Photoshop/Illustrator/etc were often the only reasons people would even consider purchasing a Mac. Is it Adobe's fault that Apple made a bunch of super niche computers at a time when diversity and adaptability were the strong selling points of Windows machines?
Really, look at the pre-iPod years. How many people did you know that used Macs for anything other than graphic design type work? They were THE platform at the time (though I personally never really understood why). Sure, there were people that preferred them over alternatives, but speaking from experience as someone who grew up in Silicon Valley during the 80's and 90's, I would estimate Macs to have maintained roughly a 5% market share among the people I knew.
Apple made their own bed. Not my chair, not my problem, that's what I always say.
Network neutrality says the minimum wage guy has just as much right to use the tunnel as the carload of trustfund babies.
So what happens when the minimum wage guy is driving a P.O.S. that exhibits a danger to other travelers, while the trustifarians cruise up to Breck with their snazzy Audi? I know this is stretching the analogy a little far, but consider all of the things we have yet to learn about how the Internet will be used in 20, 30, 100 years. I'm sure there is still some pretty sophisticated malware yet to be developed.
How about the guy that pays his bill each and every month while others tap in to rogue connections for free? I know the days of hacking Netzero to get free dial-up are gone, but I'm sure some bright CS student somewhere will come up with a way to get free access.
In this case, I'd rather see a completely level playing field and suffer some regulation than watch as the US falls even further behind in broadband and internet while corporations rake in cash.
Pardon my naivety, but I would like to better understand how exactly the US has fallen behind. Sure, the speeds at which we stream video and such aren't on par with those of Japan, etc, but I myself don't really have a problem watching a movie or whatever when I wish to do so. As far as I can tell, the Internet works pretty darn good all things considered. Is it essential that we have the fastest speeds in the world? I don't think so. We certainly don't get to work as fast as workers in other countries. Have we fallen behind in transportation? (don't answer that!)
It only makes sense that the US isn't a leader when it comes to implementing new technology. The US has been a land of innovation, where folks from around the globe can come and study and invent cool new things. When other nations see these cool new things, they improve on them because they learn from our mistakes or adapt different designs to accommodate their own needs. Spam became popular in the US long before China, yet China will likely fast approach the US in terms of spam production. They saw the idea, and are using it for their own purposes. And those Nigerians too (you gotta admit, it was a good idea at the time!)
I am satisfied with having average internet speeds and such. At some point the focus needs to redirected off of 'bigger-better-faster-more' and back to what the US can do best, innovate.
It's a fair point. But does it necessarily make sense to give artificial power to businesses who know nothing about providing internet services to everyone while removing control from the businesses whose business is providing internet services?
Is this supposed to level the playing field or something? I know that part of me is an idealist when I say that a tiered internet will not enable shady back-room deals to occur. But I foresee NN analogous to giving a freight company transporting hazardous materials the same unrestricted right to use the Eisenhower Tunnel as a car load of college kids driving up to ski for the weekend.
It just seems incredibly short-sighted to declare all traffic equal.
said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations.
"We think this is bad because it will force us to do work."
"We think this is bad because it will force consumers to pay money for something."
"We think this is bad because it means that corporations will make money."
Are you kidding me? Who is this lady and why is she not on a plane to Alaska?
While working at EA right after high school as a phone jockey, we were occasionally asked to work an hour or two extra to help test upcoming games.
I was not typically interested, until they wanted testers for the new version of Madden (a favorite of mine at the time). So I went. I found bugs. I documented them thoroughly.
Part of the deal was that we got a free copy of the game upon release. I took it home, fired it up, and the first thing I did was check for the bugs I found. Every single one of them were still present.
So, is it a case of companies being too cheap? Or is it a case of companies being too wasteful?
So maybe the state you live in should consider repealing Blue Laws. Here in Colorado, we can now go to liquor stores on Sunday, and don't have to resort to drinking near beer or.... DRIVING TO THE BAR!!! to have a brew while watching the game on Sunday.
This is, of course, assuming you don't live in Utah.
It seems to me like the concept of self-navigating vehicles would be a better way to spend research dollars. It will at least buy us some time until Bender is our chauffeur.
A few years ago I looked into this. I was going to Seattle to visit someone and we were thinking of driving up to Vancouver. I had a DWAI a handful of years back, and I somehow came across the fact that this might prevent me from entering at the border.
After reading what others have said, what I gather is that it all comes down to the discretion of the border guard. If they feel like running your name, they can. Not that they will, but it's their choice. If they run your name and see you have a conviction they don't like, then it is also at their discretion whether or not they let you in.
Someone I know who has had multiple DWAI convictions crosses the border regularly for business. Where he crosses is more rural, so maybe that has something to do with it.
I understand why this mother would be upset, she lost her son and that's sad.
Race car games let you bump others into the wall. Baseball games let you throw beanballs. Basketball games let you recruit a posse and commit all kinds of off-the-field shenanigans. Maybe what we need is more padding for our children, that way they can live safely and without fear of something terrible happening. Sounds like a great way to motivate children to live life to its fullest.
Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop/Illustrator/etc were often the only reasons people would even consider purchasing a Mac. Is it Adobe's fault that Apple made a bunch of super niche computers at a time when diversity and adaptability were the strong selling points of Windows machines?
Really, look at the pre-iPod years. How many people did you know that used Macs for anything other than graphic design type work? They were THE platform at the time (though I personally never really understood why). Sure, there were people that preferred them over alternatives, but speaking from experience as someone who grew up in Silicon Valley during the 80's and 90's, I would estimate Macs to have maintained roughly a 5% market share among the people I knew.
Apple made their own bed. Not my chair, not my problem, that's what I always say.
Meds.
Already done.
It is the most popular thing on the internet.
Did I miss Something?
As for your analogy, show me a packet that can explode in the cable causing death and destruction all around it and I'll consider it.
Not quite an explosion
Network neutrality says the minimum wage guy has just as much right to use the tunnel as the carload of trustfund babies.
So what happens when the minimum wage guy is driving a P.O.S. that exhibits a danger to other travelers, while the trustifarians cruise up to Breck with their snazzy Audi? I know this is stretching the analogy a little far, but consider all of the things we have yet to learn about how the Internet will be used in 20, 30, 100 years. I'm sure there is still some pretty sophisticated malware yet to be developed.
How about the guy that pays his bill each and every month while others tap in to rogue connections for free? I know the days of hacking Netzero to get free dial-up are gone, but I'm sure some bright CS student somewhere will come up with a way to get free access.
In this case, I'd rather see a completely level playing field and suffer some regulation than watch as the US falls even further behind in broadband and internet while corporations rake in cash.
Pardon my naivety, but I would like to better understand how exactly the US has fallen behind. Sure, the speeds at which we stream video and such aren't on par with those of Japan, etc, but I myself don't really have a problem watching a movie or whatever when I wish to do so. As far as I can tell, the Internet works pretty darn good all things considered. Is it essential that we have the fastest speeds in the world? I don't think so. We certainly don't get to work as fast as workers in other countries. Have we fallen behind in transportation? (don't answer that!)
It only makes sense that the US isn't a leader when it comes to implementing new technology. The US has been a land of innovation, where folks from around the globe can come and study and invent cool new things. When other nations see these cool new things, they improve on them because they learn from our mistakes or adapt different designs to accommodate their own needs. Spam became popular in the US long before China, yet China will likely fast approach the US in terms of spam production. They saw the idea, and are using it for their own purposes. And those Nigerians too (you gotta admit, it was a good idea at the time!)
I am satisfied with having average internet speeds and such. At some point the focus needs to redirected off of 'bigger-better-faster-more' and back to what the US can do best, innovate.
It's a fair point. But does it necessarily make sense to give artificial power to businesses who know nothing about providing internet services to everyone while removing control from the businesses whose business is providing internet services?
Is this supposed to level the playing field or something? I know that part of me is an idealist when I say that a tiered internet will not enable shady back-room deals to occur. But I foresee NN analogous to giving a freight company transporting hazardous materials the same unrestricted right to use the Eisenhower Tunnel as a car load of college kids driving up to ski for the weekend.
It just seems incredibly short-sighted to declare all traffic equal.
said the Google-Verizon proposal increases the pressure on the FCC to come up with actual net neutrality rules, and characterize the deal as harmful to consumers and beneficial for the corporations.
"We think this is bad because it will force us to do work."
"We think this is bad because it will force consumers to pay money for something."
"We think this is bad because it means that corporations will make money."
Are you kidding me? Who is this lady and why is she not on a plane to Alaska?
...or is it? This was a release for a console system that did not have any type of patching capability.
This Ask Slashdot was very informative. I'm serious. I liked this one. It's a good question.
Soulskill +1 : Relevant ; +1 : Motivational
While working at EA right after high school as a phone jockey, we were occasionally asked to work an hour or two extra to help test upcoming games.
I was not typically interested, until they wanted testers for the new version of Madden (a favorite of mine at the time). So I went. I found bugs. I documented them thoroughly.
Part of the deal was that we got a free copy of the game upon release. I took it home, fired it up, and the first thing I did was check for the bugs I found. Every single one of them were still present.
So, is it a case of companies being too cheap? Or is it a case of companies being too wasteful?
AC = Cliff Claven?
From my perspective there is no line to draw, first time 5 years w/o a license, second time lose your license forever, period.
Except that would end up in the Supreme Court and eventually be found to violate the 8th Amendment.
You asked a rhetorical question and expected an answer?
GP's point was clearly over your head.
So maybe the state you live in should consider repealing Blue Laws. Here in Colorado, we can now go to liquor stores on Sunday, and don't have to resort to drinking near beer or.... DRIVING TO THE BAR!!! to have a brew while watching the game on Sunday.
This is, of course, assuming you don't live in Utah.
You have to hum and blow into them at the same time.
So, what you're saying, is that there is a certain technique required to do it correctly?
It seems to me like the concept of self-navigating vehicles would be a better way to spend research dollars. It will at least buy us some time until Bender is our chauffeur.
...And cars.
...Harley dirt bags.
I think they're called Fags now.
I am not sure how often a memory dump is required but I am guessing once a month.
I'm pretty sure they have radio transmitters phoning home.
Otherwise it is very easy to have someone else blow for you as you leave.
And this is a perfect example of the mentality needed to get caught.
A few years ago I looked into this. I was going to Seattle to visit someone and we were thinking of driving up to Vancouver. I had a DWAI a handful of years back, and I somehow came across the fact that this might prevent me from entering at the border.
After reading what others have said, what I gather is that it all comes down to the discretion of the border guard. If they feel like running your name, they can. Not that they will, but it's their choice. If they run your name and see you have a conviction they don't like, then it is also at their discretion whether or not they let you in.
Someone I know who has had multiple DWAI convictions crosses the border regularly for business. Where he crosses is more rural, so maybe that has something to do with it.
I understand why this mother would be upset, she lost her son and that's sad.
Race car games let you bump others into the wall. Baseball games let you throw beanballs. Basketball games let you recruit a posse and commit all kinds of off-the-field shenanigans. Maybe what we need is more padding for our children, that way they can live safely and without fear of something terrible happening. Sounds like a great way to motivate children to live life to its fullest.
I think I will trademark FTFY. Every time some tool posts some FTFY comment, I can nail them for infringement.