I didn't say Jobs was so great. I just pointed out the falsity of your smears.
From your original post.
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,
How is saying 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible' admitting their idea is better and moving on? It sounds more like accepting inevitability. You make it sound like Jobs was open to other's idea when there is plenty of evidence that he was just the opposite.
They were not the board, and had no power to overrule him.
So add VPs to the list of people who can override Jobs' decisions and do things. If they could not overrule Jobs they could not have done it anyway as they stated. When Jobs came back to Apple he was part of a team that made decisions. It was no longer Apple === Steve Jobs. Ascribing everything that happened in Apple to decisions by Steve Jobs is inaccurate. The perception that Jobs === Apple is another of the effects of the "reality distortion field".
If Jobs was so great then why did NeXT, a company completely controlled by Jobs, do so poorly?
According to this article the decision on iPod for Windows came about exactly as I described. From the article:
"We argued with Steve a bunch [about putting iTunes on Windows], and he said no," Rubenstein recalls. "Finally, Phil Schiller and I said 'we're going to do it.' And Steve said, 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible.' And he stormed out of the room."
That does not sound like Jobs changed his mind. Schiller and Rubenstein did it in spite of what Jobs wanted.
Jobs was brilliant but not perfect. Jobs combined with a strong Board that can override some of his decisions is why Apple did so well. With Jobs alone you get NeXT; a failure.
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,
That statement is laughable. When Steve Jobs was in control of NeXT he decreed that the cube must be a perfect cube. Pressing, the most efficient way to create the case, works best with the side a couple of degrees off. Most people would not notice the difference but it allows the cube to be pulled out of the die much easier. Even though only one company in the US was able to press a perfect cube and it would add a couple hundred dollars to each machine, Jobs insisted on it. That was one of the reasons the NeXT was so expensive.
He originally said "no" to iPods for Windows and the iOS app store. People presented their case and he changed his mind.
When Jobs came back to Apple they had a Board that could stand up to Jobs and make decisions counter to Jobs' wishes. The Board had been doing it for years while Jobs was failing at NeXT. I doubt Jobs "changed his mind". More likely the Board overrode him.
I was a bit confused by the summary. It starts by talking about the backup camera requirement and then talked about "the ability to replace sideview mirrors with cameras". It gave me the impression that the car makers want new cars to be required to have side view cameras instead of mirrors. This is not the case. Right now it is a requirement to have sideview mirrors on vehicles. Cameras do not fulfill that requirement. What manufactures want is the ability to substitute cameras for side view mirrors. It would not be a requirement. I think it is a good idea if cameras fulfill the safety requirement.
Exactly and you can't predict that he will spend more money in the future. He might but convicting someone before the crime is not valid. He was CTO at Mozilla when he donated. I bet his wages were pretty high at that time too.
Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
He could but he didn't. He donated the grand total of $1000. To many people that is not much. Lets deal with what happened and not what might have happened.
But which company will win the battle to illuminate the connected home?"
They all will lose as competing standards will decrease adoption. In the end there will probably be a standard that is not backward compatible and early adopters will have to buy new equipment. Maybe all companies win after all.
Having known someone that ran over their daughter at age 4 when she ran out to wish him good by before he left, and killed her.
I sympathize with the tragedy but would a backup camera actually helped? If the child was running behind the car would the driver have had enough time to see and react to the presence of the child? It is quite possible the accident would have happened with or without a camera.
Yes backing up over people is an issue but are backup cameras the solution. It is about unintended consequences. If there is a monitor in the dash of the vehicle the driver will be looking forward as they back up. They will only be able to see directly behind them as that is where the camera is pointed. It is quite possible that they will miss crossing traffic such as children riding bikes on the sidewalk or traffic in the street. The few accidents caused by driving over someone may be far outweighed by the collisions with crossing traffic.
A much better option would be an ultrasonic detector that beeps when there is an obstruction behind the vehicle. That way the driver could still look over their shoulder to look for crossing traffic.
Taxis are limited almost everywhere so that drivers can make a living wage and continue to provide the service. Ride share is the worst case. You get part time drivers working only the good time for extra money. They take the gravy times and don't work during the low times. I used to drive cab 5 days a week and I made over 60% of my week's pay on Friday and Saturday night. If there are too many cars on those nights my weekly take would have been cut in half. I would have probably made under $8/hr. I could not afford to drive. This would eventually drive most full time drivers out of business and it would be very hard to get a cab during low times.
To go further into the extra money thing, part time drivers usually have other jobs that pay the bills and any money they make driving is mad money. They don't care if they make $20 in a couple of hours because they don't need the money. That $20 could mean the difference between meeting rent or not for a full time driver.
That is, people at home now get to do what used to be restricted to "professionals"
Sorry but it is still restricted to professionals. anything descent comes from stereo lithography or SLS. Those printers cost thousands and the materials are expensive. Service bureaus are viable but home printers are just for hobbyists. The extrusion systems produce crap. That pen may look cool but it probably cost $30 in time and material and I can buy a more comfortable one for 50 cents. 3D modeling is not easy for the average person. It is a skill that few people can do.
How long did it take you to design and print that dishwasher part and how much did the printer cost? Sure you can save money if you value your time at $0/hr. To you it is a hobby and you like doing it. Many people don't like making things.
The hype is just stupid. You are at least closer to reality.
The license for the taxi is different than the license for the driver and exist for different reasons. The taxi license is there to regulate the number and quality of the vehicles. The driver's license is there to regulate the qualifications of the driver. Notice that one driver can drive many different cabs depending on shift and vehicle availability. I was a fill in driver and sometimes had a different car each day.
What's next: allowing PhD to sell their diplomas once they retire?
It is more similar to the owner of a bar being able to sell his liquor license when he retires. The taxi license is attached to the car not the driver.
there is no such thing as technological development,
There are a lot of technology development. The problem is that the hype is taking what can be done today and projecting things completely unrelated. Sure we can extrude plastics, cure resins and sinter metal powder pretty well. That does not mean we can make arbitrary atoms and molecules and place them in patters as we see fit. It is completely different technologies. It is like saying since we can build a house we can build massive floating cities in the sky.
new methods of manufacture are literally worthless.
They are very worth while but they will not be able to "print anything" for a very long time. Also to print anything useful is going to be very expensive for quite some time yet. I see a great future for 3D printing service bureaus. The idea of a 3d printer in every house is a big stretch. The new manufacturing methods have a lot of worth; just not as much as some people seem to want us to believe.
It most certainly won't come to NOTHING,
And it won't come to printing everything as the hype would make you believe. All I am saying is tone down the hype.
I don't care what technology there may be in a more than couple of hundred years. This 3D printing hype is like Aztecs talking about having space travel in the next year. The hype needs to tone down.
The kids going to school in the dark issue is the reason that we don't have DST all year around.
youth crimes are largely committed between 3PM and 5PM.
According to this graph the peak is between 3-6PM on weekdays but it is not much different than any other segment between noon and midnight. From the graph approximately 73 youths were accused between noon and midnight. Of that, 21 (29%) occurred between 3 and 6. That is 4% over the expected average of 25%. Sorry but a 4% difference is not largely.
let kids go to school 1-2 hours later and get home later.
The problem with your solution is that parents could no longer take their kids to school in the winter as they need to be at school after the parent needs to be at work. The solution to that would be to shift the work day too but that would be the same as shifting the clock.
Airless tires generally have higher rolling resistance and provide much less suspension than similarly shaped and sized pneumatic tires. Other problems for airless tires include dissipating the heat buildup that occurs when they are driven. Airless tires are often filled with compressed polymers (plastic), rather than air.
Even if they could be printed airless tires are not very effective.
Solid tires are really only useful for heavy machinery.
The burden of proof for something happening is on the person making the claim. You claim it will happen but have nothing to back it up. I am saying it probably won't happen. It might happen but that is very far from "will". Based on current technology and technology in development I see no way of creating one device that can print most of the things we use. The technologies that are being used for 3D printing have been around for decades. We have refined the process and made it less expensive but there have been very little actual advancement. The things that can be printed will always be less expensive to mass produce especially if you add in the time and printing failures.
The main issue is that anything with metal and plastic can not yet be printed together as the methods are incomparable. Printing with metal requires too much heat which would destroy the plastic. Then there is the issue that metal objects need to be polished and/or tempered. Electronic components are also impossible to print. Until we can create atoms and manipilate individual bonds 3D printing will not "print anything".
The main point is that until we advance a lot more lets cool down the hype and get realistic.
Bentley cars have come to stand for a way of doing things. 3D printing allows for an extremely quick turnaround for design and prototyping
Notice they say nothing about tires that provide "better, longer lasting, provide a smoother ride". Also notice they say "design and prototyping" and not production. Sure you can 3D print a tire on a hub there is no way it will be a complete functional long lasting tire. Here is their list of items that can be created with their "rubber like" material;
Exhibition and communication models Rubber surrounds and over-molding Soft-touch coatings and nonslip surfaces Knobs, grips, pulls, handles, gaskets, seals, hoses, footwear
Notice that functional tires is not on the list. The final nail in the coffin is that there are no metals on the material list.
Someone adds a heater to the printing head prints glass
How do you print glass next to rubber. The rubber would burn. Also printing glass requires slow cooling or the glass will shatter. The issue is the printing of different materials that require different methods next to each other. You might be able to print some components but then you have to put them together. Most phone users do not want to be electronics technicians. The average person is not going to buy multiple printer for thousands of dollars to make complex things.
But the point is EVENTUALLY those issues will be addressed and we will be printing things as complex as iPhones; glass and everything.
maybe in a few hundred years when we can manipulate quarks and bonds but not any time soon.
I honestly believe that my great great grand children will not be seeing the revolution described in this article. Sure in a couple of hundred year but talking like it will occur in any time soon is stupid.
Part of the evolution of 3D printing will be the development of new materials and printing processes that are suitable for products to be printed
The clarion cry of all 3D printing fan boys. Are you a clairvoyant and know what technology will be created? You have no idea what "will" happen. Those "new materials and printing processes" are called vapourware as it does not exist yet and even basic research has not been started yet. 3D printers are not Startrek replicators. 3D printers taking over from conventional manufacturing have about as much chance of happening as the paperless office.
Shoes that are better than the crap you buy at the store are not hard to make either.
So I am going to spend thousands on tools, hundreds of material wasted learning and hundreds of hours learning a skill so I can make a pair of shoes every few years that I could buy for a couple of hundred dollars. I doubt it. And then there are the many people who have are not craft inclined and have trouble putiing a nail in the wall to hang a picture. Sorry but there is a reason everyone does not have all skills.
Crocks are crap and any decent shoe can not be 3D printed.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say Jobs was so great. I just pointed out the falsity of your smears.
From your original post.
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,
How is saying 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible' admitting their idea is better and moving on? It sounds more like accepting inevitability. You make it sound like Jobs was open to other's idea when there is plenty of evidence that he was just the opposite.
They were not the board, and had no power to overrule him.
So add VPs to the list of people who can override Jobs' decisions and do things. If they could not overrule Jobs they could not have done it anyway as they stated. When Jobs came back to Apple he was part of a team that made decisions. It was no longer Apple === Steve Jobs. Ascribing everything that happened in Apple to decisions by Steve Jobs is inaccurate. The perception that Jobs === Apple is another of the effects of the "reality distortion field".
But hey, a hater has to hate, eh?
And a fanboy has to worship.
If Jobs was so great then why did NeXT, a company completely controlled by Jobs, do so poorly?
According to this article the decision on iPod for Windows came about exactly as I described. From the article:
"We argued with Steve a bunch [about putting iTunes on Windows], and he said no," Rubenstein recalls. "Finally, Phil Schiller and I said 'we're going to do it.' And Steve said, 'F#@k you guys, do whatever you want. You're responsible.' And he stormed out of the room."
That does not sound like Jobs changed his mind. Schiller and Rubenstein did it in spite of what Jobs wanted.
Jobs was brilliant but not perfect. Jobs combined with a strong Board that can override some of his decisions is why Apple did so well. With Jobs alone you get NeXT; a failure.
Someone proposed a better idea and Linus immediately admits his idea was worse and moves on. That was also one of Steve Jobs' greatest talents,
That statement is laughable. When Steve Jobs was in control of NeXT he decreed that the cube must be a perfect cube. Pressing, the most efficient way to create the case, works best with the side a couple of degrees off. Most people would not notice the difference but it allows the cube to be pulled out of the die much easier. Even though only one company in the US was able to press a perfect cube and it would add a couple hundred dollars to each machine, Jobs insisted on it. That was one of the reasons the NeXT was so expensive.
He originally said "no" to iPods for Windows and the iOS app store. People presented their case and he changed his mind.
When Jobs came back to Apple they had a Board that could stand up to Jobs and make decisions counter to Jobs' wishes. The Board had been doing it for years while Jobs was failing at NeXT. I doubt Jobs "changed his mind". More likely the Board overrode him.
I was a bit confused by the summary. It starts by talking about the backup camera requirement and then talked about "the ability to replace sideview mirrors with cameras". It gave me the impression that the car makers want new cars to be required to have side view cameras instead of mirrors. This is not the case. Right now it is a requirement to have sideview mirrors on vehicles. Cameras do not fulfill that requirement. What manufactures want is the ability to substitute cameras for side view mirrors. It would not be a requirement. I think it is a good idea if cameras fulfill the safety requirement.
Didn't? I can't see into the future, can you?
Exactly and you can't predict that he will spend more money in the future. He might but convicting someone before the crime is not valid. He was CTO at Mozilla when he donated. I bet his wages were pretty high at that time too.
Making him CEO will give him the wealth of hundreds of ordinary people which he could donate to further anti-gay-rights causes.
He could but he didn't. He donated the grand total of $1000. To many people that is not much. Lets deal with what happened and not what might have happened.
But which company will win the battle to illuminate the connected home?"
They all will lose as competing standards will decrease adoption. In the end there will probably be a standard that is not backward compatible and early adopters will have to buy new equipment. Maybe all companies win after all.
Having known someone that ran over their daughter at age 4 when she ran out to wish him good by before he left, and killed her.
I sympathize with the tragedy but would a backup camera actually helped? If the child was running behind the car would the driver have had enough time to see and react to the presence of the child? It is quite possible the accident would have happened with or without a camera.
Yes backing up over people is an issue but are backup cameras the solution. It is about unintended consequences. If there is a monitor in the dash of the vehicle the driver will be looking forward as they back up. They will only be able to see directly behind them as that is where the camera is pointed. It is quite possible that they will miss crossing traffic such as children riding bikes on the sidewalk or traffic in the street. The few accidents caused by driving over someone may be far outweighed by the collisions with crossing traffic.
A much better option would be an ultrasonic detector that beeps when there is an obstruction behind the vehicle. That way the driver could still look over their shoulder to look for crossing traffic.
Taxis are limited almost everywhere so that drivers can make a living wage and continue to provide the service. Ride share is the worst case. You get part time drivers working only the good time for extra money. They take the gravy times and don't work during the low times. I used to drive cab 5 days a week and I made over 60% of my week's pay on Friday and Saturday night. If there are too many cars on those nights my weekly take would have been cut in half. I would have probably made under $8/hr. I could not afford to drive. This would eventually drive most full time drivers out of business and it would be very hard to get a cab during low times.
To go further into the extra money thing, part time drivers usually have other jobs that pay the bills and any money they make driving is mad money. They don't care if they make $20 in a couple of hours because they don't need the money. That $20 could mean the difference between meeting rent or not for a full time driver.
That is, people at home now get to do what used to be restricted to "professionals"
Sorry but it is still restricted to professionals. anything descent comes from stereo lithography or SLS. Those printers cost thousands and the materials are expensive. Service bureaus are viable but home printers are just for hobbyists. The extrusion systems produce crap. That pen may look cool but it probably cost $30 in time and material and I can buy a more comfortable one for 50 cents. 3D modeling is not easy for the average person. It is a skill that few people can do.
How long did it take you to design and print that dishwasher part and how much did the printer cost? Sure you can save money if you value your time at $0/hr. To you it is a hobby and you like doing it. Many people don't like making things.
The hype is just stupid. You are at least closer to reality.
The license for the taxi is different than the license for the driver and exist for different reasons. The taxi license is there to regulate the number and quality of the vehicles. The driver's license is there to regulate the qualifications of the driver. Notice that one driver can drive many different cabs depending on shift and vehicle availability. I was a fill in driver and sometimes had a different car each day.
What's next: allowing PhD to sell their diplomas once they retire?
It is more similar to the owner of a bar being able to sell his liquor license when he retires. The taxi license is attached to the car not the driver.
Say that at 2AM when most of the ride share drivers are drunk or in bed and there are no taxi drivers left.
Way to put words in my mouth.
there is no such thing as technological development,
There are a lot of technology development. The problem is that the hype is taking what can be done today and projecting things completely unrelated. Sure we can extrude plastics, cure resins and sinter metal powder pretty well. That does not mean we can make arbitrary atoms and molecules and place them in patters as we see fit. It is completely different technologies. It is like saying since we can build a house we can build massive floating cities in the sky.
new methods of manufacture are literally worthless.
They are very worth while but they will not be able to "print anything" for a very long time. Also to print anything useful is going to be very expensive for quite some time yet. I see a great future for 3D printing service bureaus. The idea of a 3d printer in every house is a big stretch. The new manufacturing methods have a lot of worth; just not as much as some people seem to want us to believe.
It most certainly won't come to NOTHING,
And it won't come to printing everything as the hype would make you believe. All I am saying is tone down the hype.
I don't care what technology there may be in a more than couple of hundred years. This 3D printing hype is like Aztecs talking about having space travel in the next year. The hype needs to tone down.
The kids going to school in the dark issue is the reason that we don't have DST all year around.
youth crimes are largely committed between 3PM and 5PM.
According to this graph the peak is between 3-6PM on weekdays but it is not much different than any other segment between noon and midnight. From the graph approximately 73 youths were accused between noon and midnight. Of that, 21 (29%) occurred between 3 and 6. That is 4% over the expected average of 25%. Sorry but a 4% difference is not largely.
let kids go to school 1-2 hours later and get home later.
The problem with your solution is that parents could no longer take their kids to school in the winter as they need to be at school after the parent needs to be at work. The solution to that would be to shift the work day too but that would be the same as shifting the clock.
I doubt it as the materials for tires would need to be very precise to get the exact abrasion resistance, strength and flexibility to work as a tire.
From this article;
Airless tires generally have higher rolling resistance and provide much less suspension than similarly shaped and sized pneumatic tires. Other problems for airless tires include dissipating the heat buildup that occurs when they are driven. Airless tires are often filled with compressed polymers (plastic), rather than air.
Even if they could be printed airless tires are not very effective.
Solid tires are really only useful for heavy machinery.
I am talking about the touch screen for the smart phone. I am pretty sure that can not be simulated with e-ink.
The burden of proof for something happening is on the person making the claim. You claim it will happen but have nothing to back it up. I am saying it probably won't happen. It might happen but that is very far from "will". Based on current technology and technology in development I see no way of creating one device that can print most of the things we use. The technologies that are being used for 3D printing have been around for decades. We have refined the process and made it less expensive but there have been very little actual advancement. The things that can be printed will always be less expensive to mass produce especially if you add in the time and printing failures.
The main issue is that anything with metal and plastic can not yet be printed together as the methods are incomparable. Printing with metal requires too much heat which would destroy the plastic. Then there is the issue that metal objects need to be polished and/or tempered. Electronic components are also impossible to print. Until we can create atoms and manipilate individual bonds 3D printing will not "print anything".
The main point is that until we advance a lot more lets cool down the hype and get realistic.
From the article:
Bentley cars have come to stand for a way of doing things. 3D printing allows for an extremely quick turnaround for design and prototyping
Notice they say nothing about tires that provide "better, longer lasting, provide a smoother ride". Also notice they say "design and prototyping" and not production. Sure you can 3D print a tire on a hub there is no way it will be a complete functional long lasting tire.
Here is their list of items that can be created with their "rubber like" material;
Exhibition and communication models
Rubber surrounds and over-molding
Soft-touch coatings and nonslip surfaces
Knobs, grips, pulls, handles, gaskets, seals, hoses, footwear
Notice that functional tires is not on the list.
The final nail in the coffin is that there are no metals on the material list.
Technically PCB are etched and not additive printed. Traces are not laid down by a print head.
Someone adds a heater to the printing head prints glass
How do you print glass next to rubber. The rubber would burn. Also printing glass requires slow cooling or the glass will shatter. The issue is the printing of different materials that require different methods next to each other. You might be able to print some components but then you have to put them together. Most phone users do not want to be electronics technicians. The average person is not going to buy multiple printer for thousands of dollars to make complex things.
But the point is EVENTUALLY those issues will be addressed and we will be printing things as complex as iPhones; glass and everything.
maybe in a few hundred years when we can manipulate quarks and bonds but not any time soon.
I honestly believe that my great great grand children will not be seeing the revolution described in this article. Sure in a couple of hundred year but talking like it will occur in any time soon is stupid.
Part of the evolution of 3D printing will be the development of new materials and printing processes that are suitable for products to be printed
The clarion cry of all 3D printing fan boys. Are you a clairvoyant and know what technology will be created? You have no idea what "will" happen. Those "new materials and printing processes" are called vapourware as it does not exist yet and even basic research has not been started yet. 3D printers are not Startrek replicators. 3D printers taking over from conventional manufacturing have about as much chance of happening as the paperless office.
Shoes that are better than the crap you buy at the store are not hard to make either.
So I am going to spend thousands on tools, hundreds of material wasted learning and hundreds of hours learning a skill so I can make a pair of shoes every few years that I could buy for a couple of hundred dollars. I doubt it. And then there are the many people who have are not craft inclined and have trouble putiing a nail in the wall to hang a picture. Sorry but there is a reason everyone does not have all skills.
Crocks are crap and any decent shoe can not be 3D printed.