9 is in honor for pauline. A shy beautiful lass who was so pure, so innocent, that when she was attacked for days by trolls she never responded in kind. Her 5th and last post ever was a simple 9.
Green and Submarine was her online handle. She never knew that by posting a simple 9 she made all the trolls completely nuts. Her eyes were green and she sported red hair. She is dearly missed in hope one day I may meet her again i post a nine ..
9 is paulines gift to the world . it has the power to kill trolls dead . it can be used by everyone who still believes in magic
But we have to realize the realities of what is happening.
Is it fair that we should expect to have great unemployment so that they can catch up? I don't think so. Should they be allowed to take our IP so that they don't have to come up with their own? Again, no.
Should they be excused from having to meet environmental rules that could spell problems for the entire world? Of course not.
If you like, we can include India, though they lag China by a decade or more.
Actually, in the pharmaceutical market India is far more advanced than China.
A very large percentage of the drugs produced in the world come from India.
The company I manage (advertising firm), outsources to India, Thailand and the Philippines. Why, because we couldn’t make a profit without doing so.
The company in India that we deal with is closing their advertising division and concentrating all of their resources to pharmaceuticals.
We sent someone twice a quarter to check conditions, pay for bottled water for every employee every day. Paid for Security, generators (the grid in India isn’t the best) and randomly picked 20 employee’s in every country to make sure they are being paid what we contracted for the hours they worked.
We made the company in India rich enough to get into the highest margin market “his quote”. He thanked us for 8 years of business and left us after our 4th contract expired.
OK, this is too tough to resist! I will take this on, point-by-point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There haven't been any serious problums due to dams here.
The point though is that those dams here were built way before any evidence of their causing problems was known, or understood. Now, there is no such excuse.
Please check out what happened with the Oroville Dam and the California earthquake in 1975. (Of course, there are some differing points of view, just as there are with Three Gorges.)
As to the dams in US being built before problems being known, please provide a credible cite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
They also lead the world in dirty coal use. That record is being broken much faster than the one for clean use.
You have to look at the cumulative coal use impact, that has happened over a whole century in the case of the US (since GHGs, for instance, stay in the atmosphere for centuries). This compares to perhaps a couple of decades for China. It will be a looooong time before China emits more than the US cumulatively.
It's about the incremental investments: At least, China is going ahead with clean coal; unfortunately, it's still at the level of cheap talk in the US. When the US can match China in terms of its incremental clean-energy investments, let's talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Most, if not all economists know nothing about much.
That is an untenably sweeping, and silly statement. And you know it. I suppose all those Nobel prizes handed out annually must be nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
T
We can look to the actuality of what is happening. I take that much more seriously. And what is happening is not free trade. It's high;y managed trade. We've never had free trade. There is no such thing. There never was, and there never will be.
We certainly didn't get where we are today because of trade, practiced the way it is today.
So how did we get to where we are today? As an autarkic economy? No way. Our being open to trade, labor via immigration (legal), capital (via the most open capital markets), the best ideas from anywhere in the world (e.g., the Einsteins and the von Brauns) -- i.e., being in open economy -- is how we become economically great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
T
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
See previous post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The difference is that throughout most of our growth, there weren't enough people around to impact the environment the way there is today. nor was industry at a level that it used fuel the way it does today.
It's nice to say that they should do whatever they want to now, and then clean it up later, but the problem is that there may not be a later. Things have changed. and as unfair as that may be, it is what it is.
Yeah, this point will resonate if/when the average American pollutes/emits as much as an average Chinese or Indian person. For instance, do you know that the average American emits six times as much GHGs as an average Chinese person, and 20 times as much as an average Indian? What gives you the right to say that Chinese can't, per person, emit as much GHGs as we do?
"There may not be a later?" OK. If you feel strongly (and are truly worried about) about that, would you be willing to take a few thousand dollars out of your paycheck and hand it over to a Chinese person so that they don't have to produce all that extra gunk that has you worried?
O/w, it is just the typical (and tired) arrogance and shallowness of "do as we say, not as we do."
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
As the US is expected to clean up our own mess, so should they. If they choose to compete this way, that's their choice. They should have to pay for it. After all, that's one way they get their advantage. If anything, we should demand that they meet higher standards.
When the US is ready and willing to internalize the cost of all the externalities it imposes, let's talk again. Perhaps we could start with the GHG footprint.....
On a level playing field America can compete in most cases. but if another country. like .. o well i dunno lets call this country china . lets say china builds a factory city in the south. and takes workers from the Harbin area in the north . and these workers live in a factory dorm . the Harbin workers have a 70 to 90 hour work week. they have no worker rights at all like in America . They may get meat once a day,maybe . They may want to pray that someday they will have a better life but it is so poor up north that they must work here, or their family may starve. Some studies show that upwards of 90 percent of the women who travel from poor area's to large cities have been raped . Either on the way there or in place where they work .
I could go on and on but you get the picture . This factory makes lead painted toys. Mattel out sourced it dolls to this factory. After Mattel dropped them the 700 workers were stranded .With no pay and no money to go home . At least one hundred of these women lived for a while under a major highway, sadly some got raped there too.
This is out sourcing dude .
Nice huh .
p. s. the american toy factories closed.They could not compete with slave labour and no human worker rights at all.
I agree this is a problem, i.e., the playing field is not necessarily level -- don't get me wrong.
My simple, larger point is: why do you think Mattel is in a relentless pursuit to sell cheaper toys? Or Dell, cheaper PCs? Or Target, cheaper toasters?
Anyone can -- at least, I could -- see that, read in context, he seems to be simply saying "less expensively produced, for a given level of quality and price."
It's not that he took it too literally - he clearly chose to interpret in a way that only a moron or an ideologue could have done. I said it's a good thing for everyone when things are produced more cheaply. Did he really think I meant cheaply as a synonym for badly, shoddily, etc? We all know that that's not what I meant.
It also becomes very obvious when one misunderstands something like that, that that person never even stepped into Econ 101, much less has an actual understanding of international trade. Oh well!
So what would you do? Not allow Company A to outsource, so that Company B cannot? Ban all trade across borders? Not allow, say, a Company C from another country with access to the aforementioned $1.00 outsourced widgets to sell their product here? Not allow a consumer here to buy a $1.00 widget from Company C's country? I could go on, but you get the point....
Indeed, let me make this a bit personal: Do you, in your own purchase decisions, not ever look for the least expensive products (assuming same quality)?
A lot of people here have enough cognitive dissonance to completely miss how those two paragraphs are connected.
Sadly, so few people understand why international trade (and trade in general) benefits both parties. The idiot popular media and alarmist politicians have so convinced the uneducated masses that their jobs are "going overseas" and must be protected at all costs.... it's very sad. The few protect themselves and their jobs at the expense of everyone else's long term prosperity.
OK, I'll make it completely impersonal: what would you do?
You did not answer that question.
Btw, it's the same anonimity allows a cheap talk and easy moralizing (like yours) to pervade forums like these. If you are making a point, please at least try to think through the implications of what you're saying. Or, perhaps, one should have the intellectual honesty to say one hasn't, and move on.
Its funny - the guy asking you not to make it personal is the same guy who keeps calling people widgets....
I have no problem with China attempting to raise the standard of living. I would like to see that happening. As I mentioned, we saw that with Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and others.
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
I happen to have a little more faith in myself (and in others) than you seem to.
If you really think everyone is so intellectually corrupt that their understanding of right and wrong hinges only on whether they are impacted negatively by it, you must be tremendously paranoid of the guy standing behind you on the subway platform.
I only believe trade is good for both parties as long as I don't lose my job because of it.
I only believe that murder is wrong until I'm in the defendant's chair.
I happen to have a little more faith in myself (and in others) than you seem to.
If you really think everyone is so intellectually corrupt that their understanding of right and wrong hinges only on whether they are impacted negatively by it, you must be tremendously paranoid of the guy standing behind you on the subway platform.
I only believe trade is good for both parties as long as I don't lose my job because of it.
I only believe that murder is wrong until I'm in the defendant's chair.
Touche.
(Oh man, I love this conversation. Too bad it's so off-topic, but what the heck.......)
I agree this is a problem, i.e., the playing field is not necessarily level -- don't get me wrong.
My simple, larger point is: why do you think Mattel is in a relentless pursuit to sell cheaper toys? Or Dell, cheaper PCs? Or Target, cheaper toasters?
Look in the mirror.
Ouch ! That hurts dude .
But yes you may have hit the nail on the head here. As a whole western people tend to do all the drugs Yet complain about addiction to the same drugs .Or the crime it causes.
Oddly some very poor backward countries produce some very high end devices .
As I said, I'm not a gamer so I wasn't aware that the Mac wasn't the platform of choice for gamers (it actually surprises me with the graphics cards and great graphics we have).
The main problem is content - the user base isn't big enough so developers can't be assured of making money so they don't port the games and if there aren't enough games, people just don't invest in the ones that are ported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seahawk Fan
This may change if the rumors are correct and Apple gets a little competition between vendors such as Verizon but for now I still don't see it as a viable portable solution.
Edit: I should have said "I still don't see it as a viable portable streaming gaming solution."
I agree with that but I would add that I don't see it being viable for portable devices today. Apple is about being ahead of the curve though. You wouldn't open a huge data center today if portable online gaming was already big and making money and you couldn't do it better.
They have a Macbook Air, a PC laptop and a micro-console to demo the service. Jump to 10 minutes in to see the start of gameplay and at 17 minutes, they show Crysis Warhead playing. At 23 minutes, they talk about the Mac and demo a game on it.
They already have very important partners in this and I don't think they'd be involved if it wasn't going to work. Apple may not get involved right now but I think it would certainly be a hugely valuable addition to their itunes service and it makes up for one of the largest components missing from the Mac.
The beta programme is set to start over the Summer so we'll see soon enough what people think of the service. One thing that would be good is getting the compression software as it would improve screen sharing and ichat video conferencing. Hopefully the company will license it back to Apple.
The main problem is content - the user base isn't big enough so developers can't be assured of making money so they don't port the games and if there aren't enough games, people just don't invest in the ones that are ported.
I agree with that but I would add that I don't see it being viable for portable devices today. Apple is about being ahead of the curve though. You wouldn't open a huge data center today if portable online gaming was already big and making money and you couldn't do it better.
They have a Macbook Air, a PC laptop and a micro-console to demo the service. Jump to 10 minutes in to see the start of gameplay and at 17 minutes, they show Crysis Warhead playing. At 23 minutes, they talk about the Mac and demo a game on it.
They already have very important partners in this and I don't think they'd be involved if it wasn't going to work. Apple may not get involved right now but I think it would certainly be a hugely valuable addition to their itunes service and it makes up for one of the largest components missing from the Mac.
The beta programme is set to start over the Summer so we'll see soon enough what people think of the service. One thing that would be good is getting the compression software as it would improve screen sharing and ichat video conferencing. Hopefully the company will license it back to Apple.
I'm in . Surfing the clouds looking for a game to play .
The government isn't running any part of the banks or the car companies. If they were, maybe we would have banks that actually lent money instead of horded it.
These are myths that are perpetuated on the Internet. Yes he did take a private jet sometimes. So does Steve Jobs. But according to http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/, Steve Jobs wants Apple to "be greener". So does it make Steve Jobs a hypocrite for saying he cares about the environment, when he doesn't because he takes a private jet?
And I don't see how he "scares people" to make money. He made a documentary that made a lot of money. He writes books that make a lot of money. The science in them is sound, and in fact is supported by peer-reviewed journals. Note that not a single peer reviewed scientific journal has refuted a single fact in "An Inconvenient Truth". In fact many of them lauded it. So tell me again, how does he "scare people"? If the truth is scary, tough shit.
Since when is good grammar and spelling personal?
Technically they aren't. There have been no bankruptcy proceedings. But anyway, the United States of America would be bankrupt, if it didn't just print more money and issue more bonds whenever it needs it. If California could just issue more bounds it would, but they can't because nobody will buy them. The US Government issues bonds--lots of them in fact--and relies on the fact that China will buy them. When China stopped a couple months ago, the world paniced and Obama accused China of manipulating world economies (which is true).
Prove it. According to federal sources summed up @ http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08230/904931-109.stm, California has the 6th highest tax burden of any state, when measured as a percentage of GDP. Get the facts right.
The budget crisis is largely a result of the stock market crash. Capital gains taxes account for large amounts of tax revenue for California, which is the case for many large states with wealthy populations like New York. Nobody wants to sell stock when prices are low, so all those Apple employees with options below water are just sitting on them. Therefore, California loses out on revenue.
Finally, the recently passed tax increases in California actually LOWER taxes for corporations. It changes the way the revenue basis for tax purposes is calculated in such a way that is favorable to corporations. Basically without going into too much detail it allows companies based in California use the number of employees in California/revenue, instead of purely revenue, to determine taxation. For some companies this will increase taxes, but that means they are making a lot of money with few employees in California yet still claim California is their corporate headquarters--so yeah boo to them. For large companies like Apple and Google, who are all headquartered in the Bay, this will be beneficial.
False. First, California's unemployment isn't the highest in the nation, they are fourth (that's easily googled). Second, California doesn't have the highest taxes in the nation as noted above. Third, MANY states have budget shortfalls. California's is huge, but then again California is the largest state in the nation by far. More than 1/10 of the country lives in that state, and 1/8th of the nation's economy is from California. Put another way, the US deficit from 2007 was almost 500 billion, or $1,428/person. California's $48 billion deficit is approximately $1,333/person.
EPIC POST! Thanks for that info.
Back to the topic, this server farm sounds exciting in many ways. Sounds like they are preparing for a lot more traffic. (More iPhones in other carriers? Online gaming?) And it's good to hear about those new jobs for North Carolina!
This is a rumor site. Is it too much to ask that every punctuation, spelling or grammar error not get pointed out?
I can understand if the error actually changes the meaning of the post, but this is not the Wall Street Journal and the meaning came across clear enough.
I've been reading this and many rumor sites for years and the entire subject of the posting gets derailed by pointing out mistakes.
Please also keep in mind that many people read this from all over the world and may not have the best grasp on the English language.
They do get their point across yet are slammed by someone pointing out a typo.
Just my 2 cents.
What does the fact that this is a rumour site have anything to do with it? In this case, the error renders the headline meaningless. I agree it's pointless to point out mistakes made in forum posts but surely the writers of a site should aspire to be understood in their headlines?
I'm well aware of the number of international users of forums like these and they often express themselves better in English than many native-English speakers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for headlines that make sense in a basic grammatical sense. Actually, I expect those people using English as a second language would insist that English is used well by the native English speaking writers of the stories, because they'd want to learn correct English.
Non-native speakers of any language will always be allowed some leeway, but English sites using pidgin English look amateurish and, in my opinion, the authority and veracity of their content is diminished (whether it's a rumour site or the New York Times doing the mangling).
edit: By way of illustration, here's a headline from further down the page with the equivalent words also missing:
Comments
9 is posted in some pink floyd circles online
9 is in honor for pauline. A shy beautiful lass who was so pure, so innocent, that when she was attacked for days by trolls she never responded in kind. Her 5th and last post ever was a simple 9.
Green and Submarine was her online handle. She never knew that by posting a simple 9 she made all the trolls completely nuts. Her eyes were green and she sported red hair. She is dearly missed in hope one day I may meet her again i post a nine ..
9 is paulines gift to the world . it has the power to kill trolls dead . it can be used by everyone who still believes in magic
peace
9
Was she German?
9 = nein
I have no axe to grind against Chine per se.
But we have to realize the realities of what is happening.
Is it fair that we should expect to have great unemployment so that they can catch up? I don't think so. Should they be allowed to take our IP so that they don't have to come up with their own? Again, no.
Should they be excused from having to meet environmental rules that could spell problems for the entire world? Of course not.
If you like, we can include India, though they lag China by a decade or more.
Actually, in the pharmaceutical market India is far more advanced than China.
A very large percentage of the drugs produced in the world come from India.
The company I manage (advertising firm), outsources to India, Thailand and the Philippines. Why, because we couldn’t make a profit without doing so.
The company in India that we deal with is closing their advertising division and concentrating all of their resources to pharmaceuticals.
We sent someone twice a quarter to check conditions, pay for bottled water for every employee every day. Paid for Security, generators (the grid in India isn’t the best) and randomly picked 20 employee’s in every country to make sure they are being paid what we contracted for the hours they worked.
We made the company in India rich enough to get into the highest margin market “his quote”. He thanked us for 8 years of business and left us after our 4th contract expired.
There haven't been any serious problums due to dams here.
The point though is that those dams here were built way before any evidence of their causing problems was known, or understood. Now, there is no such excuse.
Please check out what happened with the Oroville Dam and the California earthquake in 1975. (Of course, there are some differing points of view, just as there are with Three Gorges.)
As to the dams in US being built before problems being known, please provide a credible cite.
They also lead the world in dirty coal use. That record is being broken much faster than the one for clean use.
You have to look at the cumulative coal use impact, that has happened over a whole century in the case of the US (since GHGs, for instance, stay in the atmosphere for centuries). This compares to perhaps a couple of decades for China. It will be a looooong time before China emits more than the US cumulatively.
It's about the incremental investments: At least, China is going ahead with clean coal; unfortunately, it's still at the level of cheap talk in the US. When the US can match China in terms of its incremental clean-energy investments, let's talk.
Most, if not all economists know nothing about much.
That is an untenably sweeping, and silly statement. And you know it. I suppose all those Nobel prizes handed out annually must be nonsense.
T
We can look to the actuality of what is happening. I take that much more seriously. And what is happening is not free trade. It's high;y managed trade. We've never had free trade. There is no such thing. There never was, and there never will be.
We certainly didn't get where we are today because of trade, practiced the way it is today.
So how did we get to where we are today? As an autarkic economy? No way. Our being open to trade, labor via immigration (legal), capital (via the most open capital markets), the best ideas from anywhere in the world (e.g., the Einsteins and the von Brauns) -- i.e., being in open economy -- is how we become economically great.
T
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
See previous post.
The difference is that throughout most of our growth, there weren't enough people around to impact the environment the way there is today. nor was industry at a level that it used fuel the way it does today.
It's nice to say that they should do whatever they want to now, and then clean it up later, but the problem is that there may not be a later. Things have changed. and as unfair as that may be, it is what it is.
Yeah, this point will resonate if/when the average American pollutes/emits as much as an average Chinese or Indian person. For instance, do you know that the average American emits six times as much GHGs as an average Chinese person, and 20 times as much as an average Indian? What gives you the right to say that Chinese can't, per person, emit as much GHGs as we do?
"There may not be a later?" OK. If you feel strongly (and are truly worried about) about that, would you be willing to take a few thousand dollars out of your paycheck and hand it over to a Chinese person so that they don't have to produce all that extra gunk that has you worried?
O/w, it is just the typical (and tired) arrogance and shallowness of "do as we say, not as we do."
As the US is expected to clean up our own mess, so should they. If they choose to compete this way, that's their choice. They should have to pay for it. After all, that's one way they get their advantage. If anything, we should demand that they meet higher standards.
When the US is ready and willing to internalize the cost of all the externalities it imposes, let's talk again. Perhaps we could start with the GHG footprint.....
If you like, we can include India, though they lag China by a decade or more.
Sure, happy to have you include India. As long you can stick to facts (or opinions based on facts).
On a level playing field America can compete in most cases. but if another country. like .. o well i dunno lets call this country china . lets say china builds a factory city in the south. and takes workers from the Harbin area in the north . and these workers live in a factory dorm . the Harbin workers have a 70 to 90 hour work week. they have no worker rights at all like in America . They may get meat once a day,maybe . They may want to pray that someday they will have a better life but it is so poor up north that they must work here, or their family may starve. Some studies show that upwards of 90 percent of the women who travel from poor area's to large cities have been raped . Either on the way there or in place where they work .
I could go on and on but you get the picture . This factory makes lead painted toys. Mattel out sourced it dolls to this factory. After Mattel dropped them the 700 workers were stranded .With no pay and no money to go home . At least one hundred of these women lived for a while under a major highway, sadly some got raped there too.
This is out sourcing dude .
Nice huh .
p. s. the american toy factories closed.They could not compete with slave labour and no human worker rights at all.
I agree this is a problem, i.e., the playing field is not necessarily level -- don't get me wrong.
My simple, larger point is: why do you think Mattel is in a relentless pursuit to sell cheaper toys? Or Dell, cheaper PCs? Or Target, cheaper toasters?
Look in the mirror.
On topic, .......
Kill-joy....
Is it fair that we should expect to have great unemployment so that they can catch up? I don't think so.
Would it be fair we should expect hundreds of millions to stay dirt-poor and not catch up? I sure don't think so either.
I think you are reading it too literally.
Anyone can -- at least, I could -- see that, read in context, he seems to be simply saying "less expensively produced, for a given level of quality and price."
It's not that he took it too literally - he clearly chose to interpret in a way that only a moron or an ideologue could have done. I said it's a good thing for everyone when things are produced more cheaply. Did he really think I meant cheaply as a synonym for badly, shoddily, etc? We all know that that's not what I meant.
It also becomes very obvious when one misunderstands something like that, that that person never even stepped into Econ 101, much less has an actual understanding of international trade. Oh well!
So what would you do? Not allow Company A to outsource, so that Company B cannot? Ban all trade across borders? Not allow, say, a Company C from another country with access to the aforementioned $1.00 outsourced widgets to sell their product here? Not allow a consumer here to buy a $1.00 widget from Company C's country? I could go on, but you get the point....
Indeed, let me make this a bit personal: Do you, in your own purchase decisions, not ever look for the least expensive products (assuming same quality)?
A lot of people here have enough cognitive dissonance to completely miss how those two paragraphs are connected.
Sadly, so few people understand why international trade (and trade in general) benefits both parties. The idiot popular media and alarmist politicians have so convinced the uneducated masses that their jobs are "going overseas" and must be protected at all costs.... it's very sad. The few protect themselves and their jobs at the expense of everyone else's long term prosperity.
OK, I'll make it completely impersonal: what would you do?
You did not answer that question.
Btw, it's the same anonimity allows a cheap talk and easy moralizing (like yours) to pervade forums like these. If you are making a point, please at least try to think through the implications of what you're saying. Or, perhaps, one should have the intellectual honesty to say one hasn't, and move on.
Its funny - the guy asking you not to make it personal is the same guy who keeps calling people widgets....
I have no problem with China attempting to raise the standard of living. I would like to see that happening. As I mentioned, we saw that with Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and others.
I'm not happy about the way they're doing it, and I don't have to be.
I'm sure that if it impacted you, you wouldn't be singing the tune you are.
I happen to have a little more faith in myself (and in others) than you seem to.
If you really think everyone is so intellectually corrupt that their understanding of right and wrong hinges only on whether they are impacted negatively by it, you must be tremendously paranoid of the guy standing behind you on the subway platform.
I only believe trade is good for both parties as long as I don't lose my job because of it.
I only believe that murder is wrong until I'm in the defendant's chair.
I happen to have a little more faith in myself (and in others) than you seem to.
If you really think everyone is so intellectually corrupt that their understanding of right and wrong hinges only on whether they are impacted negatively by it, you must be tremendously paranoid of the guy standing behind you on the subway platform.
I only believe trade is good for both parties as long as I don't lose my job because of it.
I only believe that murder is wrong until I'm in the defendant's chair.
Touche.
(Oh man, I love this conversation. Too bad it's so off-topic, but what the heck.......)
Was she German?
9 = nein
1/2 irish
1/2 chinese
peace
nine
I agree this is a problem, i.e., the playing field is not necessarily level -- don't get me wrong.
My simple, larger point is: why do you think Mattel is in a relentless pursuit to sell cheaper toys? Or Dell, cheaper PCs? Or Target, cheaper toasters?
Look in the mirror.
Ouch ! That hurts dude .
But yes you may have hit the nail on the head here. As a whole western people tend to do all the drugs Yet complain about addiction to the same drugs .Or the crime it causes.
Oddly some very poor backward countries produce some very high end devices .
peace
9
As I said, I'm not a gamer so I wasn't aware that the Mac wasn't the platform of choice for gamers (it actually surprises me with the graphics cards and great graphics we have).
The main problem is content - the user base isn't big enough so developers can't be assured of making money so they don't port the games and if there aren't enough games, people just don't invest in the ones that are ported.
This may change if the rumors are correct and Apple gets a little competition between vendors such as Verizon but for now I still don't see it as a viable portable solution.
Edit: I should have said "I still don't see it as a viable portable streaming gaming solution."
I agree with that but I would add that I don't see it being viable for portable devices today. Apple is about being ahead of the curve though. You wouldn't open a huge data center today if portable online gaming was already big and making money and you couldn't do it better.
Here is a demo video of it live in stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdecNDDr9g
They have a Macbook Air, a PC laptop and a micro-console to demo the service. Jump to 10 minutes in to see the start of gameplay and at 17 minutes, they show Crysis Warhead playing. At 23 minutes, they talk about the Mac and demo a game on it.
They already have very important partners in this and I don't think they'd be involved if it wasn't going to work. Apple may not get involved right now but I think it would certainly be a hugely valuable addition to their itunes service and it makes up for one of the largest components missing from the Mac.
The beta programme is set to start over the Summer so we'll see soon enough what people think of the service. One thing that would be good is getting the compression software as it would improve screen sharing and ichat video conferencing. Hopefully the company will license it back to Apple.
The main problem is content - the user base isn't big enough so developers can't be assured of making money so they don't port the games and if there aren't enough games, people just don't invest in the ones that are ported.
I agree with that but I would add that I don't see it being viable for portable devices today. Apple is about being ahead of the curve though. You wouldn't open a huge data center today if portable online gaming was already big and making money and you couldn't do it better.
Here is a demo video of it live in stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdecNDDr9g
They have a Macbook Air, a PC laptop and a micro-console to demo the service. Jump to 10 minutes in to see the start of gameplay and at 17 minutes, they show Crysis Warhead playing. At 23 minutes, they talk about the Mac and demo a game on it.
They already have very important partners in this and I don't think they'd be involved if it wasn't going to work. Apple may not get involved right now but I think it would certainly be a hugely valuable addition to their itunes service and it makes up for one of the largest components missing from the Mac.
The beta programme is set to start over the Summer so we'll see soon enough what people think of the service. One thing that would be good is getting the compression software as it would improve screen sharing and ichat video conferencing. Hopefully the company will license it back to Apple.
I'm in . Surfing the clouds looking for a game to play .
<<<<ride>>>> !!
The government isn't running any part of the banks or the car companies. If they were, maybe we would have banks that actually lent money instead of horded it.
These are myths that are perpetuated on the Internet. Yes he did take a private jet sometimes. So does Steve Jobs. But according to http://www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple/, Steve Jobs wants Apple to "be greener". So does it make Steve Jobs a hypocrite for saying he cares about the environment, when he doesn't because he takes a private jet?
And I don't see how he "scares people" to make money. He made a documentary that made a lot of money. He writes books that make a lot of money. The science in them is sound, and in fact is supported by peer-reviewed journals. Note that not a single peer reviewed scientific journal has refuted a single fact in "An Inconvenient Truth". In fact many of them lauded it. So tell me again, how does he "scare people"? If the truth is scary, tough shit.
Since when is good grammar and spelling personal?
Technically they aren't. There have been no bankruptcy proceedings. But anyway, the United States of America would be bankrupt, if it didn't just print more money and issue more bonds whenever it needs it. If California could just issue more bounds it would, but they can't because nobody will buy them. The US Government issues bonds--lots of them in fact--and relies on the fact that China will buy them. When China stopped a couple months ago, the world paniced and Obama accused China of manipulating world economies (which is true).
Prove it. According to federal sources summed up @ http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08230/904931-109.stm, California has the 6th highest tax burden of any state, when measured as a percentage of GDP. Get the facts right.
The budget crisis is largely a result of the stock market crash. Capital gains taxes account for large amounts of tax revenue for California, which is the case for many large states with wealthy populations like New York. Nobody wants to sell stock when prices are low, so all those Apple employees with options below water are just sitting on them. Therefore, California loses out on revenue.
Finally, the recently passed tax increases in California actually LOWER taxes for corporations. It changes the way the revenue basis for tax purposes is calculated in such a way that is favorable to corporations. Basically without going into too much detail it allows companies based in California use the number of employees in California/revenue, instead of purely revenue, to determine taxation. For some companies this will increase taxes, but that means they are making a lot of money with few employees in California yet still claim California is their corporate headquarters--so yeah boo to them. For large companies like Apple and Google, who are all headquartered in the Bay, this will be beneficial.
False. First, California's unemployment isn't the highest in the nation, they are fourth (that's easily googled). Second, California doesn't have the highest taxes in the nation as noted above. Third, MANY states have budget shortfalls. California's is huge, but then again California is the largest state in the nation by far. More than 1/10 of the country lives in that state, and 1/8th of the nation's economy is from California. Put another way, the US deficit from 2007 was almost 500 billion, or $1,428/person. California's $48 billion deficit is approximately $1,333/person.
EPIC POST! Thanks for that info.
Back to the topic, this server farm sounds exciting in many ways. Sounds like they are preparing for a lot more traffic. (More iPhones in other carriers? Online gaming?) And it's good to hear about those new jobs for North Carolina!
This is a rumor site. Is it too much to ask that every punctuation, spelling or grammar error not get pointed out?
I can understand if the error actually changes the meaning of the post, but this is not the Wall Street Journal and the meaning came across clear enough.
I've been reading this and many rumor sites for years and the entire subject of the posting gets derailed by pointing out mistakes.
Please also keep in mind that many people read this from all over the world and may not have the best grasp on the English language.
They do get their point across yet are slammed by someone pointing out a typo.
Just my 2 cents.
What does the fact that this is a rumour site have anything to do with it? In this case, the error renders the headline meaningless. I agree it's pointless to point out mistakes made in forum posts but surely the writers of a site should aspire to be understood in their headlines?
I'm well aware of the number of international users of forums like these and they often express themselves better in English than many native-English speakers, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for headlines that make sense in a basic grammatical sense. Actually, I expect those people using English as a second language would insist that English is used well by the native English speaking writers of the stories, because they'd want to learn correct English.
Non-native speakers of any language will always be allowed some leeway, but English sites using pidgin English look amateurish and, in my opinion, the authority and veracity of their content is diminished (whether it's a rumour site or the New York Times doing the mangling).
edit: By way of illustration, here's a headline from further down the page with the equivalent words also missing:
iPhone rumored wireless movie, TV downloads
Nonsensical, isn't it?