Thousands dead, millions left homeless, as Berlin lies in ruins at the site of the impact. Global weather patterns disrupted for weeks. Emperor Ming unavailable for comment.
Main Entry: theft Function: noun Etymology: Old English thiefth : LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
Hmm... Sounds like your definition of theft differs from the accepted one.
Theft does not have to mean depriving somebody of their property. When you copy a movie which you did not pay for, you are consuming the service (about 90 minutes of entertainment) without the consent of the service provider. That is theft, plain and simple.
LokiTorrent, a popular torrent bootlegger site, has officially been shutdown.
Copyright infringement is a type of theft.
When you take something without securing permission to take it, even if you are just taking a copy of intellectual property, that is theft.
If you ask me to sign a petition to revise copyright law to be more favorable to consumers, I'll gladly sign it. If somebody rus for office saying he wants to make copyright more fair, I'll listen to his ideas.... But what I won't do is support data piracy. I'm not at all sad to hear that LokiTorrent is gone. They were ripping people off, and those people were perfectly within their rights to unleash the lawyers.
Apple Records is already trying to sue them off the face of the Earth.
Sooner or later, there will be a settlement in which Apple Computer hands Apple Records a couple hundred million dollars worth of non-voting stock, and the Beatles catalog will finally show up on iTMS.
The settlement will eventually happen because Apple Records is not interested in bringing about the demise of some computer company in California. What interests them is money.
It's a Russ Meyer T&A slasher flick called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," and it stinks on ice.
Think "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with weaker jokes and fewer songs, and that's basically it.
(He also helped Meyer write "Up!" a few years earlier, but it was so bad that he wouldn't even put his name on it. He is credited under the name "Reinhold Timme.")
One of the reasons whe Siskel and Ebert hated each other so much for most of their careers together was because Gene Siskel once wrote a review for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" which absolutely savaged it for the stink-bomb that it really was. It took decades for Ebert to stop smarting over it.
To this day, Ebert insists that it was a good movie for what it was, and is very proud of the fact that Mike Meyers once stole a joke from it while playing his campy Austin Powers character.
Ah, Ellen... We miss you. There most be other products you could endorse. Or maybe your own sitcom...
(Actually, I thought Janie Porche was the real hottie among the "switcher" ad stars. She could save my Christmas any time.)
Steering back on topic... is a 10.3.x update really news? I mean, the only people who care are Mac users, and we all will see it when our automatic weekly update runs, right?
repeating the entire post at "2", since it most certainly was not "Flamebait", but my actual honest opinion:
"There are very few books on AppleScript, and certainly not many current volumes outside of Matt Neuburg's excellent AppleScript: The Definitive Guide (O'Reilly) for the intermediate-to-advanced scripter, and Hanaan Rosenthal's reference-type manual, Applescript: A Comprehensive Guide to Scripting and Automation on Mac OS X (Friends of Ed)."
So, this relatively obscure yet incredibly easy scripting language which only runs on one platform which is only used by a small percentage of computer users out there had only two complete, up-to-date, and comprehensive volumes of documentation, and therefore the world was crying out for the publication of a "missing manual."
Uh-huh.
Let's go over this again:
Most people don't use Macs. Most Mac users don't use AppleScript. Most of those who use it don't really need a manual. There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
Wow. This thing has "best seller" written all over it.
Mac manuals are not "missing." They are "not needed."
Let me know when "Windows XP Security Administration: The Missing Manual" gets published. I'll buy twenty copies and have my Christmas shopping for next year done (for my PC-owning friends and relatives, anyway.)
I'll second that. I also used SoundJam back in the day, and found it to even be inferior in many ways to various Windows-based MP3 players of the time.
iTunes, while not very feature-rich at first, was a big step up in terms of performance and stability, and I've been cheerfully using it pretty much since the day it was released.
Now, a few revisions down the road, it's flat-out the best jukebox-type program out there (IMHO.) I even use the Windows version of it on my company's PC when I'm at work.
Why should Joe Average - who uses Longhorn - switch to Firefox when he already has a 'super cool browser' right on his desktop?
He shouldn't.
Firefox exists because the horrible nature of IE has created a demand for it. IE5 was just barely good enough to drive Netscape Navigator into oblivion when bundled with Windows. IE6 made some marginal improvements, but also introduces a whole new set of problems.
The fact is that most people were simply not very happy with any browser prior to the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox fork from the Mozilla project. IE won the for-profit "browser war" by sucking slightly less than anything else out there at the time, and has stagnated since then.
Now users of all platforms have access to an outstanding web browser (if butt-ugly... getting better-looking lately, but still not the belle of the ball.)
Apple has made another browser for OS X using an open-source base which also spanks IE in every conceivable way, so we Mac Bigots actually have two great "free" browsers to choose from.
I've never bought into all that "Cathedral vs. Bazaar" propaganda, but the fact that the closed-source model ended up as a fight between Netscape Navigator & IE while the open-source world gave birth to Firefox and Safari makes a compelling case that maybe a million monkeys at a million typewriters really can produce Shakespeare in the time it takes David E. Kelly to produce another crappy lawyer show.
The first 10% share of the browser market is easy.
The difference being, that 10% is enough, if you don't care about making money.
A for-profit software company with only 10% of the market is in trouble, unless they get that 10% while charging a fortune. Apple Computer, for example, is only able to thrive with 4% of the OS market because they exclusively bundle the OS with high-margin computers. If the were selling OS X on the open market (and not getting anywhere close to half of that market), OS X would simply become the next BeOS.
In other words, to survive as a corportation, you need either a high-profit niche (which Opera is attempting to do), or contend to be a market leader (which Netscape tried to do, and failed.)
However, Mozilla is an open-source project with no such aspirations. As long as it's big enough that content providers feel compelled to support it, who cares how many people elect to use something else?
I never really understood zealous boosterism on behalf of free software. Yes, some free software is terrific. Apache, BSD, bash, Perl... all good stuff which I use the heck out of and I'm happy that it exists... But if somebody else wants to use IIS, Solaris, korn, and VB, then I wish them well. The poor bastards will have enough heartbreak without me screaming at them for choosing inferior solutions.
What about those guys who offered $15,000 to anybody who could hack their Mac web server back in the 90s? Nobody ever collected the prize.
Real security is something which can be accomplished.
*BSD is secure because it was designed to be secure, not simply because it's less common than other solutions. Likewise, if Internet Explorer 6.0 only represented about 15% of the market, it would still be hacked with shocking regularity, because Microsoft's security is a joke.
I'm not saying that all this means Firefox is as secure as some of the other technolgies I just mentioned. I'm no expert on the codebase for Firefox. It might be downright vulnerable. I will say, however, that it's hard to imagine it being worse than IE.
Securing XP is something that lots of people need to do, and requires vast amounts of arcane knowledge, hence a book which explained it would make a great Christmas gift for the poor saps who need it.
On the other hand, if such a volume was sufficiently expensive, maybe it would make more sense to just give away Mac minis.
Where's the electrical power going to come from for these.
One presumes it would come from an electrical generator of some sort. Possibly a coal, oil, or nuclear plant, or maybe even from solar cells.
Or are you one of those people who assumes that all "developing countries" look exactly like the mud huts you see in those late-night infomercials asking you to sponsor a poor child?
Good Lord, it's like walking on egg shells with you people.
I'm not saying AppleScript is bad or Macs are bad. I'm saying that we Mac users are 5% of computer users at best, that most of us never utilize AppleSript (I tend to do a lot of my scripting with Perl... YMMV), and that AppleScript is such an amazingly easy scripting language that anybody capable enough to learn a scripting language can pick up AppleScript just by skimming web sites on the subject and/or stealing code from other scripts.
Most people don't use Macs.
Wrong. True, Apple has a smaller market share, but that's when you look at the whole computing market. In the home market (where Applescript was intended to be used, btw), the percentage of users is higher.
Holy crap, you gotta be kidding me.
"Most people don't use Mac's" is a true statement. I didn't say "only four in 100 use Macs." I said "most don't."
As in, "less than half of computer users are Mac users."
You would have to be a complete idiot to disagree with that basic fact.
Sheesh!
For the record: I'm a total Mac zealot, and recently jettisoned the last of my non-Mac systems from my home network (a Linux web server and a game PC, both made redundant by my new media-room Mac mini, which hosts my web pages and plays World of Warcraft just fine.)
"There are very few books on AppleScript, and certainly not many current volumes outside of Matt Neuburg's excellent AppleScript: The Definitive Guide (O'Reilly) for the intermediate-to-advanced scripter, and Hanaan Rosenthal's reference-type manual, Applescript: A Comprehensive Guide to Scripting and Automation on Mac OS X (Friends of Ed)."
So, this relatively obscure yet incredibly easy scripting language which only runs on one platform which is only used by a small percentage of computer users out there had only two complete, up-to-date, and comprehensive volumes of documentation, and therefore the world was crying out for the publication of a "missing manual."
Uh-huh.
Let's go over this again:
Most people don't use Macs. Most Mac users don't use AppleScript. Most of those who use it don't really need a manual. There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
Wow. This thing has "best seller" written all over it.
Mac manuals are not "missing." They are "not needed."
Let me know when "Windows XP Security Administration: The Missing Manual" gets published. I'll buy twenty copies and have my Christmas shopping for next year done (for my PC-owning friends and relatives, anyway.)
Still... day-amn. $10 Billion is a lot of money for a company which makes products that everybody hates.
The real problem Microsoft has is that their bread-and-butter is becoming something they can't rely on much longer.
Making the OS which goes into 90% of computers was great, from a Wall Street point of view, when the personal computer market was a massively expanding industry... But now everybody who's likely to own a computer already has one. To make matters worse, computers from five years ago still run fast enough to do most of the things that people want to do with them. This means fewer new customers and fewer purchases from existing customers, which all adds up to a market which will never grow as fast as it did in the 90s.
The outlook for Office is far more bleak. At one time, Microsoft made more money selling MS-Office to Mac users than Apple made selling the Macs themselves, but no more.
Once word processors were capable of on-the-fly spelling and grammar checkers, people were satisfied. No new "feature" since then has been regarded by customers as a particularilly welcome one. Nobody wanted "Clippy", and nobody is likely to want whatever features get rolled into the next MS-Word, either. People have been fairly satisfied with their spreadsheet programs even longer. The Microsoft business model has been counting on people buying a new copy of Office (and maybe a new Windows computer to run it on) every three years or so for almost two decades now. Office, not Windows, is what made them what they are.
But if I'm using Office 2003 or Office for OS X right now, what possible reason could you give me for moving up to whatever the next version is... short of breaking interoperability to force and upgrade for the sake of keeping up with any of my customers/business partners/etc. who might have just bought a new computer and got the latest version to go with it?
People are starting to lose patience with this nonsense of paying several hundred dollars every few years just because the "standard" document format in the business world gets changed.
This is why open-source Office clones are catching on, and it's also why this was the right time for Apple to release "Pages", their new Word Killer app. Expect to see them come up with a cocoa-based spreadsheet within the next year or so. (Hey, maybe buy the rights to the name "Visi-Calc", and bring us all full-circle.)
For Microsoft, the future is (believe it or not), media devices. That's why the X-Box 2 is so very critical to their long-term strategy. I know it doesn't look very promising, but MS always takes three attepts to win at anything, right?
I would not be surprised to discover that in 2009 there will be an X-Box 3 in every home, providing games, Internet, PVR functions, and on-demand movie "buy or rent" downloads.
If not, the 800-pound gorilla could find itself weighing in at about a buck twenty, and getting pushed around by the chimps and orangutans.
maybe, but it's certainly not as 'cool' as having the whole shebang, and that's largely (for many people, at least) what having and using an iPod is about.
Mod that shit down as the troll/flamebait it is.
Listening to music is what having and using an iPod is about. The full-size iPods make it easy for most people to have their entire music collection with them anywhere, and the iPod Shuffle provides a very simple way to listen the way a large portion of MP3 listeners like to enjoy their collections: in shuffle mode.
I don't own an iPod to impress you.
I also am not "showing off" when I talk on my cell phone in a public place.
This is just another example of people who don't own a particular useful gadget jealously making the assumption that those who do are simply using them to flaunt their vast wealth. Never mind that you might have spent more on your shoes than they spent on their iPod shuffle.
News flash: None of those people you see on the street with white headphones give a fuck what you think about them. They are too busy enjoying the sound of Stereogram's "Walkie Talkie Man" blasting in their ears to even know that you are there.
Slashdot Mirror
Thousands dead, millions left homeless, as Berlin lies in ruins at the site of the impact. Global weather patterns disrupted for weeks. Emperor Ming unavailable for comment.
When you take somethign and deprive the rightful owner of it, that's theft.
When you take something and the owner still has it, that's copyright infringement.
No.
I'll repeat it for you using as small of words as much as one can.
When you take something and it is not yours, it is theft.
That includes "copyright infringement."
The fact that the owner still has something (which is now worth less, because there is a stolen copy out there) does not change this fact.
is someone parks in my driveway without giving me five bucks, is that theft? no.
Not normally, but if you have a sign in your driveway that says "Parking: $5," then it is.
From dictionary.com:
Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
Hmm... Sounds like your definition of theft differs from the accepted one.
Theft does not have to mean depriving somebody of their property. When you copy a movie which you did not pay for, you are consuming the service (about 90 minutes of entertainment) without the consent of the service provider. That is theft, plain and simple.
LokiTorrent, a popular torrent bootlegger site, has officially been shutdown.
... But what I won't do is support data piracy. I'm not at all sad to hear that LokiTorrent is gone. They were ripping people off, and those people were perfectly within their rights to unleash the lawyers.
Copyright infringement is a type of theft.
When you take something without securing permission to take it, even if you are just taking a copy of intellectual property, that is theft.
If you ask me to sign a petition to revise copyright law to be more favorable to consumers, I'll gladly sign it. If somebody rus for office saying he wants to make copyright more fair, I'll listen to his ideas.
Apple Records is already trying to sue them off the face of the Earth.
Sooner or later, there will be a settlement in which Apple Computer hands Apple Records a couple hundred million dollars worth of non-voting stock, and the Beatles catalog will finally show up on iTMS.
The settlement will eventually happen because Apple Records is not interested in bringing about the demise of some computer company in California. What interests them is money.
I guess we need to agree to disagree here.
You liked it, the rest of the world did not.
By the way, I loved your commentary track on Dark City, Mr. Ebert.
On top of that, he's WRITTEN a few movies.
Correction.
He co-wrote one movie.
It's a Russ Meyer T&A slasher flick called "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls," and it stinks on ice.
Think "Rocky Horror Picture Show" with weaker jokes and fewer songs, and that's basically it.
(He also helped Meyer write "Up!" a few years earlier, but it was so bad that he wouldn't even put his name on it. He is credited under the name "Reinhold Timme.")
One of the reasons whe Siskel and Ebert hated each other so much for most of their careers together was because Gene Siskel once wrote a review for "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" which absolutely savaged it for the stink-bomb that it really was. It took decades for Ebert to stop smarting over it.
To this day, Ebert insists that it was a good movie for what it was, and is very proud of the fact that Mike Meyers once stole a joke from it while playing his campy Austin Powers character.
Ah, Ellen... We miss you. There most be other products you could endorse. Or maybe your own sitcom...
(Actually, I thought Janie Porche was the real hottie among the "switcher" ad stars. She could save my Christmas any time.)
Steering back on topic... is a 10.3.x update really news? I mean, the only people who care are Mac users, and we all will see it when our automatic weekly update runs, right?
but "religious issues"? Is that really necessary in science fiction?
Battlestar Galactica was always a show about religion.
Check out what a Google search for "Battlestar Galactica" + "mormons" hath wrought
repeating the entire post at "2", since it most certainly was not "Flamebait", but my actual honest opinion:
"There are very few books on AppleScript, and certainly not many current volumes outside of Matt Neuburg's excellent AppleScript: The Definitive Guide (O'Reilly) for the intermediate-to-advanced scripter, and Hanaan Rosenthal's reference-type manual, Applescript: A Comprehensive Guide to Scripting and Automation on Mac OS X (Friends of Ed)."
So, this relatively obscure yet incredibly easy scripting language which only runs on one platform which is only used by a small percentage of computer users out there had only two complete, up-to-date, and comprehensive volumes of documentation, and therefore the world was crying out for the publication of a "missing manual."
Uh-huh.
Let's go over this again:
Most people don't use Macs.
Most Mac users don't use AppleScript.
Most of those who use it don't really need a manual.
There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
Wow. This thing has "best seller" written all over it.
Mac manuals are not "missing." They are "not needed."
Let me know when "Windows XP Security Administration: The Missing Manual" gets published. I'll buy twenty copies and have my Christmas shopping for next year done (for my PC-owning friends and relatives, anyway.)
I'll second that. I also used SoundJam back in the day, and found it to even be inferior in many ways to various Windows-based MP3 players of the time.
iTunes, while not very feature-rich at first, was a big step up in terms of performance and stability, and I've been cheerfully using it pretty much since the day it was released.
Now, a few revisions down the road, it's flat-out the best jukebox-type program out there (IMHO.) I even use the Windows version of it on my company's PC when I'm at work.
"raid array" is a redundant expression.
Worse yet, the iPod Shuffle is a flash-momory chip, not a media drive... so it's not really a RAID.
Also, at $149 per GB, it's not cheap at all by today's data storage standards, so maybe it should be "RAEC" for "Redundant Array of Expensive Chips."
The "Slashdotted news story about a low-end system must be hosted on said system" joke is now officailly played out.
I look forward to never seeing it again, just as we never hear "All Your Base" jokes anymore.
Oh wait.
Crap.
Why should Joe Average - who uses Longhorn - switch to Firefox when he already has a 'super cool browser' right on his desktop?
He shouldn't.
Firefox exists because the horrible nature of IE has created a demand for it. IE5 was just barely good enough to drive Netscape Navigator into oblivion when bundled with Windows. IE6 made some marginal improvements, but also introduces a whole new set of problems.
The fact is that most people were simply not very happy with any browser prior to the Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox fork from the Mozilla project. IE won the for-profit "browser war" by sucking slightly less than anything else out there at the time, and has stagnated since then.
Now users of all platforms have access to an outstanding web browser (if butt-ugly... getting better-looking lately, but still not the belle of the ball.)
Apple has made another browser for OS X using an open-source base which also spanks IE in every conceivable way, so we Mac Bigots actually have two great "free" browsers to choose from.
I've never bought into all that "Cathedral vs. Bazaar" propaganda, but the fact that the closed-source model ended up as a fight between Netscape Navigator & IE while the open-source world gave birth to Firefox and Safari makes a compelling case that maybe a million monkeys at a million typewriters really can produce Shakespeare in the time it takes David E. Kelly to produce another crappy lawyer show.
The first 10% share of the browser market is easy.
The difference being, that 10% is enough, if you don't care about making money.
A for-profit software company with only 10% of the market is in trouble, unless they get that 10% while charging a fortune. Apple Computer, for example, is only able to thrive with 4% of the OS market because they exclusively bundle the OS with high-margin computers. If the were selling OS X on the open market (and not getting anywhere close to half of that market), OS X would simply become the next BeOS.
In other words, to survive as a corportation, you need either a high-profit niche (which Opera is attempting to do), or contend to be a market leader (which Netscape tried to do, and failed.)
However, Mozilla is an open-source project with no such aspirations. As long as it's big enough that content providers feel compelled to support it, who cares how many people elect to use something else?
I never really understood zealous boosterism on behalf of free software. Yes, some free software is terrific. Apache, BSD, bash, Perl... all good stuff which I use the heck out of and I'm happy that it exists... But if somebody else wants to use IIS, Solaris, korn, and VB, then I wish them well. The poor bastards will have enough heartbreak without me screaming at them for choosing inferior solutions.
What about those guys who offered $15,000 to anybody who could hack their Mac web server back in the 90s? Nobody ever collected the prize.
Real security is something which can be accomplished.
*BSD is secure because it was designed to be secure, not simply because it's less common than other solutions. Likewise, if Internet Explorer 6.0 only represented about 15% of the market, it would still be hacked with shocking regularity, because Microsoft's security is a joke.
I'm not saying that all this means Firefox is as secure as some of the other technolgies I just mentioned. I'm no expert on the codebase for Firefox. It might be downright vulnerable. I will say, however, that it's hard to imagine it being worse than IE.
That was kind of my point.
Securing XP is something that lots of people need to do, and requires vast amounts of arcane knowledge, hence a book which explained it would make a great Christmas gift for the poor saps who need it.
On the other hand, if such a volume was sufficiently expensive, maybe it would make more sense to just give away Mac minis.
Where's the electrical power going to come from for these.
One presumes it would come from an electrical generator of some sort. Possibly a coal, oil, or nuclear plant, or maybe even from solar cells.
Or are you one of those people who assumes that all "developing countries" look exactly like the mud huts you see in those late-night infomercials asking you to sponsor a poor child?
Good Lord, it's like walking on egg shells with you people.
I'm not saying AppleScript is bad or Macs are bad. I'm saying that we Mac users are 5% of computer users at best, that most of us never utilize AppleSript (I tend to do a lot of my scripting with Perl... YMMV), and that AppleScript is such an amazingly easy scripting language that anybody capable enough to learn a scripting language can pick up AppleScript just by skimming web sites on the subject and/or stealing code from other scripts.
Most people don't use Macs.
Wrong. True, Apple has a smaller market share, but that's when you look at the whole computing market. In the home market (where Applescript was intended to be used, btw), the percentage of users is higher.
Holy crap, you gotta be kidding me.
"Most people don't use Mac's" is a true statement. I didn't say "only four in 100 use Macs." I said "most don't."
As in, "less than half of computer users are Mac users."
You would have to be a complete idiot to disagree with that basic fact.
Sheesh!
For the record: I'm a total Mac zealot, and recently jettisoned the last of my non-Mac systems from my home network (a Linux web server and a game PC, both made redundant by my new media-room Mac mini, which hosts my web pages and plays World of Warcraft just fine.)
"There are very few books on AppleScript, and certainly not many current volumes outside of Matt Neuburg's excellent AppleScript: The Definitive Guide (O'Reilly) for the intermediate-to-advanced scripter, and Hanaan Rosenthal's reference-type manual, Applescript: A Comprehensive Guide to Scripting and Automation on Mac OS X (Friends of Ed)."
So, this relatively obscure yet incredibly easy scripting language which only runs on one platform which is only used by a small percentage of computer users out there had only two complete, up-to-date, and comprehensive volumes of documentation, and therefore the world was crying out for the publication of a "missing manual."
Uh-huh.
Let's go over this again:
Most people don't use Macs.
Most Mac users don't use AppleScript.
Most of those who use it don't really need a manual.
There are two good manuals out there already anyway.
Wow. This thing has "best seller" written all over it.
Mac manuals are not "missing." They are "not needed."
Let me know when "Windows XP Security Administration: The Missing Manual" gets published. I'll buy twenty copies and have my Christmas shopping for next year done (for my PC-owning friends and relatives, anyway.)
Still... day-amn. $10 Billion is a lot of money for a company which makes products that everybody hates.
The real problem Microsoft has is that their bread-and-butter is becoming something they can't rely on much longer.
Making the OS which goes into 90% of computers was great, from a Wall Street point of view, when the personal computer market was a massively expanding industry... But now everybody who's likely to own a computer already has one. To make matters worse, computers from five years ago still run fast enough to do most of the things that people want to do with them. This means fewer new customers and fewer purchases from existing customers, which all adds up to a market which will never grow as fast as it did in the 90s.
The outlook for Office is far more bleak. At one time, Microsoft made more money selling MS-Office to Mac users than Apple made selling the Macs themselves, but no more.
Once word processors were capable of on-the-fly spelling and grammar checkers, people were satisfied. No new "feature" since then has been regarded by customers as a particularilly welcome one. Nobody wanted "Clippy", and nobody is likely to want whatever features get rolled into the next MS-Word, either. People have been fairly satisfied with their spreadsheet programs even longer. The Microsoft business model has been counting on people buying a new copy of Office (and maybe a new Windows computer to run it on) every three years or so for almost two decades now. Office, not Windows, is what made them what they are.
But if I'm using Office 2003 or Office for OS X right now, what possible reason could you give me for moving up to whatever the next version is... short of breaking interoperability to force and upgrade for the sake of keeping up with any of my customers/business partners/etc. who might have just bought a new computer and got the latest version to go with it?
People are starting to lose patience with this nonsense of paying several hundred dollars every few years just because the "standard" document format in the business world gets changed.
This is why open-source Office clones are catching on, and it's also why this was the right time for Apple to release "Pages", their new Word Killer app. Expect to see them come up with a cocoa-based spreadsheet within the next year or so. (Hey, maybe buy the rights to the name "Visi-Calc", and bring us all full-circle.)
For Microsoft, the future is (believe it or not), media devices. That's why the X-Box 2 is so very critical to their long-term strategy. I know it doesn't look very promising, but MS always takes three attepts to win at anything, right?
I would not be surprised to discover that in 2009 there will be an X-Box 3 in every home, providing games, Internet, PVR functions, and on-demand movie "buy or rent" downloads.
If not, the 800-pound gorilla could find itself weighing in at about a buck twenty, and getting pushed around by the chimps and orangutans.
dunno about the skirt... It seems fairly useless, but I am ordering my tower now. This is exactly what I needed.
The "tower" is also useless.
The mini already stands up on one side or the other just fine. I'm using one like that right now.
In OS X, F12 always maps to the Eject, even on keyboards with a separate eject button.
maybe, but it's certainly not as 'cool' as having the whole shebang, and that's largely (for many people, at least) what having and using an iPod is about.
Mod that shit down as the troll/flamebait it is.
Listening to music is what having and using an iPod is about. The full-size iPods make it easy for most people to have their entire music collection with them anywhere, and the iPod Shuffle provides a very simple way to listen the way a large portion of MP3 listeners like to enjoy their collections: in shuffle mode.
I don't own an iPod to impress you.
I also am not "showing off" when I talk on my cell phone in a public place.
This is just another example of people who don't own a particular useful gadget jealously making the assumption that those who do are simply using them to flaunt their vast wealth. Never mind that you might have spent more on your shoes than they spent on their iPod shuffle.
News flash: None of those people you see on the street with white headphones give a fuck what you think about them. They are too busy enjoying the sound of Stereogram's "Walkie Talkie Man" blasting in their ears to even know that you are there.