Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:34 AM
Also the time of day there.. after 3pm..
OllyW
Apr 21, 07:06 AM
I struggle with the LTE angle mainly due to the fact in the UK we haven't even got visual voicemail working on the iPhone 4
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Speak for yourself, it works on mine. :p
Salacion
Apr 20, 07:23 PM
I know, right?
God forbid someone have an opinion that differs from yours.
It doesn't matter how that differing opinion is presented, if it differs you don't like it.
Typical fanboys.
I tried to be respectful by stressing the fact that an Android phone works best FOR ME, and by also giving credit where it's due because the iPhone is a beautiful piece of machinery.
But to no avail.
I don't mind that you have a different opinion, you just represent that opinion badly.
God forbid someone have an opinion that differs from yours.
It doesn't matter how that differing opinion is presented, if it differs you don't like it.
Typical fanboys.
I tried to be respectful by stressing the fact that an Android phone works best FOR ME, and by also giving credit where it's due because the iPhone is a beautiful piece of machinery.
But to no avail.
I don't mind that you have a different opinion, you just represent that opinion badly.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
gmcalpin
Apr 15, 10:31 AM
Perhaps those groups should make their own videos.
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
Thank you. (I mean, no ****, right?)
paul4339
Apr 28, 11:51 AM
Yes, I strongly disagree that students need to learn Windows in order to thrive in the workplace. ... Kids need to learn how to use a computer. Which one is not that important any more. ...
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
I agree, students need to learn to use a/any computer and how to *think*. If they can do that they can learn any computer and adapt to change.
P.
326
Jun 18, 08:17 AM
new to the forums but not new with ATT. I used to own a nokia phone thru ATT and have never had any dropped call issues until after they merged with cingular which cingular used to be pacific bell cellular phones.
Pacific Bell cellular phones I used to be on years ago which lasted no more then 8months tops. Reason being was thier connection reliability was absolute junk. Didnt matter where I was standing the signal strength was garbage.
So then I switched to ATT not knowing that they two companys would merge a year and a half later.
During my time with ATT the signal strength was solid, secure and very reliable. Consistant.
Then the merge happend and the service customer service is where I noticed a significant Nose Dive heading south. Poor Service.
I continued to my time as an ATT customer being that the Nokia phone was still reliable and the signal strength consistant. Then upgraded to a Motorola flip which was also reliable.
When I made the move to the iPhone3g is when I noticed my signal strength consistancy begin to weaken. However I love my iPhone so much and use it for everything mobile that its tolerable.
I am hoping that this new anntenna system thats integrated in the new iPhone4 to put strong signal strength and reliability back into the hands that ATT used to have and be known for.
Hopefully one day this world will unify as one to focus forward to reach outside of the box, instead of focusing on the $ sign which divides the world into pieces:apple:
Pacific Bell cellular phones I used to be on years ago which lasted no more then 8months tops. Reason being was thier connection reliability was absolute junk. Didnt matter where I was standing the signal strength was garbage.
So then I switched to ATT not knowing that they two companys would merge a year and a half later.
During my time with ATT the signal strength was solid, secure and very reliable. Consistant.
Then the merge happend and the service customer service is where I noticed a significant Nose Dive heading south. Poor Service.
I continued to my time as an ATT customer being that the Nokia phone was still reliable and the signal strength consistant. Then upgraded to a Motorola flip which was also reliable.
When I made the move to the iPhone3g is when I noticed my signal strength consistancy begin to weaken. However I love my iPhone so much and use it for everything mobile that its tolerable.
I am hoping that this new anntenna system thats integrated in the new iPhone4 to put strong signal strength and reliability back into the hands that ATT used to have and be known for.
Hopefully one day this world will unify as one to focus forward to reach outside of the box, instead of focusing on the $ sign which divides the world into pieces:apple:
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 12:05 PM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
And Fear.
And Fear.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 12:41 PM
I agree with you, brother. God bless you.
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Is est a subcribo of contradictio frater
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:13 PM
my guess is it is going to come down to them fillings the chamber with concrete
Sounds Good
Apr 10, 06:28 PM
However many of us who live in both OSes prefer Mac OS X on a Mac where it is appropriate.
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I'm not sure sure what you mean when you say "for the things it is good at." What do you mean? What things?
The only "advantage" is being able to use OS X for the things it is good at.
I'm not sure sure what you mean when you say "for the things it is good at." What do you mean? What things?
darkplanets
Mar 13, 10:17 AM
I too don't expect anything like Chernobyl. But, it doesn't help when a Government "Official" tells the media that there is nothing to worry about then another "Official" mentions that there could be a meltdown or something.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
As a consequence the German government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
miles01110
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
maclaptop
Apr 26, 07:47 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
Think Obama & Jobs the supreme power couple :)
dethmaShine
May 2, 09:45 AM
This is exactly the kind of ignorance I'm referring to. The vast majority of users don't differentiate between "virus", "trojan", "phishing e-mail", or any other terminology when they are actually referring to malware as "anything I don't want on my machine." By continuously bringing up inane points like the above, not only are you not helping the situation, you're perpetuating a useless mentality in order to prove your mastery of vocabulary.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
Congratulations.
Really? If they cannot differentiate b/w viruses, they have no right to comment on them. There's some basic education involved in dealing with such things.
If you cannot differentiate b/w a guest and an intruder, it's not my fault.
bigwig
Oct 27, 06:01 PM
At the rate SGI is going, I could probably buy SGI myself for whatever is in my pocket within the next year. Talk about a company that failed to follow the industry and adapt with the times.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
No point in anyone buying them, the only thing keeping them afloat is the few tidbits of technology they've licensed over the years, which is all just about obsolete now anyway.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 04:08 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists.
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
:eek:
Why the vitriol against Greenpeace? It appears that a lot of people on this forum HATE them. What have they done to deserve this?
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:23 PM
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Your list is almost right, but one thing to clarify, it's not "only for reproduction". Merely that it has to be open to the possibility of reproduction - i.e., no contraception. Also note that doesn't mean infertile people can't have sex. It just means the nature of the act itself isn't being deliberately subverted.
Catholics are not puritans and the sensual nature of sex is celebrated as well as the procreative nature.
NathanMuir
Apr 24, 12:15 PM
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that.
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
What about fear of hell in the afterlife? Pretty powerful motivator that.
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
Fear of death. That's why religion was invented and why it will always exist.
It must be very simple and claustrophobic up there. ;)
Who would I be to argue with such an excellent generalization?
r1ch4rd
Apr 23, 03:46 PM
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Well now, I don't think being an atheist actually entails anything. I certainly don't do anything specific related to it, but I know what you mean :).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
Well now, I don't think being an atheist actually entails anything. I certainly don't do anything specific related to it, but I know what you mean :).
I think this is a positive thing that people can be pushed towards science and understanding - even if it is because they are having to constantly defend themselves!
Who knows, perhaps they will find something they are passionate about and push forward science even further. Religious groups don't come accross as particularly progressive, so I guess it's up to "us" ;)
neko girl
Mar 25, 10:16 AM
PS Marriage is a privilege not a right.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
No, it's a right. The United States continues to violate human rights. Not a new phenomenon, your opinion or how this country is.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder