Didn't you see the little silver De Lorean Gull Wing disappear just before the little flash? I suspect it was using about 1.21 Gigawatts of power at that moment...
FINALLY a discussion involving the term "evolution" where I don't have to point out to the trogs that evolution HAS NO PURPOSE. Life's only purpose is to reproduce. This, and selective processes make up major components of the Theory of Natural Selection and its explanation of the process of evolution. There is no "survival of the fittest." It's "survival of the good enough for the conditions."
* Apple's product designs are created with no input (as far as anyone can tell) from customers.
This is a problem. Business computers have different needs than personal computers. They don't need a monitor,and need management tool integration (ARD is nice, but it needs integration with at least Tivoli, CA, and BMC).
I have met with many product managers, marketing managers, etc. and have been asked very specific questions about existing products, such as suggested improvements to existing products (down to, is it worth $100 to have X integrated, $50, $etc.) or known issues keeping us from achieving our goals (such as advanced IT training). In most cases, the majority of our requests were actually met, albeit in later products, or non-free "upgrades" to products (the same case with most proprietary software, unless you have a maintenance contract).
So, to say that they don't listen is overblown. True, Apple is focused on the consumer/prosumer markets. But, I have been flown in to Cupertino twice to specifically address our needs. The first time, I was not expecting much. But when I saw most of our needs met by the next invitation, I was really pleased with the changes. Having just met with their Pro Apps product manager and sales director, I'm confident that they hear our message and might even do something with it.
Apple has sucked in the past, but they suck less now...
IBM is about doing everything for you. Apple is about stroking your ego. Thery're totally incompatible ideals.
Granted, I think both companies have brilliant ideas, and spinning off PCs is a great idea for IBM, since they care more about a few $1 billion contracts than several million sales in which they made all of $20 profit.
I have a real problem with Wikipedia, and for the matter, any sort of "bullshit of the masses" publishing scheme (a la Slashdot, or even Texas textbook cherrypicking):
"Movements" typically flavor the final product, to the detriment of unbiased, reasoned analysis and explanation
For example, any mention of "creationism" has no place in a science text, but you see that pushed in around these parts. Too much time is given to science topics to "alternative theories," many of which have no rigor supporting them. But, someone saw a show somehwere, or read a blog, or whatever, and *poof* there it goes into the Wiki.
The real answer? *I* decide what's fit to include;)
We take hundreds of digital pix of my son all the time. Most of them are throw-aways. Who really cares what happens to the rest? He's not going to care about the photos when he's middle-aged any more than I care about the photos sitting in his grandparent's attic. Truly important stuff will be taken care of by people who care about it. All the rest is just a challenge for future anthropologists.
This "all my shit is important" attitude is one of the most annoying aspects of the "blog phenomenon." Who really gives a shit about what crap oozes out of your head? Seriously.
There's a huge difference between flying a neato rocket plane like "SpaceShipOne" and actually achieving Low Earth Orbit. This will be a much more difficult challenge!
The only ways to jam a signal is to emit another signal, or alter the incident wave. There's no "new" method to jam a signal. There might be new systems or new emitters, but otherwise, when dealing with EM, these are your two options.
With apologizes to Dr. Stallman, I'd like to point out that information systems to which everyone has access to the information it manages/monitors/etc. are less prone to abuse by bureaucracies or governments. Take "red light cameras," for example. These are foisted on municpalities under the auspices of "public safety" (e.g. fewer red light runners, ergo fewer intersection accidents). However, since the operation of these systems is typically obfuscated, these systems invariably become nothing more than revenue generators. Yellow lights are shortened, in order to increase the "catch." Never mind that this "forces" people to "run the yellow" and thereby increase the likelihood that there will be a ROW-induced collision.
If everyone had some way to monitor exactly what these cameras saw, exactly how the lights were timed, etc. it would be dissected in public enough to prevent these sorts of scams. The same goes for "safety" cameras in public. If you saw exactly how much of an invasion of privacy a given camera amounted to, you would bet there would be fewer of them, and those that are allowed would better meet the specified purpose (instead of "once it's there, nobody will notice we're not looking just at what we said we were").
Never mind that there is much to love about OSX's framework architecture and underlying modularity. Raskin, as anyone else, has strong opinions about user interfaces. I have my own. I don't love everything about the OSX interfaces, but I've owned Macs since the 80s and could say the same about any version of the Mac OS.
The real test of an interface is its adoption in the public. This being said, OSX is a hit.
They can all be answered by "it depends." The OP never gives enough specifics to clarify just exactly criteria by which to evaluate a given solution. Moronic refrains like "most secure" and "least hassle" are meaningless.
Yes, I've had a bad week. My A/C compressor at home decided to fry some wires and our house was almost 90F by 5p.m. (record highs in Texas this October). Feh!
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't you see the little silver De Lorean Gull Wing disappear just before the little flash? I suspect it was using about 1.21 Gigawatts of power at that moment...
FINALLY a discussion involving the term "evolution" where I don't have to point out to the trogs that evolution HAS NO PURPOSE. Life's only purpose is to reproduce. This, and selective processes make up major components of the Theory of Natural Selection and its explanation of the process of evolution. There is no "survival of the fittest." It's "survival of the good enough for the conditions."
Kudos and +5 bonus!
I am going to refute this quote:
* Apple's product designs are created with no input (as far as anyone can tell) from customers.
This is a problem. Business computers have different needs than personal computers. They don't need a monitor,and need management tool integration (ARD is nice, but it needs integration with at least Tivoli, CA, and BMC).
I have met with many product managers, marketing managers, etc. and have been asked very specific questions about existing products, such as suggested improvements to existing products (down to, is it worth $100 to have X integrated, $50, $etc.) or known issues keeping us from achieving our goals (such as advanced IT training). In most cases, the majority of our requests were actually met, albeit in later products, or non-free "upgrades" to products (the same case with most proprietary software, unless you have a maintenance contract).
So, to say that they don't listen is overblown. True, Apple is focused on the consumer/prosumer markets. But, I have been flown in to Cupertino twice to specifically address our needs. The first time, I was not expecting much. But when I saw most of our needs met by the next invitation, I was really pleased with the changes. Having just met with their Pro Apps product manager and sales director, I'm confident that they hear our message and might even do something with it.
Apple has sucked in the past, but they suck less now...
IBM is about doing everything for you. Apple is about stroking your ego. Thery're totally incompatible ideals.
Granted, I think both companies have brilliant ideas, and spinning off PCs is a great idea for IBM, since they care more about a few $1 billion contracts than several million sales in which they made all of $20 profit.
Click on the photo on that page, and you will see a number of weapons systems attached, including TOW and mortar tubes!
I want one of these for my toddler to play with.
Ashley Judd. Man, oh man. Details, please, even seemingly insignifcant ones :)
Cybersquatting and phishing scams? Not much!
I have a real problem with Wikipedia, and for the matter, any sort of "bullshit of the masses" publishing scheme (a la Slashdot, or even Texas textbook cherrypicking):
;)
"Movements" typically flavor the final product, to the detriment of unbiased, reasoned analysis and explanation
For example, any mention of "creationism" has no place in a science text, but you see that pushed in around these parts. Too much time is given to science topics to "alternative theories," many of which have no rigor supporting them. But, someone saw a show somehwere, or read a blog, or whatever, and *poof* there it goes into the Wiki.
The real answer? *I* decide what's fit to include
Technically, being sued for file sharing using their OS might be an avenue to pursue. Have M$ "defend" me...
We take hundreds of digital pix of my son all the time. Most of them are throw-aways. Who really cares what happens to the rest? He's not going to care about the photos when he's middle-aged any more than I care about the photos sitting in his grandparent's attic. Truly important stuff will be taken care of by people who care about it. All the rest is just a challenge for future anthropologists.
This "all my shit is important" attitude is one of the most annoying aspects of the "blog phenomenon." Who really gives a shit about what crap oozes out of your head? Seriously.
There's a huge difference between flying a neato rocket plane like "SpaceShipOne" and actually achieving Low Earth Orbit. This will be a much more difficult challenge!
1-Click Litigation. Search for someone you want to sue, click a button and sue!
They're dreadfully aware that the moment Microsoft wants to forcefully enter the "pro graphics" market, they will be hurt.
Smart move, IMO.
The only ways to jam a signal is to emit another signal, or alter the incident wave. There's no "new" method to jam a signal. There might be new systems or new emitters, but otherwise, when dealing with EM, these are your two options.
There are 30 that suck.
Quantity does not necessarily denote quality.
I meant adoption relative to that of "Classic Mac." Classic is dead. Mac OS X is a suitable alternative.
Windows is more prevalent because Microsoft best abused its monopoly at a time when Classic Mac OS and Apple hardware sucked most.
With apologizes to Dr. Stallman, I'd like to point out that information systems to which everyone has access to the information it manages/monitors/etc. are less prone to abuse by bureaucracies or governments. Take "red light cameras," for example. These are foisted on municpalities under the auspices of "public safety" (e.g. fewer red light runners, ergo fewer intersection accidents). However, since the operation of these systems is typically obfuscated, these systems invariably become nothing more than revenue generators. Yellow lights are shortened, in order to increase the "catch." Never mind that this "forces" people to "run the yellow" and thereby increase the likelihood that there will be a ROW-induced collision.
If everyone had some way to monitor exactly what these cameras saw, exactly how the lights were timed, etc. it would be dissected in public enough to prevent these sorts of scams. The same goes for "safety" cameras in public. If you saw exactly how much of an invasion of privacy a given camera amounted to, you would bet there would be fewer of them, and those that are allowed would better meet the specified purpose (instead of "once it's there, nobody will notice we're not looking just at what we said we were").
Never mind that there is much to love about OSX's framework architecture and underlying modularity. Raskin, as anyone else, has strong opinions about user interfaces. I have my own. I don't love everything about the OSX interfaces, but I've owned Macs since the 80s and could say the same about any version of the Mac OS.
The real test of an interface is its adoption in the public. This being said, OSX is a hit.
They can all be answered by "it depends." The OP never gives enough specifics to clarify just exactly criteria by which to evaluate a given solution. Moronic refrains like "most secure" and "least hassle" are meaningless.
Yes, I've had a bad week. My A/C compressor at home decided to fry some wires and our house was almost 90F by 5p.m. (record highs in Texas this October). Feh!
"No! No, freakin' kids. I do not need this, I've got a masters degree in folklore mythology."
But be sure to check out Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy site for fact-checks.
That would probably make a great air freshener for my car.
A beowolf cluster of these?!
I love the dig at Usenix :)
It has the tunes I want, in the format I want, and with the interface I enjoy. Plus, with most albums, it's at a price I like ($9.99).