertising to you using dollars selling information about you. Sounds like, I dunno, Google?
The Saturn V did have 13 successful launches - and one that blew up. The Space Shuttle had 135 flights, only 133 were successful without deaths. I dunno, but I think modern jet airplanes manage a little better than 2-8% of all flights failing... Were these accidents caused by the use of LH2? The Saturn V may have been - but the others were worsened by the fact they were strapped to a huge tank of LH2 and LO2...
Considering oil is a non-renewable source.
STOP RIGHT THERE. We can turn CO2 into gasoline. Given that MANY applications (such as airplanes) simply aren't viable without the extreme energy density of fossil fuels relative to batteries, trying to eliminate all fossil fuel use seems like folly. Given that we can actually make gasoline and kerosene from CO2, why isn't there more effort put into that?
Ahh, the pie cannot grow! I guess that's why the GDP went from $3.2 trillion in 1981 to $5.2 trillion in 1988. That's a 62.5% growth. The GINI ratio went from 0.406 to 0.426; under President Clinton it went from 0.433 to 0.466 - a much bigger jump. Money comes from creating wealth; if it didn't, we'd still have a sub-$1 trillion GDP.
Change the GDP growth, and the tax receipt growth changes. The "additional" doesn't matter - the baseline will do it on its own. A total GDP growth of 3.5% will result in a surplus after 4 years. That's the point - assuming we just return to historical GDP growth levels, this tax plan gets us out of deficit spending. Assuming a baseline of 1.6% (or even 2%) and adding on your 0.9% bump - that's still well under the historical average and what we are seeing today. A GDP growth of 3.5% will result in a surplus.
As far as President Obama not giving $1.7 trillion to the wealthiest Americans? Quantitative Easing was a $2 trillion giveaway - and the ACA forced everyone to give thousands of dollars to health insurance companies. That's why the GINI ratio reached an all-time high under President Obama - the rich did MUCH better with his policies than pretty much anyone else.
Lastly, about GDP? Per the BEA, current dollar GDP growth was 4.1% in Q2 and 5.5% in Q3.
The CBO scoring assumes we'll maintain the wonderful 1.6% growth we had with President Obama. Rescoring with the historical average (and what we've seen this year) of 3.5%, and the tax bill creates a surplus in 4 years. Bad talking points for the Left, though, so they stick with the Debbie Downer approach.
The Reagan tax cuts actually worked. Real Federal tax receipts increased by 28% in constant dollars. The problem is that Tip O'Neill and the rest of Congress raised spending by 36% in constant dollars. Federal income doubled, but spending more than doubled. That was the issue. GDP growth after the tax cuts returned to the historical 3.5-3.6% levels, rather than the 1.6% for the 1973-1982 timeframe. And the rich ended up shouldering even more of the Federal tax load, moving from 18% in 1981 to 28% of all Federal income taxes.
The CBO scoring of the plan assumed a 1.9% GDP growth rate. Historically, the US GDP growth is closer to 3.6% annually, and if you use that as your baseline - there is an elimination of the deficit and a surplus after 4 years. So using the wonderful Bush/Obama baseline, we add debt; using the baseline of all other Presidents, we turn a surplus. Personally, I believe 1.9% is NOT the new normal; witness this year with 3%+ every single quarter. A baseline more like the historical 3.6% average should have been used.
LMGTFY. Install a "social app", approve it one time, and it can easily continue to record/film/report whilst open - and not as you expect.