You'll see OS X for x86 when Apple sells some x86 hardware. Otherwise fuggedaboudid.
An x86 laptop is NOT cheaper than a comparably brain damaged iBook. (the comparison is backwards so the statement makes sense, really.:-) Its still more bang for the buck than the x86 equivalent.
Either you're terminally broke, in which case, I feel for ya, (but not enough to send money,) or you're terminally cheap, in which case, I feel for your parents. (You should not be allowed to breed [and probably won't since girls want stuff...])
My ex-wife's running a 'bondi blue' original iMac as a firewall for hooking up her LAN linked other PCs to the 'net and the web.
Its my o-l-d hardware but it does the trick. (Nothing kills a virus like screweing with the instruction set.:-)
And Apple isn't even INTERESTED in you or
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
your academic and corporate environments.
They are raking it in doing their own stuff for their own reasons and doing such a great job of it that everything and everybody else looks, well, a little green at the gills in comparison.
Tha fact that it works for you and what you need is entirely imaterial to Jobs.
Now if only Gates would cotton on to the fact that Apple's starting to eat his lunch by NOT even trying to compete with Microsoft but by putting out by putting out great stuff that's really usable.
I'm sure that "How Apple Won The War By Not Fighting It" will make great reading in my dotage.
It should have been done back in the 1960's when high-jackings began.
It is now fourty years and thousands of deaths later and you can still walk in to the cock-pit with a knife at the throat of a stewerdess.
I'll believe that we give a [expletive deleted] about airplane safety when people can't get to/at the crew.
Until then, I'll stay on the ground.
"Cloacal vision" What a great review.
on
Book 'Em, Dano
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I almost fell of my chair laughing as my wife brought me a coffee, Thank god I wasn't drinking it at the time, because my monitor would be a mess right now.
I bet that the possibility of writing really shitty reviews about really shitty books like that only come once in a very great while.
The beauty of self publishing authors is that, once in a very great while someone dissapoints this reader by being as charming and erudite as their subject is pithy, most of the time I am reminded that the value of editors come as much from what they don't publish, and there for spare us from, as how well they do publish what they.
To quote Dorothy Parker: "That's not writing, that's typing."
What if it wasn't a T-Rex. What if it was porcine?
Pointless acts of stochastic titilation
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 1
from a point of view directly in front of and below an elephant's tail.
The concepts are cute but 'so what!'
We'll see what Apple delivers when they deliver it. RendezVous is one prime example of zero-config that just works. Expect more of THAT from Apple.
There were some innovative ideas there.
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I think that the iPod could be the spring board for a whole new kind of human factor design.
The mock-ups are just that, and some of the technology isn't there yet, but since Apple is a brand that people associate with 'expensive but insanely great' products in their niche, like B&O speakers, it might behove them to roll out a line of niche, low volume products like these (rather like, but in a smarter way, than they did the Mac Cube.)
Drugs and other illegal activities are in the same class and the fines (and jail time) apply if you get caught (for both the buyer and the sales people)
With Spam you can't hurt the Spammers directly. They're hidden and have incentive to stay that way. That's why 'bots were created.
Instead you have to hit the Spammers CUSTOMERS where it hurts... The customers are the ones who pay the Spammers to send the stuff, not me and thee who toss all of that crap into the bit bucket.
Personally, I'd like to see extensive, multi-million dollar fines levied against them and let the local authorities collect (and that will take care of them whereever they happen to actually be.)
is the law and the fines that will be applied internationally and enforced (collected) by the local authorities on the SOURCE.
If there was no Spam senders there would be no problem with Spam. Right? The problem is that we keep going after the carrier, not the beneficiary.
Fine the people for whom and on whose behalf the Spam is sent. Make it for one dollar per spam message received. Instead of sending for free, the messages end up costing more than the Post Office.
She is not a stupid woman either. Techno-babble just doesn't interest her.
There are power users (for whom three buttons and a scroll wheel aren't enough) and there are the others who, like my wife, are a bit mystified by the whole thing.
The Patent Office is in the business of granting state sanctioned monopolies on the basis of an invention of some other real advancement.
Real being the operative word. NOTHING in the software world should be protected by patent.
Derivative works (and which one of Microsoft's isn't? Apart from Clippy of course,) are already protected under COPYRIGHT.
In fact the smarter move for Microsoft is to want to strike down any attempt at software patents since these __lapse__.
The drug companies can tell you how fast too. (How would Microsoft like to see Word or Excell or MS-SQL wrested from them? That's what they are risking playing at patents.)
With copyrights, they are benefiting from what Disney has done to extend copyrights to beyond their original intent and life-spans (Like, how long until Mickey finally fuckin' dies already? Can we move on from the rat wanna-be. Please?)
With patents, the realities are MUCH harsher. Competition that could have been stopped with copyrights is encouraged (encouraged) by the governments which will get its funding not from Microsoft but from its competition. (Bill Gate's pockets are deep, but they stay deep by not doing what a thousand other fools will do, like filling somebody's pockets, for the lifting of the monopoly.)
Software patents are a BAD idea for Microsoft. Huh, let me shut up. Patents are a bad idea for Microsoft.
She can't even use her NAME as a web site. Where's the justice in that?
Kraft might as well tell Taco he can't run/. because his "nom de plume" is Taco and they wan't it. "In fact its owned by "Technical Advisors COmpany" and looks like pre-eaten tacos."
The internet tries to flatten too many regionalisms into too few TLDs. Its a stupid system of nomenclature.
Its a matter of public trust, and public funds. They should ALWAYS buy the source code. In fact, if they can't make a case for national security, it should become open source code.
If a company doesn't want to sell them the souce-code or enter into a non-competition agreement with them, they don't have to.
Failure to buy the source code is a prime example of buying a "Pig in a poke." It may cost more but I'd rather pay more and get the product than get stuck with something that can't be modified without paying outrageous prices or worse, having unmodifiable code when the company changes line of business or goes bankrupt.
News is spread by media on their way to making a buck. That's why the range of stories is so poor.
As for layoffs in an industry related to your job; while I have no doubt a pink slip would alert you to the fact after the fact; you would never know why, apart from the usual corporate brown nosing self-serving lies crying poverty and a depressed market while you CEO makes more than your entire town of butt-fuck, Arkansas.
Actually, there are reasons why your way of life looks like its dying. It was never tenable in the first place and people like Henry Ford and Robert Moses ignored the information and led you down the suburban garden path. And you would never know why if it wasn't for your better documentary film makers until it was to late to do anything pro-active to salvage your ass.
Its like IBM in the 60s (boy I feel o-l-d) and the seventies, when all of the trade rags were committing acts of stochastic tittilation trying to perceive the direction that an elephant was going in from a point of view slightly below and in front if its tail.
Apple is a live player and everybody who can't DO like to play at pre-guessing on ones who can as to what they're actually going to DO.
If they're right, they can claim guru-hood and if they're wrong, they bury the evidence in the/null/zero bit-bucket.
Until they re-instate slavery, you are a liability.
You salary is paid out of the expense side of the balance sheet. Maybe some of the crap you buy get to go on the asset side for a while but you are a liability.
Slashdot Mirror
Citizenship guarantees Service!
Questions Guarantee GITMO....
Amerika Uber Alles!
You'll see OS X for x86 when Apple sells some x86 hardware. Otherwise fuggedaboudid.
:-) Its still more bang for the buck than the x86 equivalent.
An x86 laptop is NOT cheaper than a comparably brain damaged iBook. (the comparison is backwards so the statement makes sense, really.
Either you're terminally broke, in which case, I feel for ya, (but not enough to send money,) or you're terminally cheap, in which case, I feel for your parents. (You should not be allowed to breed [and probably won't since girls want stuff...])
My ex-wife's running a 'bondi blue' original iMac as a firewall for hooking up her LAN linked other PCs to the 'net and the web.
:-)
Its my o-l-d hardware but it does the trick. (Nothing kills a virus like screweing with the instruction set.
your academic and corporate environments.
They are raking it in doing their own stuff for their own reasons and doing such a great job of it that everything and everybody else looks, well, a little green at the gills in comparison.
Tha fact that it works for you and what you need is entirely imaterial to Jobs.
Now if only Gates would cotton on to the fact that Apple's starting to eat his lunch by NOT even trying to compete with Microsoft but by putting out by putting out great stuff that's really usable.
I'm sure that "How Apple Won The War By Not Fighting It" will make great reading in my dotage.
Its possible to construct perfectly correct use cases for an elevator which strands everybody on the roof.
Its also possible to construct use cases which don't make any sense (by not requiring the holes in the floors.)
It should have been done back in the 1960's when high-jackings began.
It is now fourty years and thousands of deaths later and you can still walk in to the cock-pit with a knife at the throat of a stewerdess.
I'll believe that we give a [expletive deleted] about airplane safety when people can't get to/at the crew.
Until then, I'll stay on the ground.
I almost fell of my chair laughing as my wife brought me a coffee, Thank god I wasn't drinking it at the time, because my monitor would be a mess right now.
I bet that the possibility of writing really shitty reviews about really shitty books like that only come once in a very great while.
The beauty of self publishing authors is that, once in a very great while someone dissapoints this reader by being as charming and erudite as their subject is pithy, most of the time I am reminded that the value of editors come as much from what they don't publish, and there for spare us from, as how well they do publish what they.
To quote Dorothy Parker: "That's not writing, that's typing."
What if it wasn't a T-Rex. What if it was porcine?
from a point of view directly in front of and below an elephant's tail.
The concepts are cute but 'so what!'
We'll see what Apple delivers when they deliver it. RendezVous is one prime example of zero-config that just works. Expect more of THAT from Apple.
I think that the iPod could be the spring board for a whole new kind of human factor design.
The mock-ups are just that, and some of the technology isn't there yet, but since Apple is a brand that people associate with 'expensive but insanely great' products in their niche, like B&O speakers, it might behove them to roll out a line of niche, low volume products like these (rather like, but in a smarter way, than they did the Mac Cube.)
economically viable.
Drugs and other illegal activities are in the same class and the fines (and jail time) apply if you get caught (for both the buyer and the sales people)
With Spam you can't hurt the Spammers directly. They're hidden and have incentive to stay that way. That's why 'bots were created.
Instead you have to hit the Spammers CUSTOMERS where it hurts... The customers are the ones who pay the Spammers to send the stuff, not me and thee who toss all of that crap into the bit bucket.
Personally, I'd like to see extensive, multi-million dollar fines levied against them and let the local authorities collect (and that will take care of them whereever they happen to actually be.)
is the law and the fines that will be applied internationally and enforced (collected) by the local authorities on the SOURCE.
If there was no Spam senders there would be no problem with Spam. Right? The problem is that we keep going after the carrier, not the beneficiary.
Fine the people for whom and on whose behalf the Spam is sent. Make it for one dollar per spam message received. Instead of sending for free, the messages end up costing more than the Post Office.
This is likely to suck just as badly.
They'll probably never know anyway as it would take them off the Spam circuit.
Canada's Baby Bonus (paid to new 'heads of households') & Old Age Pension (paid to 65+ year olds,) because he had a wife that was half his age.
In his case that database would be entirely accurate.
And she hasn't quite got the point.
She is not a stupid woman either. Techno-babble just doesn't interest her.
There are power users (for whom three buttons and a scroll wheel aren't enough) and there are the others who, like my wife, are a bit mystified by the whole thing.
I wouldn't want to be caught outdoors when it rains.
have shovel indentations in their faces and arrows sticking out if their backs.
We just went through an industry shakeout and lost about a trillion bucks because people weren't careful.
We prefer risk MANAGERS to risk takers, when we aren't totally risk averse.
with copyright issues.
The Patent Office is in the business of granting state sanctioned monopolies on the basis of an invention of some other real advancement.
Real being the operative word. NOTHING in the software world should be protected by patent.
Derivative works (and which one of Microsoft's isn't? Apart from Clippy of course,) are already protected under COPYRIGHT.
In fact the smarter move for Microsoft is to want to strike down any attempt at software patents since these __lapse__.
The drug companies can tell you how fast too. (How would Microsoft like to see Word or Excell or MS-SQL wrested from them? That's what they are risking playing at patents.)
With copyrights, they are benefiting from what Disney has done to extend copyrights to beyond their original intent and life-spans (Like, how long until Mickey finally fuckin' dies already? Can we move on from the rat wanna-be. Please?)
With patents, the realities are MUCH harsher. Competition that could have been stopped with copyrights is encouraged (encouraged) by the governments which will get its funding not from Microsoft but from its competition. (Bill Gate's pockets are deep, but they stay deep by not doing what a thousand other fools will do, like filling somebody's pockets, for the lifting of the monopoly.)
Software patents are a BAD idea for Microsoft. Huh, let me shut up. Patents are a bad idea for Microsoft.
Milka Budimir.
/. because his "nom de plume" is Taco and they wan't it. "In fact its owned by "Technical Advisors COmpany" and looks like pre-eaten tacos."
She can't even use her NAME as a web site. Where's the justice in that?
Kraft might as well tell Taco he can't run
The internet tries to flatten too many regionalisms into too few TLDs. Its a stupid system of nomenclature.
Its a matter of public trust, and public funds. They should ALWAYS buy the source code. In fact, if they can't make a case for national security, it should become open source code.
If a company doesn't want to sell them the souce-code or enter into a non-competition agreement with them, they don't have to.
Failure to buy the source code is a prime example of buying a "Pig in a poke." It may cost more but I'd rather pay more and get the product than get stuck with something that can't be modified without paying outrageous prices or worse, having unmodifiable code when the company changes line of business or goes bankrupt.
News is spread by media on their way to making a buck. That's why the range of stories is so poor.
As for layoffs in an industry related to your job; while I have no doubt a pink slip would alert you to the fact after the fact; you would never know why, apart from the usual corporate brown nosing self-serving lies crying poverty and a depressed market while you CEO makes more than your entire town of butt-fuck, Arkansas.
Actually, there are reasons why your way of life looks like its dying. It was never tenable in the first place and people like Henry Ford and Robert Moses ignored the information and led you down the suburban garden path. And you would never know why if it wasn't for your better documentary film makers until it was to late to do anything pro-active to salvage your ass.
Its like IBM in the 60s (boy I feel o-l-d) and the seventies, when all of the trade rags were committing acts of stochastic tittilation trying to perceive the direction that an elephant was going in from a point of view slightly below and in front if its tail.
/null/zero bit-bucket.
Apple is a live player and everybody who can't DO like to play at pre-guessing on ones who can as to what they're actually going to DO.
If they're right, they can claim guru-hood and if they're wrong, they bury the evidence in the
fact that the hardware choices and pretty standard as to the protocols that they must communicate through.
Until they re-instate slavery, you are a liability.
You salary is paid out of the expense side of the balance sheet. Maybe some of the crap you buy get to go on the asset side for a while but you are a liability.