Sorry, but a computer is a tool. Most of the people who have used them for the last few decades treat it as such.
That's not elitism. That's just the nature of the beast.
Then it's time to change the beast, and have us in IT stop acting like pompous asses about the fact that "das blinkenlights are nicht for defingerpoken".
Longer term, sales will probably go down. For a long time millions and millions of people who had no business buying a PC were buying them because of the Windows monopoly, to get access to basic things like email, word processing and basic web/media consumption.
Well, that's kind of what a PC is for, isn't it? What, exactly, makes that so those people had no business buying a PC? Because they can't field strip it or debug it?
Those users are going to finally go away and stop demanding that the PC be turned into what they wanted all along, a simple device without confusing options, flexibility or programability.
Why should they have to go away, and why isn't that a realistic expectation?
I was talking with my neighbor the other day. From what I can piece together, a Colonel since he mentioned a Major who works for him.
He was asking me why every other device in his house he plugs in, and then it goes. He doesn't have to dick around with the internals or know anything about it. He'd been through a lot of frustration with his Windows laptop, and said every time he tried to connect it to wireless it was a 30 minute job.
I've always thought it should be a perfectly reasonable goal that at some point, computers would need to reach a point of operating like toasters and televisions instead of something which comes in a kit.
Slashdot has this absurd bias that PCs should be magical devices which are reserved for the technology priesthood... I think that's ridiculous. The reality is, pretty much everybody in modern society wants access to email, word processing, and basic web stuff -- and they mostly just want it to do it without a lot of fuss.
There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that these people must be a simpering idiots who should just stay away from technology. Given my neighbor's rank and the other stuff he does, he's far from an idiot, but simply wants to use the damned thing to do some work. He's got more important things to do than worry about the technology.
In the end, I was hard pressed not to suggest a Mac -- because for all of those people who just want it to work and have no time to learn the ins and outs, that's kinda what it does well.
Having gotten tired of fiddling with PCs in my spare time to just make them work, increasingly what I want is something which is as easy to use as my TV.
Is anybody surprised by this: "he will demonstrate the dangers of using your smartphone to pay your cab fare"? I have always been a little leery of these things. Between credit cards which don't require contact or a signature, and several other things... they seem like something built for convenience, but without any real security in them.
I'm betting this isn't even specific to Apple so much as the entire class of near-field tech.
Yes, but I believe the GPs point was that they will likely try to establish that. Or at least, would if they could.
They've pretty much gotten it to be the ISPs job to do policing, so therefore if you have wi-fi, you will have the same duty.
Do you really think these guys don't want to foist a duty of care onto all of us? They want society to guarantee their profits, and pay for its policing. Sneaking in negligence gives them a shot at setting the precedent.
If they could somehow sneak that through, they'd be giddy with glee... because in that case, the buck stops at the account holder, even if they didn't do anything. Summary judgements for everybody, trillions of dollars would flow -- and thereby somehow stimulate the economy they claim to form the basis of.
I think Colonialism might be a better word for it.
But, very much the same thing.
I wonder how long before countries decide they aren't willing to receive that person. Already Canada has basically said:
In regard to the watch list, Canada does not recognize the 301 watch list process. It basically lacks reliable and objective analysis. It's driven entirely by U.S. industry. We have repeatedly raised this issue of the lack of objective analysis in the 301 watch list process with our U.S. counterparts.
Courtesy of Michael Geist. Everyone already knows these guys are industry shills... adding them to your official diplomatic corps isn't necessarily going to gain you credibility for a position which is an industry one.
They've been innovating and not creating products. Microsoft has been very conservative.
Well, that's quite sad then. I know they spend metric butt-loads of cash on R&D, but if they can't figure out which of those could lead to a marketable product... they might as well not be doing the research.
The reality is, to me (and likely loads of others), Microsoft has "innovated" very few actually cool things which have turned into products, and they sure as hell haven't been able to come up with any "disruptive" technologies that make people go "oooh, I gotta get me some of that".
Even TFA says Ballmer "pointed out that Microsoft has advantages over Apple when it comes to features like productivity and enterprise management"... you know, nothing at all about the success of Apple's products has focused on those things.
If Microsoft can't see technology that exists outside of the enterprise, they're missing most of the market. An innovative set-top entertainment console doesn't need Office or the ability to integrate with your Outlook Calendar.
Why am I reminded of this Dilbert cartoon from last week?
A decree from the CEO to be more innovative largely means nothing if they can't actually make the change in a meaningful way and bring out products.
If Microsoft has been innovating and not creating products, they're idiots. If they haven't been innovating, well, that's the fundamental problem, isn't it?
Microsoft has been so mired in the "copy someone else's product badly" mentality for so long, I question if Balmer understand what needs to be done to fix this. Certainly not just a speech.
Sadly, even when someone calls me from the office it shows as "Private Caller".
You'd be surprised at just how common it is for the caller id to be blocked or altered, which makes it even more frustrating.
But, generally I just leave the answering machine to do the initial screening... most of the calls I get nowadays is stuff that is either an outright scam, or not someone whose call I'm interested in anyway.
The phone has basically become another vector for spam, and largely gets ignored. Which means occasionally I do miss a call I would have answered.
Except of course, that the spammers and fishers don't care at all about that.
My wife's cell regularly gets called with such things, and since the caller id is bogus and it's a robot on the other end, there's not much you can do to report it as they've gone to some lengths to hide who they actually are.
I think the phone companies should be required to block all calls which don't originate from the broadcast caller id. I generally don't answer anything that says "Private Caller".
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I've simply taken to not believing anybody who phones me... which means the very tiny amount that are legitimate have an awfully difficult time not getting told to fuck off. The fact of the matter is, about 90% or more of all the calls I get are outright fraudulent.
Business will whine and say that if they can't make robocalls, then it will savagely destroy the economy. And whenever business claims that, the lawmakers just roll over and give them whatever they want.
The reality is, the vast majority of calls I get are robocalls, and the majority of them are usually scams involving highly accented idiots in call centers.
I've taken to telling the people who may or may not be legitimate that I simply can't believe people calling me. Between fake caller ids, and outright scams/phishing... I mostly treat all calls not by people I personally know to be a scam and tell pretty much all telemarketers to fsck off.
Robocalls are essentially just spam, but with permission. And probably just as sketchy for the most part.
when Google gets into the mix suddenly it's all 1984
No, because once the technology is available, some asshole at the C level will decide that all employees need to install this on their phone. Even if is a privately owned phone.
I don't want the government tracking where I am. I don't want my employer tracking where I am. I don't want Google tracking where I am. As soon as one of them has it, the rest of them will want access to the information.
But you're right, it sure as hell is 1984... once people start doing this, there's all sorts of ways it gets abused or suffers from scope creep.
Eventually it becomes a condition of employment, or any number of things. Categorically, DO NOT WANT.
it combines a paid-for business version of Google's standard maps product with an application downloaded to a worker's smartphone, creating a real-time record of worker locations
No. A thousand times no.
I can't believe people would be willing to do this.
Especially since most of the sound isn't even real. It's just guys in a studio banging on drums and other crap to insert footsteps, closing doors, and other fake effects.
It's still 'real' sound. In your average scene in the movie, pretty much none of the audio was recorded at the same time as the image. Especially for pretty much anything in a Pixar film for example.
I must say, I have a hard time disagreeing that 62 channels of audio isn't just a tad much. This sounds like something they're building because they can, not because it's going to make a real improvement in the movie experience. I can't see this being something which can be applied meaningfully to home setups.
Though, I bet some of the demos could be pretty cool as they revolve a sound source around you and other whiz-bang stuff which takes advantage of directionality of sound.
On the other hand, in Iran's eyes, they may think the US has declared war.
It's a hostile act. They've admitted to both Flame and Stuxnet I believe. Like it or not, the US has fired the first shots here, and have opened the door for retaliation. You don't get to do it, admit to it, and then just say "just kidding".
Great, another public relations company "news". No reporter was involved on this, 100% paid advertisment.
Did you actually RTFA? They're citing people who are casting doubts on the claims, they're talking about people who refused to comment.
So, I'd be more inclined to believe you read the first paragraph and have decided it's a press release.
The presence of things like "I am dubious about the application of supercavitating propellers" tells me this wasn't simply word-smithed to provide only glowing praise.
Since when is a 'underwater craft' referred to as a 'boat'? A USN Submariner friend of mine affectionately calls his submarine a 'boat' sometimes, but come on/.!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know if they're RFID or not, but credit cards which don't require being swiped to make payments are pretty widespread.
Some of them you just put up near a receiver and it will process a transaction.
Sorry, but a computer is a tool. Most of the people who have used them for the last few decades treat it as such.
Then it's time to change the beast, and have us in IT stop acting like pompous asses about the fact that "das blinkenlights are nicht for defingerpoken".
Apple has been trying to do this at least.
Then why wouldn't you simply buy something from another company?
Seems odd to pay the premium for the Apple hardware/software combo if you don't care about the software.
That screams "I paid too much just to I could put Windows on it". But, maybe I'm missing something.
Well, that's kind of what a PC is for, isn't it? What, exactly, makes that so those people had no business buying a PC? Because they can't field strip it or debug it?
Why should they have to go away, and why isn't that a realistic expectation?
I was talking with my neighbor the other day. From what I can piece together, a Colonel since he mentioned a Major who works for him.
He was asking me why every other device in his house he plugs in, and then it goes. He doesn't have to dick around with the internals or know anything about it. He'd been through a lot of frustration with his Windows laptop, and said every time he tried to connect it to wireless it was a 30 minute job.
I've always thought it should be a perfectly reasonable goal that at some point, computers would need to reach a point of operating like toasters and televisions instead of something which comes in a kit.
Slashdot has this absurd bias that PCs should be magical devices which are reserved for the technology priesthood ... I think that's ridiculous. The reality is, pretty much everybody in modern society wants access to email, word processing, and basic web stuff -- and they mostly just want it to do it without a lot of fuss.
There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that these people must be a simpering idiots who should just stay away from technology. Given my neighbor's rank and the other stuff he does, he's far from an idiot, but simply wants to use the damned thing to do some work. He's got more important things to do than worry about the technology.
In the end, I was hard pressed not to suggest a Mac -- because for all of those people who just want it to work and have no time to learn the ins and outs, that's kinda what it does well.
Having gotten tired of fiddling with PCs in my spare time to just make them work, increasingly what I want is something which is as easy to use as my TV.
Is anybody surprised by this: "he will demonstrate the dangers of using your smartphone to pay your cab fare"? ... they seem like something built for convenience, but without any real security in them.
I have always been a little leery of these things. Between credit cards which don't require contact or a signature, and several other things
I'm betting this isn't even specific to Apple so much as the entire class of near-field tech.
Yes, but I believe the GPs point was that they will likely try to establish that. Or at least, would if they could.
They've pretty much gotten it to be the ISPs job to do policing, so therefore if you have wi-fi, you will have the same duty.
Do you really think these guys don't want to foist a duty of care onto all of us? They want society to guarantee their profits, and pay for its policing. Sneaking in negligence gives them a shot at setting the precedent.
If they could somehow sneak that through, they'd be giddy with glee ... because in that case, the buck stops at the account holder, even if they didn't do anything. Summary judgements for everybody, trillions of dollars would flow -- and thereby somehow stimulate the economy they claim to form the basis of.
How does a corporation have free speech rights?
I think Colonialism might be a better word for it.
But, very much the same thing.
I wonder how long before countries decide they aren't willing to receive that person. Already Canada has basically said:
Courtesy of Michael Geist. Everyone already knows these guys are industry shills ... adding them to your official diplomatic corps isn't necessarily going to gain you credibility for a position which is an industry one.
Well, that's quite sad then. I know they spend metric butt-loads of cash on R&D, but if they can't figure out which of those could lead to a marketable product ... they might as well not be doing the research.
The reality is, to me (and likely loads of others), Microsoft has "innovated" very few actually cool things which have turned into products, and they sure as hell haven't been able to come up with any "disruptive" technologies that make people go "oooh, I gotta get me some of that".
Even TFA says Ballmer "pointed out that Microsoft has advantages over Apple when it comes to features like productivity and enterprise management" ... you know, nothing at all about the success of Apple's products has focused on those things.
If Microsoft can't see technology that exists outside of the enterprise, they're missing most of the market. An innovative set-top entertainment console doesn't need Office or the ability to integrate with your Outlook Calendar.
Why am I reminded of this Dilbert cartoon from last week?
A decree from the CEO to be more innovative largely means nothing if they can't actually make the change in a meaningful way and bring out products.
If Microsoft has been innovating and not creating products, they're idiots. If they haven't been innovating, well, that's the fundamental problem, isn't it?
Microsoft has been so mired in the "copy someone else's product badly" mentality for so long, I question if Balmer understand what needs to be done to fix this. Certainly not just a speech.
Sadly, even when someone calls me from the office it shows as "Private Caller".
You'd be surprised at just how common it is for the caller id to be blocked or altered, which makes it even more frustrating.
But, generally I just leave the answering machine to do the initial screening ... most of the calls I get nowadays is stuff that is either an outright scam, or not someone whose call I'm interested in anyway.
The phone has basically become another vector for spam, and largely gets ignored. Which means occasionally I do miss a call I would have answered.
Except of course, that the spammers and fishers don't care at all about that.
My wife's cell regularly gets called with such things, and since the caller id is bogus and it's a robot on the other end, there's not much you can do to report it as they've gone to some lengths to hide who they actually are.
I think the phone companies should be required to block all calls which don't originate from the broadcast caller id. I generally don't answer anything that says "Private Caller".
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I've simply taken to not believing anybody who phones me ... which means the very tiny amount that are legitimate have an awfully difficult time not getting told to fuck off. The fact of the matter is, about 90% or more of all the calls I get are outright fraudulent.
Business will whine and say that if they can't make robocalls, then it will savagely destroy the economy. And whenever business claims that, the lawmakers just roll over and give them whatever they want.
The reality is, the vast majority of calls I get are robocalls, and the majority of them are usually scams involving highly accented idiots in call centers.
I've taken to telling the people who may or may not be legitimate that I simply can't believe people calling me. Between fake caller ids, and outright scams/phishing ... I mostly treat all calls not by people I personally know to be a scam and tell pretty much all telemarketers to fsck off.
Robocalls are essentially just spam, but with permission. And probably just as sketchy for the most part.
Read it again. In both live action and CGI films, the audio was pretty much recorded separately from what you see and mashed together in editing.
The sound that come out of speakers are still 'real', no matter if they are sound effects or dialog.
Maybe your reading detector is set to low?
No, because once the technology is available, some asshole at the C level will decide that all employees need to install this on their phone. Even if is a privately owned phone.
I don't want the government tracking where I am. I don't want my employer tracking where I am. I don't want Google tracking where I am. As soon as one of them has it, the rest of them will want access to the information.
But you're right, it sure as hell is 1984 ... once people start doing this, there's all sorts of ways it gets abused or suffers from scope creep.
Eventually it becomes a condition of employment, or any number of things. Categorically, DO NOT WANT.
No. A thousand times no.
I can't believe people would be willing to do this.
No, the point is to give Dolby an advantage, and make sure more cinemas are buying their stuff.
It just remains to be seen if the cinemas will pony up for something like this.
Oh? Really?
They may be saying that they released it "by accident", but I'm pretty sure they've acknowledge they built it.
It's still 'real' sound. In your average scene in the movie, pretty much none of the audio was recorded at the same time as the image. Especially for pretty much anything in a Pixar film for example.
I must say, I have a hard time disagreeing that 62 channels of audio isn't just a tad much. This sounds like something they're building because they can, not because it's going to make a real improvement in the movie experience. I can't see this being something which can be applied meaningfully to home setups.
Though, I bet some of the demos could be pretty cool as they revolve a sound source around you and other whiz-bang stuff which takes advantage of directionality of sound.
It's a hostile act. They've admitted to both Flame and Stuxnet I believe. Like it or not, the US has fired the first shots here, and have opened the door for retaliation. You don't get to do it, admit to it, and then just say "just kidding".
Begun, the clone war has.
Or have recently eaten cheez-its.
What is the speed of stink? Preferably in the standard measure of furlongs per fortnight. ;-)
Did you actually RTFA? They're citing people who are casting doubts on the claims, they're talking about people who refused to comment.
So, I'd be more inclined to believe you read the first paragraph and have decided it's a press release.
The presence of things like "I am dubious about the application of supercavitating propellers" tells me this wasn't simply word-smithed to provide only glowing praise.
That's because
A sub is always a boat. Navies have always called them boats, that's why your submariner friend calls it that.
You might not like it, but "boat" is the correct term.
If a gym, retail store, or credit card company ask for my finger prints, they will get told in no uncertain terms to politely go fsck themselves.
Not happening.
If you aint law enforcement, don't even bother asking.