Yeah, but Apple's not trying to sue Microsoft's or ban any of their phones; and guess what? They don't look like iPhones or Android phones; and maybe they're actually innovative?
Except Microsoft's products still suck; and Apple's don't. In the past, it was generally Microsoft who was getting sued, while now it's Apple doing the suing. And Apple has actually been innovating all this time, while Microsoft was always milking their monopoly while never coming up with anything new that was successful (No, not MSN, not Bing, XBox.... barely).
While Apple clearly doesn't have the right to do whatever it wants, the only area where it has a "monopoly" is with the iPad; and actually, Microsoft's mono-culture *did* win. Windows is *still* a monopoly on the desktop. That just didn't guarantee future success outside of that area.
So if you're indicative of your friends' opinions about Apple losing its credibility, maybe the problem is that none of you have any credibility.
The whole "Earth's Corner of the Galaxy Just Got a Little Lonelier" and "an alien Earth that might someday bear the boot prints of a future Neil Armstrong" angle is kind of dumb. Seriously, once we start talking about interstellar distances, whether something is 8 vs 4 light-years away is really irrelevant. Using another post's numbers, if we can achieve a speed five times that of the Voyager probes, it's going to take us 1,400 years to get to alpha centauri. but if we double our speed, it'll *only* take 700 years. So unless you're Methuselah or Nicholas Flamel, that's about 10 times as long as you expect to live.
Hey dumbass, it's not a straw man. His point was that since he isn't/shouldn't be forced to sell things that he doesn't want to sell, then neither should Apple.
Pretty simple.
Yes, and last time I checked, even with bridges and ferries, people are generally disinclined to build directly on open water; and to the south, there are the San Bruno Mountains, Lake Merced, and Daly City (which is the only corridor out of the city). So yes, in other words, ~90% of the city's perimeter is a "wall."
If you think there's no reason, then you're an idiot. The two main reasons why it's expensive still come down to supply and demand. 1 - San Francisco is a peninsula, so space is, by definition, limited (just like in other expensive cities, such as Manhattan and Hong Kong). 2 - People want to live there - It has mild weather (although not nearly as warm as LA), it has a lot of the amenities of a big city without actually being that big, good food, it's a beautiful city, there are a lot of easily-accessible public parks and whatnot, people here are very tolerant; and there are many unique things here, like the Bay to Breakers race a few weeks ago where people get dressed up have a crazy party, etc etc etc. The lifestyle in San Francisco is obviously desirable, otherwise the housing wouldn't be so expensive. Der.
Yeah, seriously. Mod parent up. Elephants haven't been on the brink of extinction because there haven't been enough leaves to eat, it's because the greatest predator in the history of the planet (us) has almost killed them off, largely via poaching and destruction of their habitat.
...I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years...
.. And yet you're still an idiot.
Daft Punk? Justice? David Guetta? NTM?
Lesser known:
Para One? SebastiAn, Surkin? Sebastien Tellier? Thomas Bangalter (of Daft Punk)? Sébastien Tellier? Laurent Garnier? Kavinsky? M. Oizo? Cassius?
Older:
Cerrone? Jean-Michel Jarre? etc
Popular, but I hate them:
Phoenix?
I am also French educated, am fluent in French; I live in the US, yet I still know more about French music than you do. And yes, I know about the various French pop musical disasters such as Johnny Hallyday, Renaud, etc. This list definitely has a heavy electronic/dance emphasis, so if you don't like that kind of music, you're probably not going to be into this. That said, if you have narrow taste in music, that doesn't mean there isn't good music out there.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are elitists out there who have no idea what they're talking about; people who will always swear that x is better than y. Sometimes, however, even though it can be "proven" that x isn't better than y, that same "proof" can be incorrect (or at least not exactly correct when taken out of the theoretical realm).
For example, Humans can only theoretically perceive motion at about 24 frames per second, which is why film is captured at that speed. However, computer monitor refresh rates can go up 120 Hz, which is theoretically pointless. In practice, however, there are subtle issues with drawing to screen at 30 Hz that can cause flickering, minor stuttering, and whatnot. Because of these real-world issues, screens at 120 Hz usually look better.
And even if an image is displayed at a *perfect* 30 Hz, there are still problems with temporal aliasing — things like helicopter propellers, spinning car wheels, or even video of other computer monitors almost never look accurate when captured on video because of the resulting time-based moiré patterns.
This article is a great example of exactly why people still claim that x is better than y. Even though the author has a lot of great things to say, he still misses some valid points, and actually conflates two different arguments. Let's say he's correct in that humans can't hear any differences between sample rates 44.1 kHz and above (I don't claim to know one way or the other.), that doesn't mean that *audio files* above 44.1 kHz have no usefulness. People who timestretch audio (DJs and electronic/hip-hop producers in particular) could find higher sample rates to be very useful. If you take a 44.1 kHz sample and pitch it down one octave, it's now effectively at 22.05 kHz. Audio at 176.4 kHz would be able to undergo a decrease of two octaves and still play at CD quality.
For that reason alone, I would love to have songs available at a minimum of 88.2 kHz, so why not 192 kHz while we're at it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but Apple's not trying to sue Microsoft's or ban any of their phones; and guess what? They don't look like iPhones or Android phones; and maybe they're actually innovative?
Except Microsoft's products still suck; and Apple's don't. In the past, it was generally Microsoft who was getting sued, while now it's Apple doing the suing. And Apple has actually been innovating all this time, while Microsoft was always milking their monopoly while never coming up with anything new that was successful (No, not MSN, not Bing, XBox.... barely).
While Apple clearly doesn't have the right to do whatever it wants, the only area where it has a "monopoly" is with the iPad; and actually, Microsoft's mono-culture *did* win. Windows is *still* a monopoly on the desktop. That just didn't guarantee future success outside of that area.
So if you're indicative of your friends' opinions about Apple losing its credibility, maybe the problem is that none of you have any credibility.
You do realize that all those things on Star Trek don't actually exist in real-life?
The whole "Earth's Corner of the Galaxy Just Got a Little Lonelier" and "an alien Earth that might someday bear the boot prints of a future Neil Armstrong" angle is kind of dumb. Seriously, once we start talking about interstellar distances, whether something is 8 vs 4 light-years away is really irrelevant. Using another post's numbers, if we can achieve a speed five times that of the Voyager probes, it's going to take us 1,400 years to get to alpha centauri. but if we double our speed, it'll *only* take 700 years. So unless you're Methuselah or Nicholas Flamel, that's about 10 times as long as you expect to live.
Hey dumbass, it's not a straw man. His point was that since he isn't/shouldn't be forced to sell things that he doesn't want to sell, then neither should Apple. Pretty simple.
Never seen it before. I guess this case is important! lol
Yes, and last time I checked, even with bridges and ferries, people are generally disinclined to build directly on open water; and to the south, there are the San Bruno Mountains, Lake Merced, and Daly City (which is the only corridor out of the city). So yes, in other words, ~90% of the city's perimeter is a "wall."
Silicon Valley is not San Francisco.
Oh yeah, and you don't have to fucking drive everywhere, like in almost every place in the US. A person can actually walk to get places.
If you think there's no reason, then you're an idiot. The two main reasons why it's expensive still come down to supply and demand. 1 - San Francisco is a peninsula, so space is, by definition, limited (just like in other expensive cities, such as Manhattan and Hong Kong). 2 - People want to live there - It has mild weather (although not nearly as warm as LA), it has a lot of the amenities of a big city without actually being that big, good food, it's a beautiful city, there are a lot of easily-accessible public parks and whatnot, people here are very tolerant; and there are many unique things here, like the Bay to Breakers race a few weeks ago where people get dressed up have a crazy party, etc etc etc. The lifestyle in San Francisco is obviously desirable, otherwise the housing wouldn't be so expensive. Der.
Shit, I dunno. Maybe because more people actually want to live in San Francisco.
It was already there.
"like" a wall? You mean that huge expanse of water known as the bay?
I'm still not sure if the "Windows PoS" in your comment stands for "Point of Sale" or "Piece of Shit".
I can't tell if this is a joke or if it's serious.
Yeah, seriously. Mod parent up. Elephants haven't been on the brink of extinction because there haven't been enough leaves to eat, it's because the greatest predator in the history of the planet (us) has almost killed them off, largely via poaching and destruction of their habitat.
Why bother having the user set the word that is going to be displayed as a CAPTCHA?
They don't.
...I am french educated and I have a perfect french(more or less), and been living here in France for the last 4 years...
.. And yet you're still an idiot. Daft Punk? Justice? David Guetta? NTM? Lesser known: Para One? SebastiAn, Surkin? Sebastien Tellier? Thomas Bangalter (of Daft Punk)? Sébastien Tellier? Laurent Garnier? Kavinsky? M. Oizo? Cassius? Older: Cerrone? Jean-Michel Jarre? etc Popular, but I hate them: Phoenix? I am also French educated, am fluent in French; I live in the US, yet I still know more about French music than you do. And yes, I know about the various French pop musical disasters such as Johnny Hallyday, Renaud, etc. This list definitely has a heavy electronic/dance emphasis, so if you don't like that kind of music, you're probably not going to be into this. That said, if you have narrow taste in music, that doesn't mean there isn't good music out there.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are elitists out there who have no idea what they're talking about; people who will always swear that x is better than y. Sometimes, however, even though it can be "proven" that x isn't better than y, that same "proof" can be incorrect (or at least not exactly correct when taken out of the theoretical realm).
For example, Humans can only theoretically perceive motion at about 24 frames per second, which is why film is captured at that speed. However, computer monitor refresh rates can go up 120 Hz, which is theoretically pointless. In practice, however, there are subtle issues with drawing to screen at 30 Hz that can cause flickering, minor stuttering, and whatnot. Because of these real-world issues, screens at 120 Hz usually look better.
And even if an image is displayed at a *perfect* 30 Hz, there are still problems with temporal aliasing — things like helicopter propellers, spinning car wheels, or even video of other computer monitors almost never look accurate when captured on video because of the resulting time-based moiré patterns.
This article is a great example of exactly why people still claim that x is better than y. Even though the author has a lot of great things to say, he still misses some valid points, and actually conflates two different arguments. Let's say he's correct in that humans can't hear any differences between sample rates 44.1 kHz and above (I don't claim to know one way or the other.), that doesn't mean that *audio files* above 44.1 kHz have no usefulness. People who timestretch audio (DJs and electronic/hip-hop producers in particular) could find higher sample rates to be very useful. If you take a 44.1 kHz sample and pitch it down one octave, it's now effectively at 22.05 kHz. Audio at 176.4 kHz would be able to undergo a decrease of two octaves and still play at CD quality.
For that reason alone, I would love to have songs available at a minimum of 88.2 kHz, so why not 192 kHz while we're at it?