The terrorists attacked on Sep. 11 to cause fear and terror throughout the US because 9/11 is like 911 and that's scary. But they SHOULD have attacked on Nov. 9 because lots of people (most of them oustide the US) would have been even scared-er of the numbers 911, although that number doesn't have any association with "emergency" outside the US.
Huh?
I mean, conspiracy theories are fun and all, but come on!
I see by reading your other post that a) you don't like PDAs and b) you don't think much of people who do.
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Unless you have a cogent argument, I'm done feeding your troll.
Although, if you can't find somebody in your CS department who wants to use your Dell, I know a student who would really like one. I'll give you the contact info so you can put your money where your mouth is.
And, fortunately, Apple is here to make a potentially useful technology ubiquitous again.
Just because you don't think the technology is useful doesn't make it not useful for other people. Fortunately, when a market works properly, your needs, and the needs of others, are addressed by different products.
People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls. People who want to do other stuff will buy phones that can do other stuff.
What's the point of deriding a system that other people find useful?
People who don't carry lots of devices probably don't need those devices to talk to each other, and therefore Bluetooth is not useful or interesting for them.
People who do carry lots of devices whose abilities are complementary might want to have them connect to one another without wires. Those people will benefit from Bluetooth.
What is your point? Unless it's just trying to inject some class warfare bullshit...
And if your wireless headset used 802.11, it'd need a battery pack half the size of the one that powers your phone, making it really heavy to carry around on your ear (which many people seem to prefer to the over-the-head kind).
So, yes, Bluetooth can't do what Bluetooth can't do. That doesn't mean it's not good at doing tasks that are inside its design space.
I want to see you use that long headphone cable while you clean up the kitchen. That's my favourite time to use my Sennheiser wireless cans. Those cans don't have near the sound reproduction capabilities of similarly priced wired cans, but they're infinitely more useful because I'm not tied physically to a stationary object.
Fair enough. But, I've never seen a BT device with such a long range advertised. What model of phone and headset do you have?
By your argument, a radio with 10 foot (or 3 foot) range is better than the 30 foot range.
Now, there was another poster who noted that there's a "sweet spot" in their apt where they can get mobile service. In that case, it's totally logical to need a longer range wireless headset. But I'd argue that's a different itch, perhaps one better scratched by a longer range (802.11) implementation.
What's wrong with wires? They tangle. They wad up in my pocket and make it harder to rig my earphone. I have to have a different one to perform each task (attach phone to PDA, attach PDA to GPS, attach GPS to computer, make up all your own permutations). They are expensive and fragile.
Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.
I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.
Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking.
It is, by design, a short-range, low-powered protocol. Your mobile phone is a radio with a range of two or three miles...why the hell do you want ANOTHER radio with a range of 30 feet (with the commensurate power consumption which maps directly onto weight) to communicate with a device that should be in your pocket anyway?
Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.
The article criticizes BT because it does exactly what it's designed to do. That's silly.
Yeah, I know a lot of them. Many people I've encountered, professionally and personally, know what they are about without having to buy a degree to prove it.
Unfortunately, that's no longer acceptable by the Powers that Be. They'd rather have an incompetent, but degreed, mouth-breather than somebody with experience and expertise and no degree.
I didn't mean to imply that the grading on a math course should be binary. I have taken several math-based tests and forgotten a critical step I wasn't able to reconstruct. What I typically do at that point is explain (in prose) what it is that I'm trying to do and what it is that tripped me up.
I don't, however, expect to get full credit for the problem, but I do expect that I should be awarded points for the bits I did correctly.
You obviously have never seen a SyQuest drive with a faulty retention mechanism spin up that 5" diameter silicon plate, and then have it wiggle its way out of the slot and whang around the room a lot of times.
SyQuest was poop. If they'd ever actually delivered on their Orb drive (like, as in, made a product, that people could exchange for money, instead of writing press releases, which aren't even very good for toilet paper) before Jaz got situated they'd have been good.
And if those pigfuckers at Iomega had not been STUPID about their licensing, we could have replaced all these fucking useless 3.5" disk drives with a removable medium that is a) usefully sized and b) not obscenely expensive.
I was so happy to get a CD burner and finally got to stick my zip drive, and my Bernoulli 230, in the Computer Junk Box of Infinite Power. Both were way too expensive for what they did.
I think it would be profitable if I threatened the CEO's children with death, unless he made his company do what I wanted it to.
Heck, I'm just trying to make money! That's OK, isn't it?
If obtaining more money is the only goal, then we're on our way to a new flavor of totalitarianism, because free individuals are not as profitable as slaves are.
Now that we have, by reductio ad absurdum, demonstrated that it is necessary and appropriate to regulate the actions of businesses, we can have a productive debate about the nature of these restrictions.
Me, I think that the limited liability corporation and the securities markets should be abolished forthwith. Then we'll see how many politicians the corporate masters can purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so let me see if I understand.
The terrorists attacked on Sep. 11 to cause fear and terror throughout the US because 9/11 is like 911 and that's scary. But they SHOULD have attacked on Nov. 9 because lots of people (most of them oustide the US) would have been even scared-er of the numbers 911, although that number doesn't have any association with "emergency" outside the US.
Huh?
I mean, conspiracy theories are fun and all, but come on!
I honestly don't have any reason to believe that the coincidence of the arrangement of the number of the date has any significance whatsoever.
OK, so you think it was 9/11 instead of 9/13 because 911 is a scary number?
Uh, wow. You are wearing a tinfoil hat, aren't you? Either that, or you've watched Pi one time too many.
On another tack, have you ever dropped a phone attached by a wire to your ear?
It really hurts.
I see by reading your other post that a) you don't like PDAs and b) you don't think much of people who do.
Fine. You are entitled to your opinion.
Unless you have a cogent argument, I'm done feeding your troll.
Although, if you can't find somebody in your CS department who wants to use your Dell, I know a student who would really like one. I'll give you the contact info so you can put your money where your mouth is.
I think I speak for more people than just myself when I say...
"Huh?"
Same argument applied to USB.
And, fortunately, Apple is here to make a potentially useful technology ubiquitous again.
Just because you don't think the technology is useful doesn't make it not useful for other people. Fortunately, when a market works properly, your needs, and the needs of others, are addressed by different products.
People who only want to make calls will buy a phone that only makes calls. People who want to do other stuff will buy phones that can do other stuff.
What's the point of deriding a system that other people find useful?
So, again, what's your point?
In answer to your first question, "Nothing that would be countenanced by a truly free society". In answer to your second question "No."
I am much more worried about government intrusion into my life than terrorist intrusion. The government is way better funded.
I don't understand your argument.
People who don't carry lots of devices probably don't need those devices to talk to each other, and therefore Bluetooth is not useful or interesting for them.
People who do carry lots of devices whose abilities are complementary might want to have them connect to one another without wires. Those people will benefit from Bluetooth.
What is your point? Unless it's just trying to inject some class warfare bullshit...
And if your wireless headset used 802.11, it'd need a battery pack half the size of the one that powers your phone, making it really heavy to carry around on your ear (which many people seem to prefer to the over-the-head kind).
So, yes, Bluetooth can't do what Bluetooth can't do. That doesn't mean it's not good at doing tasks that are inside its design space.
I want to see you use that long headphone cable while you clean up the kitchen. That's my favourite time to use my Sennheiser wireless cans. Those cans don't have near the sound reproduction capabilities of similarly priced wired cans, but they're infinitely more useful because I'm not tied physically to a stationary object.
Has somebody kept track of exactly how many redundant connector designs Nokia has come up with?
That sort of engineering really irks me.
Fair enough. But, I've never seen a BT device with such a long range advertised. What model of phone and headset do you have?
By your argument, a radio with 10 foot (or 3 foot) range is better than the 30 foot range.
Now, there was another poster who noted that there's a "sweet spot" in their apt where they can get mobile service. In that case, it's totally logical to need a longer range wireless headset. But I'd argue that's a different itch, perhaps one better scratched by a longer range (802.11) implementation.
What's wrong with wires? They tangle. They wad up in my pocket and make it harder to rig my earphone. I have to have a different one to perform each task (attach phone to PDA, attach PDA to GPS, attach GPS to computer, make up all your own permutations). They are expensive and fragile.
Do they have to be expensive? Of course they don't. It's a wire, with a plastic doohickey on each end. How many mobile electronics vendors are making universal cable systems? With the conspicuous exception of audio headphones, zero.
I hate wires. It's a problem I percieve, and a solution I'm willing to pay for. Therefore, from my perspective, it is good technology.
Read my lips.
THAT IS NOT WHAT BLUETOOTH IS FOR.
Bluetooth is for personal (that is, on your person) area networking.
It is, by design, a short-range, low-powered protocol. Your mobile phone is a radio with a range of two or three miles...why the hell do you want ANOTHER radio with a range of 30 feet (with the commensurate power consumption which maps directly onto weight) to communicate with a device that should be in your pocket anyway?
Bluetooth, when properly implemented, is great. It's not designed to be the only wireless protocol: It's narrowly designed to do one thing. Replace wires. That, it does well.
The article criticizes BT because it does exactly what it's designed to do. That's silly.
The short answer is because all of the planets accreted out of a disc-shaped dust cloud around the sun.
The long answer would take somebody with a better background in planetology than mine. Or a Google Search.
I don't miss his ill-founded sermonizing about nuclear winter.
There are enough reasons not to blow each other up that we don't need to go spouting off about totally ludicrous ones.
I am very sorry Dr. Sagan tarnished his reputation with his association with this kind of really bad science.
Yeah, I know a lot of them. Many people I've encountered, professionally and personally, know what they are about without having to buy a degree to prove it.
Unfortunately, that's no longer acceptable by the Powers that Be. They'd rather have an incompetent, but degreed, mouth-breather than somebody with experience and expertise and no degree.
Oh well.
People who say that are just lying. MS bought its way out of a lawsuit, plain and simple.
It's not "lean times" when you have umpty billion dollars in the bank, which has been Apple's case since the late 80's at least.
...for the six kids who want to be CS people.
What about the other zillion?
You just listened to that David Cross album, didn't you?
I didn't mean to imply that the grading on a math course should be binary. I have taken several math-based tests and forgotten a critical step I wasn't able to reconstruct. What I typically do at that point is explain (in prose) what it is that I'm trying to do and what it is that tripped me up.
I don't, however, expect to get full credit for the problem, but I do expect that I should be awarded points for the bits I did correctly.
What size disks?
I'll make you a better deal than eBay for an 88mb SyQuest drive.
Seriously. Email me.
I, on the other hand, "broke" two drives and three cartridges over the course of three years.
The carts lived on a shelf. The drive sat next to my computer. Every so often, one or the other would just decide that it didn't want to work anymore.
Anybody want a Bernoulli 230? Two carts. They might even work. Make me an offer.
Oh yeah, and it will include a $50 SCSI cable. Just 'cuz I'm feeling generous.
You obviously have never seen a SyQuest drive with a faulty retention mechanism spin up that 5" diameter silicon plate, and then have it wiggle its way out of the slot and whang around the room a lot of times.
SyQuest was poop. If they'd ever actually delivered on their Orb drive (like, as in, made a product, that people could exchange for money, instead of writing press releases, which aren't even very good for toilet paper) before Jaz got situated they'd have been good.
And if those pigfuckers at Iomega had not been STUPID about their licensing, we could have replaced all these fucking useless 3.5" disk drives with a removable medium that is a) usefully sized and b) not obscenely expensive.
I was so happy to get a CD burner and finally got to stick my zip drive, and my Bernoulli 230, in the Computer Junk Box of Infinite Power. Both were way too expensive for what they did.
I think it would be profitable if I threatened the CEO's children with death, unless he made his company do what I wanted it to.
Heck, I'm just trying to make money! That's OK, isn't it?
If obtaining more money is the only goal, then we're on our way to a new flavor of totalitarianism, because free individuals are not as profitable as slaves are.
Now that we have, by reductio ad absurdum, demonstrated that it is necessary and appropriate to regulate the actions of businesses, we can have a productive debate about the nature of these restrictions.
Me, I think that the limited liability corporation and the securities markets should be abolished forthwith. Then we'll see how many politicians the corporate masters can purchase.