djsherly

tallest skil said:

djsherly said:
Stop being asinine and show me where a company has a fiduciary duty to minimise taxes. 

The fuck do you mean ‘where’? Why are you expecting it to be a codified statement? It’s an implied maxim, inherent to the operation of economics. Here’s an analogy. You build a car. You call it a car. You market and sell it just like any other car. It doesn’t go in reverse. “What do you mean, ‘go in reverse’?” you say, “It’s a car. Where in the definition of the word ‘car’ does it say ‘has to go in reverse’? It already fits the description of a ‘car’; show me where it has to do anything beyond the mere word?”

crowley said:

such a thing wouldn't even make sense if it were a thing

Explain why companies do not pay 100% of their profits in taxes.

tallest skil said:

djsherly said:
Stop being asinine and show me where a company has a fiduciary duty to minimise taxes. 

The fuck do you mean ‘where’? Why are you expecting it to be a codified statement? It’s an implied maxim, inherent to the operation of economics. Here’s an analogy. You build a car. You call it a car. You market and sell it just like any other car. It doesn’t go in reverse. “What do you mean, ‘go in reverse’?” you say, “It’s a car. Where in the definition of the word ‘car’ does it say ‘has to go in reverse’? It already fits the description of a ‘car’; show me where it has to do anything beyond the mere word?”

crowley said:

such a thing wouldn't even make sense if it were a thing

Explain why companies do not pay 100% of their profits in taxes.

Fiduciary has a meaning, champ. Look it up. Try again. 

tallest skil said:

djsherly said:

They do not. Prove it.

You’ll have to be more specific, seeing as you’re wrong about every single possible statement you could be asking for proof over.

tallest skil said:

djsherly said:

They do not. Prove it.

You’ll have to be more specific, seeing as you’re wrong about every single possible statement you could be asking for proof over.

Stop being asinine and show me where a company has a fiduciary duty to minimise taxes. 

randominternetperson said:

Ridiculous.  What determines whether something is law suit worthy?  If a company makes a product that isn't durable and treats its customers poorly, the market will "reward" that company with poor future sales.  That's how the system to works.  Unless someone gets hurt or the company reneges on warranty obligations, why should I court get involved?

So a company takes $1500 off you and gives you a defective product which becomes a further $700 problem at some point down the track. So when you're $2200 in the hole and it happens a third time, sure the company will be rewarded in the future, but you have tipped $2200 into something that's now worthless, or now you're up to $2900 to get back in business. Tell that person to suck eggs in person, randominternetperson, and see how far that gets you.

The keyboard is the fundamental input device for the laptop - if it's not capable of withstanding a speck of dust or some breadcrumbs then clearly it's not fit for purpose and therefore defective. It's a portable device and should be designed to handle being treated as one.

Now - not saying that it is or isn't but anecdotally there is some significant issue with it and the company that took all the money off you is making you pay, again and again, to replace a defective component. I don't know how the Apple Genius can keep a straight face.

macplusplus said:

vmarks said:

macplusplus said:

Actually Mac OS Classic had a very good memory management within the limits of its capabilities. It was just not a true operating system.

Is that like the

"No True Scotsman" fallacy? It was software that initialized the hardware, handled input from the keyboard, output to a display, read and wrote to storage media, and ran software on top of that software. In every definition, it was a true operating system. It was modern for the time, even if we've since moved past it.

If you want to go pedantic, all the forum is yours. Of course everyone here knows what CP/M is. We're talking about something booting from a 400K diskette, just a System file and a Finder file along with the ImageWriter driver and a few other files. Yes that was an achievement but an achievement that shaped all the future evolution. When OS/2, Windows NT and others opened the path to modern PC operating systems it would have no chance of survival. Even Amiga's Tramiel OS was ahead of Mac OS with its true multitasking.

Amiga had AmigaOS - Jack Tramiel was Commodore but left for Atari, and TOS appeared in their Atari ST, the Amiga’s natural competitor.

Amiga OS was preemptive multitasking but I think pretty much the whole thing was run in Userland.

ndirishfan1975 said:

I agree with most comments already. The conclusions drawn from these tests seem odd at best and the geek bench test makes no sense in its methodology. In the gaming test you erroneously conclude that disputed the iPhone being ahead 87 to 84% the Samsung would probably win. Clearly you don’t understand how percentages work. The size of the battery doesn’t sway percentages.  Given the size disparity of the 2 batteries this means the Samsung used much more gross battery life during this test. It would be helpful if you understood what you were writing an article about. 

The size of the battery is immaterial and whether one uses more gross battery than the other means very little from the users perspective. 

This testing is from the perspective of - when I unplug this flagship device from its charger, how long is it gonna last?

The only thing that would be misleading about the result of this test would be if real-world tests bore out what Roake is observing. 
 
In any practical sense, both devices are more than fast and capable enough to do what needs to be done for an appropriate length of time, it would merely be a matter of preference as to which device one would choose. 

Remember that most people don’t actually give a hoot about battery *capacity*. I don’t even know what my phone’s is. They do care about how long they can use it for on any given day.