Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal.
Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks.
Sales are up. That's extremely simple to look up online. The reference to the one store is to say that it's obvious sales are up. Look around and you'll hear lots of stories of people switching.
How many times have we seen articles about how Apple's consumer market share is going to rise? And it never does.
Stats, please. In the Apple store next to my office I see lots of people walking away with new laptops and minis every day. So far sales are up, but I don't know the correlation to their market share.
Today, Apple's computer business is a distraction from its core business area of entertainment electronics.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand Apple at all. What they sell is a cohesive user friendly computing experience. iPods supplement Macs and Macs supplement iPods, while iTunes supplements both. The iPhone will just extend the experience. Take a look at how the company is structured and read their SEC filings.
That's not market share. That's what's reported by web browsers to the select few web sites that use their tracking software. Utterly useless for this conversation.
They're growing just fine without making such a change. Apple market share doesn't mean OS. It means computing market share (software and hardware). What most people really care about is having a good computing experience, which Apple provides by controlling the software and hardware together. People such as yourself aren't who they're after, so I'm sure they don't mind if you take your business elsewhere.
This is a perfect example of how using Microsoft's official list of exploits is a mostly meaningless metric to determine how secure the OS really is. It gives no indication of security holes being secretly exploited for years.
Obviously every other comment is calling Dvorak an idiot. But I'd like to point out what specifically makes him wrong in this case. Apple has the rare ability to define a market. The mp3 player market, while small, existed before Apple's entry. Now many people call it "the iPod market". Apple basically defined the personal computer and helped spawn the market.
Apple has the brand recognition and design abilities to redefine the mobile phone market. Dvorak's assumption is that nothing every changes. But he forgets that Apple often seems to know what people want before they even know they want it.
The issue here is whether Wikipedia wishes to remain true to its original goal of being a community-edited encyclopedia or not. If so, it has to deal with the problems that come from that, and which are exacerbated by enormous popularity.
Exactly right. This is really the crux of the entire topic. All of the conversation about adding credentials and other layers are moot if Wikipedia wants to retain its own definition.
The discussion only has value to other sites which are forks or competitors of wikipedia.
I think the success of the project should be defined by how it achieves its goals (whatever you define those goals to be) and not in whether it kept with its original "spirit".
Wikipedia defines itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Therefore it can't change without redefining itself. That won't happen without angering everyone.
The future is niche wikis. With smaller communities it's easier to keep it open and still watch for vandalism.
Re:The golden age
on
TextMate
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've tried a bunch of text editors on OS X, both closed and open. TextMate beats any I've seen, at least for my PHP/HTML work. In this case I'm OK with it being closed, especially since it's easily extensible with scripts.
At the last place I worked, the IT department had their own XP distribution for the corporate desktops (ghost script or whatever). They started the process by deleting one DLL at a time and watching what broke. The problem was when my team created some new custom software we'd sometimes come across some fundametal problems because DLLs were missing. And these errors weren't always easy to track down.
Now you might say we'd run into this problem with any operating system. But when using Microsoft development tools on a Microsoft OS, the system makes the assumption that every basic dependancy which is built into the OS is there, which is reasonable. If it isn't things get flaky and hard to debug.
Windows (at least up to XP) simply isn't built for this level of customization. Therefore, if you want security through minimalism, Linux is the better way to go.
So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!
I could not disagree more. A corporation being a legal entity is completely irrelevant to it's actual definition. A corporation will never be more than a collection of people (until computers get "smart" enough to run corporations for us, but that's another conversation). The people who make up a corporation have conciousness, direction, drives, etc., both in collective form and individual. But it is only the people who have these characteristics, not the corporation. A corporation as a distinct entity is a human creation, not a natural one.
Claiming fiduciary responsibility for corporations is just an excuse. It's a way to not have to lay blame or responsibility on the people who run the corporations. And any corporation which aids in the destruction of our contitutional freedoms shouldn't exist anyway. I'm sure they could get by just fine while not hurting us at the same time.
Point taken. I think those parents need to consider how much worse their kids' lives will be if they don't stand up for these things now. I realize it's an extremely tough choice to make when you have kids. But in the end it's their future that's at stake. People don't tend to think long term... very long term.
The corporation didn't read the letter, a human did. The corporation can't perform any actions to comply or resist, only a human can. Corporations are just collections of people. Those people can and should stand up for what they believe in, even if it means losing their job.
And before anyone pounces and says I wouldn't be willing to lose my own job for what I believe in, I already have.
Coming up with the idea in the first place required imagination.
Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was.
The original Apple ad carried no additional information either, but made a very effective point. Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point. Therefore it's effective in its simplicity. If instead it just displayed negative information about Hillary it would be very boring and not get people talking about the actual point.
Slashdot Mirror
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Total protonic reversal.
Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks.
Sales are up. That's extremely simple to look up online. The reference to the one store is to say that it's obvious sales are up. Look around and you'll hear lots of stories of people switching.
How many times have we seen articles about how Apple's consumer market share is going to rise? And it never does.
Stats, please. In the Apple store next to my office I see lots of people walking away with new laptops and minis every day. So far sales are up, but I don't know the correlation to their market share.
Today, Apple's computer business is a distraction from its core business area of entertainment electronics.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand Apple at all. What they sell is a cohesive user friendly computing experience. iPods supplement Macs and Macs supplement iPods, while iTunes supplements both. The iPhone will just extend the experience. Take a look at how the company is structured and read their SEC filings.
That's not market share. That's what's reported by web browsers to the select few web sites that use their tracking software. Utterly useless for this conversation.
They're growing just fine without making such a change. Apple market share doesn't mean OS. It means computing market share (software and hardware). What most people really care about is having a good computing experience, which Apple provides by controlling the software and hardware together. People such as yourself aren't who they're after, so I'm sure they don't mind if you take your business elsewhere.
That's true. My point wasn't specific to Microsoft. I just used them because they're the subject of the post and such an easy target. ;)
This is a perfect example of how using Microsoft's official list of exploits is a mostly meaningless metric to determine how secure the OS really is. It gives no indication of security holes being secretly exploited for years.
Obviously every other comment is calling Dvorak an idiot. But I'd like to point out what specifically makes him wrong in this case. Apple has the rare ability to define a market. The mp3 player market, while small, existed before Apple's entry. Now many people call it "the iPod market". Apple basically defined the personal computer and helped spawn the market.
Apple has the brand recognition and design abilities to redefine the mobile phone market. Dvorak's assumption is that nothing every changes. But he forgets that Apple often seems to know what people want before they even know they want it.
The issue here is whether Wikipedia wishes to remain true to its original goal of being a community-edited encyclopedia or not. If so, it has to deal with the problems that come from that, and which are exacerbated by enormous popularity.
Exactly right. This is really the crux of the entire topic. All of the conversation about adding credentials and other layers are moot if Wikipedia wants to retain its own definition.
The discussion only has value to other sites which are forks or competitors of wikipedia.
I think the success of the project should be defined by how it achieves its goals (whatever you define those goals to be) and not in whether it kept with its original "spirit".
Wikipedia defines itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Therefore it can't change without redefining itself. That won't happen without angering everyone.
The future is niche wikis. With smaller communities it's easier to keep it open and still watch for vandalism.
I've tried a bunch of text editors on OS X, both closed and open. TextMate beats any I've seen, at least for my PHP/HTML work. In this case I'm OK with it being closed, especially since it's easily extensible with scripts.
Will adding color help with depth perception? It's one of the big issues with current night vision.
At the last place I worked, the IT department had their own XP distribution for the corporate desktops (ghost script or whatever). They started the process by deleting one DLL at a time and watching what broke. The problem was when my team created some new custom software we'd sometimes come across some fundametal problems because DLLs were missing. And these errors weren't always easy to track down.
Now you might say we'd run into this problem with any operating system. But when using Microsoft development tools on a Microsoft OS, the system makes the assumption that every basic dependancy which is built into the OS is there, which is reasonable. If it isn't things get flaky and hard to debug.
Windows (at least up to XP) simply isn't built for this level of customization. Therefore, if you want security through minimalism, Linux is the better way to go.
Apparently it is a favorite meme (so far ranked 3rd).
So can we build a battery out of fat and give it caffeine to stimulate energy output? That would make for one disgusting battery. But we'd have a virtually unlimited natural resource!
I could not disagree more. A corporation being a legal entity is completely irrelevant to it's actual definition. A corporation will never be more than a collection of people (until computers get "smart" enough to run corporations for us, but that's another conversation). The people who make up a corporation have conciousness, direction, drives, etc., both in collective form and individual. But it is only the people who have these characteristics, not the corporation. A corporation as a distinct entity is a human creation, not a natural one.
Claiming fiduciary responsibility for corporations is just an excuse. It's a way to not have to lay blame or responsibility on the people who run the corporations. And any corporation which aids in the destruction of our contitutional freedoms shouldn't exist anyway. I'm sure they could get by just fine while not hurting us at the same time.
But these phones are supposedly smart! We shouldn't have to think about them. The phone should!
Thinking is for suckers. Let's just let the smart phones do it.
Point taken. I think those parents need to consider how much worse their kids' lives will be if they don't stand up for these things now. I realize it's an extremely tough choice to make when you have kids. But in the end it's their future that's at stake. People don't tend to think long term... very long term.
The corporation didn't read the letter, a human did. The corporation can't perform any actions to comply or resist, only a human can. Corporations are just collections of people. Those people can and should stand up for what they believe in, even if it means losing their job.
And before anyone pounces and says I wouldn't be willing to lose my own job for what I believe in, I already have.
Oh it's not that special. And personally I don't really care about the ad. But I could see how others find it interesting and viral.
Those scary quotes from Hillary would make just another boring political ad. At least this one was different.
He violated the policy and quit.
Fixed that for you.
Yet now you're thinking and talking about it. That means the ad worked.
That doesn't require imagination.
Coming up with the idea in the first place required imagination.
Maybe I'm clueless, but I just don't see what the "effective point" of that ad was.
The original Apple ad carried no additional information either, but made a very effective point. Anyone familiar with the concept of Big Brother can see the point. Therefore it's effective in its simplicity. If instead it just displayed negative information about Hillary it would be very boring and not get people talking about the actual point.
He's fed by his skill (and now 15 minutes of fame), not by his employer. He'll find another job.
I think Arianna should hire him to make more viral videos. It would be great promotion for the Huffington Post.
Well that's very obtuse. I didn't tell you the price or time at which I bought it. Only when I sold it. I sold it at $7 for a profit.