rasmasyean
May 3, 03:57 PM
The effect of terrorists to the West is enormously magnified by our reaction to them. How many Western deaths have been caused through terrorism in the last 15 years. 5000? Probably less than 200 in the last 5 years.
How many soldiers have been killed in subsequent wars? Over 7000 (http://icasualties.org/).
How many civilians have been killed in these wars? 100s of thousands.
And how much are we spending on this? What is the 'opportunity cost' of that lost cash - which could have been spent on health care/research/education?
I think we need to learn to ignore the 'short game' of small terrorist outrages and instead concentrate on the 'long game', which the West is undoubtably winning.
Terrorists represent a tiny proportion of radicals, that bubble to the surface of large populations of unhappy, poor and repressed people. Those underlying populations are changing though... all across North Africa and the Arab world people are mobilising to gain democracy, spurred on by the slow liberalising Western influence of open communication technologies and culture. This 'long game' political change is MUCH more significant than OBL's death.
Take away the unhappy cultures that breed terrorists won't completely remove risk - but it will make terrorism more the action of criminals, and less of a 'clash of cultures'. Smart Western political leadership would sell terrorist outrages as 'random acts of criminal radicals' not 'we must go to war with the axis of evil'.
All Obama has to do is decide whether he can afford to stop propping up the US military industrial complex.
Not all lives are "equal". One life of an important financial worker who perished at WTC might be worth more than 1000 soldiers. That's the order of society. A soldier's life is meant to be sacrificed to protect the worker. Some "warriors" are born to be this way, like army ants. The worker is more important because he makes guns to put into the hands of new soldiers. And of course, as you may have noticed, many of the front line (infantry) consists of would be rejects of society that have been conditioned and given a chance to serve a greater purpose than to become delinquents or menial workers that they would have been. "Unimportant Lives" in the big picture despite what their own families think of them. That's the unwritten rule.
In history, war is the driver of innovation...from the measly dart, to the nuclear warhead. Whether we will sustain through it to reap the benefits ourselves may be another story....like Nazi Germany where we stole all their world changing innovations after we collapsed them. Although it may bring disgust to some ppl today, Nazi Germany was one of the greatest economic, technological, and war machines ever devised and Adolf Hitler was one of the most influential and greatest men who ever lived...for his people. He just lost so we don't believe in what he tried to establish.
If there is no war, we would build more capitalistic indulgence crap to make eachother happy and lazy. But in war, we build things that help us survive. Advanced in bomb detection leads to better sensors for medical diagnosis.
Advances in robots leads to better prosthetics and automating.
Advances in field portable displays leads to large LED screens for remote surgery.
Advances in nanotech will potentially change everything we know of as "technology" today.
Many of the above will assist the "cure for cancer", or whatever it is that scares you to death. If you think that during "peacetime", everyone and their mom will devote their lives to "finding the cure", you are sadly mistaken. Humans are lazy...until their life is immediately threatened. War is why we evolved so far past the next "animal".
How many soldiers have been killed in subsequent wars? Over 7000 (http://icasualties.org/).
How many civilians have been killed in these wars? 100s of thousands.
And how much are we spending on this? What is the 'opportunity cost' of that lost cash - which could have been spent on health care/research/education?
I think we need to learn to ignore the 'short game' of small terrorist outrages and instead concentrate on the 'long game', which the West is undoubtably winning.
Terrorists represent a tiny proportion of radicals, that bubble to the surface of large populations of unhappy, poor and repressed people. Those underlying populations are changing though... all across North Africa and the Arab world people are mobilising to gain democracy, spurred on by the slow liberalising Western influence of open communication technologies and culture. This 'long game' political change is MUCH more significant than OBL's death.
Take away the unhappy cultures that breed terrorists won't completely remove risk - but it will make terrorism more the action of criminals, and less of a 'clash of cultures'. Smart Western political leadership would sell terrorist outrages as 'random acts of criminal radicals' not 'we must go to war with the axis of evil'.
All Obama has to do is decide whether he can afford to stop propping up the US military industrial complex.
Not all lives are "equal". One life of an important financial worker who perished at WTC might be worth more than 1000 soldiers. That's the order of society. A soldier's life is meant to be sacrificed to protect the worker. Some "warriors" are born to be this way, like army ants. The worker is more important because he makes guns to put into the hands of new soldiers. And of course, as you may have noticed, many of the front line (infantry) consists of would be rejects of society that have been conditioned and given a chance to serve a greater purpose than to become delinquents or menial workers that they would have been. "Unimportant Lives" in the big picture despite what their own families think of them. That's the unwritten rule.
In history, war is the driver of innovation...from the measly dart, to the nuclear warhead. Whether we will sustain through it to reap the benefits ourselves may be another story....like Nazi Germany where we stole all their world changing innovations after we collapsed them. Although it may bring disgust to some ppl today, Nazi Germany was one of the greatest economic, technological, and war machines ever devised and Adolf Hitler was one of the most influential and greatest men who ever lived...for his people. He just lost so we don't believe in what he tried to establish.
If there is no war, we would build more capitalistic indulgence crap to make eachother happy and lazy. But in war, we build things that help us survive. Advanced in bomb detection leads to better sensors for medical diagnosis.
Advances in robots leads to better prosthetics and automating.
Advances in field portable displays leads to large LED screens for remote surgery.
Advances in nanotech will potentially change everything we know of as "technology" today.
Many of the above will assist the "cure for cancer", or whatever it is that scares you to death. If you think that during "peacetime", everyone and their mom will devote their lives to "finding the cure", you are sadly mistaken. Humans are lazy...until their life is immediately threatened. War is why we evolved so far past the next "animal".
Brometheus
Apr 16, 05:56 PM
I can't defend Apple's rejection of this app, because it doesn't make sense to me. However, I can see how Apple's approval policy can lead to unintended consequences. If we view Apple as evil, then of course we will see nothing but malevolent intent. However, if we think about how the process actually works, we should realize that some of these things are predictable. I don't work for Apple, but I expect that like any organization that employs human beings, there will be variation in judgement based on the fact people are different, and the reality that it's impossible to account for every scenario. The idea that Apple can make every prohibited type of app crystal clear does not make sense to me. There are always situations that can't be covered 100%. There are trade-offs as in all of life. Lack of flexibility always comes at a price, so you do the best you can. The reviewers at Apple are like everyone else in society. Some are mature (not necessarily meaning older) people with good insight and can make good judgements when they interpret the rules. Others try to make decisions based on an interpretation of the rules that is not based on what most of us would consider good judgment.
There are situations, such as Apple's attitude regarding Flash on the iPhone OS, when we know where the entire company stands. Sometimes we can't be sure that a decision reflects the entire company. So when people claim that "Apple" is doing something to screw someone over, sometimes it's a specific individual at Apple; someone who may not share the same perspective as the senior leaders at Apple, or even another Apple employee 10 feet away from them.
There are situations, such as Apple's attitude regarding Flash on the iPhone OS, when we know where the entire company stands. Sometimes we can't be sure that a decision reflects the entire company. So when people claim that "Apple" is doing something to screw someone over, sometimes it's a specific individual at Apple; someone who may not share the same perspective as the senior leaders at Apple, or even another Apple employee 10 feet away from them.
ctdonath
Oct 6, 10:39 AM
They've already asked their developers to change app resolutions once. 3 screen sizes will never fly with developers.
Just get it over with and allow variable screen sizes.
Just get it over with and allow variable screen sizes.
nixd2001
Sep 22, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
Continuing this brief diversion...
I've seen no attempt to quantitively factor quality into all these price comparisions that get thrown around. The build quality on my shiny doors is better than the build quality on any PC I've personally seen since a really nice Intel (yes, Intel) built PC from about '93.
If there's a desire to compare simply on price, then you might as well use a random number generator - it's too much Apple and Oranges.
I remember the storm caused a few years ago when a number of the UK PC manufacturers admitted that a 5% - 10% failure rate was the rates they operated on. I've just witnessed 3 motherboards out of about 15 go "phut" at work - due to design defects rather than going out of warranty as well. So should I conclude that they're good value for money because they are cheaper?
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
Continuing this brief diversion...
I've seen no attempt to quantitively factor quality into all these price comparisions that get thrown around. The build quality on my shiny doors is better than the build quality on any PC I've personally seen since a really nice Intel (yes, Intel) built PC from about '93.
If there's a desire to compare simply on price, then you might as well use a random number generator - it's too much Apple and Oranges.
I remember the storm caused a few years ago when a number of the UK PC manufacturers admitted that a 5% - 10% failure rate was the rates they operated on. I've just witnessed 3 motherboards out of about 15 go "phut" at work - due to design defects rather than going out of warranty as well. So should I conclude that they're good value for money because they are cheaper?
more...
Daringescape
Aug 14, 12:13 PM
The the people who are "offended" are the only ones you will hear about in the media. They dont want to report on happy stuff/people it doesnt get ratings.
Hisdem
Nov 17, 05:56 PM
So a 17 year old can do it but a gigantic company with $50 billion lying there can't. Seems logical to me. :rolleyes:
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
more...
jongriff
Oct 6, 11:43 AM
A 4" iPhone would probably replace the 3.5" model so all the current apps would run on it no problem. It might require some tweaking for some apps but the upside is you get to update your app and sell it again.
If they build an iPhone with the same size screen as the iPod Nano then they could invite developers to develop mini-apps for that size screen to be used on the iPod Nano and iPhone Nano, creating a new AppStore category. Would be a huge market and very attractive to developers of news/info related apps.
In my eyes a phone that has a screen as small as the nano would not be a great idea or success. Even making the screen slightly smaller introduces a real difficulty in regards to the keyboard. Even if the screen is the same resolution as the original iPhone, a smaller physical size would make typing extremely difficult. I would love to see some sort of physical keyboard implementation, say a slide form factor like the palm pre, but this is very non-apple and I would be astonished if they went down that route.
A smaller phone is however a very interesting proposition for me, I personally would like to go smaller not bigger as i have my iPad for anything that would be a pain on a small screen. Having had features like sat nav, music, Internet, email etc I couldn't forgoe these in the search for a smaller form factor though so a compromise between the two would be nice. Just my thoughts and probably as likely to come true as this Wu chap's predictions, ie guessing.
If they build an iPhone with the same size screen as the iPod Nano then they could invite developers to develop mini-apps for that size screen to be used on the iPod Nano and iPhone Nano, creating a new AppStore category. Would be a huge market and very attractive to developers of news/info related apps.
In my eyes a phone that has a screen as small as the nano would not be a great idea or success. Even making the screen slightly smaller introduces a real difficulty in regards to the keyboard. Even if the screen is the same resolution as the original iPhone, a smaller physical size would make typing extremely difficult. I would love to see some sort of physical keyboard implementation, say a slide form factor like the palm pre, but this is very non-apple and I would be astonished if they went down that route.
A smaller phone is however a very interesting proposition for me, I personally would like to go smaller not bigger as i have my iPad for anything that would be a pain on a small screen. Having had features like sat nav, music, Internet, email etc I couldn't forgoe these in the search for a smaller form factor though so a compromise between the two would be nice. Just my thoughts and probably as likely to come true as this Wu chap's predictions, ie guessing.
tristangage
Apr 23, 05:17 AM
Around the Manchester area, it's about �1.40 per litre of unleaded.
That's 2.3$/litre.
If I do the maths right, that's 3.7854118 * 2.3
Which equates to 8.706$/gallon.
Pretty expensive over here at the moment.
That's 2.3$/litre.
If I do the maths right, that's 3.7854118 * 2.3
Which equates to 8.706$/gallon.
Pretty expensive over here at the moment.
more...
DakotaGuy
Aug 2, 09:44 PM
Wow.
I wonder if you could hack a 3G microcell to do this entirely in software.
I don't know it could be possible. I know there are a lot more GSM fans on this message board, but that is one advantage of the CDMA network. It is much more secure when it comes to things like hacking. I do believe the newer WCDMA 3G (UMTS) is secure as well, but if you can throw in noise to bump the network back to 2G EDGE then it appears you can hack in without any issues.
I wonder if you could hack a 3G microcell to do this entirely in software.
I don't know it could be possible. I know there are a lot more GSM fans on this message board, but that is one advantage of the CDMA network. It is much more secure when it comes to things like hacking. I do believe the newer WCDMA 3G (UMTS) is secure as well, but if you can throw in noise to bump the network back to 2G EDGE then it appears you can hack in without any issues.
G4DP
Mar 28, 03:12 PM
lol so you're totally ignoring that it also says Mac OS and that the Mac App Store also has icons like the iOS app store just so you can bitch about iOS again? didn't know it was time for your conspiracy theories again, we only had one just before the weekend...
I think he;s going by the fact that iOS is mentioned before Mac OSX in the add.
As someone earlier posted, I suppose those of us that use Apple computers as tools and not as a fashion item should just be grateful it is mentioned at all.
I think he;s going by the fact that iOS is mentioned before Mac OSX in the add.
As someone earlier posted, I suppose those of us that use Apple computers as tools and not as a fashion item should just be grateful it is mentioned at all.
more...
Phil A.
Sep 26, 02:47 AM
I wish people would actually read the letter before jumping on Apple's back! It clearly states: "While Apple, of course, has no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term podcast as part of a trademark for goods and services in the podcast field...."
jafingi
Mar 21, 07:23 AM
$2.2/L = $8/gal
more...
question fear
Oct 18, 03:36 PM
Thanks and you Location: Brighton/Brightoff is very clever. Had to read it twice to catch the play. Nice:p
hehe, glad you caught it. I don't even live in Brighton anymore, nice reminder for me to change it...
Uh...on topic....
If Apple did jump into mobile phone smartphone world, do you think they'd maybe license Symbian, since of the established phone OSes it's the most flexible and customizable? They could pull a unix/OS X on the symbian OS, and since most of the US wouldn't know a symbian phone if it walked up to them, sucker punched them, screamed "SYMBIAN IS A RILLY GOOD OS" right into their ear and then left a calling card.
hehe, glad you caught it. I don't even live in Brighton anymore, nice reminder for me to change it...
Uh...on topic....
If Apple did jump into mobile phone smartphone world, do you think they'd maybe license Symbian, since of the established phone OSes it's the most flexible and customizable? They could pull a unix/OS X on the symbian OS, and since most of the US wouldn't know a symbian phone if it walked up to them, sucker punched them, screamed "SYMBIAN IS A RILLY GOOD OS" right into their ear and then left a calling card.
iMacmatician
Jun 18, 04:28 PM
Something I'd like to see is a rackmount SDXC RAID array. Think how many sd slots would fit in a 1U array. I know, probably won't happen, but still interesting to see.And this is just the front�
more...
fragiledreams
Sep 15, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by King Cobra
At Pascack Hills, I have been on computers running NT4 and Windoze 2000, and both have *rarely* crashed on me. However, it's not common for me to see OS X crash on me. Even when I had 10.1 on my iMac 233 for a short time, it did not crash one time.
My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.
I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.
Ok.. you're right too.... I just don't like the fact that in some threads mac people use the "crapy OS" as a point in order for example to overcome the speed differences. If you like say that you prefer better the GUI in OSX, I don't have any problem with that. But saying that it is crap, bugy or unstable is untrue to say the least.
At Pascack Hills, I have been on computers running NT4 and Windoze 2000, and both have *rarely* crashed on me. However, it's not common for me to see OS X crash on me. Even when I had 10.1 on my iMac 233 for a short time, it did not crash one time.
My point is that as stable as the Windoze OS is, as you point out, OS X, simply put, is even more stable. Although there are some issues with hardware, usually, that's with upgraded hardware, the OS performs very well under the power of the G4.
I have also heard about XP not crashing as much as the previous OSs. So I'll say it as it is: The Windoze OS is improving, but incremently closer to perfect. If an error pops up, at least explain what should be done about.
Ok.. you're right too.... I just don't like the fact that in some threads mac people use the "crapy OS" as a point in order for example to overcome the speed differences. If you like say that you prefer better the GUI in OSX, I don't have any problem with that. But saying that it is crap, bugy or unstable is untrue to say the least.
HyperZboy
Mar 26, 09:08 AM
really? which printer or camera uses it? It should be marked with the patent number if it does.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
more...
yg17
Mar 27, 09:35 AM
Do you not have Road Tax on your cars?
To use a car in the UK, (unless it's a classic car made before 1972 I think), you have to keep it taxed. It's �105/6 months for my car, which has a 2litre engine.
Depends on the state. I pay $25 a year to renew my license plates, and then around $400 a year in personal property tax (that number depends on the value of the car, my car is 2 years old so it's pretty high). Some states have a higher license plate fee and no personal property tax.
To use a car in the UK, (unless it's a classic car made before 1972 I think), you have to keep it taxed. It's �105/6 months for my car, which has a 2litre engine.
Depends on the state. I pay $25 a year to renew my license plates, and then around $400 a year in personal property tax (that number depends on the value of the car, my car is 2 years old so it's pretty high). Some states have a higher license plate fee and no personal property tax.
migsev
May 2, 12:03 PM
Where is everyone getting a key for this?:confused:
MacRumors
Dec 28, 08:36 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
The Consumerist reported (http://consumerist.com/2009/12/att-customer-service-new-york-city-is-not-ready-for-the-iphone.html) over the weekend that AT&T has quietly stopped offering online iPhone sales to customers located in the New York City market. Responding to a reader report, The Consumerist verified the extent of the issue:I went to the AT&T site to verify what Stephen said. Sure enough, the iPhone was available to zip codes in San Francisco and other major cities. It was not available to purchase for people living anywhere in New York City, or any of the suburban zip codes in Westchester County or northern New Jersey that I tried.There seems to be some confusion, however, over the cause of the move, with a customer service representative initially stating that "New York is not ready for the iPhone" and that it doesn't "have enough towers to handle the phone." Such an explanation, while a bit surprising, was not considered completely illogical, as New York City has been a common source of complaints from consumers regarding network performance, and AT&T has acknowledged (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) that it is looking to improve service there.
Follow-up comments from AT&T, however, have cast doubt on that explanation, with an official response noting only that AT&T may "periodically modify [their] promotions and distribution channels." Other customer support representatives, such as those contacted by Gearlog (http://www.gearlog.com/2009/12/att_nixes_online_iphone_sales.php), have cited "increased fraudulent activity" from the area as the reason for removing online iPhone sales in the region.
Article Link: AT&T Halts Online iPhone Sales to New York City Market (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
The Consumerist reported (http://consumerist.com/2009/12/att-customer-service-new-york-city-is-not-ready-for-the-iphone.html) over the weekend that AT&T has quietly stopped offering online iPhone sales to customers located in the New York City market. Responding to a reader report, The Consumerist verified the extent of the issue:I went to the AT&T site to verify what Stephen said. Sure enough, the iPhone was available to zip codes in San Francisco and other major cities. It was not available to purchase for people living anywhere in New York City, or any of the suburban zip codes in Westchester County or northern New Jersey that I tried.There seems to be some confusion, however, over the cause of the move, with a customer service representative initially stating that "New York is not ready for the iPhone" and that it doesn't "have enough towers to handle the phone." Such an explanation, while a bit surprising, was not considered completely illogical, as New York City has been a common source of complaints from consumers regarding network performance, and AT&T has acknowledged (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/09/atandt-addressing-network-performance-in-manhattan-and-san-francisco-high-bandwidth-users/) that it is looking to improve service there.
Follow-up comments from AT&T, however, have cast doubt on that explanation, with an official response noting only that AT&T may "periodically modify [their] promotions and distribution channels." Other customer support representatives, such as those contacted by Gearlog (http://www.gearlog.com/2009/12/att_nixes_online_iphone_sales.php), have cited "increased fraudulent activity" from the area as the reason for removing online iPhone sales in the region.
Article Link: AT&T Halts Online iPhone Sales to New York City Market (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/12/28/atandt-halts-online-iphone-sales-to-new-york-city-market/)
chrmjenkins
Apr 28, 11:09 AM
It might - read below.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
An 18 wheeler tractor trailer has an empty weight of 36,000 lbs, or 18 tons. Law permits up to 40 tons loaded. Let's assume a light load and say 22 tons.
That's 1.2 tons per wheel.
A prius is 1.5 tons. That's 0.375 tons per wheel.
Now we also know that tractor trailers run roughly double passenger cars on tire pressure, but the wheels are also bigger. For that reason, let's assume that the amount of surface area of each tire in contact with the road is consistent across the two. That means that the tractor trailer exerts the 3.25 times the pressure with each tire compared to the prius. On top of that, it does this on all 18 of its wheels, as compared to only 4 with the prius. Finally, the average traveling speed is going to be lower for a tractor trailer, meaning it exerts this greater pressure in the same spot longer than the prius.
Add in the fact that the damage done by pressure is likely not additive (3.25 priuses in a row does not equal the damage of one tractor trailer per tire), and it's easy to see that tractor trailers are the big wear and tear on roads.
It's not weight that damages the roads, it's pressure. Too much weight concentrated on too small a space is what damages asphalt (and concrete, to a far lesser extent). That's a function of pressure in the tires - two vehicles with the same tire pressure are doing the same amount of damage to the road, regardless of their respective weights.
True enough, a truck weighted down with a full load might have 60 psi in the tires, whereas most passenger cars are in the 30-35 psi range. But in this sense, a small car and a big car (or light truck) are doing about the same amount of damage to the road.
Here in north Texas, it's very true that the majority of damage to the roads comes not from any vehicle, but from unstable soil underneath the roads. I imagine there are many places across the country where this is true.
An 18 wheeler tractor trailer has an empty weight of 36,000 lbs, or 18 tons. Law permits up to 40 tons loaded. Let's assume a light load and say 22 tons.
That's 1.2 tons per wheel.
A prius is 1.5 tons. That's 0.375 tons per wheel.
Now we also know that tractor trailers run roughly double passenger cars on tire pressure, but the wheels are also bigger. For that reason, let's assume that the amount of surface area of each tire in contact with the road is consistent across the two. That means that the tractor trailer exerts the 3.25 times the pressure with each tire compared to the prius. On top of that, it does this on all 18 of its wheels, as compared to only 4 with the prius. Finally, the average traveling speed is going to be lower for a tractor trailer, meaning it exerts this greater pressure in the same spot longer than the prius.
Add in the fact that the damage done by pressure is likely not additive (3.25 priuses in a row does not equal the damage of one tractor trailer per tire), and it's easy to see that tractor trailers are the big wear and tear on roads.
mgauss
Oct 16, 10:03 PM
The world is ready for the "computer we carry" that "syncs with the computer at home and work."
The iPhone will also let Apple hook the user into the whole Apple experience by giving cell users what no cell company has done: a good cell phone operating system, with friendly software.
If Apple misses this opportunity, it will be the defining moment in its history.
The iPhone will also let Apple hook the user into the whole Apple experience by giving cell users what no cell company has done: a good cell phone operating system, with friendly software.
If Apple misses this opportunity, it will be the defining moment in its history.
TXCraig
Jun 11, 09:55 AM
T-Mobile is not exactly a financial beast either... Can they afford to give $400 subsidies on iPhones?
Most of T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telekom... they have very deep pockets...
Most of T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telekom... they have very deep pockets...
gagebart
Mar 13, 10:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I live in Arizona and we don't follow daylight savings time, but my phone jumped an hour ahead. I'm on AT&T btw
I live in Arizona and we don't follow daylight savings time, but my phone jumped an hour ahead. I'm on AT&T btw
spaceballl
Jun 10, 12:40 PM
this analyst needs to do better homework. the t-mobile 3g band isn't supported on any of the iphones, including the iphone 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment