ChrisTX
Apr 20, 05:34 AM
I dont agree. A 4" screen would be larger real estate, but that would mean developers would have to rewrite their apps to fit the new size. For example, the iPad has an obviously larger screen space, which means that developers had to scale their software up to match, because lets face it, the 2x button just makes things look like pixels and thats just awful, this is not SNES system.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
But the iPad has similar dimensions and screen ratio. But a 4" display would makes things look stretched, so developers would have to code each app to fit the new stretched screen. This would also be quite annoying on the app store, looking for apps which work on 3g, 3gs, i4 and i5 and iPad and iPad 2. It would just become a nuisance to download an app to see its stretched on older phones. this wouldn't be a good move by apple just yet. Apple like to care for older tech users, the 3g and 3gs users, and this larger screen would make apps not run as smoothly.
Have you ever tried to run any iPhone apps on the iPad? Have you not noticed that what they scale down to is a size larger than the iPhone's current 3.5" size? Not sure why Apple chose a size slightly larger than 3.5" but none the less they scale just fine.
Cougarcat
Mar 30, 07:56 PM
It looks so much worse. :(
I like it, it's subtle enough.They didn't go overboard with the metaphor like they did with Address Book, which I find to be atrocious.
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God… please! License something or develop your own… HFS+ is old and dead.
They're working on it, I remember reading somewhere about a job posting for FS engineers to develop a new FS. They were going to use ZFS, but the licensing fell through.
I like it, it's subtle enough.They didn't go overboard with the metaphor like they did with Address Book, which I find to be atrocious.
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God… please! License something or develop your own… HFS+ is old and dead.
They're working on it, I remember reading somewhere about a job posting for FS engineers to develop a new FS. They were going to use ZFS, but the licensing fell through.
fivetoadsloth
Apr 10, 05:59 PM
Math is a language we engineers, scientists, economists, etc... are fluent in.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
My grammar may be terrible, but I dare say that I can do math. I do lots of it. The divide balamw mentioned really does seem to exist, and is a little disappointing.
Pretty much
You get 288 if you know what you are doing and do not make the necessary assumptions that you have to make in order to get 2
When your job relies on solving equations and manipulating them, you can bet it does as far as understanding the fundamentals of solving equations
Yes. Again, from the posts I have seen those that never really stopped using math all agree: 288 is the correct answer in the presented form. Ideally such an equation would be presented either with very clear parenthesis/multiplication signs or typeset in LaTeX or similar.
To us this is not-ideal delivery method, but it has a definite meaning.
Looking at the thread, I think there is a clear dividing line. Native math speakers: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc... say 288. Others who are effectively non-native speakers may interpret 2 due to their lack of fluency.
B
My grammar may be terrible, but I dare say that I can do math. I do lots of it. The divide balamw mentioned really does seem to exist, and is a little disappointing.
Pretty much
You get 288 if you know what you are doing and do not make the necessary assumptions that you have to make in order to get 2
When your job relies on solving equations and manipulating them, you can bet it does as far as understanding the fundamentals of solving equations
Yes. Again, from the posts I have seen those that never really stopped using math all agree: 288 is the correct answer in the presented form. Ideally such an equation would be presented either with very clear parenthesis/multiplication signs or typeset in LaTeX or similar.
Hisdem
Mar 29, 08:22 PM
I guarantee America has all the technology required to make components for a phone battery.
And yes, I'd pay more for EVERYTHING I buy if I knew that an American was making it here in America. That means more people working fair-wage jobs, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy by spending THEIR money in the economy as well.
Problem is, as I said before, Apple sells worldwide. And most of the world couldn't possibly care less if a product is made in the USA or in Japan. We want it to be as good as it is now, at the best price. America can't do that, can it? Prince increase = sales decrease.
And yes, I'd pay more for EVERYTHING I buy if I knew that an American was making it here in America. That means more people working fair-wage jobs, paying taxes, and contributing to the economy by spending THEIR money in the economy as well.
Problem is, as I said before, Apple sells worldwide. And most of the world couldn't possibly care less if a product is made in the USA or in Japan. We want it to be as good as it is now, at the best price. America can't do that, can it? Prince increase = sales decrease.
shelterpaw
Aug 7, 03:13 PM
My house is not wired for ethernet. Which means, I would have to snake a wire through 3 floors, drill holes in the ceiling, etc etc. Its sooo much easier just to have airport. I have 3meg internet service and I cannot tell a difference between wired and wifi. My wireless will hit ~10mb/s transfer if I'm moving a large file from one computer to another. Obviously, that 10mb/s is faster then my 3meg internet service. My internet service is the bottleneck, not the wireless. Therefore....no difference in speed.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm almost in the exact same situation you're in and it doesn't make sense to me either. I've always felt the pro machine should incorporate everything a consumer model carries, plus pro features.
However, they're still pretty slick machines and I'm looking forward to getting one.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm almost in the exact same situation you're in and it doesn't make sense to me either. I've always felt the pro machine should incorporate everything a consumer model carries, plus pro features.
However, they're still pretty slick machines and I'm looking forward to getting one.
jayhawk69
Mar 26, 10:06 PM
A new ios update is like getiting a new device so i hope itis amazing and is a major revamp
DakotaGuy
May 6, 12:38 AM
Wild speculation: It's possible that, for the short term, Apple might have both Intel and ARM processors in some of its machines. Think GPU or co-processor. This would allow a "Mac" to run iOS apps at full speed without processor emulation (albeit some chipset/environmental emulation).
I use Mac in quotes because such a hybrid monstrosity may in fact be iOS first, Mac second. Somewhere between an iPad and a MacBook Air.
It seems obvious that Apple wants this sort of blending, so why not do it in hardware?
Considering that a dual core 1 Ghz processor (and much less) is running iOS apps at full speed I seriously doubt a current Intel 4 Core processor (or even a dual core) would break much of a sweat running these apps at full speed emulated or not.
I use Mac in quotes because such a hybrid monstrosity may in fact be iOS first, Mac second. Somewhere between an iPad and a MacBook Air.
It seems obvious that Apple wants this sort of blending, so why not do it in hardware?
Considering that a dual core 1 Ghz processor (and much less) is running iOS apps at full speed I seriously doubt a current Intel 4 Core processor (or even a dual core) would break much of a sweat running these apps at full speed emulated or not.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 09:57 AM
Damn, and I just got my new MacBook yesterday
Plus if my MacBook gets lonely and depressed he can talk to my 1st gen PowerMac G5
Shasta
I really doubt that the MacBook will be updated that quickly. It wouldn't make much sense, but then again we are talking Apple.
And, don't worry. My MacBook and 1st-gen G5 get along just fine. :D
Plus if my MacBook gets lonely and depressed he can talk to my 1st gen PowerMac G5
Shasta
I really doubt that the MacBook will be updated that quickly. It wouldn't make much sense, but then again we are talking Apple.
And, don't worry. My MacBook and 1st-gen G5 get along just fine. :D
Hawkeye411
Mar 29, 03:02 PM
Prayers for our Japanese friends!!
DiveBum
Nov 3, 09:29 AM
:eek: $119.00 for a mount without the software? They must be real proud of that!
Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 26, 09:57 PM
as long as it is a solid enough update, I'll be happy :)
apolloa
Apr 21, 06:53 PM
You know, you would have to say 'About friggin time APPLE!!'
Interesting idea for design though, tower case and rack mountable, can see that being very popular :)
Interesting idea for design though, tower case and rack mountable, can see that being very popular :)
dhollister
Jul 30, 02:54 PM
Man, I hope once and for all these rumors are true. The phone market has gotten extremely crappy. Even Sony and Nokia are making mostly ugly-ass phones. Symbian has gotten out of control. Really, in my opinion, the only interface that isn't awful is Motorola's (which I used to hate) and the only phones that aren't butt-ugly are the SLVR and that new black slim flipphone under Sprint.
vendettabass
Aug 5, 05:41 AM
Leopard (iChat integration with MSN Messenger )
I'd kill for this!!! I hate osx msn messenger :(!
I'd kill for this!!! I hate osx msn messenger :(!
hotrock3
Mar 30, 10:55 AM
Anyone who needs to quote wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to contribute!
Now thats a FACT!
That seems quite rude. Wikipedia happens to have a wealth of base level knowledge. I understand that one should not cite it when doing in depth research but when looking for general knowledge it is a great source.
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
Now thats a FACT!
That seems quite rude. Wikipedia happens to have a wealth of base level knowledge. I understand that one should not cite it when doing in depth research but when looking for general knowledge it is a great source.
Many of my professors have realized this and told us that if we need a different explanation of something to look it up on Wikipedia because it tends to use more common language than out text books. The do not allow citing Wikipedia no matter how well the article is sourced.
Just like any book you look at using for research you must weigh the quality before choosing to use it.
That being said, any college level class in history that covers the Cold War will talk about Alfred Sauvy and his contribution to how we talk about the world during that time period.
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
rhsgolfer33
Apr 14, 04:12 PM
I'll bet he moved on to forums where his ideas were more warmly accepted.
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
One thing I don't hear in the raising taxes discussion is what we should do with capital gains. That's the reason billionaires pay a paltry 15%. Almost all of their income comes from the selling of assets rather than a salary. Their money works for them, rather than the rest of us who have to work for our money. And for that, we reward them with a super low tax rate. :rolleyes:
It's time to raise the capital gains rate and make it progressively tied to income taxes.
I tend to agree - I have no problem giving someone who actually makes their money via salary or wages a capital gains break (it encourages investing and most of the time those gains will be from investments for retirement), but it is kind of silly that someone who derives most of their income from capital gains gets to pay at the same low rate. Possibly it could be linked to amount of income and percentage of gross income that comes from capital gains - for instance, if you are in the top income bracket and more than 50% of your gross income is from capital gains, you must include all income at the standard ordinary income rates. Of course it would have to be refined (too easy to get around right now), but it would insure that higher income individuals that make most of their money via capital gains pay appropriate taxes, while keeping most retirees and lower/middle/upper middle income people from being hit with ordinary income rates on capital gains when the a lower rate is more appropriate.
POISON IVY VILLAIN UMA THURMAN
Poison-Ivy-batman-villains-
On the issues of taxes ... tax me more!
Sure, tax the rich more too.
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
One thing I don't hear in the raising taxes discussion is what we should do with capital gains. That's the reason billionaires pay a paltry 15%. Almost all of their income comes from the selling of assets rather than a salary. Their money works for them, rather than the rest of us who have to work for our money. And for that, we reward them with a super low tax rate. :rolleyes:
It's time to raise the capital gains rate and make it progressively tied to income taxes.
I tend to agree - I have no problem giving someone who actually makes their money via salary or wages a capital gains break (it encourages investing and most of the time those gains will be from investments for retirement), but it is kind of silly that someone who derives most of their income from capital gains gets to pay at the same low rate. Possibly it could be linked to amount of income and percentage of gross income that comes from capital gains - for instance, if you are in the top income bracket and more than 50% of your gross income is from capital gains, you must include all income at the standard ordinary income rates. Of course it would have to be refined (too easy to get around right now), but it would insure that higher income individuals that make most of their money via capital gains pay appropriate taxes, while keeping most retirees and lower/middle/upper middle income people from being hit with ordinary income rates on capital gains when the a lower rate is more appropriate.
0815
Apr 25, 10:06 AM
I still don't get the outrage of many people. From all the 'tracking issues' out there, this is the one to worry the least about since it is only on your device and is not send to anyone.
If you really worry about anyone knowing where you are or have been, there are better 'targets' to go after, some where information is really send and analyzed by people 'out of your control'.
If you really worry about anyone knowing where you are or have been, there are better 'targets' to go after, some where information is really send and analyzed by people 'out of your control'.
RebootD
Mar 31, 12:27 AM
Grey is the new grey at Apple it seems. The stark minimalism is starting to become an issue.
Noooo! Are they making everything gray on gray?!
Noooo! Are they making everything gray on gray?!
daneoni
Sep 11, 01:31 PM
What's your source? Every rumor site I've seen (and especially Appleinsider, which has the best record lately) says sales.
I'd tell you but then i'd have to kill you.
I'd tell you but then i'd have to kill you.
nateo200
Mar 27, 01:22 PM
If this update isn't less than perfect and awesome then allot of people will be pissed. Notification systems needs to be better well added really since it cant even compare to android but at the same time when they work on it it shouldn't be a copy of android. Something apple-esk...not that I don't think the android notification system isn't cool...I love it but apple always has to be unique. iOS also over all needs some spicing up, I don't mind it but I know a bunch of complainers.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:21 PM
Exactly. You did set the context but you did fall out your words when you said that MAS download would be a better thing to exploit which in any case, not true.
Just like 'small white car' corrected you, there's nothing worse than an unrestricted Mac OS Install Disk. Simple.
I was referring to the terms of the licence, not any technical restrictions, so nobody corrected me.
Mac OS X Install DVD - one licence, one machine
Mac App Store - one licence, unlimited machines
I do not believe that Apple intends for people to install their Apps on any machine they encounter, but merely those that they own and use on a regular basis - hence the "abuse" comment.
Just like 'small white car' corrected you, there's nothing worse than an unrestricted Mac OS Install Disk. Simple.
I was referring to the terms of the licence, not any technical restrictions, so nobody corrected me.
Mac OS X Install DVD - one licence, one machine
Mac App Store - one licence, unlimited machines
I do not believe that Apple intends for people to install their Apps on any machine they encounter, but merely those that they own and use on a regular basis - hence the "abuse" comment.
ergle2
Sep 17, 02:44 AM
I Doubt Merom Supplies Are Off Allocation Yet � It's Unlikely Apple Can Get All They Need yet. Therefore MacBook will get Merom later and mini last.
Indeed. The big question is when they can update the MB?
Santa Rosa is currently expected no earlier than April. Assuming the MB's can't get Merom til, say, December, is it worth going C2D for ~4 months? (Assuming Santa Rosa is on-time -- which, to be fair, Intel's been pretty good at lately).
If the current enclosure is viable for Merom, then probably, but any late? Difficult to say.
The mini's probably less of a risk in that sense, and doesn't use CPUs in the same speed-range as the notebook systems, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it move up to C2D at the same time as the MB. I agree before the MB seems unlike for commercial reasons.
Indeed. The big question is when they can update the MB?
Santa Rosa is currently expected no earlier than April. Assuming the MB's can't get Merom til, say, December, is it worth going C2D for ~4 months? (Assuming Santa Rosa is on-time -- which, to be fair, Intel's been pretty good at lately).
If the current enclosure is viable for Merom, then probably, but any late? Difficult to say.
The mini's probably less of a risk in that sense, and doesn't use CPUs in the same speed-range as the notebook systems, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it move up to C2D at the same time as the MB. I agree before the MB seems unlike for commercial reasons.
ergle2
Sep 17, 02:32 AM
I don't think you have to worry... I highly doubt a keyboard change. I would love a little more key travel on the current MBP keyboard, but obviously they would have to make the MBP thicker - so I'll live ;)
I don't remember who said it (after reading over 200 posts!), but I agree that the MBP 15'' 1-3 day shipping vs the 17'' 5-7 (or was it 8-10) day shipping is merely due to lower stock on the 17'', not a sign of a 17'' only update. I would think they probably manufacture and sell at least 2X the number of 15'' vs 17'' MBP's.
Apple wants their Pro line to be visibly different at a glance. This has been true for years. I don't see that changing now. Based on that, I agree with you that it's unlikely they'd adopt an MB keyboard for the MBP. They certainly don't want people to think it's "just" a silver MB, after all!
I'd figure on the 15" sales being considerably higher than just double due to the 17" being considerably more expensive.
Of course, it's arguable they serve different markets with some overlap rather than being in direct competition...
I don't remember who said it (after reading over 200 posts!), but I agree that the MBP 15'' 1-3 day shipping vs the 17'' 5-7 (or was it 8-10) day shipping is merely due to lower stock on the 17'', not a sign of a 17'' only update. I would think they probably manufacture and sell at least 2X the number of 15'' vs 17'' MBP's.
Apple wants their Pro line to be visibly different at a glance. This has been true for years. I don't see that changing now. Based on that, I agree with you that it's unlikely they'd adopt an MB keyboard for the MBP. They certainly don't want people to think it's "just" a silver MB, after all!
I'd figure on the 15" sales being considerably higher than just double due to the 17" being considerably more expensive.
Of course, it's arguable they serve different markets with some overlap rather than being in direct competition...
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario