Man, why do people keep on posting things like this?
So you are saying that you only want to see info on very strict categories that the majority of all slashdot readers agree are worthy. Wow, if only slashdot were really like that - imagine how great...zzZZZZzzZZzz...oh, sorry I fell asleep just thinking about how boring that would be.
If slashdot didn't "alienate" me once in a while, I would stop reading it! I don't know about you, but I like being exposed to new things - it gets really boring reading story after story about Napster or the latest update for **insert random product here**.
Your argument is only valid if you already have an extra machine with 2 network cards ready to perform this task! You can't build a comparable system from scratch for less than $150! Well, you might be able to, but sheesh!
Ok, so sometimes it doesn't seem as fast as I would like it to be (is anything that fast, though, really?), but man, these other cable companies seem to enjoy making it difficult! RR gives you the self-install option, which means not only is it faster for them, but it's much easier for me to hook up a router and connect my internal LAN to it. Since there's no login or anything, it literally works right out of the box.
You know, i've got a crazy idea, but it just might work....
...how about you just turn your TV off and NOT WATCH things that annoy you? Or do they sell Clockwork Orange brand televisions over on that side of the Atlantic?
Anyway, I'm hoping you were just using a bit of the ole hyperbole there, but really, as other people have said many many many times before, saying "anime sucks" is like saying "movies suck" or "tv sucks". I personally think a lot of what is called "anime" is annoying. Just like a lot of alleged "movies" are mind-numbingly stupid. However, just because people make "movies" that are excruciating to watch doesn't mean I will refuse to watch any "movie" ever again as long as I live!
I'm not suggesting you try to find anime you like - don't bother - you probably won't! Just try not to get all hot and bothered about what other people like to watch.
"once we graduate high school, can't we find something a little more stiumlating to watch?"
Maybe he should have said "pretentious" instead of "pseudo-intellectual". Just because you don't find anime stimulating is no reason to insult people who do by implying that they have the mental capacity or "good taste" of high-school kids. Whoops, I guess you are also implying that all high-school kids are stupid and tasteless.
"Would you be a irritated if I made some generalization about the intellectual capacity of surfers?"
Hmmm, in your first post, you made an insulting generalization about the intellectual capacity of people who enjoy anime. You are being called a "pseudo-intellectual" because your posts imply that you think you are better than other people simply because you don't watch anime anymore! If you really are "better" than these anime fans, or if you really do believe so, please forgive me for pointing out what must be painfully obvious to you, oh great arbiter of good taste and master of what is "stimulating" for other people!
I don't think there's anything wrong with liking anime or with thinking anime is stupid. Just don't try to tell other people what they should find "stimulating" or "stupid". It kinda makes you sound like a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
I know it says "News for Nerds", but that is a little misleading. Taco is NOT a professional journalist, nor has he ever claimed to be. I'd say about half the stories posted here have some sort of "opinion" tagged on by the editors - that's what this place is about. The very fact that the editors pick and choose what stories to post is proof that personal opinions are what run this site. So this is a little more blatant than normal. So what? Again - this is not a professional news site.
umm, since when does Taco claim to be a "professional journalist"?
As other people have stated, he is more of an editor. This site has never stated (AFAIK) that they are under the same obligations as cnn.com or bbc.co.uk to be objective.
Not that those "real" news sites are always objective, but that's another story.
Taco is seriously misrepresenting the carbon rod. It is far from malignant, as evidenced by its efforts to save the NASA astronauts on that memorable shuttle mission.
He's not offering a "political evaluation", he's offering an opinion. He doesn't give us any reasons to back it up, so why you would consider this a political evaluation is beyond me.
Obviously, he is kinda "forcing" us to read his opinion (and that might be considered questionable, but hey, he's not a journalist), since he put it right in the text of the article, but he's certainly not "forcing" you to accept it as anything other than his personal opinion.
There is no way they could have shipped everyone back, set the whole thing up again, made everybody look as malnourished as they were on the island, re-shot the ending, edited it, etc. in those "several weeks". Sure, if it were on a stage set somewhere or if this were an ordinary sitcom/drama. But this is ON LOCATION HALFWAY ACROSS THE WORLD. Granted, it's not impossible, but highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Somewhat more likely but still almost impossible: they shot a couple of endings. I doubt this is what happened (I mean, what's the point?), but it's still more likely than re-filming the ending in a few weeks months after the show ended.
Most likely: the thing is set in stone. CBS just has better secrecy on this issue than people thought.
You bring up some good points, and some of these I do agree with. However, there are a couple of things that still bother me. I am either not expressing myself clearly, or you are using these points to express your own views on the way business should work.
protecting the superficial, form over function
I'm glad that you feel function is more important than form, but of course that has nothing to do with these lawsuits. I agree that form has nothing (well, let's say "little") to do with getting the computer to do what you want it to do. However, Apple is protecting their brand. This has nothing to do with computers and everything to do with Marketing. It's about a company protecting their "brand", just like any other company in the world. You may not like Apple's "attitude" (and who does, honestly) but don't single them out - name me one company that is not vicious (and sometimes silly) about protecting its own brand image. Of course there aren't many people buying iMacs only for their looks - but that "cute look" attracts the consumer. I'm glad you are smart enough to make your own decisions and not be forced into slavery by these corporations, but no matter what you say, most people are affected by advertising in some way.
I'm glad you have a utopian view of how corporate ethics should work, but if you would be perfectly honest with yourself for a second, don't you think that most coporations would jump at the chance to actually be able to force consumers to buy things? You really overstimate the ethics of almost every corporation on the planet. Well, they can't do that, because, as you say, it is unconstitutional (not to mention unethical, and horrible to contemplate, but that's not the point) and, because, as you say, people are smart. Great. In the meantime, Companies are going to try every trick in the book to get people to at least look at their products, and to make sure people don't confuse their product with any other product.
so that apple may own something that they do not
Well, the way IP law works these days, Apple actually does own the "look-and-feel" of the iMac. The tricky part comes when you need to decide how to define that "look-and-feel", but I get the feeling that's the part you have a problem with, and I would have to agree with you there. Or maybe you have a problem with that whole concept of patenting a "cute look". OK, I agree, kinda silly. But that's the way the law works these days, so we have to work within those constraints.
I find what you say ironic, above we are argueing over the superficial, now we are arguing over ability
Once again, my point is either not being expressed clearly enough, or you are intentionally missing the point. Purpose is not the same thing as Ability. As I stated before, any savvy computer user can get pretty much any computer to do pretty much any task. That means the abilities of those machines are similar. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the intended purpose of the machines. The Cobalt Qube is a stripped-down linux box meant for standalone web server (or other "server") use. The Apple Cube is a MacOS computer, meant to be used with a monitor, keyboard and mouse as someone's primary use computer. OK, great, so you can make the Apple Cube serve up web pages. So you can share files with it. So maybe you can install a PPC flavor of Linux on the Cube and have it do exactly the same thing as a Qube. Whoop-de-doo. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if someone knows what a Qube is and wants to buy one, he is not going to spare one single glance at the Apple Cube unless he also wants a normal desktop computer. Once again, this is more about marketing than anything else. Cobalt's complaint about Apple seems silly in this situation because the two products are marketed with different purposes in mind. That has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the two machines. Ability is not the same as purpose.
You could also do that about a race of people.
I guess what you are saying here is that generalizations lead to prejudice and prejudice leads to racism. Hmmm. "All generalizations are false" Some guy on slashdot has this as his sig, I don't know the original source.
Just because a generalization is false doesn't mean you can't use it to sell products! Since when has truth had anything to do with advertising and marketing? If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said "the n% of people". If a company surveys PC buyers and finds out that 99% of all prospective buyers want a web browser on their computer, well then, I think they should feel free to generalize about those consumers. It doesn't really matter to these companies what each person "wants" in their computer - that's their own business. What computer companies do is try to meet as many of those wants as possible in as few different machines as possible. You can't do that without making a few "false generalizations" and just living with the fact that you haven't created a computer that meets the needs of whole segments of your market. I agree with you; companies need to respond to their consumers. But don't complain when they do what a majority of their consumers want, and not what every single individual consumer wants.
p.s. - I know that we're not really going anywhere with this discussion mostly because I get the feeling you are trying to show me the consumer's view (which I agree with, for the most part) and I am trying to show you the corporate view (or my cynical take of the corporate view), but it's so rare to find a response that isn't just "you suck" or "open source rulez" or some natalie portman related thing on slashdot that I got a little carried away.
When I say Joe Consumer, I mean one consumer. I mean an "example" of a consumer, not every consumer ("Joe Consumer" can indicate all consumers or one "average" consumer depending on the context - and I apologize for not making clear exactly what I meant). That's what Apple is concerned about. A consumer that saw an ad for an iMac, liked it and went down to the store to look for one. He goes in and sees a bunch of PCs that look "kinda" like an iMac, and maybe after looking at the specs, the consumer actually wants to buy one instead of the iMac. That guy might not have even looked at them unless they had an iMac "cuteness" factor. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this; or anything wrong with PC companies wanting to do this. However, you have to recognize why Apple might be concerned about other companies trying to capitalize on the PR success (note, I did not say sales success) of the iMac. That's why they get so uptight about it.
apple is bringing people to the store? Does advertisement have that much of an effect?
Yes and Yes! That's my point. If advertisments didn't have that much of an effect, companies wouldn't keep on pouring money down those ad budget drains. You might think you are smarter than the average consumer and that ads don't affect you, but they do. They might not make you buy anything, but they can certainly influence you into looking into a product that you may not have had much interest in before. Why do you think so many people keep going to crappy movies? Advertising. And that's all this is about, really. Apple gets pissed because they feel their ad campaign is being used to sell products by other manufacturers. Do you not understand why they might be upset about it? I didn't say it was "fair" or that I agree with Apple. Just that from a marketing viewpoint, it's bad business for Apple NOT to sue the iMac ripoffs.
You can easily see though that while Qube is a more narrow market, iMac and x86s do overlap it. Someone going to buy an Qube has a higher chance of seeing Apples and x86 computers near it that do the same thing then you pretend to know. Its impossible to stereo type and generalize what people want in a computer as you and apple tend to do.
I disagree with your logic. Apple gets upset because the iMac/ePC markets DO overlap, and Cobalt has an absurd argument because the Qube and Cube markets DO NOT overlap. What I mean is this: someone who wants an iMac could easily choose an ePC instead and vice/versa - both machines will basically do what most want (surf the net, use e-mail). There is no way that someone shopping for a Qube (which is primarily designed for standalone server use) is going to change his mind and buy an Apple Cube - they just aren't designed (or marketed) for the same functions. Of course, anyone that knows enough about computers can buy pretty much whatever they want and get it to do whatever they want with it, but I'm not "generalizing" about those types of users.
You complain about my "generalization" of consumers, but there is a large segment of the "computer user" population that just wants a home computer to surf the net and read e-mail. I can feel free to generalize about those consumers, because they generally all want the same thing. If companies couldn't generalize about their consumers, they wouldn't be able to sell the same thing to millions of people! You can't generalize about all consumers, but you can certainly generalize about the n% of them that want the same things in a computer!
Oops! I see your point. I was assuming too much noble thought, I guess. There was no mention of karma in the original post (well, it was Anonymous, so no duh!) but I missed that comment about being "worried" about losing karma, thus posting anonymously.
Assuming it's the same guy that posted right after, all I can say to that is "what a loser!"
I don't think there is any big secret to this obsession with Karma. It just has to do with people's obsession with somebody else assigning them worth. If you have good Karma, you must be intelligent and witty. And if you need Slashdot to tell you this, well, maybe intelligent is not the right word.
I must admit, however, that the first time I got a post modded up, it did feel good, but I wouldn't call it a life-changing experience. Besides, the most Karma this guy could lose is like 1 or 2 points, so what's the big deal?
The only real use Karma has is for those interested in hacking the Slashdot system for their own purposes - building up Karma in various user accounts to be able to post crazy comments at +2, racking up mod points to mod up their own crazy comments, etc. Hey, more power to them - anyone dedicated enough to constanly monitoring the system with several different accounts (whether with bots, scripts, or just plain old-fashioned grunt work) deserves some kudos if only just for their hard work!
I think when they mean the same market, they are talking about Joe Consumer who goes into a computer store thinking of the "cute" iMac he saw on TV and sees one of the PC-compat. rip-offs for a cheaper price (or is steered towards one by a salesperson) and goes with that.
Now, you could argue that Joe Consumer is simply going with the better value, but he went into the store influenced by Apple's marketing, and ended up with a different product. Of course Apple should be upset about that.
The Cube and the Qube won't even be sold in the same store! At least not next to each other. I hardly think anyone going in with the intent to buy a Qube would in any way be confused and think about buying an Apple Cube instead. They really are quite different markets, but more importantly, different types of consumers. Whereas the iMacs and the ePCs or whatever they want to call them are selling to the same types of consumers - home users who are looking for a "cute", simple home computer.
I think he just wants a clear answer to this question, and is worried about it getting moderated down because at first glance it seems a bit inflammatory.
I can't speak for "moderator sucking-up tactics" in normal articles, but in this format, if the question gets modded down, it basically doesn't exist as far as the actual interview goes. I don't think it's about karma at all here.
Well, I think the best security would be one that combines "obscurity" with other measures.
Security through obscurity alone is not good security at all, but obscurity as one layer of a security system is not a bad thing.
Of course, then you are relying on everyone else to be forthcoming with their own security issues; you study and implement, while you selfishly contribute nothing in order to maintain your own obscurity.
Selfish, but it would be hard to deny that this would provide better security than (what's the opposite of obscurity? Clarity? Brazen openness?) non-obscurity.
Another approach to obscurity is distraction and obfuscation - present an obvious target to distract attention from the important stuff. Still not good on its own, but important as part of a whole security scheme.
Jeez, I thought I just sucked. Now I know better:-)
Seriously, I think all those CS players out there can testify to how hard it is to prove someone was cheating (and even harder to prove you are not cheating). I've seen arguments constantly go back and forth about "how could you shoot me through the wall unless you were cheating" countered with "well, there is usually someone hiding there and I heard you walking over there".
The only sure way to limit cheating is to play on a server you know is honest and one that is monitored by an admin throughout the game. Even then, it's hard to tell, but at least if there's an admin there, as a last resort he can kick/ban both alleged cheaters and their whining accusers and let the game go on in peace!
Hello, this is Homer Simpson, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.
Slashdot Mirror
"A pirate? Well, that's hardly the image we want for Long John Silver's!"
Oh, and my sig, of course, even though it's from a different episode.
-------
Man, why do people keep on posting things like this?
So you are saying that you only want to see info on very strict categories that the majority of all slashdot readers agree are worthy. Wow, if only slashdot were really like that - imagine how great...zzZZZZzzZZzz...oh, sorry I fell asleep just thinking about how boring that would be.
If slashdot didn't "alienate" me once in a while, I would stop reading it! I don't know about you, but I like being exposed to new things - it gets really boring reading story after story about Napster or the latest update for **insert random product here**.
-------
"I want to program in Hawaii"
-------
Your argument is only valid if you already have an extra machine with 2 network cards ready to perform this task! You can't build a comparable system from scratch for less than $150! Well, you might be able to, but sheesh!
-------
Ok, so sometimes it doesn't seem as fast as I would like it to be (is anything that fast, though, really?), but man, these other cable companies seem to enjoy making it difficult! RR gives you the self-install option, which means not only is it faster for them, but it's much easier for me to hook up a router and connect my internal LAN to it. Since there's no login or anything, it literally works right out of the box.
-------
You know, i've got a crazy idea, but it just might work....
Anyway, I'm hoping you were just using a bit of the ole hyperbole there, but really, as other people have said many many many times before, saying "anime sucks" is like saying "movies suck" or "tv sucks". I personally think a lot of what is called "anime" is annoying. Just like a lot of alleged "movies" are mind-numbingly stupid. However, just because people make "movies" that are excruciating to watch doesn't mean I will refuse to watch any "movie" ever again as long as I live!
I'm not suggesting you try to find anime you like - don't bother - you probably won't! Just try not to get all hot and bothered about what other people like to watch.
-------
"once we graduate high school, can't we find something a little more stiumlating to watch?"
Maybe he should have said "pretentious" instead of "pseudo-intellectual". Just because you don't find anime stimulating is no reason to insult people who do by implying that they have the mental capacity or "good taste" of high-school kids. Whoops, I guess you are also implying that all high-school kids are stupid and tasteless.
"Would you be a irritated if I made some generalization about the intellectual capacity of surfers?"
Hmmm, in your first post, you made an insulting generalization about the intellectual capacity of people who enjoy anime. You are being called a "pseudo-intellectual" because your posts imply that you think you are better than other people simply because you don't watch anime anymore! If you really are "better" than these anime fans, or if you really do believe so, please forgive me for pointing out what must be painfully obvious to you, oh great arbiter of good taste and master of what is "stimulating" for other people!
I don't think there's anything wrong with liking anime or with thinking anime is stupid. Just don't try to tell other people what they should find "stimulating" or "stupid". It kinda makes you sound like a pretentious pseudo-intellectual.
-------
For some odd reason, I was hoping Louis Wu (one post up) was going to use that acronym. Oh well.
-------
So I guess you are not a Jon Katz fan, then?
I know it says "News for Nerds", but that is a little misleading. Taco is NOT a professional journalist, nor has he ever claimed to be. I'd say about half the stories posted here have some sort of "opinion" tagged on by the editors - that's what this place is about. The very fact that the editors pick and choose what stories to post is proof that personal opinions are what run this site. So this is a little more blatant than normal. So what? Again - this is not a professional news site.
-------
umm, since when does Taco claim to be a "professional journalist"?
As other people have stated, he is more of an editor. This site has never stated (AFAIK) that they are under the same obligations as cnn.com or bbc.co.uk to be objective.
Not that those "real" news sites are always objective, but that's another story.
-------
Taco is seriously misrepresenting the carbon rod. It is far from malignant, as evidenced by its efforts to save the NASA astronauts on that memorable shuttle mission.
-------
He's not offering a "political evaluation", he's offering an opinion. He doesn't give us any reasons to back it up, so why you would consider this a political evaluation is beyond me.
Obviously, he is kinda "forcing" us to read his opinion (and that might be considered questionable, but hey, he's not a journalist), since he put it right in the text of the article, but he's certainly not "forcing" you to accept it as anything other than his personal opinion.
-------
Don't you think they get a percentage of the profits from the sales of Sony/Philips units?
-------
The whole thing has been over for months now.
There is no way they could have shipped everyone back, set the whole thing up again, made everybody look as malnourished as they were on the island, re-shot the ending, edited it, etc. in those "several weeks". Sure, if it were on a stage set somewhere or if this were an ordinary sitcom/drama. But this is ON LOCATION HALFWAY ACROSS THE WORLD. Granted, it's not impossible, but highly, highly, highly unlikely.
Somewhat more likely but still almost impossible: they shot a couple of endings. I doubt this is what happened (I mean, what's the point?), but it's still more likely than re-filming the ending in a few weeks months after the show ended.
Most likely: the thing is set in stone. CBS just has better secrecy on this issue than people thought.
-------
You bring up some good points, and some of these I do agree with. However, there are a couple of things that still bother me. I am either not expressing myself clearly, or you are using these points to express your own views on the way business should work.
protecting the superficial, form over function
I'm glad that you feel function is more important than form, but of course that has nothing to do with these lawsuits. I agree that form has nothing (well, let's say "little") to do with getting the computer to do what you want it to do. However, Apple is protecting their brand. This has nothing to do with computers and everything to do with Marketing. It's about a company protecting their "brand", just like any other company in the world. You may not like Apple's "attitude" (and who does, honestly) but don't single them out - name me one company that is not vicious (and sometimes silly) about protecting its own brand image. Of course there aren't many people buying iMacs only for their looks - but that "cute look" attracts the consumer. I'm glad you are smart enough to make your own decisions and not be forced into slavery by these corporations, but no matter what you say, most people are affected by advertising in some way.
I'm glad you have a utopian view of how corporate ethics should work, but if you would be perfectly honest with yourself for a second, don't you think that most coporations would jump at the chance to actually be able to force consumers to buy things? You really overstimate the ethics of almost every corporation on the planet. Well, they can't do that, because, as you say, it is unconstitutional (not to mention unethical, and horrible to contemplate, but that's not the point) and, because, as you say, people are smart. Great. In the meantime, Companies are going to try every trick in the book to get people to at least look at their products, and to make sure people don't confuse their product with any other product.
so that apple may own something that they do not
Well, the way IP law works these days, Apple actually does own the "look-and-feel" of the iMac. The tricky part comes when you need to decide how to define that "look-and-feel", but I get the feeling that's the part you have a problem with, and I would have to agree with you there. Or maybe you have a problem with that whole concept of patenting a "cute look". OK, I agree, kinda silly. But that's the way the law works these days, so we have to work within those constraints.
I find what you say ironic, above we are argueing over the superficial, now we are arguing over ability
Once again, my point is either not being expressed clearly enough, or you are intentionally missing the point. Purpose is not the same thing as Ability. As I stated before, any savvy computer user can get pretty much any computer to do pretty much any task. That means the abilities of those machines are similar. I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the intended purpose of the machines. The Cobalt Qube is a stripped-down linux box meant for standalone web server (or other "server") use. The Apple Cube is a MacOS computer, meant to be used with a monitor, keyboard and mouse as someone's primary use computer. OK, great, so you can make the Apple Cube serve up web pages. So you can share files with it. So maybe you can install a PPC flavor of Linux on the Cube and have it do exactly the same thing as a Qube. Whoop-de-doo. That has nothing to do with my point. My point is that if someone knows what a Qube is and wants to buy one, he is not going to spare one single glance at the Apple Cube unless he also wants a normal desktop computer. Once again, this is more about marketing than anything else. Cobalt's complaint about Apple seems silly in this situation because the two products are marketed with different purposes in mind. That has nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the two machines. Ability is not the same as purpose.
You could also do that about a race of people.
I guess what you are saying here is that generalizations lead to prejudice and prejudice leads to racism. Hmmm. "All generalizations are false" Some guy on slashdot has this as his sig, I don't know the original source.
Just because a generalization is false doesn't mean you can't use it to sell products! Since when has truth had anything to do with advertising and marketing? If you read my post, you will see that I specifically said "the n% of people". If a company surveys PC buyers and finds out that 99% of all prospective buyers want a web browser on their computer, well then, I think they should feel free to generalize about those consumers. It doesn't really matter to these companies what each person "wants" in their computer - that's their own business. What computer companies do is try to meet as many of those wants as possible in as few different machines as possible. You can't do that without making a few "false generalizations" and just living with the fact that you haven't created a computer that meets the needs of whole segments of your market. I agree with you; companies need to respond to their consumers. But don't complain when they do what a majority of their consumers want, and not what every single individual consumer wants.
p.s. - I know that we're not really going anywhere with this discussion mostly because I get the feeling you are trying to show me the consumer's view (which I agree with, for the most part) and I am trying to show you the corporate view (or my cynical take of the corporate view), but it's so rare to find a response that isn't just "you suck" or "open source rulez" or some natalie portman related thing on slashdot that I got a little carried away.
-------
Hmmm, interesting counter-arguments.
When I say Joe Consumer, I mean one consumer. I mean an "example" of a consumer, not every consumer ("Joe Consumer" can indicate all consumers or one "average" consumer depending on the context - and I apologize for not making clear exactly what I meant). That's what Apple is concerned about. A consumer that saw an ad for an iMac, liked it and went down to the store to look for one. He goes in and sees a bunch of PCs that look "kinda" like an iMac, and maybe after looking at the specs, the consumer actually wants to buy one instead of the iMac. That guy might not have even looked at them unless they had an iMac "cuteness" factor. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this; or anything wrong with PC companies wanting to do this. However, you have to recognize why Apple might be concerned about other companies trying to capitalize on the PR success (note, I did not say sales success) of the iMac. That's why they get so uptight about it.
apple is bringing people to the store? Does advertisement have that much of an effect?
Yes and Yes! That's my point. If advertisments didn't have that much of an effect, companies wouldn't keep on pouring money down those ad budget drains. You might think you are smarter than the average consumer and that ads don't affect you, but they do. They might not make you buy anything, but they can certainly influence you into looking into a product that you may not have had much interest in before. Why do you think so many people keep going to crappy movies? Advertising. And that's all this is about, really. Apple gets pissed because they feel their ad campaign is being used to sell products by other manufacturers. Do you not understand why they might be upset about it? I didn't say it was "fair" or that I agree with Apple. Just that from a marketing viewpoint, it's bad business for Apple NOT to sue the iMac ripoffs.
You can easily see though that while Qube is a more narrow market, iMac and x86s do overlap it. Someone going to buy an Qube has a higher chance of seeing Apples and x86 computers near it that do the same thing then you pretend to know. Its impossible to stereo type and generalize what people want in a computer as you and apple tend to do.
I disagree with your logic. Apple gets upset because the iMac/ePC markets DO overlap, and Cobalt has an absurd argument because the Qube and Cube markets DO NOT overlap. What I mean is this: someone who wants an iMac could easily choose an ePC instead and vice/versa - both machines will basically do what most want (surf the net, use e-mail). There is no way that someone shopping for a Qube (which is primarily designed for standalone server use) is going to change his mind and buy an Apple Cube - they just aren't designed (or marketed) for the same functions. Of course, anyone that knows enough about computers can buy pretty much whatever they want and get it to do whatever they want with it, but I'm not "generalizing" about those types of users.
You complain about my "generalization" of consumers, but there is a large segment of the "computer user" population that just wants a home computer to surf the net and read e-mail. I can feel free to generalize about those consumers, because they generally all want the same thing. If companies couldn't generalize about their consumers, they wouldn't be able to sell the same thing to millions of people! You can't generalize about all consumers, but you can certainly generalize about the n% of them that want the same things in a computer!
-------
Oops! I see your point. I was assuming too much noble thought, I guess. There was no mention of karma in the original post (well, it was Anonymous, so no duh!) but I missed that comment about being "worried" about losing karma, thus posting anonymously.
Assuming it's the same guy that posted right after, all I can say to that is "what a loser!"
I don't think there is any big secret to this obsession with Karma. It just has to do with people's obsession with somebody else assigning them worth. If you have good Karma, you must be intelligent and witty. And if you need Slashdot to tell you this, well, maybe intelligent is not the right word.
I must admit, however, that the first time I got a post modded up, it did feel good, but I wouldn't call it a life-changing experience. Besides, the most Karma this guy could lose is like 1 or 2 points, so what's the big deal?
The only real use Karma has is for those interested in hacking the Slashdot system for their own purposes - building up Karma in various user accounts to be able to post crazy comments at +2, racking up mod points to mod up their own crazy comments, etc. Hey, more power to them - anyone dedicated enough to constanly monitoring the system with several different accounts (whether with bots, scripts, or just plain old-fashioned grunt work) deserves some kudos if only just for their hard work!
-------
I think when they mean the same market, they are talking about Joe Consumer who goes into a computer store thinking of the "cute" iMac he saw on TV and sees one of the PC-compat. rip-offs for a cheaper price (or is steered towards one by a salesperson) and goes with that.
Now, you could argue that Joe Consumer is simply going with the better value, but he went into the store influenced by Apple's marketing, and ended up with a different product. Of course Apple should be upset about that.
The Cube and the Qube won't even be sold in the same store! At least not next to each other. I hardly think anyone going in with the intent to buy a Qube would in any way be confused and think about buying an Apple Cube instead. They really are quite different markets, but more importantly, different types of consumers. Whereas the iMacs and the ePCs or whatever they want to call them are selling to the same types of consumers - home users who are looking for a "cute", simple home computer.
-------
I think he just wants a clear answer to this question, and is worried about it getting moderated down because at first glance it seems a bit inflammatory.
I can't speak for "moderator sucking-up tactics" in normal articles, but in this format, if the question gets modded down, it basically doesn't exist as far as the actual interview goes. I don't think it's about karma at all here.
-------
Well, I think the best security would be one that combines "obscurity" with other measures.
Security through obscurity alone is not good security at all, but obscurity as one layer of a security system is not a bad thing.
Of course, then you are relying on everyone else to be forthcoming with their own security issues; you study and implement, while you selfishly contribute nothing in order to maintain your own obscurity.
Selfish, but it would be hard to deny that this would provide better security than (what's the opposite of obscurity? Clarity? Brazen openness?) non-obscurity.
Another approach to obscurity is distraction and obfuscation - present an obvious target to distract attention from the important stuff. Still not good on its own, but important as part of a whole security scheme.
-------
Next time you are going to complain about how useless SETI is, you might want to leave your sig off - it kind of contradicts what you are saying.
Don't you think it would be important to find out more about Earth's neighbors? Well, that sig seems to indicate it is important.
-------
Jeez, I thought I just sucked. Now I know better
Seriously, I think all those CS players out there can testify to how hard it is to prove someone was cheating (and even harder to prove you are not cheating). I've seen arguments constantly go back and forth about "how could you shoot me through the wall unless you were cheating" countered with "well, there is usually someone hiding there and I heard you walking over there".
The only sure way to limit cheating is to play on a server you know is honest and one that is monitored by an admin throughout the game. Even then, it's hard to tell, but at least if there's an admin there, as a last resort he can kick/ban both alleged cheaters and their whining accusers and let the game go on in peace!
-------
Considering your sig, don't you think we should find out about earth's possible neighbors?
-------
Hello, this is Homer Simpson, a.k.a. Happy Dude. The court has ordered me to call every person in town to apologize for my telemarketing scam. I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power.
-------
And why is it again that you actually wait for them to switch you to a live person? Just hang up!
-------