I don't care if Albert Einstein rises from the dead and announces on Colbert that he has proven that Internet Explorer's display technology is fastest that the laws of physics allow.
I still will not use any browser controlled by Microsoft.
You're good at magically rounding 1% up to 1%, also, and at quoting data you don't really have (general ATT call drops vs. the specific call drop rate of the 3GS, which is a different number).
Paul is also ignoring key issues, saying that 'he doubts' things instead of citing any data whatsoever, and tossing out a lot of vested-interest PC geek magazine predictions as if they are fact.
Par for the course from someone whose wallet size is correlated with the performance of the PC market.
I don't think the losers at "revolutionmuslim.com" have thought this through. Do they realize who they are messing with? They are messing with millions of geeks. If one hair on the head of Trey or Matt were touched after these powerless mockworthy little boys incited violence against them, their lives would be a husk.
It would be like those nature shows where tens of thousands of ants swarm over a hapless creature, take it apart and cart its lifeless body away.
I say, put up their personal info, just as they did to Trey and Matt. Put up their home address. Their business address. All their website info. Their relatives. Their license plates. Photos. The names of their friends. Their cell phone logs. Then, inform them that they will immediately commence to STFU, now, or their existence will become a hell the likes of which their holy book never informed them.
Some people, yes, do bitch because of the proprietary-ness. Granted.
But I think a lot of people bitch for vaporous reasons like the ones I detailed above; issues that really don't impact anyone.
And why would it be handy to be able to plug a USB stick into the iPhone? You can't DO anything with it. The OS doesn't support it. And if it did, as I explained earlier, you could easily plug said memory stick in, since, sigh, as I explained, the iPhone does come with a USB cable, albeit one the a non-standard end on it.
As a side note, the dock connector is nicely skinny, which comes in handy if you're making really skinny stuff.
So as I see it, this is a big huge non-issue, and if it were an issue, it'd be an issue chiefly cause of software reasons. The software is what really creates the lock-in. Not the non-standard connector.
And if you added them to USB, people would bitch about it not being 100% standard vanilla USB.
The fact is that the dock connector basically IS a USB connector, since you get a dock-USB cable with all the relevant products, which means, wonder of wonders, you could plug other USB stuff into it just fine. That's not the issue.
The issue is that the iPhone, iPods etc. don't support doing anything useful with most of the stuff you could connect via USB anyway. You can't plug in a 500gig drive and use it. You can't plug in a keyboard or mouse and use them. Which means there's not a compelling reason to use USB, especially since the existing connector is better-shaped for docking anyway.
I really don't get why people bitch about this so much, therefore.
The ad hominem doesn't help obscure the fact that you batted.000 on the facts in your last post. "Slapped a graphical shell on top"? That's a bit like saying the iPhone was just Apple slapping some metal and glass together. There's a bit more to it than that. Stable, usable software does not magically appear from unicorns. Elegant hardware is not an accident.
Did you own and use a NeXT, by chance? I did, two of them, for about ten years. (My NextStation Turbo Color still runs, amazingly.) I can assure you, it wasn't a colossal failure. Vastly ahead of its time and a genuine pleasure to use. And the OS has stood the test of time; 22 years later, it's still the basis for the best desktop OS in the world.
I know this will be hard to accept. But some people really, really, deeply don't care if the machine is locked down. A lot of people. Most people, even. So if you're trying to argue that the 128k Mac sucked, and was not interesting, because you couldn't swivel it open on hydraulic hinges and upgrade every individual chip and part of the thing...well, it's not a very strong argument.
In this case, Apple's stock price directly reflects that fact that it keeps making billions and billions of dollars, over and over, yearly. This would seem to be a somewhat reliable indicator that Apple is making products that people like, and that that like is holding up over time. A long time.
This is one of the most misguided and factually incorrect posts I've ever seen, so I'm prompted to respond briefly. Every single bullet point is wholly or substantially incorrect on the facts:
1. There is, indeed, a logical reason for not making the choice to allow window scaling from any edge or corner. It takes up extra pixels and/or changes a given part of the window from having one purpose as a landing zone (say, moving the window) into two purposes (either moving or scaling it). You may not agree with the design choice that was made here, but it's simply false that there was "no logical reason" for making the choice. This is, of course, precisely the kind of UI detail that makes a UI more functional, that is, easier and more efficient for the user to actually use. It has nothing whatever to do with merely "looking nice", not that I'm impressed by the ability of fans of ugly UI's to mock the better appearance of attractive ones. Cause I'm not. At all.
2. Again, this is a sound UI choice, backed up by research at the Institute For Preventing Nasty Nerve Injuries In Your Wrists (IFPNNIIYW). Menu bars anchored at the top of a screen have a HUGE advantage over menu bars whcih are only present in windows; the landing zone for each menu is extended vertically by an infinite amount (since you can overscroll vertically to that menu item and still hit it). This makes them MUCH easier to use. Again, this is all backed up by UI research and user experience.
3. Your critique of the Dock simply does not pass the laugh test. I quote: "Open apps have a little light under them to show that they are active. Other than that there is no visual identification for which apps are running and which aren't."
Um, yeah. Duh. That's what the "little light" is for. How many different kinds of "visual identification" do you want to show which apps are running? Three? Nine? Seventy-four? One is plenty, bub, not that Mac OS is limited to one; there are of course other ways to figure out which apps are running. I leave the details as a (very simple) exercise for the reader.
4. If you want more area "around" a document, you can easily accomplish that. That doesn't make the maximize button useless; it just means it does not do precisely what you seem to what in a couple applications in a couple circumstances. This is a rather weak gripe, since the function that maximize DOES perform is quite useful; it's the most useful function that you'd want to assign to such a button, in most cases. It's also, of course, false that you can "more easily" switch between windows in other OSes...all this accusation really reveals is that you're a Linux and Windows power user who doesn't know his/her way around a Mac very well, has not bothered to customize it to suit individual needs and tendencies, and really can't be bothered to learn anything about it in any detail whatsoever.
You seem misinformed. You can do music in the background on any iPhone, in various ways. Same with IM notifications; you can receive those regardless of the app you are in.
Also, multi-tasking is not limited because "most users don't need it." You seem to have made this up out of whole cloth. It was limited for technical reasons which you are either unwilling to research or unable to understand.
Your metaphorical gas stations, however, are subject to regulations which make sure the fuel they are selling will not ruin your engine, contain lead, or have too low of an octane rating.
Which is all Apple is doing by screening apps.
You make a few good points, but your last point is in error.
It does not matter if a football player, or 100 terrorists could overpower the flight attendants.
This is because all US commercial flights now have locked cockpits and strict rules against opening the cockpit under any circumstances. Which means the plane can't be hijacked or used as a weapon. Which means such an attack is basically useless; the maximum damage that could be done (and this is doubtful) is to down the plane in a random location.
As an aside, it's also obvious that getting 100 terrorists on a plane is laughably unlikely. It's also very unlikely to even be attempted, for at least three reasons that any bright person can figure out.
Uh, why are you pointing to two sources that do not remotely support your claims? The first source does NOT mention any "1930s level of global temperatures," nor does it mention any "recent fall" in temperatures.
The second source says basically the opposite of what you claim.
You need to become a more adept liar.
Pardon me, but what if the Chinese searcher in question doesn't know English?
Also, to my eyes at least, worldwide censorship is certainly worse than limited in-China-only censorship, necessary to do business in China at all, which can be easily avoided by Chinese citizens.
How does this differ from the ability to jailbreak the iPhone and gain ssh access and the ability to install whatever apps you want, including those which Apple disallows?
I don't see that it does, which means, the problem you described does not seem to exist.
You speak before you think or research.
Current TV tech is ALREADY capable of fully meeting these power restrictions, with no absurd dimming or other measures required. This is a very conservative measure that CA has enacted. There's no need to reflexively freak out about it. Nobody will be inconvenienced in any way by this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care if Albert Einstein rises from the dead and announces on Colbert that he has proven that Internet Explorer's display technology is fastest that the laws of physics allow.
I still will not use any browser controlled by Microsoft.
The best option is Classical Archives:
http://classicalarchives.com/
Great selection, great editing of the site by musicians who know what they are doing, unlimited streaming for $6/month or buy tracks as you like.
You're good at magically rounding 1% up to 1%, also, and at quoting data you don't really have (general ATT call drops vs. the specific call drop rate of the 3GS, which is a different number).
Paul is also ignoring key issues, saying that 'he doubts' things instead of citing any data whatsoever, and tossing out a lot of vested-interest PC geek magazine predictions as if they are fact.
Par for the course from someone whose wallet size is correlated with the performance of the PC market.
How long have you been a homophobe with no life? At least 9 years, seemingly...
Why is what you "suspect", without any support whatsoever, supposed to be interesting?
I don't think the losers at "revolutionmuslim.com" have thought this through. Do they realize who they are messing with? They are messing with millions of geeks. If one hair on the head of Trey or Matt were touched after these powerless mockworthy little boys incited violence against them, their lives would be a husk.
It would be like those nature shows where tens of thousands of ants swarm over a hapless creature, take it apart and cart its lifeless body away.
I say, put up their personal info, just as they did to Trey and Matt. Put up their home address. Their business address. All their website info. Their relatives. Their license plates. Photos. The names of their friends. Their cell phone logs. Then, inform them that they will immediately commence to STFU, now, or their existence will become a hell the likes of which their holy book never informed them.
They need to feel just how outnumbered they are.
The phrase "drop in the bucket" comes to mind. Drop in the ocean, even.
You mean, except the real reason, which is to provide stable apps that don't suck down your battery life. Right?
Some people, yes, do bitch because of the proprietary-ness. Granted.
But I think a lot of people bitch for vaporous reasons like the ones I detailed above; issues that really don't impact anyone.
And why would it be handy to be able to plug a USB stick into the iPhone? You can't DO anything with it. The OS doesn't support it. And if it did, as I explained earlier, you could easily plug said memory stick in, since, sigh, as I explained, the iPhone does come with a USB cable, albeit one the a non-standard end on it.
As a side note, the dock connector is nicely skinny, which comes in handy if you're making really skinny stuff.
So as I see it, this is a big huge non-issue, and if it were an issue, it'd be an issue chiefly cause of software reasons. The software is what really creates the lock-in. Not the non-standard connector.
That's nice. But it has zero to do with Apple's value. If it did, Apple would be trading at a much lower price now than pre-crash. But it's not.
Apple makes stuff, actual stuff that people like and use. Banks and brokerages make NOTHING and just take people's money.
So do you have a point? Any idiot could have figured out that the brokerages and banks were due for a whippin'.
Feel free to write me if you need lessons on why this is apples and oranges.
But to answer your question, no.
And if you added them to USB, people would bitch about it not being 100% standard vanilla USB.
The fact is that the dock connector basically IS a USB connector, since you get a dock-USB cable with all the relevant products, which means, wonder of wonders, you could plug other USB stuff into it just fine. That's not the issue.
The issue is that the iPhone, iPods etc. don't support doing anything useful with most of the stuff you could connect via USB anyway. You can't plug in a 500gig drive and use it. You can't plug in a keyboard or mouse and use them. Which means there's not a compelling reason to use USB, especially since the existing connector is better-shaped for docking anyway.
I really don't get why people bitch about this so much, therefore.
The ad hominem doesn't help obscure the fact that you batted .000 on the facts in your last post. "Slapped a graphical shell on top"? That's a bit like saying the iPhone was just Apple slapping some metal and glass together. There's a bit more to it than that. Stable, usable software does not magically appear from unicorns. Elegant hardware is not an accident.
Did you own and use a NeXT, by chance? I did, two of them, for about ten years. (My NextStation Turbo Color still runs, amazingly.) I can assure you, it wasn't a colossal failure. Vastly ahead of its time and a genuine pleasure to use. And the OS has stood the test of time; 22 years later, it's still the basis for the best desktop OS in the world.
I know this will be hard to accept. But some people really, really, deeply don't care if the machine is locked down. A lot of people. Most people, even. So if you're trying to argue that the 128k Mac sucked, and was not interesting, because you couldn't swivel it open on hydraulic hinges and upgrade every individual chip and part of the thing...well, it's not a very strong argument.
In this case, Apple's stock price directly reflects that fact that it keeps making billions and billions of dollars, over and over, yearly. This would seem to be a somewhat reliable indicator that Apple is making products that people like, and that that like is holding up over time. A long time.
This is one of the most misguided and factually incorrect posts I've ever seen, so I'm prompted to respond briefly. Every single bullet point is wholly or substantially incorrect on the facts:
1. There is, indeed, a logical reason for not making the choice to allow window scaling from any edge or corner. It takes up extra pixels and/or changes a given part of the window from having one purpose as a landing zone (say, moving the window) into two purposes (either moving or scaling it). You may not agree with the design choice that was made here, but it's simply false that there was "no logical reason" for making the choice. This is, of course, precisely the kind of UI detail that makes a UI more functional, that is, easier and more efficient for the user to actually use. It has nothing whatever to do with merely "looking nice", not that I'm impressed by the ability of fans of ugly UI's to mock the better appearance of attractive ones. Cause I'm not. At all.
2. Again, this is a sound UI choice, backed up by research at the Institute For Preventing Nasty Nerve Injuries In Your Wrists (IFPNNIIYW). Menu bars anchored at the top of a screen have a HUGE advantage over menu bars whcih are only present in windows; the landing zone for each menu is extended vertically by an infinite amount (since you can overscroll vertically to that menu item and still hit it). This makes them MUCH easier to use. Again, this is all backed up by UI research and user experience.
3. Your critique of the Dock simply does not pass the laugh test. I quote: "Open apps have a little light under them to show that they are active. Other than that there is no visual identification for which apps are running and which aren't."
Um, yeah. Duh. That's what the "little light" is for. How many different kinds of "visual identification" do you want to show which apps are running? Three? Nine? Seventy-four? One is plenty, bub, not that Mac OS is limited to one; there are of course other ways to figure out which apps are running. I leave the details as a (very simple) exercise for the reader.
4. If you want more area "around" a document, you can easily accomplish that. That doesn't make the maximize button useless; it just means it does not do precisely what you seem to what in a couple applications in a couple circumstances. This is a rather weak gripe, since the function that maximize DOES perform is quite useful; it's the most useful function that you'd want to assign to such a button, in most cases. It's also, of course, false that you can "more easily" switch between windows in other OSes...all this accusation really reveals is that you're a Linux and Windows power user who doesn't know his/her way around a Mac very well, has not bothered to customize it to suit individual needs and tendencies, and really can't be bothered to learn anything about it in any detail whatsoever.
You seem misinformed. You can do music in the background on any iPhone, in various ways. Same with IM notifications; you can receive those regardless of the app you are in. Also, multi-tasking is not limited because "most users don't need it." You seem to have made this up out of whole cloth. It was limited for technical reasons which you are either unwilling to research or unable to understand.
Your metaphorical gas stations, however, are subject to regulations which make sure the fuel they are selling will not ruin your engine, contain lead, or have too low of an octane rating. Which is all Apple is doing by screening apps.
You make a few good points, but your last point is in error. It does not matter if a football player, or 100 terrorists could overpower the flight attendants. This is because all US commercial flights now have locked cockpits and strict rules against opening the cockpit under any circumstances. Which means the plane can't be hijacked or used as a weapon. Which means such an attack is basically useless; the maximum damage that could be done (and this is doubtful) is to down the plane in a random location. As an aside, it's also obvious that getting 100 terrorists on a plane is laughably unlikely. It's also very unlikely to even be attempted, for at least three reasons that any bright person can figure out.
Uh, why are you pointing to two sources that do not remotely support your claims? The first source does NOT mention any "1930s level of global temperatures," nor does it mention any "recent fall" in temperatures. The second source says basically the opposite of what you claim. You need to become a more adept liar.
Pardon me, but what if the Chinese searcher in question doesn't know English? Also, to my eyes at least, worldwide censorship is certainly worse than limited in-China-only censorship, necessary to do business in China at all, which can be easily avoided by Chinese citizens.
How does this differ from the ability to jailbreak the iPhone and gain ssh access and the ability to install whatever apps you want, including those which Apple disallows? I don't see that it does, which means, the problem you described does not seem to exist.
You speak before you think or research. Current TV tech is ALREADY capable of fully meeting these power restrictions, with no absurd dimming or other measures required. This is a very conservative measure that CA has enacted. There's no need to reflexively freak out about it. Nobody will be inconvenienced in any way by this.