You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I don't know of a single scientific idea that has been "set" for any significant length of time, let alone set since the start of scientific revolution. Even those stalwart cornerstones of physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, have changed over the last 160 years.
The idea that we know all the "cycles" that exist and haven't been discovering new ones is not just ignorant, it's idiotic. Seriously, read a book about science sometime. I don't care what it is, I guarantee you'll learn something.
Cosmology has seen incredible advancements in the last 30 years. The Sun is very much a part of that. The current state of the Sun has never been studied before, hell 100 years ago some scientists still thought the sun was made of molten rock! Scientists are seeing these circumstances (longest solar minimum in a century) for the first time, and every new observation raises questions that beg to be answered.
I find your entire position to be simply ignorant in the extreme. It's like you stop paying attention to science after middle school 30 years ago.
The GP is confusing observation, which is the first component of the scientific method, with experimentation, which is a technique for initiating the repetition of the conditions to allow for more observations.
The Sun currently cannot be experimented on, but to say you cannot perform observations, measure those observations, or repeat those observations and measurements, is patently absurd and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the very core of all science.
If it cannot be observed, it cannot be science. Period. There is no other option. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be science. Period. If it never repeats and cannot be made to repeat it cannot be science. Period. An experiment is nothing more than forcing the repetition of the conditions to allow for another observation and measurement. It's not at all necessary for science.
There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field.
There is only one scientific method: observe, measure, repeat. All those "different" scientific methods are simply different techniques used to follow each of those steps. The steps themselves never change.
For example, it may be currently impossible to perform experiments on the Sun. That does not mean the scientific method does not apply. The scientific method says nothing about performing experiments - it says make an observation, measure what you observed, and repeat the observation. You can do this by simply watching the sun through a telescope. Patterns emerge, and there are reasons for those patterns. You develop theories that should allow you to predict what will happen next - the closer your theory is to correct, the more accurate your predictions will reflect your observations. This is the scientific method being used to further our understanding of the universe. It's how we know so damned much about it, and how we know there is a whole lot more that we don't know about it.
This is how all science works. Experimental scientists have the luxury of repeating their observations at will, which scientists who cannot perform experiments on their subjects don't have the luxury of doing, but that in no way means one group is using a fundamentally different scientific method. Reality couldn't be further from the truth.
Dude, you need to watch more science tv, scientists are working on that as we speak. That "everything from nothing" problem affects a lot more than just the origins of the universe - it basically breaks physics, so theoretical physicists are desperate to figure out the solution. So far, the best explanation seems to be string theory, and that there are a lot more than just the one universe and the four dimensions. It's gaining ground because it seems to fix the standard model - that was actually what it was originally intended to do. It just happens to provide a possible source for the Big Bang as well. Also, like every new leap in science seems to do, it raises a lot more questions than it answers.
"god did it"
Short of god coming down and saying "look it's me! I did it!" this is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's pretty pointless to even consider from a scientific standpoint. Science needs things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable. "God did it" allows for none of that.
A jury has convicted him of essentially holding a city's IT infrastructure hostage, and if he is in fact guilty of that, probation or "time served" is inadequate. If he's guilty, I believe the sentence is wholly appropriate, and may even be on the light side. If he was, in fact, concerned about IT security, he certainly bungled how he handled it and certainly forced a lot of spending, but would be lacking the "guilty mind" that the law requires for a conviction of this sort.
There isn't really any point in saying "if he's guilty" any more. The prosecution successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers (at least one of whom was a well trained IT network professional) that he is guilty of violating California's denial of service attack law. There is still that slim chance that is impossible to completely rule out, but that's why we prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - because proving guilt beyond all doubt is impossible.
No, he's definitely guilty.
Frankly, the article didn't give any evidence at all that the city of San Francisco was guilty of anything, let alone "as guilty" as Childs is. All the author did was make a nonsense argument that if it had been a private company the sentence would have been much lighter. He then lists several cases that were not prosecuted under California's denial of service attack laws. What the hell is that supposed prove? He's comparing apples and oranges, first, then apples and carrots (when he compares a trial that went to conviction to a plea bargained murder/manslaughter case).
The only thing I agree with the author on is the 2 years Childs spent in prison before the trial, that is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, if Childs does any kind of appeal, I think it should be on the grounds that the state violated his right to a speedy trial. Two years in prison is unacceptable. They should have enough evidence in hand before making an arrest that it shouldn't be but a few months, max, for a trial to commence. His initial arrest was also essentially a coercion to get the passwords out of him. I'm not sure he had been charged with anything at that point (I may be wrong), but that sounds iffy to me as well.
No one should be in prison for years waiting for their trial. That's absurd.
The rest of the article was complete junk, though.
The only thing I can really get behind in the article is the fact that Childs was in jail for two years before his trial began. That sounds very much like a violation of his right to a speedy trial to me.
The rest, though, is pointless rambling about the nature of the legal system (even though he doesn't frame it that way, that's the heart of his problem).
He mentions a murder case where the murderer received a 1 year sentence. However, nobody has ever been convicted of murder and gotten a 1 year sentence. The minimums vary by state, but they are generally in the 15-20 year range. What actually happened was a plea bargain for the lesser crime of manslaughter (basically, an unintentional killing), for which a 1 year sentence is not uncommon. Manslaughter has varying degrees, the least of which is essentially pure accident. Depending on the level, the sentence can and should be very light.
You may think that's ridiculous, and it very well may be, but perhaps the DA didn't think he could close the deal on a murder charge, and so was willing bargain it down to something. Is it better that he be considered guilty with a slap on the wrist, or that he be considered innocent? That, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) happens a lot.
It's easy to twist things so they fit your personal views, but the fact is people who go the full trial period and are convicted typically get the highest sentences. People who plea down typically get the lowest. It's just a fact of life in the system. Chances are Childs had the opportunity to plea down to a lesser crime and get out with time served, but he more than likely felt that the gains for such a bargain would be minimal, and he could still potentially win the whole thing if he saw the trial through to the end. That's how I would view things if I were him, anyway.
Yeah, he's obviously never played a FF game, they can be a ton of fun and are never, ever interactive movies (though they tend to have long cut-scenes).
He's spot on with interactive movies though. They suck monkey balls. In fact, if interactive movies (like Myst and the lot) were more like Final Fantasy they'd probably still be around.
It would be nice to see "interactive movies" where the plot came first and the gameplay was centered more about advancing the storyline as opposed to just being a cookie cutter FPS sequel.
I tried playing Myst 2 (the series is the acme of the interactive movie genre) and frankly, I thought it was incredibly boring and completely unbelievable. It was all "walk this way and flip a switch, now walk to the other side of the island and flip another switch. Hey wasn't there another one of these in that cave?" After about 20 minutes I couldn't help but think that only an absolute moron would build a security system like that, people would be breaking in all the friggin time, and it would take you an hour just to set the lock when you went out. After that I was done. The parts that were supposed to make it fun and interactive turned out to just be retarded.
It probably would have been fine as a movie, but as a game it was stupid as hell.
Nope, what he has in quotes is what he wants to use in stead of "monetizing" which, as I said in my reply, is not in any way, shape, or form a verbification. It actually is a verb with a noun form (monetization).
Actually, Piracy == Stealing, specifically on the high seas or on an airplane or some similar situation (robbing a train could possibly be another form of piracy).
From the free online dictionary:
piracy Pronunciation (pr-s) n. pl. piracies 1. a. Robbery committed at sea. b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane. 2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy. 3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
I believe what you actually mean is that software piracy is not stealing.
Raping and pillaging is just a side effect of being a pirate, it is in no way part of the definition.
I don't know anybody who would consider pirating to be equivalent to raping children, but apparently you do. You might want to have your head checked.
...but with a company that big, usually $60,000 will barely get you a random word generator with text to speech representing you.
That's actually pretty expensive, considering they did absolutely nothing.
Scapegaming never answered the subpoena nor bothered to showed, a third grader could have beaten them. It was basically just filing motions to move the case along in light of the fact that Scapegaming didn't bother to show up. It did, and Blizzard was awarded compensatory damages (the $3 million) and punative statory damages ($85 million).
monetize –verb (used with object), -tized, -tizing. 1. to legalize as money. 2. to coin into money: to monetize gold. 3. to give the character of money to. 4. Economics . to convert (a debt, esp. the national debt) into currency, esp. by issuing government securities or notes.
Also, especially British , monetise .
Origin: 1875–80; L mont ( a ) money + -ize
—Related forms monetization, noun
It's not a verbification, it's a legitimate word used correctly in the summary, you ignorant, misguided wannabe grammar nazi.
If you look on the left hand side of the page there, you'll notice there aren't really any other categories for legal stuff, and technically speaking all things related to the legal system have to do your rights.
So, it may seem like a bit of a stretch, but yes writing a virus that destroys people's files is definitely a YRO issue. For example, if it were legal to write viruses that destroyed people's hard drive, and then Congress passed a law to stop it, would that not be a YRO issue? It seems to fit the bill in every way. This is the same thing, only coming from the other side. This naive Japanese programmer has taken it upon himself to test the legality of various nefarious online activities.
I just find it amazing that they got him on copyright infringement, of all things, for his first virus. That definitely shows you where Japanese priorities are - and I thought copyright law was bad in the US!
The problem with this post is that it looks exclusively at the consumer level, and at nothing else.
Companies like IBM haven't been consumer facing for years, almost a decade even. How is a company that doesn't have any consumer products going to be innovative in the consumer market? The idea is stupid.
The fact is, companies like IBM and Microsoft and Google do innovate, quite a lot actually. It's just not in a product you can go to the store and buy.
Your Google data processing is a good example - what database product can scan billions of entries and return relevant data in a quarter second or less every single time, anywhere in the world? I don't know of any - I know you can't with SQL, and I'm pretty sure you can't with anything Oracle offers. Google may not be sharing their secrets, but they are definitely innovating, that much is obvious.
IBM is doing a hell of a lot of work in nano-tech (an attempt to replace silicon transistors is their focus there), chip manufacturing, cryptography, etc. No, they haven't "innovated" a new mp3 player, but frankly the work they are doing is a hell of a lot more important to the future of computing than that meaningless stuff.
Microsoft really doesn't have a huge innovation history, but somethings in recent years really are pretty innovative. There are a lot of elements of XBox Live, for example, that nobody had considered for console gaming (like looking up gamerstats live, and their matchmaking systems), and turned out to be hugely successful (and I'm not talking about the stupid avatars, either). They continue to innovate in the server management realm, even though they no longer have any serious competition (Novel still exists, but who uses their management products?).
As for Cisco, Overlay Transport Virtualization, WAAS mobile for public clouds, the ASA 5500 series, their CleanAir tech. All of that came out just this year, I mean, for heavens sake Cisco is winning awards in their field for this shit. What's NOT innovative about Cisco? Especially compared to Apple of all companies!
Ok, no, 'tablets" in the sense of the iPad have NOT been around for a long time. An iPad has a 10 inch diagonal 768p screen, is half an inch think, weighs a pound and a half, has no fan and a 10 hour battery (and I can vouch for that). It has no way of getting information onto or off the device except for wireless networking and a proprietary USB port. It's a black box; it uses a very lightweight OS with a software keyboard (or bluetooth) only, no handwriting recognition to speak of, no stylus, but a multi-touch screen. It runs on an ARM processor with dedicated video hardware. That is not the same thing as the "tablets [that] have been around for a long time," which mostly have been Windows machines in the 3-4 pound range, usually convertible laptops, with 12 inch diagonal screens and 6 hours of battery life, and handwriting recognition.
In other words, except for weight and battery life, the iPad is worse than previous tablets in pretty much every way?
Way to sell the product man.
The OS makes the device. It's all the iPad has going for it. In almost every real way the thing is not as good as what already exists, but that OS is so easy to use and intuitive it makes up for all its shortcomings. Tablets in general suck, and it's only the iPhone OS that manages to keep the iPad from sucking also.
Furthermore, I'd say Google Adwords (aka the most successful internet advertising in history) is pretty damned innovative, especially compared to any hardware Apple has ever come out with.
Nothing in recent memory has changed the internet more than Adwords have. It has allowed tons of advertising on web pages while still being tasteful and unobtrusive, not to mention targeted and generally very relative to the person viewing the web page.
I see the advantages, but I still don't like them.
"Time bombs" is obvious hyperbole, that was the point. Duh. The point being that if you keep your phone long enough, you will need to send your phone off for a certain amount of time to get the battery replaced, and that really sucks compared to other devices, for which I can just go down the street and buy a new battery.
Blackberry still owns a majority of the smartphone market, and the RIM OS still has much deeper market penetration than iPhone OS or Android.
That's just the US though, I don't have raw numbers to back it up but I believe worldwide Nokia leads the smartphone market, followed by Blackberry. Android and iPhone devices are chump change on the global scale (but rising).
What the iPhone did that was at all unique was to open the smartphone market to retail consumers in the US (it had already been open wide for a while in countries like Japan).
It's hard to call a marketing strategy or advertising campaign technologically innovative, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I don't know of a single scientific idea that has been "set" for any significant length of time, let alone set since the start of scientific revolution. Even those stalwart cornerstones of physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics, have changed over the last 160 years.
The idea that we know all the "cycles" that exist and haven't been discovering new ones is not just ignorant, it's idiotic. Seriously, read a book about science sometime. I don't care what it is, I guarantee you'll learn something.
Cosmology has seen incredible advancements in the last 30 years. The Sun is very much a part of that. The current state of the Sun has never been studied before, hell 100 years ago some scientists still thought the sun was made of molten rock! Scientists are seeing these circumstances (longest solar minimum in a century) for the first time, and every new observation raises questions that beg to be answered.
I find your entire position to be simply ignorant in the extreme. It's like you stop paying attention to science after middle school 30 years ago.
The GP is confusing observation, which is the first component of the scientific method, with experimentation, which is a technique for initiating the repetition of the conditions to allow for more observations.
The Sun currently cannot be experimented on, but to say you cannot perform observations, measure those observations, or repeat those observations and measurements, is patently absurd and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the very core of all science.
If it cannot be observed, it cannot be science. Period. There is no other option. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be science. Period. If it never repeats and cannot be made to repeat it cannot be science. Period. An experiment is nothing more than forcing the repetition of the conditions to allow for another observation and measurement. It's not at all necessary for science.
There isn't; there are a whole bunch of scientific methods, all more or less related but difffering from field to field.
There is only one scientific method: observe, measure, repeat. All those "different" scientific methods are simply different techniques used to follow each of those steps. The steps themselves never change.
For example, it may be currently impossible to perform experiments on the Sun. That does not mean the scientific method does not apply. The scientific method says nothing about performing experiments - it says make an observation, measure what you observed, and repeat the observation. You can do this by simply watching the sun through a telescope. Patterns emerge, and there are reasons for those patterns. You develop theories that should allow you to predict what will happen next - the closer your theory is to correct, the more accurate your predictions will reflect your observations. This is the scientific method being used to further our understanding of the universe. It's how we know so damned much about it, and how we know there is a whole lot more that we don't know about it.
This is how all science works. Experimental scientists have the luxury of repeating their observations at will, which scientists who cannot perform experiments on their subjects don't have the luxury of doing, but that in no way means one group is using a fundamentally different scientific method. Reality couldn't be further from the truth.
"everything exploded from nothing"
Dude, you need to watch more science tv, scientists are working on that as we speak. That "everything from nothing" problem affects a lot more than just the origins of the universe - it basically breaks physics, so theoretical physicists are desperate to figure out the solution. So far, the best explanation seems to be string theory, and that there are a lot more than just the one universe and the four dimensions. It's gaining ground because it seems to fix the standard model - that was actually what it was originally intended to do. It just happens to provide a possible source for the Big Bang as well. Also, like every new leap in science seems to do, it raises a lot more questions than it answers.
"god did it"
Short of god coming down and saying "look it's me! I did it!" this is impossible to prove or disprove, so it's pretty pointless to even consider from a scientific standpoint. Science needs things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable. "God did it" allows for none of that.
Meh, we're due in like, 20 million years or something anyway.
Might as well be now on the galactic time scale. On the universal time scale it pretty much already started.
A jury has convicted him of essentially holding a city's IT infrastructure hostage, and if he is in fact guilty of that, probation or "time served" is inadequate. If he's guilty, I believe the sentence is wholly appropriate, and may even be on the light side. If he was, in fact, concerned about IT security, he certainly bungled how he handled it and certainly forced a lot of spending, but would be lacking the "guilty mind" that the law requires for a conviction of this sort.
There isn't really any point in saying "if he's guilty" any more. The prosecution successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt to a jury of his peers (at least one of whom was a well trained IT network professional) that he is guilty of violating California's denial of service attack law. There is still that slim chance that is impossible to completely rule out, but that's why we prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - because proving guilt beyond all doubt is impossible.
No, he's definitely guilty.
Frankly, the article didn't give any evidence at all that the city of San Francisco was guilty of anything, let alone "as guilty" as Childs is. All the author did was make a nonsense argument that if it had been a private company the sentence would have been much lighter. He then lists several cases that were not prosecuted under California's denial of service attack laws. What the hell is that supposed prove? He's comparing apples and oranges, first, then apples and carrots (when he compares a trial that went to conviction to a plea bargained murder/manslaughter case).
The only thing I agree with the author on is the 2 years Childs spent in prison before the trial, that is absolutely ridiculous. Frankly, if Childs does any kind of appeal, I think it should be on the grounds that the state violated his right to a speedy trial. Two years in prison is unacceptable. They should have enough evidence in hand before making an arrest that it shouldn't be but a few months, max, for a trial to commence. His initial arrest was also essentially a coercion to get the passwords out of him. I'm not sure he had been charged with anything at that point (I may be wrong), but that sounds iffy to me as well.
No one should be in prison for years waiting for their trial. That's absurd.
The rest of the article was complete junk, though.
The only thing I can really get behind in the article is the fact that Childs was in jail for two years before his trial began. That sounds very much like a violation of his right to a speedy trial to me.
The rest, though, is pointless rambling about the nature of the legal system (even though he doesn't frame it that way, that's the heart of his problem).
He mentions a murder case where the murderer received a 1 year sentence. However, nobody has ever been convicted of murder and gotten a 1 year sentence. The minimums vary by state, but they are generally in the 15-20 year range. What actually happened was a plea bargain for the lesser crime of manslaughter (basically, an unintentional killing), for which a 1 year sentence is not uncommon. Manslaughter has varying degrees, the least of which is essentially pure accident. Depending on the level, the sentence can and should be very light.
You may think that's ridiculous, and it very well may be, but perhaps the DA didn't think he could close the deal on a murder charge, and so was willing bargain it down to something. Is it better that he be considered guilty with a slap on the wrist, or that he be considered innocent? That, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) happens a lot.
It's easy to twist things so they fit your personal views, but the fact is people who go the full trial period and are convicted typically get the highest sentences. People who plea down typically get the lowest. It's just a fact of life in the system. Chances are Childs had the opportunity to plea down to a lesser crime and get out with time served, but he more than likely felt that the gains for such a bargain would be minimal, and he could still potentially win the whole thing if he saw the trial through to the end. That's how I would view things if I were him, anyway.
Yeah, he's obviously never played a FF game, they can be a ton of fun and are never, ever interactive movies (though they tend to have long cut-scenes).
He's spot on with interactive movies though. They suck monkey balls. In fact, if interactive movies (like Myst and the lot) were more like Final Fantasy they'd probably still be around.
It would be nice to see "interactive movies" where the plot came first and the gameplay was centered more about advancing the storyline as opposed to just being a cookie cutter FPS sequel.
I tried playing Myst 2 (the series is the acme of the interactive movie genre) and frankly, I thought it was incredibly boring and completely unbelievable. It was all "walk this way and flip a switch, now walk to the other side of the island and flip another switch. Hey wasn't there another one of these in that cave?" After about 20 minutes I couldn't help but think that only an absolute moron would build a security system like that, people would be breaking in all the friggin time, and it would take you an hour just to set the lock when you went out. After that I was done. The parts that were supposed to make it fun and interactive turned out to just be retarded.
It probably would have been fine as a movie, but as a game it was stupid as hell.
Nope, what he has in quotes is what he wants to use in stead of "monetizing" which, as I said in my reply, is not in any way, shape, or form a verbification. It actually is a verb with a noun form (monetization).
Hey man! No way!
It's the radio waves man!
They're trying to control your mind man!
But like, they screwed up man!
They tweaked the flux capacitors too high and shit man!
And now they are making the kids sick instead of washing their brains out man!
(please read in the voice of Cheech)
Actually, Piracy == Stealing, specifically on the high seas or on an airplane or some similar situation (robbing a train could possibly be another form of piracy).
From the free online dictionary:
piracy Pronunciation (pr-s)
n. pl. piracies
1.
a. Robbery committed at sea.
b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.
I believe what you actually mean is that software piracy is not stealing.
Raping and pillaging is just a side effect of being a pirate, it is in no way part of the definition.
I don't know anybody who would consider pirating to be equivalent to raping children, but apparently you do. You might want to have your head checked.
Any lawyer would have been a start.
Scapegaming didn't bother to show up, that's why Blizzard received a default judgment.
Like they say, you must be in it to win it.
...but with a company that big, usually $60,000 will barely get you a random word generator with text to speech representing you.
That's actually pretty expensive, considering they did absolutely nothing.
Scapegaming never answered the subpoena nor bothered to showed, a third grader could have beaten them. It was basically just filing motions to move the case along in light of the fact that Scapegaming didn't bother to show up. It did, and Blizzard was awarded compensatory damages (the $3 million) and punative statory damages ($85 million).
He was talking about "monetizing", a word from the 1800's with roots in Latin.
In other words, he's a dumbass.
It's even worse when the grammar nazi is completely wrong.
monetize
–verb (used with object), -tized, -tizing.
1. to legalize as money.
2. to coin into money: to monetize gold.
3. to give the character of money to.
4. Economics . to convert (a debt, esp. the national debt) into currency, esp. by issuing government securities or notes.
Also, especially British , monetise .
Origin:
1875–80; L mont ( a ) money + -ize
—Related forms
monetization, noun
It's not a verbification, it's a legitimate word used correctly in the summary, you ignorant, misguided wannabe grammar nazi.
What's wrong with your enter key?
That's what I prefer to use.
Enter
Enter
Enter
See?
If you look on the left hand side of the page there, you'll notice there aren't really any other categories for legal stuff, and technically speaking all things related to the legal system have to do your rights.
So, it may seem like a bit of a stretch, but yes writing a virus that destroys people's files is definitely a YRO issue. For example, if it were legal to write viruses that destroyed people's hard drive, and then Congress passed a law to stop it, would that not be a YRO issue? It seems to fit the bill in every way. This is the same thing, only coming from the other side. This naive Japanese programmer has taken it upon himself to test the legality of various nefarious online activities.
I just find it amazing that they got him on copyright infringement, of all things, for his first virus. That definitely shows you where Japanese priorities are - and I thought copyright law was bad in the US!
The problem with this post is that it looks exclusively at the consumer level, and at nothing else.
Companies like IBM haven't been consumer facing for years, almost a decade even. How is a company that doesn't have any consumer products going to be innovative in the consumer market? The idea is stupid.
The fact is, companies like IBM and Microsoft and Google do innovate, quite a lot actually. It's just not in a product you can go to the store and buy.
Your Google data processing is a good example - what database product can scan billions of entries and return relevant data in a quarter second or less every single time, anywhere in the world? I don't know of any - I know you can't with SQL, and I'm pretty sure you can't with anything Oracle offers. Google may not be sharing their secrets, but they are definitely innovating, that much is obvious.
IBM is doing a hell of a lot of work in nano-tech (an attempt to replace silicon transistors is their focus there), chip manufacturing, cryptography, etc. No, they haven't "innovated" a new mp3 player, but frankly the work they are doing is a hell of a lot more important to the future of computing than that meaningless stuff.
Microsoft really doesn't have a huge innovation history, but somethings in recent years really are pretty innovative. There are a lot of elements of XBox Live, for example, that nobody had considered for console gaming (like looking up gamerstats live, and their matchmaking systems), and turned out to be hugely successful (and I'm not talking about the stupid avatars, either). They continue to innovate in the server management realm, even though they no longer have any serious competition (Novel still exists, but who uses their management products?).
As for Cisco, Overlay Transport Virtualization, WAAS mobile for public clouds, the ASA 5500 series, their CleanAir tech. All of that came out just this year, I mean, for heavens sake Cisco is winning awards in their field for this shit. What's NOT innovative about Cisco? Especially compared to Apple of all companies!
Ok, no, 'tablets" in the sense of the iPad have NOT been around for a long time. An iPad has a 10 inch diagonal 768p screen, is half an inch think, weighs a pound and a half, has no fan and a 10 hour battery (and I can vouch for that). It has no way of getting information onto or off the device except for wireless networking and a proprietary USB port. It's a black box; it uses a very lightweight OS with a software keyboard (or bluetooth) only, no handwriting recognition to speak of, no stylus, but a multi-touch screen. It runs on an ARM processor with dedicated video hardware. That is not the same thing as the "tablets [that] have been around for a long time," which mostly have been Windows machines in the 3-4 pound range, usually convertible laptops, with 12 inch diagonal screens and 6 hours of battery life, and handwriting recognition.
In other words, except for weight and battery life, the iPad is worse than previous tablets in pretty much every way?
Way to sell the product man.
The OS makes the device. It's all the iPad has going for it. In almost every real way the thing is not as good as what already exists, but that OS is so easy to use and intuitive it makes up for all its shortcomings. Tablets in general suck, and it's only the iPhone OS that manages to keep the iPad from sucking also.
Furthermore, I'd say Google Adwords (aka the most successful internet advertising in history) is pretty damned innovative, especially compared to any hardware Apple has ever come out with.
Nothing in recent memory has changed the internet more than Adwords have. It has allowed tons of advertising on web pages while still being tasteful and unobtrusive, not to mention targeted and generally very relative to the person viewing the web page.
I see the advantages, but I still don't like them.
"Time bombs" is obvious hyperbole, that was the point. Duh. The point being that if you keep your phone long enough, you will need to send your phone off for a certain amount of time to get the battery replaced, and that really sucks compared to other devices, for which I can just go down the street and buy a new battery.
Blackberry still owns a majority of the smartphone market, and the RIM OS still has much deeper market penetration than iPhone OS or Android.
That's just the US though, I don't have raw numbers to back it up but I believe worldwide Nokia leads the smartphone market, followed by Blackberry. Android and iPhone devices are chump change on the global scale (but rising).
What the iPhone did that was at all unique was to open the smartphone market to retail consumers in the US (it had already been open wide for a while in countries like Japan).
It's hard to call a marketing strategy or advertising campaign technologically innovative, though.
ASP.Net is still the flagship web language, is it not? I didn't think that changed. I thought all the Iron crap was just catering.