Translation: "I've never used an iPhone 4 in my life, but that's not going to stop me from telling you all about how slow and clunky its CPU is. Instead, I recommend that you buy a phone designed by an ad agency."
What I'm saying is that there's often something wrong with any major new product, from Apple or anyone else, that bothers users more (or bothers more users) than the iPhone 4 antenna did. Ordinarily these shortcomings don't turn into PR disasters where the CEO has to show up at the press conference and fall on his sword.
Because they got clobbered out of left field by an army of concern trolls with an agenda.
The antenna was a minor technical failing in an otherwise-excellent product, but when even Jobs couldn't wave his hand and make the PR problem go away, it was obvious that it wasn't really about the antenna.
Car audio is no joke. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a $400 sound/navigation head unit to everyone who owns a car and has $400. Current products, both OEM and aftermarket, are that awful.
Apple is absolutely the right player for the autosound market, because it's just like cell phones and MP3 players were when they entered those markets: an incumbent confederacy of cranio-rectal corporations who couldn't design a leaf blower that didn't suck.
Watches and jewelry and clothes and other forms of licensed bling are also not laughing matters in high-end consumer sectors. In the middle of a global financial recession, do you think Ferrari makes $2 billion in gross revenue from selling cars?
Buying stock in a company that does pay dividends is buying stock in a company that literally has more cash than they know what to do with.
This is not good, long-term, if the company is a major player in a fast-moving technology sector. It means they have no vision for the future and no insights on how to leverage their own assets, so they're just "giving the money back to the stockholders," to quote Michael Dell's advice to Apple.
You have only to look at Microsoft under Ballmer for a perfect example of this.
The concern isn't so much that advertisers will change Wikipedia's editorial policies, but that there will be a strong economic incentive to write crappy Associated Content/eHow-style entries if there is any Adsense money to be gained by doing so. You know, the sorts of useless pages that have come to dominate the first page of most Google searches for anything besides C functions.
I see their point and agree with it, which is why I donate to Wikipedia every year.
(Actually I'm still not phrasing that very well: I should say "Switching back to regular time in the fall gives us an extra hour of daylight in the morning, but we need it more in the afternoon during the winter, so it would be better if we just stayed on DST year-round.")
A fine thing that would be for the working people. Seeing sunlight only on weekends during most of the winter.
Um, that's exactly what happens now.
One... THAT is not the DST. That is the "regular time" you are complaining about.
Right; DST "saves" daylight only in the morning, not in the evenings when it's actually needed. Most people are more active in the evenings than in the mornings, when they're just trying to get to work.
Two... If the DST was kept on the whole year round, the sun wouldn't rise 'till 8 or 9 in the morning in December-January.
We lose light at both ends of the day, and an extra hour in the morning doesn't make much difference.
I just flew on American Friday night from Honolulu to Chicago; 45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later
Are you sure your plane didn't crash on an uncharted island with a temporal anomaly?
It does in the northern latitudes of the US, anyway. Just as we start to lose our evening daylight hours in the fall, along comes the DST change to rob yet another hour of usable light.
It's not the stupidest damn thing ever, but it's gotta be in the top 100, somewhere.
So what about the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired driving laws have led to a reduction in impaired driving in just about every jurisdiction where it's been done?
So the fact that unconstitutional tactics work can be used to justify their employment? Gee, Josef, if we take away everyone's car, I'll bet that will cut down on impaired-driving deaths even more!
If "driving around without a drunk test" belongs on the list of those freedoms
Murdering babies with a Sawzall doesn't belong on that lits of freedoms, either, but you know what? We'll still follow due process and give you a fair trial if you're accused of doing that.
Nobody is defending drunk drivers. What the other people here are trying to get across to you, and what you steadfastly refuse to understand for some reason, is that DUI should not be considered an exception to the Constitution. Get some abstract thinking skills, willya?
"What's next?" is not an argument. If we require drivers licenses, what's next -- permits to walk on the sidewalk? No.
I love nitpicky posts like this. It's easy (and fun) to imagine the poster lying in a bruised and emaciated state, eyes wild and unfocused, days at most away from death, as he howls into the frozen Siberian night: "But the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy! How were we supposed to see it coming? It isn't faaaaaaiiiirrrrr!"
Personally, I think the worst part of all this is that they still lie to us and tell us we're free. We aren't and weren't, and at this rate, never will be.
The lies never stop at any level of authoritarianism. Hence the popularity of words like "Democratic" and "People's" in the names of totalitarian hellholes everywhere.
It's likely that IQ tests and other exams he took in college are not indicative of his mental performance in his late 50s. 20 years of heavy alcohol and coke use can't be good for the ol' gray matter.
They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average
That's just selection bias. Stupid people rarely achieve positions that give them the power to commit acts of great evil. Dubya was an exception -- one we can largely write off to nepotism -- and not the rule.
The US electorate is doing its level best to change that rule, of course.
According to the article, "the decision is expected to make Skype, UUCall and other similar services unavailable in China", and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits
So how's that Communism thing working out for you guys? Are we beginning to figure out that all economic systems are eventually distorted and manipulated to serve the cause of greater government power?
Slashdot Mirror
Saying something nice about the iPhone is doubly so.
And I didn't even do that! The only troll in that cave was the one that Android Guy brought in with him.
Translation: "I've never used an iPhone 4 in my life, but that's not going to stop me from telling you all about how slow and clunky its CPU is. Instead, I recommend that you buy a phone designed by an ad agency."
What I'm saying is that there's often something wrong with any major new product, from Apple or anyone else, that bothers users more (or bothers more users) than the iPhone 4 antenna did. Ordinarily these shortcomings don't turn into PR disasters where the CEO has to show up at the press conference and fall on his sword.
Which was necessary to address the harm done by previous government regulations (the ones that gave Ma Bell her monopoly.)
'Roz Ho'? What's that, Vietnamese for 'Steve Ballmer'?
Because they got clobbered out of left field by an army of concern trolls with an agenda.
The antenna was a minor technical failing in an otherwise-excellent product, but when even Jobs couldn't wave his hand and make the PR problem go away, it was obvious that it wasn't really about the antenna.
With engineers like that, who needs competitors?
Translation: I drive a '94 Escort with fenders and quarter panels in the +3 oxidation state
Cool plane, sad you've got rid of it, make a new one =P
Nothing like it will ever be built again. :( All reconnaissance aircraft from now on are likely to be unmanned.
And there's a related saying in the US Navy: The last American fighter pilot has already been born.
Car audio is no joke. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a $400 sound/navigation head unit to everyone who owns a car and has $400. Current products, both OEM and aftermarket, are that awful.
Apple is absolutely the right player for the autosound market, because it's just like cell phones and MP3 players were when they entered those markets: an incumbent confederacy of cranio-rectal corporations who couldn't design a leaf blower that didn't suck.
Watches and jewelry and clothes and other forms of licensed bling are also not laughing matters in high-end consumer sectors. In the middle of a global financial recession, do you think Ferrari makes $2 billion in gross revenue from selling cars?
Buying stock in a company that does pay dividends is buying stock in a company that literally has more cash than they know what to do with.
This is not good, long-term, if the company is a major player in a fast-moving technology sector. It means they have no vision for the future and no insights on how to leverage their own assets, so they're just "giving the money back to the stockholders," to quote Michael Dell's advice to Apple.
You have only to look at Microsoft under Ballmer for a perfect example of this.
The concern isn't so much that advertisers will change Wikipedia's editorial policies, but that there will be a strong economic incentive to write crappy Associated Content/eHow-style entries if there is any Adsense money to be gained by doing so. You know, the sorts of useless pages that have come to dominate the first page of most Google searches for anything besides C functions.
I see their point and agree with it, which is why I donate to Wikipedia every year.
(Actually I'm still not phrasing that very well: I should say "Switching back to regular time in the fall gives us an extra hour of daylight in the morning, but we need it more in the afternoon during the winter, so it would be better if we just stayed on DST year-round.")
A fine thing that would be for the working people. Seeing sunlight only on weekends during most of the winter.
Um, that's exactly what happens now.
One... THAT is not the DST. That is the "regular time" you are complaining about.
Right; DST "saves" daylight only in the morning, not in the evenings when it's actually needed. Most people are more active in the evenings than in the mornings, when they're just trying to get to work.
Two... If the DST was kept on the whole year round, the sun wouldn't rise 'till 8 or 9 in the morning in December-January.
We lose light at both ends of the day, and an extra hour in the morning doesn't make much difference.
I just flew on American Friday night from Honolulu to Chicago; 45 minutes out of Hawaii, the captain turned the "Fasten Seats Belts" light back on - at the first excuse for a mild bump - and then left it on uninterrupted for the next 7.5+ HOURS - in smooth. clear air - all the way until we landed - 36 hours later
Are you sure your plane didn't crash on an uncharted island with a temporal anomaly?
It does in the northern latitudes of the US, anyway. Just as we start to lose our evening daylight hours in the fall, along comes the DST change to rob yet another hour of usable light.
It's not the stupidest damn thing ever, but it's gotta be in the top 100, somewhere.
So what about the history that shows strict enforcement of impaired driving laws have led to a reduction in impaired driving in just about every jurisdiction where it's been done?
So the fact that unconstitutional tactics work can be used to justify their employment? Gee, Josef, if we take away everyone's car, I'll bet that will cut down on impaired-driving deaths even more!
If "driving around without a drunk test" belongs on the list of those freedoms
Murdering babies with a Sawzall doesn't belong on that lits of freedoms, either, but you know what? We'll still follow due process and give you a fair trial if you're accused of doing that.
Nobody is defending drunk drivers. What the other people here are trying to get across to you, and what you steadfastly refuse to understand for some reason, is that DUI should not be considered an exception to the Constitution. Get some abstract thinking skills, willya?
The "slippery slope" fallacy is an actual fallacy only when someone makes a "slippery slope" argument where no slippery slope actually exists.
And when dealing with logical entities. Which people generally are not.
"What's next?" is not an argument. If we require drivers licenses, what's next -- permits to walk on the sidewalk? No.
I love nitpicky posts like this. It's easy (and fun) to imagine the poster lying in a bruised and emaciated state, eyes wild and unfocused, days at most away from death, as he howls into the frozen Siberian night: "But the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy! How were we supposed to see it coming? It isn't faaaaaaiiiirrrrr!"
Personally, I think the worst part of all this is that they still lie to us and tell us we're free. We aren't and weren't, and at this rate, never will be.
The lies never stop at any level of authoritarianism. Hence the popularity of words like "Democratic" and "People's" in the names of totalitarian hellholes everywhere.
Read the damn document.
As usual with large-scale political conspiracies, the conspirators cheerfully published their agenda and plans years in advance, and nobody cared.
It's likely that IQ tests and other exams he took in college are not indicative of his mental performance in his late 50s. 20 years of heavy alcohol and coke use can't be good for the ol' gray matter.
They did IQ tests on the accused at Nuremberg trials and all of them scored far above average
That's just selection bias. Stupid people rarely achieve positions that give them the power to commit acts of great evil. Dubya was an exception -- one we can largely write off to nepotism -- and not the rule.
The US electorate is doing its level best to change that rule, of course.
According to the article, "the decision is expected to make Skype, UUCall and other similar services unavailable in China", and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits
So how's that Communism thing working out for you guys? Are we beginning to figure out that all economic systems are eventually distorted and manipulated to serve the cause of greater government power?