I really doubt that a house in good repair will rot away due to not being lived in. The most I would expect would be heavy dust. Having people in the house doesn't make it more durable. If the roof fell in because no one was around to fix it when it showed signs of damage, well, it was already a poorly constructed roof to begin with. Make sense? Start with junk, end with junk....I kinda read the article as meaning that the house was aesthetically displeasing AND in disrepair....(btw, the roof thing is just my analogy. I have no idea if there is anything wrong with the roof.)
Yeah makes sense. Sounds like it was falling apart already, Steve decided to buy it to demolish it, and then the Heritage folks came out and were like NO MOTHERFRACKER you bought it, now you FIX IT UP BIAATTTCHHH....!! Don't know what the deal is with the *previous* owner (or lack thereof for several years) that led to the house going down the tubes.
Yeah makes sense. Sounds like it was falling apart already, Steve decided to buy it to demolish it, and then the Heritage folks came out and were like NO MOTHERFRACKER you bought it, now you FIX IT UP BIAATTTCHHH....!! Don't know what the deal is with the *previous* owner (or lack thereof for several years) that led to the house going down the tubes.
course, he could just use it as a Rave pad. Then it would get demolished without his help, and no permits needed!
The law sounds plain stupid. If I buy a computer with 802.11g for a certain price, then I have deemed that price to be a good price for that computer. If they used really expensive magical data fairies to produce that functionality, I don't care. I wasn't sold the implementation, I was sold the result, at a certain price. If they tell me that for a small additional price the fairies will scurry twice as fast, that's just great.
What is the law really meant to prevent?
The house, just as stupid. If you want to preserve an old building, buy it and preserve it.
Suppose there is a way to wreck the house by lettting it rot or something, without going to court over it. I wish Steve would do just that, and offer to sell the place to the whiners at the price he paid, if they really want to preserve it. That would stick it to them beautifully. That sort of people never put their money where their mouth is.
The law sounds plain stupid. If I buy a computer with 802.11g for a certain price, then I have deemed that price to be a good price for that computer. If they used really expensive magical data fairies to produce that functionality, I don't care. I wasn't sold the implementation, I was sold the result, at a certain price. If they tell me that for a small additional price the fairies will scurry twice as fast, that's just great.
What is the law really meant to prevent?
The house, just as stupid. If you want to preserve an old building, buy it and preserve it.
Suppose there is a way to wreck the house by lettting it rot or something, without going to court over it. I wish Steve would do just that, and offer to sell the place to the whiners at the price he paid, if they really want to preserve it. That would stick it to them beautifully. That sort of people never put their money where their mouth is.
Yeah something's not jiving. With the 802.11n, the unlock fee I would classify as "weird" but beyond that $1.99 for 802.11n connection is well, optional, and if you have 802.11n draft router, you like to be on the cutting edge (ie. early adopter) and $1.99 is a simple and small price to pay for high speed wireless at your home/office/etc. Given anyone working with 802.11n base stations are kinda in the "scene" to be able to R&D and experiment with that sort of stuff.
For a large portion of Core2Duo Mac owners, it's not a big deal, as in, three scenarios:
1. You couldn't give a rat's ass. 802.11g is fine OR
2. You hook up with gigabit ethernet OR
3. You get AppleTV and/or AirportExtreme802.11n,
in which case your unlock is free.
Those unlocking for $1.99 would probably have the nightmare of fiddling with all those pre-N (DRAFT!) wireless routers around (Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Not fun unless you *do* enjoy experimenting with this kind of stuff and like to be on the bleeding edge.
..............
With regards to the house, why doesn't Steve Jobs just yeah, sell it off, and get another piece of land he likes? As far as real estate in the SF Bay Area is super pricey and stuff, there's definitely enough land for the billionaires to go around. I'd really like him to say, or hint at, what his "principles" are in this matter. He seems like a cool guy, for the "weight" of MacWorld 2007 he was pretty chilled. Yes he's a slick marketer but somewhere in there, he's not a total bastard. Why is he wasting good precious non-Apple time futzing around with this dilapidated "Heritage" estate ???
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
Thing is, when you buy a house in an exclusive community like that, you are also basically signing a contract that says you will abide by the various rules and regulations governing the "look and feel" of the community, some of which reference "historic" value of a property as a guide to what can and cannot be done with it. Indeed, people move to these exclusive communities *because* of that -- they don't want some trashy people moving next door and tearing down a classic home in order to put up a ticky-tacky box that is not at all in keeping with the character of the community (yes, these people would view anything constructed in a modern style as "ticky-tacky"). So it's not as clear-cut as you say. Steve's neighbors have a decided case that if Steve replaces his classic mansion with some ticky-tacky box, it reduces *their* property values. If Steve doesn't want to live in the house, he should just sell it and buy another house. As someone else noted, there's no shortage of McMansions for billionaires in the Bay Area.
There is the main thread on the Airport Extreme manuals being out but I need to read those before posting on that thread.
However, as I hinted (a little bit) previously, now MacWorld is reporting that UK AirportExtreme speeds will only be 2.5x faster than 802.11g, not 5x faster:
Oh boy, have I delved into this 802.11n 2.4ghz vs 5ghz thing and there are some interesting findings. Never mind the 20mhz/40mhz within 2.4ghz/ 5ghz respectively thingy for now. Please hold, brain working (melting)...
Some points. Apologies for cross-posting if you find my "arguments" in other threads..
1. Apple's Airport Extreme might only offer 100mbit/sec throughput in general based on the following theory. It operates in four modes, one of which is 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz and 802.11n only @ 5ghz.
2. In the 802.11n only @ 5ghz mode, you could get 100-300mbit/sec : "One of N?s possible advantages of double-wide channels?instead of 22 MHz, they can use 40 MHz channels, which effectively doubles throughput. When you combine a newly efficient design for encoding, two or more radios, and double-wide channels, that?s when you get the high symbol rate of 300 Mbps, with effective throughputs that could go well over 100 Mbps. The 100 Mbps throughput factors in?as I understand it?the expectation that N devices will have brief periods in which they can bond two channels." ( http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html )
3. In the 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz mode, you would not get more than 100mbit/sec bcause the double-wide channel bonding thingy does not work at 2.4ghz.
4. Sounds like 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz is slower but longer range than 802.11n only @ 5ghz ( because of apparently the lower power pumped through the 5ghz radios )
5. Airport Extreme operating in 2.4ghz 802.11b/g/n will very likely not get more than 100mbit/sec, more so than point no.3 above, because of the networking overhead and switching to lower speeds to send and receive packets for the 802.11b/g devices on the network.
Comments
I really doubt that a house in good repair will rot away due to not being lived in. The most I would expect would be heavy dust. Having people in the house doesn't make it more durable. If the roof fell in because no one was around to fix it when it showed signs of damage, well, it was already a poorly constructed roof to begin with. Make sense? Start with junk, end with junk....I kinda read the article as meaning that the house was aesthetically displeasing AND in disrepair....(btw, the roof thing is just my analogy. I have no idea if there is anything wrong with the roof.)
Yeah makes sense. Sounds like it was falling apart already, Steve decided to buy it to demolish it, and then the Heritage folks came out and were like NO MOTHERFRACKER you bought it, now you FIX IT UP BIAATTTCHHH....!! Don't know what the deal is with the *previous* owner (or lack thereof for several years) that led to the house going down the tubes.
Yeah makes sense. Sounds like it was falling apart already, Steve decided to buy it to demolish it, and then the Heritage folks came out and were like NO MOTHERFRACKER you bought it, now you FIX IT UP BIAATTTCHHH....!! Don't know what the deal is with the *previous* owner (or lack thereof for several years) that led to the house going down the tubes.
course, he could just use it as a Rave pad. Then it would get demolished without his help, and no permits needed!
What is the law really meant to prevent?
The house, just as stupid. If you want to preserve an old building, buy it and preserve it.
Suppose there is a way to wreck the house by lettting it rot or something, without going to court over it. I wish Steve would do just that, and offer to sell the place to the whiners at the price he paid, if they really want to preserve it. That would stick it to them beautifully. That sort of people never put their money where their mouth is.
The law sounds plain stupid. If I buy a computer with 802.11g for a certain price, then I have deemed that price to be a good price for that computer. If they used really expensive magical data fairies to produce that functionality, I don't care. I wasn't sold the implementation, I was sold the result, at a certain price. If they tell me that for a small additional price the fairies will scurry twice as fast, that's just great.
What is the law really meant to prevent?
The house, just as stupid. If you want to preserve an old building, buy it and preserve it.
Suppose there is a way to wreck the house by lettting it rot or something, without going to court over it. I wish Steve would do just that, and offer to sell the place to the whiners at the price he paid, if they really want to preserve it. That would stick it to them beautifully. That sort of people never put their money where their mouth is.
Yeah something's not jiving. With the 802.11n, the unlock fee I would classify as "weird" but beyond that $1.99 for 802.11n connection is well, optional, and if you have 802.11n draft router, you like to be on the cutting edge (ie. early adopter) and $1.99 is a simple and small price to pay for high speed wireless at your home/office/etc. Given anyone working with 802.11n base stations are kinda in the "scene" to be able to R&D and experiment with that sort of stuff.
For a large portion of Core2Duo Mac owners, it's not a big deal, as in, three scenarios:
1. You couldn't give a rat's ass. 802.11g is fine OR
2. You hook up with gigabit ethernet OR
3. You get AppleTV and/or AirportExtreme802.11n,
in which case your unlock is free.
Those unlocking for $1.99 would probably have the nightmare of fiddling with all those pre-N (DRAFT!) wireless routers around (Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Not fun unless you *do* enjoy experimenting with this kind of stuff and like to be on the bleeding edge.
..............
With regards to the house, why doesn't Steve Jobs just yeah, sell it off, and get another piece of land he likes? As far as real estate in the SF Bay Area is super pricey and stuff, there's definitely enough land for the billionaires to go around. I'd really like him to say, or hint at, what his "principles" are in this matter. He seems like a cool guy, for the "weight" of MacWorld 2007 he was pretty chilled. Yes he's a slick marketer but somewhere in there, he's not a total bastard. Why is he wasting good precious non-Apple time futzing around with this dilapidated "Heritage" estate ???
RE: The mansion
If the locality wants the house preserved then they should buy it or reimburse the owner (Steve) for lost use. I can't see how he would be legally obligated to preserve or restore the house if it was declared preservation worthy AFTER he bought the property.
Thing is, when you buy a house in an exclusive community like that, you are also basically signing a contract that says you will abide by the various rules and regulations governing the "look and feel" of the community, some of which reference "historic" value of a property as a guide to what can and cannot be done with it. Indeed, people move to these exclusive communities *because* of that -- they don't want some trashy people moving next door and tearing down a classic home in order to put up a ticky-tacky box that is not at all in keeping with the character of the community (yes, these people would view anything constructed in a modern style as "ticky-tacky"). So it's not as clear-cut as you say. Steve's neighbors have a decided case that if Steve replaces his classic mansion with some ticky-tacky box, it reduces *their* property values. If Steve doesn't want to live in the house, he should just sell it and buy another house. As someone else noted, there's no shortage of McMansions for billionaires in the Bay Area.
However, as I hinted (a little bit) previously, now MacWorld is reporting that UK AirportExtreme speeds will only be 2.5x faster than 802.11g, not 5x faster:
http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...m?newsid=17059
" Apple's AirPort Extreme constrained by UK laws
UK bandwidth restrictions will stop Apple's AirPort Exteme achieveing its goal"
(Edited out questions that were kinda answered by further research)
1. Apple's Airport Extreme might only offer 100mbit/sec throughput in general based on the following theory. It operates in four modes, one of which is 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz and 802.11n only @ 5ghz.
2. In the 802.11n only @ 5ghz mode, you could get 100-300mbit/sec : "One of N?s possible advantages of double-wide channels?instead of 22 MHz, they can use 40 MHz channels, which effectively doubles throughput. When you combine a newly efficient design for encoding, two or more radios, and double-wide channels, that?s when you get the high symbol rate of 300 Mbps, with effective throughputs that could go well over 100 Mbps. The 100 Mbps throughput factors in?as I understand it?the expectation that N devices will have brief periods in which they can bond two channels." ( http://www.wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_80211n.html )
3. In the 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz mode, you would not get more than 100mbit/sec bcause the double-wide channel bonding thingy does not work at 2.4ghz.
4. Sounds like 802.11n only @ 2.4ghz is slower but longer range than 802.11n only @ 5ghz ( because of apparently the lower power pumped through the 5ghz radios )
5. Airport Extreme operating in 2.4ghz 802.11b/g/n will very likely not get more than 100mbit/sec, more so than point no.3 above, because of the networking overhead and switching to lower speeds to send and receive packets for the 802.11b/g devices on the network.