Macula
Jan 11, 05:31 PM
Bill gates farted
(UPDATE: I just realized other people made the same thought. Well, where there's smoke there's fire).
(UPDATE: I just realized other people made the same thought. Well, where there's smoke there's fire).
DrFrankTM
Jul 24, 09:45 AM
[...]
Does anyone know how big this would be? It would be huge. No beyond huge. Literature is as universally accepted as music. It's used everywhere from text books in schools, to training manuals, to maintenance manuals, to entertainment in the home, to entertainment while you are sitting waiting for the dentist. Imagine subscribing to a magazine and having it downloaded off of iTMS like a podcast.
In short I would sell my first, second, third born sons, and cut off a pinky toe for Apple to release an e-book reader. This is Sony's attempt:
http://dynamism.com/images/extra/DSCN0862.jpg
No one in the market has done the design right yet. There is this huge market waiting for someone to step up to the plate and get it done right, easy, and elegant. Sound familiar?
But above all please PLEASE PLEASE don�t integrate it into the iPod. It would be doing major disservice to the emerging industry.
I cannot agree more. Apple would need to add another product to their line, not replace the actual iPod with something bulkier. Some people enjoy the iPod as a music player/portable HD. Why lose their business by breaking their favorite toy (by making it bigger to accomodate functions they might not care about)?
A few random thoughts on form and function...
I don't have an iPod yet because I don't think I'd enjoy reading a lot of text on any of the actual models. Like any other university student, I have tons of academic books and articles on top of my novels, short stories and such. Since I move and travel a lot, I often have to leave many - or most - of my books behind. With e-books, I could simply bring along a small, light-weight reader and I'd have my whole library with me, easily accessible, 24/7, no matter where I am. That would be beyond cool!!! A gadget integrating music and video too would be awesome, but adding video means an LCD, which means much shorter battery life, so there is a trade-off there: the do-it-all gadget that I am longing for just doesn't seem to be here yet.
Of course, you can read e-books on a laptop, but as has already been mentioned in this thread, reading from your laptop on the bus isn't enjoyable. It can be done, but few bother. I've had a laptop for over four years and I can't say I carried it around all that much. I need something smaller... but that can grow bigger when need be!!! I'll try to explain myself... When listening to music, you don't need a big screen and you don't want to lump around a big device for no reason. When watching video, a bigger screen is a good thing. However, an LCD isn't good for battery life and an e-ink screen isn't good for video, so how about having one of each on the same device? Or have two devices that integrate together flawlessly while addressing different needs?
For example, think iPod video with an LCD taking the whole "face" of the iPod. The device has a hard drive so you can carry a lot of stuff with you at all times. Then fold it open and you'll find an e-ink screen. The e-ink screen could be roughly twice as big as the LCD if it takes all of the surface inside, so you wouldn't be reading on a tiny screen. Maybe the e-ink screen could have its own flash memory, so the device could load the documents that you want to read on there. You'd need to access the hard drive only when you want to read/listen to/watch something that isn't on the flash drive, so I assume it would help the battery life a lot. (Actually, I'm starting to think that the flash memory/hard drive combo could be cool whatever screen the iPod uses, but I'm getting off-topic.) Or maybe the screen could be something you unroll from a tube. Anyways, I think that you could have your library on one device (that has a hard drive), yet read your stuff on another one (which has a much better battery life), or on another part of the same device. It poses challenges, obviously, as you don't want to waste time transfering stuff all the time, but I think it might be the closest we can get to having our cake and eating it too.
Does anyone know how big this would be? It would be huge. No beyond huge. Literature is as universally accepted as music. It's used everywhere from text books in schools, to training manuals, to maintenance manuals, to entertainment in the home, to entertainment while you are sitting waiting for the dentist. Imagine subscribing to a magazine and having it downloaded off of iTMS like a podcast.
In short I would sell my first, second, third born sons, and cut off a pinky toe for Apple to release an e-book reader. This is Sony's attempt:
http://dynamism.com/images/extra/DSCN0862.jpg
No one in the market has done the design right yet. There is this huge market waiting for someone to step up to the plate and get it done right, easy, and elegant. Sound familiar?
But above all please PLEASE PLEASE don�t integrate it into the iPod. It would be doing major disservice to the emerging industry.
I cannot agree more. Apple would need to add another product to their line, not replace the actual iPod with something bulkier. Some people enjoy the iPod as a music player/portable HD. Why lose their business by breaking their favorite toy (by making it bigger to accomodate functions they might not care about)?
A few random thoughts on form and function...
I don't have an iPod yet because I don't think I'd enjoy reading a lot of text on any of the actual models. Like any other university student, I have tons of academic books and articles on top of my novels, short stories and such. Since I move and travel a lot, I often have to leave many - or most - of my books behind. With e-books, I could simply bring along a small, light-weight reader and I'd have my whole library with me, easily accessible, 24/7, no matter where I am. That would be beyond cool!!! A gadget integrating music and video too would be awesome, but adding video means an LCD, which means much shorter battery life, so there is a trade-off there: the do-it-all gadget that I am longing for just doesn't seem to be here yet.
Of course, you can read e-books on a laptop, but as has already been mentioned in this thread, reading from your laptop on the bus isn't enjoyable. It can be done, but few bother. I've had a laptop for over four years and I can't say I carried it around all that much. I need something smaller... but that can grow bigger when need be!!! I'll try to explain myself... When listening to music, you don't need a big screen and you don't want to lump around a big device for no reason. When watching video, a bigger screen is a good thing. However, an LCD isn't good for battery life and an e-ink screen isn't good for video, so how about having one of each on the same device? Or have two devices that integrate together flawlessly while addressing different needs?
For example, think iPod video with an LCD taking the whole "face" of the iPod. The device has a hard drive so you can carry a lot of stuff with you at all times. Then fold it open and you'll find an e-ink screen. The e-ink screen could be roughly twice as big as the LCD if it takes all of the surface inside, so you wouldn't be reading on a tiny screen. Maybe the e-ink screen could have its own flash memory, so the device could load the documents that you want to read on there. You'd need to access the hard drive only when you want to read/listen to/watch something that isn't on the flash drive, so I assume it would help the battery life a lot. (Actually, I'm starting to think that the flash memory/hard drive combo could be cool whatever screen the iPod uses, but I'm getting off-topic.) Or maybe the screen could be something you unroll from a tube. Anyways, I think that you could have your library on one device (that has a hard drive), yet read your stuff on another one (which has a much better battery life), or on another part of the same device. It poses challenges, obviously, as you don't want to waste time transfering stuff all the time, but I think it might be the closest we can get to having our cake and eating it too.
mohsy90
Apr 17, 09:07 PM
It may not be that they didn't have them, rather they were set aside for being who had already reserved them (the point of reservations).
They were not set aside for reservation. I walked in at 11:00 when they opened and the guy said they never received shipment, so.... they started taking reservations.
They were not set aside for reservation. I walked in at 11:00 when they opened and the guy said they never received shipment, so.... they started taking reservations.
SactoGuy18
Apr 17, 08:44 PM
I think due to the extraordinary bad timing of the earthquake in Japan, in the end Apple will have to admit that due to critical parts shortages of iPad 2 components normally made in Japan, they can no longer keep up with demand for the iPad 2, hence the problem with supplying them to Best Buy stores. Don't be surprised that Apple may even announce suspension of all iPad 2 sales and then resume them middle to late summer as the parts supply situation is resolved.
micahR
Oct 19, 10:12 AM
I am really loving the whole multiplayer of Reach. I am not that good at multiplayer, but I having a whole lot of fun. And Firefight is my number one seed, I just wish death had a bigger penalty.
I really hoping Microsoft re-releases Halo 1 and 2, using the reach engine.
I really hoping Microsoft re-releases Halo 1 and 2, using the reach engine.
melantye
Apr 11, 12:54 PM
Hum this is brilliant marketing.
The subscription price serves as an anchor price that makes you feel the regular price is cheaper, hence more buying are expected at regular price.
The subscription price serves as an anchor price that makes you feel the regular price is cheaper, hence more buying are expected at regular price.
john123
Mar 14, 10:44 PM
The sort of money you put down on a Mac you shouldn't expect anything less than USB 3.0 from here on out. Core 2 Duo in 2010 leaves a lot to be desired.
This is pretty academic, since you've always paid a premium for the Apple logo. Rarely does a Mac laptop have cutting edge hardware across the board (see the graphics cards in laptops for an example of something that seems always a generation or more behind). The sad reality is that even though you're right, they'll continue to sell those laptops at a prodigious rate. Most people don't care about technical specs as much as they do the overall user experience.
This is pretty academic, since you've always paid a premium for the Apple logo. Rarely does a Mac laptop have cutting edge hardware across the board (see the graphics cards in laptops for an example of something that seems always a generation or more behind). The sad reality is that even though you're right, they'll continue to sell those laptops at a prodigious rate. Most people don't care about technical specs as much as they do the overall user experience.
Vantage Point
Mar 12, 07:35 AM
Store is open for business. No new MP or MBP today.
Thunderhawks
Apr 12, 12:06 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
Erasmus
Aug 8, 04:46 AM
*cries*
*snuffle*
No iMac Ultra!!!
*cries again*
*snuffle*
Maybe tomorrow? Can only hope. They can't not update the iMac forever...
BTW. I don't think many people expected the Mac Pro to be quite that awesome. FOUR slots that support graphics cards??? WOOHOO! And how many people doubted the quad 3Ghz? A lot, I know you're out there. Eight 30" screens??? That's INSANE!
If this is what Apple bring out for their Mac Pro, my standards for iMac Ultra have now changed.
30" HD screen, 2x SLI X1900's (do they make gig x19's? If they do, they'll be in it) and the 3.2 Ghz C2DE. The new Macbook Pro will surelly get a single x1900, and a 2.67 C2D. Maybe a 19" version? The former still less than 4G, the second less than 5G ($AU).
Both with an overdrive function that overclocks both CPUs and GPUs by a factor of 2. After all, if this beast can dissipate 300W in just graphics cards, let alone 160W of CPU power, plus four high performance hard disks, power supply, etc, etc, etc, surelly my expectations aren't too high...
Sounds reasonable to me after meeting the one true beast.
*snuffle*
No iMac Ultra!!!
*cries again*
*snuffle*
Maybe tomorrow? Can only hope. They can't not update the iMac forever...
BTW. I don't think many people expected the Mac Pro to be quite that awesome. FOUR slots that support graphics cards??? WOOHOO! And how many people doubted the quad 3Ghz? A lot, I know you're out there. Eight 30" screens??? That's INSANE!
If this is what Apple bring out for their Mac Pro, my standards for iMac Ultra have now changed.
30" HD screen, 2x SLI X1900's (do they make gig x19's? If they do, they'll be in it) and the 3.2 Ghz C2DE. The new Macbook Pro will surelly get a single x1900, and a 2.67 C2D. Maybe a 19" version? The former still less than 4G, the second less than 5G ($AU).
Both with an overdrive function that overclocks both CPUs and GPUs by a factor of 2. After all, if this beast can dissipate 300W in just graphics cards, let alone 160W of CPU power, plus four high performance hard disks, power supply, etc, etc, etc, surelly my expectations aren't too high...
Sounds reasonable to me after meeting the one true beast.
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
seashellz
Mar 28, 02:11 PM
Man, Apple keeps getting lower and lower. First Walmart, now this?
Id buy one at a kids sidewalk Lemonaide stand if they had them in stock-
Who the ***** cares?
Id buy one at a kids sidewalk Lemonaide stand if they had them in stock-
Who the ***** cares?
danielveeee
Apr 17, 10:30 AM
I figured the whole promotion thing was a scam
But I hve to go to best buy bc a return.
So I'm sitting outside my bestbuy. No one here.
But the inventory shows they have some. Think they're for sale?
But I hve to go to best buy bc a return.
So I'm sitting outside my bestbuy. No one here.
But the inventory shows they have some. Think they're for sale?
sconnor99
Apr 13, 04:11 PM
It's nice to see the generally positive comments on this forum, other forums for "professionals" are not so happy!
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
Personally I can't wait to start working with it.
2ms
Mar 15, 12:51 PM
I was really thinking about an iMac, but I'm considering a Sony Vaio laptop with an IPS monitor from a 3rd party. I'll definitely wait to see what Apple comes out with this week, though.
Whenever anyone posts on here that they're thinking of going Windows, a lot of people either shout TROLL! or say: fine, goodbye.
I still feel like it's a shame to leave Macs behind. Still, again I have to say that Windows 7 offers a lot more to the Mac-learned creative community than any other version from Microsoft.**
**Other than maybe Windows 2000 pro in its heyday... nice solid system that got out of your way.
Really? I have Windows 7 on desktop and find it to be the same crap as Vista but with a new theme pack. Other than the slightly different appearance it seams essentially exactly the same (ie the worst Windows since M.E.).
Whenever anyone posts on here that they're thinking of going Windows, a lot of people either shout TROLL! or say: fine, goodbye.
I still feel like it's a shame to leave Macs behind. Still, again I have to say that Windows 7 offers a lot more to the Mac-learned creative community than any other version from Microsoft.**
**Other than maybe Windows 2000 pro in its heyday... nice solid system that got out of your way.
Really? I have Windows 7 on desktop and find it to be the same crap as Vista but with a new theme pack. Other than the slightly different appearance it seams essentially exactly the same (ie the worst Windows since M.E.).
LaMerVipere
Oct 16, 03:18 AM
Number One checking in! Seriously, I started the first "Post Your Mac Setup" thread.
It still boggles my mind that this has made it to 13 parts and is still going strong! *knock on wood* I hope it never ends!
I just sold my MacBook Pro but once my iMac arrives I will take photos of my setup for everyone. It's definitely changed a lot since then, lol.
Plus, everyone else's photos are making me super envious!
:apple:
It still boggles my mind that this has made it to 13 parts and is still going strong! *knock on wood* I hope it never ends!
I just sold my MacBook Pro but once my iMac arrives I will take photos of my setup for everyone. It's definitely changed a lot since then, lol.
Plus, everyone else's photos are making me super envious!
:apple:
crap freakboy
Sep 6, 08:17 AM
wooohoo first!
er great...anyhoos...if I had the cash I'd get the 20".
Shame you can't upgrade to the GT on the 20".
Beats this aging Sawtooth anyday.
er great...anyhoos...if I had the cash I'd get the 20".
Shame you can't upgrade to the GT on the 20".
Beats this aging Sawtooth anyday.
johncarync
May 5, 02:15 PM
Here's my guess as to how it will work based on how simple Apple likes to make things for the end user:
Basketball Court Diagram:
jowie
Mar 21, 05:37 PM
Hard drives would not be good AT ALL for an iPod Touch. Apps depend on the instant access that flash memory allows for using data, so a hard drive would slow the whole process up, especially on the processor size.
I agree. I don't think iOS is designed with hard drives in mind anyway. Probably wouldn't work properly.
I agree. I don't think iOS is designed with hard drives in mind anyway. Probably wouldn't work properly.
rdowns
Apr 28, 11:57 AM
Yep, I'm one of them. Not to de-rail the thread, but I live about two blocks from a tiny tornado that popped down in the Birmingham area. No damage at my house, but three streets over there are no standing trees or power poles.
As for Tuscaloosa, jeez. I've never seen footage like this except for on Discovery Channel, in places like tornado alley. In the lower left hand corner you'll see my old law school, and behind it about a half-mile is the main Tuscaloosa hospital, DCH.
I'm so naive. I didn't think tornados like this were real, at least anywhere outside of known "tornado alley" kinds of places. Just awful.
Glad everything is OK on your end. Pictures and videos are horrific. You're not naive. Most of us can't really fathom these things unless they hit close to home.
As for Tuscaloosa, jeez. I've never seen footage like this except for on Discovery Channel, in places like tornado alley. In the lower left hand corner you'll see my old law school, and behind it about a half-mile is the main Tuscaloosa hospital, DCH.
I'm so naive. I didn't think tornados like this were real, at least anywhere outside of known "tornado alley" kinds of places. Just awful.
Glad everything is OK on your end. Pictures and videos are horrific. You're not naive. Most of us can't really fathom these things unless they hit close to home.
Designer Dale
Mar 11, 04:21 PM
not sure what the name of these birds,they are large and its the atlantic ocean,newfoundland
Some kind of Cormorant. Given your location, my guess is the great cormorant.
Reference: Cornell Lab of Ornothology (http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Great_Cormorant/id)
Dale
Some kind of Cormorant. Given your location, my guess is the great cormorant.
Reference: Cornell Lab of Ornothology (http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Great_Cormorant/id)
Dale
Chupa Chupa
Sep 14, 08:32 AM
How unlucky do I feel? I just spent a week in Chicago, and on Monday bought a 60Gb Ipod for myself and a 2Gb Ipod for the GF. I left the US on Tuesday afternoon. I knew I should've waited 'til Tuesday morning before buying..... Oh well, gotta smile..... I think.......
Just eBay them before the world figures out new iPods have arrived.
Just eBay them before the world figures out new iPods have arrived.
Piggie
Apr 2, 05:54 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you get over a lot of the quality issues by using a 90 degree bend, so the lens on the back of the phone/ipad is almost just a glass cover, behind which is a mirror, then you have a long unit at 90 degrees to this device which holds various lenses, so for example you could have a 10 or 20mm long lens barrel/system inside there?
Piggie
Apr 2, 03:11 PM
If you're out, you'd rather pull out your iPad then a phone or camera to take a picture? Really?
Well my phone does not have a camera and I may not be carrying a camera at the time.
If an event occurs, then I will use whatever I have to hand at that moment.
If I happen to be carrying my DSLR then I would use that, if I happen to have the iPad in my hands then I would use that.
Again, I see no reason to select a worse device other than marketing.
In the same way, in the old days, your car may not have a stereo, but the deluxe model had a stereo. Despite it only being $20 on a $5000 car.
It was just done for marketing.
Or course, if a nice camera added an inch to the back, or $100 to the device then of course, there is a reason not to.
Well my phone does not have a camera and I may not be carrying a camera at the time.
If an event occurs, then I will use whatever I have to hand at that moment.
If I happen to be carrying my DSLR then I would use that, if I happen to have the iPad in my hands then I would use that.
Again, I see no reason to select a worse device other than marketing.
In the same way, in the old days, your car may not have a stereo, but the deluxe model had a stereo. Despite it only being $20 on a $5000 car.
It was just done for marketing.
Or course, if a nice camera added an inch to the back, or $100 to the device then of course, there is a reason not to.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu