From what I understand, Apple is going to kill the Mac Mini. Apple doesn't want the sub $1000 market. There isn't enough profit margin in doing that. Look at Dell, they have just about bottomed out because there is not enough profit in selling hardware. Dell and others make money off of selling Windows and other bloatware (anti virus, ISPs, trial software, etc.). Consequently this is why you will never see many of the PC manufacturers pimping Linux distros because if they are making little profit on the hardware and little or nothing on the OS then where do they make their money? It's also the reason you just can't buy a computer sans OS from Dell and other big box stores. Apple wants no part of this game. Either you pony up or you get stuck with inferior hardware and a buggy OS.
Apple, as a company, has been busy. They released an entirely new product in the AppleTV, another completely new product in the iPhone, overhauled their line of iPods, revamped one of their most popular computers in the iMac, updated their web browser software (in addition to creating a windows version) and shortly they are going to launch a new version of their OS. Something that many people overlook is that Apple now has to support all of these products. Obviously they have had a lot on their plate in Cupertino. They have to pick and choose the battles they will fight. I think that Apple has finally come to the conclusion that the computer buying public will either see the value in their hardware and software or they won't. They have been fighting this battle for a long time, and frankly I don't think they are that worried about "converting" Windows users as much as they used to. They have so many other revenue streams to where it not as critical to the future of the company as it once was. Apple doesn't want the average Windows customer--well not until they change their thinking. A Windows PC purchase decision for most people is dictated by price for features. I mean you see it all the time on/. for example. A consumer is looking to get the most features that suit their needs for the best price--and their is nothing wrong with that. A Mac doesn't follow that paradigm. You pay a premium. Its not until you see the true value in their hardware and software will someone change their mind. I myself last year made the switch, and I couldn't be happier. I was a long time Windows user (3.x. DOS before that) and will probably never buy a new version of Windows again. I still have a Windows partition, but rarely use it. I tell every one I know that is thinking about buying a computer, when they ask for advice, to spend the extra couple hundred dollars and buy a Mac if they can afford it. If they are interested in saving money and don't need a lot of specialized software like Adobe's CS3 doing mostly word and web surfing, I tell them to buy a computer off of eBay and load Ubuntu. The more people like myself that are converting and not looking back, the more Microsoft will lose market share.
Actually, the newest CS3 studio is locked down pretty tight. One key per copy activation via the internet. You can get a keygen but they are hit and miss. So I don't think that its a piracy issue, per se.
I'm willing to bet that it is more of a way to encourage business clients to use their software. A per seat license is expensive to purchase and maintain. Also you will be able to get new employees up and running much more quickly. I'm also very certain that they will continue to sell desktop software for individuals that aren't always connected.
I think that is more of a function of the fact that ATT doesn't have great coverage with their 3G network yet. This is probably why Apple went with EDGE because the coverage ATT has with EDGE is really extensive. ATT invested a lot of money early with the 2G/EDGE network. I have used 3G with ATT (Blackberry 8100) and it was faster....often but not always. Then again I live in a major metro area. In a rural area I imagine it wouldn't be that great. I had a 3G wireless card with Verizon that was awesome in terms of speed. Verizon a later player in the game invested more in 3G and has excellent coverage even outside of major metro areas (I was able to get 3G wireless at Mammoth Mountain ski resort for example). No latency issues at all. I used it like a regular broadband connection and canceled my landline service. Well that was until Verizon branded me a pirate and terminated my account. Apparently in their contract you can not upload and download files (of which as a web developer I do all the time) nor can you stream anything (which I was doing with internet radio often during the day), or at least that is how the security and fraud "specialist" explained it to me. Things may have changed since then, but if you can't upload and download files and/or stream media what's the point to having broadband wireless?
So my cousin, who has 4 kids (all elementary school aged), went to Fry's and bought a low end Compaq for the brood. It came with Vista pre-installed. He would have preferred XP, but what are you going to do. So he gets the thing home, and after a couple hours of setting things up and uninstalling the cr*pware he lets the kids loose on it. At first everything seemed fine, but as time went on the overzealous security prompts and slowness became annoying (WAY underpowered hardware for Vista). My cousin had also installed Ubuntu on an old laptop he had as wells a Firefox and Open office. The kids took to Ubuntu like fish to water. One day when I'm over there, he mentions that his kids were fighting over who got to use the laptop and had started to largely ignore the Compaq with Vista. When he told me this, I asked him why he didn't just install Ubuntu on the Compaq. "Hmmmm, I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mention it...", he replied. The next day he installed Ubuntu over Vista and never looked back. Sure the warranty may be void, but hey for $300 who gives a flying burrito--not to mention that it looked like if they kept Vista, the computer would have gone unused--which would have been a waste of $300 anyways. Ubuntu, like Trix, is for kids....
His blood has a different DNA makeup than other cell in his body--like his skin and hair. Which introduces a whole monkey wrench in indisputable DNA evidence. From the sounds of it a "bad" guy could change his genetic signature with the same sort of procedure. Not unlike that completely asinine movie "Faceoff" (which completely ignored that half of your face is your bone structure), but instead of how you look its how you DNA looks
This also begs the question of constitutes life. Are we just a mass of cells and who we are comes from those cells? If that were true then where does someone with two sets of DNA fit in the equation? Or is our body just a container for a life force that is immutable no matter how many sets of DNA your body has? Additionally, do you think that may Greg Graves' personality may change because of this additional DNA? I mean it's one thing to have someone else's organs in you, and whole other thing that your body starts pumping out new cells with different DNA. This is fantastic moral discussion and wonderful fodder for fiction. I've already developed a couple movie and book plots.
From here at least 12 billion users are outside the US. You must be counting the virtual second lifers because as far as I know there are only 6.6 billion people on the this planet. But I'm assuming you meant millions. Which is fine and well, but again where do these user numbers come from? And what defines an active user? And since there is no way of independently auditing numbers, like Neilsen ratings (which is it's own statistical ball of wax), how can numbers like these ever be trusted? I've been in professional media all my career, and let me tell you EVERYONE twists the numbers. I still fail to believe that there are 22 million men, women, elderly, and children in the United States (by your calculation) that use Facebook on a regular basis.
The population of the US, of which has to be at least 98% of the users of Facebook (as they were primarily a social networking site for US Colleges, is around 300 million. That would imply that about 11% of Americans are ACTIVE Facebook users. This is just not possible. I mean where do this statistics come from? Wikipedia? Yeah, that's credible. Or even better yet, from Facebook itself? The is no way in hell that Facebook has that many active users. I'd say that eVite has more active users than Facebook. Seriously, the whole thing is a farce. Web-2.0-dot-com-bubble-mumbo-jumbo. Kudos to Facebook for a true fleecing. If you keep stating something is true (ie that FB is worth $1Bn) then I guess IT IS true.
You are fooling yourself if you don't think that ISPs don't already monitor their networks. I'm with Comcast and you can't SMTP anything through their network that doesn't go through their mail servers. Additionally, many ISPs monitor port 80 to make sure no one is running rouge web sites. This also goes for FTPing. For the most part most ISPs in the US run a pretty tight ship--because if they didn't they would be overwhelmed. I think most of the infected computers are outside of the United States--running technology that's 10 years older or more (ie Windows 95/98 and we know how secure THAT is).
I don't know if many other people have noticed this, but Apple computers are showing up in a majority of television shows and movies. One show comes to mind where I see Apple products usually several times per episode. HBO's Entourage has heavy Mac product placement. Another show I can think of is 30 Rock on NBC. Also if you look in most catalogs and advertisement you'll see Macs in the photos (which is understandable since many photographers and nearly all graphic designers use Macs). It's no wonder that Macs are popular. One other company used similar tactics that was a HUGE success--DeBeers and diamonds in the 30s and 40s. Before the 30s and 40s diamonds were not nearly the status symbol they are today.
I'm a professional web developer and have been for over 10 years. As soon as I heard about boot camp, I switched to a MacBook Pro (this was when I was an independent programmer/consultant). I loved the hardware and the look and feel of OS x. But unfortunately I needed Windows to do what I do (now only some of what I do). I started using Windows way back when I made the switch from DOS--suffice to say I am a long time user. I've owned several laptops and have to say that MacBook Pro ROCKS, and that's coming from someone that has never been excited by a computer before. I use a Mac at work as well, but that is a G5 Mac Pro. I only use the PC for a few things now using a KVM switch. The for me was great and I give my friends my opinion when they ask if they should go mac or upgrade to a new vista machine. If you can afford it, I tell them to go Mac and they will not be sorry. Personally, I don't care if they switch to Apple...like politics everyone has their point of view and what ever works for them, works for them (LOL When they call me with an issue on their PC--especially if its Vista--I now get to throw my hands in the air and exclaim "I don't know dude, I'm on a Mac"). I DO know what has worked for me, and as far as I'm concerned I'll never own another PC and most likely XP will be the last version of Windows I'll own.
Ironically I have met Chuck Norris in person. While he may be stronger than average, he's definitely on the short side--5'6" or 5'7" tops. This was something I didn't expect. In his movies you assume that he is at least 5'10". One hell of a handshake though. I can honestly say he has a real life Kung Fu Grip.
What's going to happen when we beat the terrorists in Iraq? What are the cowering, wimpering, cut and run democrats going to do then?
You mean like how we beat the Vietcong? Seriously, when are we going to learn? Just because we have the firepower to bomb someone back to the stone age and occupy a country doesn't equal "victory". We needed to win the Iraqi's hearts and minds. We have failed miserably to do that.
Microsoft has too many battles going on. The list is long--MS vs Sony/NES, MS vs the Linux/Open source community, MS vs Apple iPod, MS vs Google, etc.. Now MS want to take on Adobe/Macromedia? In the end I think that this is a losing proposition for them. In fact it already might be happening. Their core product, the Windows OS, had a launch that was lackluster at best and Office had a little better reception than that. And it took them, what 5 years, to get it to market? Now they want to get into the graphics and web design market? This battle may be their undoing--their Stalingrad. MS should take a page out of the history books and realize that fighting on too many fronts usually leads to bad things. They need to keep their core business, and more importantly their core clientèle (ie Windows and Office) happy. Then narrow in on markets that they can overtake....but always keeping an eye toward the homeland. I don't think they are doing that. Think about it. Vista and new Office has lukewarm response (I have yet to know anyone that has upgraded that didn't buy a new computer), the Xbox 360 is having all kinds of hardware issues--for hardware that they are already subsidizing, the Zune officially blows (I don't know anyone that owns one...do you?), their "Live" suite of web services to compete with Google has completely dropped off the radar screen (zero buzz. I mean what happened to Live????), and now they want to get in the graphics arena? Hmmmm....looking like another half-baked business strategy. BTW, didn't MS already attempt a "Flash killer", some years back? Wasn't called Quicksilver or something like that?
How long has the WC3 been working CSS 3!?! CSS 2.1 took from May '98 to '04 to be released--and that was a stop gap. Of course IE 7 won't support some parts of it. HTML 5 is going to be the same situation. The thing that gets me the most is that the the big push for implementing it is because of lazy a$$ designers and developers can't get standard compliant!!! I mean how long to you have to deprecate things? 10 years? 50years?
HTML was a crappy idea in the first place. It sucks as a markup language in that it lacks hardly any description of data at all. It doesn't work very well for layout--hence the cell based table design hacks that used images (IMAGES!!!) to set table heights an widths. I mean what is that? Seriously when I was first learn web design layout, it seemed asinine. But now that I've been around the block several times, it REALLY seems lame. HTML's built in form objects have not been improved upon since its inception! The input of form data is one of the cornerstones of user interaction on the web. Could we not get at least some validation of data that is built in!?! Opposed to using a myriad of Javascript code?
Now we're headed back to dark ages because of designers and programmers that are either too stupid or too lazy to get with the program.
Thanks a lot, jerks!
They're not called a "Crackberry" for nothing....
on
Smartphone Shootout
·
· Score: 1
Yes there are people that need, or at want, to be connected all the time. Whether its for business or pleasure, there are some people that have the need to be communicating or consuming information in some shape or form all the time. If it wasn't a cellular device it would be something else. And, yes, for some people it is an addiction. But hey, there are worse things to be addicted to
While your post is technically about the limitations of cellular devices, it really smacks of moral judgment. You may not think that people need to be connected, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone else shares that opinion. It's free for you to have that opinion, as it it for me to have mine. And the best way for you to voice that opinion is to NOT buy an iPhone.
For me personally, I purchased an iPhone about a week after the initial release and some of the hype died down. It is--BY FAR--the best gadget that I've owned (and I've owned a few). It is also the best 1st version of technology that I've purchased. The UI is brilliant. I have never had a device so well interconnected. As some have said, other phones can do similar things, but its a PIA to make it happen and none of the applications play nice together.
As for the web browser on the iPhone, I don't use it too surf the web, but I have used it in a pinch to look up information such as "what movie was that actor in" or "how many home runs does he have"....in other words for all the times that I had wished that I had access to the web. For the most part, it works great for this purpose. The battery is good for about a day of "normal" multi-tasking (email, ipod, maps, etc). But considering how thin and compact it is that's pretty amazing.
All I can say is that, for me personally, I could never go back to a regular cellphone. It would be like trading an iPod in for a Walkman.
Yes turning off Javascript pretty much invalidates the whole Web 2.0 experience doesn't it? But on the other hand, you open yourself to a bunch of security issues if you don't. Quite the little conundrum....
Yes there needs to be copyright laws. But arresting and prosecuting someone for taping any length of time for their first offense is EXTREME. It's pretty simple to diffuse the situation, the management should have just asked them to leave, and told them if you get caught again then they will call the cops or even that they can't step foot in their theaters again. Maybe give a benefit of a doubt? I mean they were their patrons for crying out loud! There are so many electronic recording devices now-a-days and few people know the laws, so there is bound to be situations just like these going into the future. I for one, would be weary of patronizing a company that is so willing to arrest and prosecute one of their customers in such a caviler fashion. As a matter of fact, I'll be avoiding Regal Cinemas going into the future.
Aside from the giant advertising revenue dependent portals (Google, Yahoo) and social networking sites (My Space, Facebook), there are companies with real business plans that are actually making real money this time around. Spending is relatively in check without the largess the first.dot bomb era (ummmm....if there is a company with hired sushi chefs for lunch and masseuses....please contact me for a resume). This time around it seems like there is less cash, more business sensibility, and the base of the web economy seems so much more stable (ie the small businesses). I believe that the biggest downfall of the first.dot bomb era was VC and investment banks pushing shaky companies with poor business models to go IPO. We don't have that here. The big crash is going to happen when media people decide that pay-for search ads and internet advertising is not worth the cost (mostly because the conversion rates aren't there and the general disdain for advertising on the internet as a whole). Hey Dvorak is entitled to an opinion....and as its been said: like a$$holes, everyone has one!
I personally think that less intelligent people have better social skills. Consequently to get laid, for the most part, it requires good social skills (gift of gab for instance)--hence more intelligent "nerds" have a harder time at it (no pun intended). Now the question is, do people with less intelligence acquire these social skills as a means to compensate for the lack of intelligence? Is this a social evolutionary trait? Are more intelligent persons spending there time studying and analyzing things that interest them, while less intelligent people occupy their time interacting with others. Is there a corollary between intelligence and social skills? Here's another question. Do both groups masturbate at the same rate? I'm willing to bet that's the case. Considering the main preoccupation of most, if not all, rather intelligent computer nerds is downloading pron. Just a thought.
Besides the price? There are a lot of people that live in beach, mountain, or small communities (even within gated communities) that are using gold carts to get around town and do local errands. Although I guess it does have doors and windows which would be handy in the elements (although would you really want to drive one in the snow?).
Here in the US, local errands seems to be the only purpose of this car. I mean I don't see how the Think could be used for commuting here. Seriously I drive a BMW X3 and I still for my safety with the semi trucks, utility trucks, construction vehicles, and large Trucks/SUVs. Plus you can't use it on the highway. And finally, you it doesn't really go that far.
Unfortunately, I don't think this car will do well in the United States. American cities were just not planned and developed for this type of vehicle. To use it for just errands makes it too expensive an option.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I understand, Apple is going to kill the Mac Mini. Apple doesn't want the sub $1000 market. There isn't enough profit margin in doing that. Look at Dell, they have just about bottomed out because there is not enough profit in selling hardware. Dell and others make money off of selling Windows and other bloatware (anti virus, ISPs, trial software, etc.). Consequently this is why you will never see many of the PC manufacturers pimping Linux distros because if they are making little profit on the hardware and little or nothing on the OS then where do they make their money? It's also the reason you just can't buy a computer sans OS from Dell and other big box stores. Apple wants no part of this game. Either you pony up or you get stuck with inferior hardware and a buggy OS.
Apple, as a company, has been busy. They released an entirely new product in the AppleTV, another completely new product in the iPhone, overhauled their line of iPods, revamped one of their most popular computers in the iMac, updated their web browser software (in addition to creating a windows version) and shortly they are going to launch a new version of their OS. Something that many people overlook is that Apple now has to support all of these products. Obviously they have had a lot on their plate in Cupertino. They have to pick and choose the battles they will fight. I think that Apple has finally come to the conclusion that the computer buying public will either see the value in their hardware and software or they won't. They have been fighting this battle for a long time, and frankly I don't think they are that worried about "converting" Windows users as much as they used to. They have so many other revenue streams to where it not as critical to the future of the company as it once was. Apple doesn't want the average Windows customer--well not until they change their thinking. A Windows PC purchase decision for most people is dictated by price for features. I mean you see it all the time on /. for example. A consumer is looking to get the most features that suit their needs for the best price--and their is nothing wrong with that. A Mac doesn't follow that paradigm. You pay a premium. Its not until you see the true value in their hardware and software will someone change their mind. I myself last year made the switch, and I couldn't be happier. I was a long time Windows user (3.x. DOS before that) and will probably never buy a new version of Windows again. I still have a Windows partition, but rarely use it. I tell every one I know that is thinking about buying a computer, when they ask for advice, to spend the extra couple hundred dollars and buy a Mac if they can afford it. If they are interested in saving money and don't need a lot of specialized software like Adobe's CS3 doing mostly word and web surfing, I tell them to buy a computer off of eBay and load Ubuntu. The more people like myself that are converting and not looking back, the more Microsoft will lose market share.
Actually, the newest CS3 studio is locked down pretty tight. One key per copy activation via the internet. You can get a keygen but they are hit and miss. So I don't think that its a piracy issue, per se.
I'm willing to bet that it is more of a way to encourage business clients to use their software. A per seat license is expensive to purchase and maintain. Also you will be able to get new employees up and running much more quickly. I'm also very certain that they will continue to sell desktop software for individuals that aren't always connected.
I think that is more of a function of the fact that ATT doesn't have great coverage with their 3G network yet. This is probably why Apple went with EDGE because the coverage ATT has with EDGE is really extensive. ATT invested a lot of money early with the 2G/EDGE network. I have used 3G with ATT (Blackberry 8100) and it was faster....often but not always. Then again I live in a major metro area. In a rural area I imagine it wouldn't be that great. I had a 3G wireless card with Verizon that was awesome in terms of speed. Verizon a later player in the game invested more in 3G and has excellent coverage even outside of major metro areas (I was able to get 3G wireless at Mammoth Mountain ski resort for example). No latency issues at all. I used it like a regular broadband connection and canceled my landline service. Well that was until Verizon branded me a pirate and terminated my account. Apparently in their contract you can not upload and download files (of which as a web developer I do all the time) nor can you stream anything (which I was doing with internet radio often during the day), or at least that is how the security and fraud "specialist" explained it to me. Things may have changed since then, but if you can't upload and download files and/or stream media what's the point to having broadband wireless?
You know they make a MAGNUM size for people who are as well endowed as you....
So my cousin, who has 4 kids (all elementary school aged), went to Fry's and bought a low end Compaq for the brood. It came with Vista pre-installed. He would have preferred XP, but what are you going to do. So he gets the thing home, and after a couple hours of setting things up and uninstalling the cr*pware he lets the kids loose on it. At first everything seemed fine, but as time went on the overzealous security prompts and slowness became annoying (WAY underpowered hardware for Vista). My cousin had also installed Ubuntu on an old laptop he had as wells a Firefox and Open office. The kids took to Ubuntu like fish to water. One day when I'm over there, he mentions that his kids were fighting over who got to use the laptop and had started to largely ignore the Compaq with Vista. When he told me this, I asked him why he didn't just install Ubuntu on the Compaq. "Hmmmm, I hadn't thought about that, but now that you mention it...", he replied. The next day he installed Ubuntu over Vista and never looked back. Sure the warranty may be void, but hey for $300 who gives a flying burrito--not to mention that it looked like if they kept Vista, the computer would have gone unused--which would have been a waste of $300 anyways. Ubuntu, like Trix, is for kids....
His blood has a different DNA makeup than other cell in his body--like his skin and hair. Which introduces a whole monkey wrench in indisputable DNA evidence. From the sounds of it a "bad" guy could change his genetic signature with the same sort of procedure. Not unlike that completely asinine movie "Faceoff" (which completely ignored that half of your face is your bone structure), but instead of how you look its how you DNA looks
This also begs the question of constitutes life. Are we just a mass of cells and who we are comes from those cells? If that were true then where does someone with two sets of DNA fit in the equation? Or is our body just a container for a life force that is immutable no matter how many sets of DNA your body has? Additionally, do you think that may Greg Graves' personality may change because of this additional DNA? I mean it's one thing to have someone else's organs in you, and whole other thing that your body starts pumping out new cells with different DNA. This is fantastic moral discussion and wonderful fodder for fiction. I've already developed a couple movie and book plots.
The population of the US, of which has to be at least 98% of the users of Facebook (as they were primarily a social networking site for US Colleges, is around 300 million. That would imply that about 11% of Americans are ACTIVE Facebook users. This is just not possible. I mean where do this statistics come from? Wikipedia? Yeah, that's credible. Or even better yet, from Facebook itself? The is no way in hell that Facebook has that many active users. I'd say that eVite has more active users than Facebook. Seriously, the whole thing is a farce. Web-2.0-dot-com-bubble-mumbo-jumbo. Kudos to Facebook for a true fleecing. If you keep stating something is true (ie that FB is worth $1Bn) then I guess IT IS true.
You are fooling yourself if you don't think that ISPs don't already monitor their networks. I'm with Comcast and you can't SMTP anything through their network that doesn't go through their mail servers. Additionally, many ISPs monitor port 80 to make sure no one is running rouge web sites. This also goes for FTPing. For the most part most ISPs in the US run a pretty tight ship--because if they didn't they would be overwhelmed. I think most of the infected computers are outside of the United States--running technology that's 10 years older or more (ie Windows 95/98 and we know how secure THAT is).
I don't know if many other people have noticed this, but Apple computers are showing up in a majority of television shows and movies. One show comes to mind where I see Apple products usually several times per episode. HBO's Entourage has heavy Mac product placement. Another show I can think of is 30 Rock on NBC. Also if you look in most catalogs and advertisement you'll see Macs in the photos (which is understandable since many photographers and nearly all graphic designers use Macs). It's no wonder that Macs are popular. One other company used similar tactics that was a HUGE success--DeBeers and diamonds in the 30s and 40s. Before the 30s and 40s diamonds were not nearly the status symbol they are today.
I'm a professional web developer and have been for over 10 years. As soon as I heard about boot camp, I switched to a MacBook Pro (this was when I was an independent programmer/consultant). I loved the hardware and the look and feel of OS x. But unfortunately I needed Windows to do what I do (now only some of what I do). I started using Windows way back when I made the switch from DOS--suffice to say I am a long time user. I've owned several laptops and have to say that MacBook Pro ROCKS, and that's coming from someone that has never been excited by a computer before. I use a Mac at work as well, but that is a G5 Mac Pro. I only use the PC for a few things now using a KVM switch. The for me was great and I give my friends my opinion when they ask if they should go mac or upgrade to a new vista machine. If you can afford it, I tell them to go Mac and they will not be sorry. Personally, I don't care if they switch to Apple...like politics everyone has their point of view and what ever works for them, works for them (LOL When they call me with an issue on their PC--especially if its Vista--I now get to throw my hands in the air and exclaim "I don't know dude, I'm on a Mac"). I DO know what has worked for me, and as far as I'm concerned I'll never own another PC and most likely XP will be the last version of Windows I'll own.
Ironically I have met Chuck Norris in person. While he may be stronger than average, he's definitely on the short side--5'6" or 5'7" tops. This was something I didn't expect. In his movies you assume that he is at least 5'10". One hell of a handshake though. I can honestly say he has a real life Kung Fu Grip.
now.
You mean like how we beat the Vietcong? Seriously, when are we going to learn? Just because we have the firepower to bomb someone back to the stone age and occupy a country doesn't equal "victory". We needed to win the Iraqi's hearts and minds. We have failed miserably to do that.
Microsoft has too many battles going on. The list is long--MS vs Sony/NES, MS vs the Linux/Open source community, MS vs Apple iPod, MS vs Google, etc.. Now MS want to take on Adobe/Macromedia? In the end I think that this is a losing proposition for them. In fact it already might be happening. Their core product, the Windows OS, had a launch that was lackluster at best and Office had a little better reception than that. And it took them, what 5 years, to get it to market? Now they want to get into the graphics and web design market? This battle may be their undoing--their Stalingrad. MS should take a page out of the history books and realize that fighting on too many fronts usually leads to bad things. They need to keep their core business, and more importantly their core clientèle (ie Windows and Office) happy. Then narrow in on markets that they can overtake....but always keeping an eye toward the homeland. I don't think they are doing that. Think about it. Vista and new Office has lukewarm response (I have yet to know anyone that has upgraded that didn't buy a new computer), the Xbox 360 is having all kinds of hardware issues--for hardware that they are already subsidizing, the Zune officially blows (I don't know anyone that owns one...do you?), their "Live" suite of web services to compete with Google has completely dropped off the radar screen (zero buzz. I mean what happened to Live????), and now they want to get in the graphics arena? Hmmmm....looking like another half-baked business strategy. BTW, didn't MS already attempt a "Flash killer", some years back? Wasn't called Quicksilver or something like that?
The "sharks with lasers" jokes.
How long has the WC3 been working CSS 3!?! CSS 2.1 took from May '98 to '04 to be released--and that was a stop gap. Of course IE 7 won't support some parts of it. HTML 5 is going to be the same situation. The thing that gets me the most is that the the big push for implementing it is because of lazy a$$ designers and developers can't get standard compliant!!! I mean how long to you have to deprecate things? 10 years? 50years?
HTML was a crappy idea in the first place. It sucks as a markup language in that it lacks hardly any description of data at all. It doesn't work very well for layout--hence the cell based table design hacks that used images (IMAGES!!!) to set table heights an widths. I mean what is that? Seriously when I was first learn web design layout, it seemed asinine. But now that I've been around the block several times, it REALLY seems lame. HTML's built in form objects have not been improved upon since its inception! The input of form data is one of the cornerstones of user interaction on the web. Could we not get at least some validation of data that is built in!?! Opposed to using a myriad of Javascript code?
Now we're headed back to dark ages because of designers and programmers that are either too stupid or too lazy to get with the program.
Thanks a lot, jerks!
Yes there are people that need, or at want, to be connected all the time. Whether its for business or pleasure, there are some people that have the need to be communicating or consuming information in some shape or form all the time. If it wasn't a cellular device it would be something else. And, yes, for some people it is an addiction. But hey, there are worse things to be addicted to
While your post is technically about the limitations of cellular devices, it really smacks of moral judgment. You may not think that people need to be connected, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone else shares that opinion. It's free for you to have that opinion, as it it for me to have mine. And the best way for you to voice that opinion is to NOT buy an iPhone.
For me personally, I purchased an iPhone about a week after the initial release and some of the hype died down. It is--BY FAR--the best gadget that I've owned (and I've owned a few). It is also the best 1st version of technology that I've purchased. The UI is brilliant. I have never had a device so well interconnected. As some have said, other phones can do similar things, but its a PIA to make it happen and none of the applications play nice together.
As for the web browser on the iPhone, I don't use it too surf the web, but I have used it in a pinch to look up information such as "what movie was that actor in" or "how many home runs does he have"....in other words for all the times that I had wished that I had access to the web. For the most part, it works great for this purpose. The battery is good for about a day of "normal" multi-tasking (email, ipod, maps, etc). But considering how thin and compact it is that's pretty amazing.
All I can say is that, for me personally, I could never go back to a regular cellphone. It would be like trading an iPod in for a Walkman.
Yes turning off Javascript pretty much invalidates the whole Web 2.0 experience doesn't it? But on the other hand, you open yourself to a bunch of security issues if you don't. Quite the little conundrum....
Yes there needs to be copyright laws. But arresting and prosecuting someone for taping any length of time for their first offense is EXTREME. It's pretty simple to diffuse the situation, the management should have just asked them to leave, and told them if you get caught again then they will call the cops or even that they can't step foot in their theaters again. Maybe give a benefit of a doubt? I mean they were their patrons for crying out loud! There are so many electronic recording devices now-a-days and few people know the laws, so there is bound to be situations just like these going into the future. I for one, would be weary of patronizing a company that is so willing to arrest and prosecute one of their customers in such a caviler fashion. As a matter of fact, I'll be avoiding Regal Cinemas going into the future.
Aside from the giant advertising revenue dependent portals (Google, Yahoo) and social networking sites (My Space, Facebook), there are companies with real business plans that are actually making real money this time around. Spending is relatively in check without the largess the first .dot bomb era (ummmm....if there is a company with hired sushi chefs for lunch and masseuses....please contact me for a resume). This time around it seems like there is less cash, more business sensibility, and the base of the web economy seems so much more stable (ie the small businesses). I believe that the biggest downfall of the first .dot bomb era was VC and investment banks pushing shaky companies with poor business models to go IPO. We don't have that here. The big crash is going to happen when media people decide that pay-for search ads and internet advertising is not worth the cost (mostly because the conversion rates aren't there and the general disdain for advertising on the internet as a whole). Hey Dvorak is entitled to an opinion....and as its been said: like a$$holes, everyone has one!
I personally think that less intelligent people have better social skills. Consequently to get laid, for the most part, it requires good social skills (gift of gab for instance)--hence more intelligent "nerds" have a harder time at it (no pun intended). Now the question is, do people with less intelligence acquire these social skills as a means to compensate for the lack of intelligence? Is this a social evolutionary trait? Are more intelligent persons spending there time studying and analyzing things that interest them, while less intelligent people occupy their time interacting with others. Is there a corollary between intelligence and social skills? Here's another question. Do both groups masturbate at the same rate? I'm willing to bet that's the case. Considering the main preoccupation of most, if not all, rather intelligent computer nerds is downloading pron. Just a thought.
Besides the price? There are a lot of people that live in beach, mountain, or small communities (even within gated communities) that are using gold carts to get around town and do local errands. Although I guess it does have doors and windows which would be handy in the elements (although would you really want to drive one in the snow?).
Here in the US, local errands seems to be the only purpose of this car. I mean I don't see how the Think could be used for commuting here. Seriously I drive a BMW X3 and I still for my safety with the semi trucks, utility trucks, construction vehicles, and large Trucks/SUVs. Plus you can't use it on the highway. And finally, you it doesn't really go that far.
Unfortunately, I don't think this car will do well in the United States. American cities were just not planned and developed for this type of vehicle. To use it for just errands makes it too expensive an option.