I would like the posters who bring up the subject of "sacrificing their intregity to work in IT" explain what they mean by "integrity" and what do they percieve as "sacrifice".
All work requires one to adjust to the demands and the reality of work. Sure, we are not being asked to lop of baby seal heads (unless that is your thing in which case because that is YOUR thing its not an integrity sacrifice).
I myself have worked in for companies and in positions that represent me... yes it has cost me a significant amount of money over time, but my own goals and ideas have to be maintained by me. But it is my choice, just as it is theirs.
Given the caption that was under said photo was "drunken pirate" I'm surprised the RIAA and MPAA are not suing her for being involved in possible piracy. And Goodbar (Hershey's I believe) for possible defamation of character.
There is a whole lot of "love" to be spread around.. Excuse me a second, I want to go call my lawyer.
Ummm.. given that I already import a LOT of chocolate from Belgium and France and considering these "changes".. I wonder if I can deduct my import work on my taxes under "Medical Expenses"?
I mean goodness, just put a gun in every packet. This way its quicker.
If you substitute much of your life history relating to "China" with "Taiwan" (with time off for good behaviour in "Japan") Then you have the bulk of my life. (the rest spent throughout England, France, Spain, Greece, and the US).
All of that is to say that there are some exceptions to everything. And unfortunately for much time and history, China was dumped on by groups. (Accusations of lazy, cheating, etc... and much of it undeserved) So its not really surprising that you hear a lot of the younger generations taking offence to what may be perceived as belittling and not understanding China (and by extension Chinese). For many Chinese, they believe (and to some extent it is true) that no one understands Chinese except for Chinese.
You can get a lot of the same reaction by going into some very "nationalistic" locations in the US or in Spain and get pretty much the same thing (allotting for cultural differences). (I almost got shot mentioning in public that Bush is an idiot. At least in Spain, you might get punched, but the chances of a gun shot are much higher in the US for someone that disagrees with you.
Actually, they tried to with their Smart Tags and Call home features that would track a document's generation, usage, and distribution. But thankfully quite a number of people complained about that.
The long and short of it is that more people do trust Google over Microsoft because Microsoft has screwed over a LOT of people and businesses.
Ummm... I happen to be a spanish male (30 - 35 years old) (well, a mutt really) and I do enjoy Polish folk, as well as german folk, in addition to my usual Classical (english and italian), and Japanese and Chinese Traditional, mixed in with French and Taiwanese Rap (ONLY French and Taiwanese rap) as well as 1940's - 1970's american show tunes and various kinds of rock (Spanish and British Rock, and some Heavy Metal)
I don't believe I said that my petrol stock is doing well as a direct cause of the events over the last few years. And though I don't say there is any impropriety in their actions, I do suggest that there should be a very close scrutiny of the connections and entanglements of the people that are involved in this mess. (If you are expecting them to say "Yeah, we screwed you.. deal with it!" publicly and directly, then I would love to know what you are smoking. Quite a lot is done in the shadows and only when some whistle-blower (or someone gets too greedy) do these things come to light) Again, read the papers, watch the news.
But lets take a different approach since you seem to not get the gist of my statements.
Lets say, you work for Microsoft in their OS division. And doing quite well. You are Cock of the Walk in the division. And naturally, say, Apple or even Google come a-knocking on your door with a offer that makes your toes curl. Exactly how fast do you honestly think if you accepted that offer would Microsoft's lawyers be knocking on your door? (I believe we have a relatively recent example of a similar situation)
Or, if I may give you another analogy (same vein, different groups).
You work for a military defense firm in the R&D group. But obviously a LOT of tech passes your eyes. (some that people will never see, or may see in 20+ years). And then you and your sibling (separately) produce something for public consumption that is frightening close to what sort of tech goes through your hands. There is no direct tie in, but its pretty close. Again, how fast do you think you would be out of a job and potentially sued and maybe (depending on which group you are associated with) buried?
In both these cases, you are (or may) not doing anything illegal, but it does make a LOT of people ask questions. And obviously your own actions will lead to them to make conclusions (however right or wrong they may be). The point of these statements is that, yes you can't with a marker draw a directly traceable line from the current administration's hands to the oil field(s) in the middle east. But again, with everyone's hands that are involved in these events are linked in a very real, tangible, and obvious way to a very lucrative component of the skirmish, you have to ask questions.
I have known many people that have been relieved of duty because their personal actions put them in a place where they MAY be tempted to do something wrong. (why banks don't hire gamblers, why to gain clearance, you need to be squeaky clean, and why if you have another job that is in any way close to what you do for firm A, you may be unemployed quickly).
Again, no where did I say, "Yes, they started the war because of oil". But you can not refute that those groups are in fact profiting (and also I did list other groups that are profiting as well, politically not monetarily, since much of what those groups have been seeking (and shot down quickly) are now being granted (publicly in some cases, privately in most (or have you not been following the news).
So, if I may make a suggestion, read ALL of what I said instead of latching on to one section and using it to make a broadside attack.
At this point, its strictly a litteral "if its squishy its human" if its hard, its ok to shoot.
So blame the programmers (ability, intelligence, or intent (mandate or personal)) because those are the lords of the dance in this situation for now.
I suppose the question is (which I am sure they won't say specifically) what (in this specific case under the context of the discussion at hand) is an acceptable target to fire at. (based on size? coloring? Speed? recognition of known weapons?)
No one said it was solely about the oil fields.. however there is a component that is about oil. (try as I might I can't ignore the fact that quite a few of the people involved in this are either directly related to oil families, (Rice, Bush) or have worked directly for them. (perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm sorry... If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and was born of a duck... I'll give you any odds you care to name that it is in fact a duck)
And so far, it seems that the oil firms are in fact benefiting (or have you NOT seen the price of crude (sweet and dark)). Speaking as an investor of BP, Exxon, and SPar, the war has been a phenomenal success. If they actually setup shop to "protect" the oil fields, then we would have a big issue, but the people doing this are not stupid.
So our current score is:
the military gets a blank check for almost everything it wants. the CIA gets incredible powers way beyond what they had before. (tapping everything and everyone for anything it wants under the blanket of "terrorist") the FBI gets the same (plus international) the police get the same (at the street level) we have the FBI-lite (read TSA) given control of many things full surveillance for everyone and everything because 2 or 3 people MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) be up to no good. the price of oil is high (not quite a 30 year high, but very high, with the justification of "the cost to extract and distribute is going up with the war" (it won't EVER settle back to its former levels so get used to it)
Ummmm... and who's in office?. Oil people and military resource providers.
It all depends on if you view rape and plunder as a crime or a spoils of war. Philosophy is an attempt to understand the world in a context or framework that you can understand (making the unknown, known). But if YOU KNOW you are correct and right, and good.. then why would you need to philosophise?
Doubleclick got by because they kept a, relatively speaking, low profile (except to those in the know or those that wanted to know).. I wonder if google will keep the same. Or will we see another youtube debate going on.. (he Big 4 getting cozy with Youtube.. then google comes along, and they respond "Wait, you HAVE money.. No Content for you, AND we are suing you because we want your money too").
I suspect this is a bad move.. it may work.. but its going to be painful for a while.
I would agree with that except that the various groups (VIACOM, etc..) don't want to share.. they view it as a all or nothing senario. All your revenue belongs to us (sorry, I had to say it).
I wonder what would happen if the actual producers and writers of a show actually put their works on Youtube. Granted its being distributed through viacom's channels but I assume that they have SOME rights (knowing viacom, just the right to watch it on viacom's stations).
These cases boil down to a simple fact that the content holders don't want to share, so they would rather invest millions to create a system to distribute their content, plus millions more to maintain, plus millions more to advertise their multi-million dollar channel, rather than making an agreement with youtube to be a distribution channel and then sharing the profits. (pretty much what they do everywhere else around the world.. Trust me.. Viacom does NOT have a slice of NTB or GTV (Think ABC and NBC of Japan and China respectively) but they do share some their media in exchange for a slice of advertising money. (So why do they think that because its the internet, the same model can't work?.. Oh.. that's right.. stupidity.. Its a "new" medium so its "new" rules.)
Shaking head.. short sightedness wins again.. That's it.. I'm moving to sparta.
The bottom line is its a matter of position and expectation.
Everyone keeps repeating the same mantra "Oh, he's saying the same thing that people in media have said" (quoting rappers, shock jocks, etc...)
The problem with that statement is Don Imus plays in the conservative camp, where such things are NOT allowed. If you want to be a shock jock.. then my all means. Light'em up baby. (it is what they are PAID to do) You want to be a rapper, then strap on your best gold chain and go chase those hoes (its what people expect.. and I might add much of that stupidness tends to be confined to the groups they belong to.. but IANRE (only heard one in my life, and it sent me fleeing from the room in terror)
But you can't play the game of Mr. Conservative, and toss out verbal granades and expect no collateral damage when one hits the TNT. It doesn't work. Mr. Lard-ass himself Rush L. has gotten into quite a lot of hot water over similar (NOT IDENTICAL) things, but he's pretty safe as long as he's the classic white cat being stroked in SPECTRA headquater of the political groups.
Howard stern got banned pretty much from all public radio for being "too much". And dispite the fact that he is indeed a "shock jock" I might add.
Yes, he said it.. and yes, if it were a different show (or a different network, say FOX, vs. MSNBC or CBS.. because remember boys and girls, the big 3 are still getting over the "moral outrage" of the infamous "nipple slip". (Does anyone really think that a country that spent 2 months and FCC rules, and letter writing campains for a momemtary slip of an item that every other person on this planet has two of (and that happens quite a lot in real life, except not set to music) that wasn't even noticed except by slow-mo cameras to NOT react this way?) So everyone is on hyper alert for ANYTHING that can be viewed as offensive) the reaction would be different because the EXPECTATION would be different.
Myself, what he said was offensive, however it was said in passing rather than with ire. So stupid it was, insensitive it was, but enough to get him fired, personally.. no. However fined (a la many many many many other previous cases of similar cases) yes.
This is not a direct environmental impact. This is a economic impact, of which greedy people are causing a environmental impact.
There is a big difference between burning fossel fuels which directly airborne pollutants (and I might add impact the environment by the drilling of said oil) vs. corn based fuels which is causing farmers to raise the PRICE of corn and greedy people are looking to "cash in" by raping the land. (indirect harm).
I would have to second your "NO". The iphone targets a different market segment, not to mention that the ipod (in the traditional sense) is a very different device than the iphone.
It would be better to ask, would the iphone kill the nano/shuffle. That is a likely senario. But again, different market demographics.
If I am sporting a blackberry, I am not going to drop it to get the iphone just because its has a music abilities. I will pick up a shuffle/nano (or the big 'pod if I want capacity) and keep moving.
If I am in the market for a new phone, I don't have any corporate email requirements that stipulate a specific device (blackberry server, activesync, etc...) then sure, I might combine the two. But people in this group usually do not DEPEND on their email.
So no, the iphone will not kill the 'pod. It will extend apple's reach into a market segment that is looking for convergence, but that's about it.
I will say that the iphone for myself is a great travel device when I don't need my big phone (when I am on vacation) but I want to stay in touch and keep my number of devices down to the minimum. And if it can use activesuck (excuse me, that's activesync) even better.
WAAAAYYY back in my youth, I skipped my milk money to pad my allowance.. (so 1 dollar a week for allowance, plus 35 cents a day for milk).. Made quite a mint during Pre-K through 3rd. (by then my milk train was cut). But by then I was selling candy and other trinkets to my class mates and doing research for teachers. (sometimes I miss grade school).
I would agree with that if it was another firm, like IBM or even, god forbid, SCO. Because their interest in this product doesn't come with a hugh history of screwing over almost EVERY partner they have had. Plus it doesn't come from the stance of two firms that have very different and competing products. So you really have to ask the question (using your madonna/whore analogy), who is putting the lube on who?
A partner that historically and constantly cheats is not going to change overnight simply because they are with a new partner.
We, the slashdot commune are no the iphone target market. We are the hackers, the people who want is our way, who break it and build it better. So it stands to reason that almost everyone here says "what? We can't do our thing on this thing?.. Forget it!!" The iphone is targetting the people who want the product because its a luxuary item. Because its sleek and sexy, because its a ipod with some nifty features. This is a not a smart phone, this is not a laptop, this is not even a blackberry. This is for the party go'ers, the execs, the teenieboppers, and the wannabe's. The geek set has never been the market target. I'm sure if you think about it.. in almost all cases, that's true).
So lets not bash Jobs on this because this is not really anything new. Apple has always held their cards close to their vest on everything (hardware, etc..) and because this is a consumer device, he has to control the stability and look of the device. I'm sure the second generation will be better (feature wise) and by then, more of our coding brothers and sisters will have this thing singing whatever we want by then. Jobs will get pissed, but then settle down because, hell, more devices are being sold. (a'la ipod and powerbooks).
I think the gripe most of us have is that microsoft themselves use the term innovate. they wish to be the market leader, and they wish to set standards.
I am not a person that says, if you get too big, your out of the game. because honestly if I were in their shoes I would try to do EXACTLY (well, not EXACTLY, but pretty darn close) to what they are doing now. My gripe is that if you are going to make those claims, and take that standing, then as a market leader and as a innovator of technology, you should be doing significant R&D to come up with the next big thing rather than saying: "Hey, little sally is making money on lemonaide, lets sell that and put her out of business so we have another revenue stream".
And unfortunately I know well of what I speak, as I happen to work for the evil empire. (storm trooper uniform and all)
Lets see... MS took an existing Operating system, repackaged it, and sold it to IBM. And thus an empire was born.
MS innovates in their marketing and licensing schemes, but is that really what you want from a TECHNOLOGY firm?.. Sure, their lawyers are smart.. ("Lets see how we can gouge you today, AND not have you realize until your bleeding").
Everything else they have done as been, as many have pointed out, been based on someone else's work, that they have taken to market with their leverage. Again, nothing I can respect from a TECHNOLOGY firm. Microsoft should just cut the crap and call themselves what they are. a Terriffic marketing firm. They are NOT and have never been a technology firm.
There is a world of difference between creating a product that looks and acts similar to an existing product (its been done millions of times over by anyone and everyone. Hence why products are being forced cheaper. Lets be honest. The person who first sold the toaster oven got laughed at. Once sales started, what did other manufactures do: they MADE SIMILAR (if not IDENTICAL) products. This is not a "asia vs. us" thing. This is a "manufacturer vs. manufacturer" thing. wrapping up a concept in legal rubbish like, you make something similar and I'll sue you is foolish and certainly restricts innovation. (so they copy you, big falcon deal. you add more "things" (features, cost, pretty people, etc...) to make yours more attractive than the others. a knockoff is just that, a knockoff. a copy. innoviation is not their thing, its replication.
How many TVs, phones, cars, etc... are there on the market again? And how many of them do the same thing as the others in their same catagory?.. Ummm...
However, I will say, it gets dirty and illegal if someone copies my item from stolen blueprints and copied code. That is certainly more than a knockoff, that is a direct copy which is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like the posters who bring up the subject of "sacrificing their intregity to work in IT" explain what they mean by "integrity" and what do they percieve as "sacrifice".
All work requires one to adjust to the demands and the reality of work. Sure, we are not being asked to lop of baby seal heads (unless that is your thing in which case because that is YOUR thing its not an integrity sacrifice).
I myself have worked in for companies and in positions that represent me... yes it has cost me a significant amount of money over time, but my own goals and ideas have to be maintained by me. But it is my choice, just as it is theirs.
Given the caption that was under said photo was "drunken pirate" I'm surprised the RIAA and MPAA are not suing her for being involved in possible piracy. And Goodbar (Hershey's I believe) for possible defamation of character.
There is a whole lot of "love" to be spread around.. Excuse me a second, I want to go call my lawyer.
And precisely what do you think a "alternative education center" actually is?
Stop.. please stop.. you are getting me nauseous. I need a drink of fruit juice.
Oh damn. even that lacks actual fruit. (27% my eye)
Ummm.. given that I already import a LOT of chocolate from Belgium and France and considering these "changes".. I wonder if I can deduct my import work on my taxes under "Medical Expenses"?
I mean goodness, just put a gun in every packet. This way its quicker.
If you substitute much of your life history relating to "China" with "Taiwan" (with time off for good behaviour in "Japan") Then you have the bulk of my life. (the rest spent throughout England, France, Spain, Greece, and the US).
All of that is to say that there are some exceptions to everything. And unfortunately for much time and history, China was dumped on by groups. (Accusations of lazy, cheating, etc... and much of it undeserved) So its not really surprising that you hear a lot of the younger generations taking offence to what may be perceived as belittling and not understanding China (and by extension Chinese). For many Chinese, they believe (and to some extent it is true) that no one understands Chinese except for Chinese.
You can get a lot of the same reaction by going into some very "nationalistic" locations in the US or in Spain and get pretty much the same thing (allotting for cultural differences). (I almost got shot mentioning in public that Bush is an idiot. At least in Spain, you might get punched, but the chances of a gun shot are much higher in the US for someone that disagrees with you.
Actually, they tried to with their Smart Tags and Call home features that would track a document's generation, usage, and distribution. But thankfully quite a number of people complained about that.
The long and short of it is that more people do trust Google over Microsoft because Microsoft has screwed over a LOT of people and businesses.
Ummm... I happen to be a spanish male (30 - 35 years old) (well, a mutt really) and I do enjoy Polish folk, as well as german folk, in addition to my usual Classical (english and italian), and Japanese and Chinese Traditional, mixed in with French and Taiwanese Rap (ONLY French and Taiwanese rap) as well as 1940's - 1970's american show tunes and various kinds of rock (Spanish and British Rock, and some Heavy Metal)
I wonder what catagory I fit in?
I don't believe I said that my petrol stock is doing well as a direct cause of the events over the last few years. And though I don't say there is any impropriety in their actions, I do suggest that there should be a very close scrutiny of the connections and entanglements of the people that are involved in this mess. (If you are expecting them to say "Yeah, we screwed you.. deal with it!" publicly and directly, then I would love to know what you are smoking. Quite a lot is done in the shadows and only when some whistle-blower (or someone gets too greedy) do these things come to light) Again, read the papers, watch the news.
But lets take a different approach since you seem to not get the gist of my statements.
Lets say, you work for Microsoft in their OS division. And doing quite well. You are Cock of the Walk in the division. And naturally, say, Apple or even Google come a-knocking on your door with a offer that makes your toes curl. Exactly how fast do you honestly think if you accepted that offer would Microsoft's lawyers be knocking on your door? (I believe we have a relatively recent example of a similar situation)
Or, if I may give you another analogy (same vein, different groups).
You work for a military defense firm in the R&D group. But obviously a LOT of tech passes your eyes. (some that people will never see, or may see in 20+ years). And then you and your sibling (separately) produce something for public consumption that is frightening close to what sort of tech goes through your hands. There is no direct tie in, but its pretty close. Again, how fast do you think you would be out of a job and potentially sued and maybe (depending on which group you are associated with) buried?
In both these cases, you are (or may) not doing anything illegal, but it does make a LOT of people ask questions. And obviously your own actions will lead to them to make conclusions (however right or wrong they may be). The point of these statements is that, yes you can't with a marker draw a directly traceable line from the current administration's hands to the oil field(s) in the middle east. But again, with everyone's hands that are involved in these events are linked in a very real, tangible, and obvious way to a very lucrative component of the skirmish, you have to ask questions.
I have known many people that have been relieved of duty because their personal actions put them in a place where they MAY be tempted to do something wrong. (why banks don't hire gamblers, why to gain clearance, you need to be squeaky clean, and why if you have another job that is in any way close to what you do for firm A, you may be unemployed quickly).
Again, no where did I say, "Yes, they started the war because of oil". But you can not refute that those groups are in fact profiting (and also I did list other groups that are profiting as well, politically not monetarily, since much of what those groups have been seeking (and shot down quickly) are now being granted (publicly in some cases, privately in most (or have you not been following the news).
So, if I may make a suggestion, read ALL of what I said instead of latching on to one section and using it to make a broadside attack.
Well said.
At this point, its strictly a litteral "if its squishy its human" if its hard, its ok to shoot.
So blame the programmers (ability, intelligence, or intent (mandate or personal)) because those are the lords of the dance in this situation for now.
I suppose the question is (which I am sure they won't say specifically) what (in this specific case under the context of the discussion at hand) is an acceptable target to fire at. (based on size? coloring? Speed? recognition of known weapons?)
No one said it was solely about the oil fields.. however there is a component that is about oil. (try as I might I can't ignore the fact that quite a few of the people involved in this are either directly related to oil families, (Rice, Bush) or have worked directly for them. (perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm sorry... If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and was born of a duck... I'll give you any odds you care to name that it is in fact a duck)
And so far, it seems that the oil firms are in fact benefiting (or have you NOT seen the price of crude (sweet and dark)). Speaking as an investor of BP, Exxon, and SPar, the war has been a phenomenal success. If they actually setup shop to "protect" the oil fields, then we would have a big issue, but the people doing this are not stupid.
So our current score is:
the military gets a blank check for almost everything it wants.
the CIA gets incredible powers way beyond what they had before. (tapping everything and everyone for anything it wants under the blanket of "terrorist")
the FBI gets the same (plus international)
the police get the same (at the street level)
we have the FBI-lite (read TSA) given control of many things
full surveillance for everyone and everything because 2 or 3 people MIGHT (repeat MIGHT) be up to no good.
the price of oil is high (not quite a 30 year high, but very high, with the justification of "the cost to extract and distribute is going up with the war" (it won't EVER settle back to its former levels so get used to it)
Ummmm... and who's in office?. Oil people and military resource providers.
Draw your own conclusions.
It all depends on if you view rape and plunder as a crime or a spoils of war. Philosophy is an attempt to understand the world in a context or framework that you can understand (making the unknown, known). But if YOU KNOW you are correct and right, and good.. then why would you need to philosophise?
This should be fun..
Doubleclick got by because they kept a, relatively speaking, low profile (except to those in the know or those that wanted to know).. I wonder if google will keep the same. Or will we see another youtube debate going on.. (he Big 4 getting cozy with Youtube.. then google comes along, and they respond "Wait, you HAVE money.. No Content for you, AND we are suing you because we want your money too").
I suspect this is a bad move.. it may work.. but its going to be painful for a while.
I would agree with that except that the various groups (VIACOM, etc..) don't want to share.. they view it as a all or nothing senario. All your revenue belongs to us (sorry, I had to say it).
I wonder what would happen if the actual producers and writers of a show actually put their works on Youtube. Granted its being distributed through viacom's channels but I assume that they have SOME rights (knowing viacom, just the right to watch it on viacom's stations).
These cases boil down to a simple fact that the content holders don't want to share, so they would rather invest millions to create a system to distribute their content, plus millions more to maintain, plus millions more to advertise their multi-million dollar channel, rather than making an agreement with youtube to be a distribution channel and then sharing the profits. (pretty much what they do everywhere else around the world.. Trust me.. Viacom does NOT have a slice of NTB or GTV (Think ABC and NBC of Japan and China respectively) but they do share some their media in exchange for a slice of advertising money. (So why do they think that because its the internet, the same model can't work?.. Oh.. that's right.. stupidity.. Its a "new" medium so its "new" rules.)
Shaking head.. short sightedness wins again..
That's it.. I'm moving to sparta.
The bottom line is its a matter of position and expectation.
Everyone keeps repeating the same mantra "Oh, he's saying the same thing that people in media have said" (quoting rappers, shock jocks, etc...)
The problem with that statement is Don Imus plays in the conservative camp, where such things are NOT allowed. If you want to be a shock jock.. then my all means. Light'em up baby. (it is what they are PAID to do) You want to be a rapper, then strap on your best gold chain and go chase those hoes (its what people expect.. and I might add much of that stupidness tends to be confined to the groups they belong to.. but IANRE (only heard one in my life, and it sent me fleeing from the room in terror)
But you can't play the game of Mr. Conservative, and toss out verbal granades and expect no collateral damage when one hits the TNT. It doesn't work. Mr. Lard-ass himself Rush L. has gotten into quite a lot of hot water over similar (NOT IDENTICAL) things, but he's pretty safe as long as he's the classic white cat being stroked in SPECTRA headquater of the political groups.
Howard stern got banned pretty much from all public radio for being "too much". And dispite the fact that he is indeed a "shock jock" I might add.
Yes, he said it.. and yes, if it were a different show (or a different network, say FOX, vs. MSNBC or CBS.. because remember boys and girls, the big 3 are still getting over the "moral outrage" of the infamous "nipple slip". (Does anyone really think that a country that spent 2 months and FCC rules, and letter writing campains for a momemtary slip of an item that every other person on this planet has two of (and that happens quite a lot in real life, except not set to music) that wasn't even noticed except by slow-mo cameras to NOT react this way?) So everyone is on hyper alert for ANYTHING that can be viewed as offensive) the reaction would be different because the EXPECTATION would be different.
Myself, what he said was offensive, however it was said in passing rather than with ire. So stupid it was, insensitive it was, but enough to get him fired, personally.. no. However fined (a la many many many many other previous cases of similar cases) yes.
No.. stop..
This is not a direct environmental impact.
This is a economic impact, of which greedy people are causing a environmental impact.
There is a big difference between burning fossel fuels which directly airborne pollutants (and I might add impact the environment by the drilling of said oil) vs. corn based fuels which is causing farmers to raise the PRICE of corn and greedy people are looking to "cash in" by raping the land. (indirect harm).
I would have to second your "NO". The iphone targets a different market segment, not to mention that the ipod (in the traditional sense) is a very different device than the iphone.
It would be better to ask, would the iphone kill the nano/shuffle. That is a likely senario. But again, different market demographics.
If I am sporting a blackberry, I am not going to drop it to get the iphone just because its has a music abilities. I will pick up a shuffle/nano (or the big 'pod if I want capacity) and keep moving.
If I am in the market for a new phone, I don't have any corporate email requirements that stipulate a specific device (blackberry server, activesync, etc...) then sure, I might combine the two. But people in this group usually do not DEPEND on their email.
So no, the iphone will not kill the 'pod. It will extend apple's reach into a market segment that is looking for convergence, but that's about it.
I will say that the iphone for myself is a great travel device when I don't need my big phone (when I am on vacation) but I want to stay in touch and keep my number of devices down to the minimum. And if it can use activesuck (excuse me, that's activesync) even better.
WAAAAYYY back in my youth, I skipped my milk money to pad my allowance.. (so 1 dollar a week for allowance, plus 35 cents a day for milk).. Made quite a mint during Pre-K through 3rd. (by then my milk train was cut). But by then I was selling candy and other trinkets to my class mates and doing research for teachers. (sometimes I miss grade school).
I would agree with that if it was another firm, like IBM or even, god forbid, SCO. Because their interest in this product doesn't come with a hugh history of screwing over almost EVERY partner they have had. Plus it doesn't come from the stance of two firms that have very different and competing products. So you really have to ask the question (using your madonna/whore analogy), who is putting the lube on who?
A partner that historically and constantly cheats is not going to change overnight simply because they are with a new partner.
Damn, you took my line..
that's it... no more being sick.
We, the slashdot commune are no the iphone target market. We are the hackers, the people who want is our way, who break it and build it better. So it stands to reason that almost everyone here says "what? We can't do our thing on this thing?.. Forget it!!" The iphone is targetting the people who want the product because its a luxuary item. Because its sleek and sexy, because its a ipod with some nifty features. This is a not a smart phone, this is not a laptop, this is not even a blackberry. This is for the party go'ers, the execs, the teenieboppers, and the wannabe's. The geek set has never been the market target. I'm sure if you think about it.. in almost all cases, that's true).
So lets not bash Jobs on this because this is not really anything new. Apple has always held their cards close to their vest on everything (hardware, etc..) and because this is a consumer device, he has to control the stability and look of the device. I'm sure the second generation will be better (feature wise) and by then, more of our coding brothers and sisters will have this thing singing whatever we want by then. Jobs will get pissed, but then settle down because, hell, more devices are being sold. (a'la ipod and powerbooks).
You forgot the additional bits of the combat couriers, and the seemingly innocient, but hyper sexed doctors/painters/poets.
Ummm.. perhaps not that far off indeed. I happen to know two people who would fit the description of a combat courier. (though both are male).
I think the gripe most of us have is that microsoft themselves use the term innovate. they wish to be the market leader, and they wish to set standards.
I am not a person that says, if you get too big, your out of the game. because honestly if I were in their shoes I would try to do EXACTLY (well, not EXACTLY, but pretty darn close) to what they are doing now. My gripe is that if you are going to make those claims, and take that standing, then as a market leader and as a innovator of technology, you should be doing significant R&D to come up with the next big thing rather than saying: "Hey, little sally is making money on lemonaide, lets sell that and put her out of business so we have another revenue stream".
And unfortunately I know well of what I speak, as I happen to work for the evil empire. (storm trooper uniform and all)
Lets see... MS took an existing Operating system, repackaged it, and sold it to IBM. And thus an empire was born.
MS innovates in their marketing and licensing schemes, but is that really what you want from a TECHNOLOGY firm?.. Sure, their lawyers are smart.. ("Lets see how we can gouge you today, AND not have you realize until your bleeding").
Everything else they have done as been, as many have pointed out, been based on someone else's work, that they have taken to market with their leverage. Again, nothing I can respect from a TECHNOLOGY firm. Microsoft should just cut the crap and call themselves what they are. a Terriffic marketing firm. They are NOT and have never been a technology firm.
There is a world of difference between creating a product that looks and acts similar to an existing product (its been done millions of times over by anyone and everyone. Hence why products are being forced cheaper. Lets be honest. The person who first sold the toaster oven got laughed at. Once sales started, what did other manufactures do: they MADE SIMILAR (if not IDENTICAL) products. This is not a "asia vs. us" thing. This is a "manufacturer vs. manufacturer" thing. wrapping up a concept in legal rubbish like, you make something similar and I'll sue you is foolish and certainly restricts innovation. (so they copy you, big falcon deal. you add more "things" (features, cost, pretty people, etc...) to make yours more attractive than the others. a knockoff is just that, a knockoff. a copy. innoviation is not their thing, its replication.
How many TVs, phones, cars, etc... are there on the market again? And how many of them do the same thing as the others in their same catagory?.. Ummm...
However, I will say, it gets dirty and illegal if someone copies my item from stolen blueprints and copied code. That is certainly more than a knockoff, that is a direct copy which is wrong.