wiggin

nht said:

avon b7 said:

Your comment is at odds with itself.

Legacy? You realise that the overwhelming majority of the Mac line still uses ALL of those 'legacy' ports. The current lineup. Late 2016 AND 2017 has all of them.

No sir. They are not legacy at all and that's by definition. Or perhaps we should say Apple is flogging premium priced 'old' equipment as modern?

Yep legacy by definition (top google hit which is from wikipedia):

"A legacy port is a computer port or connector that is considered by some to be fully or partially superseded. The replacement ports usually provide most of the functionality of the legacy ports with higher speeds, more compact design, or plug and play and hot swap capabilities for greater ease of use."

Higher speed?  Check - USB-C Ports support both TB3 and USB 3.1.  USB-A only supports USB 3.1.  40Gbps > 10GBps.  TB2 ports only support TB2.
More compact Design?  Check. USB-C is more compact than USB-A
USB-C fully or partially supersedes USB 3.1 and TB2?  Check.

The first mac to use USB-C had no USB-A.  
The second mac to use USB-C has no USB-A.  

For Apple USB-A is certainly legacy and replaces both TB and USB-A.  USB-C is a vast improvement because of versatility and reduced cost for the average Mac user.

The next iMac might keep a USB-A port but I doubt it.

k2kw said:

512ke said:

6502 said:

I'd gladly pay a few hundred dollars more to buy an American made iPhone. We are too dependent on China for things we use daily. And fewer Chinese student at our universities? That's a reward, not a threat.

It's a fantasy to think the US Govt is going to force Apple to start manufacturing and furthermore locate its first and only factory in the USA. 

Same kind of fantasy as, coal is coming back. Same fantasy as, Detroit factories that employ tens of thousands of people are coming back. 

But I digress. As usual lol. 

Trump should start building the wall now.   Export the stupid protestors.   Washington state didn't vote for trump so don't care about Boeing.   California didn't vote for trump so don't care about Apple and the tech companies.   Slash H1-B visas to teach them.   He needs to do what he promised or he won't be reelectef.

dick applebaum said:

gatorguy said:

wiggin said:

jcdinkins said:

dantheman827 said:

ireland said:

Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.

Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.

The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...

I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...

Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played.  Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice.  Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.

I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because of this vary reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently, all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-call approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go, either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.

Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes) as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.

And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would go along with it.

I totally agree with your take on it. I said much the same a few days ago. 

One problem with using congressional districts as a basis for allocation electoral votes is Gerrymandering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

jcdinkins said:

dantheman827 said:

ireland said:

Trump would be a major idiot to have a trade war with China. It would be economic suicide for the world. It'd be like going to war with yourself. Not a playground to test out your hair-brained ideas hairdo.

Let's just hope it's bullshit he spouted—as he does—merely to fool Americans into electing him. I get that Americans didn't want Hilary, but boy that's little choice there. One big fat big liar and another little skinny big fat liar. Like Pepsi or Pepsi with extra sugar thrown in.

The thing is... the american people DID want Hilary... she won the popular vote over trump... the electoral system is just broken if you ask me...

I didn't vote for another entity to place their vote... I voted for the president... oh well...

Unfortunately for you (and many other occupiers), you can't change the rules of the game while it's being played.  Founding father's implemented this to avoid mob rule and allow small states to have a voice.  Had Hill won the electoral and Trump the pop you would have been just fine with the electoral college.

I would be against eliminating the Electoral College because of this very reason. But I also think there is room for improvement. Currently, all but two states use a winner-take-all approach to allocating their Electoral votes. The US Constitution does not require this, and the founders likely did not anticipate the huge differences in state populations as we have today. If you are a Republican in CA or a Democrat in TX your vote in meaningless….HUGE portions of our population essentially have no say because of the winner-take-all approach. But I also don’t think a nation-wide populate vote is the way to go, either, because it would mean less populated states can simply be ignored.

Nebraska and Maine allocate their Electoral votes based on congressional district. One vote each for the equivalent of the House of Rep seats and two state-wide votes for the equivalent of the Senate. Since nation-wide the districts are roughly of equal population, this is a step towards the “popular vote” people think they want. And since every state gets the same two state-wide votes, it gives even smaller states an equal say (for those votes) as the biggest state, preserving the intention of the founders of the nation.

And the best part is this wouldn’t require amending the US Constitution to do it because it doesn’t dictate to the states how to allocate their votes. Each state could enact this on their own…if only their people would go along with it.

frankie said:

techprod1gy said:

Trump and his soon to be selected advisors are not dumb. 

Trump doesn't believe in global warming and Pence doesn't believe in evolution and thinks you can cure gay people with hynotherapy.

You sure about that first statement?