Yeah, we?ve all been telling him that. It?s been stated many, many times. His assertion is that a decade is a much simpler definition.
As proofed here: "And no- there are only 1 1/2 months left in this decade?
And here attacking Anonymous: "You're wasting your time with that one. He's thinks the year 2000 is in another decade.?
And then here: "Year ending in
0=1
1=2
2=3
3=4
4=5
5=6
6=7
7=8
8=9
9=10
This is why this decade ends 12/31/09?
With Anantksundaram responding with: "OK. One last try. Promise)
According to your logic above, what was the year that preceded AD 1? ("AD" for Anno Domini from Medieval Latin).?
Not comprehending what Anantsundaram clearly asked he oddly responded with: ?There was no full year!! it was only measured in months.? indicating that he doesn?t understand how or why CE/AD started with year one.
Mine and everyone else?s posts, including yours basically stated this: "For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
"The nineties are from 1990?1999, but the 9th decade of the century is 1981-1990?
The common theme of his ignorance is posts like: "And the new millenium started 1/1/2000?
With a half dozen people telling him the same thing he still doesn?t understand the relationships between them. He was informed early on that Fortune is not wrong. But he started off by attacking Anonymous and then just continued with it. It would be fascinating if it wasn?t so sad. I have to wonder how he even performs certain basic tasks each day.
I disagree with you because Apple had some great employees before Jobs returned, but the company was a mess, it had competing and confusing product lines and it couldn't get a next-generation OS built. Critics thought Apple would go under. So it's not enough to have great employees, you also have to have great leadership and in spite of all his quirks and the associated ego, Jobs provides great leadership.
If he did this, I would certainly consider him to be the greatest exec of all time. And if Apple did do this, perhaps it would set a "fashion" that would encourage other companies to do the same. But unfortunately, it's never going to happen. Apple is already considered to have over-priced products and in spite of their large margins and large cash hoard, if they returned manufacturing to the U.S., the margins would drop and the stock price would fall drastically.
I think Jobs would maintain that Apple does create a lot of U.S.-based jobs, just not manufacturing jobs.
Unfortunately, Americans have been trained to expect ridiculously low prices on most products. The fact that someone can produce a DVD player, for example, and sell it here for $49 with the designers, manufacturer, distributor and retailer all making some profit is absolutely astonishing. Blu-ray players have gone from $2000 to $200 in just a few years, but you still hear people complaining that they need to be priced under $100. Apple generally has high-priced products, but I don't believe they would be willing to either raise prices or substantially drop margins in order to manufacture in the U.S. (and even though in the early days of Apple, the computers were manufactured in California.)
You can't build something in the U.S. and price it at retail that low, so we're not going to see manufacturing return here. I had some hopes when the U.S. dollar crashed against the Euro and Pound that European companies might start manufacturing in the U.S., but it didn't happen.
Eventually, China and India will build enough of a middle class that manufacturing will become too expensive even there. But it still won't move back to the U.S. - it will move to other third world countries. Part of this is because large companies, especially public companies care only about profits. They don't care about their workers or their communities. This is because U.S. CEOs have a fiduciary responsiblity only to their shareholders. Personally, I've always thought that even in a capitalist system, this is wrong (immoral and unethical): they should have a balanced fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, employees and customers.
Nice post . RE>>freshing after all the bickering here over decade.
I also wish the usa could make more products .
Maybe if we stopped being such a throw away people .
AND demanded quality. long lasting products .
YET the middle classes of China / India will catch up very soon .
Comments
But not bigger than John Lennon and The Beatles or ........
The YANKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!
sir steve jobs isn;t bigger than any one >>>he just reinvents for us all these past heroes
steve jobs rocks
>>>>
NKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NK EEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEE EEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEEEE EEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!NKEEEEEEEEEEESSSS!!!!!!!
Yeah, we?ve all been telling him that. It?s been stated many, many times. His assertion is that a decade is a much simpler definition.
As proofed here: "And no- there are only 1 1/2 months left in this decade?
And here attacking Anonymous: "You're wasting your time with that one. He's thinks the year 2000 is in another decade.?
And then here: "Year ending in
0=1
1=2
2=3
3=4
4=5
5=6
6=7
7=8
8=9
9=10
This is why this decade ends 12/31/09?
With Anantksundaram responding with: "OK. One last try. Promise)
According to your logic above, what was the year that preceded AD 1? ("AD" for Anno Domini from Medieval Latin).?
Not comprehending what Anantsundaram clearly asked he oddly responded with: ?There was no full year!! it was only measured in months.? indicating that he doesn?t understand how or why CE/AD started with year one.
Mine and everyone else?s posts, including yours basically stated this: "For this usage, that is the correct timeframe, but there is another, more technically accurate start and end, beginning with January 1st, xx01. This is because there is no "zeroth century? between BC/BCE and AD/CE.
"The nineties are from 1990?1999, but the 9th decade of the century is 1981-1990?
The common theme of his ignorance is posts like: "And the new millenium started 1/1/2000?
With a half dozen people telling him the same thing he still doesn?t understand the relationships between them. He was informed early on that Fortune is not wrong. But he started off by attacking Anonymous and then just continued with it. It would be fascinating if it wasn?t so sad. I have to wonder how he even performs certain basic tasks each day.
nice font
I disagree with you because Apple had some great employees before Jobs returned, but the company was a mess, it had competing and confusing product lines and it couldn't get a next-generation OS built. Critics thought Apple would go under. So it's not enough to have great employees, you also have to have great leadership and in spite of all his quirks and the associated ego, Jobs provides great leadership.
If he did this, I would certainly consider him to be the greatest exec of all time. And if Apple did do this, perhaps it would set a "fashion" that would encourage other companies to do the same. But unfortunately, it's never going to happen. Apple is already considered to have over-priced products and in spite of their large margins and large cash hoard, if they returned manufacturing to the U.S., the margins would drop and the stock price would fall drastically.
I think Jobs would maintain that Apple does create a lot of U.S.-based jobs, just not manufacturing jobs.
Unfortunately, Americans have been trained to expect ridiculously low prices on most products. The fact that someone can produce a DVD player, for example, and sell it here for $49 with the designers, manufacturer, distributor and retailer all making some profit is absolutely astonishing. Blu-ray players have gone from $2000 to $200 in just a few years, but you still hear people complaining that they need to be priced under $100. Apple generally has high-priced products, but I don't believe they would be willing to either raise prices or substantially drop margins in order to manufacture in the U.S. (and even though in the early days of Apple, the computers were manufactured in California.)
You can't build something in the U.S. and price it at retail that low, so we're not going to see manufacturing return here. I had some hopes when the U.S. dollar crashed against the Euro and Pound that European companies might start manufacturing in the U.S., but it didn't happen.
Eventually, China and India will build enough of a middle class that manufacturing will become too expensive even there. But it still won't move back to the U.S. - it will move to other third world countries. Part of this is because large companies, especially public companies care only about profits. They don't care about their workers or their communities. This is because U.S. CEOs have a fiduciary responsiblity only to their shareholders. Personally, I've always thought that even in a capitalist system, this is wrong (immoral and unethical): they should have a balanced fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, employees and customers.
Nice post . RE>>freshing after all the bickering here over decade.
I also wish the usa could make more products .
Maybe if we stopped being such a throw away people .
AND demanded quality. long lasting products .
YET the middle classes of China / India will catch up very soon .