"We planned to have our next generation iMac ready by the time the inventory of current iMacs runs out in the next few weeks, but our planning was obviously less than perfect."
What makes you think this is anything less than PR filtering? A big part of Apple's PR strategy is the branding themselves as a friendly corporation vs. the evil Microsoft. Pound for pound, however, I suspect Apple spends just as much on PR as Microsoft does. Now this shouldn't count against Macs; I encourage everyone to make decisions based upon the available technology and individual needs. But if your new "respect" for Apple makes you more likely to buy a shiny new Mac, well, you're a tool.
How many would use an official ad-encumbered client if one was available for your prefered environment?
I wouldn't use some adware client, regardless of the environment. I resent the transparent and ultimately futile attempts that advertisers bombard me with every day, and there's no way I'm going to let it distract me from online conversations. Of course, I don't go around posting my market-research questions on Slashdot under the pretense that I'm adding to the discussion, either. If I were anywhere near that worthless, then yeah, bring on the ads.
Maybe I'll move to India. It's probably easier to get a job there anyway.
One of the principle reasons for the upset was the fact that much of India's economic progress was due to their "in-sourcing" of foreign tech jobs. Well, at least that was the appearance to the working poor in India. The new party is going to try to spread out India's economic success to a greater percentage of the population. In short, there's a very good chance India's economy is about to tank. Between that and your snide melodrama, your employment opportunities aren't very good.
I feel your pain. However, I've been getting pretty good at deciphering this stuff lately. Let me give it a shot:
This release contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements.
What follows are half-assed guesses.
These statements appear in a number of places in this release and include all statements that are not statements of historical fact regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company, its directors or its officers with respect to, among other things: (i) the Company's financing plans; (ii) trends affecting the Company's financial condition or results of operations; (iii) the Company's growth strategy and operating strategy; and (iv) the declaration and payment of dividends.
We don't believe this shit, but we expect you to. Everything contained in this document is marketing drivel, and by stating that, we hope to protect ourselves from accounting fraud/stock manipulation.
The words may, would, will, expect, estimate, anticipate, believe, intend, and similar expressions and variations thereof are intended to identify forward-looking statements.
None of this will ever be true, but we look forward to your money!
Investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's ability to control, and that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.
We have no idea what we're doing. We really have no control over this project. Putting your money into our hands is like playing the hardway lines on a craps table.
But how could our IT association impose an artificial cap on the number of IT workers in the country? I want a high "association" wage too! I guess we need to figure out a way to make IT a necessary service to people so we can milk it like the doctors and lawyers.
Are you planning on becoming a geography buff? When I did this, at least half of the random pages were entries for some small city I had never heard of and don't ever plan on visiting. It would be a much better idea if the Wiki folks would do a random page without this stuff.
Throwing a box in the microwave isn't cooking. Similarily, hitting keys on your keyboard isn't making music.
I really have nothing against the idea, but if your only exposure to an instrument is a keyboard and various samples, the end result might not be terribly interesting. But neither is microwaved food.
Given the average quality of music put out by aspiring musicians on the internet today, I think the bar for becoming a musician needs to be higher, not lower.
I wasn't entirely clear, then. The difference arises from the tubes/transistors being distorted. In an audio system, the goal is to reproduce the sound as cleanly as possible, without distortion. Tubes in an audio amplifier "color" the sound into something more sonically desirable, but do so at the expense of clairity (imho). Guitar amps are purposely "pushed" into a stage of distortion, and this sound far better with a tube amp.
And I didn't claim music could be quantified; I claimed that sound quality could be quantified. But to open another can of worms, music theory is the quantification of music in a way, but in the end, it's all too subjective to withstand a rigorous scientific definition.
Quiet you! You'll run it for all of us! Getting around without a watch only works when the rest of the timepiece slaves willingly chain themselves and give us the time when asked to do so!
From the article: "Vacuum tubes Audiophiles have sustained another technology that's even older than magnetic tape. In the 1970s, compact, energy-efficient transistors boded to replace vacuum tubes entirely. But transistors couldn't satisfy some guitar players and hi-fi cognoscenti."
As a guitar player, I'm insulted that this article lumps me in with the conspicuously-consuming audiophiles that drop hundreds of dollars on cleverly marketed cables. Tubes aren't an imaginary sound modifier in guitar amps, they are universally agreed to distort (clip) in much nicer ways when sent an overpowered signal compared to transistors. Only now in the 21st century are we beginning to see digital amps that can compete with this "ancient" technology. The article is correct that the consumer-level tube market is helped along by musicians, but the reasons have nothing to do with Audiophile-type superstition that seems to be implied. The tube vs. solid state harmonic patterns are quantitively different, and empirically better. I would no go so far as to label us as the cognoscenti, but rather people who aren't obviously deaf (and anyone here who has heard a clipping solid state amp will agree).
Bullshit. A friend of mine was leaving a nightclub once, and he swore he saw couple rj-45 connectors and an ide cable in the parking lot leading to a wooded area.
No. Running up a defecit is not Keynesian economics. Running up a deficit either during a slump or to encourage a slumping sector/industry is called Keynesian Pump Priming. Keynesian economics is a complex economic theory practiced by many economists today. Keynes was a visionary in the field of economics whose theory would later help to explain many of the economic irregularities present in the 70's and 80's around the world. If you learn economics from an undergrad-level text, you're generally learning from Keynes and those who refined his theories.
All of the news thus far looks to come right off of the press release put out by the pharmaceutical company funding the initial front. I have no doubt this is wonderful information for the relevant shareholders/venture capitalists.
But what about his work leading up to this? I don't read the microbiology journals (not that I would understand them), but I'll bet someone around here does. Is anything relevant to this project peer-reviewed? Have any of his methods been reproduced? Is there anything published relating to this project?
I don't want to sound too skeptical here, but this could be a seriously exciting discovery if 25% of the PR release were to be realized. But until I see some proof (and not a patent award, thanks), I'm going to assume this "scientific discovery" is another turkey-intestines into fuel story.
I don't want any government oversight of the Internet. I'll take the money-hungry private interests over the politicians, thank you. I know it's not a popular idea, but businesses represent a more democratic (albeit indirect) control of the Internet.
With businesses running things (as is mostly the case today), we have a system in which the "technological elite" exercise the greatest control over the Internet. You and I are the driving force between the everything-routes-everywhere phenomena seen today in the Free World. We won't subscribe to an ISP that only gives us their 37% of the Internet. We don't do business with ISP's that openly censor controversial content (though there are a few stupid exceptions).
Any sort of Government control threatens this. I don't want an Internet where the U.S. is "protected" from visiting "terrorist" nations. I don't want an Internet where this week's dissenting European ally doesn't route our data. I don't want the largest parties in democracies using mob-rule to determine what is and is not appropriate.
What I want is decentralized chaos. The less control exerted by any one agency, the better off we all are. Given the difficult choice between the Governments and private sectors, I'll take the private sectors. At least their motives are clear and susceptible to genuine democratic influence (money)--not to gov't propaganda and international politicking.
I could reinforce my arguement with links, but they would be to sites that don't exist anymore. There may be some true independant games journalism left on the Internet, but they won't be of sufficient size to matter. It's a complex situation: the game companies often give the exclusive previews and ad money to the pseudo-journalists like Gamespy. And people want that up-to-date content, slant and bias be damned.
You're incorrect. We went from having zero independent sources to having zero independent sources. IGN is the worst, with a notable proportion between a game's advertising and its review score. Gamespy's reviews have been better (their console reviews are quite decent), but they are the model for what's wrong with the Internet today.
Gamespy is the ultimate consumer-feeding media machine. You don't go to Gamespy to find out what's cool; you go to Gamespy to be told what's cool. It's the online equivalent of MTV, complete with drooling fandroids absorbing the mindless consumerism that the advertisers want. That's all Gamespy is--one large, expertly crafted advertisement. There's no original or meaningful contribution to the Internet there. They take mod/map authors' work and basically sell it (specifically, they sell bandwidth to it).
They cater to the absolute lowest denominator of the public. There is never an engaging idea, never a meaningful news item, rarely a forum conversation with a coherent theme on Gamespy. I could understand if it was mainly kids there (as it was in years past), but I'm honestly concerned about the state of gaming when I look at the intellectual midgets that populate Gamespy today.
I don't think people see it. It's right fucking there, all in the open. Read. A game being announced is news. A game being released is news. A game being patched is news. Never mind it was broken in the first place!
Each and every aspect of Gamespy has two purposes: the first, to gently shape the visitors' thought, to encourage them to buy; second, to show the advertisers what type of people visit Gamespy--those that can't differentiate between an advertisement and a news story!
Yes, I'm disappointed too. Not because two companies have turned to one, though. I'm disappointed by the fact that Gamespy has enough visitors (and hence ad revenue) to grow. Gamers of the past were more discriminate and more demanding from gaming journalism. This newest batch of gamers has shown a new trait. They don't think. They just listen.
I'd like a little elaboration, if you know anything else about having mod priviledges revoked. I've hit the karma cap plenty of times (and lost it due to -1's) and I ended up losing my mod abilities. I thought it might have been due to a couple inflammatory posts, but now I'm wondering. I gave up mod abilities in my preferences page two years ago, and last year I re-checked it to keep some of the astroturfers down and non-groupthinkers up. In the last year, despite meta-modding consistently and (usually) being a good citizen, I haven't been asked to mod once. It's a little aggravating, especially during those times when people get mod'd up for things that don't belong in a rational debate.
I doubt the post was a troll. It was a good critique of the current mindset vs. the internet. The fuckwit mods, of course, missed it. It was missing 'M$', "RIAA is tech SUckz', or an out-of-context quote from someone famous. I'm not too bitter though. I rather enjoy browing at -1 these days.
Slashdot Mirror
"We planned to have our next generation iMac ready by the time the inventory of current iMacs runs out in the next few weeks, but our planning was obviously less than perfect."
What makes you think this is anything less than PR filtering? A big part of Apple's PR strategy is the branding themselves as a friendly corporation vs. the evil Microsoft. Pound for pound, however, I suspect Apple spends just as much on PR as Microsoft does. Now this shouldn't count against Macs; I encourage everyone to make decisions based upon the available technology and individual needs. But if your new "respect" for Apple makes you more likely to buy a shiny new Mac, well, you're a tool.
How many would use an official ad-encumbered client if one was available for your prefered environment?
I wouldn't use some adware client, regardless of the environment. I resent the transparent and ultimately futile attempts that advertisers bombard me with every day, and there's no way I'm going to let it distract me from online conversations. Of course, I don't go around posting my market-research questions on Slashdot under the pretense that I'm adding to the discussion, either. If I were anywhere near that worthless, then yeah, bring on the ads.
Agreed! If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my dog!
Maybe I'll move to India. It's probably easier to get a job there anyway.
One of the principle reasons for the upset was the fact that much of India's economic progress was due to their "in-sourcing" of foreign tech jobs. Well, at least that was the appearance to the working poor in India. The new party is going to try to spread out India's economic success to a greater percentage of the population. In short, there's a very good chance India's economy is about to tank. Between that and your snide melodrama, your employment opportunities aren't very good.
from the ask-me-again-when-you-have-a-250-gig-version dept.
From the article:
Key Features:
250GB, 160GB, or 80GB Capacities (reviewed item has 80GB capacity)
I guess I shouldn't fault Taco here. I'm sure he's busy fending off job offers from the Times, Post, WSJ, etc.
I feel your pain. However, I've been getting pretty good at deciphering this stuff lately. Let me give it a shot:
This release contains statements that constitute forward-looking statements.
What follows are half-assed guesses.
These statements appear in a number of places in this release and include all statements that are not statements of historical fact regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of the Company, its directors or its officers with respect to, among other things: (i) the Company's financing plans; (ii) trends affecting the Company's financial condition or results of operations; (iii) the Company's growth strategy and operating strategy; and (iv) the declaration and payment of dividends.
We don't believe this shit, but we expect you to. Everything contained in this document is marketing drivel, and by stating that, we hope to protect ourselves from accounting fraud/stock manipulation.
The words may, would, will, expect, estimate, anticipate, believe, intend, and similar expressions and variations thereof are intended to identify forward-looking statements.
None of this will ever be true, but we look forward to your money!
Investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company's ability to control, and that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors.
We have no idea what we're doing. We really have no control over this project. Putting your money into our hands is like playing the hardway lines on a craps table.
IPv6 is immune, and in a grand display of irony, IPX/SPX is also safe.
But how could our IT association impose an artificial cap on the number of IT workers in the country? I want a high "association" wage too! I guess we need to figure out a way to make IT a necessary service to people so we can milk it like the doctors and lawyers.
Type your query into the box, then hit the tab key twice to get to the "Search the Web" button.
Are you planning on becoming a geography buff? When I did this, at least half of the random pages were entries for some small city I had never heard of and don't ever plan on visiting. It would be a much better idea if the Wiki folks would do a random page without this stuff.
Throwing a box in the microwave isn't cooking. Similarily, hitting keys on your keyboard isn't making music.
I really have nothing against the idea, but if your only exposure to an instrument is a keyboard and various samples, the end result might not be terribly interesting. But neither is microwaved food.
Given the average quality of music put out by aspiring musicians on the internet today, I think the bar for becoming a musician needs to be higher, not lower.
From HGC's page:"Sophisticated technology ensures no leaking of data leakage during transmission."
This is comforting technology. I'd hate to wake up one morning and find a bunch of 1's and 0's leaking out of my wall.
The law realm tries its damndest to be exacting which costs expedience[...]
I think that could be more accurately phrased: The law realm tries its damndest to cost, which happens to be exacting.
I wasn't entirely clear, then. The difference arises from the tubes/transistors being distorted. In an audio system, the goal is to reproduce the sound as cleanly as possible, without distortion. Tubes in an audio amplifier "color" the sound into something more sonically desirable, but do so at the expense of clairity (imho). Guitar amps are purposely "pushed" into a stage of distortion, and this sound far better with a tube amp.
And I didn't claim music could be quantified; I claimed that sound quality could be quantified. But to open another can of worms, music theory is the quantification of music in a way, but in the end, it's all too subjective to withstand a rigorous scientific definition.
Quiet you! You'll run it for all of us! Getting around without a watch only works when the rest of the timepiece slaves willingly chain themselves and give us the time when asked to do so!
From the article: "Vacuum tubes Audiophiles have sustained another technology that's even older than magnetic tape. In the 1970s, compact, energy-efficient transistors boded to replace vacuum tubes entirely. But transistors couldn't satisfy some guitar players and hi-fi cognoscenti."
As a guitar player, I'm insulted that this article lumps me in with the conspicuously-consuming audiophiles that drop hundreds of dollars on cleverly marketed cables. Tubes aren't an imaginary sound modifier in guitar amps, they are universally agreed to distort (clip) in much nicer ways when sent an overpowered signal compared to transistors. Only now in the 21st century are we beginning to see digital amps that can compete with this "ancient" technology. The article is correct that the consumer-level tube market is helped along by musicians, but the reasons have nothing to do with Audiophile-type superstition that seems to be implied. The tube vs. solid state harmonic patterns are quantitively different, and empirically better. I would no go so far as to label us as the cognoscenti, but rather people who aren't obviously deaf (and anyone here who has heard a clipping solid state amp will agree).
Bullshit. A friend of mine was leaving a nightclub once, and he swore he saw couple rj-45 connectors and an ide cable in the parking lot leading to a wooded area.
No. Running up a defecit is not Keynesian economics. Running up a deficit either during a slump or to encourage a slumping sector/industry is called Keynesian Pump Priming. Keynesian economics is a complex economic theory practiced by many economists today. Keynes was a visionary in the field of economics whose theory would later help to explain many of the economic irregularities present in the 70's and 80's around the world. If you learn economics from an undergrad-level text, you're generally learning from Keynes and those who refined his theories.
All of the news thus far looks to come right off of the press release put out by the pharmaceutical company funding the initial front. I have no doubt this is wonderful information for the relevant shareholders/venture capitalists.
But what about his work leading up to this? I don't read the microbiology journals (not that I would understand them), but I'll bet someone around here does. Is anything relevant to this project peer-reviewed? Have any of his methods been reproduced? Is there anything published relating to this project?
I don't want to sound too skeptical here, but this could be a seriously exciting discovery if 25% of the PR release were to be realized. But until I see some proof (and not a patent award, thanks), I'm going to assume this "scientific discovery" is another turkey-intestines into fuel story.
I don't want any government oversight of the Internet. I'll take the money-hungry private interests over the politicians, thank you. I know it's not a popular idea, but businesses represent a more democratic (albeit indirect) control of the Internet.
With businesses running things (as is mostly the case today), we have a system in which the "technological elite" exercise the greatest control over the Internet. You and I are the driving force between the everything-routes-everywhere phenomena seen today in the Free World. We won't subscribe to an ISP that only gives us their 37% of the Internet. We don't do business with ISP's that openly censor controversial content (though there are a few stupid exceptions).
Any sort of Government control threatens this. I don't want an Internet where the U.S. is "protected" from visiting "terrorist" nations. I don't want an Internet where this week's dissenting European ally doesn't route our data. I don't want the largest parties in democracies using mob-rule to determine what is and is not appropriate.
What I want is decentralized chaos. The less control exerted by any one agency, the better off we all are. Given the difficult choice between the Governments and private sectors, I'll take the private sectors. At least their motives are clear and susceptible to genuine democratic influence (money)--not to gov't propaganda and international politicking.
I could reinforce my arguement with links, but they would be to sites that don't exist anymore. There may be some true independant games journalism left on the Internet, but they won't be of sufficient size to matter. It's a complex situation: the game companies often give the exclusive previews and ad money to the pseudo-journalists like Gamespy. And people want that up-to-date content, slant and bias be damned.
You're incorrect. We went from having zero independent sources to having zero independent sources. IGN is the worst, with a notable proportion between a game's advertising and its review score. Gamespy's reviews have been better (their console reviews are quite decent), but they are the model for what's wrong with the Internet today.
Gamespy is the ultimate consumer-feeding media machine. You don't go to Gamespy to find out what's cool; you go to Gamespy to be told what's cool. It's the online equivalent of MTV, complete with drooling fandroids absorbing the mindless consumerism that the advertisers want. That's all Gamespy is--one large, expertly crafted advertisement. There's no original or meaningful contribution to the Internet there. They take mod/map authors' work and basically sell it (specifically, they sell bandwidth to it).
They cater to the absolute lowest denominator of the public. There is never an engaging idea, never a meaningful news item, rarely a forum conversation with a coherent theme on Gamespy. I could understand if it was mainly kids there (as it was in years past), but I'm honestly concerned about the state of gaming when I look at the intellectual midgets that populate Gamespy today.
I don't think people see it. It's right fucking there, all in the open. Read. A game being announced is news. A game being released is news. A game being patched is news. Never mind it was broken in the first place!
Each and every aspect of Gamespy has two purposes: the first, to gently shape the visitors' thought, to encourage them to buy; second, to show the advertisers what type of people visit Gamespy--those that can't differentiate between an advertisement and a news story!
Yes, I'm disappointed too. Not because two companies have turned to one, though. I'm disappointed by the fact that Gamespy has enough visitors (and hence ad revenue) to grow. Gamers of the past were more discriminate and more demanding from gaming journalism. This newest batch of gamers has shown a new trait. They don't think. They just listen.
I'd like a little elaboration, if you know anything else about having mod priviledges revoked. I've hit the karma cap plenty of times (and lost it due to -1's) and I ended up losing my mod abilities. I thought it might have been due to a couple inflammatory posts, but now I'm wondering. I gave up mod abilities in my preferences page two years ago, and last year I re-checked it to keep some of the astroturfers down and non-groupthinkers up. In the last year, despite meta-modding consistently and (usually) being a good citizen, I haven't been asked to mod once. It's a little aggravating, especially during those times when people get mod'd up for things that don't belong in a rational debate.
I doubt the post was a troll. It was a good critique of the current mindset vs. the internet. The fuckwit mods, of course, missed it. It was missing 'M$', "RIAA is tech SUckz', or an out-of-context quote from someone famous. I'm not too bitter though. I rather enjoy browing at -1 these days.