AssOSX: A version of OS X targeted at a specific device or class of devices that transcends and previous use of the OS or it's variants. Usage: "ASSOSX is going to be on Cell Phonesandipods!!!!
iPine: Similar to the long-rumored iPhone, the iPine is a PDA/Phone/Computer/PDA/Mouthwasher that runs OS X. No one has heard of it. iPine will be a complete surprise. It will not check e-mail.
JobsNet: Apple Buys Monster.com. Steve was the first guy since 1996 to be able to convince them that Jobs = jobs, while Monster = Nightmares.
The Apple PCI Chassis: We almost introduced it years ago. Now that no one wants it, get ready to buy it.
Apple Care DoublePlusUngood: A build-to-order warranty delete option that saves you $900.00 at purchase time...but mandates a warranty repair of at least $1100.00 in the second year of ownership.
That's your Apple MacWorld announcements in a nutshell. You can thank me later.
doing things [triple turbine Deisel-powered truck] for entertainment purposes only is hardlyuseless (it draws many crowds that very much appreciate the show)
Providing airshow attendees with something to watch that doesn't involve craning their necks skyward. That's useful - especially in the context of large reciprocating Diesel engines. (Rolls eyes.)
I think a 36K horsepower set of turbines running on Diesel of all fuels if pretty cool, much cooler than a supersized cylinder block.
That's great. Why didn't you just post that to begin with, instead of trying to sound smart?
So, jet engines have a torque rating? I don't think you understand what you're talking about.
It sounds like you got caught being a dumbass, and to cover it up, you just added a bunch of non-sequiturs together and hoped an argument would form.
You don't need rotation for power.
No, but it helps when you're trying to covert that power to work. For all the sense in your argument, you could just propose pouring Diesel fuel over a cliff and using the kinetic energy to displace rocks at the bottom. Much easier and cooler-looking than using rotating mechanical means of energy conversion.
That is why you can't get a BMW 318i here anymore, and never could get a 316 or a 1 series or an Audi A3.
Just to offer a slight correction:
Audi offers the A3 in the U.S., but not in it's lighter, nimbler Euro 3-door trim, and without the interesting engines (FSI Diesel) that Europeans get.
Rather than amend the Clean Air Act to give Diesels a fighting chance, we defer to gas hogs and sophisticated catalysts. The Europeans have it right; we're off course.
And don't get me started on CAFE regs. What a shame that all of the United States' engineering ingenuity is spent devising moving foot pedals and automatic trunk lifts for luxury cars instead of building safer, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. Ford and GM have never seen a ladder-frame V8-based vehicle they didn't love.
As the child of lower-middle class parents, I hope to be able to provide my children with a better life than I had. You could have just said "The base model only sells well in a luxury market." but instead took a swipe at "daddy" buying his "sorority daughter" a "toy."
You're right. But I was writing from my perspective.
I live in Baton Rouge, home of lots of well-off (we call them spoiled) sorority girls with brand-new V-6 and V-8 Mustangs along with other teeny-bopper cars - who, incidentally, would never use a Windows automotive-based system anyway.
I've never met a single one of these sorority girls who would admit to being thankful, although many of them know they're spoiled, and are damned proud of it. It's certainly not the attitude that this country was built on.
Please deliver what we want, not what you think we want.
Specifically:
-Just enough car. You do a good job with your European models, satisfying the market there. How about providing US customers with (!) Japanese-style size, build quality, and engine choices? Here in the US, we can get small cars with too little power or poor gas mileage. We can get medium-sized cars with too little power or worse gas mileage. We can get large cars that uniformly have terrible mileage. Cut this computer crap and build a fundamentally good car, and I'll dump my Toyota and Honda.
-Build for the world. You are probably aware of this, but your vehicle lineup in the US conforms only to US mileage requirements. While truck sales figures might tempt you to think otherwise, most of us don't enjoy spending lots of money on fuel. Why not maximize efficiency of operation and manufacturing at the same time? Build some cars with reasonably efficient powerplants and offer them in the US as well as in other markets in which you choose to compete.
-Stop treating us like idiots. Your consumers won't desert you if you choose to produce and market cars that provide space, safety, and mileage that are far above what you build today, but Ford will get few additional sales from the addition of a new techno-geegaw that saps driver attention. Ford, you've already lost huge numbers of sales to Japanese manufacturers on the low and mid-range, non-commerial/nonfarm customers aren't buying many trucks anymore, and at the high end, well, let's just say Luxury trucks are a dead-end. The smart money is in safe and sane european luxo-sedans and a few odd folks buy Cadillacs.
And yet, when all is said and done - you could have seen your current sad sales situation coming - you chose to keep making giant SUVs and marketing 500-hp Mustangs that only do two things well (use copious amounts of $2.50 Premium fuel and go fast in a straight line). You ignored research and development on the technology that could provide cars that most Americans need in favor simply building lots of copies of the cars Americans kinda wanted during the late 90s. The roads are littered with 96-01 SUV boom Explorers that have terrible resale value and FoMoCo used the money from this unprecedented profitable period to...make more and bigger trucks, and to create the "new" Mustang - a car that while not totally based in 1960s technology, gets terrible mileage anyway and provides little utility for the vast majority of drivers. But hey - the base model sells well in cities where daddy can afford to buy his sorority daughter a new toy during her sophomore year.
So do us a favor, Ford. Stop building cars to make Car and Driver happy. The Accord's been on their ten best list for 23 of 25 years, and not because it's super fast, super-roomy, or super anything - but because it does most things well - why not just create an Accord with a Ford badge instead of spending millions on developing 500hp Mustangs that get laughed out of the automotive press?
The average thickness over the entirety of Greenland has increased 54 cm (21 inches) in a recent 11 year period.
Good God, you are a fucking idiot.
Here's what you're saying: The average snowpack in California this year is a hundred inches. That means the average snow depth in California is an inch! Duh! What do you mean it doesn't snow in the Central Valley? The average says an inch!
Wingnuts post the most stupid rationale against global warming I've ever read! Is EVERY slashdot post getting mirrored at FreeRepublic now?
(In case you were wondering, the thinning ice at lower altitudes in Greenland is the real problem, and ultimately it is what may result in the cap sliding off of Greenland disastrously. There are lakes forming above the low altitude ice, which drain through the ice sheet and cause the ice to fall into the ocean...see also the Larsen B calving in Antarctica. The increased precipitation in the mountains may only compound the problem by adding inclined weight to the weakened ice sheet and is likely caused by warmer ocean temperatures that increase precipitation...but which is only frozen over higher altitudes because of - badabing! - increased ocean temperatures.
But what it is is a major port for the southeast, and don't forget all the oil rigs that got nailed at the same time.
But what it is is a major port for the southeast, midwest, and all navigable rivers drained by the Mississippi, as well as truck traffic on I-10 - and don't forget all the oil rigs that got nailed at the same time.
If you're going to lash out with a really big number, at least put it in perspective, yes?
Well, you didn't bother to. Why should I?
The point of my post is that we have fewer carbon sequestering plants each day while the rate of CO2 deposition into the atmosphere is growing each day. There's evidence the CO2 deposition into the oceans is causing them to become more acidic, affecting calcium carbonate-dependent sea life - i.e. all of it.
Yes, oceans and trees absorb CO2 - at a constantly declining rate due to the finite capacity of water to hold dissolved carbon at atmospheric pressure and biological constraints - and in case you hadn't noticed, there are fewer trees globally every year - and usually because they're burned, which puts that C)2 right back into the atmosphere.
The earth's capacity to self-sequester C02 is declining at an increasing rate while we are depositing CO2 into the atmosphere at a constantly increasing rate. Is that clear enough for you?
Should be 70 million tons of CO2 a day. But I'm sure it's the sun "surging" or something. Let's organize a space mission to toss giant ice cubes into the sun!
Why does everybody forget the SUN? The source of 99.999% of the heat on earth varying in its output by a teeny tiny fraction of a percentage of it's output couldn't possibly make the earth warmer or colder could it?
So, your hypothesis is that the sun, which has been massively consistent in heat output for the past 60,000 years according to core samples, waited to turn up the heat until the precise moment in geological history that human beings started putting 70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Seriously - watch an Inconvenient Truth. It won't kill you and you might actually learn something.
I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".
That entire paragraph was written with the kind of blissful ignorance that discounts the idea that form can be powerful. The parent seems to think that if something is cool, it _can't_ be powerful - that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
What prevents cool from being powerful? Nothing.
Check out Mac OS X Server. It is quite plainly "cool" and it is demonstrably as powerful or more so than competing products.
XServe RAID - extremely competitive on price, powerful, and very "cool" - the fit and finish of this product far surpass anything else in the space. The management software is very flexible and powerful.
The click wheel and hierarchical interface of the iPod are two more examples. How much could you do with four poles and a clicker? You can provide users with a way to navigate music and build a playlist without even looking at the device - if you're Apple.
The built-in handle and kid-proof shell of the teardrop iMacs is another example.
Form can quite easily be demonstrated as power. I think you're too wrapped up in the idea that something has to have myriad dialog boxes, option sub-menus and configurators to be "powerful".
Oh man, nothing gets me madder then websites that are doing very simple things, but don't work!
No kidding. Seriously, I think most people have more to fear from blood pressure elevation and arterial wall damage caused by driving to and from work every day than from the odd shitty web site.
I have a cure-all for such web sites. I don't ever visit them again - except for C|Net - because their "teh stupid" is so sparkly that I can't turn away.
Bullshit stays, followed the link and I don't see anything but a list of manufactures, which support iPod integration of some sort, no percents, no mention of track listings on the display.
Did you know that on these intarweb, there are links which you can click for more information? Try clicking the names of the manufacturers on that page...and try to understand: iPod Integration means that the iPod displays track information and/or can be controlled by the factory head unit and information display. This includes the instrument cluster radio display, and iPod control from the steering wheel. Ipod integration is not a stereo miniplug - it is integrated function of the car's existing stereo and the iPod, through the dock connector. And it's a big reason the Zune is a non-starter.
A phono jack by definition is not iPod integration. Maybe you should learn to use Google a bit better, because there are a whole hell of a lot of cars that offer at least one stereo option with iPod Integration, while virtually ever car on the market offers some sort of AUX in function.
Myself, I like being able to control my iPod from the head unit or steering wheel while the music rests in the glovebox. You may enjoy having an 1/8 miniplug that requires you to lose your music player between the seats or leave it where prying eyes can see it. But then, you can't be bothered to know what iPod integration means either.
Friend, you need to learn about this here Google thingy. It's a real help in finding stuff. Like the fact that when Apple lists manufacturers with "iPod Integration", they mean manufacturers who have integrated iPod display and control into the automaker's head unit and/or steering wheel controls.
But you really shouldn't just compare the iPod to the Zune. Right now if I were looking for a new music player I'd be paying some serious attention to what Creative is selling.
I wouldn't be very surprised if what Creative is selling is iPods before long. Or, in other words, Create may not exist as a company that builds not-iPods.
Just saying. We could be at the point where licensing FairPlay or buying up hardware vendors starts to make sense for Apple. After all, Microsoft has already pissed in the face of every PlaysForSure licensee.
Ability to hook it into most cars and display track info on the dashboard. I call bullshit on this one. Show one shred of evidence to back this ridiculous claim up.
Apparently you invented those last two yourself because "Wheels" were never chosen; but coincidentally, Time chose "the Computer" as man of the year in 1982.
I know. It was a tongue-in-cheek example. I read that issue when it was published, and admired the choice at the time, as I still do. But to name "everyone" person of the year is a cop-out. Naming the computer person of the year in 1982 was an effort to signify how important the heretofore inaccessible devices were becoming in our lives.
It's also sad because it shows how cowardly and indecisive the press is these days.
Unable to choose and analyze a single figure honestly, Time decided to pick everyone and to laud their audience with praise about how something created and maintained by very few (the Internet) has enabled millions to show their creativity, stupidity, whatever.
Instead of selecting a figure that has truly affected all of us, Time showed the same cowardice they displayed by choosing Rudy Guiliani in 2001. Instead of a true "Person of the Year", they chose to pick a "Person" who is unassailable, insulating Time from having to make a tough choice or controversial conclusions about their "Person", and avoiding the accompanying criticism that many in the media seem to fear so much these days.
Screw Time for being cowards - "You" doesn't deserve to be Person of the Year any more than "Wheels" deserve to be Conveyance of the Year, or "Computers" deserve to be "Device of the Year".
Slashdot Mirror
Some other rumors I've heard:
AssOSX: A version of OS X targeted at a specific device or class of devices that transcends and previous use of the OS or it's variants. Usage: "ASSOSX is going to be on Cell Phonesandipods!!!!
iPine: Similar to the long-rumored iPhone, the iPine is a PDA/Phone/Computer/PDA/Mouthwasher that runs OS X. No one has heard of it. iPine will be a complete surprise. It will not check e-mail.
JobsNet: Apple Buys Monster.com. Steve was the first guy since 1996 to be able to convince them that Jobs = jobs, while Monster = Nightmares.
The Apple PCI Chassis: We almost introduced it years ago. Now that no one wants it, get ready to buy it.
Apple Care DoublePlusUngood: A build-to-order warranty delete option that saves you $900.00 at purchase time...but mandates a warranty repair of at least $1100.00 in the second year of ownership.
That's your Apple MacWorld announcements in a nutshell. You can thank me later.
You don't need rotation for power.
Sure. Those turbojets don't rotate.
doing things [triple turbine Deisel-powered truck] for entertainment purposes only is hardlyuseless (it draws many crowds that very much appreciate the show)
Providing airshow attendees with something to watch that doesn't involve craning their necks skyward. That's useful - especially in the context of large reciprocating Diesel engines. (Rolls eyes.)
I think a 36K horsepower set of turbines running on Diesel of all fuels if pretty cool, much cooler than a supersized cylinder block.
That's great. Why didn't you just post that to begin with, instead of trying to sound smart?
'torque' only applies for things that are _rotating_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
So, jet engines have a torque rating? I don't think you understand what you're talking about.
It sounds like you got caught being a dumbass, and to cover it up, you just added a bunch of non-sequiturs together and hoped an argument would form.
You don't need rotation for power.
No, but it helps when you're trying to covert that power to work. For all the sense in your argument, you could just propose pouring Diesel fuel over a cliff and using the kinetic energy to displace rocks at the bottom. Much easier and cooler-looking than using rotating mechanical means of energy conversion.
It seems that even the submitter doesn't RTFA.
It seems you are too pedantic for your own good.
Remove the parenthetical. Re-read the sentence. Make sense now?
That is why you can't get a BMW 318i here anymore, and never could get a 316 or a 1 series or an Audi A3.
Just to offer a slight correction:
Audi offers the A3 in the U.S., but not in it's lighter, nimbler Euro 3-door trim, and without the interesting engines (FSI Diesel) that Europeans get.
Rather than amend the Clean Air Act to give Diesels a fighting chance, we defer to gas hogs and sophisticated catalysts. The Europeans have it right; we're off course.
And don't get me started on CAFE regs. What a shame that all of the United States' engineering ingenuity is spent devising moving foot pedals and automatic trunk lifts for luxury cars instead of building safer, lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. Ford and GM have never seen a ladder-frame V8-based vehicle they didn't love.
As the child of lower-middle class parents, I hope to be able to provide my children with a better life than I had. You could have just said "The base model only sells well in a luxury market." but instead took a swipe at "daddy" buying his "sorority daughter" a "toy."
You're right. But I was writing from my perspective.
I live in Baton Rouge, home of lots of well-off (we call them spoiled) sorority girls with brand-new V-6 and V-8 Mustangs along with other teeny-bopper cars - who, incidentally, would never use a Windows automotive-based system anyway.
I've never met a single one of these sorority girls who would admit to being thankful, although many of them know they're spoiled, and are damned proud of it. It's certainly not the attitude that this country was built on.
Talk about an article summary that serves it's own conclusions... "linux is a viable alternative on the desktop". Hunh?
Dear Ford:
Please deliver what we want, not what you think we want.
Specifically:
-Just enough car. You do a good job with your European models, satisfying the market there. How about providing US customers with (!) Japanese-style size, build quality, and engine choices? Here in the US, we can get small cars with too little power or poor gas mileage. We can get medium-sized cars with too little power or worse gas mileage. We can get large cars that uniformly have terrible mileage. Cut this computer crap and build a fundamentally good car, and I'll dump my Toyota and Honda.
-Build for the world. You are probably aware of this, but your vehicle lineup in the US conforms only to US mileage requirements. While truck sales figures might tempt you to think otherwise, most of us don't enjoy spending lots of money on fuel. Why not maximize efficiency of operation and manufacturing at the same time? Build some cars with reasonably efficient powerplants and offer them in the US as well as in other markets in which you choose to compete.
-Stop treating us like idiots. Your consumers won't desert you if you choose to produce and market cars that provide space, safety, and mileage that are far above what you build today, but Ford will get few additional sales from the addition of a new techno-geegaw that saps driver attention. Ford, you've already lost huge numbers of sales to Japanese manufacturers on the low and mid-range, non-commerial/nonfarm customers aren't buying many trucks anymore, and at the high end, well, let's just say Luxury trucks are a dead-end. The smart money is in safe and sane european luxo-sedans and a few odd folks buy Cadillacs.
And yet, when all is said and done - you could have seen your current sad sales situation coming - you chose to keep making giant SUVs and marketing 500-hp Mustangs that only do two things well (use copious amounts of $2.50 Premium fuel and go fast in a straight line). You ignored research and development on the technology that could provide cars that most Americans need in favor simply building lots of copies of the cars Americans kinda wanted during the late 90s. The roads are littered with 96-01 SUV boom Explorers that have terrible resale value and FoMoCo used the money from this unprecedented profitable period to...make more and bigger trucks, and to create the "new" Mustang - a car that while not totally based in 1960s technology, gets terrible mileage anyway and provides little utility for the vast majority of drivers. But hey - the base model sells well in cities where daddy can afford to buy his sorority daughter a new toy during her sophomore year.
So do us a favor, Ford. Stop building cars to make Car and Driver happy. The Accord's been on their ten best list for 23 of 25 years, and not because it's super fast, super-roomy, or super anything - but because it does most things well - why not just create an Accord with a Ford badge instead of spending millions on developing 500hp Mustangs that get laughed out of the automotive press?
Sincerely,
The Pragmatic American Car Buyer
The average thickness over the entirety of Greenland has increased 54 cm (21 inches) in a recent 11 year period.
Good God, you are a fucking idiot.
Here's what you're saying: The average snowpack in California this year is a hundred inches. That means the average snow depth in California is an inch! Duh! What do you mean it doesn't snow in the Central Valley? The average says an inch!
Wingnuts post the most stupid rationale against global warming I've ever read! Is EVERY slashdot post getting mirrored at FreeRepublic now?
(In case you were wondering, the thinning ice at lower altitudes in Greenland is the real problem, and ultimately it is what may result in the cap sliding off of Greenland disastrously. There are lakes forming above the low altitude ice, which drain through the ice sheet and cause the ice to fall into the ocean...see also the Larsen B calving in Antarctica. The increased precipitation in the mountains may only compound the problem by adding inclined weight to the weakened ice sheet and is likely caused by warmer ocean temperatures that increase precipitation...but which is only frozen over higher altitudes because of - badabing! - increased ocean temperatures.
But what it is is a major port for the southeast, and don't forget all the oil rigs that got nailed at the same time.
But what it is is a major port for the southeast, midwest, and all navigable rivers drained by the Mississippi, as well as truck traffic on I-10 - and don't forget all the oil rigs that got nailed at the same time.
There. Fixed that for you.
If you're going to lash out with a really big number, at least put it in perspective, yes?
Well, you didn't bother to. Why should I?
The point of my post is that we have fewer carbon sequestering plants each day while the rate of CO2 deposition into the atmosphere is growing each day. There's evidence the CO2 deposition into the oceans is causing them to become more acidic, affecting calcium carbonate-dependent sea life - i.e. all of it.
Yes, oceans and trees absorb CO2 - at a constantly declining rate due to the finite capacity of water to hold dissolved carbon at atmospheric pressure and biological constraints - and in case you hadn't noticed, there are fewer trees globally every year - and usually because they're burned, which puts that C)2 right back into the atmosphere.
The earth's capacity to self-sequester C02 is declining at an increasing rate while we are depositing CO2 into the atmosphere at a constantly increasing rate. Is that clear enough for you?
Looks like another Slashdot article was posted to the ADHD Nazis at FreeRepublic again.
I don't have a problem with global warming. The earth has been warming up for the last 10,000 years. Good thing too, else we would not have been here.
So, the rate of warming means nothing to you?
Let's take your assertion as truth. The earth has been warming for 10,000 years. It's warmed X degrees globally in that time.
For the sake of argument, let's say that in the past forty years, the temperature has again increased by X degrees. Do you see the problem now?
70 million tons of CO2
Should be 70 million tons of CO2 a day. But I'm sure it's the sun "surging" or something. Let's organize a space mission to toss giant ice cubes into the sun!
Why does everybody forget the SUN? The source of 99.999% of the heat on earth varying in its output by a teeny tiny fraction of a percentage of it's output couldn't possibly make the earth warmer or colder could it?
So, your hypothesis is that the sun, which has been massively consistent in heat output for the past 60,000 years according to core samples, waited to turn up the heat until the precise moment in geological history that human beings started putting 70 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Seriously - watch an Inconvenient Truth. It won't kill you and you might actually learn something.
Thanks for the alternate view linkage, it would hurt even more if I had to read that spotty list clicking "next" over and over
And on PC World's site, the article's "next" and "back" links are nearly pixel for pixel copies of....Safari's back and forward buttons.
Even PC World's web site is aping the Mac OS now!
I've wandered a bit into corporate culture and away from the impending iMobile. I apologize. But for the iMobile to reach the maximum number of consumers, it won't be a powerful product. It will flash Apple's minimalist design and carry a premium price point, because you're not just buying a cellphone, you're buying "cool".
That entire paragraph was written with the kind of blissful ignorance that discounts the idea that form can be powerful. The parent seems to think that if something is cool, it _can't_ be powerful - that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
What prevents cool from being powerful? Nothing.
Check out Mac OS X Server. It is quite plainly "cool" and it is demonstrably as powerful or more so than competing products.
XServe RAID - extremely competitive on price, powerful, and very "cool" - the fit and finish of this product far surpass anything else in the space. The management software is very flexible and powerful.
The click wheel and hierarchical interface of the iPod are two more examples. How much could you do with four poles and a clicker? You can provide users with a way to navigate music and build a playlist without even looking at the device - if you're Apple.
The built-in handle and kid-proof shell of the teardrop iMacs is another example.
Form can quite easily be demonstrated as power. I think you're too wrapped up in the idea that something has to have myriad dialog boxes, option sub-menus and configurators to be "powerful".
Oh man, nothing gets me madder then websites that are doing very simple things, but don't work!
No kidding. Seriously, I think most people have more to fear from blood pressure elevation and arterial wall damage caused by driving to and from work every day than from the odd shitty web site.
I have a cure-all for such web sites. I don't ever visit them again - except for C|Net - because their "teh stupid" is so sparkly that I can't turn away.
Bullshit stays, followed the link and I don't see anything but a list of manufactures, which support iPod integration of some sort, no percents, no mention of track listings on the display.
Did you know that on these intarweb, there are links which you can click for more information? Try clicking the names of the manufacturers on that page...and try to understand: iPod Integration means that the iPod displays track information and/or can be controlled by the factory head unit and information display. This includes the instrument cluster radio display, and iPod control from the steering wheel. Ipod integration is not a stereo miniplug - it is integrated function of the car's existing stereo and the iPod, through the dock connector. And it's a big reason the Zune is a non-starter.
A phono jack by definition is not iPod integration. Maybe you should learn to use Google a bit better, because there are a whole hell of a lot of cars that offer at least one stereo option with iPod Integration, while virtually ever car on the market offers some sort of AUX in function.
Myself, I like being able to control my iPod from the head unit or steering wheel while the music rests in the glovebox. You may enjoy having an 1/8 miniplug that requires you to lose your music player between the seats or leave it where prying eyes can see it. But then, you can't be bothered to know what iPod integration means either.
The Ipod integration found in most cars is nothing more than a 3.5mm input. This is true for all GM cars, I know this for a fact.
Wrong
BMW is the only car manufacturer that I know of that is able to put the track info on the dashboard.
Really wrong
Friend, you need to learn about this here Google thingy. It's a real help in finding stuff. Like the fact that when Apple lists manufacturers with "iPod Integration", they mean manufacturers who have integrated iPod display and control into the automaker's head unit and/or steering wheel controls.
Feel smarter now?
Ipod Sales Data for 2002 (it released 2001 4th Q)
Oh, you mean when the iPod was only available for Macs?
Context. It's important to arguments!
How the fuck is the parent flamebait?
Zune fanbois with moderator points...look out!
But you really shouldn't just compare the iPod to the Zune. Right now if I were looking for a new music player I'd be paying some serious attention to what Creative is selling.
I wouldn't be very surprised if what Creative is selling is iPods before long. Or, in other words, Create may not exist as a company that builds not-iPods.
Just saying. We could be at the point where licensing FairPlay or buying up hardware vendors starts to make sense for Apple. After all, Microsoft has already pissed in the face of every PlaysForSure licensee.
Ability to hook it into most cars and display track info on the dashboard. I call bullshit on this one. Show one shred of evidence to back this ridiculous claim up.
Lots and lots of four-wheeled shreds. About 70% of cars sold today support iPod integration with one or more factory stereo options.
So, there's your shred. Take back your bullshit call?
Apparently you invented those last two yourself because "Wheels" were never chosen; but coincidentally, Time chose "the Computer" as man of the year in 1982.
I know. It was a tongue-in-cheek example. I read that issue when it was published, and admired the choice at the time, as I still do. But to name "everyone" person of the year is a cop-out. Naming the computer person of the year in 1982 was an effort to signify how important the heretofore inaccessible devices were becoming in our lives.
It's also sad because it shows how cowardly and indecisive the press is these days.
Unable to choose and analyze a single figure honestly, Time decided to pick everyone and to laud their audience with praise about how something created and maintained by very few (the Internet) has enabled millions to show their creativity, stupidity, whatever.
Instead of selecting a figure that has truly affected all of us, Time showed the same cowardice they displayed by choosing Rudy Guiliani in 2001. Instead of a true "Person of the Year", they chose to pick a "Person" who is unassailable, insulating Time from having to make a tough choice or controversial conclusions about their "Person", and avoiding the accompanying criticism that many in the media seem to fear so much these days.
Screw Time for being cowards - "You" doesn't deserve to be Person of the Year any more than "Wheels" deserve to be Conveyance of the Year, or "Computers" deserve to be "Device of the Year".