OK. Somebody comments that Linux does not suit their needs because it has bad sound card support, and your response is "You don't need sound." Maybe you're accompanying your statement with an Obi Wan Kenobi wave or something.
Linux works great for you. Okay, that's great. How does that bear on anybody else's experience and requirements?
And there are so many anti-Mac users out there, that even when Apple designs a pretty damn good product, that's well-engineered and well designed, that somebody just wants it to be cheap cheap cheap. If it's Apple, it must be a gyp.
Strength can mean many different things. A rope is strong in tension, but weak in compression. A glass pillar can be pretty strong in compression, but it's brittle. Aluminum is strong and light, but can be susceptible to fatigue under cyclical loading conditions. Magnesium is similar to titanium and aluminum, but more brittle. (and flammable.)
A brittle part will crack and break shortly after exceeding its yield strength. A tough part will stretch and deform after reaching its yield strength, finally breaking at a much higher stress level. However, it is possible for a given brittle part to have a much higher yield strength than a given tough (or ductile) part. The material used, and the production method, and the heat treating process all affect the material's final strength.
Uh, right. That philosophy that's made his company pretty darn successful. I wonder why he's loath to change it.
And, since you don't own a Mac, and I'm sure you wouldn't even if they DID put two button mice on the notebooks (you'd find some other ridiculous detail to bitch about), why do you even bother?
Or, turning that statement around, only somebody with no appreciation of aesthetics and design could use a Nomad Zen?
I've held both. The Zen's UI is not on the same planet as the iPod's. Please, by all means, buy one and use it in good health. I am willing to pay for good design and good engineering, and I'm satisfied that Apple provides both.
MS is not competing against Linux on the desktop. They are comfortable selling Windows against Mac on end-user desktops, and Linux is not and will not in the forseeable future be a viable alternative for that niche.
HOWEVER, Linux has an excellent chance of dethroning Microsoft on the server end. That's where MS makes their money, and that's where they're going to fight. Apple is not (yet) competitive in that market (although xserves are pretty bad ass, and very price competitive, so that may change.)
In other words, your correlation (MS spends more on anti-Linux than anti-Mac) does not lead necessarily to the conclusion you've drawn (Macs suck).
Everybody's allowed to make fun of clearchannel "DJ's". It's much more fun than making fun of the mentally handicapped, although there seems to be a large overlap...
"To suggest that I should submit my listening habits to anybody's judgements but my own is ridiculous"
I listen to music I enjoy. Some of it is album-format. Some of it is not. Hell, some of it won't even fit on an "album". Any correlations one might make to my listening habits and "short attention span" are wrong and ill founded.
There is nothing magical about an "album". People have been writing music for hundreds of years. Some of those pieces can be enjoyed in short periods of time (John Philip Sousa is a good example). Some cannot. (The Seven Last Words of Christ by Haydn...listen to it all, or don't bother with it) In no case is some marketing moron's opinion (or that of a college professor for that matter) about my listening habits interesting or relevant.
Well, most albums nowadays are built by marketing flacks, not artists. To suggest that I should submit my listening habits to anybody's judgements but my own is ridiculous.
Er, maybe because they don't need white noise to drown out the inevitable noise that's generated from living with that many people? Because they don't live in a dorm?
I mean, it's a wild ass guess, but maybe other people have priorities and desires that are different then yours. Nah, can't be it. I must have the Space Madness.
What it's named doesn't change what it does. Short range radio isn't "meant" for anything. It either does the job or it doesn't.
Bluetooth is available and useful today. Wireless USB might be available and useful someday. Whether or not it comes to fruition, it's going to mean less interoperability. Maybe the performance advantages of WUSB will be realized, and maybe they will outweigh the disadvantage of balkanization.
That's a lot of maybes.
I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.
"Will it be better supported tomorrow? Who knows. What I do know is that any time device interconnection standards become balkanized, computer users lose."
That sound you just heard was my point FWAPPING into your forehead. Way to go, Sparky.
Re:Why bluetooth has failed
on
USB Going Wireless
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
OK, unless I'm totally stupid, lots more devices available support Bluetooth than support Wireless USB.
Will it be better supported tomorrow? Who knows. What I do know is that any time device interconnection standards become balkanized, computer users lose.
Slashdot Mirror
You understand that this argument you're making has nothing whatsoever to do with the argument the story author is making, right?
OK. Somebody comments that Linux does not suit their needs because it has bad sound card support, and your response is "You don't need sound." Maybe you're accompanying your statement with an Obi Wan Kenobi wave or something.
Linux works great for you. Okay, that's great. How does that bear on anybody else's experience and requirements?
OK, maybe I'm stupid.
Please name me a PC sound card that doesn't work with Windows.
And there are so many anti-Mac users out there, that even when Apple designs a pretty damn good product, that's well-engineered and well designed, that somebody just wants it to be cheap cheap cheap. If it's Apple, it must be a gyp.
The Apple designers obviously disagree with you. They're not doing things the way they're doing them to piss you off.
I could make up a different set of numbers that just as conclusively proves the opposite.
Strength can mean many different things. A rope is strong in tension, but weak in compression. A glass pillar can be pretty strong in compression, but it's brittle. Aluminum is strong and light, but can be susceptible to fatigue under cyclical loading conditions. Magnesium is similar to titanium and aluminum, but more brittle. (and flammable.)
A brittle part will crack and break shortly after exceeding its yield strength. A tough part will stretch and deform after reaching its yield strength, finally breaking at a much higher stress level. However, it is possible for a given brittle part to have a much higher yield strength than a given tough (or ductile) part. The material used, and the production method, and the heat treating process all affect the material's final strength.
In other words, it's kinda complicated. : )
Use an optical mouse. It'll track on just about anything. That's not rocket science either.
Jobs' iconoclasm is good for business. I'm not surprised he's not changing what seems to be working just fine.
Uh, right. That philosophy that's made his company pretty darn successful. I wonder why he's loath to change it.
And, since you don't own a Mac, and I'm sure you wouldn't even if they DID put two button mice on the notebooks (you'd find some other ridiculous detail to bitch about), why do you even bother?
Apple was profitable throughout the downturn. What more do you want?
How many times are you going to piss and moan about it?
It's not necessary, and it's counterproductive to Apple's software philosophy. Plug in a third party mouse and get over it.
Uh, get a case for it. You know, the way you do if you don't want a scratched up cell phone.
Or, turning that statement around, only somebody with no appreciation of aesthetics and design could use a Nomad Zen?
I've held both. The Zen's UI is not on the same planet as the iPod's. Please, by all means, buy one and use it in good health. I am willing to pay for good design and good engineering, and I'm satisfied that Apple provides both.
MS is not competing against Linux on the desktop. They are comfortable selling Windows against Mac on end-user desktops, and Linux is not and will not in the forseeable future be a viable alternative for that niche.
HOWEVER, Linux has an excellent chance of dethroning Microsoft on the server end. That's where MS makes their money, and that's where they're going to fight. Apple is not (yet) competitive in that market (although xserves are pretty bad ass, and very price competitive, so that may change.)
In other words, your correlation (MS spends more on anti-Linux than anti-Mac) does not lead necessarily to the conclusion you've drawn (Macs suck).
And O how the mighty have fallen. I can't figure out if HP is Compaq's bitch or vice versa, but at this point, it's pretty irrelevant.
Poor HP. I remember when they made good gear.
They made one.
It's called an iPod.
Just so you know.
Everybody's allowed to make fun of clearchannel "DJ's". It's much more fun than making fun of the mentally handicapped, although there seems to be a large overlap...
Let me reiterate.
"To suggest that I should submit my listening habits to anybody's judgements but my own is ridiculous"
I listen to music I enjoy. Some of it is album-format. Some of it is not. Hell, some of it won't even fit on an "album". Any correlations one might make to my listening habits and "short attention span" are wrong and ill founded.
There is nothing magical about an "album". People have been writing music for hundreds of years. Some of those pieces can be enjoyed in short periods of time (John Philip Sousa is a good example). Some cannot. (The Seven Last Words of Christ by Haydn...listen to it all, or don't bother with it) In no case is some marketing moron's opinion (or that of a college professor for that matter) about my listening habits interesting or relevant.
"in which the artist decided to present it"
Well, most albums nowadays are built by marketing flacks, not artists. To suggest that I should submit my listening habits to anybody's judgements but my own is ridiculous.
Er, maybe because they don't need white noise to drown out the inevitable noise that's generated from living with that many people? Because they don't live in a dorm?
I mean, it's a wild ass guess, but maybe other people have priorities and desires that are different then yours. Nah, can't be it. I must have the Space Madness.
C'mere, big guy. Who needs a hug? Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
What it's named doesn't change what it does. Short range radio isn't "meant" for anything. It either does the job or it doesn't.
Bluetooth is available and useful today. Wireless USB might be available and useful someday. Whether or not it comes to fruition, it's going to mean less interoperability. Maybe the performance advantages of WUSB will be realized, and maybe they will outweigh the disadvantage of balkanization.
That's a lot of maybes.
I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.
"Will it be better supported tomorrow? Who knows. What I do know is that any time device interconnection standards become balkanized, computer users lose."
RTFC.
That sound you just heard was my point FWAPPING into your forehead. Way to go, Sparky.
OK, unless I'm totally stupid, lots more devices available support Bluetooth than support Wireless USB.
Will it be better supported tomorrow? Who knows. What I do know is that any time device interconnection standards become balkanized, computer users lose.