bizzle
Apr 11, 06:14 PM
I paid $3.50 today 87 in NJ. I fill up every three days for work. I get around 27-28 mpg in my 05 Civic Si.
GGJstudios
May 5, 01:34 PM
Seriously? A few MB's of RAM saved is worth over double the price?
I've said nothing about prices. The "tax" I mentioned isn't a financial tax. You simply can't say that Computer A has x components and Computer B has the same x components, therefore, they should cost the same. A Rolls-Royce has an engine, doors, a steering wheel, windows, wheels and tires, just like a Subaru. Based on components, there shouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices between the two. Obviously, there are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the price of components.
Microsoft is trying to get buyers to think of computers as a commodity, priced only by the cost of the components involved. The reality is that computers are, for many buyers, quite personal and involve factors beyond RAM and hard drive capacity. Apple charges what it does for Macs because it can, and because people are willing to pay their prices. If that weren't the case, they would be forced to price them in line with Windows PCs in order to maintain sales.
The question shouldn't be, "Why does Apple charge so much more for Macs?", but rather, "Why are people willing to pay so much more for Macs?". It's not a tax at all, but rather a premium that Apple can successfully charge because people consider Macs to be worth the money they cost. If people didn't feel that way, they wouldn't buy them.
I've said nothing about prices. The "tax" I mentioned isn't a financial tax. You simply can't say that Computer A has x components and Computer B has the same x components, therefore, they should cost the same. A Rolls-Royce has an engine, doors, a steering wheel, windows, wheels and tires, just like a Subaru. Based on components, there shouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices between the two. Obviously, there are other factors involved that have nothing to do with the price of components.
Microsoft is trying to get buyers to think of computers as a commodity, priced only by the cost of the components involved. The reality is that computers are, for many buyers, quite personal and involve factors beyond RAM and hard drive capacity. Apple charges what it does for Macs because it can, and because people are willing to pay their prices. If that weren't the case, they would be forced to price them in line with Windows PCs in order to maintain sales.
The question shouldn't be, "Why does Apple charge so much more for Macs?", but rather, "Why are people willing to pay so much more for Macs?". It's not a tax at all, but rather a premium that Apple can successfully charge because people consider Macs to be worth the money they cost. If people didn't feel that way, they wouldn't buy them.
7on
Mar 29, 03:50 PM
I am tempted to buy one for this reason. I was able to look at one in a store earlier today and wow, its ugly.. I really prefer the look of the DSi a lot more, the 3DS just looks horrible compared to the DSi.
The 3D aspect really means nothing to me as I cannot see anything in 3D (glasses based or this I assume) because of my vision issues. The idea of having better graphics compels me, however I'm not sure if I will get one just yet.
Go for the NGP then :p
The 3D aspect really means nothing to me as I cannot see anything in 3D (glasses based or this I assume) because of my vision issues. The idea of having better graphics compels me, however I'm not sure if I will get one just yet.
Go for the NGP then :p
Watabou
Apr 30, 05:02 PM
No, you made his point because you went all defensive and fearful over Android.
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
Huh?! I didn't think I got defensive over Android. I don't know how just stating Android was difficult to use translates to "I am defensive and fearful over Android".
I just stated Android was difficult to use. That's similar to saying I like eating icecream out of the box rather than taking my time putting it in a bowl or a cone and then eating it. See what I'm saying? Now, some people may like the latter way but I much prefer iPhone's navigation, iPhone browser, perfect integration with iTunes, iCal, Mail and others, and the App Store to Android. That said, I do like a lot of the Android features, especially the notification bar that just amazed me.
I use iPhone because I found it much intuitive to use. If you take my iPhone away and force me to use Android, will I enjoy it? No of course not but I won't be fearful of using it...geez.
P.S. Android has over 300 pages of user manual. But that's beside the point right? ;)
It's not any "harder" to use or figure than iOS. Heck, the iPhone has a 274 page user manual... So much for "intuitive".
Huh?! I didn't think I got defensive over Android. I don't know how just stating Android was difficult to use translates to "I am defensive and fearful over Android".
I just stated Android was difficult to use. That's similar to saying I like eating icecream out of the box rather than taking my time putting it in a bowl or a cone and then eating it. See what I'm saying? Now, some people may like the latter way but I much prefer iPhone's navigation, iPhone browser, perfect integration with iTunes, iCal, Mail and others, and the App Store to Android. That said, I do like a lot of the Android features, especially the notification bar that just amazed me.
I use iPhone because I found it much intuitive to use. If you take my iPhone away and force me to use Android, will I enjoy it? No of course not but I won't be fearful of using it...geez.
P.S. Android has over 300 pages of user manual. But that's beside the point right? ;)
more...
0010101
Nov 2, 08:24 PM
I've followed the computer industry for 26+ years.. I remember a time when Apples marketshare was thru the roof. I also remember a company called Commodore that is still the best selling personal computer of all time.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
I know a whole lot more people who would be more inclined to buy a Mac if they could run their favorite app, or the latest game under MacOSX.
That sort of thing can only come with market share.
The switch to Intel can go one of two ways.. it could get Macs in peoples hands, who grow to prefer the OSXperience and abandon Windows all together.. or it could end up being an Alienware kind of computer that people buy as a status symbol, but run Windows on it.
Heck, you may start to see software developers abandon their Mac divisions all together.. figuring that since most Intel Mac users have Windows installed, they can just write ONE version of their software and cover all bases.
Growth and increased market share is good for Apple, and good for their customers.
There is a long list of hardware companies that gave up their propriatary designs and archetecture and adopted the 'x86' that you don't hear much of anymore.
What seperates Apple from those companies is their totally rockin' OS.. but an OS is only as good as the software that's available for it.
I tell ya what i'd really like to see.. the ability to run XP apps from within OSX.. sort of like Wine.. in an easy to use and configure setup.
elfxmilhouse
Jan 6, 07:55 PM
can the new app play facebook videos?
i hate how you can see and click on the videos in the facebook app but it would just give you a message stating videos are not supported....THEN WHY DO YOU SHOW IT IN tHE FEED?!
i hate how you can see and click on the videos in the facebook app but it would just give you a message stating videos are not supported....THEN WHY DO YOU SHOW IT IN tHE FEED?!
more...
jimsowden
Mar 28, 08:52 AM
Appception
MarcBook
Apr 5, 11:11 AM
I would be surprised if Apple reverted to having the headphone jack on the bottom of the iPhone next to the charging slot. This seems very suspect to me.
This is an iPod touch we're dealing with here, not an iPhone.
Also, I agree with pmz above. People agreeing with the idea of a capacitative button aren't thinking it through. It would be a real pain in the butt and would quickly have people returning the device. Playing games such as Real Racing 2 (which most people play while placing their thumbs either side of the screen in landscape orientation), for example, would be impossible. :eek:
This is an iPod touch we're dealing with here, not an iPhone.
Also, I agree with pmz above. People agreeing with the idea of a capacitative button aren't thinking it through. It would be a real pain in the butt and would quickly have people returning the device. Playing games such as Real Racing 2 (which most people play while placing their thumbs either side of the screen in landscape orientation), for example, would be impossible. :eek:
more...
citizenzen
Apr 3, 08:50 PM
California has one of the worst budget deficits and some of the most regulations.
State Projected FY 2012 deficit (Deficit as percent
of 2011 spending)
1. Nevada - $1,500,000,000 (45%)
2. New Jersey - $10,500,000,000 (37%)
3. Texas - $13,400,000,000 (32%)
4. California - $25,400,000,000 (29%)
5. Oregon - $1,800,000,000 (25%)
6. Minnesota - $3,800,000,000 (24%)
7. Louisiana - $1,600,000,000 (21%)
8. New York - $10,000,000,000 (19%)
9. Connecticut - $3,200,000,000 (18%)
10 South Carolina - $877,000,000 (17%)
2010 Ford Raptor Svt Blue
more...
Ford Raptor 2011 Supercrew
Ford SVT Raptor 2011 Matte
more...
in a 2011 Ford Raptor,
ford raptor. 2011 Ford Raptor
more...
SVT Raptor Blue Flame Digital
2011-ford-raptor-transfer-case
more...
Ford F-150 SVT Raptor 2011
ford+raptor+supercrew+lue
2010 · 2010 ford raptor · 2011
State Projected FY 2012 deficit (Deficit as percent
of 2011 spending)
1. Nevada - $1,500,000,000 (45%)
2. New Jersey - $10,500,000,000 (37%)
3. Texas - $13,400,000,000 (32%)
4. California - $25,400,000,000 (29%)
5. Oregon - $1,800,000,000 (25%)
6. Minnesota - $3,800,000,000 (24%)
7. Louisiana - $1,600,000,000 (21%)
8. New York - $10,000,000,000 (19%)
9. Connecticut - $3,200,000,000 (18%)
10 South Carolina - $877,000,000 (17%)
Ish
Mar 12, 10:01 AM
I liked the first one much better. The angle and the background just don't work for me on this one.
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
I agree. I was trying to show the time on the watch more clearly but it's not right.
Two very different interpretations of apples and oranges. I prefer the second one of yours, JD. The top of the apple is more clear, there's more texture in the front orange and the red apple is clearer and reflects the light nicely and adds a bit of sparkle. I also like the contrast between the fruit and the black background and the subtle reflection in the surface.
OK, my own submission for this challenge. With the utmost apologies to JD, I had to stick with the apples & oranges theme which is what had immediately occurred to me when we set this topic. I've tried to expand on the conceptual interpretation of apples & oranges with some more technical interpretations - a split b & w background, and an over-saturated and high contrast post treatment.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5019/5517805179_d69cdf5849_b.jpg
I like the idea you have going here. I would like the saturation more realistic, but that's just me. Different framing and cropping come to mind. Maybe play off the differences in the textures and color, putting them closer and cropping or framing in tight. I may play with this idea when I can. I have nice oranges, but I need an apple. And the nice lighting setup you have.
Please excuse the PhotoShop hack of your image...:)
Dale
No apologies necessary. I think it's great when we have similar ideas implemented differently for these challenges. I very much like the color, textures and saturation. It gives it a very modern feel, especially with the very bold black and white. Like others have said, I'm not sold on the placement or the crop. I get what you were going for in emphasizing the contrasts though. Maybe a tighter crop? Maybe playing with where the black/white line falls in the frame? Maybe placing one fruit in the black and one in the white somehow. Not sure, I think a tighter crop would help the most.
Great work.
Another nice interpretation, Axis. Very different and the crisp black and white adds to the contrast. If I may make one or two suggestions, I might choose something like a very green Granny Smith apple and rub it with a soft cloth until it shone. The one in the pic looks a bit blotchy. That might allow you to turn down the intensity on the orange just a tad so it looks a bit more realistic.
Also wondering what it would look like with the orange slightly in front of and overlapping the orange a little, then the view closed in a bit more on them. Just thoughts!
more...
steve_hill4
Oct 26, 05:51 PM
Why such a negative response? The software out there sucks... more competition means more quality. Sound design needs some major upgrades. It needs to more innovate.
I had a quick play with SoundBooth and this appeared to suck too. I can't see it being a decent replacement just yet.
I had a quick play with SoundBooth and this appeared to suck too. I can't see it being a decent replacement just yet.
Marvin1379
Feb 23, 01:47 PM
What a waste of taxpayers money. Here is a great idea, learn to be a parent!
Thank you.
Thank you.
more...
freebooter
Nov 14, 08:37 AM
Great idea.
devman
Apr 2, 07:18 PM
I have to agree with most here that Pages didn't live up to my expectations. However, I can't agree with you that Word has been perfected. Word is complete nightmare in certain situations. Its non-intuitive and not very user friendly in many cases (especially the windows version!). I do prefer it to Pages, but its by no means the best that can be done.
Keynote on the other hand is fantastic, and considerably easier to use and prettier than Powerpoint.
Great post and very well said. Being forced to use Word to write a technical book several years ago was one of the worst experiences of my life.
Anyway, back to Apple, Mellel is a very good word processor for OS X. Interestingly though, I find myself using Pages more and more often.
Keynote on the other hand is fantastic, and considerably easier to use and prettier than Powerpoint.
Great post and very well said. Being forced to use Word to write a technical book several years ago was one of the worst experiences of my life.
Anyway, back to Apple, Mellel is a very good word processor for OS X. Interestingly though, I find myself using Pages more and more often.
more...
Sn00py
Nov 26, 08:40 PM
Ouch!, I guess :apple: are on to it!
Gjeepguy
Apr 19, 09:41 AM
The back camera is no longer a separate piece of glass. See at 0:39.
Facebook integration
Facebook integration
more...
Gasu E.
Mar 25, 09:20 AM
i bet they had people there with MBA's from good schools running financial what if's and telling management to avoid digital because they will make less money due to not selling the film or anything other than the camera
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
They did not avoid digital at all, in fact they were an early entrant to digital. The problem was that they were used to having a lucrative near-monopoly in film, a fat side business in film processing and a nice low-end camera business built around proprietary "connvenience" film packaging. They were now facing aggressive consumer electronics companies who were used to relently feature upgrades and short model lifecycles. Moreover, they could not rely on their film dominance to keep competitors at a disadvantage. In other words, they had to change their business model completely-- from near monopoly to completely competitive-- in order to success in the new business. Only a fraction of companies manage to do this successfully.
Keep in mind, also, due to the increased competition and lack of a film component, that the opportunity for Kodak in digital was much smaller than their film and related businesses. It's very hard to manage a shrinking company, and even harder if you are also trying to reinvent yourself.
chrmjenkins
Apr 28, 11:09 AM
It might - read below.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
An 18 wheeler tractor trailer has an empty weight of 36,000 lbs, or 18 tons. Law permits up to 40 tons loaded. Let's assume a light load and say 22 tons.
That's 1.2 tons per wheel.
A prius is 1.5 tons. That's 0.375 tons per wheel.
Now we also know that tractor trailers run roughly double passenger cars on tire pressure, but the wheels are also bigger. For that reason, let's assume that the amount of surface area of each tire in contact with the road is consistent across the two. That means that the tractor trailer exerts the 3.25 times the pressure with each tire compared to the prius. On top of that, it does this on all 18 of its wheels, as compared to only 4 with the prius. Finally, the average traveling speed is going to be lower for a tractor trailer, meaning it exerts this greater pressure in the same spot longer than the prius.
Add in the fact that the damage done by pressure is likely not additive (3.25 priuses in a row does not equal the damage of one tractor trailer per tire), and it's easy to see that tractor trailers are the big wear and tear on roads.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
An 18 wheeler tractor trailer has an empty weight of 36,000 lbs, or 18 tons. Law permits up to 40 tons loaded. Let's assume a light load and say 22 tons.
That's 1.2 tons per wheel.
A prius is 1.5 tons. That's 0.375 tons per wheel.
Now we also know that tractor trailers run roughly double passenger cars on tire pressure, but the wheels are also bigger. For that reason, let's assume that the amount of surface area of each tire in contact with the road is consistent across the two. That means that the tractor trailer exerts the 3.25 times the pressure with each tire compared to the prius. On top of that, it does this on all 18 of its wheels, as compared to only 4 with the prius. Finally, the average traveling speed is going to be lower for a tractor trailer, meaning it exerts this greater pressure in the same spot longer than the prius.
Add in the fact that the damage done by pressure is likely not additive (3.25 priuses in a row does not equal the damage of one tractor trailer per tire), and it's easy to see that tractor trailers are the big wear and tear on roads.
toddybody
Apr 5, 11:14 AM
Im just curious as to why they let a toddler (with sticky fingers) play with the prototype. Yeesh.
madhatress
Mar 25, 06:20 AM
I haven't been able to find a SINGLE store that has the 16GB model. I've searched everywhere throughout the city and east bay. Anyways, all I've called have said the iPads are $299/$399/$499 with no contract.
Any 32GB left? If so where? At YYZ waiting to board my flight to SFO :)
Any 32GB left? If so where? At YYZ waiting to board my flight to SFO :)
Macmaniac
Nov 14, 09:37 AM
Please American Airlines do this! We have frequent flyer miles with them. I would love to plug my pod in!
chisnic
Apr 13, 08:11 AM
Follow instructions here:
http://mac2.microsoft.com/help/office/14/en-us/outlook/item/b79e3fb0-310b-4d62-bdc7-c7894620df16?category=2cb8ab7b-391b-4837-bec3-a0119e34fc67
Thanks for the link, very helpful!
http://mac2.microsoft.com/help/office/14/en-us/outlook/item/b79e3fb0-310b-4d62-bdc7-c7894620df16?category=2cb8ab7b-391b-4837-bec3-a0119e34fc67
Thanks for the link, very helpful!
nbrown26
Mar 11, 10:54 AM
Any updates from the Knox Street Store ? (or should we call it the McKinney Ave Store?) I plan on arriving between 1 and 2.
floatingspirit
May 8, 02:36 PM
The thing is that OS X uses OpenGl, where Windows uses DirectX. I'd agree with you, but I'd prefer running in OS X vs rebooting and my macbook running hotter. Plus while in the b.net menus, I can resize with apple + m, and open safari real quick, yet still be in the game. Plus, even on low, the game still looks pretty cool in my opinion.
Why do u need safari while you're in a game? Looking up a useful hack? ;)
Why do u need safari while you're in a game? Looking up a useful hack? ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment