I'm very self-aware. I'm so self-aware that I realize that I don't really care what other people think, because I can't control it. I certainly can't control their emotions--that's their own lookout.
Nah, you can't, but you can influence it. Small talk is one way to do that. You're influencing it, too, but in the wrong direction.
When exactly did it become my problem?
It very much is your problem if you have to work with other people or want to have friends.
I think chitchat and small talk is useless and stupid so I usually don't engage in it. Does this mean I don't have "social skills"?
Yes, indeed it does. This may come as a surprise to you, but people aren't computers. They aren't rational, especially in how they relate to each other.
The actual content and subject of small talk usually isn't important. What you're really doing is communicating on a second, non-verbal level. You're finding out things about the other person. You both already know that the weather sucks, and you probably know where the other one is currently working, but you don't yet know him or her.
Small talk is about socialising and gaining trust. If you can't talk to people, they won't know you (even if they know everything about you). And if they don't know you, they won't trust you.
You can't work well with people who don't trust you, and you can't be friends with people who don't trust you.
Really? I thought the iPod was a single processor ARM7 derivative made by PortalPlayer called something like PP5020D
It seems the first three iPod generations had two 90 Mhz ARM7TDMI CPUs. The fourth, the mini and the photo have two 80 Mhz ARM7TDMI. This information is brought to you by this page.
The first three generations of iPod use two ARM7TDMI-derived CPUs running at 90 MHz, while later models have variable speed chips with a peak of 80 MHz to save battery life.
I think this discussion has become kind of useless as we're arguing about semantics without any chance of convincing each other. Just one small point:
But if they were only selling hardware boxes to make money, then they would give away their software for free.
They actually used to do that. Up until System 7, the OS was available for free. Even today, lots of software is included for free with each new Mac, such as the iLife suite and AppleWorks.
Apple simply doesn't make a lot of money selling software. They need the hardware sales to pay for the software development. They'd have to capture probably at least 30% of the market if they were to survive on OS sales alone, and this is not going to happen: Most people won't give up Windows which came free with their PCs, They don't want to dual-boot, they don't even want to install an OS. They use their PC the way it was set up when they opened the box. Also, Mac OS X on PCs wouldn't work as well as on Macs because Apple would have to support all kinds of additional hardware and they couldn't control the hardware configuration, and many of those who want Mac OS X would simply pirate it, just like they pirate Windows. It would kill Apple.
Maybe you want Apple to make Mac OS X for your PC because you don't want to buy a Mac but still get the advantages OS X provides. It's not going to happen.
Yes, there's software on your Mac, but it's not where the profit margin is. It's not where the money comes from. The hardware is where the profit margin is. The difference between the what it costs Apple to build a box and what they sell it for is where Apple makes its money. They aren't selling copies of Mac OS X to make money. If they were, they'd try to maximise sales of Mac OS X by making it run on PCs. They are selling hardware boxes to make money.
In order to be able to sell the boxes, they have Mac OS X. It's why people buy the boxes. So they use the profit they get from selling boxes to improve the OS.
The OS is there to sell boxes. The OS is not there to be sold.
Maybe we should take a step back. The original question was where Apple's money comes from. Apple's money comes from hardware sales. If Apple stopped making Mac hardware, half of their revenue would disappear.
If Apple were to replace that lost revenue using software sales, they'd have to sell 10 times as many OS licenses than they do now. It's not going to happen.
Nintendo has the source code to all the N64 games it developed. Overclocking the emulated video chip (and updating the game's source code where that causes a problem) would help solve the N64 frame rate problems.
True, but will they do it? Maybe it's possible that they would do it for A-list titles, I guess.
Only "overclocking" the emulated chips will probably cause problems since games may rely on the speed of the chips being constant, and fixing that problem may be quite a bit of work.
I'd rather see an original 2D Mario game. Rumor has it that one is coming out on the Nintendo DS, but last I heard was that it was going to be called "New Super Mario Brothers"
And I agree, this is a lot more exciting than remakes of the old Mario games. Still, I'm glad I'm going to have both - a new 2D Mario (after 10 years since the last one, no less!) and remakes of the originals.
I guess I just don't understand what it means to say that "Apple makes their money selling hardware".
You go to one of their stores. You buy a Mac. It's hardware. It's where Apple's profit margin is.
You probably buy the Mac because of the OS that runs on it, but that doesn't change the fact that you buy hardware, and that doesn't change the fact that hardware is where Apple's profit margin is.
First, People blame Nintendo for constantly re-using their old content. "Where's the innovation", people cry. "I've already paid for the exact same games on my NES, and now Nintendo wants me to pay again so I can play them on my GBA! And they look like crap, anyway."
So Nintendo goes and updates the graphics. That makes matters even worse, of course, because now people complain that they aren't getting the originals, the games they used to play when they were young. "I love the vintage graphics! And damn them if they even changed one single thing in the actual gameplay! Gah! Nintendo went the way of Lucas and Spielberg! Why don't you give them Koopas Walkie Talkies why you're at it!"
You can't please everyone. But I would guess that Nintendo will release both the updated version and the original version where this is applicable. I hope they do, anyway. It's good to have the choice of playing both the original and a prettier version of these classics.
Anyone know if the Revolution will increase the frame rate or will it only make the games look prettier?
I would guess that the framerate remains as it is. If there are slowdowns during parts of a game which result from the old hardware's unability to keep up with it, they will probably disappear. But the framerate of the game itself is most likely by design. It may be quite hard to speed up the framerate without speeding up the game or changing the game's code, depending on how it is written.
Those same people who view liberal media as conservative view Fox News as ultra-conservative. So that probably means Fox News is moderate.
Did it ever occur to you that it just might be exactly the other way around? Maybe you're so far to the right that even conservative papers look left to you, and the ultra-right-wing Fox News seems moderate?
I'm from Europe. Switzerland, to be precise. We're a pretty conservative bunch, but even here, a politician like Kerry would belong into one of the two right-wing parties.
I can't receive regular CNN, but even CNN International (which is supposed to be less conservative than CNN) is by far the most conservative programme on my TV.
If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace.
It's not about "a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace". It's about a constant violation of international law and about the erosion of the rights people (citizens or not) have. That most people don't care is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I see what you're saying, and I agree that the "us-vs-them"-mentality is the root of many an evil, but I do have to add a little bit of my own perspective:-)
There's a difference between your examples and Windows users who get hit by viruses. the people in Iraq didn't chose to live there, and they didn't ask for the war they're currently having. The little children didn't chose to get molested. However, Windows users usually did chose to use Windows, and those who get hit by viruses did chose not to install and/or activate protective software.
This gives a certain amount of legitimacy to people who dish out the "I-told-you-so"s when the next virus spreads among Windows users. You could even argue that it's part of educating those users...
If that's true, then they don't just make money selling hardware. They make money selling software which comes bundled with hardware.
That's just splitting hairs. I'd say it's like this:
They make money selling hardware
They sell hardware because of their software and the integration between their hard- and software.
But if Mac really was just a hardware company, like people say it is, they wouldn't have to worry about protecting their OS.
How would allowing people to run Mac OS X increase sales of Apple's computers? The opposite is true! People wouldn't have to buy Apple's hardware anymore (and as I've already pointed out, that's where Apple makes its money). They're protecting the software precisely because they make money selling hardware. They sell the hardware because of the software, but it's still the hardware where they make their money.
Isn't it unlikely they'd be keen to make it work, given that if the hardware's was any good and priced competitively, people would buy them and run Windows ?
I doubt Apple would care too much. They make money selling hardware. If you bought an Intel Mac just to run Windows on it, it's your loss, not Apple's.
Even so, Apple probably won't do anything to make it easy for those who want to run Windows on the MacIntels. They've said that they won't prevent, it either.
It's probably simply not an issue.
The reverse though, running Mac OS X on PCs, now there's a subject they probably worry about a lot:-D
When the government re-allocates confiscated wealth (tax dollars), it funds inefficient industries and gives an unfair advantage to a select few. In the US, this has never been demonstrated more clearly than government funding of the railroads: The only profitable, efficient railroad in the American West was the Great Northern, which was unsupported by government funds and financed by Henry Hill and investors.
Yeah. That must be why the american train system is so utterly awesome, while, say, the swiss publicly funded train system sucks so badly. Or maybe not.
Look at what happened in the UK when the state sold its train system to private parties. I think I made my point.
I see plenty of comments qualifying people who fall for these scams as "stupid people", "being ignorant by choice" or worse. I think we should remember a few things here:
We all have knowledge about computers that is far above average. What might be obvious to us may not be obvious to others at all.
Computers are a tool. Many of us may play with computers as an end in itself, but others use computers as a means to an end. To them, an E-Mail is very similar to a letter or a phone call. They don't know how to look at the source of the mail, and they don't know how to figure out whether a mail is legitimate or not - and frankly, I don't think they should have to.
These scams are really well done. My mail app doesn't display HTML, but if you actually open the HTML part of those mails in your browser, it looks totally legit. It's easy to see how people fall for these.
Recently, there's a new, similar scam going on where I live: it's kind of real-world fishing. People install small cameras on those ATMs, and they glue little pass-through card readers on top of the slot where you insert the card. If you use such an ATM to get money, they can read out your card data using the reader and get your pin code using the camera. These things are made in such a way that they "blend" into the ATMs interface and look like they were actually part of the ATM. Do you honestly believe that you would notice this? Do you even think of checking for something like this before getting money? Do you think that everyone should know how the different ATMs look so that they notice it when such a device is installed on them? No? Then why do you expect non-geeks to be able to discern a real mail from Pay Pal from a scam mail? Legitimate mails from many money-related web sites contain clickable links.
Even if you accept that it's the person's own fault if he gives his data to a scam artist, you should grok that you simply can't solve the problem by educating people. That's simply impossible. This is a problem that must be solved using technology. Banks should sign their mails, and mail apps should clearly notify you if a mail is not from where it purports to be. Maybe it shouldn't let the user click on links if the user doesn't have the public key for the mail. Maybe there are entirely different solutions for this problem. But one thing is clear: Educating people won't work, no matter whose fault it is.
they have to be happy with the two kinds of laptops and three screen sizes Apple gives them, whereas Linux and Windows users can choose among dozens of different models.
Uhm, yeah, but that's a totally different point.
Vendors who sell both the OS and the hardware get some of the advantages that Apple has, but they can't do some of the things which Apple can do. For example, they can't force the platform into a new direction. Apple can introduce USB across the board, and two months later, there will be plenty of hardware for it. Apple can switch the processor architecture, and all major applications will be ready for the launch. Nobody else can do this.
but I just don't believe that Apple can continue to charge twice as much as the competition
Which they never did.
Either way, switching to Intel doesn't change this. People don't buy Macs because of the specs, they buy Macs because of the OS. The fact that they can now compare the chip inside the computer to other vendors won't change that.
But a next gen console will have to last for a couple of years, 2010 is a reasonable guess as to when we will see next gen consoles.
Yeah, 5 years is reasonable. So, how often do you buy a new TV set? My girlfriend bought a new TV two months ago since her old TV (which was more than 10 years old) broke down. It's not HD. The place she bought a TV from doesn't even sell more than a few different HD TVs yet, and they cost a small fortune. She bought a really nice, big normal TV quite cheaply. I bought a beamer a year ago, and a new TV about two years ago.
I don't plan on buying a new TV in the next five years. Maybe a new beamer if I find one that's cheap and makes less noise. My girlfriend will most likely keep her new TV for at least five years, too. I guess most people keep their TVs for longer than that.
How many people will have an HD TV in 2 years? Maybe 20%? In 5 years? 50%? I don't know.
In 5 years, all consoles will be HD TV, because in 10 years, most people will have HD TVs.
Even so, how many people won't buy a Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? How many people who actually own an HD TV will not buy the Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? I would buy it either way, because I know that some of the games I want to play will only be available on it.
I guess it's all just rumors at this point. I'm sure Nintendo will think about this very hard. Not including HD TV would certainly have an impact on the sale numbers of the Revolution, but I'm not sure how big of an impact it would have.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, you can't, but you can influence it. Small talk is one way to do that. You're influencing it, too, but in the wrong direction.
It very much is your problem if you have to work with other people or want to have friends.
Yes, indeed it does. This may come as a surprise to you, but people aren't computers. They aren't rational, especially in how they relate to each other.
The actual content and subject of small talk usually isn't important. What you're really doing is communicating on a second, non-verbal level. You're finding out things about the other person. You both already know that the weather sucks, and you probably know where the other one is currently working, but you don't yet know him or her.
Small talk is about socialising and gaining trust. If you can't talk to people, they won't know you (even if they know everything about you). And if they don't know you, they won't trust you.
You can't work well with people who don't trust you, and you can't be friends with people who don't trust you.
It seems the first three iPod generations had two 90 Mhz ARM7TDMI CPUs. The fourth, the mini and the photo have two 80 Mhz ARM7TDMI. This information is brought to you by this page.
wikipedia agrees:
I think he meant the significance of UMD being approved as an ECMA standard.
I think this discussion has become kind of useless as we're arguing about semantics without any chance of convincing each other. Just one small point:
They actually used to do that. Up until System 7, the OS was available for free. Even today, lots of software is included for free with each new Mac, such as the iLife suite and AppleWorks.
Apple simply doesn't make a lot of money selling software. They need the hardware sales to pay for the software development. They'd have to capture probably at least 30% of the market if they were to survive on OS sales alone, and this is not going to happen: Most people won't give up Windows which came free with their PCs, They don't want to dual-boot, they don't even want to install an OS. They use their PC the way it was set up when they opened the box. Also, Mac OS X on PCs wouldn't work as well as on Macs because Apple would have to support all kinds of additional hardware and they couldn't control the hardware configuration, and many of those who want Mac OS X would simply pirate it, just like they pirate Windows. It would kill Apple.
Maybe you want Apple to make Mac OS X for your PC because you don't want to buy a Mac but still get the advantages OS X provides. It's not going to happen.
Yes, there's software on your Mac, but it's not where the profit margin is. It's not where the money comes from. The hardware is where the profit margin is. The difference between the what it costs Apple to build a box and what they sell it for is where Apple makes its money. They aren't selling copies of Mac OS X to make money. If they were, they'd try to maximise sales of Mac OS X by making it run on PCs. They are selling hardware boxes to make money.
In order to be able to sell the boxes, they have Mac OS X. It's why people buy the boxes. So they use the profit they get from selling boxes to improve the OS.
The OS is there to sell boxes. The OS is not there to be sold.
Maybe we should take a step back. The original question was where Apple's money comes from. Apple's money comes from hardware sales. If Apple stopped making Mac hardware, half of their revenue would disappear.
If Apple were to replace that lost revenue using software sales, they'd have to sell 10 times as many OS licenses than they do now. It's not going to happen.
True, but will they do it? Maybe it's possible that they would do it for A-list titles, I guess.
Only "overclocking" the emulated chips will probably cause problems since games may rely on the speed of the chips being constant, and fixing that problem may be quite a bit of work.
It's not rumors, it's official. There's even a gameplay movie from Nintendo itself. It looks really cool.
And I agree, this is a lot more exciting than remakes of the old Mario games. Still, I'm glad I'm going to have both - a new 2D Mario (after 10 years since the last one, no less!) and remakes of the originals.
It's a good time to be a 2D Jump-N-Run-fan :-)
2 out of 7 are leftist. 2 are ultra-right, 2 right, 1 christian.
Switzerland has a government with 2 members from the FDP, which opposes state intervention in social and economic affairs. There are two members from the SVP, which is an ultra-right-wing party which is socially and fiscally conservative (although secular in outlook). It is in favour of traditional family values, tough penal laws, strict immigration limits, deregulation and reduced government spending. One member is from the CVP, which is a christian party and originally represented the conservative, mostly Catholic opponents of the liberal Swiss state founded in 1848. Only two members are from a leftist (democratic) party.
Many Euopean governments are similar. How can anyone claim that this is a left-wing government?
It's simply absurd.
You go to one of their stores. You buy a Mac. It's hardware. It's where Apple's profit margin is.
You probably buy the Mac because of the OS that runs on it, but that doesn't change the fact that you buy hardware, and that doesn't change the fact that hardware is where Apple's profit margin is.
First, People blame Nintendo for constantly re-using their old content. "Where's the innovation", people cry. "I've already paid for the exact same games on my NES, and now Nintendo wants me to pay again so I can play them on my GBA! And they look like crap, anyway."
So Nintendo goes and updates the graphics. That makes matters even worse, of course, because now people complain that they aren't getting the originals, the games they used to play when they were young. "I love the vintage graphics! And damn them if they even changed one single thing in the actual gameplay! Gah! Nintendo went the way of Lucas and Spielberg! Why don't you give them Koopas Walkie Talkies why you're at it!"
You can't please everyone. But I would guess that Nintendo will release both the updated version and the original version where this is applicable. I hope they do, anyway. It's good to have the choice of playing both the original and a prettier version of these classics.
I would guess that the framerate remains as it is. If there are slowdowns during parts of a game which result from the old hardware's unability to keep up with it, they will probably disappear. But the framerate of the game itself is most likely by design. It may be quite hard to speed up the framerate without speeding up the game or changing the game's code, depending on how it is written.
Did it ever occur to you that it just might be exactly the other way around? Maybe you're so far to the right that even conservative papers look left to you, and the ultra-right-wing Fox News seems moderate?
I'm from Europe. Switzerland, to be precise. We're a pretty conservative bunch, but even here, a politician like Kerry would belong into one of the two right-wing parties.
I can't receive regular CNN, but even CNN International (which is supposed to be less conservative than CNN) is by far the most conservative programme on my TV.
It's not about "a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace". It's about a constant violation of international law and about the erosion of the rights people (citizens or not) have. That most people don't care is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Haha, LOL! Thanks, buddy, you made my day. Funniest post today. Wait, why the hell is that moderated "Insightful"?
Listen, do you even know what "socialists" are? Apparently everyone left of Bush, huh?
I see what you're saying, and I agree that the "us-vs-them"-mentality is the root of many an evil, but I do have to add a little bit of my own perspective :-)
There's a difference between your examples and Windows users who get hit by viruses. the people in Iraq didn't chose to live there, and they didn't ask for the war they're currently having. The little children didn't chose to get molested. However, Windows users usually did chose to use Windows, and those who get hit by viruses did chose not to install and/or activate protective software.
This gives a certain amount of legitimacy to people who dish out the "I-told-you-so"s when the next virus spreads among Windows users. You could even argue that it's part of educating those users...
Oh, and The Flash is definitely faster :-D
That's just splitting hairs. I'd say it's like this:
How would allowing people to run Mac OS X increase sales of Apple's computers? The opposite is true! People wouldn't have to buy Apple's hardware anymore (and as I've already pointed out, that's where Apple makes its money). They're protecting the software precisely because they make money selling hardware. They sell the hardware because of the software, but it's still the hardware where they make their money.
I doubt Apple would care too much. They make money selling hardware. If you bought an Intel Mac just to run Windows on it, it's your loss, not Apple's.
Even so, Apple probably won't do anything to make it easy for those who want to run Windows on the MacIntels. They've said that they won't prevent, it either.
It's probably simply not an issue.
The reverse though, running Mac OS X on PCs, now there's a subject they probably worry about a lot :-D
You're confusing Spiderman with Batman :-)
Yeah. That must be why the american train system is so utterly awesome, while, say, the swiss publicly funded train system sucks so badly. Or maybe not.
Look at what happened in the UK when the state sold its train system to private parties. I think I made my point.
I see plenty of comments qualifying people who fall for these scams as "stupid people", "being ignorant by choice" or worse. I think we should remember a few things here:
Recently, there's a new, similar scam going on where I live: it's kind of real-world fishing. People install small cameras on those ATMs, and they glue little pass-through card readers on top of the slot where you insert the card. If you use such an ATM to get money, they can read out your card data using the reader and get your pin code using the camera. These things are made in such a way that they "blend" into the ATMs interface and look like they were actually part of the ATM. Do you honestly believe that you would notice this? Do you even think of checking for something like this before getting money? Do you think that everyone should know how the different ATMs look so that they notice it when such a device is installed on them? No? Then why do you expect non-geeks to be able to discern a real mail from Pay Pal from a scam mail? Legitimate mails from many money-related web sites contain clickable links.
Even if you accept that it's the person's own fault if he gives his data to a scam artist, you should grok that you simply can't solve the problem by educating people. That's simply impossible. This is a problem that must be solved using technology. Banks should sign their mails, and mail apps should clearly notify you if a mail is not from where it purports to be. Maybe it shouldn't let the user click on links if the user doesn't have the public key for the mail. Maybe there are entirely different solutions for this problem. But one thing is clear: Educating people won't work, no matter whose fault it is.
Uhm, yeah, but that's a totally different point.
Vendors who sell both the OS and the hardware get some of the advantages that Apple has, but they can't do some of the things which Apple can do. For example, they can't force the platform into a new direction. Apple can introduce USB across the board, and two months later, there will be plenty of hardware for it. Apple can switch the processor architecture, and all major applications will be ready for the launch. Nobody else can do this.
Which they never did.
Either way, switching to Intel doesn't change this. People don't buy Macs because of the specs, they buy Macs because of the OS. The fact that they can now compare the chip inside the computer to other vendors won't change that.
Yeah, 5 years is reasonable. So, how often do you buy a new TV set? My girlfriend bought a new TV two months ago since her old TV (which was more than 10 years old) broke down. It's not HD. The place she bought a TV from doesn't even sell more than a few different HD TVs yet, and they cost a small fortune. She bought a really nice, big normal TV quite cheaply. I bought a beamer a year ago, and a new TV about two years ago.
I don't plan on buying a new TV in the next five years. Maybe a new beamer if I find one that's cheap and makes less noise. My girlfriend will most likely keep her new TV for at least five years, too. I guess most people keep their TVs for longer than that.
How many people will have an HD TV in 2 years? Maybe 20%? In 5 years? 50%? I don't know.
In 5 years, all consoles will be HD TV, because in 10 years, most people will have HD TVs.
Even so, how many people won't buy a Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? How many people who actually own an HD TV will not buy the Revolution if it doesn't support HD TV? I would buy it either way, because I know that some of the games I want to play will only be available on it.
I guess it's all just rumors at this point. I'm sure Nintendo will think about this very hard. Not including HD TV would certainly have an impact on the sale numbers of the Revolution, but I'm not sure how big of an impact it would have.