First they say you gotta pattent defensively Then when the company has problems... what do we have? Oh looky PATENTS.
Defensive patents are what got us in this mess to start with. One click shopping was a defensive patent. Look and feel patents (Remeber the Macintosh look and feel patent?) were defensive.
The LZH patent was defensive...
Of course defensive patents just go to show there IS a problem to start with.
Patent on ordering gifts over the phone and Internet. Prior art? Umm the Christmass folowing the introduction to phone orders and the Christmass folowing the first Internet store.
Oh hell I have an e-mail box full of prior art for that matter.. We call it SPAM. "Buy Viagra.. makes a great gift". Grrrr
Someone mentioned "Why not patent selling?" but realisticly isn't that exactly what they just did?
What is the diffrence between buying a gift online and buying something for some other reason? Thats right. This is a patent on the shoppers intent. If this stands Amazon will be suing eBay.
Re:Linux apps too hard to configure?
on
Build Your Own PVR
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Additionally for Windows PVRs the video card itself is a bit more advanced than typical video cards with chips to optomise the procedure. Only Windows PVRs I've seen are "PVR in a box" that means TV card and software all in one pacage. You pay extra and most of that is for the hardware not the software.
The Linux PVR works from an off the shelf TV card not a specalised PVR card (of course if you find drivers for the PVR card your money ahead.. sort of.. having paid for the Windows software when you buy the card). To get past the hardware limitations requires a brute force solution.... a faster box.
On that note... How hard would this be to do on MacOs X?
Don't sabotog your argument with such language. I can show you a whole bunch of people who use Linux as a desktop and aren't computer experts. The bulk of the Slashdot userbase.
I'm not a Linux guru but I certanlly use it for my desktop. Cmdr ("Do I LOOK like I could make a Linux Destro?") Taco is yet annother example.
It dosen't take a computer expert to pull up a shell SU into root start up the Linux config tools and recompile the Linux kernel.
Nither dose it take a Linux guru to build Linux from scratch or a PC expert to build a PC or an automotive expert to change your oil.
But.... Grandma dosen't change her oil she takes it into the shop and they do it.
I could build my own table.. Not that difficult. But it's enough work that I'd rather buy one premade.
That is how it is with Linux right now. MOST people could run it but for most people it's a lot of work.
It should be relitively simple to create an RFID power source that burns out the RFID tags. Sizzle.. POP..
Then to compleate removal just find the black spot. This is extra helpful if the RFID tag is burried deep into the product (say mixed in the stuffing of a teady bear).
I'd recomend designing it open hardware with a PLUG IN power source. No need to make em portable... and get used in the stores accadentally on purpous.
Walmart has an unusually strong influence on the market that is vagely remenicent of a certan software monopoly. The similaritys to P2P networking is to much a streach as RFID tags are not a consummer implemented technology nore of any consummer benifit. It's a baby step. First have palets tagged with RFIDs then it only makes sense to start introducing the technology on a "per item" basis at the manufacturing level. "The slippery slope"
Annother poster mentioed the "unfunded mandate" the consummer pays but what may not be understood is that Walmart enjoys so much enfluence they can actually force the manufacter to eat the costs or at least not shift them onto Walmarts costummers. The manufacter may chouse to shift those costs onto non-Walmart stores and non-Walmart costummers.
If anyone has one of SCOs old Skunkware CDs that contains an MP3 of the soung "I wana be updated" based on annother soung. No doupt the band who recorded the soung gave SCO permit to put it on the CD "BUT" that band dosen't own the rights to the original soung.
There will be three critical legal tests as a result of SCOs actions. I'm douptful Darl is aware of the ground breaking he is making or what is truely at stake now that he has chosen to go down this path.
1. Obveously SCO is trying to clame unilateral legal ownership of Unix. There are countless smaller tests in this but it boils down to this. If SCO dose not have full and unrestricted control over the Unix source the rest of the case crumbles.
2. The legal enforcability of the GPL. SCO wishes to contend the GPL is not a legal or binding contract.
3. Suing before establishing ownership. SCO is asking companys to pay a liccens fee for using Linux prior to establishing ownership of the Linux code. As SCO has yet to establish any legal clame to Linux it seams to me suing the users is legally questionable at best.
Should any one of the three tests pass the computer world would be thrown into legal chaos.
Dose this amounts to slander? SCOs entire argument is that Linux stold code from them yet they refuse to provide anything remotely resembling proof. At some point someone should sue SCO for slander plain and simple.
OT: I remember once being told Cray was making a super computer that used artifical blood plasma. I put this one away in "ammusing rummors of office vampires".
On NAMBLA. The FBI used those chat rooms to catch pedophiles. I don't see why we should punish ISPs and webhosts for holding the content when it's easier to use them to catch the bad guys.
The virus doesn't exploit any massive windows bug. If everyone used Linux instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for linux instead!
This demonstrates the very real threat of Unix viruses.
Or should I say TALK of Unix viruses.
Antivirus experts talk long and hard about the dangers of ignoring the possability of Unix viruses and they give wonderful examples of how Unix viruses are possable. The examples are at best laughable and at worst industreal neglect.
The examples that actually work and can reproduce results aren't viruses at all but worms or trojens and nobody is saying those won't effect Unix.
However antivirus peps would have you believe there is no diffrence between the diffrent types of malware. That's not even remotely the case. The insistence on calling e-mail worms "Viruses" is far and away an exelent example.
Viruses attach themselfs to software. To catch a virus you download an otherwise lagit program carrying the infection. 1970's to 1980's a program would pass through many users hands before arriving at any given BBS if one of those users had a virus the program could be infected.
Today you download the software directly from the author. The chances of actually catching a virus anymore is near zero even from Windows.
Trojens are a diffrent beast. The code is easier to write. With a trojen the infected program was writen to carry the trojen. Downloading source code directly from the author WILL NOT prevent the infection. The author of the code is also the author of the trojen. You know who made the trojen if you know who made the code. Report him.
Worms are yet annother beast. Worms use software defects and break into your system to infect you directly. Once more becouse a Worm uses a defect in the operating system to gain access an anti-virus pacage can't stop the system from being infected and once infected a clever worm will quickly sabotog any given antivirus pacage to thwart detection. Viruses have done it in the past that is why antivirus pacages scan themselfs to see if they have been infected. But worms don't infect software so that test will fail to recognise a worms tampering.
Once more a worm dosen't have any limitations as to where it can be stored. It dosen't actually need to be stored at all. However to surive a reboot it needs to be stored (so it is favorable to store it somewhere).
Email worms don't infect software and use a defect found NOT in Microsoft Windows but Microsoft Outlook express. If you were to port outlook to Linux you could have e-mail worms. It could store the worm in the user directory and ammend the shell start up script to start the worm.
Here again a virus scanner won't be of much help. Run as nobody as most Unix automation is done for security reasons the anti-virus won't be able to detect the worm files in the user directorys as nobody dosen't have permission to access those files.
Or you could change your e-mail client. Windows isn't the culprit when it comes to e-mail worms and a company relying on Windows need not replace Windows to shut them out for good.
Antivirus peps would have you believe installing an antivirus pacage will do the trick. In reality you should instead install intrusion detection software, update your software regularly, be careful what you download and of whom you download it from and replace your e-mail client.
All this reguardless of what operating system you use.
There simply isn't much chance of a virus outbreak on any platform now a days IF you take reasonable precations.
Worms are the new consern and they need a compleatly diffrent tactic. If we keep relying on antivirus software to repell them there will be a worm outbreak that makes the moore worm seam like a minnor nusense and it won't be restricted to one operating system eather.
To spite populare myth viruses have been made for operating systems far less populare than Linux.
Your in charge of a very populare TV franchies. Your job is to kill it.
I could go over a whole list of stuff they did wrong but the first mistake was simply ignoring the fans. Way back (1993?) Paramount let slip rummors of plans for a star trek exploring the foundations of star fleat. The fan base booed the idea and continued to boo the idea for many years. You'd think after a few years of booing Paramount would get the idea.
Typicly a crimminal is convenced he isn't doing anything wrong. A person who actually believes kidnapping a kid is ok is eather demented or compleatly devoid of intelegence.
Also most kidnappers (and cell phone theafs) will not know the phone can be tracked so it won't even cross the kinappers mind to toss a kids cell phone.
That said a kidnapper would probably toss a cell phone becouse they don't like cell phones or some other stupid reason.
What crosses my mind is how this could be used by 911 or to locate a stolen cell phone.
The website seams overdone. The student has to submit the paper. He has to sign in and digitally sign a contract with thies people just so they can verify the paper isn't plagerised. Now you have a random website you don't nessisarly trust holding your paper e-mail address and so on. Exelent. Where did all this spam come from? "Hello? Yes I wrote that but... No I don't work for.. How the hell did that get.. Thats my freaking paper."
If the professor trusts the organisation to be fair and honnest HE can submit the papers himself. Instead of forcing the students to.
Ferther more when there are false postives the student can discuss it with the professor or the professor can do his own fact checking.
Also a sliding scale can be used.
After all the whole point of this tool is to: A. Protect a publisers intelectual property B. Help professors check for plagerism.
Also you don't want the student involved in the process. After a while I'd expect a number of publishers to set up similare systems each for the same reason.
Each with a diffrent logic and a diffrent way of scanning the information. If the student knows what system is being used he can do the research to discover how to thwart it. (I'm presume collage and universitys still provide students with vast resources for research including big fat internet pipes) But if the plagerist dosen't know who the professor is relying on the plagerist won't be able to check for possable ways to thwart.
For now however I'd say the big fat back door is use books published by someone not participating in this project.
I would have guessed 64 bit SOUND processor rather than 64 bit CPU. Being a musical instrament the sound capabilitys is more important than how much data it can chuck.
Here's my goal for next year: 1) Buy this thing 2) Become a rockstar 3) Get tons of ass 4) ??? 5) Profit!
You got the order wrong: 1) Buy this thing 2) ??? 3) Get tons of ass 4) Profit! 5) Become a rockstar
Once you are a star by default you have already sold a bunch of records and made piles of cash.
Notice I place the ??? at 2 before any of the benifets.
2 is the process of becomming populare and getting yourself where you CAN make money. The tons of ass is a side effect of the popularity. It's obnoxously painful. Working diffrent gigs. Thats why this keyboard looks neat to me. Not just from a geek prospective but from a musician prospective in that the computer is in the keyboard. No lugging around a Mac.
But I have three questions. 1. How ruggid is it? Instraments get banged about especally early in the carrer when you can't afford the proper pacging gear. 2. What software pacages can you use on it? It runs Windows so there should be quite a few options but if those applications can not access the midi keyboard your screwed. 3. Can it run Linux? For practical reasons this isn't exactly helpful but there is a cool factor.
There is a very old asumption that wemen are just less technical than men. They can't do computers and can't repair cars. They shouldn't be allowed to vote etc. The world didn't end when wemen got the vote. My sister is a trainned automtive macanic. And.. this.
The simple truth is wemen are held back artifically by certen addatudes. When they attempt to get a class in computer programming or get involved in anything technical someone is there to crush the girls youthful enthuseasum.
iPOD or iPAQ?
My DVD player, TV set and stero system is all called "My Linux workstation".
An iPOD produces suppereor sound than your avrage PDA but when your on the go you just won't hear the quality becouse of all the other noise. Anyway once you have your PDA/CellPhone combo why fork it over for an iPOD?
A woman will know this as much as a man would but after a woman is denied the technical experence she may be a bit shy of shelling out for a PDA to turn it into a cell phone and MP3 player.
So a woman may take the "safer" route of buying consummer devices not becouse she couldn't do it the "hard way" but becouse she's been made to be unsure of herself.
However it is at least encurraging that they are sure enough to buy consummer devices. Eather they aren't being harrassed as much when they express an intrest in technology or they are more resillent to the nonsense. I'd hope this means at some point they'll get as much chance as men. Or am I being optomistic?
PS. It won't matter there still won't be enough 30 year old geek girls to sute me.
"This is the end of apple. They're dead" I remember around that time some people would say that of EVERY company that did something they didn't like. There are just some people who are a bit too self involved to realise the human race isn't a bunch of clones. Ever have that rude costummer who'd always show up trying to pull exactly the same stunt over and over again and when you'd send him away he'll say something to the effect of "you won't be working here much longer"?
That's basicly what you have here. People figure Apple has done such a big mistake that they'll be brushed aside by market forces. It never occured to them that the Macintosh might actually have a market. People stopped making ammature quips after IBM was displaced by a small software company. Well ok people continued to predict the demise of Apple.. But besides that.
Slashdot Mirror
So he's William Gates III KBE
Don't hand out awards (such as knighthood) for great deeds to an industry to individuals widely reguarded as the downfall of same.
First they say you gotta pattent defensively
Then when the company has problems... what do we have? Oh looky PATENTS.
Defensive patents are what got us in this mess to start with.
One click shopping was a defensive patent.
Look and feel patents (Remeber the Macintosh look and feel patent?) were defensive.
The LZH patent was defensive...
Of course defensive patents just go to show there IS a problem to start with.
FTD 1997 brought to you by the Internet archive.
Patent on ordering gifts over the phone and Internet.
Prior art? Umm the Christmass folowing the introduction to phone orders and the Christmass folowing the first Internet store.
Oh hell I have an e-mail box full of prior art for that matter.. We call it SPAM.
"Buy Viagra.. makes a great gift". Grrrr
Someone mentioned "Why not patent selling?" but realisticly isn't that exactly what they just did?
What is the diffrence between buying a gift online and buying something for some other reason?
Thats right. This is a patent on the shoppers intent.
If this stands Amazon will be suing eBay.
Additionally for Windows PVRs the video card itself is a bit more advanced than typical video cards with chips to optomise the procedure.
Only Windows PVRs I've seen are "PVR in a box" that means TV card and software all in one pacage. You pay extra and most of that is for the hardware not the software.
The Linux PVR works from an off the shelf TV card not a specalised PVR card (of course if you find drivers for the PVR card your money ahead.. sort of.. having paid for the Windows software when you buy the card).
To get past the hardware limitations requires a brute force solution.... a faster box.
On that note... How hard would this be to do on MacOs X?
> as long as you are a Linux guru
Don't sabotog your argument with such language.
I can show you a whole bunch of people who use Linux as a desktop and aren't computer experts. The bulk of the Slashdot userbase.
I'm not a Linux guru but I certanlly use it for my desktop. Cmdr ("Do I LOOK like I could make a Linux Destro?") Taco is yet annother example.
It dosen't take a computer expert to pull up a shell SU into root start up the Linux config tools and recompile the Linux kernel.
Nither dose it take a Linux guru to build Linux from scratch or a PC expert to build a PC or an automotive expert to change your oil.
But....
Grandma dosen't change her oil she takes it into the shop and they do it.
I could build my own table.. Not that difficult. But it's enough work that I'd rather buy one premade.
That is how it is with Linux right now.
MOST people could run it but for most people it's a lot of work.
It should be relitively simple to create an RFID power source that burns out the RFID tags.
Sizzle.. POP..
Then to compleate removal just find the black spot. This is extra helpful if the RFID tag is burried deep into the product (say mixed in the stuffing of a teady bear).
I'd recomend designing it open hardware with a PLUG IN power source. No need to make em portable... and get used in the stores accadentally on purpous.
> remove the tag after you leave the store.
If such a kit existed I sereously doupt the store is going to let you bring it into the store.
Anyway before you can remove the tag you have to FIND the tag...
> Put it this way, would you rather sell to them or have your competitor doing it?
Obveously I'd rather be selling to them.
Even if they ask me to chop off my left foot and me to eat it infront of my kids in exchange.
Becouse if you don't do business with Microsoft.. err Walmart your out of business.
Walmart has an unusually strong influence on the market that is vagely remenicent of a certan software monopoly.
The similaritys to P2P networking is to much a streach as RFID tags are not a consummer implemented technology nore of any consummer benifit.
It's a baby step. First have palets tagged with RFIDs then it only makes sense to start introducing the technology on a "per item" basis at the manufacturing level.
"The slippery slope"
Annother poster mentioed the "unfunded mandate" the consummer pays but what may not be understood is that Walmart enjoys so much enfluence they can actually force the manufacter to eat the costs or at least not shift them onto Walmarts costummers.
The manufacter may chouse to shift those costs onto non-Walmart stores and non-Walmart costummers.
If anyone has one of SCOs old Skunkware CDs that contains an MP3 of the soung "I wana be updated" based on annother soung.
No doupt the band who recorded the soung gave SCO permit to put it on the CD "BUT" that band dosen't own the rights to the original soung.
I'm sure the RIAA uses Linux somewhere....
There will be three critical legal tests as a result of SCOs actions. I'm douptful Darl is aware of the ground breaking he is making or what is truely at stake now that he has chosen to go down this path.
1. Obveously SCO is trying to clame unilateral legal ownership of Unix.
There are countless smaller tests in this but it boils down to this.
If SCO dose not have full and unrestricted control over the Unix source the rest of the case crumbles.
2. The legal enforcability of the GPL.
SCO wishes to contend the GPL is not a legal or binding contract.
3. Suing before establishing ownership.
SCO is asking companys to pay a liccens fee for using Linux prior to establishing ownership of the Linux code.
As SCO has yet to establish any legal clame to Linux it seams to me suing the users is legally questionable at best.
Should any one of the three tests pass the computer world would be thrown into legal chaos.
Dose this amounts to slander?
SCOs entire argument is that Linux stold code from them yet they refuse to provide anything remotely resembling proof.
At some point someone should sue SCO for slander plain and simple.
We used the blood of our felow employees.
OT: I remember once being told Cray was making a super computer that used artifical blood plasma. I put this one away in "ammusing rummors of office vampires".
On NAMBLA. The FBI used those chat rooms to catch pedophiles.
I don't see why we should punish ISPs and webhosts for holding the content when it's easier to use them to catch the bad guys.
The virus doesn't exploit any massive windows bug. If everyone used Linux instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for linux instead!
This demonstrates the very real threat of Unix viruses.
Or should I say TALK of Unix viruses.
Antivirus experts talk long and hard about the dangers of ignoring the possability of Unix viruses and they give wonderful examples of how Unix viruses are possable.
The examples are at best laughable and at worst industreal neglect.
The examples that actually work and can reproduce results aren't viruses at all but worms or trojens and nobody is saying those won't effect Unix.
However antivirus peps would have you believe there is no diffrence between the diffrent types of malware. That's not even remotely the case. The insistence on calling e-mail worms "Viruses" is far and away an exelent example.
Viruses attach themselfs to software. To catch a virus you download an otherwise lagit program carrying the infection.
1970's to 1980's a program would pass through many users hands before arriving at any given BBS if one of those users had a virus the program could be infected.
Today you download the software directly from the author. The chances of actually catching a virus anymore is near zero even from Windows.
Trojens are a diffrent beast. The code is easier to write. With a trojen the infected program was writen to carry the trojen. Downloading source code directly from the author WILL NOT prevent the infection. The author of the code is also the author of the trojen.
You know who made the trojen if you know who made the code. Report him.
Worms are yet annother beast. Worms use software defects and break into your system to infect you directly.
Once more becouse a Worm uses a defect in the operating system to gain access an anti-virus pacage can't stop the system from being infected and once infected a clever worm will quickly sabotog any given antivirus pacage to thwart detection. Viruses have done it in the past that is why antivirus pacages scan themselfs to see if they have been infected. But worms don't infect software so that test will fail to recognise a worms tampering.
Once more a worm dosen't have any limitations as to where it can be stored. It dosen't actually need to be stored at all. However to surive a reboot it needs to be stored (so it is favorable to store it somewhere).
Email worms don't infect software and use a defect found NOT in Microsoft Windows but Microsoft Outlook express.
If you were to port outlook to Linux you could have e-mail worms. It could store the worm in the user directory and ammend the shell start up script to start the worm.
Here again a virus scanner won't be of much help. Run as nobody as most Unix automation is done for security reasons the anti-virus won't be able to detect the worm files in the user directorys as nobody dosen't have permission to access those files.
Or you could change your e-mail client. Windows isn't the culprit when it comes to e-mail worms and a company relying on Windows need not replace Windows to shut them out for good.
Antivirus peps would have you believe installing an antivirus pacage will do the trick.
In reality you should instead install intrusion detection software, update your software regularly, be careful what you download and of whom you download it from and replace your e-mail client.
All this reguardless of what operating system you use.
There simply isn't much chance of a virus outbreak on any platform now a days IF you take reasonable precations.
Worms are the new consern and they need a compleatly diffrent tactic.
If we keep relying on antivirus software to repell them there will be a worm outbreak that makes the moore worm seam like a minnor nusense and it won't be restricted to one operating system eather.
To spite populare myth viruses have been made for operating systems far less populare than Linux.
Your in charge of a very populare TV franchies. Your job is to kill it.
I could go over a whole list of stuff they did wrong but the first mistake was simply ignoring the fans.
Way back (1993?) Paramount let slip rummors of plans for a star trek exploring the foundations of star fleat. The fan base booed the idea and continued to boo the idea for many years.
You'd think after a few years of booing Paramount would get the idea.
You think they're THAT stupid?
Typicly a crimminal is convenced he isn't doing anything wrong.
A person who actually believes kidnapping a kid is ok is eather demented or compleatly devoid of intelegence.
Also most kidnappers (and cell phone theafs) will not know the phone can be tracked so it won't even cross the kinappers mind to toss a kids cell phone.
That said a kidnapper would probably toss a cell phone becouse they don't like cell phones or some other stupid reason.
What crosses my mind is how this could be used by 911 or to locate a stolen cell phone.
The website seams overdone.
The student has to submit the paper. He has to sign in and digitally sign a contract with thies people just so they can verify the paper isn't plagerised.
Now you have a random website you don't nessisarly trust holding your paper e-mail address and so on. Exelent. Where did all this spam come from?
"Hello? Yes I wrote that but... No I don't work for.. How the hell did that get.. Thats my freaking paper."
If the professor trusts the organisation to be fair and honnest HE can submit the papers himself. Instead of forcing the students to.
Ferther more when there are false postives the student can discuss it with the professor or the professor can do his own fact checking.
Also a sliding scale can be used.
After all the whole point of this tool is to:
A. Protect a publisers intelectual property
B. Help professors check for plagerism.
Also you don't want the student involved in the process. After a while I'd expect a number of publishers to set up similare systems each for the same reason.
Each with a diffrent logic and a diffrent way of scanning the information. If the student knows what system is being used he can do the research to discover how to thwart it.
(I'm presume collage and universitys still provide students with vast resources for research including big fat internet pipes)
But if the plagerist dosen't know who the professor is relying on the plagerist won't be able to check for possable ways to thwart.
For now however I'd say the big fat back door is use books published by someone not participating in this project.
You can filter conent. There are a number of programs that already block banner ads.
You can hit the "SHOP" button.
You both have the wrong prospective.
It's not forcing users who pay per megabyte or have dial up to download large amounts of ad data.
It's forcing them to NOT visit the websites or worse block the advertsments and thusly deny the website revinu.
I'm quite fond of the "banner ad" consept and I'm also fond of the text browser for times when I'm stuck using a dial up connection.
I would have guessed 64 bit SOUND processor rather than 64 bit CPU.
Being a musical instrament the sound capabilitys is more important than how much data it can chuck.
Here's my goal for next year:
1) Buy this thing
2) Become a rockstar
3) Get tons of ass
4) ???
5) Profit!
You got the order wrong:
1) Buy this thing
2) ???
3) Get tons of ass
4) Profit!
5) Become a rockstar
Once you are a star by default you have already sold a bunch of records and made piles of cash.
Notice I place the ??? at 2 before any of the benifets.
2 is the process of becomming populare and getting yourself where you CAN make money.
The tons of ass is a side effect of the popularity.
It's obnoxously painful. Working diffrent gigs.
Thats why this keyboard looks neat to me. Not just from a geek prospective but from a musician prospective in that the computer is in the keyboard. No lugging around a Mac.
But I have three questions.
1. How ruggid is it? Instraments get banged about especally early in the carrer when you can't afford the proper pacging gear.
2. What software pacages can you use on it? It runs Windows so there should be quite a few options but if those applications can not access the midi keyboard your screwed.
3. Can it run Linux? For practical reasons this isn't exactly helpful but there is a cool factor.
There is a very old asumption that wemen are just less technical than men. They can't do computers and can't repair cars. They shouldn't be allowed to vote etc.
The world didn't end when wemen got the vote.
My sister is a trainned automtive macanic.
And.. this.
The simple truth is wemen are held back artifically by certen addatudes. When they attempt to get a class in computer programming or get involved in anything technical someone is there to crush the girls youthful enthuseasum.
iPOD or iPAQ?
My DVD player, TV set and stero system is all called "My Linux workstation".
An iPOD produces suppereor sound than your avrage PDA but when your on the go you just won't hear the quality becouse of all the other noise. Anyway once you have your PDA/CellPhone combo why fork it over for an iPOD?
A woman will know this as much as a man would but after a woman is denied the technical experence she may be a bit shy of shelling out for a PDA to turn it into a cell phone and MP3 player.
So a woman may take the "safer" route of buying consummer devices not becouse she couldn't do it the "hard way" but becouse she's been made to be unsure of herself.
However it is at least encurraging that they are sure enough to buy consummer devices.
Eather they aren't being harrassed as much when they express an intrest in technology or they are more resillent to the nonsense.
I'd hope this means at some point they'll get as much chance as men. Or am I being optomistic?
PS. It won't matter there still won't be enough 30 year old geek girls to sute me.
"This is the end of apple. They're dead"
I remember around that time some people would say that of EVERY company that did something they didn't like.
There are just some people who are a bit too self involved to realise the human race isn't a bunch of clones.
Ever have that rude costummer who'd always show up trying to pull exactly the same stunt over and over again and when you'd send him away he'll say something to the effect of "you won't be working here much longer"?
That's basicly what you have here. People figure Apple has done such a big mistake that they'll be brushed aside by market forces. It never occured to them that the Macintosh might actually have a market.
People stopped making ammature quips after IBM was displaced by a small software company.
Well ok people continued to predict the demise of Apple.. But besides that.