Be as sarcastic about those comments from the OP as you want but then go ahead and name one company with all those elements in place the way Apple has them. I've been of the opinion that Apple is furtively lining things up to introduce a video/movie service a la iTunes for quite some time. Add in to the equation the fact that the iPod is clearly moving in a multimedia direction (photo capabilities, connecting to the TV) and Apple is unveiling products that allow you to stream content wirelessly across your home to the stereo, and the fact that they are quietly moving all of their displays and computers to a widescreen format and you've got all the indications that they are lining things up for something to do with movies or video. I don't claim to know exactly what it is, but something's coming.
Oh and never mind that they keep relentlessly plodding forward with the video technology like Pixlet and Core Video.
So, yeah, go ahead and scoff. A lot of people scoffed at the iPod and iTunes at first too. However, to those of us paying attention, this almost seems obvious at this point.
If you are actually interested in the type of women who require a guy who have a certain type of car before being interested in him, you have bigger problems to worry about than gas mileage.
Sorry you didn't enjoy the film. I loved it, and I have no concern for your respect for me so make of it what you will. I think a lot moviegoers had unreasonably high expectations on these films and couldn't come to grips with the fact that they weren't the perfect, cinematic, life-changing thrill-ride that they dreamed of.
I think I'll pass.
For that, I thank you. If you think you'll hate this movie, then for God's sake, skip it. I hope lots of people who hated the prequels follow your lead. That will be fewer people to piss in the pool afterward.
Interesting timing of these headline-grabbing announcements... especially given that OS X's latest version was just released, and it has effectively trumped Windows XP on many levels where Microsoft's superiority was presumed unbeatable. (Not just IMO, there are loads of articles popping up everywhere to back that up.)
All of that is certainly true. Nobody claimed that Gore did the technical work in the creation of the Internet. He's a damn politician. Most of them are useless. What Gore gets recognition for is having the vision and knowledge to understand how important this stuff was and fighting for its funding and supporting it (this is all a matter of public record--you only need to look into it) long before the Internet was a household term or its value was proved to the general public and Gore's peers. (Hell, there are politicians who still don't get the Internet... *cough* Orrin Hatch *cough*)
So anyway, go ahead and explain why the ARPANET guys felt Gore should be invited. You didn't actually address that fact. Your argument lies with them and their reasoning, not me. And the fact that he was invited is a matter of public record as well.
If all of this is just a scheme by the so-called liberal media and by Al Gore, why is it that Gore was invited to the 25th anniversary of the first ARPANET node which was intended only for those directly involved in the project or those who were deemed to have contributed in some significant way--either technologically or in terms of leadership or support (i.e, as a well-informed politician might)? What, were the ARPANET guys also victim to the dastardly liberal media too?
The guest list included a lot of names we all know nowadays as synonymous with creation of the Internet. Invitations to this event were not handed out to just anyone and there was even some debate as to whether or not to invite Bill Gates (eventually, they did but he turned it down because he wasn't convinced that the Internet was going to be important. Heh-heh....)
Any of you knee-jerk righties out there want to offer up some ideas as to why Gore was invited? Any revisionist, Rush Limbaugh-like theories out there?
And you can look it up in several sources if you don't believe me. The one I have immediately at hand is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet" by Hafner and Lyon (p. 260 for those of you too lazy to flip through the index.) There are other sources out there for that info too. So please, before bashing Gore for supposedly specious claims about his involvement in the development of the Internet, know what you're talking about.
Cannot believe such a brainless comment got modded "interesting." I guess you just throw in a few links and it looks like you know what you're talking about.
Design encompasses more than just looks and Apple has an understanding and mastery of all aspects of design that is light-years beyond anyone else in the industry... hell, light-years beyond most companies in any industry. Have you ever actually sat down and used one of these machines? It would only take a few minutes of usage to figure out that just as much thought has gone into how it works as how it looks.
And yet, Apple critics continue to focus on how "pretty" the machines are, all the while accusing Mac users of being hung up on looks... oblivious to the irony of their own accusations. In fact, it is precisely those who can't see beyond the aesthetics of the machine's looks who are hung up on it. The rest of us take it as icing on the cake.
Yes and in some cases these early screenings result in re-edits based on audience feedback which may or may not be a good thing. There's nothing particularly brave about this. It's part of the marketing process.
Two Dvorak articles in two days??? Are the Slashdot editors trying to punish us? Dvorak is CLUELESS. Almost nothing he writes turns out to be accurate or worthwhile. Can we leave him to impress the tech illiterates out there with his know-nothing, pulling-it-outta-my-ass pronouncements and instead post links to more interesting stuff?
I mean, seriously. Why not just post to some 15-year-old script kiddies blogs? That would be just as enlightening.
Yeah, this guy has been right about things about.02% of the time. He has almost no credibility with me. Why his "work" still makes it into print is a mystery.
You clearly have no idea how complicated it is to produce a product and launch it through various retail outlets, but then to suggest that Apple has an even more complex mechanism overriding it all to orchestrate some fake error for the purpose of free publicity is just ludicrous. So many people would have had to have been involved that it would have been known well ahead of time (Apple rumor sites catch these things easily) and it would have required that those outlets who made the "mistake" accept that they will look incompetent for it. It's quite unlikely this was done on purpose. So yes, unless you have some evidence to throw down, it is tinfoil hat talk.
...that Windows NT had symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) and pre-emptive multitasking way back in 1995, which the Mac didn't have until the first release of OSX over 6 years later...
Are you implying that Microsoft created SMP and PMT? I don't see what point you're trying to make.
Best PR piece ever, look at all the rabid Mac fanboys foaming at the mouth and blindly sprouting nonsense about how only Apple could have come up with such "innovations!"
Um... yeah, I'm looking around. Don't see many of 'em. Can you point out a few?
I love when people on Slashdot make sweeping statements about the tone of a given discussion without even stopping to read a few examples or assuming the one or two examples they scanned briefly are representative of the whole. I don't see much in terms of defensiveness about Apple here at all. Most of what's here seems pretty level-headed.
Speculation from tech writers should be ignored. End of story. I can't think of the last article I have ever read that turned out to be true. Particularly for me, as a long-time Mac user, I think back over all those doom-and-gloom stories about Apple being at the end of its road and it makes me wonder why anyone still gives this stuff any credibility at all. The popular horse to beat seems to be Linux lately which, frankly, just makes me more and more interested it in. The more I hear about how it's going to go down or how it's linked to communism or how it's unamerican or blah blah blah, the more I become convinced that someone with real power is frightened to death of it. Therefore, for me, it's damn interesting.
In fact, I just installed Yellow Dog Linux on an old G3 I had at work with the blessings of my superiors. I'm still a newbie, but that will change over the coming year. I will decide for myself (as I think everyone should) whether or not Linux can compete with Windows.
There have been rumors since before the release of Jaguar (10.2) that Apple was going to include the ability to use UI themes but no mention of changing Aqua has ever surfaced in anything official (as far as I know.) Presumably, the ability to change themes is hidden in OS X somewhere, but it's never had a user interface put on it. Maybe this is a side-effect of that. Maybe these "expert users" can tinker with the inner working of OS X to access those rumored theme features and can plug more Unix-like interfaces into it. Who knows?
I've always enjoyed the ability to use themes. I wish Apple would spare a little development time on OS X to include it. It's frivolous, but anything that makes an interface more personalized can't hurt.
Exactly. If you want proof that you're right about that, go watch the message boards at theforce.net for a while and you'll see fans coming around to the fact that the prequels aren't nearly as bad as they initially felt. The movies simply eluded their ridiculously high expectations. Upon repeated viewings, it becomes clear that they're actually quite good movies and some of the fans who overreacted are starting to quietly come around.
And yes, lots of people complained about the originals.
Any film made from any books that have a huge, fanatical fan-following is bound to get reactionary reviews. I'll go see the movie and decide for myself.
Really bad. You just won't believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly
bad it is. I mean, you might think that The Phantom Menace was a hopelessly
misguided attempt to reinvent a much-loved franchise by people who, though
well-intentioned, completely failed to understand what made the original
popular
This makes my point exactly. I loved The Phantom Menace from the first time I saw it and it gets better every time I see it. I just watched it a month ago and it was a blast. I see that same sentiment all over various Star Wars discussion forums from people who claimed at first to have been disgusted with the film. The more they watch The Phantom Menace, the more they come to like it, to realize that their initial judgment against it was way off base. Fans (over)reacted negatively to it not because it was a bad film per se, but because it wasn't the film they expected.
I suspect that will be the case with Hitchhiker's Guide too--huge, fanatical fan following who won't accept anything short of the absolute perfect film they can see in their own mind. And that ain't gonna happen. I feel sorry for the less-uptight fans of the book who might actually enjoy the film and will have to defend their point of view.
NPR had this Tolkien fanatic on a few weeks after the release of Fellowship of the Ring film who was tearing the film apart for being a complete fuck-up. When pressed why, he would cite the most esoteric shit from the book that was left out of the film.
Yeah, hardcore Star Wars fans are easy targets, but many of these early line-ups (especially the high profile ones in bigger areas) are tied into charity efforts. I'm not sure if the one here is or not, but I wouldn't be surprised, given the venue. Some of the fans get together and have people sponsor them to stand in line for a specific charity, the same way you might for a sports events or whatnot. It's no different... people doing what they love and others supporting them (and their chosen charity) with pledges. It's actually very cool. Everyone comes out happy.
But yeah, go ahead and mock them, if it makes you feel superior.
And btw, the old "never kissed a girl" stereotype of SW fans hasn't been true for ages--if ever at all. All of the hardcore SW fans I know are also very well-adjusted and socially adept. They just happen to like a particular movie. Funny, I don't see these accusations of rampant virginity being slung around when we're talking about The Lord of the Rings films and yet, that seems to be about the same class of fans from what I can tell.
But again... it's all about feeling superior. I know. Go ahead and mock them. And feel really good about yourself when you do it too. You deserve it.
You know, for all the legitimate reasons to bash Steve Jobs, it's strange to see people going after him for the way he runs Pixar. Seems to me, from what I've read and heard, that he does a damn fine job of deflecting a lot of external shit from the creative talent there. I would never give him any credit for the films that have been produced, but you have to give him credit for running a place that manages to (apparently) maintain a healthy atmosphere for the talent even in the midst of them becoming one of the most powerful film companies on the planet.
I'm curious however. Those of you who point the finger at Michael Eisner for the way Disney has become such a shambles in the last decade... you also give no credit to Jobs at Pixar? Either the CEO gets credit/blame or not. If you hold those two views (and I bet there are plenty here who do) then you should consider why you accept such an obvious double-standard.
That's great. I love doing that. Here are a couple that I've come up with (and yes, I used to be a Christian and these things occurred to me back then.)
Q: Oh, you're a Christian? Do you love Satan?
A: What??? No, of course I don't.
Q: Do you think Jesus wants you to hate Satan?
A: Uhhhhh... uhh... (Here's where you wait for their head to explode. May take a few minutes.)
...
Q: God sent the flood to destroy all life on earth, right?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Including fish?
A: Uhhhhh... uhh... (Here's where you wait for their head to explode again. May take a few minutes.)
That, my friend, is the single biggest "what if" I've ever seen, and could only be topped by the slightly less likely "What if Microsoft's product became so good that they spread a warm glow over the face of the planet and brought about world peace?"
Keep your eye on the ball, that is what they ARE doing.
Right, I understand that, but they're going after the leakers through ThinkSecret. As far as I'm concerned, if a web site has done nothing illegal, they shouldn't be subjected to a lawsuit, even an investigative one seeking the names of sources. There's simply no way to support that kind of approach (and I'm a self-professed Mac fanatic, so it sort of sucks to have to say that.) Apple needs to figure out a way to attack the leakers without attacking innocent bystanders like ThinkSecret or any other rumor site.
And no, I don't know how they can do that, but that's their problem, not mine and not ThinkSecret's either.
A lot of these rumors sites have a simple system in place where you can send them messages through an anonymous form on their site and identify yourself each time with a single keyword. That way, they can establish who tends submits legit info (cross-referenced with the keyword the submitter uses) without ever knowing who the source is. If any of the sites named in Apple's suit uses such a system, then Apple is S.O.L.
BTW, I think the idea that you can't spread information that is under NDA is outrageously unconstitutional. If a rumor site isn't under such a NDA, then they are bound by nobody legally and like anyone else (journalists or otherwise), they have a right to keep their sources to themselves. I think Apple is going to lose this case. They need to go after the people giving out the info who are under NDA, not the secondhand sites who get the info.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh and never mind that they keep relentlessly plodding forward with the video technology like Pixlet and Core Video.
So, yeah, go ahead and scoff. A lot of people scoffed at the iPod and iTunes at first too. However, to those of us paying attention, this almost seems obvious at this point.
Crabs, for instance.
;^)
Sorry you didn't enjoy the film. I loved it, and I have no concern for your respect for me so make of it what you will. I think a lot moviegoers had unreasonably high expectations on these films and couldn't come to grips with the fact that they weren't the perfect, cinematic, life-changing thrill-ride that they dreamed of.
I think I'll pass.
For that, I thank you. If you think you'll hate this movie, then for God's sake, skip it. I hope lots of people who hated the prequels follow your lead. That will be fewer people to piss in the pool afterward.
Not saying it was intentional... just curious.
So anyway, go ahead and explain why the ARPANET guys felt Gore should be invited. You didn't actually address that fact. Your argument lies with them and their reasoning, not me. And the fact that he was invited is a matter of public record as well.
Have fun explaining it away.
The guest list included a lot of names we all know nowadays as synonymous with creation of the Internet. Invitations to this event were not handed out to just anyone and there was even some debate as to whether or not to invite Bill Gates (eventually, they did but he turned it down because he wasn't convinced that the Internet was going to be important. Heh-heh....)
Any of you knee-jerk righties out there want to offer up some ideas as to why Gore was invited? Any revisionist, Rush Limbaugh-like theories out there?
And you can look it up in several sources if you don't believe me. The one I have immediately at hand is "Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet" by Hafner and Lyon (p. 260 for those of you too lazy to flip through the index.) There are other sources out there for that info too. So please, before bashing Gore for supposedly specious claims about his involvement in the development of the Internet, know what you're talking about.
Design encompasses more than just looks and Apple has an understanding and mastery of all aspects of design that is light-years beyond anyone else in the industry... hell, light-years beyond most companies in any industry. Have you ever actually sat down and used one of these machines? It would only take a few minutes of usage to figure out that just as much thought has gone into how it works as how it looks.
And yet, Apple critics continue to focus on how "pretty" the machines are, all the while accusing Mac users of being hung up on looks... oblivious to the irony of their own accusations. In fact, it is precisely those who can't see beyond the aesthetics of the machine's looks who are hung up on it. The rest of us take it as icing on the cake.
I mean, seriously. Why not just post to some 15-year-old script kiddies blogs? That would be just as enlightening.
Are you implying that Microsoft created SMP and PMT? I don't see what point you're trying to make.
Um... yeah, I'm looking around. Don't see many of 'em. Can you point out a few?
I love when people on Slashdot make sweeping statements about the tone of a given discussion without even stopping to read a few examples or assuming the one or two examples they scanned briefly are representative of the whole. I don't see much in terms of defensiveness about Apple here at all. Most of what's here seems pretty level-headed.
In fact, I just installed Yellow Dog Linux on an old G3 I had at work with the blessings of my superiors. I'm still a newbie, but that will change over the coming year. I will decide for myself (as I think everyone should) whether or not Linux can compete with Windows.
I've always enjoyed the ability to use themes. I wish Apple would spare a little development time on OS X to include it. It's frivolous, but anything that makes an interface more personalized can't hurt.
And yes, lots of people complained about the originals.
This makes my point exactly. I loved The Phantom Menace from the first time I saw it and it gets better every time I see it. I just watched it a month ago and it was a blast. I see that same sentiment all over various Star Wars discussion forums from people who claimed at first to have been disgusted with the film. The more they watch The Phantom Menace, the more they come to like it, to realize that their initial judgment against it was way off base. Fans (over)reacted negatively to it not because it was a bad film per se, but because it wasn't the film they expected.
I suspect that will be the case with Hitchhiker's Guide too--huge, fanatical fan following who won't accept anything short of the absolute perfect film they can see in their own mind. And that ain't gonna happen. I feel sorry for the less-uptight fans of the book who might actually enjoy the film and will have to defend their point of view.
NPR had this Tolkien fanatic on a few weeks after the release of Fellowship of the Ring film who was tearing the film apart for being a complete fuck-up. When pressed why, he would cite the most esoteric shit from the book that was left out of the film.
But yeah, go ahead and mock them, if it makes you feel superior.
And btw, the old "never kissed a girl" stereotype of SW fans hasn't been true for ages--if ever at all. All of the hardcore SW fans I know are also very well-adjusted and socially adept. They just happen to like a particular movie. Funny, I don't see these accusations of rampant virginity being slung around when we're talking about The Lord of the Rings films and yet, that seems to be about the same class of fans from what I can tell.
But again... it's all about feeling superior. I know. Go ahead and mock them. And feel really good about yourself when you do it too. You deserve it.
I'm curious however. Those of you who point the finger at Michael Eisner for the way Disney has become such a shambles in the last decade... you also give no credit to Jobs at Pixar? Either the CEO gets credit/blame or not. If you hold those two views (and I bet there are plenty here who do) then you should consider why you accept such an obvious double-standard.
Q: Oh, you're a Christian? Do you love Satan?
A: What??? No, of course I don't.
Q: Do you think Jesus wants you to hate Satan?
A: Uhhhhh... uhh... (Here's where you wait for their head to explode. May take a few minutes.)
...
Q: God sent the flood to destroy all life on earth, right?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Including fish?
A: Uhhhhh... uhh... (Here's where you wait for their head to explode again. May take a few minutes.)
Right, I understand that, but they're going after the leakers through ThinkSecret. As far as I'm concerned, if a web site has done nothing illegal, they shouldn't be subjected to a lawsuit, even an investigative one seeking the names of sources. There's simply no way to support that kind of approach (and I'm a self-professed Mac fanatic, so it sort of sucks to have to say that.) Apple needs to figure out a way to attack the leakers without attacking innocent bystanders like ThinkSecret or any other rumor site.
And no, I don't know how they can do that, but that's their problem, not mine and not ThinkSecret's either.
BTW, I think the idea that you can't spread information that is under NDA is outrageously unconstitutional. If a rumor site isn't under such a NDA, then they are bound by nobody legally and like anyone else (journalists or otherwise), they have a right to keep their sources to themselves. I think Apple is going to lose this case. They need to go after the people giving out the info who are under NDA, not the secondhand sites who get the info.