More than any other company I cover regularly, Apple plays light and loose with facts. [...] More to the point, Apple's explosion growth in 2005 did nothing to help the Mac's market share, which is still mired at 2 percent worldwide. In other words, Steve's claim is baloney: Apple hasn't really gained any appreciable market share at all--indeed, Apple has lost market share every year since Jobs took the CEO helm--but his comment is technically true: In the slice of time that is the second quarter of 2006, Apple gained--get this--about 1/10th of one percent of market share. And the WWDC crowd goes wild.
I despise Apple-the-company for a lot of reasons, but this is the biggest one. They LIE. From the "twice as fast" ads to the current ads about PCs crashing, they LIE LIE LIE and constantly LIE.
Whenever I bring this up, Apple fans always give me the ol' "yeah, but everyone does it." Everyone does NOT do it to the extent Apple does it. I can't think of any company that is even in the same ballpark as Apple when it comes to dishonesty.
And it's not just marketing dishonesty. It's things like, "The cracks in the cube are designed to be there". I still recall shaking my head at that.
I got in fistfights with my dad for far less than what your recomending.
If you were that screwed up, your parents screwed you up from the beginning. I'd guess you're still screwed up if you think my recommendations are anything out of line.
So what happens if he threatens to run away, suicide, and/or being violent (killings)? I have seen that happened (not related to WoW and gaming).
If that's the case, then the parents have bigger problems that WoW. If he's that out of control, then you get them psychiatric help. Why you don't EVER do is give in to their threats and emotional manipulation. That's how they got screwed up in the first place.
All this is pretty theoretical anyway. If the parents are firm enough to implement a strong disciplinary policy, they were probably firm enough when they were children, and the kids aren't screwed up enough to need the strong disciplimary policy.
Obviously you don't have kids (and hopefully never will).
I do have kids, hence the reason I can speak with authority about the subject.
Do that and he'll just fight back by hiding things. He'll do things outside of the house that you can't control.
If he does that, I'll find out, and it will stop. I guarantee it. The best way to piss me off is to lie to me. My kids know that is going to net them huge punishments.
I want my kids to have some freedom, but within limits, and they WILL respect those limits, or their freedom is history, along with part or all of their stuff. This is not rocket science. This is about parents being the parents, and kids being the kids.
The problem is: how am I going to convince him to give me his password?
"Convince him"? Screw that. Who is the adult here? I know his mom is the ultimate problem here, so this is not necessarily directed at you, but you don't "convince him". You tell him to give up the password or he's not allowed to play. If he starts getting "unmanageable", you start taking away stuff. You ground him. Take away everything he owns (music, etc). If he's still out of control, you take his room door off his hinges so he has no privacy. If that doesn't work, you threaten to follow him around at school to all his classes (in front of his friends, of course).
It's pretty clear that he's used to whining and screaming until he gets his own way. He needs a major attitude adjustment.
I wholeheartedly agree. 1983 was not a random date - that's when Seven and the Ragged Tiger came out. I contend that was an even better record than Rio.
I liked Rio more than 7RT (though that was a good album too), but I agree that it was all over after that. They should have just let the band die.
Have you actually listened to their early stuff? (I'd guess the answer is 'no') They get a lot of crap for their later stuff, but they had some great songs early on. Rio was a great album (in fact, I'd say every song is good), and their early hit Planet Earth was really good, too.
You're arguing against the existence of intelligent space-travelling civilizations. This is no evidence whatsoever against the possibility of life in general elsewhere.
Not strictly true. It's also an argument against "inevitability of intelligence". If intelligence is inevitable once you get to a certain level of life, then it argues that life in general is rare. Of course, intelligence may not be inevitable, and there may be tons of simple bacteria or plant life out there. You're correct that it doesn't tell us anything about that either way.
Absence of evidence...... is not evidence of absence. Fermi's Paradox only asks why, if life is so common, no proof has yet been found.
Almost. Fermi's Paradox is a set of datapoints -- it IS evidence. The lack of a sun at night is evidence of either the sun going around the earth, or the earth going around the sun. The lack of any signs of alien life has certain implications.
As I said in another post, I think the strongest argument is the fact that it doesn't take that long in the great scheme of things to fill a galaxy, even at sublight speeds (on the order of a few million years). Compared to the age of the galaxy, it's nothing. If the galaxy was filled with intelligent life, the odds that not a single one would desire to seed itself on other stars in pretty small. And as I said, it only takes ONE.
Sure, there are lots of scenerios we can imagine that might preclude that happening. But I think the simplest explanation is that intelligent life is just really, really, really, really, really rare. Which is not that surprising, when you start thinking about it. The one argument creationists have going for them is that human beings really are astoundingly complex. My personal opinion is that universes are cyclical, and we may have to through billions of universe cycles before intelligent life shows up. Of course, we have no sense of the passage of "objective time" (whatever that means), so we simply don't know how probable or improbable it is.
I think you're confusing the word "evidence" with "proof". I never said the Fermi Paradox proved anything, I only said it provided evidence of certain things. We can ask infinite "what if" questions. Hey, what if God created everything five minutes ago, and we only think we've been alive longer than that? I can cast doubt on anything with endless "what if" scenerios. The point is that we have zero evidence for any of your "what if" scenerios, and we have a lot of evidence of a lack of aliens.
You link to the fermi paradox, which is not a paradox, nor is it an acceptable theory, and at the end of the day, scarcely reaches the level of idle canteen chatter.
If you think the Fermi Paradox is not strong evidence, then I suggest you haven't completely studied the ramifications.
I think the strongest argument is the "time to fill" argument. Basically, when you figure out how long it takes to fill a galaxy by a space-faring civilization, even at sublight speeds, it only takes a few million years. Given the age of the galaxy, it's exceedingly unlikely that, if the galaxy is filled with intelligent life, no civilization has ever done it in billions and billions of years.
Now, typically people will give me a list of scenerios where a civilization might not expand ("Well, they might not want to!"). Fine -- but it only takes one. I have no doubt that humans will eventually fill the galaxy. And once it happens, we're done. No more evolution-produced life.
Magic wands require breaking most physical laws, alien life does not. I think you're grossly underestimating the likelihood of alien life!
Well, I might have exaggerated a tiny bit, but it was mostly in response to the original poster's silly point that seemed to imply that finding alien life was some social responsibility, as though we only had to pony up the money in order to make it a reality.
Frankly, the Fermi argument pretty much convinces me that intelligent life here is completely unique in the galaxy, though that doesn't say there might not be microbial life (or higher) elsewhere. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that's even unique here. The only reason it seems like it ought to be likely is the anthropic principle.
Its not the fact that meteorites are "more likely" to carry the organic chemicals nessicary to building life. Rather, it offers one explination to the question of the orgin of life.
You're missing my point. What, exactly, do meteorites "explain" about the origin of life? In other words, what puzzle do meteorites explain that can't be explained otherwise? Or to put it still another way, what key thing would meteorites contribute that "explains" life?
Life doesnt "begin" on a meteorite, but the building blocks can be found on meteorites.
And why would "building blocks" be more likely to be found on meteorites rather than Earth itself? And conversely, why would Earth not have any building blocks?
And why does it matter at all what role meteorites might or might not play in abiogenesis?
No one wants to admit life started out there somewhere. For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth... and elsewhere.
Er, exactly how would life begin on a meteorite? Exactly what chemistry would allow that to happen? I think it's a tad more likely that life would begin on a planet with the requisite natural resources.
The probabilities and facts dictate the earth is not the center of the universe.
We have absolutely zero evidence for life on planets other than earth. On the other hand, we have considerable evidence that we're alone in the galaxy (other galaxies are too far away to know anything about).
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race. At least then we can then look to exploration and not war to keep us occupied while we grow up.
I for one think magic wands would be good for mankind as well. Then we could keep busy with our wands and not war. It would also eliminate resource limitations, which are fundamentally the reason for war. Magic wands are about as likely as alien life, so why not go for broke?
You don't need a million dollar studio to make good music. The technology available cheaply to today's garage bands is better than the technology used by the Beatles to sell millions of records.
Yeah, and Count Basie sold millions of scratchy records in the 40s with even more primitive technology. What's your point? Just because something was used back in the dark ages doesn't mean it's acceptable today.
Define "mainstream popularity". The Arctic Monkeys seems to be doing alright for themselves.
Sheesh. Go read up on their history. Sure, the Internet helped them gain some popularity, but as soon as they did, they signed with a real label. Their mainstream success came after they created professionally produced records.
As far as I'm aware, nobody's tried to do what I described Google as being capable of. Not many companies have the relevant experience and market position.
You're joking, right? Have you ever heard of mp3.com? That was EXACTLY their business model. Do you think this is some brainstorm that only you have had? Wow! Bypassing the record labels! Who could have imagined such an idea? Only twenty billion startups. The problem is that the vast majority of amateur music totally sucks. And for the few that don't suck, they sign with a label as soon as they're able. Take a while guess why.
What I'm saying is that they have the necessary experience and technology to be the middle-man between the artists and the fans - the job the record companies are supposed to be doing themselves.
You seem to think that all record companies do is stamp out CDs, with maybe a little promotion. Not true. One of the big thing record companies provide is production values. Not everyone can afford that million dollar studio. Generally, not only does garage music suck, but sounds sucky as well.
There's a reason that no web-based band has achieved mainstream popularity, even after all these years of supposed technology to "bypass" the major labels. Even if some unknown artist doesn't suck (we're down to 1% of the artists), their production values make it sound like it sucks.
I'd rather be mugged by Gannon Jr, than be incarcerated by the State for 27 years for protecting my home and exercising my basic civil rights.
Well, first of all, he wouldn't have gone to jail for 27 years, even IF he'd been convicted (and that's pretty doubtful). Second, while I agree that it ought to be a basic civil right to record any public official when in an official capacity, Gannon did violate the law as written.
I really don't think these policemen are bad people. I think the cop was dealing with an a-hole obstructing justice, and things got out of hand. Note that we're just talking verbal abuse; the policeman didn't beat the guy with a night stick or anything. Not something I particularly want to see, but fairly understandable.
He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
That's just a recipe for every idiot to start screaming at cops to try and get arrested in order to win the "cop lottery". I don't want my tax dollars going to people like that. Let's keep in mind, that while I think it's BS that this guy was arrested, he was NOT a "good guy". He was an a-hole trying to protect his mugger son. The police are human; they responded in kind to his belligerent behavior.
On the whole, I'm glad the cops are aggressively pursuing the son.
I agree with you 100%. I've had to drop a few customers like that in my time.
Heh, I'm reminded of a story that took place in the early 90s, when I was involved with a medical system start-up. Now, these systems were pretty pricey, and I was doing some technical pre-sales support out at this hospital site. Now, the tech guy there was a real arrogant a-hole. I had been taking a lot for a number of days.
So we set up a demo system for him. Normally, our system used either X-terminals or Windows running eXceed (X-terminal emulation software). But this guy was a TOTAL IBM-a-holic. He worshiped at the alter of OS/2, and insisted we use OS/2 with IBM's X-terminal software. All right, we said, X is X, right?
Wrong, unfortunately. IBM's X server sucked big time and had a lot of problems. So the guy is giving me these fishy looks in a big meeting with some of his other guys. I say something about the limitations of what I can fix when the X server has bugs, and then he crosses his arms, and says,
"Well, whose problem *is* that?" (expecting me to roll over and admit the customer is always right, and promise to do what I can to fix it).
But I'd had enough. My response, "Well, it's YOUR problem, since you specced OS/2."
Dead silence. The guy's jaw dropped open, like no one had ever dared to speak to him like that. He huffed and puffed and blustered, and we moved onto a different subject. Later on, one of his guys took me aside and said, "I can't believe you said that to him."
I responded that I didn't care. If it runs like crap in that hospital, then we're better off not selling it to them and poisoning the whole area. I think I even said that they didn't deserve to own the software, heh.:D
Funny enough, the big boss and I got along much better after that. I think I earned his respect. He still insisted on OS/2, but he stopped blaming us.
"The feasibility of the plan is unclear at this point as we need to gain understanding by the government and the Japanese people on our plan, but technologically it would be possible in a few decades," said Satoki Kurokawa, spokesman for JAXA.
Translation: We don't know if it's feasible, we don't know if the government will pay for it, we don't know if the people are for it, but we think it's possible. What a pile-o-poo-poo.
These guys sound like NASA.
Wake me up when Japanese industrialists figure out something they can do on the moon and want to send robots there or something.
Or, at least, my prediction has further evidence.:)
I have a simple rule these days about deciding what formats to pick. I simply pick "not Sony" and I'm pretty much always right. Sony stuff seems to look good on paper, but the implementation ends up sucking.
Slashdot Mirror
More than any other company I cover regularly, Apple plays light and loose with facts. [...] More to the point, Apple's explosion growth in 2005 did nothing to help the Mac's market share, which is still mired at 2 percent worldwide. In other words, Steve's claim is baloney: Apple hasn't really gained any appreciable market share at all--indeed, Apple has lost market share every year since Jobs took the CEO helm--but his comment is technically true: In the slice of time that is the second quarter of 2006, Apple gained--get this--about 1/10th of one percent of market share. And the WWDC crowd goes wild.
I despise Apple-the-company for a lot of reasons, but this is the biggest one. They LIE. From the "twice as fast" ads to the current ads about PCs crashing, they LIE LIE LIE and constantly LIE.
Whenever I bring this up, Apple fans always give me the ol' "yeah, but everyone does it." Everyone does NOT do it to the extent Apple does it. I can't think of any company that is even in the same ballpark as Apple when it comes to dishonesty.
And it's not just marketing dishonesty. It's things like, "The cracks in the cube are designed to be there". I still recall shaking my head at that.
I got in fistfights with my dad for far less than what your recomending.
If you were that screwed up, your parents screwed you up from the beginning. I'd guess you're still screwed up if you think my recommendations are anything out of line.
So what happens if he threatens to run away, suicide, and/or being violent (killings)? I have seen that happened (not related to WoW and gaming).
If that's the case, then the parents have bigger problems that WoW. If he's that out of control, then you get them psychiatric help. Why you don't EVER do is give in to their threats and emotional manipulation. That's how they got screwed up in the first place.
All this is pretty theoretical anyway. If the parents are firm enough to implement a strong disciplinary policy, they were probably firm enough when they were children, and the kids aren't screwed up enough to need the strong disciplimary policy.
Obviously you don't have kids (and hopefully never will).
I do have kids, hence the reason I can speak with authority about the subject.
Do that and he'll just fight back by hiding things. He'll do things outside of the house that you can't control.
If he does that, I'll find out, and it will stop. I guarantee it. The best way to piss me off is to lie to me. My kids know that is going to net them huge punishments.
I want my kids to have some freedom, but within limits, and they WILL respect those limits, or their freedom is history, along with part or all of their stuff. This is not rocket science. This is about parents being the parents, and kids being the kids.
There are many ways to parent children. Playing the revenge game just because you have a longer arm doesn't always get the appropriate results.
Apparently permissiveness didn't work too well with this kid...
The problem is: how am I going to convince him to give me his password?
"Convince him"? Screw that. Who is the adult here? I know his mom is the ultimate problem here, so this is not necessarily directed at you, but you don't "convince him". You tell him to give up the password or he's not allowed to play. If he starts getting "unmanageable", you start taking away stuff. You ground him. Take away everything he owns (music, etc). If he's still out of control, you take his room door off his hinges so he has no privacy. If that doesn't work, you threaten to follow him around at school to all his classes (in front of his friends, of course).
It's pretty clear that he's used to whining and screaming until he gets his own way. He needs a major attitude adjustment.
I wholeheartedly agree. 1983 was not a random date - that's when Seven and the Ragged Tiger came out. I contend that was an even better record than Rio.
I liked Rio more than 7RT (though that was a good album too), but I agree that it was all over after that. They should have just let the band die.
Have you actually listened to their early stuff? (I'd guess the answer is 'no') They get a lot of crap for their later stuff, but they had some great songs early on. Rio was a great album (in fact, I'd say every song is good), and their early hit Planet Earth was really good, too.
You're arguing against the existence of intelligent space-travelling civilizations. This is no evidence whatsoever against the possibility of life in general elsewhere.
Not strictly true. It's also an argument against "inevitability of intelligence". If intelligence is inevitable once you get to a certain level of life, then it argues that life in general is rare. Of course, intelligence may not be inevitable, and there may be tons of simple bacteria or plant life out there. You're correct that it doesn't tell us anything about that either way.
Absence of evidence... ... is not evidence of absence. Fermi's Paradox only asks why, if life is so common, no proof has yet been found.
Almost. Fermi's Paradox is a set of datapoints -- it IS evidence. The lack of a sun at night is evidence of either the sun going around the earth, or the earth going around the sun. The lack of any signs of alien life has certain implications.
As I said in another post, I think the strongest argument is the fact that it doesn't take that long in the great scheme of things to fill a galaxy, even at sublight speeds (on the order of a few million years). Compared to the age of the galaxy, it's nothing. If the galaxy was filled with intelligent life, the odds that not a single one would desire to seed itself on other stars in pretty small. And as I said, it only takes ONE.
Sure, there are lots of scenerios we can imagine that might preclude that happening. But I think the simplest explanation is that intelligent life is just really, really, really, really, really rare. Which is not that surprising, when you start thinking about it. The one argument creationists have going for them is that human beings really are astoundingly complex. My personal opinion is that universes are cyclical, and we may have to through billions of universe cycles before intelligent life shows up. Of course, we have no sense of the passage of "objective time" (whatever that means), so we simply don't know how probable or improbable it is.
Nope it is not evidence.
I think you're confusing the word "evidence" with "proof". I never said the Fermi Paradox proved anything, I only said it provided evidence of certain things. We can ask infinite "what if" questions. Hey, what if God created everything five minutes ago, and we only think we've been alive longer than that? I can cast doubt on anything with endless "what if" scenerios. The point is that we have zero evidence for any of your "what if" scenerios, and we have a lot of evidence of a lack of aliens.
You link to the fermi paradox, which is not a paradox, nor is it an acceptable theory, and at the end of the day, scarcely reaches the level of idle canteen chatter.
If you think the Fermi Paradox is not strong evidence, then I suggest you haven't completely studied the ramifications.
I think the strongest argument is the "time to fill" argument. Basically, when you figure out how long it takes to fill a galaxy by a space-faring civilization, even at sublight speeds, it only takes a few million years. Given the age of the galaxy, it's exceedingly unlikely that, if the galaxy is filled with intelligent life, no civilization has ever done it in billions and billions of years.
Now, typically people will give me a list of scenerios where a civilization might not expand ("Well, they might not want to!"). Fine -- but it only takes one. I have no doubt that humans will eventually fill the galaxy. And once it happens, we're done. No more evolution-produced life.
Magic wands require breaking most physical laws, alien life does not. I think you're grossly underestimating the likelihood of alien life!
Well, I might have exaggerated a tiny bit, but it was mostly in response to the original poster's silly point that seemed to imply that finding alien life was some social responsibility, as though we only had to pony up the money in order to make it a reality.
Frankly, the Fermi argument pretty much convinces me that intelligent life here is completely unique in the galaxy, though that doesn't say there might not be microbial life (or higher) elsewhere. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that's even unique here. The only reason it seems like it ought to be likely is the anthropic principle.
Its not the fact that meteorites are "more likely" to carry the organic chemicals nessicary to building life. Rather, it offers one explination to the question of the orgin of life.
You're missing my point. What, exactly, do meteorites "explain" about the origin of life? In other words, what puzzle do meteorites explain that can't be explained otherwise? Or to put it still another way, what key thing would meteorites contribute that "explains" life?
Life doesnt "begin" on a meteorite, but the building blocks can be found on meteorites.
And why would "building blocks" be more likely to be found on meteorites rather than Earth itself? And conversely, why would Earth not have any building blocks?
And why does it matter at all what role meteorites might or might not play in abiogenesis?
No one wants to admit life started out there somewhere. For all we know the meteorites seeded life on Earth... and elsewhere.
Er, exactly how would life begin on a meteorite? Exactly what chemistry would allow that to happen? I think it's a tad more likely that life would begin on a planet with the requisite natural resources.
The probabilities and facts dictate the earth is not the center of the universe.
We have absolutely zero evidence for life on planets other than earth. On the other hand, we have considerable evidence that we're alone in the galaxy (other galaxies are too far away to know anything about).
I for one think it would be good for mankind to have a significant first contact with a superior race. At least then we can then look to exploration and not war to keep us occupied while we grow up.
I for one think magic wands would be good for mankind as well. Then we could keep busy with our wands and not war. It would also eliminate resource limitations, which are fundamentally the reason for war. Magic wands are about as likely as alien life, so why not go for broke?
You don't need a million dollar studio to make good music. The technology available cheaply to today's garage bands is better than the technology used by the Beatles to sell millions of records.
Yeah, and Count Basie sold millions of scratchy records in the 40s with even more primitive technology. What's your point? Just because something was used back in the dark ages doesn't mean it's acceptable today.
Define "mainstream popularity". The Arctic Monkeys seems to be doing alright for themselves.
Sheesh. Go read up on their history. Sure, the Internet helped them gain some popularity, but as soon as they did, they signed with a real label. Their mainstream success came after they created professionally produced records.
As far as I'm aware, nobody's tried to do what I described Google as being capable of. Not many companies have the relevant experience and market position.
You're joking, right? Have you ever heard of mp3.com? That was EXACTLY their business model. Do you think this is some brainstorm that only you have had? Wow! Bypassing the record labels! Who could have imagined such an idea? Only twenty billion startups. The problem is that the vast majority of amateur music totally sucks. And for the few that don't suck, they sign with a label as soon as they're able. Take a while guess why.
What I'm saying is that they have the necessary experience and technology to be the middle-man between the artists and the fans - the job the record companies are supposed to be doing themselves.
You seem to think that all record companies do is stamp out CDs, with maybe a little promotion. Not true. One of the big thing record companies provide is production values. Not everyone can afford that million dollar studio. Generally, not only does garage music suck, but sounds sucky as well.
There's a reason that no web-based band has achieved mainstream popularity, even after all these years of supposed technology to "bypass" the major labels. Even if some unknown artist doesn't suck (we're down to 1% of the artists), their production values make it sound like it sucks.
I'd rather be mugged by Gannon Jr, than be incarcerated by the State for 27 years for protecting my home and exercising my basic civil rights.
Well, first of all, he wouldn't have gone to jail for 27 years, even IF he'd been convicted (and that's pretty doubtful). Second, while I agree that it ought to be a basic civil right to record any public official when in an official capacity, Gannon did violate the law as written.
I really don't think these policemen are bad people. I think the cop was dealing with an a-hole obstructing justice, and things got out of hand. Note that we're just talking verbal abuse; the policeman didn't beat the guy with a night stick or anything. Not something I particularly want to see, but fairly understandable.
I'd rather it went to them than people like Detective Karlis and Chief Hefferan.
You might change your mind when Karlis shows up after Gannon's son has mugged you.
(this is speaking as someone who actually HAS been mugged and left unconscious in a pool of blood from a head wound)
I'm with you to some extent, except SCREW this:
He is entitled to compensation, say $1000 per hour for every hour between the time he was charged and the time he knew for sure that the charges were dropped.
That's just a recipe for every idiot to start screaming at cops to try and get arrested in order to win the "cop lottery". I don't want my tax dollars going to people like that. Let's keep in mind, that while I think it's BS that this guy was arrested, he was NOT a "good guy". He was an a-hole trying to protect his mugger son. The police are human; they responded in kind to his belligerent behavior.
On the whole, I'm glad the cops are aggressively pursuing the son.
I agree with you 100%. I've had to drop a few customers like that in my time.
Heh, I'm reminded of a story that took place in the early 90s, when I was involved with a medical system start-up. Now, these systems were pretty pricey, and I was doing some technical pre-sales support out at this hospital site. Now, the tech guy there was a real arrogant a-hole. I had been taking a lot for a number of days.
So we set up a demo system for him. Normally, our system used either X-terminals or Windows running eXceed (X-terminal emulation software). But this guy was a TOTAL IBM-a-holic. He worshiped at the alter of OS/2, and insisted we use OS/2 with IBM's X-terminal software. All right, we said, X is X, right?
Wrong, unfortunately. IBM's X server sucked big time and had a lot of problems. So the guy is giving me these fishy looks in a big meeting with some of his other guys. I say something about the limitations of what I can fix when the X server has bugs, and then he crosses his arms, and says,
"Well, whose problem *is* that?" (expecting me to roll over and admit the customer is always right, and promise to do what I can to fix it).
But I'd had enough. My response, "Well, it's YOUR problem, since you specced OS/2."
Dead silence. The guy's jaw dropped open, like no one had ever dared to speak to him like that. He huffed and puffed and blustered, and we moved onto a different subject. Later on, one of his guys took me aside and said, "I can't believe you said that to him."
I responded that I didn't care. If it runs like crap in that hospital, then we're better off not selling it to them and poisoning the whole area. I think I even said that they didn't deserve to own the software, heh. :D
Funny enough, the big boss and I got along much better after that. I think I earned his respect. He still insisted on OS/2, but he stopped blaming us.
"The feasibility of the plan is unclear at this point as we need to gain understanding by the government and the Japanese people on our plan, but technologically it would be possible in a few decades," said Satoki Kurokawa, spokesman for JAXA.
Translation: We don't know if it's feasible, we don't know if the government will pay for it, we don't know if the people are for it, but we think it's possible. What a pile-o-poo-poo.
These guys sound like NASA.
Wake me up when Japanese industrialists figure out something they can do on the moon and want to send robots there or something.
That means 10 years ago you would've picked the Saturn or the N64 over the PlayStation...
I hear Bell Labs used to make some nifty stuff, too.
Or, at least, my prediction has further evidence. :)
I have a simple rule these days about deciding what formats to pick. I simply pick "not Sony" and I'm pretty much always right. Sony stuff seems to look good on paper, but the implementation ends up sucking.