Seriously though: Apple has made no bones about the fact that it's focusing more and more on lifestyle computing at the expense of their traditional computing product lines. This has to be one of the more extreme examples of that fact: Apple would rather ship a phone than keep their operating system schedule.
I would much rather see Leapord arrive on time than the iPhone ever see the light of day. But, in their defense, Apple is, and always has been, a hardware company that makes their own software. Everything they do points directly to this fact.
First off, assuming that the Bible has any bearing on my actions is a mistake. Whether you interpret it literally or not has about as much impact on my life as the price of tea in China. The "piece of parchment" you describe is an attempt to codify the "ideas and concepts" of our founding fathers. Would you honestly trust those ideas to be passed dot through the generations through word of mouth? Of course not. Over the past 200 years we have had every oppurtunity to change the Constitution, and on occasion we have. It is not some old relic from 2 centuries ago. It is a profound document that can change to suit the times. Here's a buzz phrase, "Checks and balances." The states have every right to challenge the national government on issues not expressly given to the national government. Instead of defending its case, the federal government opts to withhold tax money from the states until they comply. Kinda like putting the states under seige. So, enough with the fear mongering. Since the federal government has the burden of proof on why we need this, tell me, why do we NEED this?
I think everyone needs to step back and realize that you can't substitute parental supervision and responsibility with legislation. As long as Mom and Dad aren't looking, he kids will find ways to get into all sorts of trouble.
It seems to me that if the various companies that distibute open source software want to start making a dent in the world of the average home user, schools would be the place to start. When I was in high school I had the oppurtunity to participate in an intership with the District's IT department. It was at a time when they were switching their servers to Linux (I can't recall wich distro). That was my first experience with FOSS and it left a lasting impression. I tried a few differnet Linux distro's at the time, incl. Red Hat, Mandrake, and Turbo Linux. I eventually gave up on it because of compatibility with the Windoze regime. I use Mac now, (and OOo) but would go back to Linux before WIndoze.
Anyway, the point is that if we expose young people to Linux, Open Office and other open source software before they fall into the Microsoft flock. Even if they don't all decide to use it at home, how many more would use it that would otherwise never know it even existed?
Also, in school districts like mine that have a limited tax base because they are in a dry county and gambling/lotteries are illegal, OSS can be a great way to bring technology into schools without having to choose between teachers/books/classrooms and computers/ servers/administrators.
Yes, but Microsoft are a commercial enterprise. We expect them to do stuff like that.
Apple, on the other hand, are a bunch of enlightened superhumans who sit around on raffia mats weaving starlight into incredible software which they then give away free for the good of humanity. Should they accidentally make any money it's donated to orphans.
That's the impression I get from Apple users anyway.
That's a very nice sweeping generalization. Not all Mac users are fanboys.
A) I have a Cingular 8125 which is absolutely worthless with my iMac. Why can't Mac users have a smartphone, that works with Windows no less?
B) It is steep, but people have paid more for less. There are enough Mac users, IMHO, who need/want a smartphone. Not to mention the fanbois.
C) Exactly!
D) Many phones are tied to a single carrier because different carriers use different technologies (Cingular uses GSM and SIM cards, for example) and it is easier to develop for one carrier, at least initially. That is what happened with the RAZR.
When GM can make $6,000-$10,000 profit on every SUV sold, why wouldn't they make them? Its not like they forced anyone to buy them. If people were so concerned about the enviornment and foreign oil, they could just as easliy bought a (cheaper) more fuel efficient vehicles like a minivans, wagons and mid-size sedans and GM would have poured all their money into developing those becasue that is what people will buy. I like people who believe the myth that corporations are out there to do you a favor or save the universe. They exist to make money and do so soley buy selling things people want.
You obviously have no idea how the auto industry works. It is highly regulated and developing a car from scratch takes years. Cars like the EV1, closer to a decade. Auto makers are require by law to service vehicles for x number of years. GM did what was in its own best interest. If they had never made the EV1, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least they did something. Its no their fault nobody signed up. Why do you think Honda, DCX, Nissan, or no one else has made an electric car? Or does that just not fit into your conspiracy theory? Tesla?? Oooh, a $100,000 roadster. I bet all the old EV1 owners are lined up to buy that. Vote with your wallet. Buy a Mazda, at least they didn't kill any electric cars.
GM stopped selling the EV1 because no one was buying them. They took them all back after their leases were up because they could not possibly train technicians all over the country to service them. I don't suppose anyone remembers the ill-fated Rav4-EV? Even Toyota thinks that "Who Killed the Electic Car?" was overly critical of GM. Anyone care to take a few swings at eco-friendly Toyota for doing the same as GM? Gotta love good old anti-American car biases.
Note: link is to forum at gminsidenews.com. he original article was from the Detroit Free Press, but has been moved or taken down.
I know this is probably flamebait anyway, but I'll bite. First off, saying American people like to drive "big SUV which have lazy fat motors" is like saying Europeans drive cars that make them look stuck up. There are plenty of people who don't like big SUVs. Why do you think Toyotas, Hondas, and Hyundais sell so well in America? Fuel stingy Toyota has already surpassed Ford and its lazy fat (discontinued) Excursion in market share, so what does that tell you? I'm not defending many Americans' decision to drive fuel inefficient vehicles, but I won't go so far as to take that choice away from them.
I do wish that Europeans' tastes' for diesels would reach our shores. I think they are a great alternative to anemic small displacement gas engines and hybrids. As for American cars' "several decades old" motors, that may have been true even 8 years ago, but today is the exception rather than the rule. Look at Ford's Duratec, GM's Ecotec and LSx engines. Even the small block Chevy, now in its 53rd year, bears little resemblence to the original, or event o its predecessor from 3-4 years ago.
The biggest problem I see with the EPA is that they use static tests that haven't been updated much in 30 years. Thus, there are two ways vehicle manufacturers can go about engineering for fuel effeciency. The first way is to engineer vehicles that are efficient in real world driving conditions (driving 65+ mph on the interstate, lots of stop and go driving less than 45 mph). Or, they can engineer cars to utilize the testing process to achieve the best possible numbers, which may or may not reflect real world economy. Either way is an acceptable way to conduct buisness. The problem lies in that manufacturers may only legaly advertise the numbers determined by the EPA. So, if they design their cars to pass the test, so to speak, you get inflated numbers. The inverse is true of vehicles designed for real world efficiency. Engineering a vehicle for real world results net deflated EPA numbers. And since you can only post those numbers, your negative difference from actual economy plus your competitors positive difference from actual ecomomy gives a severly biased comparison to window shoppers.
Slashdot Mirror
I would much rather see Leapord arrive on time than the iPhone ever see the light of day. But, in their defense, Apple is, and always has been, a hardware company that makes their own software. Everything they do points directly to this fact.
Hello Palm Jumeirah!
What's really amazing is that of the 228 post in this thread, 22 are yours. Why so compelled to speak up? And still not say much.
First off, assuming that the Bible has any bearing on my actions is a mistake. Whether you interpret it literally or not has about as much impact on my life as the price of tea in China. The "piece of parchment" you describe is an attempt to codify the "ideas and concepts" of our founding fathers. Would you honestly trust those ideas to be passed dot through the generations through word of mouth? Of course not. Over the past 200 years we have had every oppurtunity to change the Constitution, and on occasion we have. It is not some old relic from 2 centuries ago. It is a profound document that can change to suit the times. Here's a buzz phrase, "Checks and balances." The states have every right to challenge the national government on issues not expressly given to the national government. Instead of defending its case, the federal government opts to withhold tax money from the states until they comply. Kinda like putting the states under seige. So, enough with the fear mongering. Since the federal government has the burden of proof on why we need this, tell me, why do we NEED this?
Do you just pick and choose which parts of The Constitution fit your arguement? Its all or nothing buddy, and no ones on your side.
How could they forget the living legend, Al Gore?
I think everyone needs to step back and realize that you can't substitute parental supervision and responsibility with legislation. As long as Mom and Dad aren't looking, he kids will find ways to get into all sorts of trouble.
Anyway, the point is that if we expose young people to Linux, Open Office and other open source software before they fall into the Microsoft flock. Even if they don't all decide to use it at home, how many more would use it that would otherwise never know it even existed?
Also, in school districts like mine that have a limited tax base because they are in a dry county and gambling/lotteries are illegal, OSS can be a great way to bring technology into schools without having to choose between teachers/books/classrooms and computers/ servers/administrators.
Of course its Darwinism. The scientist are just helping the idiots along. I say keep it up.
That's a very nice sweeping generalization. Not all Mac users are fanboys.
How dare Apple!!
Oh wait, by most accounts, Tiger is still as good or better than Vista.
A) I have a Cingular 8125 which is absolutely worthless with my iMac. Why can't Mac users have a smartphone, that works with Windows no less? B) It is steep, but people have paid more for less. There are enough Mac users, IMHO, who need/want a smartphone. Not to mention the fanbois. C) Exactly! D) Many phones are tied to a single carrier because different carriers use different technologies (Cingular uses GSM and SIM cards, for example) and it is easier to develop for one carrier, at least initially. That is what happened with the RAZR.
When GM can make $6,000-$10,000 profit on every SUV sold, why wouldn't they make them? Its not like they forced anyone to buy them. If people were so concerned about the enviornment and foreign oil, they could just as easliy bought a (cheaper) more fuel efficient vehicles like a minivans, wagons and mid-size sedans and GM would have poured all their money into developing those becasue that is what people will buy. I like people who believe the myth that corporations are out there to do you a favor or save the universe. They exist to make money and do so soley buy selling things people want.
You obviously have no idea how the auto industry works. It is highly regulated and developing a car from scratch takes years. Cars like the EV1, closer to a decade. Auto makers are require by law to service vehicles for x number of years. GM did what was in its own best interest. If they had never made the EV1, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least they did something. Its no their fault nobody signed up. Why do you think Honda, DCX, Nissan, or no one else has made an electric car? Or does that just not fit into your conspiracy theory? Tesla?? Oooh, a $100,000 roadster. I bet all the old EV1 owners are lined up to buy that. Vote with your wallet. Buy a Mazda, at least they didn't kill any electric cars.
GM stopped selling the EV1 because no one was buying them. They took them all back after their leases were up because they could not possibly train technicians all over the country to service them. I don't suppose anyone remembers the ill-fated Rav4-EV? Even Toyota thinks that "Who Killed the Electic Car?" was overly critical of GM. Anyone care to take a few swings at eco-friendly Toyota for doing the same as GM? Gotta love good old anti-American car biases.
Note: link is to forum at gminsidenews.com. he original article was from the Detroit Free Press, but has been moved or taken down.
Get my wife a cat!
I know this is probably flamebait anyway, but I'll bite. First off, saying American people like to drive "big SUV which have lazy fat motors" is like saying Europeans drive cars that make them look stuck up. There are plenty of people who don't like big SUVs. Why do you think Toyotas, Hondas, and Hyundais sell so well in America? Fuel stingy Toyota has already surpassed Ford and its lazy fat (discontinued) Excursion in market share, so what does that tell you? I'm not defending many Americans' decision to drive fuel inefficient vehicles, but I won't go so far as to take that choice away from them. I do wish that Europeans' tastes' for diesels would reach our shores. I think they are a great alternative to anemic small displacement gas engines and hybrids. As for American cars' "several decades old" motors, that may have been true even 8 years ago, but today is the exception rather than the rule. Look at Ford's Duratec, GM's Ecotec and LSx engines. Even the small block Chevy, now in its 53rd year, bears little resemblence to the original, or event o its predecessor from 3-4 years ago.
I was trying to show the competitive disadvantage of engineering cars for real world economy under the current system.
The biggest problem I see with the EPA is that they use static tests that haven't been updated much in 30 years. Thus, there are two ways vehicle manufacturers can go about engineering for fuel effeciency. The first way is to engineer vehicles that are efficient in real world driving conditions (driving 65+ mph on the interstate, lots of stop and go driving less than 45 mph). Or, they can engineer cars to utilize the testing process to achieve the best possible numbers, which may or may not reflect real world economy. Either way is an acceptable way to conduct buisness. The problem lies in that manufacturers may only legaly advertise the numbers determined by the EPA. So, if they design their cars to pass the test, so to speak, you get inflated numbers. The inverse is true of vehicles designed for real world efficiency. Engineering a vehicle for real world results net deflated EPA numbers. And since you can only post those numbers, your negative difference from actual economy plus your competitors positive difference from actual ecomomy gives a severly biased comparison to window shoppers.
What about the children?http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?s id=06/11/25/013213