WTF are you smoking? France is the reason the USA exists! If it wasn't for the French, you'd still be part of the British empire. Who do you think gave you the Statue of Liberty?
Dude, the world has changed in 230 years. Spain financed Columbus, too... should we still be thanking them as well?
Did you ever consider that France aren't disagreeing with your foreign policies because of who you are, but because they they don't like your foreign policies?
Sure, I'll consider it... but it's easily rejected. There is no question that the French have a major cultural identity crisis. They desperately want to believe they are still relevent to anything.
Besides, it's not as if the rest of Europe doesn't hate the French as well. You ever notice how rarely Europe defends France when the Americans start bashing them? The only reason they don't pile on with the US is because they have to live next to them.
Yeah, I saw that movie too. So is that how you imagine Steve still behaves?
I didn't see the movie, but I have read a lot of first-hand accounts. I have no doubt that's how Jobs behaves, same as I have little doubt how Larry Ellison behaves. Or do you think he's just misunderstood as well? (Not that I equate Jobs with Ellison... both are jerks, but I think Jobs has a good heart, while Ellison does not).
For one thing, they hire really talented people, and quite a lot of PhDs. And they use a far superior development environment than Visual Studio. and really well-designed APIs based on objective-c for most of their applications.
Microsoft hires a lot of PhDs, too, and arguabl. And if you think what IDE or language you use makes a difference, then I have a special package of "silver bullets" you may be interested in buying.
Sorry, but I have little doubt that if Steve left Apple right now, they would again sink into mediocrity. And that's OK -- lots of companies are like that. You need strong leadership at the top to keep things moving in the right direction. But don't kid yourself that Apple is some self-running machine. If any company qualifies as a personality cult, it's Apple. It seethes in their arrogant corporate culture.
It's hard to tell from the article, but there's often two sides to these stories.
Case in point: I have a neighbor. He's an old man with a bad attitude who is basically a crank. He also walks around the neighborhood look for "issues" and is a total PITA if you get on his bad side. A few years ago, my boy (who was about 3-4 years old at the time) was obssessed with hoses, drains and pipes. He LOVED to put together sprinkler systems using PVC in my back yard. Of course, I encouraged him in his hobby, even though my water bill wasn't exactly pleasant news.
Well, the water running down the street just drove my neighbor insane. He tried to convince the neighborhood that the water was going to degrade the street. When that didn't work, he actually reported me to the Environmental Protection Agency (who sent out a very nice woman, who was very impressed with my son's sprinkler systems when I happily showed her around).
And I wasn't the only one -- at various times, he has had run-ins with the neighbors over phantom problems. The guy lives to find issues that don't exist.
So you'll pardon me if I don't necessarily believe this woman isn't a total wack-job without more evidence beyond this article.
Apple's methodology is basically "fear of Steve". Jobs is notorious for berating employees and insisting on things being done the way he thinks they should be done. Now, personality-driven development can be relatively successful. Apple has some nice stuff, but other stuff that Steve doesn't care about are absolutely atrocious (perfect example: Quicktime for Windows).
Also look at Apple's software before Steve came. MacOS was absolute crap. Copland, which was supposed to make MacOS a modern operating system, was a late, dismal failure that was eventually killed because Apple was too incompetent.
Apple is not a good example of what to do. Not every company can be a personality cult.
Which allows them more money to develop the next OS, more money to pay employees and more money for risky R&D.
Of all the points that Mac advocates make, this one is always the most ridiculous. Software companies make WAAAAAY more money than hardware companies. Do you really think it's hurt Microsoft to be (almost) a pure software company? Do you somehow think they would be even bigger than they are if they came out with a "Microsoft PC" that you could only put Windows on?
Actually, the biggest problem with their argument is that they *disprove* God!
Their underpinning postulate is that "complex entities require a creator." OK, given that, if God has the power to create an entire universe and manage everything in it, and in fact is an intelligent being, therefore, God must have had a creator. So we have a "super god" that created God. But then, the super god must have had a creator, since the super god is another complex, creating organism. And on, and on...
So either we have an infinite number of God levels, which is absurd, or we had a primary creating God, which contradicts the postulate. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
But the point is, it shouldn't matter if a company is a $1M sales company of a $10G sales company, should it? It's all about how efficient they are?
That's like asking if I have a company with a 10% margin, why don't I make a slew more money by raising the margin to 100%? or 200%? Hell, why not 1000%? Because, of course, my sales would drop to zero if I did.
There's also a correlation between cost to build and sales volume, since part costs go down as you get bigger. So volume can increase your profit margin, though if you want to grow, you use part of that savings to undercut your competition on pricing and grow larger.
Oh, and I should have pointed out that the inner part of the moon is much denser than the outer part, so the overall effect on mass would be much less than 0.28%.
Dude, do the math. If we stripped off the first mile deep of mass all the way around the moon, its volume would only be reduced by 0.28% or so. That's a lot of mass, and not much of an effect.
I bought one of the original 128K Macs, just because it was a "neat toy" (though, then it really was "not a real computer". It was pathetically underpowered). But no, I've not liked Apple since, oh, I dunno. Sometime in the late 80s when their arrogance exceeded its justification.
But anyway, I didn't say I didn't like Apple bcause it was "too much of a trend", I said I didn't like it because it sells itself as "trendy". In other words, Apple values style over substance, and charges a great premium for it. I don't want to buy a lifestyle from Apple, I want to buy a tool.
Apple's PC base isn't nearly as large as Dell's, henceforth, Apple makes fewer computers and spends less money, also.
Not true. Apple has exactly the same base as Dell -- the computer buying public. They have just chosen to embrace a limited strategy of high prices and proprietary hardware. Sure, that strategy gives them slightly higher margins (though, the difference is remarkably small, considering how high Apple's prices are), but it ultimately hurts their marketshare.
Apple's other failure is making everyone think they DO have a different "base". To buy an iPod, you just have to want an MP3 player. To buy a Mac, you have to drink the Koolaid first and become one of "them" -- or, to put it your way, join the "base". Someone can't just buy a computer, even though they are "just" buying a computer. That was a huge mistake on Apple's part, though admittedly that probably saved them during the lean times since the people who wanted to keep their "Apple identity" kept buying their products.
Personally, I'd rather be Dell irrespective of profit... they give products of reasonable quality for high value. This seems morally superior to producing very expensive products of not-much-higher quality, but with a slick marketing campaign to make the masses think they're cool.
how "cool" and "stylish" or "trendy" is it right now to wear around a player with a big, blue DELL logo stamped on the front of it? Compare that to carrying around an Apple iPod. Apple has achieved something no other computer company has ever really achieved -- the ability to make computers and technology "hip" instead of "nerdy/geeky/dorky".
That's one of the reasons I've never really liked Apple-the-company. Too slick and too disengenuious. I suppose if "trendier than thou" is the corporate goal, then Apple has been very successful. But again, I'd rather be the one that sells value.
For example, over the last four quarters Dell has been coming in with a net profit margin of about 6.5%. Meanwhile Apple just finished its fiscal 2005 with a profit margin just shy of 9.6%."
As a wise man once said to me about allowing investors in my company, "Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon?"
Democrats do hate free speech, or at least, free speech that they disagree with. Who are the ones who tried to get the FCC to cancel Rush Limbaugh's broadcast license? Who are the ones who get "hate speech" laws passed? Who are the ones who push "campaign finance reform", which is really restrictions on what people can spend money on? (and make no mistake -- money is the fuel of free speech).
Not that Republicans of are clean on the subject either, but it's far more common for Democrats to try and PASS LEGISLATION (key phrase) to restrict speech. On the other hand, it's more common for Republicans to condemn things they disagree with, though not legislatively. (and yes, I know that you can find exceptions to these rules, but this is based on my observation).
I mentioned this in another post, but I found HBO's Deadwood to be truly excellent. It's historical fiction based on the history of Deadwood, South Dakota. The second season isn't out on DVD yet (I don't get HBO), but the first season was really good. The casting was especially good -- if you look at the historical photos of the characters, the actors even resemble them.
Opinions vary on this, but I've been very taken with Lost. So far it's been really compelling. Some people think it's too mysterious for it's own good and the completed puzzle can't possibly live up to the suspense they're building, but it's been pretty good so far.:) And they take a lot of time on building characterization, which is always a good idea.
I also really like 24, though I admit it's mostly because of the non-stop action, rather than believable plots. But somehow the thing moves so fast that you don't really care, and you just have to marvel at, "how the hell are they going to get him out of/that/". One thing is for sure -- the writers aren't afraid to write themselves into difficult situations.
If you never watched Deep Space Nine, I thought it was the best of the Star Treks if you like character and plot development. It's not the fastest moving or most action packed of the Star Trek series, and you have to like political intrigue sort of plots. But it has some of the best characters ever created in ST.
Oh!! I have a good recommendation... rent the A&E Hornblower movies. They're all really good.
I've heard that HBO's The Sopranos is really good, though I haven't seen it. It's on my rental list.
Saying that all television is no better than The Apprentice is like saying all literature is no better than Harlequin Romances. You're simply ignorant about the quality programming that can be found on TV.
Now, that's OK -- someone can choose not to watch TV, just like someone can choose not read books. But don't think it makes you culturally superior.
I'm actually beginning to think that the best TV is better than the best movies, particularly miniseries. With a miniseries, they can take the time to develop characters and situations, and not be a slave to the "two hour plot" where everything has to be wrapped up.
One miniseries I watched not too long ago that absolutely excellent was HBO's Deadwood.
It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that movies are perceived to be not as good these days is that TV is making it look it bad.
But unless you want dictatorship, the masses have to be trusted. The great unwashed masses, as you call them, are actually reasonably smart and moral. They are not a mob.
Guess what? The majority of people in the US support teaching creationism alongside evolution. Do you support that?
They are you. You are saying you do not trust yourself.
No, I trust *me*. I don't trust *you*.
The point is, exactly who is Politician X supposed to listen to? He can't listen to everyone, since for every idea held be someone, there is someone else who holds a diametrically opposed view. Should they simply rule by poll? I think you can think of the limitations of that strategy yourself.
You want a strongman to make the tough, unpopular decisions that you and your neighbors cannot.
No, I want a "representative" to spend the time and research the various issues in order to make an informed decision that the masses cannot, because the masses have other things on their plate (such as a job and family).
That's why we live in a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy. A pure democracy can't possibly work, because most people don't have the time to be fully informed, and certainly don't have a staff to do research like a politician does.
(of course, I realize I'm speaking idealistically, and I realize politicians don't always do the research they should)
We need some folks in office who listen to the folks they talk at.
Hell NO. This is a popular notion for some reason, but I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses. That's exactly how we get into trouble -- they pander to the masses in order to get votes. Or to put it another way, exactly who are they supposed to listen to? You can find anyone who believes anything.
What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.
Did it mix chunks of messages? That could really cause some fun...
"Hey Bob, I really need that report on $*%)^ your hot body... I can't wait to rub my hands all over your @!@#%! convention. You should be ready to go on a moment's notice. -- Phil."
How about if we give up on stop-gap measures that won't do a damn thing, and we find a way to solve the energy question once and for all? I'm never going to drive in some small deathmobile. Civilization will continue to march on. And I hate all the manipulation in the "green" movement where gestures mean more than reality (e.g., on balance, recycling paper creates more pollution than it saves, but no one cares).
There is nothing intrinsically "destroying" about using energy. The world has more than enough raw energy for us. We just have to figure out how to harness it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, the world has changed in 230 years. Spain financed Columbus, too... should we still be thanking them as well?
Did you ever consider that France aren't disagreeing with your foreign policies because of who you are, but because they they don't like your foreign policies?
Sure, I'll consider it... but it's easily rejected. There is no question that the French have a major cultural identity crisis. They desperately want to believe they are still relevent to anything.
Besides, it's not as if the rest of Europe doesn't hate the French as well. You ever notice how rarely Europe defends France when the Americans start bashing them? The only reason they don't pile on with the US is because they have to live next to them.
I didn't see the movie, but I have read a lot of first-hand accounts. I have no doubt that's how Jobs behaves, same as I have little doubt how Larry Ellison behaves. Or do you think he's just misunderstood as well? (Not that I equate Jobs with Ellison... both are jerks, but I think Jobs has a good heart, while Ellison does not).
For one thing, they hire really talented people, and quite a lot of PhDs. And they use a far superior development environment than Visual Studio. and really well-designed APIs based on objective-c for most of their applications.
Microsoft hires a lot of PhDs, too, and arguabl. And if you think what IDE or language you use makes a difference, then I have a special package of "silver bullets" you may be interested in buying.
Sorry, but I have little doubt that if Steve left Apple right now, they would again sink into mediocrity. And that's OK -- lots of companies are like that. You need strong leadership at the top to keep things moving in the right direction. But don't kid yourself that Apple is some self-running machine. If any company qualifies as a personality cult, it's Apple. It seethes in their arrogant corporate culture.
Case in point: I have a neighbor. He's an old man with a bad attitude who is basically a crank. He also walks around the neighborhood look for "issues" and is a total PITA if you get on his bad side. A few years ago, my boy (who was about 3-4 years old at the time) was obssessed with hoses, drains and pipes. He LOVED to put together sprinkler systems using PVC in my back yard. Of course, I encouraged him in his hobby, even though my water bill wasn't exactly pleasant news.
Well, the water running down the street just drove my neighbor insane. He tried to convince the neighborhood that the water was going to degrade the street. When that didn't work, he actually reported me to the Environmental Protection Agency (who sent out a very nice woman, who was very impressed with my son's sprinkler systems when I happily showed her around).
And I wasn't the only one -- at various times, he has had run-ins with the neighbors over phantom problems. The guy lives to find issues that don't exist.
So you'll pardon me if I don't necessarily believe this woman isn't a total wack-job without more evidence beyond this article.
Also look at Apple's software before Steve came. MacOS was absolute crap. Copland, which was supposed to make MacOS a modern operating system, was a late, dismal failure that was eventually killed because Apple was too incompetent.
Apple is not a good example of what to do. Not every company can be a personality cult.
Of all the points that Mac advocates make, this one is always the most ridiculous. Software companies make WAAAAAY more money than hardware companies. Do you really think it's hurt Microsoft to be (almost) a pure software company? Do you somehow think they would be even bigger than they are if they came out with a "Microsoft PC" that you could only put Windows on?
Their underpinning postulate is that "complex entities require a creator." OK, given that, if God has the power to create an entire universe and manage everything in it, and in fact is an intelligent being, therefore, God must have had a creator. So we have a "super god" that created God. But then, the super god must have had a creator, since the super god is another complex, creating organism. And on, and on...
So either we have an infinite number of God levels, which is absurd, or we had a primary creating God, which contradicts the postulate. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
Al Gore probably has the answer in his lockbox.
Google doesn't give a crap about Firefox versus IE. They care about people getting toolbar installs so they remain the dominant search engine.
That's like asking if I have a company with a 10% margin, why don't I make a slew more money by raising the margin to 100%? or 200%? Hell, why not 1000%? Because, of course, my sales would drop to zero if I did.
There's also a correlation between cost to build and sales volume, since part costs go down as you get bigger. So volume can increase your profit margin, though if you want to grow, you use part of that savings to undercut your competition on pricing and grow larger.
Oh, and I should have pointed out that the inner part of the moon is much denser than the outer part, so the overall effect on mass would be much less than 0.28%.
Dude, do the math. If we stripped off the first mile deep of mass all the way around the moon, its volume would only be reduced by 0.28% or so. That's a lot of mass, and not much of an effect.
But anyway, I didn't say I didn't like Apple bcause it was "too much of a trend", I said I didn't like it because it sells itself as "trendy". In other words, Apple values style over substance, and charges a great premium for it. I don't want to buy a lifestyle from Apple, I want to buy a tool.
Not true. Apple has exactly the same base as Dell -- the computer buying public. They have just chosen to embrace a limited strategy of high prices and proprietary hardware. Sure, that strategy gives them slightly higher margins (though, the difference is remarkably small, considering how high Apple's prices are), but it ultimately hurts their marketshare.
Apple's other failure is making everyone think they DO have a different "base". To buy an iPod, you just have to want an MP3 player. To buy a Mac, you have to drink the Koolaid first and become one of "them" -- or, to put it your way, join the "base". Someone can't just buy a computer, even though they are "just" buying a computer. That was a huge mistake on Apple's part, though admittedly that probably saved them during the lean times since the people who wanted to keep their "Apple identity" kept buying their products.
how "cool" and "stylish" or "trendy" is it right now to wear around a player with a big, blue DELL logo stamped on the front of it? Compare that to carrying around an Apple iPod. Apple has achieved something no other computer company has ever really achieved -- the ability to make computers and technology "hip" instead of "nerdy/geeky/dorky".
That's one of the reasons I've never really liked Apple-the-company. Too slick and too disengenuious. I suppose if "trendier than thou" is the corporate goal, then Apple has been very successful. But again, I'd rather be the one that sells value.
As a wise man once said to me about allowing investors in my company, "Would your rather have all of a grape or a slice of watermelon?"
Democrats do hate free speech, or at least, free speech that they disagree with. Who are the ones who tried to get the FCC to cancel Rush Limbaugh's broadcast license? Who are the ones who get "hate speech" laws passed? Who are the ones who push "campaign finance reform", which is really restrictions on what people can spend money on? (and make no mistake -- money is the fuel of free speech).
Not that Republicans of are clean on the subject either, but it's far more common for Democrats to try and PASS LEGISLATION (key phrase) to restrict speech. On the other hand, it's more common for Republicans to condemn things they disagree with, though not legislatively. (and yes, I know that you can find exceptions to these rules, but this is based on my observation).
Opinions vary on this, but I've been very taken with Lost. So far it's been really compelling. Some people think it's too mysterious for it's own good and the completed puzzle can't possibly live up to the suspense they're building, but it's been pretty good so far. :) And they take a lot of time on building characterization, which is always a good idea.
I also really like 24, though I admit it's mostly because of the non-stop action, rather than believable plots. But somehow the thing moves so fast that you don't really care, and you just have to marvel at, "how the hell are they going to get him out of /that/". One thing is for sure -- the writers aren't afraid to write themselves into difficult situations.
If you never watched Deep Space Nine, I thought it was the best of the Star Treks if you like character and plot development. It's not the fastest moving or most action packed of the Star Trek series, and you have to like political intrigue sort of plots. But it has some of the best characters ever created in ST.
Oh!! I have a good recommendation... rent the A&E Hornblower movies. They're all really good.
I've heard that HBO's The Sopranos is really good, though I haven't seen it. It's on my rental list.
Now, that's OK -- someone can choose not to watch TV, just like someone can choose not read books. But don't think it makes you culturally superior.
One miniseries I watched not too long ago that absolutely excellent was HBO's Deadwood.
It makes me wonder if one of the reasons that movies are perceived to be not as good these days is that TV is making it look it bad.
Guess what? The majority of people in the US support teaching creationism alongside evolution. Do you support that?
They are you. You are saying you do not trust yourself.
No, I trust *me*. I don't trust *you*.
The point is, exactly who is Politician X supposed to listen to? He can't listen to everyone, since for every idea held be someone, there is someone else who holds a diametrically opposed view. Should they simply rule by poll? I think you can think of the limitations of that strategy yourself.
You want a strongman to make the tough, unpopular decisions that you and your neighbors cannot.
No, I want a "representative" to spend the time and research the various issues in order to make an informed decision that the masses cannot, because the masses have other things on their plate (such as a job and family).
That's why we live in a representative democracy, rather than a pure democracy. A pure democracy can't possibly work, because most people don't have the time to be fully informed, and certainly don't have a staff to do research like a politician does.
(of course, I realize I'm speaking idealistically, and I realize politicians don't always do the research they should)
Hell NO. This is a popular notion for some reason, but I for one don't want politicians listening to the great unwashed masses. That's exactly how we get into trouble -- they pander to the masses in order to get votes. Or to put it another way, exactly who are they supposed to listen to? You can find anyone who believes anything.
What I want politicians to do is listen to a small, trusted set of smart people and do the "right thing", regardless of whether it's popular or not.
And, more importantly, does Standford's football team suck as much as Stanford's?
Did it mix chunks of messages? That could really cause some fun... "Hey Bob, I really need that report on $*%)^ your hot body... I can't wait to rub my hands all over your @!@#%! convention. You should be ready to go on a moment's notice. -- Phil."
Two problems: Backup and Access.
There is nothing intrinsically "destroying" about using energy. The world has more than enough raw energy for us. We just have to figure out how to harness it.