BlizzardBomb
Jun 1, 08:06 AM
Option 2 is better, there's no need to add "Mac" to the beginning, nor is there a need to split Desktops and Laptops because Apple has had very few distinct lineups, and not every variation needs it's own article, so all the iMacs would be covered inside a single iMac page rather than splitting them out between G3, G4, G5/Intel Core (2) Duo, and Intel Core 2 Duo (2007 and later) reducing article clutter. It would be pretty much the same idea for the Powerbook line, the iBook line, the Macbook line, the Macbook Pro line, the PowerMac line, the Mac Pro line, etc.
Wait a minute. You're saying to have just a single article for ALL iMacs? OK, sure number of clicks goes down, but then you get the "Oh where did that piece of information go?" and a tired finger from scrolling ;) The PowerMac page would be huge and for people with slow/ mobile connections, the load times would be painful.
Anyway, I agree with HexMonkey, instead of wasting time trying to do Beta categories, we should just decide right now in text, then do the whole thing in one sweep.
I still think Option 1 is superior. If a "Hardware", "Software" split was done, pages like "iPhone" and "iPhone Applications" would be split up, which isn't necessary. "iPhone" needs its own category.
Wait a minute. You're saying to have just a single article for ALL iMacs? OK, sure number of clicks goes down, but then you get the "Oh where did that piece of information go?" and a tired finger from scrolling ;) The PowerMac page would be huge and for people with slow/ mobile connections, the load times would be painful.
Anyway, I agree with HexMonkey, instead of wasting time trying to do Beta categories, we should just decide right now in text, then do the whole thing in one sweep.
I still think Option 1 is superior. If a "Hardware", "Software" split was done, pages like "iPhone" and "iPhone Applications" would be split up, which isn't necessary. "iPhone" needs its own category.
Natesac
Mar 11, 09:00 AM
We are 12th and 13th at Willow Bend. We are currently at the end of the line. There is a roped off area and they are saying LIMIT TWO PER PERSON.
aristotle
May 5, 02:57 PM
Canada, you're screwed. :(
Oh please. If the NDP had got in then Canada would be royally screwed. The NDP has a poor record in a number of provinces of running the provincial governments into deep deficits and scaring away businesses.
I would take the opinion piece from someone with the Toronto Star with a little bit of salt. They are like the Huffington Post of Canada or a left leaning Canadian version of those British tabloids that they try to pass for "newspapers" in England.
Oh please. If the NDP had got in then Canada would be royally screwed. The NDP has a poor record in a number of provinces of running the provincial governments into deep deficits and scaring away businesses.
I would take the opinion piece from someone with the Toronto Star with a little bit of salt. They are like the Huffington Post of Canada or a left leaning Canadian version of those British tabloids that they try to pass for "newspapers" in England.
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:12 AM
This $20 discount is a kick in the nuts from Apple.
It's in line with their CPP published prices for their computers, which see only modest $20-30 discounts over the education retail pricing for the 5- and 10-packs.
Since the iPad education retail price is $499 and the package price already down $20 to $479, it would be unusual for the pack to be discounted more than the iMacs and MacBooks. Honestly it's a bit of a surprise that they have the same package discount as the 13" MacBook Pro on the iPad. When you consider that they're already getting education pricing and tax exemptions, plus other perks and extras from their package purchase, it's not such a bad deal.
So how is it that Apple can only give the education sector a $20 discount per device when Amazon can buy this device from Apple (who is making a profit), resell it to consumers, AND STILL MAKE A PROFIT?
Profit might be an overstatement. It's my understanding that most resellers don't get more than a 10% discount over retail price from Apple, and Amazon is a master of the loss leader. It often sells iPods and other popular items at near-break-even to attract other sales. It famously sells its eBooks at a loss.
As far as I know, there aren't many electronics manufacturers that even offer education discounts, so it's difficult to hang Apple for not giving bigger discounts.
Most offer some form of institutional purchase discounts.
It's in line with their CPP published prices for their computers, which see only modest $20-30 discounts over the education retail pricing for the 5- and 10-packs.
Since the iPad education retail price is $499 and the package price already down $20 to $479, it would be unusual for the pack to be discounted more than the iMacs and MacBooks. Honestly it's a bit of a surprise that they have the same package discount as the 13" MacBook Pro on the iPad. When you consider that they're already getting education pricing and tax exemptions, plus other perks and extras from their package purchase, it's not such a bad deal.
So how is it that Apple can only give the education sector a $20 discount per device when Amazon can buy this device from Apple (who is making a profit), resell it to consumers, AND STILL MAKE A PROFIT?
Profit might be an overstatement. It's my understanding that most resellers don't get more than a 10% discount over retail price from Apple, and Amazon is a master of the loss leader. It often sells iPods and other popular items at near-break-even to attract other sales. It famously sells its eBooks at a loss.
As far as I know, there aren't many electronics manufacturers that even offer education discounts, so it's difficult to hang Apple for not giving bigger discounts.
Most offer some form of institutional purchase discounts.
robbieduncan
Sep 25, 10:42 AM
Can't believe aperture doesn't support more RAW types yet.
Until it supports more/all of the raw types, it will never be a real 'pro' application imho
Which cameras in particular. It already supports all the serious Pro cameras if you ignore the very recently announced Canon and Nikon amature DSLRs.
Until it supports more/all of the raw types, it will never be a real 'pro' application imho
Which cameras in particular. It already supports all the serious Pro cameras if you ignore the very recently announced Canon and Nikon amature DSLRs.
Waybo
Mar 4, 10:29 PM
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuffMvj5CZoKchQLMcMMjDU7cceHKJNev84DxNUW1VzpL8RnGdbGziUZzaHIgvt9bhX2y-kVLxe8YPRvrpGs921BvU9nEua2mStw9ckj5eZd7CEzAdyzXJBZMf8dpR8hmeTyW5dTxL7nw/s1000/paint1.jpg
I know I must be overtired ... I actually reached out and touched my screen to see if this was really 3-dimensional!
I know I must be overtired ... I actually reached out and touched my screen to see if this was really 3-dimensional!
mljones99
Mar 27, 12:19 PM
On my way home last night from a wedding I noticed gas anywhere from 3.49 to 3.66 for 87 octane.
Blue Velvet
Feb 12, 06:56 PM
Import the CD, then click on the Browse button (top-right, look like an eye).
Scroll down the album menu to the album. Select it and key Apple-I, it will ask you if you want to edit multiple items, you say yes, and then enter the name you want in the artists field...
Scroll down the album menu to the album. Select it and key Apple-I, it will ask you if you want to edit multiple items, you say yes, and then enter the name you want in the artists field...
hulugu
Apr 4, 01:02 PM
The Laffer Curve makes sense. You find a balance and you have taxes that are low enough not to hinder the economy and high enough to fund the government. I really don't understand where this "keep lowering taxes" logic comes from. It certainly has nothing to do with the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve is often referenced, but you're correct about it's actual meaning. Some conservatives have taken the Curve to mean that lowering taxes will always bring about more revenue. Something this article is trying to address.
I wasn't making that argument so I guess I was confused why it was brought up. I've only been making an argument that the article can't conclude cutting taxes resulted in the budget problem. A state may have cut taxes and their economy might not have improved since cutting taxes, but the author of the article needs to fill in the gap and explain why there is a correlation/causation.
Negative correlation is very difficult to prove, but the article was merely noting that lowering taxes does not make for a rising economy. Obviously, we'd look to see if raising taxes improved the economy, and we might try to use some statistical methods to identify correlation.
What's important is that many conservative politicians have been selling low taxes as a fix for state budgetary problems�Wisconsin is a good example�without acknowledging that such measure often don't work, especially in the short-term.
I propose that you could run a state with some income tax or no income tax if the budget was made competently. So, IMO, cutting taxes does not, in and of itself, mean it has caused a budget shortfall. I personally think cutting taxes does help the economy but that's not what is at issue here.
In the short-term, lowering taxes just takes money from the state purse and does not drive new economic development. In the mid-term and long-term, lower taxes may encourage growth, but there's not a direct connection between taxation and economic development. They are orthogonal elements.
I have only a general understanding of the theories those guys you mentioned are famous for. I think Austrian economics make much more sense. A theory of how to get the maximum tax dollars out of the people is irrelevant to me. It's like studying how much blood you can drain from people while keeping them alive. My preferred income tax rate is 0.
For the Red Cross, knowing that fact is infinitely useful. For government, some tax is necessary to maintain infrastructure, pay for public safety, and encourage a social society. The complicated part is how to get some money without adversely affecting the entire society.
I don't mind paying taxes because I like good roads, working sewers, and schools. I also like national parks, museums and libraries. I don't mind paying for cops, firefighters, and department of environmental quality either. These are useful things that help me more than they cost to me personally and I would hesitate to argue that for nearly everyone this is true.
I wouldn't have believed it 3 years ago but now I can say from experience that anyone can do it if that's what they want to do. It's all a matter of hard work and willingness to live cheaply. The only thing that might tie you down is a family. I live for traveling so I've just worked my life to be able to do what I like. 3 years ago I was a law school dropout with no prospects and a monthly loan repayment of $1100. The highest paying job I qualified for was tutoring.
We should talk.
I've traveled a lot and I'm hoping to do more once my son is a bit older.
The Laffer Curve is often referenced, but you're correct about it's actual meaning. Some conservatives have taken the Curve to mean that lowering taxes will always bring about more revenue. Something this article is trying to address.
I wasn't making that argument so I guess I was confused why it was brought up. I've only been making an argument that the article can't conclude cutting taxes resulted in the budget problem. A state may have cut taxes and their economy might not have improved since cutting taxes, but the author of the article needs to fill in the gap and explain why there is a correlation/causation.
Negative correlation is very difficult to prove, but the article was merely noting that lowering taxes does not make for a rising economy. Obviously, we'd look to see if raising taxes improved the economy, and we might try to use some statistical methods to identify correlation.
What's important is that many conservative politicians have been selling low taxes as a fix for state budgetary problems�Wisconsin is a good example�without acknowledging that such measure often don't work, especially in the short-term.
I propose that you could run a state with some income tax or no income tax if the budget was made competently. So, IMO, cutting taxes does not, in and of itself, mean it has caused a budget shortfall. I personally think cutting taxes does help the economy but that's not what is at issue here.
In the short-term, lowering taxes just takes money from the state purse and does not drive new economic development. In the mid-term and long-term, lower taxes may encourage growth, but there's not a direct connection between taxation and economic development. They are orthogonal elements.
I have only a general understanding of the theories those guys you mentioned are famous for. I think Austrian economics make much more sense. A theory of how to get the maximum tax dollars out of the people is irrelevant to me. It's like studying how much blood you can drain from people while keeping them alive. My preferred income tax rate is 0.
For the Red Cross, knowing that fact is infinitely useful. For government, some tax is necessary to maintain infrastructure, pay for public safety, and encourage a social society. The complicated part is how to get some money without adversely affecting the entire society.
I don't mind paying taxes because I like good roads, working sewers, and schools. I also like national parks, museums and libraries. I don't mind paying for cops, firefighters, and department of environmental quality either. These are useful things that help me more than they cost to me personally and I would hesitate to argue that for nearly everyone this is true.
I wouldn't have believed it 3 years ago but now I can say from experience that anyone can do it if that's what they want to do. It's all a matter of hard work and willingness to live cheaply. The only thing that might tie you down is a family. I live for traveling so I've just worked my life to be able to do what I like. 3 years ago I was a law school dropout with no prospects and a monthly loan repayment of $1100. The highest paying job I qualified for was tutoring.
We should talk.
I've traveled a lot and I'm hoping to do more once my son is a bit older.
kingdonk
Feb 28, 07:37 PM
more
Abstract
Apr 3, 08:01 AM
I don't actually know why Apple are bothering. MS Office is the best program on my Mac. It does everything I could possibly want.. and more.
Exactly. Word is great. Yes, it's bloated, but as long as you realize that you're buying Word with no intention of using 97% of the features, the 3% of the features you DO use are perfect. I even think things are perfectly laid out (on Macs, not Windows), especially on Office 2004.
Again, I realize there is a lot of bloat, but I never really intended to use ALL the features anyway. I intended to use what I need, and Word does offer everything I need.
And I don't think Word is slow. No word processor is slow enough to bother me. And if you're right and it IS slow, then its not very noticeable, and so it isn't a big deal.
Exactly. Word is great. Yes, it's bloated, but as long as you realize that you're buying Word with no intention of using 97% of the features, the 3% of the features you DO use are perfect. I even think things are perfectly laid out (on Macs, not Windows), especially on Office 2004.
Again, I realize there is a lot of bloat, but I never really intended to use ALL the features anyway. I intended to use what I need, and Word does offer everything I need.
And I don't think Word is slow. No word processor is slow enough to bother me. And if you're right and it IS slow, then its not very noticeable, and so it isn't a big deal.
grooveattack
Feb 23, 03:51 PM
SLAM DUNK! thanks man!
kd5jos
Jun 19, 09:27 AM
The standard file system of SDXC cards is exFat (http://www.sdcard.org/developers/tech/sdxc/capabilities/) -- so does this mean the Mini now supports exFat?
Not necessarily. You could reformat the cards using HFS+ and use it on any device that can read HFS+. The trouble is, that likely wouldn't include any device using the SDXC standard.
Not necessarily. You could reformat the cards using HFS+ and use it on any device that can read HFS+. The trouble is, that likely wouldn't include any device using the SDXC standard.
scu
Oct 29, 09:22 AM
as much as i'd like to use .mac, i just can't justify the price
I am starting to agree. After 2 years it is hard to justify the price. I want better management tools for iWeb.
I am starting to agree. After 2 years it is hard to justify the price. I want better management tools for iWeb.
friedmud
Jun 20, 06:17 PM
BTW - using Time Machine with this is a really bad idea!
If your laptop gets stolen... so does the card inside it!
Much better to keep your backups at home!
If your laptop gets stolen... so does the card inside it!
Much better to keep your backups at home!
WestonHarvey1
Apr 12, 02:06 PM
Ok. What about a white woman walking through a white neighbor hood. Passes a hispanic man who beats her because she is white.
Not racist?
:confused:
He's just speaking truth to power. It's a violent outburst caused by the man's oppression by the white majority. It's unfortunate that a woman was beat up, but we must consider the root cause - whites.
Seriously, I had to write papers on this crap. It's pretty awesome. I took it as a lesson on how you can win any argument by changing the rules.
Not racist?
:confused:
He's just speaking truth to power. It's a violent outburst caused by the man's oppression by the white majority. It's unfortunate that a woman was beat up, but we must consider the root cause - whites.
Seriously, I had to write papers on this crap. It's pretty awesome. I took it as a lesson on how you can win any argument by changing the rules.
jbernie
Dec 27, 11:07 PM
No it's not banned. They are intentionally trying to make it more difficult for you to buy it. You have to do the footwork yourself to get it. It is unprecendented for a company to want to make their product more difficult to buy.
oh my.. poor baby... such a hard life you lead... having to actually go do something yourself, next you will tell us how you have all of your mail hand delivered to you on a silver platter and your butler or maid reads it all to you.
Given how many members of MacRumors don't even have an Apple store in their city let alone state or country you come of as a whinger who needs sympathy when in reality you have nothing to complain about in the first place.
Maybe the truth is you are complaining about losing your easy way to get iPhones through fraudulant means and selling them for a profit? I mean, why else would you suggest that AT&T is lying about fraud as potential reason for blocking online purchases in your area?
Go take a walk, you can probably hit 5 AT&T resellers of some sort or Apple stores throwing a baseball from your front doorstep.
oh my.. poor baby... such a hard life you lead... having to actually go do something yourself, next you will tell us how you have all of your mail hand delivered to you on a silver platter and your butler or maid reads it all to you.
Given how many members of MacRumors don't even have an Apple store in their city let alone state or country you come of as a whinger who needs sympathy when in reality you have nothing to complain about in the first place.
Maybe the truth is you are complaining about losing your easy way to get iPhones through fraudulant means and selling them for a profit? I mean, why else would you suggest that AT&T is lying about fraud as potential reason for blocking online purchases in your area?
Go take a walk, you can probably hit 5 AT&T resellers of some sort or Apple stores throwing a baseball from your front doorstep.
Apple OC
May 2, 08:39 PM
Unless the microgenetics machines are small, well, there are several stages in DNA transcription and reverse transcriptase, which would make several conditions unsuitable. Heat destroys it. It can be awfully slow. There are at least 6 stages using different equipment.
They are not testing his DNA for a court of law ... just verifying that he is the one who deserves to be the dead guy
They are not testing his DNA for a court of law ... just verifying that he is the one who deserves to be the dead guy
jo0
Dec 28, 05:45 PM
at&t just confuses me... :confused:
mazola
Sep 25, 10:30 AM
right now there is an "On-going demonstration about how metadata is stored even when some media is offline"
I stand corrected.
I stand corrected.
d4rkc4sm
May 2, 03:39 PM
thicker thinner, is it really worth front page news? let us have news of obama bin ladens death!
r1ch4rd
Mar 27, 08:56 AM
I think it was Japan that taxed cars based on the engine displacement - I believe that would be worth considering here. For anyone who "needs" a big engine - and 98% of you who claim you do - actually do not. But for those who insist - should have a commercial-type registration. (like we currently do with large work vehicles) That said - we were lax, stupid or I don't know what - but allowed 4 ton vehicles to be called passenger cars, and now every 90 pound soccer mom drives a Superduty pickup because it makes them feel safe... :rolleyes:
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
oldschool
Sep 13, 12:22 PM
i'm a jerk
aristotle
May 4, 12:03 PM
I challenge both points, pedantically and pragmatically. Canada is no more a "democracy" than the US, though perhaps slightly less messed up. If it was, you would not be able to brazenly put forth the second assertion. In a real democracy, there are no winners. Debate results in compromise. Compromise leaves everyone disappointed but (usually) sanguine, because those other guys are also comparably disappointed.
The idea that we should have winners and losers is one of the biggest problems facing the US political system. The rollercoaster ride has been pushing the whole country apart from the inside. Failure is inevitable.
Stop projecting the problems that you have with the US political system onto the Canadian one. Elections are contests and the participants either win or lose but the governing party is supposed to govern for the benefit of all citizens. We have more that two parties here and sometimes the opposition parties change positions.
We have had situations where the there was a liberal majority with the bloc as the official opposition and the PC (Progressive Conservatives) nearly wiped out and the NDP as the third party.
Now we have a conservative majority with and NDP opposition (second party) and the Liberals in the third party position. The Bloc are not without party status and there is one green party member.
It seems to me that you are only happy if the people/parties that you like are winning even if they have a super majority. That is hypocrisy at its worst.
I did not like it when the Liberals had a majority and forced through legislation without debate but I grinned and bore it because I understood that we live in a democracy and that we do not always get what we personally want when the people have spoken.
Part of the problem that I see with both the NDP and Liberals is that they are too concerned with special interests rather than ordinary Canadians. They pay lip service about being for the common man but the common man voted conservative because they understand that budgets have to be balanced in households so it should be the same with the government. People in their own homes cannot continue to borrow and spend more money than they have coming in so it seems logical to most hard working tax payers that the government should be held to a similar standard. I think it is foolish to mortgage future generations with out of control spending on social programs since those that follow us will have to pay for it and might not have the same social programs to depend on if the overspending continues.
The idea that we should have winners and losers is one of the biggest problems facing the US political system. The rollercoaster ride has been pushing the whole country apart from the inside. Failure is inevitable.
Stop projecting the problems that you have with the US political system onto the Canadian one. Elections are contests and the participants either win or lose but the governing party is supposed to govern for the benefit of all citizens. We have more that two parties here and sometimes the opposition parties change positions.
We have had situations where the there was a liberal majority with the bloc as the official opposition and the PC (Progressive Conservatives) nearly wiped out and the NDP as the third party.
Now we have a conservative majority with and NDP opposition (second party) and the Liberals in the third party position. The Bloc are not without party status and there is one green party member.
It seems to me that you are only happy if the people/parties that you like are winning even if they have a super majority. That is hypocrisy at its worst.
I did not like it when the Liberals had a majority and forced through legislation without debate but I grinned and bore it because I understood that we live in a democracy and that we do not always get what we personally want when the people have spoken.
Part of the problem that I see with both the NDP and Liberals is that they are too concerned with special interests rather than ordinary Canadians. They pay lip service about being for the common man but the common man voted conservative because they understand that budgets have to be balanced in households so it should be the same with the government. People in their own homes cannot continue to borrow and spend more money than they have coming in so it seems logical to most hard working tax payers that the government should be held to a similar standard. I think it is foolish to mortgage future generations with out of control spending on social programs since those that follow us will have to pay for it and might not have the same social programs to depend on if the overspending continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment