Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 13-inch MacBook to be Bumped to 2.4GHz, NVIDIA 320M
- Thread starter MagicWok
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Off topic
That's just a story told Stateside to stop Vietnam vets from blowing all their relief on cheap beer and then committing suicide! The US is built on the ******** creed that 'losing isn't an option', but frequently has to redefine winning in the wake of catastrophe.
The fact is that the Vietnamese Army was defending their homeland, was better organised, better motivated and prepared to live on a lot less than their American invaders.
They behaved the same way the defenders of any invaded country would, and benefited from having been at war with one invader or another from the 1500s onwards. The modern conflict began with French colonialism from 1859.
Militarily the US forces were out smarted at every level, despite modern weapons, training and superior numbers. However, the only really useful advantage the US ever had were a secure supply chain and, for a long period, unlimited resources [including draft fodder] - which allowed them to last as long as they did.
But the fact is it's impossible to beat any army that's prepared to live on rice in a hole in the ground, and push ordnance to battle on a bicycle. So, even though the US government eventually pulled the plug, the war was already lost - because it could never have been won.
But, there's no such thing as a military defeat that isn't affected by political factors. And political factors are often precipitated by military failures.
Victory is his who still holds the ground when the shooting stops. But you don't ever win by systematically alienating, or totally annihilating the population! The US tried both by various degrees, and it only created a stronger resistance and a weakened support for the war at home.
Finally, if the US military was capable of learning that, they would have done so after the US Cavalry covered themselves in shame at Wounded Knee and Rosebud Creek.
That's just a story told Stateside to stop Vietnam vets from blowing all their relief on cheap beer and then committing suicide! The US is built on the ******** creed that 'losing isn't an option', but frequently has to redefine winning in the wake of catastrophe.
The fact is that the Vietnamese Army was defending their homeland, was better organised, better motivated and prepared to live on a lot less than their American invaders.
They behaved the same way the defenders of any invaded country would, and benefited from having been at war with one invader or another from the 1500s onwards. The modern conflict began with French colonialism from 1859.
Militarily the US forces were out smarted at every level, despite modern weapons, training and superior numbers. However, the only really useful advantage the US ever had were a secure supply chain and, for a long period, unlimited resources [including draft fodder] - which allowed them to last as long as they did.
But the fact is it's impossible to beat any army that's prepared to live on rice in a hole in the ground, and push ordnance to battle on a bicycle. So, even though the US government eventually pulled the plug, the war was already lost - because it could never have been won.
But, there's no such thing as a military defeat that isn't affected by political factors. And political factors are often precipitated by military failures.
Victory is his who still holds the ground when the shooting stops. But you don't ever win by systematically alienating, or totally annihilating the population! The US tried both by various degrees, and it only created a stronger resistance and a weakened support for the war at home.
Finally, if the US military was capable of learning that, they would have done so after the US Cavalry covered themselves in shame at Wounded Knee and Rosebud Creek.
Just for Grins and Giggles!
For some laughs, I offer a before and after for you folks out there!
BEFORE
This turned into the following response.
AFTER
Note: aiqw doesn't understand, even upon explanation, why the bolded sentence above is unintentionally humorous.
3 main issues with this case of psychosis and self-deception:
1) Context? You think context makes sense of your failed attempt at wit?
2) Aiqw, this will irk you: I am not pissed off, but in fact chucklingly entertained.
3) I'm not actually arguing about plastics vs aluminum. That's what makes you a loser, Aiqw. Why do you care so much about plastic vs aluminum? Again, unless you're doing this at gunpoint, every post you make gives us all a chance to laugh at you.
Did you actually read my gentle, dumbed-down explanation, or do you need an easier one?
There is absolutely no way I can interact with you which would result in your feeling any differently. The difference between us is without bounds.
For some laughs, I offer a before and after for you folks out there!
BEFORE
This turned into the following response.
AFTER
Failing hard because it's a reply that was negatively directed towards you, right?
Note: aiqw doesn't understand, even upon explanation, why the bolded sentence above is unintentionally humorous.
Sounds like you went from trying to be a saint to getting pissed off because I responded to you. Substituting words doesn't mean the context stays the same, maybe you should've gone to English class to learn about context instead of just writing juxtapose on a notecard and think you are of higher class after you finally remembered what it meant. You want childish? Someone reading 14 pages on a forum then inadvertently calling someone a loser for arguing when you've just locked yourself into the same thing.
3 main issues with this case of psychosis and self-deception:
1) Context? You think context makes sense of your failed attempt at wit?
2) Aiqw, this will irk you: I am not pissed off, but in fact chucklingly entertained.
3) I'm not actually arguing about plastics vs aluminum. That's what makes you a loser, Aiqw. Why do you care so much about plastic vs aluminum? Again, unless you're doing this at gunpoint, every post you make gives us all a chance to laugh at you.
Passing time doesn't qualify? So because I want to pass some time it doesn't qualify for wanting to continue to refute responses?
Did you actually read my gentle, dumbed-down explanation, or do you need an easier one?
There is absolutely no way I can interact with you which would result in your feeling any differently. The difference between us is without bounds.
My thoughts are the same here...
If these are "controlled" leaks - then Steve must be loving it...
If these leaks are "uncontrolled" - then Steve must be passing a cow!
Than again, it's just another way for Apple to dominate the headlines without doing keynotes.
You sure are a sad, strange little man. Lets begin, shall we?
2) You are just trying to play this off like you are "entertained" by a couple of words of text because you felt the need to read through a 14 page thread and be condescending the second you finished reading it.
3) So I'm a loser (keeping in mind you essentially called 98% of the other people in this thread losers) because I'm arguing about something that you don't think is worth arguing. Why do I care so much about plastics and aluminum? I don't. I simply respond to people who respond to me, this is a forum.
You quoted something of mine that pertained to the entire post. Not one section. Try again.
1) Failed attempt at wit? Maybe that's why you don't get it. I wasn't trying to be witty.
2) You are just trying to play this off like you are "entertained" by a couple of words of text because you felt the need to read through a 14 page thread and be condescending the second you finished reading it.
3) So I'm a loser (keeping in mind you essentially called 98% of the other people in this thread losers) because I'm arguing about something that you don't think is worth arguing. Why do I care so much about plastics and aluminum? I don't. I simply respond to people who respond to me, this is a forum.
You want cash value? Here you go. "I've already read through 14 pages of this thread just to be an ******* and I have to make a condescending smug bastard out of myself on this site or else my day won't feel complete."
Hope you feel accomplished, I'm sure everyone around you absolutely loves your of higher value attitude.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11) Sprint PPC6850SP)
(to Shiftypig) "... aluminum is intrinsicly stronger than plastic..." --- Aluminum is a relatively soft metal. (I haven't heard of Apple's alum. being an alloy, which does strengthen alum.) Could this softnedd explain why the Macbook Air's 2 solid aluminum slabs get pried apart by the hinge?
(to Shiftypig) "... aluminum is intrinsicly stronger than plastic..." --- Aluminum is a relatively soft metal. (I haven't heard of Apple's alum. being an alloy, which does strengthen alum.) Could this softnedd explain why the Macbook Air's 2 solid aluminum slabs get pried apart by the hinge?
IIRC Apple used to make PowerBooks from titanium or unicorn tears or something. That must have been even more expensive!
Rabble rabble rabble.
I like the flow of the two arguments here. Vietnam being an unwinable war along with the thread itself..
Rabble rabble rabble.
I like the flow of the two arguments here. Vietnam being an unwinable war along with the thread itself..
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.11) Sprint PPC6850SP)
Oops. Part 2 to shiftypig: The Air's 2 aluminum slabs on keyboard hald, don't fail by bending, but whatever bolts / etc. are structurally pulling that sandwich together, seem to fail. (See pix on Google, or videos of this on U-Tube.) Is that because they screw directly into soft solid alum.? Or do they screw into a "threaded insert" which itself has difficulty staying strongly anchored into the soft solid aluminum slab? The hinge seems to act as a crowbar, prying upper and lower alum. slabs part (seen best in back views.) ///// Were the titanium ones made before Ive employed the CNC router? If so, how WERE the titanium cases fabricated? Fun Fact: Architect Frank Gehry said he switched from stainless steel to titanium sheets on the famously curvaceous Guggenheim Bilbao museum, for the slightly golden tint the titanium gets at sunset... but that he was able to affford it only because a lot of titanium from Russia came onto the market, and lowered the price. ----- I wonder, would CNC routed titaniuum be stronger than CNC routed aluminum, at least for the Air (which BTW, needs a slightly stiffer lid too)? ///// As an incipient convert to Mac, I'm amazed at how many pounds of (inner-sleeve) padding, and (Speck) cladding that people seem to need to add, to these supposedly tuff-enuff MacBooks. I can buy any electric shaver made, and it doesn't need any after-market crap added to it; in fact nobody even seems to sell extra padding & cladding for shavers. Or cars. Etc. What's Apple's excuse? A MacBook should be a complete product, as-sold, not needing more armoring to be added to it.
Oops. Part 2 to shiftypig: The Air's 2 aluminum slabs on keyboard hald, don't fail by bending, but whatever bolts / etc. are structurally pulling that sandwich together, seem to fail. (See pix on Google, or videos of this on U-Tube.) Is that because they screw directly into soft solid alum.? Or do they screw into a "threaded insert" which itself has difficulty staying strongly anchored into the soft solid aluminum slab? The hinge seems to act as a crowbar, prying upper and lower alum. slabs part (seen best in back views.) ///// Were the titanium ones made before Ive employed the CNC router? If so, how WERE the titanium cases fabricated? Fun Fact: Architect Frank Gehry said he switched from stainless steel to titanium sheets on the famously curvaceous Guggenheim Bilbao museum, for the slightly golden tint the titanium gets at sunset... but that he was able to affford it only because a lot of titanium from Russia came onto the market, and lowered the price. ----- I wonder, would CNC routed titaniuum be stronger than CNC routed aluminum, at least for the Air (which BTW, needs a slightly stiffer lid too)? ///// As an incipient convert to Mac, I'm amazed at how many pounds of (inner-sleeve) padding, and (Speck) cladding that people seem to need to add, to these supposedly tuff-enuff MacBooks. I can buy any electric shaver made, and it doesn't need any after-market crap added to it; in fact nobody even seems to sell extra padding & cladding for shavers. Or cars. Etc. What's Apple's excuse? A MacBook should be a complete product, as-sold, not needing more armoring to be added to it.
faster hdd means more heating and less battery time. and those machines are so small, you know
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
This thread is an absolute disaster.
This thread is an absolute disaster.
LOL. I "think" I got that joke, but still a 2nd guess. I like it though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgJ-vzsj8rs
obviously pure aluminum like that used in the macbook pro has other attributes which contribute to its value, such as weight/volume, its a semi conductor, rarity versus other materials (or cost of mining) etc...
These attributes can usually increase its demand, which therefore then effect the value placed on the material.
Apple uses aluminum just slightly below the grade used in aircraft manufacturing. Its 99.xx% pure (cannot find the exact number at the moment).
And just because aluminum is soft does not mean it is not strong. Aluminum is incredibly strong. The applications range from engine blocks to automotive wheels to turbine engines to aircraft and automotive body panels to automotive suspension parts.
Think about commercial airplanes and cars such as the acura NSX or current Ferraris.
Titanium is definitely stronger than aluminum. And the Titanium PowerBook was mostly plastic.