buckwheat987
Mar 17, 08:23 PM
like this thread?
map1978
Jun 18, 05:35 PM
anybody on these forums going to the white plains store?
the store should have stock all weekend so dont worry :D
the store should have stock all weekend so dont worry :D
chuckles:)
Jun 18, 02:11 PM
I'd easily be willing to pay $600 plus shipping.
Cassie
Apr 1, 04:58 PM
Recently installed Ubuntu on my HP mini, I'm still pretty clunky with it but I like it. :)
http://i54.tinypic.com/25sophe.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/25sophe.png
more...
RedRaider219
Jun 23, 11:19 PM
Just got here, there are about 40-50 people here now not too bad of an atmosphere!
Apple 26.2
Apr 16, 10:20 PM
Thanks so much for making another thread buddy.
Gotta up the post count some how!
Gotta up the post count some how!
more...
.Andy
May 4, 04:59 PM
Pretulant? Is this a Mergui thing?
Haha whoops!
(am actually trekking the flinders ranges :-))
Haha whoops!
(am actually trekking the flinders ranges :-))
Socratic
May 2, 06:03 PM
I'm not gay, but I take offense to the idea of equating homosexual activity with "sleeping with hookers, and intravenous drug users". Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they sleep around, just like someone who is straight doesn't just sleep around. This is something that you should probably reflect on, in that gay people can be just as likely or not to sleep around and behave in risky ways as straight people can.
Yadmonkey is right. I don't equate it with anything. They are just a category of activities with higher risk of communication of blood communicable diseases. The issue isn't the amount of sex or even the number of partners. The issue is that male to male sex by its very nature has a higher chance of passing on certain diseases than male to female. Risky male to female is also excluded (if you have slept with a prostitute or been in countries with high levels of disease). It's not a moral judgement (if it were surely lesbians would also be blocked from giving). I never implied that gay people sleep around more than anyone else. I also didn't imply that they are more likely to behave in risky ways, I just said that the same act male to male has a higher risk than male to female - a statistical reality that leads to a policy some may feel is bigoted. I'm just pointing out why it's not.
Yadmonkey is right. I don't equate it with anything. They are just a category of activities with higher risk of communication of blood communicable diseases. The issue isn't the amount of sex or even the number of partners. The issue is that male to male sex by its very nature has a higher chance of passing on certain diseases than male to female. Risky male to female is also excluded (if you have slept with a prostitute or been in countries with high levels of disease). It's not a moral judgement (if it were surely lesbians would also be blocked from giving). I never implied that gay people sleep around more than anyone else. I also didn't imply that they are more likely to behave in risky ways, I just said that the same act male to male has a higher risk than male to female - a statistical reality that leads to a policy some may feel is bigoted. I'm just pointing out why it's not.
more...
Siggen
Apr 17, 10:10 AM
Veencey but its slow
reubs
Feb 1, 03:39 PM
A little American Psycho this month.
Excellent.
Excellent.
more...
retroneo
Jul 26, 07:05 PM
Apple supports both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
In fact HD-DVD support has been in DVD Player for a while now, and DVD Studio Pro supports HD-DVD projects, but not Blu-ray.
In fact HD-DVD support has been in DVD Player for a while now, and DVD Studio Pro supports HD-DVD projects, but not Blu-ray.
tj2001
Aug 22, 03:37 PM
If someone could please look at: site redesign (http://macmasta.homeip.net/macdynamix_new/www/) and notice the teal bar at the bottom that is cutting through the content.
Please look at the source and advise on issue and how to correct. Thank you!
Please look at the source and advise on issue and how to correct. Thank you!
more...
tigress666
Apr 6, 10:26 PM
Yes, it had a lot to do with them. Many who are leaving have a legitimate gripe with AT&T and if they want to take their business elsewhere b/c a purely financial decision by AT&T, so be it. Even if the finances may not add up at first. Taking your business elsewhere IS what many want to do.
Of course that is their choice but my point is to leave AT&T because they increased a price to go to some one who has an even more expensive price does not make sense to me at all. Now if there were other issues, sure.
Ah ok, so you have nothing. Just the same old line used by AT&T whenever they raise the price
Gotcha
The fact that you wrote the "Everyone wants money" line shows me how far over your head my point went.
Of course since I don't work there i don't know what all their expenses are. But you can't say just cause the iphone stayed the same price doesn't mean their expenses have gone up. You really don't understand running a business if you think cost of an item is only affected by how much that item cost the business (and that was the proof you gave to me, that the iphone hasn't gone up in price, that AT&T is solely doing this cause they can and not cause they are reflecting their own price increases).
They have to reflect all of their costs in that price to make a profit. And no, they aren't there to be nice to you. Their prices go up, unless they have some reason to believe they'll lose more business than they will make up by price increase, your prices are going to go up. At some point, regardless of if they think they will lose business they will have to increase the price solely cause they'll lose money otherwise. IT seems you think they should only raise prices at this point. Sorry, they are there to make a profit. They will weight what giesv them the most profit. When they give you a price cut, it's not cause they are being nice. It is cause they think that price cut will drum up enough business to eventually make more profit than they would if they didn't do that price cut.
And my point culminates in that while no, I don't have proof this isn't just cause they can (and you definitely don't have proof cause what you said totally doesn't stand up to reason at all and shows no understanding of running a business), I could easily buy that their prices have increased given that there is a lot of inflation going on (I work retail and i see it in our own prices going up at my store as well as when I buy stuff). If nothing else, they need to make more profit to make the same amount of money as a year ago (as I said, when it comes to inflation, having your wages stay the same = a decrease in pay as your wage doesn't go as far).
Of course that is their choice but my point is to leave AT&T because they increased a price to go to some one who has an even more expensive price does not make sense to me at all. Now if there were other issues, sure.
Ah ok, so you have nothing. Just the same old line used by AT&T whenever they raise the price
Gotcha
The fact that you wrote the "Everyone wants money" line shows me how far over your head my point went.
Of course since I don't work there i don't know what all their expenses are. But you can't say just cause the iphone stayed the same price doesn't mean their expenses have gone up. You really don't understand running a business if you think cost of an item is only affected by how much that item cost the business (and that was the proof you gave to me, that the iphone hasn't gone up in price, that AT&T is solely doing this cause they can and not cause they are reflecting their own price increases).
They have to reflect all of their costs in that price to make a profit. And no, they aren't there to be nice to you. Their prices go up, unless they have some reason to believe they'll lose more business than they will make up by price increase, your prices are going to go up. At some point, regardless of if they think they will lose business they will have to increase the price solely cause they'll lose money otherwise. IT seems you think they should only raise prices at this point. Sorry, they are there to make a profit. They will weight what giesv them the most profit. When they give you a price cut, it's not cause they are being nice. It is cause they think that price cut will drum up enough business to eventually make more profit than they would if they didn't do that price cut.
And my point culminates in that while no, I don't have proof this isn't just cause they can (and you definitely don't have proof cause what you said totally doesn't stand up to reason at all and shows no understanding of running a business), I could easily buy that their prices have increased given that there is a lot of inflation going on (I work retail and i see it in our own prices going up at my store as well as when I buy stuff). If nothing else, they need to make more profit to make the same amount of money as a year ago (as I said, when it comes to inflation, having your wages stay the same = a decrease in pay as your wage doesn't go as far).
okrelayer
Apr 11, 07:12 AM
Michelle Tratchenberg from the movie Euro Trip.:cool:
She looks to be enjoying the VLC app ;)
I keep trying to change my wallpaper, but I enjoy the dark minimal look of this to much. Helps me focus on the things I need to do
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1285/screenshot20110411at811.png
She looks to be enjoying the VLC app ;)
I keep trying to change my wallpaper, but I enjoy the dark minimal look of this to much. Helps me focus on the things I need to do
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1285/screenshot20110411at811.png
more...
jrko
Apr 12, 01:57 AM
oh yeah - its gonna be in my bedroom also serving as media player for watching itunes movies and streams off the internet. Its really struggling at the moment so a graphics upgrade seemed like a good idea for the price that was on offer.
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
more...
cankid96
Feb 23, 02:23 PM
Really like those changes. Finally an on/off button and the other thing sounds like a nice feature. Can 't wait to update.
EDIT: nvm
EDIT: nvm
JohnJ.
Feb 21, 03:40 PM
Add padding around the text (eg: padding:5px 10px ) .
Mr_Brightside_@
May 2, 03:17 PM
Hey, for the past few days I've been trying to search using Advanced Search (so I can specify the Forum) and have received the following error (attached). I've also attached the input I give the search.
Any ideas?
Any ideas?
Darth.Titan
Mar 1, 12:22 AM
You're going to have to be more specific. There's tons of "cool" javascript functions available, but what exactly do you want to do?
Google is your friend.
Google is your friend.
nobunaga209
Sep 10, 11:40 PM
Still repping Algiers Parrish all the way from North Texas. ;)
Zwhaler
Jan 9, 05:34 PM
I agree that we put lots of pressure to release the iPhone on Steve. But I am dissapointed to say the least.
cootersgarage6
Feb 6, 02:30 AM
I miss these commercials that Apple made I loved watching them but it's like they stopped making them!!!!!)))::
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=jN3RU8pJR74
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=jN3RU8pJR74
JoeG4
Jan 11, 04:33 PM
Yea the last one was ridiculous, and crazy overpriced for what it was -the 4cyl was quoted around $30,000 and didn't have automatic *anything*, the seats felt like park benches, and it didn't have any of the nice interior features the 6cyl that cost 35+ did.
It had cool trunk hinges and tail lights, though. And that 2.0T is a neat engine (I'm sad they are launching the 2011 with a 2.5.. wtf?!)
It had cool trunk hinges and tail lights, though. And that 2.0T is a neat engine (I'm sad they are launching the 2011 with a 2.5.. wtf?!)
No comments:
Post a Comment