I can certainly understand why someone might prefer the Taskbar to the Dock and a window-centric approach to an application-centric approach. It's very much a personal preference.
I just think it was silly for the guy to call the Mac's Dock a design flaw and claim it's only usefulness was for making flashy demos. Particularly when Windows counterpart has it's own set of issues.
Both Windows and OS X have a bunch of real flaws that should be on the list. Instead of listing those, he just ranted about a few of his personal pet peeves.
Neither are perfect, but I use both every day and, despite it's flaws, the Dock is better than the Taskbar -- IMHO.
The Dock is an excellent application switcher for me as well as a good visual aid for seeing what's running. I keep about twenty application icons and my Application folder there. I like it pinned to the right side. All the icons are still plenty big enough to quickly see what's running.
The Windows Taskbar becomes useless for me if I have more than about five windows open. Any more and I have to click see what each one is for. Plus, installers just love to crowd it with crap. And, honestly I hate having a Taskbar button for every friggin' window I have open. I much prefer the Mac's application-centric approach.
Anyway, this guy's list of design flaws is lame. I could think of a bunch of much better ones. Many of them in OS X. But, to call the system's application switcher a design flaw is just stupid.
But, companies do only exist for profit and for the benefit of shareholders. The fact that they provide employment is merely a side effect and a liability for the company. It is not the reason companies exist.
If companies could replace all their employees with machines, they would. If slavery were legal again, they would use slaves. If it weren't for child labor laws they would employ children.
In other words, to assign any noble motivations to corporations because of the employment they provide is misguided. They provide employment and living wages only because they are forced to do so. Taking away all of the "socialistic" laws and you would probably living in a shanty town addressing the CEOs as "master".
All true. But, I won't be satisfied until his butt is sitting in a penitentiary -- for life. If the spammer gets nine years, then I think Mr. Lay would need a significantly longer term if convicted.
Anyway, I hope my cynicism is misplaced this time, but savings and loan debacle of the eighties left me a bit jaded. They finally convicted a few of the high profile racketeers, but only sent them to a country club prison for a couple of years.
Before you knew it, they were out writing books and teaching economics at the university. I doubt the outcome will be much different this time. I hope I'm wrong.
Hey, I'm all for putting the perpetrators of fraud behind bars, but sure wish they would go after the big fish.
I guess the lesson here is that it's better commit fraud publicly on a massive scale -- and have friends in high places -- then it is to commit fraud quietly from your back bedroom.
I think Apple got it right with iTunes when they decided against the subscription model. I think people do want to own their media rather than pay a monthly fee for access to media.
It is the content-owning corporations and distributers with no hardware to sell who would love to see the subscription model succeed, not the consumers.
The reason is simple: the subscription model is the holy grail for corporations because it affords them a predictable, guaranteed revenue stream. In business, you can't beat that model.
It is the way cable television is sold. Given that I watch little television, I would prefer to pay only for the programs I watch. But, I'm not given that choice. I have to sign up for a monthly subscription for a ton of channels I never watch.
So, I hope that long term Apple is right and Microsoft is wrong regarding subscription services. When they begin to distribute movies on line, I would rather see an iTunes-like model as rather than another another monthly bill. Some months I buy music, some months I don't. Ditto for movies. On-line distribution should allow for this choice.
I think that based on this graph, I need to start buying more stock in "failed" companies.
I don't know, maybe I should have bought Microsoft or Intel instead.
Now, I'm no mathematician or stock market analyst, but I do know that stock that has more than tripled it's value in two years is better than one that has been flat. It would seem that being a failed "niche" vendor ain't so bad after all.
As someone else mentioned, WiMax has a much higher capacity than a single T-1 line.
The reason he compared it to T-1 lines was not to compare maximum bit rates, but to compare it to the competing service offering. Early roll outs of WiMax are going to target the local monopoly's lucrative T-1 wireline business. T-1's are still in wide use and are cash cows for the guys that own the wires.
This is the same play that the CLECs like Covad made using leased copper and CO space to provide T-1 competition with DSL technologies. Of course, they got screwed over by the Bells and the bubble burst....
So, this is just another attempt to provide a competitive symmetric data pipe for businesses. But, with wireless they can avoid dealing with the local monopoly completely. Which is their only choice at this point since the FCC basically killed the wireline leasing business when the told the monopolies they didn't have to lease their new broadband build-outs.
You don't have to click on the application to quit. Even when the application is in the background, you can right-click on the dock icon and choose Quit. Click-and-hold does the same thing on a one-button mouse.
"People with wealth and success have power because they are desirable people, they make things happen, whether it requires a pen and a checkbook or an uncommon set of skills which gave them that wealth and success."
Ah, if that statement were actually true, I would be on-board with you. If you modified it to say "Some people..." it would accurate.
The sad reality is that hard work and above average skills rarely lead to wealth and power. Good political skills and a willingness to lie does. As anyone who has ever worked for a corporation will tell you, it is often the incompetent who rise because getting ahead has a lot more to do with knowing what asses to lick and whose nuts you can kick than it does with having above average skills.
Many would argue that a willingness to shamelessly lie, cheat and BS your way to the top is admirable. I would disagree.
So, you take that group, add those who were born into wealth and those were just lucky, you'll find they make up a sizable portion of the wealthy and powerful. Maybe even the majority.
"Not everyone inherits money you know, but everyone is subject to the same rules."
No, the rules are not the same for everyone. Not even close. And, that's not sour grapes or envy talking. That's a fact.
Proof? If you're talking about the faith-based initiatives, there are very strict rules about how government funds must be used, guaranteeing that the funds don't have any religious ties.
The point is not whether there are "strict rules" (by the way, there are no enforcement agencies set up to make sure the rules are followed), it's the very existence of a program that sends my tax dollars to religious organizations for any purpose. It's unconstitutional. I thought Christian conservatives were against wealth distribution via government means. I thought they were strict constitutionalists. Well, they are, except when they use the government to restrict the rights of other citizens and fatten the coffers of their churches
Christians demonstrate their love by caring for people in a material way (food, clothing, housing, etc...) and this is bad, because? Nobody is inducing anybody to do anything.
Yes, some Christians do good things. How smug of you to mention that. Well, so do I. But I was taught not brag about it, not impose my beliefs on others and, most importantly, that my good deeds do not make up for my bad ones. Christians also demonstrate tons of hate and intolerance. If I am going to give them kudos for the good things they do, I'm going call them on the awful things they do.
Just do a Google search on "California student Koran Sekulow".
Like I said, I'm not interested in isolated instances. Prove to me me it's systemic and approved by school broads across the country. I could easily find for you many instances of Christians imposing their beliefs on children in public schools. It's just as wrong, but it's not systemic so I won't do what you a have done and try to prove that there is some widespread problem using isolated, rare violations.
Sure. Just look at all of the lawsuits which have been won by Jay Sekulow. They are public record.
See my last response. You are grasping at straws.
And what power would that be? I know - we must have some sort of mystical mind control power we exercise over everyone.
Now, you are either being coy here or totally disingenuous. In response to another post, you went to great lengths to show the Christian influence over US politicians during the entire history of our country and now you you have the audacity to say "what power?". Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Every president has been Christian as have 99% of the federal elected officials. Christians hold nearly all the positions of power in our country and it influences the laws they enact. To deny it just makes you sound like a fool.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this is coming from someone who denies that recruiting new people into the religion is not part of the Christian agenda.
Or rather, we see most of Hollywood deriding Christian values. (The reason why Gibson's Passion of The Christ received so much media attention). You don't see Christian's going out and attempting to get laws enacted against movies which glorify premarital sex, violence, the homosexual lifestyle, etc... We do what every other special interest group does - avoid the material, and possibly boycott the producers.
Yes, I do see Christians going out and enacting laws based on their beliefs. But, if I gave you examples, you would deny it the same way you deny their evangelical doctrine, so what's the point?
The theme here, is that we respect the rights of others to choose to do as they will. If I don't like what you're doing, I can show my displeasure by choosing not to patronize/support you. Your rights extend all the way up to the point to where they start harming others. Contrast this to other groups. For example, gay organizations which are lobbying to create laws which would force schools to teach children that the homosexual lifestyle is good. That, unfortunately, is a very scary reality that we've almost come to.
"...yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else."
Wow. You can say that with a straight face? We must be living on different planets. Here in the USA on planet Earth, Christians expend an enormous amount of time, energy and money forcing their religion on others through all sorts of avenues.
Let's see. We have a president that just got reelected primarily because he is overtly Christian and has made a huge effort to spread that religion using tax dollars and government influence in direct conflict with the constitution. All factions of Christianity spend hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars a year on missions -- domestic and abroad -- seeking to convert people to Christianity.
And, please show me some proof that public schools are forcing children to read the Quran. Perhaps there are some isolated incidences of some whack-job teacher doing that, but it certainly is not part of the curriculum at any public school. While you are at it, do you have proof that children are not being allowed to read the Bible during their free time at school? Are teachers confiscating Bibles? I'm back at college and every day there some nut pushing a Bible in my face as I walk to class. We have a lot of middle eastern students and not one has ever shoved the Quran in my hand as I walked by.
Look, my post was an exaggeration of sorts to express my frustration at the unbelievable degree to which Christianity has infiltrated the government and my despair that so many people base their votes on religious beliefs rather than facts.
The U.S. is not a theocracy like Iran, yet. But that's not for the lack of trying on the part of Christians.
By the way, it's really difficult to listen to Christians whine as though they are the persecuted underdogs of our society when, in fact, they are majority and hold all the power. I know many Christians like to pretend that the awful Hollywood liberals are some huge, menacing power, but it's just not the case.
It is the Jews, Muslims, etc. and the non-religious who are, by far, the minority in the USA.
Does anyone have any suggestions regarding where someone tired of living in a Christian theocracy might move to?
When the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians escalates into WW III, I'd rather be watching from the sidelines in a country that has advanced beyond superstitions.
Of course, Apple products are not as utterly fabulous as the zealots would have you believe, but that because zealots are, well, zealous.
Undoubtedly, there are many iPod and Mac owners who buy the products for the "hip and cool" factor. But, by no means do all Apple product owners make their decisions based on pop culture trends and slick advertising. Many like Apple products for their functionality.
Over the years, I've know hundreds of Mac owners and not one of them fit the stereotype normally associated with Apple buyers -- myself included. So, I reject the notion that iPods and Macs sell primarily due to the "hip and cool" factor.
That said, as a shareholder, I'm happy with people buying Apple products for any reason, even superficial ones.:-)
As an Apple shareholder and happy owner of some Apple products, all I can say is: Thank God Slashdot members don't run Apple.
Every time Apple introduces a new product, there is an endless series of posts about why it sucks, why it won't sell, what features were left out, why the new features are worthless, why it's too expensive, lists of poorly selling products that are "superior" and have more features and on and on and on.
Apple's revenues are up, their profits are up, they have a slew of successful products and they have a lot of happy customers.
Give it a rest guys. Let the market decide if the latest offering sucks. Based on history, when Slashdotters say an Apple product won't sell, it ends up being a phenomenal success.
Sorry if I was telling you things you already know. I completely agree with your assessment of the folks developing VoIP technology. There are a few of us left who have read those documents and can discuss the pro and cons, but we are often ignored.
There are good market opportunities that are driving VoIP, but from a technical point of view, shoehorning isochronous streams into protocols that were designed for bursty data traffic is a major pain.
One thing is for sure. Even with excellent QoS, troubleshooting and maintaining VoIP will always be far more difficult than good 'ol circuit-switched, TDM networks.
Not exactly. Certainly not using common telecommunications terminology.
A circuit in telecom terms usually refers to a fixed-bandwidth, time-division-multiplexed, circuit-switched channel. The circuit is "nailed-up" for the duration of the call and never competes with other traffic. Latency is predictable, relatively low and fixed.
VoIP uses statistically-multiplexed, packet-switched "channels". Isochronous data (like voice) still must compete other data throughout the network. End-to-end QoS does not eliminate the competition or create a "circuit" in the old sense. It gives the isochronous data priority and limits the size/number of the packets that can be transmitted between voice packets.
It is true that end-to-end QoS is required to achieve the quality and reliability of TDM/circuit-switched networks. It will be years before this goal is achieved. Until then, VoIP will be just slightly better than best effort mechanisms used for data traffic. That said, VoIP does work really well on private networks where the data and voice can be isolated by mechanisms other than QoS.
Wow, so you now admit that what you have is a point of view. A minute ago, you had the "facts" which you backed up with dubious sources. Progress. Nice.
Now, turn off the TV, turn off the radio, put down the election year propaganda book, quit monitoring the polls, quit labeling others based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and take your own advice. Think for yourself.
RussP wrote: "Rush is usually (but not always) right. That's why he has 20,000,000 listeners, and they are not all dummies."
What you mean by "right" is that you agree with his point of view. Do not confuse a point of view with facts. Some people love to hear someone on the radio say things that reinforce their own point of view. That is not thinking for yourself.
You know, more than 20,000,000 agreed with Hitler, too. Does that prove that he was "right". And, I could use the your argument to prove that Michael Moore is "right" as well. If I did, you would go ballistic.
Take your own advice, think for yourself. Turn off the TV and the radio. Quit reading propaganda and think for yourself.
RussP wrote: "Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself."
Let's see here...your advice is to read some smear book by a kooky partisan nutjob and that will help you "think for yourself". Are you for real? Are you serious?
That's like saying, "Listen to Rush Limbaugh and think for yourself".
Get a grip, my friend. People who think for themselves do not give any credence to partisan smear jobs from either side.
I doubt any network will air the movie. But, they should.
Michael Moore is no different than Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. Those guys get tons of airplay and they are biased, spinning shills for their party. Why shouldn't Moore get some airplay? Jeez, it's just a two hour movie. The right wing windbags get more air time than that every single day.
I think one problem with the "kids don't get properly socialized if they are home schooled" argument is that it assumes the type of socialization we get in public schools is good socialization. It's not.
Bullies, athlete worship, beauty contests (homecoming queens and prom kings/queens), fashion consciousness, social circles (jocks, freaks, nerds...), having to act stupid to be cool, etc. That's the socialization we get in public school.
Not to mention it can be damn hard to learn math when there's some girl in a halter top and a short skirt sitting next to you. Not that I have anything against scantily-clad women in general, it's just not conducive to to learning.
Kids can get socialized in a lot of other environments outside of school.
Slashdot Mirror
I can certainly understand why someone might prefer the Taskbar to the Dock and a window-centric approach to an application-centric approach. It's very much a personal preference.
:-)
I just think it was silly for the guy to call the Mac's Dock a design flaw and claim it's only usefulness was for making flashy demos. Particularly when Windows counterpart has it's own set of issues.
Both Windows and OS X have a bunch of real flaws that should be on the list. Instead of listing those, he just ranted about a few of his personal pet peeves.
Like you said, oh well.
...then relatively speaking, Windows' Taskbar sucks-ass-big-time.
Neither are perfect, but I use both every day and, despite it's flaws, the Dock is better than the Taskbar -- IMHO.
The Dock is an excellent application switcher for me as well as a good visual aid for seeing what's running. I keep about twenty application icons and my Application folder there. I like it pinned to the right side. All the icons are still plenty big enough to quickly see what's running.
The Windows Taskbar becomes useless for me if I have more than about five windows open. Any more and I have to click see what each one is for. Plus, installers just love to crowd it with crap. And, honestly I hate having a Taskbar button for every friggin' window I have open. I much prefer the Mac's application-centric approach.
Anyway, this guy's list of design flaws is lame. I could think of a bunch of much better ones. Many of them in OS X. But, to call the system's application switcher a design flaw is just stupid.
But, companies do only exist for profit and for the benefit of shareholders. The fact that they provide employment is merely a side effect and a liability for the company. It is not the reason companies exist.
If companies could replace all their employees with machines, they would. If slavery were legal again, they would use slaves. If it weren't for child labor laws they would employ children.
In other words, to assign any noble motivations to corporations because of the employment they provide is misguided. They provide employment and living wages only because they are forced to do so. Taking away all of the "socialistic" laws and you would probably living in a shanty town addressing the CEOs as "master".
All true. But, I won't be satisfied until his butt is sitting in a penitentiary -- for life. If the spammer gets nine years, then I think Mr. Lay would need a significantly longer term if convicted.
Anyway, I hope my cynicism is misplaced this time, but savings and loan debacle of the eighties left me a bit jaded. They finally convicted a few of the high profile racketeers, but only sent them to a country club prison for a couple of years.
Before you knew it, they were out writing books and teaching economics at the university. I doubt the outcome will be much different this time. I hope I'm wrong.
Hey, I'm all for putting the perpetrators of fraud behind bars, but sure wish they would go after the big fish.
I guess the lesson here is that it's better commit fraud publicly on a massive scale -- and have friends in high places -- then it is to commit fraud quietly from your back bedroom.
I think Apple got it right with iTunes when they decided against the subscription model. I think people do want to own their media rather than pay a monthly fee for access to media.
It is the content-owning corporations and distributers with no hardware to sell who would love to see the subscription model succeed, not the consumers.
The reason is simple: the subscription model is the holy grail for corporations because it affords them a predictable, guaranteed revenue stream. In business, you can't beat that model.
It is the way cable television is sold. Given that I watch little television, I would prefer to pay only for the programs I watch. But, I'm not given that choice. I have to sign up for a monthly subscription for a ton of channels I never watch.
So, I hope that long term Apple is right and Microsoft is wrong regarding subscription services. When they begin to distribute movies on line, I would rather see an iTunes-like model as rather than another another monthly bill. Some months I buy music, some months I don't. Ditto for movies. On-line distribution should allow for this choice.
I think that based on this graph, I need to start buying more stock in "failed" companies.
I don't know, maybe I should have bought Microsoft or Intel instead.
Now, I'm no mathematician or stock market analyst, but I do know that stock that has more than tripled it's value in two years is better than one that has been flat. It would seem that being a failed "niche" vendor ain't so bad after all.
As someone else mentioned, WiMax has a much higher capacity than a single T-1 line.
The reason he compared it to T-1 lines was not to compare maximum bit rates, but to compare it to the competing service offering. Early roll outs of WiMax are going to target the local monopoly's lucrative T-1 wireline business. T-1's are still in wide use and are cash cows for the guys that own the wires.
This is the same play that the CLECs like Covad made using leased copper and CO space to provide T-1 competition with DSL technologies. Of course, they got screwed over by the Bells and the bubble burst....
So, this is just another attempt to provide a competitive symmetric data pipe for businesses. But, with wireless they can avoid dealing with the local monopoly completely. Which is their only choice at this point since the FCC basically killed the wireline leasing business when the told the monopolies they didn't have to lease their new broadband build-outs.
You don't have to click on the application to quit. Even when the application is in the background, you can right-click on the dock icon and choose Quit. Click-and-hold does the same thing on a one-button mouse.
"People with wealth and success have power because they are desirable people, they make things happen, whether it requires a pen and a checkbook or an uncommon set of skills which gave them that wealth and success."
Ah, if that statement were actually true, I would be on-board with you. If you modified it to say "Some people..." it would accurate.
The sad reality is that hard work and above average skills rarely lead to wealth and power. Good political skills and a willingness to lie does. As anyone who has ever worked for a corporation will tell you, it is often the incompetent who rise because getting ahead has a lot more to do with knowing what asses to lick and whose nuts you can kick than it does with having above average skills.
Many would argue that a willingness to shamelessly lie, cheat and BS your way to the top is admirable. I would disagree.
So, you take that group, add those who were born into wealth and those were just lucky, you'll find they make up a sizable portion of the wealthy and powerful. Maybe even the majority.
"Not everyone inherits money you know, but everyone is subject to the same rules."
No, the rules are not the same for everyone. Not even close. And, that's not sour grapes or envy talking. That's a fact.
Proof? If you're talking about the faith-based initiatives, there are very strict rules about how government funds must be used, guaranteeing that the funds don't have any religious ties.
The point is not whether there are "strict rules" (by the way, there are no enforcement agencies set up to make sure the rules are followed), it's the very existence of a program that sends my tax dollars to religious organizations for any purpose. It's unconstitutional. I thought Christian conservatives were against wealth distribution via government means. I thought they were strict constitutionalists. Well, they are, except when they use the government to restrict the rights of other citizens and fatten the coffers of their churches
Christians demonstrate their love by caring for people in a material way (food, clothing, housing, etc...) and this is bad, because? Nobody is inducing anybody to do anything.
Yes, some Christians do good things. How smug of you to mention that. Well, so do I. But I was taught not brag about it, not impose my beliefs on others and, most importantly, that my good deeds do not make up for my bad ones. Christians also demonstrate tons of hate and intolerance. If I am going to give them kudos for the good things they do, I'm going call them on the awful things they do.
Just do a Google search on "California student Koran Sekulow".
Like I said, I'm not interested in isolated instances. Prove to me me it's systemic and approved by school broads across the country. I could easily find for you many instances of Christians imposing their beliefs on children in public schools. It's just as wrong, but it's not systemic so I won't do what you a have done and try to prove that there is some widespread problem using isolated, rare violations.
Sure. Just look at all of the lawsuits which have been won by Jay Sekulow. They are public record.
See my last response. You are grasping at straws.
And what power would that be? I know - we must have some sort of mystical mind control power we exercise over everyone.
Now, you are either being coy here or totally disingenuous. In response to another post, you went to great lengths to show the Christian influence over US politicians during the entire history of our country and now you you have the audacity to say "what power?". Give me a break. You can't have it both ways. Every president has been Christian as have 99% of the federal elected officials. Christians hold nearly all the positions of power in our country and it influences the laws they enact. To deny it just makes you sound like a fool.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised since this is coming from someone who denies that recruiting new people into the religion is not part of the Christian agenda.
Or rather, we see most of Hollywood deriding Christian values. (The reason why Gibson's Passion of The Christ received so much media attention). You don't see Christian's going out and attempting to get laws enacted against movies which glorify premarital sex, violence, the homosexual lifestyle, etc... We do what every other special interest group does - avoid the material, and possibly boycott the producers.
Yes, I do see Christians going out and enacting laws based on their beliefs. But, if I gave you examples, you would deny it the same way you deny their evangelical doctrine, so what's the point?
The theme here, is that we respect the rights of others to choose to do as they will. If I don't like what you're doing, I can show my displeasure by choosing not to patronize/support you. Your rights extend all the way up to the point to where they start harming others. Contrast this to other groups. For example, gay organizations which are lobbying to create laws which would force schools to teach children that the homosexual lifestyle is good. That, unfortunately, is a very scary reality that we've almost come to.
No, the theme here is that you are either disi
"...yet the last thing a Christian wants to do is force his religion on someone else."
Wow. You can say that with a straight face? We must be living on different planets. Here in the USA on planet Earth, Christians expend an enormous amount of time, energy and money forcing their religion on others through all sorts of avenues.
Let's see. We have a president that just got reelected primarily because he is overtly Christian and has made a huge effort to spread that religion using tax dollars and government influence in direct conflict with the constitution. All factions of Christianity spend hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars a year on missions -- domestic and abroad -- seeking to convert people to Christianity.
And, please show me some proof that public schools are forcing children to read the Quran. Perhaps there are some isolated incidences of some whack-job teacher doing that, but it certainly is not part of the curriculum at any public school. While you are at it, do you have proof that children are not being allowed to read the Bible during their free time at school? Are teachers confiscating Bibles? I'm back at college and every day there some nut pushing a Bible in my face as I walk to class. We have a lot of middle eastern students and not one has ever shoved the Quran in my hand as I walked by.
Look, my post was an exaggeration of sorts to express my frustration at the unbelievable degree to which Christianity has infiltrated the government and my despair that so many people base their votes on religious beliefs rather than facts.
The U.S. is not a theocracy like Iran, yet. But that's not for the lack of trying on the part of Christians.
By the way, it's really difficult to listen to Christians whine as though they are the persecuted underdogs of our society when, in fact, they are majority and hold all the power. I know many Christians like to pretend that the awful Hollywood liberals are some huge, menacing power, but it's just not the case.
It is the Jews, Muslims, etc. and the non-religious who are, by far, the minority in the USA.
Does anyone have any suggestions regarding where someone tired of living in a Christian theocracy might move to?
When the war between the fundamentalist Muslims and the fundamentalist Christians escalates into WW III, I'd rather be watching from the sidelines in a country that has advanced beyond superstitions.
Of course, Apple products are not as utterly fabulous as the zealots would have you believe, but that because zealots are, well, zealous.
:-)
Undoubtedly, there are many iPod and Mac owners who buy the products for the "hip and cool" factor. But, by no means do all Apple product owners make their decisions based on pop culture trends and slick advertising. Many like Apple products for their functionality.
Over the years, I've know hundreds of Mac owners and not one of them fit the stereotype normally associated with Apple buyers -- myself included. So, I reject the notion that iPods and Macs sell primarily due to the "hip and cool" factor.
That said, as a shareholder, I'm happy with people buying Apple products for any reason, even superficial ones.
As an Apple shareholder and happy owner of some Apple products, all I can say is: Thank God Slashdot members don't run Apple.
Every time Apple introduces a new product, there is an endless series of posts about why it sucks, why it won't sell, what features were left out, why the new features are worthless, why it's too expensive, lists of poorly selling products that are "superior" and have more features and on and on and on.
Apple's revenues are up, their profits are up, they have a slew of successful products and they have a lot of happy customers.
Give it a rest guys. Let the market decide if the latest offering sucks. Based on history, when Slashdotters say an Apple product won't sell, it ends up being a phenomenal success.
Sorry if I was telling you things you already know. I completely agree with your assessment of the folks developing VoIP technology. There are a few of us left who have read those documents and can discuss the pro and cons, but we are often ignored.
There are good market opportunities that are driving VoIP, but from a technical point of view, shoehorning isochronous streams into protocols that were designed for bursty data traffic is a major pain.
One thing is for sure. Even with excellent QoS, troubleshooting and maintaining VoIP will always be far more difficult than good 'ol circuit-switched, TDM networks.
Cheers.
>>I think that is called a "circuit".
Not exactly. Certainly not using common telecommunications terminology.
A circuit in telecom terms usually refers to a fixed-bandwidth, time-division-multiplexed, circuit-switched channel. The circuit is "nailed-up" for the duration of the call and never competes with other traffic. Latency is predictable, relatively low and fixed.
VoIP uses statistically-multiplexed, packet-switched "channels". Isochronous data (like voice) still must compete other data throughout the network. End-to-end QoS does not eliminate the competition or create a "circuit" in the old sense. It gives the isochronous data priority and limits the size/number of the packets that can be transmitted between voice packets.
It is true that end-to-end QoS is required to achieve the quality and reliability of TDM/circuit-switched networks. It will be years before this goal is achieved. Until then, VoIP will be just slightly better than best effort mechanisms used for data traffic. That said, VoIP does work really well on private networks where the data and voice can be isolated by mechanisms other than QoS.
Boy, you will go to any lengths to try and prove that a draft-dodger is more heroic than actual veteran of war. That is just amazing to me.
Look, if you like Bush, great. Vote for him because you believe he will pass legislation that will benefit you and support causes you believe in.
But, to try and sell the guy based on his military record is just so ludicrous it's insane.
I revert to my earlier assessment. You are delusional.
"I'll bet..."? "...a little fishy..."
Those are not a facts, that's speculation and opinion. Jeez. You can't even be honest with yourself, can you?
Here's the facts:
Fact: Bush did not go to Vietnam. He specifically requested he not be sent to Vietnam.
Fact: Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam and did go to Vietnam and saw combat.
Point of view: Bush is a pussy. Kerry has a fat set of balls.
Wow, so you now admit that what you have is a point of view. A minute ago, you had the "facts" which you backed up with dubious sources. Progress. Nice.
Now, turn off the TV, turn off the radio, put down the election year propaganda book, quit monitoring the polls, quit labeling others based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and take your own advice. Think for yourself.
RussP wrote: "Rush is usually (but not always) right. That's why he has 20,000,000 listeners, and they are not all dummies."
What you mean by "right" is that you agree with his point of view. Do not confuse a point of view with facts. Some people love to hear someone on the radio say things that reinforce their own point of view. That is not thinking for yourself.
You know, more than 20,000,000 agreed with Hitler, too. Does that prove that he was "right". And, I could use the your argument to prove that Michael Moore is "right" as well. If I did, you would go ballistic.
Take your own advice, think for yourself. Turn off the TV and the radio. Quit reading propaganda and think for yourself.
You, my friend, are hopeless and delusional. The nonsense your write is not worthy of debate. Take your own advice and think for yourself.
RussP wrote: "Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself."
Let's see here...your advice is to read some smear book by a kooky partisan nutjob and that will help you "think for yourself". Are you for real? Are you serious?
That's like saying, "Listen to Rush Limbaugh and think for yourself".
Get a grip, my friend. People who think for themselves do not give any credence to partisan smear jobs from either side.
I doubt any network will air the movie. But, they should.
Michael Moore is no different than Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. Those guys get tons of airplay and they are biased, spinning shills for their party. Why shouldn't Moore get some airplay? Jeez, it's just a two hour movie. The right wing windbags get more air time than that every single day.
I think one problem with the "kids don't get properly socialized if they are home schooled" argument is that it assumes the type of socialization we get in public schools is good socialization. It's not.
Bullies, athlete worship, beauty contests (homecoming queens and prom kings/queens), fashion consciousness, social circles (jocks, freaks, nerds...), having to act stupid to be cool, etc. That's the socialization we get in public school.
Not to mention it can be damn hard to learn math when there's some girl in a halter top and a short skirt sitting next to you. Not that I have anything against scantily-clad women in general, it's just not conducive to to learning.
Kids can get socialized in a lot of other environments outside of school.