As to the story: There's a reason, Woz has been an engineer and not a designer at Apple.
So, then, you're saying his opinion is related to usability instead of aesthetics?
Works for me - I've always felt that form should follow function, not vice versa... which is exactly why I have never owned a single Apple product. Not to say they're unusable, but it's obvious to me that Apple is more concerned with their company image and style than actually making their products better.
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
Critical hit.
Not really, no. The United States has been able to largely overcome the resistance of "progressives" to defending itself, and has destroyed the majority of the Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure that was in place before 9/11. They scored, at most, a glancing blow. Of course the "progressives" and Islamists keep trying.
By "progressives," I assume you mean the Democrat and Republican CongressVogons who have been introducing bill after bill that chip away at our Constitutional rights?
BTW, where are these Islamists who are trying to destroy us, anyway? You would think that, if their goal was to invade and destroy America, they would try a little harder.
You, and some moderators, are confused. The problem isn't Saudis, per se. The problem is Islamist extremists who are willing to take up arms and engage in terrorism.
Yea... like the Saudi Islamist extremists who, financed by a wealthy Saudi man well connected to both the Saudi royal family and the family of former U.S. President George Bush, attacked us.
If you know much of anything about what is going on, you must know that the US has been fighting Islamist extremists from around the world in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.
... after we were attacked by a bunch of Saudis. The only fighting we did with Iraq previously was when they invaded Kuwait, and a few random bombing runs during the Clinton administration. Oh, and when our country put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 70's. Hussein, as power-mad as that asshole was, ran a pretty tight watch when it came to outside forces of any kind operating within his borders; totalitarians tend to be that way.
It is these very same Islamists extremists who have killed most of the 100,000 people killed in Iraq. That is part of what ultimately made Iraq so deadly for them: their wanton killing undermined their support in the Muslim world, and it resulted in many Yea... because we're there
.
Had we not invaded Iraq, those people would still be being killed by Hussein, instead of the cockroaches we let in during our coup d'etat. Now that we're forcing the Iraqi people to follow our nation's Rules for Empirical Colonies, they will continue to be targets of anti-American forces.
you seem to be picking the one move that could inflame the entire Muslim world against the US - an unprovoked attack against Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, the holiest places of Islam, that killed large numbers of innocent Muslims.
Ignoring your use of multiple tenses, a hallmark of not proofreading, I'm not "picking" anything; I'm merely pointing out facts regarding the people who planned, financed, and carried out the WTC attack on September 11th 2001. Well, that, and refusing to buy the bullshit rationalization for starting wars in countries we have no business in; the gratuitous waste of blood and treasure really tends to piss me off.
Was this deliberate on your part? Is that what you want to see? The entire Muslim world waging war against the US?
Oh, piss off with the emotional arguments and general troll shit; your strawmen and fallacies of equivocation have no effect on me. Besides, you are the one who keeps insisting Muslims are waging war on America, for lack of evidence.
You watch too much television. Protip: Never use the phrase "the terrorists" when referring to a specific organization you damn well know the name of. It makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
In reality, the goal of Bin Laden was to disrupt our financial system, which he did fairly well, and destroy our way of life. But nevermind that for a moment, let's get to what's wrong with your statement.
So,you believe the goal of "the terrorists", AKA Al Queda or Quesadilla or whatever, is to invade our country and force all 350+ million of us to follow their particular religion... hmm, sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity... funny, that.
I digress;
Anyway, in order to fulfill this goal, they hijack some planes and crash them into a couple really, really tall banks 11 years ago... then what? What devestating attack have we suffered since? Where are the imams on every corner, preaching fundamental Islam and demanding we convert? Where are the attempts to "replace the Constitution with Sharia Law?" Well, attempts from Muslims, anyway... the government is working pretty damn hard on enacting it, with the addition that everyone who isn't insanely wealthy gets treated like shit, instead of just women.
That's why I don't buy the "long game" theory - Our nation has the resources for a long drawn out conflict, whereas a ragtag bunch of goat herders with RPGs and AK-47's don't really possess the resources for a war of attrition with us.
That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line.
You think the total loss of our Constitutional right to not be ass-raped by government agents when trying to travel from point A to B is merely "inconvenient?" That's what I love to hate about TV news watchers like you - you piss and moan about how the evil, scary, faceless Muslim boogeymen are going to come to our country (someday) and throw out the Constitution, meanwhile your own fucking government is systematically dismantling it, peeling your rights one by one; and you call it an "inconvenience." You sit in your cozy chair, foaming at the mouth with rage as you scream obcenities at images of the enemies of Oceania on your telescreen, because it's the only thing left you know you're allowed to do; the 2-minute hate is the highlight of your day... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength...
Sorry, started channeling Orwell there for some reason...
Hmm, that explains all the AT&T trucks in my neighborhood installing fiber to the MPOE...
Seriously, though, take it from a guy who has installed (and terminated) quite a bit of fiber: it isn't that working with fiber is "a colossal pain in the ass" - once you know what you're doing (which, for me, didn't take long, though YMMV), it's extremely easy to run and work with, albeit termination tends to be a bit time consuming.
No, the problem with fiber is the expense. Even if you can get 1000' rolls for dirt cheap, the equipment to terminate, as well as the devices needed to convert the signal, can be astronomical in price. The Fujikura 50S fusion splicer I used to use at my old job runs about $9,000 for a refurb. Granted, you can always use mechanical splices, which are cheaper but less reliable, but I got spoiled with the fusion splicer. Those things are bitchin' to operate.
Even if you could rent a splicer on the low-low, the gigabit media converters run around $125 each, and you need 2 for each circuit. In a 2 bedroom house, including the 4 ports submitter said they wanted in the media area, you're looking at a minimum of $6,000 in converters alone. Jump to 10Gb, and the cost of the media converters more than doubles. Might work if the guy building the house has more money than sense, but realistically gigabit over copper is more than enough for the needs of a typical household and is far cheaper to install.
I don't know about you, but I find the ass-groping, crevice-penetrating symbol of the TSA much more unpleasant. I can ignore a phallus in the sky, but a finger in my ass is a completely different matter.
Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"
There was a proposal back in 2001 to rebuild them with one extra floor: a mosque, as both a "you can't attack us without destroying one of your own holy places", and as a "we did not let the actions of a few extremists turn us against an entire religion".
Unfortunately, today, even trying to build a mosque several blocks away from the rubble causes a massive uproar, so I think we must have rolled a one on our "save vs. intolerance" roll...
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
One would think shit like this would give our legislators a moment's pause to consider the futility of their constant attempts to enact various forms of prohibition... but alas, will likely have the opposite effect.
Apparently one of the key factors in getting elected to representative government is knowing fuck-all about economics.
First, as the AC correctly surmised, the argument was about 'can' and 'could'.
And as I accurately stated, 'can' and 'could' are merely different modes of the same word.
Secondly, 'will' has two meanings. I was referring to the one which was relevant to the context it was used in, an argument of future/present tenses, where it is used as a future 'modifier' on verbs.
Actually, it has 5 meanings, which you would know if you had followed the link I provided. However, the number of meanings is non sequitur, as they don't change the fact that 'will' has a completely different meaning than 'can.' Period. Look it up.
Consider if replacing 'will' with "going to" makes sense. If so, then it means it is the "simple future" tense, and has nothing to do with a desire or need to do something. See http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html
Doesn't change the fact that they mean different things; 'will' is compulsory, i.e. must happen, whereas 'can' implies an ability but not necessarily a compulsion to do so. Period. Look it up in a dictionary, not some random website with the word "English" in the name.
The 'will' you reference in your link to is a noun in the context of "He has a strong will and stubborn personality." However, both of your sentence examples show are the simple future, not the one you link to.
Just checked it, there are no less than 8 different verbal modes for the word 'will,' most of which, save the abstract, define a compulsory action.
Consider:
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are going to.
See what I did there?
Nothing notable; let me show you what you did wrong:
Just because you have the ability to have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are compelled to
There is more to English than being able to form parse-able sentences.
Yes, there is, but if a person can't (can not) or won't (will not) understand the basics of the language, there's no point in going any deeper.
You could ask your eardrums how well moving things with sound works in a less dense fluid...
Not what I meant, pretty sure you know that... however, if not, allow me to clarify: move big objects. Like steel girders or something else practical.
I suspect that the mathematical trickery required to get sound waves to push an object in a concerted way, rather than just bouncing around chaotically, was a fair trick; but (normally trivial) moving things is what makes sound sound like sound.
Remember that all sound is really just a wavelength, and thus manipulation is a matter of adjusting frequency and amplitude... There probably is some arithmetical alchemy in pulsing the waves just the right way to achieve the desired result, but surely it's not all that complex.
I recall an experiment in which researchers were able to create patterns in a sandy medium spread on a metal plate, suspended above a large speaker; by merely changing the frequency and amplitude of the speaker output, they could create differing patterns and shapes.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either of you, I'm merely pointing out the issues reality causes for the suggestions.
Speaking of which, in order for jury nullification to occur, wouldn't one first have to get the issue before a (n honest) judge? Or am I way off base on your premise?
Slashdot Mirror
As to the story: There's a reason, Woz has been an engineer and not a designer at Apple.
So, then, you're saying his opinion is related to usability instead of aesthetics?
Works for me - I've always felt that form should follow function, not vice versa... which is exactly why I have never owned a single Apple product. Not to say they're unusable, but it's obvious to me that Apple is more concerned with their company image and style than actually making their products better.
Google "Sacco and Vanzetti"
Which still beats DIYSexChange.com by a long shot.
In seven years?
Well, according to wikipedia Saddam killed about a million of Iraqi's civilians during his reign.
Hmm... well, I would say not our fault, not our problem, but... well, you know...
One would think our leadership would eventually learn the futility of interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations...
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
Critical hit.
Not really, no. The United States has been able to largely overcome the resistance of "progressives" to defending itself, and has destroyed the majority of the Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure that was in place before 9/11. They scored, at most, a glancing blow. Of course the "progressives" and Islamists keep trying.
By "progressives," I assume you mean the Democrat and Republican CongressVogons who have been introducing bill after bill that chip away at our Constitutional rights?
BTW, where are these Islamists who are trying to destroy us, anyway? You would think that, if their goal was to invade and destroy America, they would try a little harder.
When did we kill 100,000 Saudis?
You, and some moderators, are confused. The problem isn't Saudis, per se. The problem is Islamist extremists who are willing to take up arms and engage in terrorism.
Yea... like the Saudi Islamist extremists who, financed by a wealthy Saudi man well connected to both the Saudi royal family and the family of former U.S. President George Bush, attacked us.
If you know much of anything about what is going on, you must know that the US has been fighting Islamist extremists from around the world in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq.
... after we were attacked by a bunch of Saudis. The only fighting we did with Iraq previously was when they invaded Kuwait, and a few random bombing runs during the Clinton administration. Oh, and when our country put Saddam Hussein in power back in the 70's. Hussein, as power-mad as that asshole was, ran a pretty tight watch when it came to outside forces of any kind operating within his borders; totalitarians tend to be that way.
It is these very same Islamists extremists who have killed most of the 100,000 people killed in Iraq. That is part of what ultimately made Iraq so deadly for them: their wanton killing undermined their support in the Muslim world, and it resulted in many Yea... because we're there
. Had we not invaded Iraq, those people would still be being killed by Hussein, instead of the cockroaches we let in during our coup d'etat. Now that we're forcing the Iraqi people to follow our nation's Rules for Empirical Colonies, they will continue to be targets of anti-American forces.
you seem to be picking the one move that could inflame the entire Muslim world against the US - an unprovoked attack against Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, the holiest places of Islam, that killed large numbers of innocent Muslims.
Ignoring your use of multiple tenses, a hallmark of not proofreading, I'm not "picking" anything; I'm merely pointing out facts regarding the people who planned, financed, and carried out the WTC attack on September 11th 2001. Well, that, and refusing to buy the bullshit rationalization for starting wars in countries we have no business in; the gratuitous waste of blood and treasure really tends to piss me off.
Was this deliberate on your part? Is that what you want to see? The entire Muslim world waging war against the US?
Oh, piss off with the emotional arguments and general troll shit; your strawmen and fallacies of equivocation have no effect on me. Besides, you are the one who keeps insisting Muslims are waging war on America, for lack of evidence.
In reality, the goal of Bin Laden was to disrupt our financial system, which he did fairly well, and destroy our way of life. But nevermind that for a moment, let's get to what's wrong with your statement.
So,you believe the goal of "the terrorists", AKA Al Queda or Quesadilla or whatever, is to invade our country and force all 350+ million of us to follow their particular religion... hmm, sounds a lot like fundamental Christianity... funny, that.
I digress;
Anyway, in order to fulfill this goal, they hijack some planes and crash them into a couple really, really tall banks 11 years ago... then what? What devestating attack have we suffered since? Where are the imams on every corner, preaching fundamental Islam and demanding we convert? Where are the attempts to "replace the Constitution with Sharia Law?" Well, attempts from Muslims, anyway... the government is working pretty damn hard on enacting it, with the addition that everyone who isn't insanely wealthy gets treated like shit, instead of just women.
That's why I don't buy the "long game" theory - Our nation has the resources for a long drawn out conflict, whereas a ragtag bunch of goat herders with RPGs and AK-47's don't really possess the resources for a war of attrition with us.
That is what they are fighting for, not to inconvenience your air travel by forcing people to wait a bit longer in line.
You think the total loss of our Constitutional right to not be ass-raped by government agents when trying to travel from point A to B is merely "inconvenient?" That's what I love to hate about TV news watchers like you - you piss and moan about how the evil, scary, faceless Muslim boogeymen are going to come to our country (someday) and throw out the Constitution, meanwhile your own fucking government is systematically dismantling it, peeling your rights one by one; and you call it an "inconvenience." You sit in your cozy chair, foaming at the mouth with rage as you scream obcenities at images of the enemies of Oceania on your telescreen, because it's the only thing left you know you're allowed to do; the 2-minute hate is the highlight of your day... War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength...
Sorry, started channeling Orwell there for some reason...
Hmm, that explains all the AT&T trucks in my neighborhood installing fiber to the MPOE...
Seriously, though, take it from a guy who has installed (and terminated) quite a bit of fiber: it isn't that working with fiber is "a colossal pain in the ass" - once you know what you're doing (which, for me, didn't take long, though YMMV), it's extremely easy to run and work with, albeit termination tends to be a bit time consuming.
No, the problem with fiber is the expense. Even if you can get 1000' rolls for dirt cheap, the equipment to terminate, as well as the devices needed to convert the signal, can be astronomical in price. The Fujikura 50S fusion splicer I used to use at my old job runs about $9,000 for a refurb. Granted, you can always use mechanical splices, which are cheaper but less reliable, but I got spoiled with the fusion splicer. Those things are bitchin' to operate.
Even if you could rent a splicer on the low-low, the gigabit media converters run around $125 each, and you need 2 for each circuit. In a 2 bedroom house, including the 4 ports submitter said they wanted in the media area, you're looking at a minimum of $6,000 in converters alone. Jump to 10Gb, and the cost of the media converters more than doubles. Might work if the guy building the house has more money than sense, but realistically gigabit over copper is more than enough for the needs of a typical household and is far cheaper to install.
Dead busines model + voodoo economic theory = Zombie Hollywood!
All those bad zombie movies were actually the last few living screenwriters trying to warn us!
It's not a zombie; you can kill a zombie by removing the head and/or destroying the brain.
These media assholes are more like the mythical hydra: with every head you remove, 2 grow back in its place.
I don't understand why I got tagged "offtopic"...
It's exactly what this article is all about...
Penis, er, tower envy, obviously.
having good hair.
That one is debatable as well...
I don't know about you, but I find the ass-groping, crevice-penetrating symbol of the TSA much more unpleasant. I can ignore a phallus in the sky, but a finger in my ass is a completely different matter.
Precisely why I chuckle darkly every time I hear the phrase, "We must do X or the 'terrorists' will win!"
Obviously, they already have.
Amazon Prime has tons (and I mean tons) of kids' shows, on demand - $80/yr.
Just FYI.
There was a proposal back in 2001 to rebuild them with one extra floor: a mosque, as both a "you can't attack us without destroying one of your own holy places", and as a "we did not let the actions of a few extremists turn us against an entire religion".
Unfortunately, today, even trying to build a mosque several blocks away from the rubble causes a massive uproar, so I think we must have rolled a one on our "save vs. intolerance" roll...
Rather, the terrorists rolled a 20 on their "save vs get America to destroy itself from within" roll.
Critical hit.
Hey, that's the combination on my luggage!
Thanks, we've been trying to open that thing ever since the airline "lost" it.
Yours,
The TSA
Was it over when the Germans bombed Perl Harbor? Hell no!
I thought it was the Javans who bombed Perl Harbor.
You're all wrong; it was obviously the Persians.
You kill 3,000 of ours, we'll kill 100,000 of yours.
When did we kill 100,000 Saudis?
Question: What would the civilian casualty rate be if we hadn't invaded Iraq over some made up bullshit?
I rest my case.
Collateral damage and accidental civilian casualties are not murder.
So, we invaded a sovereign nation and killed thousands of it's citizens on accident?
Whew, that's a real load off...
Yes, quite teh impressive phallic reference we've built ourselves, eh?
Next step: World's largest cock-shaped sports car.
No matter how hard you try to stop it!
One would think shit like this would give our legislators a moment's pause to consider the futility of their constant attempts to enact various forms of prohibition... but alas, will likely have the opposite effect.
Apparently one of the key factors in getting elected to representative government is knowing fuck-all about economics.
So it goes...
First, as the AC correctly surmised, the argument was about 'can' and 'could'.
And as I accurately stated, 'can' and 'could' are merely different modes of the same word.
Secondly, 'will' has two meanings. I was referring to the one which was relevant to the context it was used in, an argument of future/present tenses, where it is used as a future 'modifier' on verbs.
Actually, it has 5 meanings, which you would know if you had followed the link I provided. However, the number of meanings is non sequitur, as they don't change the fact that 'will' has a completely different meaning than 'can.' Period. Look it up.
Consider if replacing 'will' with "going to" makes sense. If so, then it means it is the "simple future" tense, and has nothing to do with a desire or need to do something. See http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html
Doesn't change the fact that they mean different things; 'will' is compulsory, i.e. must happen, whereas 'can' implies an ability but not necessarily a compulsion to do so. Period. Look it up in a dictionary, not some random website with the word "English" in the name.
The 'will' you reference in your link to is a noun in the context of "He has a strong will and stubborn personality." However, both of your sentence examples show are the simple future, not the one you link to.
Just checked it, there are no less than 8 different verbal modes for the word 'will,' most of which, save the abstract, define a compulsory action.
Consider:
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you will.
Just because you can have sex with a man, doesn't mean you are going to.
See what I did there?
Nothing notable; let me show you what you did wrong:
There is more to English than being able to form parse-able sentences.
Yes, there is, but if a person can't (can not) or won't (will not) understand the basics of the language, there's no point in going any deeper.
See what I did there?
You could ask your eardrums how well moving things with sound works in a less dense fluid...
Not what I meant, pretty sure you know that... however, if not, allow me to clarify: move big objects. Like steel girders or something else practical.
I suspect that the mathematical trickery required to get sound waves to push an object in a concerted way, rather than just bouncing around chaotically, was a fair trick; but (normally trivial) moving things is what makes sound sound like sound.
Remember that all sound is really just a wavelength, and thus manipulation is a matter of adjusting frequency and amplitude... There probably is some arithmetical alchemy in pulsing the waves just the right way to achieve the desired result, but surely it's not all that complex.
I recall an experiment in which researchers were able to create patterns in a sandy medium spread on a metal plate, suspended above a large speaker; by merely changing the frequency and amplitude of the speaker output, they could create differing patterns and shapes.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with either of you, I'm merely pointing out the issues reality causes for the suggestions.
Speaking of which, in order for jury nullification to occur, wouldn't one first have to get the issue before a (n honest) judge? Or am I way off base on your premise?