" 'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?' concludes Savitz."
Because it makes you a bottom-feeder. And no one likes bottom-feeders. You're taking the generosity and good will of others who are trying to help the less fortunate and turning it into your own personal profit machine. What, has the "stealing candy from babies and reselling it online" market dried up so quickly? This is right up there with people that go around to thrift stores buying up all the decent items and reselling them for 10-100x more in their "antique" stores, leaving nothing but crap for those that are in need. Sorry dude, but you're a scum-sucking lowlife.
5%? Maybe in single-track music once expenses are considered. But they make considerably more on album sales, TV shows, movies, apps (especially apps), and whatever other garbage they try to shove down your throat.
And com'n now, the markup on those iOS devices isn't anywhere near that of their Mac lines. There is a reason for this. It's because they fully intend to make money off of the continued sales from iStores, not the hardware (tho they still have a healthy markup and contribute nicely to Apple's bottom line). This isn't anything new, it's a well-documented fact. Why else would they keep the thing completely locked down (and if you believe Stevie J's line about maintaining the "experience" then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying)?
And while iAd is in part there to "woo" developers, again, don't delude yourself, as Apple takes a massive chunk of the profits where it would otherwise get squat (a 30% cut of free won't pay for Stevie J's private jets). Just because it's not in full swing yet doesn't mean it's intended purpose as a sizable revenue stream is any different.
Honestly, you really can't begrudge them. They have enthralled a nation of sheep and are going to milk them in any way possible. It's just good business sense. But don't fool yourself into thinking there is any altruism in there. Stevie J would just as soon sell his mother's soul in the Apple Store if he could find a way to digitize it.
But I agree with you as to why Apple hasn't made a stink about the hacks. The base is very small. But as it catches on and more people take advantage of it I suspect that's going to change.
Oh, and the negative rating comes from the massive number of Job cultists in the thread. Yeah, sheeple, come 'n get it.
Puhlease. Apple's iOS line is set to completely different standards than their desktop and laptop products. Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things. Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.
Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd. Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window. Surely you can see how Stevie J won't like that one bit.
I think this pretty much covers it. Older hardware and/or peripherals that aren't fully compatible with Windows 7, older software that's either not compatible or transferable, and of course the expense.
My mother is a perfect example. XP does everything she needs on her 5-year old machine -- email, web, Skype, and Hulu. Upgrading to Windows 7 will break her printer and Skype phone adapter, not to mention the potential driver issues with her aging mobo. Add up the total cost of upgrading to an OS that offers her nothing but a visual upgrade and it's a big fat WHY?
I was thinking the same thing. If the page is completely public and viewable by anyone then that's one thing. But if it's not, and material is restricted then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.
Last time I traveled I had my toothpaste taken away by TSA. So should I then swear to never fly again?
An adult would have realized the rules are there for public safety, and made other arrangements for transporting the items in question (like, for example, packing them up and shipping them, a service that's available in almost every major airport in the world). But no, he acts like a spoiled child who gets his toys taken away.
And I don't agree their logic was deeply faulty. Shuriken are weapons and weapons are not permitted on planes, even private ones. I don't see that as being unreasonable.
Cause it's not like they forced him to give up his nail clippers, which, btw, also happened to me a few years ago.
Now if we could only get him to leave the US this way...
Seriously, they took your toys away so you'll never return to Japan. Boo hoo, like I'm sure they give a shit. Seriously, will this jackass ever grow up?
Actually, history has shown that rarely ever works. Here's a short list of changes that were mandated by our government DESPITE the general public either being indifferent or opposing it:
1.) We'd still have slaves. 2.) Women wouldn't be able to vote. 3.) Schools, churches, buses, water fountains, etc. would still be segregated. 4.) Interracial marriages would be illegal. 5.) Homosexuality would be a crime. 6.) Abortion would be illegal.
So while it would be great if the government could convince some people what's best for them, as I said before, you just can't fix stupid.
Sometimes change is fostered by the people and government needs to play catch-up. Sometimes the government mandates change and the people need to catch up. Either way is fine with me so long as we continue to progress.
Well you're entitled to your opinion and your stupidity. The former is something the "evil" government guarantees you while the latter is something they just can't fix.
And honestly, I don't think much will change come November. I think you're going to be very disappointed.
Wasting energy is not evil, nor is it a sin. It's irresponsible. And irresponsibility is something the government is very good at legislating since history has proven the American people are just too stupid to do it themselves.
Cause it's these same people who bitch and moan about how expensive their electric bill is and how much they are spending at the pump, but the mere notion of "energy conservation" has them screaming bloody ass murder. Hypocrisy much?
It's the same reason why the government has to outlaw using the phone while driving. Cause people are too stupid to realize it's a pretty dumb thing to do. If no one did it, there would be no need to outlaw it. If everyone bought energy efficient light bulbs, then the government wouldn't have to mandate it.
Sometimes the government just has to do what's best for us, whether we like it or not. And y'know what, all-in-all I'm a-ok with that.
Sorry, I didn't realize that energy conservation was on the same list of "sins" as pornography, alcohol, dancing, and video games. Nor did I think it was something that televangelists proselytize over.
Yes, heaven forbid a government do something to force idiot consumers to save energy. Oh the horror of a socially-responsible government. I'm sorry you are so burdened by having to use non-incandescent lightbulbs. Such oppression must surely weigh on your soul. How do you manage to get up in the morning and make it thru your day?
You sell it just like you sell any other piece of computer equipment. When was the last time you bought a laptop, desktop, printer, music player, etc. from a cell carrier?
"I'd be happy with just a wifi version if I had to."
And this is the problem, and why the Galaxy Tab won't come in a wifi only version, because Google demands that Android devices that want access to the Marketplace must have cell access.
Supposedly this is gonna be fixed up in Gingerbread -- I hope.
He has something of a point. What is ChromeOS going to do that Android theoretically can't? Maybe having two competing OSs isn't such a great idea anyway.
Sweet Jesus this asshole is batshit crazy. First off, I used to live in Las Vegas, and they can't even go 40 MPH without getting into an accident. I can't even imagine trying to do 90 on Nevada highways. Who in their right mind would pay for this?
Slashdot Mirror
" 'If it's possible to make a decent living selling books online, then why does it feel so shameful to do this work?' concludes Savitz."
Because it makes you a bottom-feeder. And no one likes bottom-feeders. You're taking the generosity and good will of others who are trying to help the less fortunate and turning it into your own personal profit machine. What, has the "stealing candy from babies and reselling it online" market dried up so quickly? This is right up there with people that go around to thrift stores buying up all the decent items and reselling them for 10-100x more in their "antique" stores, leaving nothing but crap for those that are in need. Sorry dude, but you're a scum-sucking lowlife.
So now I can't jerk off OR play video games? Damn dude, WTH am I supposed to do with my free time?
Viva la resistance!
5%? Maybe in single-track music once expenses are considered. But they make considerably more on album sales, TV shows, movies, apps (especially apps), and whatever other garbage they try to shove down your throat.
And com'n now, the markup on those iOS devices isn't anywhere near that of their Mac lines. There is a reason for this. It's because they fully intend to make money off of the continued sales from iStores, not the hardware (tho they still have a healthy markup and contribute nicely to Apple's bottom line). This isn't anything new, it's a well-documented fact. Why else would they keep the thing completely locked down (and if you believe Stevie J's line about maintaining the "experience" then I have a bridge you might be interested in buying)?
And while iAd is in part there to "woo" developers, again, don't delude yourself, as Apple takes a massive chunk of the profits where it would otherwise get squat (a 30% cut of free won't pay for Stevie J's private jets). Just because it's not in full swing yet doesn't mean it's intended purpose as a sizable revenue stream is any different.
Honestly, you really can't begrudge them. They have enthralled a nation of sheep and are going to milk them in any way possible. It's just good business sense. But don't fool yourself into thinking there is any altruism in there. Stevie J would just as soon sell his mother's soul in the Apple Store if he could find a way to digitize it.
But I agree with you as to why Apple hasn't made a stink about the hacks. The base is very small. But as it catches on and more people take advantage of it I suspect that's going to change.
Oh, and the negative rating comes from the massive number of Job cultists in the thread. Yeah, sheeple, come 'n get it.
Puhlease. Apple's iOS line is set to completely different standards than their desktop and laptop products. Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things. Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.
Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd. Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window. Surely you can see how Stevie J won't like that one bit.
Emperor Jobs will surely smite you for such heresy!
I think this pretty much covers it. Older hardware and/or peripherals that aren't fully compatible with Windows 7, older software that's either not compatible or transferable, and of course the expense.
My mother is a perfect example. XP does everything she needs on her 5-year old machine -- email, web, Skype, and Hulu. Upgrading to Windows 7 will break her printer and Skype phone adapter, not to mention the potential driver issues with her aging mobo. Add up the total cost of upgrading to an OS that offers her nothing but a visual upgrade and it's a big fat WHY?
Of course not. Why would they actually report useful information instead of some kind of unsubstantiated half-truth?
I was thinking the same thing. If the page is completely public and viewable by anyone then that's one thing. But if it's not, and material is restricted then there most certainly is an expectation of privacy.
I assume that it will include Jesus Juice as power ups and your lair will contain a large bed filled with young boys. If not, what's the point?
Actually it's a very simple question. Do you think it's OK for people to bring weapons onto a plane?
So you think it's ok for people to be allowed to bring weapons onto planes?
Last time I traveled I had my toothpaste taken away by TSA. So should I then swear to never fly again?
An adult would have realized the rules are there for public safety, and made other arrangements for transporting the items in question (like, for example, packing them up and shipping them, a service that's available in almost every major airport in the world). But no, he acts like a spoiled child who gets his toys taken away.
And I don't agree their logic was deeply faulty. Shuriken are weapons and weapons are not permitted on planes, even private ones. I don't see that as being unreasonable.
Cause it's not like they forced him to give up his nail clippers, which, btw, also happened to me a few years ago.
Now if we could only get him to leave the US this way...
Seriously, they took your toys away so you'll never return to Japan. Boo hoo, like I'm sure they give a shit. Seriously, will this jackass ever grow up?
Actually, history has shown that rarely ever works. Here's a short list of changes that were mandated by our government DESPITE the general public either being indifferent or opposing it:
1.) We'd still have slaves.
2.) Women wouldn't be able to vote.
3.) Schools, churches, buses, water fountains, etc. would still be segregated.
4.) Interracial marriages would be illegal.
5.) Homosexuality would be a crime.
6.) Abortion would be illegal.
So while it would be great if the government could convince some people what's best for them, as I said before, you just can't fix stupid.
Sometimes change is fostered by the people and government needs to play catch-up. Sometimes the government mandates change and the people need to catch up. Either way is fine with me so long as we continue to progress.
Well you're entitled to your opinion and your stupidity. The former is something the "evil" government guarantees you while the latter is something they just can't fix.
And honestly, I don't think much will change come November. I think you're going to be very disappointed.
Wasting energy is not evil, nor is it a sin. It's irresponsible. And irresponsibility is something the government is very good at legislating since history has proven the American people are just too stupid to do it themselves.
Cause it's these same people who bitch and moan about how expensive their electric bill is and how much they are spending at the pump, but the mere notion of "energy conservation" has them screaming bloody ass murder. Hypocrisy much?
It's the same reason why the government has to outlaw using the phone while driving. Cause people are too stupid to realize it's a pretty dumb thing to do. If no one did it, there would be no need to outlaw it. If everyone bought energy efficient light bulbs, then the government wouldn't have to mandate it.
Sometimes the government just has to do what's best for us, whether we like it or not. And y'know what, all-in-all I'm a-ok with that.
Sorry, I didn't realize that energy conservation was on the same list of "sins" as pornography, alcohol, dancing, and video games. Nor did I think it was something that televangelists proselytize over.
Epic fail on that argument.
Yes, heaven forbid a government do something to force idiot consumers to save energy. Oh the horror of a socially-responsible government. I'm sorry you are so burdened by having to use non-incandescent lightbulbs. Such oppression must surely weigh on your soul. How do you manage to get up in the morning and make it thru your day?
You sell it just like you sell any other piece of computer equipment. When was the last time you bought a laptop, desktop, printer, music player, etc. from a cell carrier?
"I'd be happy with just a wifi version if I had to."
And this is the problem, and why the Galaxy Tab won't come in a wifi only version, because Google demands that Android devices that want access to the Marketplace must have cell access.
Supposedly this is gonna be fixed up in Gingerbread -- I hope.
He has something of a point. What is ChromeOS going to do that Android theoretically can't? Maybe having two competing OSs isn't such a great idea anyway.
And video game.
Sweet Jesus this asshole is batshit crazy. First off, I used to live in Las Vegas, and they can't even go 40 MPH without getting into an accident. I can't even imagine trying to do 90 on Nevada highways. Who in their right mind would pay for this?
If this is true I should have been dead years ago.