The "opt-in" will be part of the agreement to get service in the first place, thereby adhering to the letter of this promise, but not the spirit.
Or, the ever popular "by continuing to use this service you agree to all terms and conditions" when they change their TOS to existing customers.
I simply have a hard time that these companies will keep this one little line item separate, and make sure that when you click on it you are only clicking on it.
The propensity to bundle all of the things into one big uber license it just too common, and companies retroactively changing TOS is hardly new.
This isn't like being fired because you beat your boss at golf, this is like being fired because you lost your temper, took out an ad in the local newspaper saying your company kills puppies, and then took a shit on your boss' desk.
gmail supports pop/imap. I check mine in Outlook every day.
apologies if I missed the sarcasm, you cynics need to label those things
It's not like there was any sarcasm to miss. I directly stated that you could, in fact, access your gmail from a POP client. Then you corrected me and said, no, you can access gmail from a POP client.:-P
gmail is a good web mail but I would prefer a real client any day of the week. Even Linux Evolution is a better email than any web based email...
Well, web-based email has the benefit of being accessible from wherever you're at. That's a huge advantage -- when I'm visiting my family, it's nice to be able to check my email.
Plus, it's not like you can't use your favorite POP client to connect to gmail and read your mail in whatever client you like.
First? Jesus, flights 8 through 60 would have made me trigger that sucker every friggin' time.
It took a lot of time (and a lot of alcohol) for me to get used to flying without being pretty squirrely and unhappy about the process.
I used to be a train wreck when I traveled by plane, and that was unfortunately way more often than I'd have liked at the time. Now I'm fine with the flying, it's the security and airports that make me insane.
One of the "problems" of going to the moon is that unless we add extra hurdles for itself, it's so short the dominant solution would be to just pack up enough consumables for the trip and avoid solving any of the really hard issues.
I agree with that. And, as you say, maybe the solution is to work more on extended self-containment initially.
However, if we actually tried to set harder goals than simply put some guy on the moon to hit a golf ball (no offense to Mr Shepard), then surely we can start to work on some of these problems. I realize it's not quite an analog to Mars in terms of gravity and the like, but actually giving a stab at any form of construction project, and maybe working towards doing something up there. Building any kind of structure would be huge I think.
Another dry run we could make is sending a craft down on Mars to be launched back up into orbit/to earth.
But, again, can't we do that a little more locally and actually work towards this using the moon? Assuming it's in some way cheaper (and with a shorter turn-around time) to use the moon for this stuff, why go straight to Mars?
Somehow I think the "semi-crash huge amounts of volatile fuel on Mars" could be more than a little problematic.
Oh, come on... not even a little "semi-crash"? Please? Just a light bump of the volatile chemicals? The barest of nudges? It'll look really cool if we have an orbital camera in place to capture the event should it go wrong.;-)
It seems to me this will have little meaning in the long run. It's been shown the ISO is deep in the pockets of M$. Do they really care what IBM thinks or does? I mean they already got their money right?
Well, the cynic in me agrees with you -- I doubt IBM will follow through, and if they did, I doubt it would make much difference.
However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.
I would like to see some correction to the fact that it's a standard that really only MS can implement. Rubber stamping OOXML basically just legitimizes it for governments to buy it.
A good lot of training may help them deal with that stress. And their faith may provide them with confidence that their gods wouldn't allow them to fail. But until you actually get through security, there's got to be a lot of stress to deal with
And, don't forget, unless you're clearing customs on the very day you're planning on doing something nefarious, this will do absolutely nothing to do anything that give the illusion of security.
The guys from 9-11 were in the US for how many months?? There's just no way this system could have ever prevented that kind of attack.
This'll will identify fewer terrorists than it will people who failed to declare something or who have something embarrassing (but legal)stuff in their suitcase.:-P "I'm not allowed to say your dildo, merely the dildo".
but he missed the boat on just how easy it has become (and is becoming!) to use computers to not merely threaten to monitor anybody at any time, but to monitor everybody all the time.
Given that he published it in 1949, he can be forgiven for not foreseeing modern computers.
In terms of showing how pervasive and evil a surveillance society can be, he's still highly relevant.
Pointing out just how eerie something like an automated "future crimes" concept is hardly just sarcastic bitching -- I'm betting an awful lot of people read that summary and thought "holy crap!!", I sure as hell did. Because, the sheer idea of being detained or hassled because some computer suggested you might be stressed is nuts. It's scary to think this could give them any grounds to act on anymore more than a very cursory level -- I mean, talk about your unreasonable search, and people being told they need to get the rubber glove treatment because some computer program identified them as stressed is lunacy.
Time was when one would have through it impossible for the USA to degenerate into a place where this would be happening. Now, it's hard to think of how one would stop it. Spending billions of dollars to make all of the scary stuff in Orwell come true is frightening to some of us.
You can argue that people could have done the job better
But, I didn't argue that.
I don't think we have the technology to even try that, and I think we're better off trying to put people on the surface of the Moon again and try to stay there longer.
Other than the sheer coolness factor, I'm not sure what sending people to Mars does for us, other than saying we did it and risking killing whoever we send.
For Mars, I say we stick with rovers and orbiters for now. I don't think we should stop trying to have manned space missions, but I don't think Mars is the first destination.
Also, having patents summarized in plain English would be nice for small companies desiring to create products and solutions.
Sadly, there seems to be far more incentive to obfuscate what the patent is actually saying. Either so you can claim it covers almost any conceivable scenario, or so that nobody can identify that you're patenting something trivial and obvious.
Most patent summaries I've ever seen read as bad (if not worse) than legal documents. It also seems the more trivial the patent, the more ridiculous the verbiage.
I know that NASA are a bunch of good people, and I know that there are very good reasons for why they do things the way they do. But PLEASE!!! 2 years to go 11 km? I know that the Rover will stop every now and then to check out soil samples etc, but 2 years???
Dude, it's around 2 feet long and being remotely controlled on a very long time delay and it's, what, several million km's away??
It can only go so far each day before it has to shut down, recharge, and wait for new driving instructions. That usually involves people looking at obstacles and coming up with a series of instructions for it to follow to move forward so it doesn't go crashing into a rock or into an unplanned crater.
It's not like they have detailed maps and a GPS tracking system you can just plug in the coordinates and have the auto-pilot start navigating there. This actually is some pretty challenging stuff.
Remember, they started designing these suckers some time in the 90's, and they've lasted several years longer than expected. Cut them some slack, it's not like your RC 4wd is going to fare very well on Mars or magically solve the control problem of piloting something that far away.
Man, you'd think plopping something onto a whole 'nother planet and navigating it around over fairly big (for the rover) distances was something that wasn't difficult. This falls well into the realm of completely bonus science for a mission which has been completely successful in terms of the engineering goals it did accomplish (and exceed).
I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.
You know, maybe I'm just strange when it comes to phones... but, every time someone says this I find myself asking why on Earth would I want to write apps for my phone?
As it is I find phones have become annoying bloated things which want to do a whole lot of features I don't want in a phone. Heck, looking to replace my aging Motorola T720 is kind of annoying because every phone is now trying to be my friggin' digital media center and bat utility belt. (And, truthfully, even my T720 has a lot of features I have no interest in.)
I want a phone that works everywhere, gets a good signal, and can remember phone numbers for me. I don't see why I'd want to have a phone which is an open, extensible platform which can be made to do practically anything.
Oh well, around here I'm probably in the minority by not being so enthralled with technology that I expect to be able to remotely connect to my toilet paper holders to see how many sheets are left.:-P
A human would take no more than a few hours to get there, on foot, much less with some vehicle. And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments. And let's not forget that in those 2 years, the rover has a very high likelihood to break down.
Well, we'd never have been able to put people there nearly as cheaply, or for nearly as long. We haven't solved the problems of getting people in space for long enough for the journey, keeping them alive, feeding them, and having them inhabit the surface of a strange planet without any real support.
The rovers have been absolute bargain in terms of the cost for the science achieved. And, they give us a lot of the basic information we need to know if we're ever going to put humans there. The value vs cost of the these rovers is not something you can characterize as expensive for what we get -- the initial mission was, what $300 million or so?
I think until we can overcome an incredible amount of technical hurdles, the rovers are still a good idea. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to develop some of the stuff we'll need for manned missions. Likely we'll need to work on some closer missions and return to the moon before we try to get to Mars in my opinion -- that'll at least let us try to sort out the really big challenges.
I understand the idea here but still, do you really want to tell your bosses that the server room got to 115 F in July and killed the SAN because you skimped on the air units?
No, but I want to tell them that the temperature killed the SAN because they skimped on air units.:-P
Let's face it -- this is more likely to be clueless bosses saying "I know, let's put 'em in a tent" than tech people saying "wow, look at the synergies we can leverage with our cost savings and efficiencies".
Since, all cost savings seem to be directly applied to executive salaries and perks, it would be good to subsequently claw back the unintended costs from the greedy bastards. Saved $50 K on air conditioning, translated that into a $100 K bonus -- fine. Caused $500 K in damage when it all flamed out -- cha ching, we'll take that from your golden parachute.
Anyway, I digress. I seem to be feeling grumpy towards PHBs today.:-P
The Mac ads are a prolonged insult; A gob of spit in the face every time i see them. If this is the first you've seen anyone think they were potentially insulting get your head out of your mac loving ass and think for yourself.
Sonny, I don't even own a Mac, and I never have. I've never even sat at the keyboard of a modern Mac.
But, I've been around long enough to have used DOS machines, migrated away from Windows before version 3.11 was even out, and have been through the hell that was Windows '95, Windows '98, and Windows ME (and listened to the fanboys tell me it was the greatest thing since sliced bread). I have personally tried to resolve IRQ conflicts. I've been told by IT that the solution to my wonky PC is to reboot it and see if the problem goes away.
Again, the ads aren't even trying to insult PC users -- but they are referencing a shared experience of really wobbly Microsoft products and the frustration which ensues. And, it's a perfectly valid criticism, because an awful lot of us have put up with some really annoying stuff for a very long time.
Seriously, before you go around being a wanker and accusing everyone else of not thinking for themselves, get a clue. I've got FreeBSD install disks that are more insightful than you.
Of course everyone is rooting for Hodgman -- he's the star of the commercials. But people are watching the commercials, laughing at them, calling their spouses in to the living room saying, "Hey, there's a new one on"... that's advertising success.
I consider them to be a good enough series of ads that when I'm watching TV on my PVR and fast-forwarding through the commercials, I will stop and rewind to watch a new one in the series.
I don't even own a Mac, and I'm not in the market for a new machine any time soon, but having experienced frustration with Windows at some points in my life, I think the commercials do a pretty good job of tapping into a shared perception.
(And, yes, I'll be the first to admit that my XP box has been quite stable, so I'm not slagging Microsoft for the sake of it.)
but seriously, I can't imagine they've gained customers with this approach (once you factor in the people they've alienated).
Bottom line, I believe Apple's market share and sales have gone up a fair amount lately. I can only think that in no small way, that campaign is a factor -- certainly, if they had tested poorly or had significant negative perception they'd have pulled them, Apple is pretty savvy about their marketing and not willing to gamble with their image.
Why not pick something that isn't so arrogant, and can be seen as very insulting?
But, again, I think you're the only person who I've ever heard say that the ads seemed arrogant in any way -- that doesn't diminish the validity of your experience, it just doesn't match mine and whatever anecdotal evidence I've gathered.
If anything, I think the Mac character comes across as fairly laid-back and inoffensive -- I guess one could argue that he's presented in such a way as to be more informal and casual (both in mannerisms and dress). *shrug*
Anyway, I'm sure we can spare the rest of Slashdot from degenerating this entire thread into a debate on the merits of that ad campaign. You obviously feel strong about it... Maybe a Mac bit your sister once? That would have been very painful.;-)
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't quite get it, but that don't mean much.:-P
they're insulting and demeaning to the very users they're trying to convert. I constantly wonder what idiot came up with an ad that insults your potential customers, and why he isn't fired yet.
Are they actually demeaning and insulting to the potential customers? I don't perceive it as that -- they're not saying "PC users are doody heads", they're highlighting some of the more frustrating elements that people running Windows have encountered over the years. To me, it seems more like commiseration "we feel your pain" not "you suck". Heck, one of the current ads highlights how a "Mac Guru" will be happy to help you migrate your files from Windows to the Mac. They don't seem (IMO) to actually attempt to say anything at all about the people who use the machines, other than they might have experienced frustration.
I mean, in an industry where "reboot the computer" is referred to as the "Microsoft Patch", and people have just taken for granted that strange stuff happens sometimes, I must admit I haven't always found the Windows experience to be quite what you'd call rewarding. (However, I will also say that my home machine running XP has been the single most stable Windows-based PC I've ever used.)
Anyway, advertising is one of those things that you either like a campaign, or you don't. The ones someone dislikes, they usually do so quite vehemently. Not a whole lot of point in debating who is more right on this one.:-P
And have always been from the "personal computer" sense of the word -- it's personal, and it's a computer. But, way way back in the day when it was the "IBM Personal Computer" the widespread distinction was "Mac" and "PC".
However seemingly arbitrary it is now, that has been the common distinction between the two platforms for around 25 years or so. But, it's been an industry-wide distinction. It has gotten slightly muddier now that the underlying hardware is essentially the same.
False advertising is illegal, why isn't massively disseminating misinformation?
It isn't misinformation. Not by a long shot. Historically it's a little quirky, but you can attribute much of the source of that to Microsoft and IBM back in the 80's. It was their own marketing which co-opted the term "PC" to mean the MS/Intel platform on 80x86 type hardware.
When IBM opened up the specs for the PC, generic computers became known as "PC Compatible", specifically to identify that they worked with the components and software designed for the "IBM PC" platform. This was a huge deal.
This bit of pedantry comes up in almost all Mac threads. It's largely pointless, and in a few cases, rather disingenuous.
So, they tried to copy a retarded ad, and came out with a retarded ad. Surely that isn't surprising to anyone.
Are you kidding? I think the "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" series of ads is utterly brilliant.
Having been around long enough to witness about 15 years or so of pain and suffering from Microsoft stuff, I think that they really do a good job of highlighting the (perceived) differences between the two platforms.
For some reason, the Mac ads just seem to resonate with people. Certainly, some of the early ones about "we can have fun making spreadsheets and charts" when the Mac was talking about video editing and the like showed the very basic differences in what the machines come equipped to do. I remember back in the day having a windows machine, and, out of the box, it wasn't capable of anything but notepad, solitaire, and a calculator. When I first set up a linux box I had dev tools, games, editors, and a whole fleet of stuff that was actually useful.
You may not like the ads, but I see them as sheer genius.
If Bill wants to be a celebrity then he can just "leak" a homemade sex tape like the others do.
Oh, the world is better served by not even having to contemplate the celebrity sex tape involving Bill Gates.
And, really, if the richest man in the world isn't a celebrity by now, something has gone wrong. Most people know exactly who he is, he doesn't need any help in being made famous. Certainly not 'in flagrante', as it were.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, the ever popular "by continuing to use this service you agree to all terms and conditions" when they change their TOS to existing customers.
I simply have a hard time that these companies will keep this one little line item separate, and make sure that when you click on it you are only clicking on it.
The propensity to bundle all of the things into one big uber license it just too common, and companies retroactively changing TOS is hardly new.
Cheers
In fairness, he did say in the footprint of a business card.
Yes, it's not the overall dimensions of a business card, but it's a pretty damned tiny thing for a web server.
Cheers
You sound like you've thought this through. ;-)
Cheers
It's not like there was any sarcasm to miss. I directly stated that you could, in fact, access your gmail from a POP client. Then you corrected me and said, no, you can access gmail from a POP client. :-P
Cheers
Professional development. :-P
Cheers
Well, web-based email has the benefit of being accessible from wherever you're at. That's a huge advantage -- when I'm visiting my family, it's nice to be able to check my email.
Plus, it's not like you can't use your favorite POP client to connect to gmail and read your mail in whatever client you like.
Cheers
First? Jesus, flights 8 through 60 would have made me trigger that sucker every friggin' time.
It took a lot of time (and a lot of alcohol) for me to get used to flying without being pretty squirrely and unhappy about the process.
I used to be a train wreck when I traveled by plane, and that was unfortunately way more often than I'd have liked at the time. Now I'm fine with the flying, it's the security and airports that make me insane.
Cheers
I agree with that. And, as you say, maybe the solution is to work more on extended self-containment initially.
However, if we actually tried to set harder goals than simply put some guy on the moon to hit a golf ball (no offense to Mr Shepard), then surely we can start to work on some of these problems. I realize it's not quite an analog to Mars in terms of gravity and the like, but actually giving a stab at any form of construction project, and maybe working towards doing something up there. Building any kind of structure would be huge I think.
But, again, can't we do that a little more locally and actually work towards this using the moon? Assuming it's in some way cheaper (and with a shorter turn-around time) to use the moon for this stuff, why go straight to Mars?
Oh, come on ... not even a little "semi-crash"? Please? Just a light bump of the volatile chemicals? The barest of nudges? It'll look really cool if we have an orbital camera in place to capture the event should it go wrong. ;-)
Cheers
Well, the cynic in me agrees with you -- I doubt IBM will follow through, and if they did, I doubt it would make much difference.
However, if people start viewing the ISO as irrelevant and just doing what a big company like Microsoft wants, then they run the risk of becoming irrelevant. That might be the kind of thing they take notice of.
I would like to see some correction to the fact that it's a standard that really only MS can implement. Rubber stamping OOXML basically just legitimizes it for governments to buy it.
Cheers
And, don't forget, unless you're clearing customs on the very day you're planning on doing something nefarious, this will do absolutely nothing to do anything that give the illusion of security.
The guys from 9-11 were in the US for how many months?? There's just no way this system could have ever prevented that kind of attack.
This'll will identify fewer terrorists than it will people who failed to declare something or who have something embarrassing (but legal)stuff in their suitcase. :-P "I'm not allowed to say your dildo, merely the dildo".
Cheers
Given that he published it in 1949, he can be forgiven for not foreseeing modern computers.
In terms of showing how pervasive and evil a surveillance society can be, he's still highly relevant.
Pointing out just how eerie something like an automated "future crimes" concept is hardly just sarcastic bitching -- I'm betting an awful lot of people read that summary and thought "holy crap!!", I sure as hell did. Because, the sheer idea of being detained or hassled because some computer suggested you might be stressed is nuts. It's scary to think this could give them any grounds to act on anymore more than a very cursory level -- I mean, talk about your unreasonable search, and people being told they need to get the rubber glove treatment because some computer program identified them as stressed is lunacy.
Time was when one would have through it impossible for the USA to degenerate into a place where this would be happening. Now, it's hard to think of how one would stop it. Spending billions of dollars to make all of the scary stuff in Orwell come true is frightening to some of us.
Cheers
But, I didn't argue that.
I don't think we have the technology to even try that, and I think we're better off trying to put people on the surface of the Moon again and try to stay there longer.
Other than the sheer coolness factor, I'm not sure what sending people to Mars does for us, other than saying we did it and risking killing whoever we send.
For Mars, I say we stick with rovers and orbiters for now. I don't think we should stop trying to have manned space missions, but I don't think Mars is the first destination.
Cheers
Sadly, there seems to be far more incentive to obfuscate what the patent is actually saying. Either so you can claim it covers almost any conceivable scenario, or so that nobody can identify that you're patenting something trivial and obvious.
Most patent summaries I've ever seen read as bad (if not worse) than legal documents. It also seems the more trivial the patent, the more ridiculous the verbiage.
Cheers
Dude, it's around 2 feet long and being remotely controlled on a very long time delay and it's, what, several million km's away??
It can only go so far each day before it has to shut down, recharge, and wait for new driving instructions. That usually involves people looking at obstacles and coming up with a series of instructions for it to follow to move forward so it doesn't go crashing into a rock or into an unplanned crater.
It's not like they have detailed maps and a GPS tracking system you can just plug in the coordinates and have the auto-pilot start navigating there. This actually is some pretty challenging stuff.
Remember, they started designing these suckers some time in the 90's, and they've lasted several years longer than expected. Cut them some slack, it's not like your RC 4wd is going to fare very well on Mars or magically solve the control problem of piloting something that far away.
Man, you'd think plopping something onto a whole 'nother planet and navigating it around over fairly big (for the rover) distances was something that wasn't difficult. This falls well into the realm of completely bonus science for a mission which has been completely successful in terms of the engineering goals it did accomplish (and exceed).
Cheers
You know, maybe I'm just strange when it comes to phones ... but, every time someone says this I find myself asking why on Earth would I want to write apps for my phone?
As it is I find phones have become annoying bloated things which want to do a whole lot of features I don't want in a phone. Heck, looking to replace my aging Motorola T720 is kind of annoying because every phone is now trying to be my friggin' digital media center and bat utility belt. (And, truthfully, even my T720 has a lot of features I have no interest in.)
I want a phone that works everywhere, gets a good signal, and can remember phone numbers for me. I don't see why I'd want to have a phone which is an open, extensible platform which can be made to do practically anything.
Oh well, around here I'm probably in the minority by not being so enthralled with technology that I expect to be able to remotely connect to my toilet paper holders to see how many sheets are left. :-P
Cheers
Well, we'd never have been able to put people there nearly as cheaply, or for nearly as long. We haven't solved the problems of getting people in space for long enough for the journey, keeping them alive, feeding them, and having them inhabit the surface of a strange planet without any real support.
The rovers have been absolute bargain in terms of the cost for the science achieved. And, they give us a lot of the basic information we need to know if we're ever going to put humans there. The value vs cost of the these rovers is not something you can characterize as expensive for what we get -- the initial mission was, what $300 million or so?
I think until we can overcome an incredible amount of technical hurdles, the rovers are still a good idea. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to develop some of the stuff we'll need for manned missions. Likely we'll need to work on some closer missions and return to the moon before we try to get to Mars in my opinion -- that'll at least let us try to sort out the really big challenges.
Cheers
No, but I want to tell them that the temperature killed the SAN because they skimped on air units. :-P
Let's face it -- this is more likely to be clueless bosses saying "I know, let's put 'em in a tent" than tech people saying "wow, look at the synergies we can leverage with our cost savings and efficiencies".
Since, all cost savings seem to be directly applied to executive salaries and perks, it would be good to subsequently claw back the unintended costs from the greedy bastards. Saved $50 K on air conditioning, translated that into a $100 K bonus -- fine. Caused $500 K in damage when it all flamed out -- cha ching, we'll take that from your golden parachute.
Anyway, I digress. I seem to be feeling grumpy towards PHBs today. :-P
Cheers
Sonny, I don't even own a Mac, and I never have. I've never even sat at the keyboard of a modern Mac.
But, I've been around long enough to have used DOS machines, migrated away from Windows before version 3.11 was even out, and have been through the hell that was Windows '95, Windows '98, and Windows ME (and listened to the fanboys tell me it was the greatest thing since sliced bread). I have personally tried to resolve IRQ conflicts. I've been told by IT that the solution to my wonky PC is to reboot it and see if the problem goes away.
Again, the ads aren't even trying to insult PC users -- but they are referencing a shared experience of really wobbly Microsoft products and the frustration which ensues. And, it's a perfectly valid criticism, because an awful lot of us have put up with some really annoying stuff for a very long time.
Seriously, before you go around being a wanker and accusing everyone else of not thinking for themselves, get a clue. I've got FreeBSD install disks that are more insightful than you.
Cheers
I consider them to be a good enough series of ads that when I'm watching TV on my PVR and fast-forwarding through the commercials, I will stop and rewind to watch a new one in the series.
I don't even own a Mac, and I'm not in the market for a new machine any time soon, but having experienced frustration with Windows at some points in my life, I think the commercials do a pretty good job of tapping into a shared perception.
(And, yes, I'll be the first to admit that my XP box has been quite stable, so I'm not slagging Microsoft for the sake of it.)
Cheers
Bottom line, I believe Apple's market share and sales have gone up a fair amount lately. I can only think that in no small way, that campaign is a factor -- certainly, if they had tested poorly or had significant negative perception they'd have pulled them, Apple is pretty savvy about their marketing and not willing to gamble with their image.
But, again, I think you're the only person who I've ever heard say that the ads seemed arrogant in any way -- that doesn't diminish the validity of your experience, it just doesn't match mine and whatever anecdotal evidence I've gathered.
If anything, I think the Mac character comes across as fairly laid-back and inoffensive -- I guess one could argue that he's presented in such a way as to be more informal and casual (both in mannerisms and dress). *shrug*
Anyway, I'm sure we can spare the rest of Slashdot from degenerating this entire thread into a debate on the merits of that ad campaign. You obviously feel strong about it ... Maybe a Mac bit your sister once? That would have been very painful. ;-)
Cheers
Actually, AC may have a point, and I may have mis-spoke on this matter. Seems at some point this year, he was dethroned.
Cheers
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't quite get it, but that don't mean much. :-P
Are they actually demeaning and insulting to the potential customers? I don't perceive it as that -- they're not saying "PC users are doody heads", they're highlighting some of the more frustrating elements that people running Windows have encountered over the years. To me, it seems more like commiseration "we feel your pain" not "you suck". Heck, one of the current ads highlights how a "Mac Guru" will be happy to help you migrate your files from Windows to the Mac. They don't seem (IMO) to actually attempt to say anything at all about the people who use the machines, other than they might have experienced frustration.
I mean, in an industry where "reboot the computer" is referred to as the "Microsoft Patch", and people have just taken for granted that strange stuff happens sometimes, I must admit I haven't always found the Windows experience to be quite what you'd call rewarding. (However, I will also say that my home machine running XP has been the single most stable Windows-based PC I've ever used.)
Anyway, advertising is one of those things that you either like a campaign, or you don't. The ones someone dislikes, they usually do so quite vehemently. Not a whole lot of point in debating who is more right on this one. :-P
Cheers
And have always been from the "personal computer" sense of the word -- it's personal, and it's a computer. But, way way back in the day when it was the "IBM Personal Computer" the widespread distinction was "Mac" and "PC".
However seemingly arbitrary it is now, that has been the common distinction between the two platforms for around 25 years or so. But, it's been an industry-wide distinction. It has gotten slightly muddier now that the underlying hardware is essentially the same.
It isn't misinformation. Not by a long shot. Historically it's a little quirky, but you can attribute much of the source of that to Microsoft and IBM back in the 80's. It was their own marketing which co-opted the term "PC" to mean the MS/Intel platform on 80x86 type hardware.
When IBM opened up the specs for the PC, generic computers became known as "PC Compatible", specifically to identify that they worked with the components and software designed for the "IBM PC" platform. This was a huge deal.
This bit of pedantry comes up in almost all Mac threads. It's largely pointless, and in a few cases, rather disingenuous.
Cheers
Are you kidding? I think the "I'm a PC/I'm a Mac" series of ads is utterly brilliant.
Having been around long enough to witness about 15 years or so of pain and suffering from Microsoft stuff, I think that they really do a good job of highlighting the (perceived) differences between the two platforms.
For some reason, the Mac ads just seem to resonate with people. Certainly, some of the early ones about "we can have fun making spreadsheets and charts" when the Mac was talking about video editing and the like showed the very basic differences in what the machines come equipped to do. I remember back in the day having a windows machine, and, out of the box, it wasn't capable of anything but notepad, solitaire, and a calculator. When I first set up a linux box I had dev tools, games, editors, and a whole fleet of stuff that was actually useful.
You may not like the ads, but I see them as sheer genius.
Cheers
Oh, the world is better served by not even having to contemplate the celebrity sex tape involving Bill Gates.
And, really, if the richest man in the world isn't a celebrity by now, something has gone wrong. Most people know exactly who he is, he doesn't need any help in being made famous. Certainly not 'in flagrante', as it were.
Cheers