That's the most vigorous beating of a dead horse I've seen in a while.
While I'm a huge fan of the CLI, I'm not trying to fool anyone that it's easier than a visually oriented interface. In a GUI, things *can be* self evident. In a CLI, it's all >.;-)
Manufacturing pretty much means "the process of making something" whether by hand or machine. Writing a program would certainly seem to fit that definition.
Seems like the law contradicts itself if there is supposedly a Fair Use element to the law, yet no way to legally exercise said element.
Congress or SCotUS will need to straighten this out. I sadly have little confidence in either institution to do so honestly/properly.
So assuming for the sake of argument that XM-Sirius goes under tomorrow, how long will that have made their "lifetime" for you?
-Matt
P.S. I can't find anything on their website indicating they still offer a "lifetime" sub....did they quit offering or did I not look hard enough? How much is/was lifetime?
While you're somewhat correct on the technicality - different people do have somewhat different needs - it would be very wise, not naive, to consider fast food and food with a lot of sugar as bad for you.
Unless your intention is to take an apologetic stance toward those respective industries, a non-fast-food or non-sugary-food alternative would be more healthful for almost anyone you could be talking about in almost every case imaginable.
If you need someone/something else to tell you "that's a storm cloud" when you're outside...in an airplane, maybe you should consider not being a pilot. For crying out loud, I should have a subscription to *you* while you're up there! Two eyes outside are better than any weather man!/humor
Of course it's less than the 100% we'll consider as the satellite coverage area, but it obviously (from looking at the map) covers a huge swath of the US population - I'd guess in the 90+% range.
Satellites are the real problem, with satellite radio...people just have no freaking clue how much is costs to fly a satellite, let alone a network of them!
This is especially true when you look at those costs over time. The satellites they use have a surprisingly short lifespan.
To those who are interested, I would suggest paying attention to who made money off the creation and selling (and merging) of these businesses as well as who's standing next to them - then you'll know who to blame. It was a scam from the get-go if you ask me - I don't know who would think their business model could possibly work.
A high dollar piggy-back application (likely military) would be the only logical way to keep a network like that afloat, funding wise, IMO. (Which really would make radio the piggy-back app.)
They're overpriced alright, but at the same time they were never going to be able to pay for their business model with the rates they were charging...way too low.
Wonder if GM (especially) wishes they had some of that satellite money back now that they "invested" in this "scam"? LOL.
If you check out their website and/or read up on the company, the goal is/has been just that - produce a consumer car as well....2011 was the target IIRC.
One additional point, it does seem like something about their last round of financing fell through (not having luck finding details tho) and that's what's prompted this request for cheap loans. If I'm wrong about their financing, however, this whole thing may be a way for them to take a simple jab at their gas-powered competition by doing nothing more than raising awareness of the situation.
I certainly don't see the controversy in a high-tech auto startup getting cheap loans that were ear-marked for high-tech auto startups in the first place.
By contrast, the "Big 3" - GM in particular - are asking for money for cash-flow issues. There's nothing to say those 3 won't be back in the same boat com again in the next few months. They don't even have much of a plan (so far as they've mentioned) to stop the suck-train they've all been on (speaking of their products, management and social responsibility) for the last few decades....I see giving them money as a bad investment at this point.
I'd be at least as tempted to fire all the management and turn the companies over to the workers and the unions (freeing up a lot of that money tied up in wages) as I would be to give them what they're asking for.
I don't understand how someone could be misled by this commercial any more than I can understand how someone would be expected to comprehend the paragraphs of fine print in drug and financing advertisements that's usually in a font size too small to even read.
The bottom line is that for all sorts of reasons, advertisements are not a reflection of reality, they never or oh-so-rarely have been, and there are tons of advertisements on TV/elsewhere that are full of crap and lies much worse than this Apple ad.
Maybe if they'd put a warning similar to "screen images simulated, not really an iphone, 5x speed, etc." it wouldn't have been pulled.
A good chunk of the point of the iPhone commercials is to show the actual phone doing actual browsing because no/few other phones can do this.
To wit: The images were not simulated, it really is an iphone and the only "artificial speed" is from the parts that are (obviously) cut out of the video. (e.g. caching a web page)
What you suggested to say would actually be more false than what Apple said.
He didn't say "a grill" and didn't use it in that form. He said...
someone who really knew how to work 'grill'
...as in a jargonistic statement concerning the wellness with which the person attending the grill does their job. (At least that's how it reads....not how you implied. Can't speak to the OPs intentions I guess.)
It's like if Mazda advertised its Mazda 2 running all your errands in 30 seconds that would actually take you at least 45 minutes because they edited out all the shopping, standing in line, walking to/from your car, etc.
Then complaining about the "honesty" in that advertisement would be like saying you didn't understand that those cuts in the video could have contained additional footage.
Thanks for posting this.:-) I'm a Wendy's fan (in the scope of fast food joints) and have had their food at dozens of outlets in 10 different states and have never had a bad sandwich of any kind.
Then again, I'm "astute enough" not to expect reality to resemble what I find in advertising to any significant degree, so one's mileage on this may vary I guess.:-)
If we ever cooked for ourselves we'd notice that burger meat loses its red and does in fact turn greyish when cooked.
Having said that, the burger you make at home, while it might not be the precise shape of a fast-food burger* they look about the same overall.
The only burgers that actually look freakish are the ones in the ads. That doesn't have much to do with the guy cooking your burger at the local Wendy's. I mean it's not like we're talking about McDonalds or anything. YAK!
-Matt
* They're typically very thin by comparison because the patties aren't hand-formed, and thin cooks quicker....big deal...try 5-Guys if this is your hang up.
P.S. Excellent point about the commercials that companies run which just feature a bunch of Shiny Happy People and an announcer (if you're lucky) shouting at you about how great the world is. I must admit I kinda like the same commercials from the drug companies cuz they run the same kind of ad, but have the Death List of side effects ("Erm...your spleen may fall out") at the end over the top of the Shiny Happy People. That is comedy.
No, that's only the point of the commercial if you close your eyes.
Commercials make me want to close my eyes too, but that's not how they're intended to be watched. Further, as with every single thing on TV one should be prepared not to believe everything one hears or sees. As in the old saying: Believe half of what you read and none of what you hear.
In my opinion, the "speed" part was about the speed of the new iPhone that they call "3G" at the very beginning of the commercial and the jumping visually through the features really fast was about jumping through the features in 30 seconds.
First, go back to the article and look at the comparison video - how long it really takes to do all the things shown in the commercial.
Second, agree that almost everyone (here in the US anyway) has been on the internet before they saw the iPhone commercial and therefore should have an idea of what the speed of the internet is like already.
I have a really hard time thinking that anyone who's been on the internet *at all* is going to believe what's shown in that commercial is really how their experience is going to be. There're obvious edits in the footage for crying out loud.
So, perhaps if you're the person in the US who's never been on the internet before and never seen a commercial before you might mistake this Apple ad for saying you essentially gain the ability to time travel or speed up time when you get an iPhone, but probably nobody else would.
Further, it's pretty obvious why the commercial is really laid out in the fashion it is: It shows off far more features and how they work together than would be possible otherwise.
I'm all for truth in advertising, but only if we're going to apply the same higher standards to everyone. To me this judgement seems both absurd and targeted.
Last, what alternative are we pushing for with judgements like this? More ads that don't even really feature the product or service being pimped? I know which one I'd prefer.
This is "To whom it may concern" as I've seen similar "concerns/complaints" elsewhere...you just happen to be the one being quoted now:
It's actually much simpler: Apple decides things for you.
Kind of like how Apple decided that the benefits of being able to install any software you want on a device (iPhone) are far outweighed by the risks of you installing something harmful.
...just like every other OS developer.
Compared to how Microsoft decides things will be -- 640K's enough, craptastic interface is "perfect", Internet is irrelevant, reinvent the OS from scratch every few years, etc, etc -- I'll take Apple's version (although not perfect) any day of the week.
BTW, what the f**k is so important for you people to install "on your own" on your f**king iPhone anyway? A) it's a f**king phone, B) get a computer, C) can't you actually install software on it anyway so you're really whining about less than nothing? (Sorry for all the c*rsing, but seriously, what the f**k?)
But when you disagree with Steve Jobs, you have no recourse other than to suck it up or stop buying Apple products.
I'm pretty sure that even in theory this point is full of sh*t. Buy your Mac or i[Phone|Pod] and put what you want on it just like anyone else does. Their desktop/laptop computers are PC's - need I elaborate? See the link above if you really must install some non-App store software on your i[Phone|Pod].
In addition to what you said, reading "complaints" like this in the "light of Microsoft's shadow" will also tend to put things into perspective.
I'm glad to know about this new feature as it's the first I've heard of it. Also, as usual this seems to be a lot of hand waving around Apple for mostly no reason. I do hope that unchecking the "Warn when visiting fraudulent websites" checkbox actually turns off the whole feature.
-Matt
P.S. I think it could have been useful in the article summary to see some indication (!!) why Apple implemented this feature. If you're "pro" anti-phishing they were too late, if you're "anti" anti-phishing they've gone too far. Personally I'd call that coercion or even extortion on PayPal's behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the most vigorous beating of a dead horse I've seen in a while.
While I'm a huge fan of the CLI, I'm not trying to fool anyone that it's easier than a visually oriented interface. In a GUI, things *can be* self evident. In a CLI, it's all >. ;-)
-Matt
Manufacturing pretty much means "the process of making something" whether by hand or machine. Writing a program would certainly seem to fit that definition.
Seems like the law contradicts itself if there is supposedly a Fair Use element to the law, yet no way to legally exercise said element.
Congress or SCotUS will need to straighten this out. I sadly have little confidence in either institution to do so honestly/properly.
-Matt
So assuming for the sake of argument that XM-Sirius goes under tomorrow, how long will that have made their "lifetime" for you?
-Matt
P.S. I can't find anything on their website indicating they still offer a "lifetime" sub....did they quit offering or did I not look hard enough? How much is/was lifetime?
They ended up paying them after going to court and such.
It's almost hard to believe MSFT is still in the OS business given the history of their OS products and how bad they are at it.
Now they're running 3D graphics on the CPU. How 1987 of them.
-Matt
While you're somewhat correct on the technicality - different people do have somewhat different needs - it would be very wise, not naive, to consider fast food and food with a lot of sugar as bad for you.
Unless your intention is to take an apologetic stance toward those respective industries, a non-fast-food or non-sugary-food alternative would be more healthful for almost anyone you could be talking about in almost every case imaginable.
-Matt
If you need someone/something else to tell you "that's a storm cloud" when you're outside...in an airplane, maybe you should consider not being a pilot. For crying out loud, I should have a subscription to *you* while you're up there! Two eyes outside are better than any weather man! /humor
;-)
-Matt
I took frdmfghtr as simply trying to tone down your hyperbole, not contradicting you. There's most certainly a comparison to be made.
For everyone to see: AT&T's Coverage for EDGE devices.
Of course it's less than the 100% we'll consider as the satellite coverage area, but it obviously (from looking at the map) covers a huge swath of the US population - I'd guess in the 90+% range.
-Matt
I bought a lifetime subscription.
I'm sorry for anyone who paid for that if these crackers go under.
Caveat emptor, eh?
-Matt
Satellites are the real problem, with satellite radio...people just have no freaking clue how much is costs to fly a satellite, let alone a network of them!
This is especially true when you look at those costs over time. The satellites they use have a surprisingly short lifespan.
To those who are interested, I would suggest paying attention to who made money off the creation and selling (and merging) of these businesses as well as who's standing next to them - then you'll know who to blame. It was a scam from the get-go if you ask me - I don't know who would think their business model could possibly work.
A high dollar piggy-back application (likely military) would be the only logical way to keep a network like that afloat, funding wise, IMO. (Which really would make radio the piggy-back app.)
-Matt
They're overpriced alright, but at the same time they were never going to be able to pay for their business model with the rates they were charging...way too low.
Wonder if GM (especially) wishes they had some of that satellite money back now that they "invested" in this "scam"? LOL.
-Matt
If you check out their website and/or read up on the company, the goal is/has been just that - produce a consumer car as well....2011 was the target IIRC.
One additional point, it does seem like something about their last round of financing fell through (not having luck finding details tho) and that's what's prompted this request for cheap loans. If I'm wrong about their financing, however, this whole thing may be a way for them to take a simple jab at their gas-powered competition by doing nothing more than raising awareness of the situation.
I certainly don't see the controversy in a high-tech auto startup getting cheap loans that were ear-marked for high-tech auto startups in the first place.
By contrast, the "Big 3" - GM in particular - are asking for money for cash-flow issues. There's nothing to say those 3 won't be back in the same boat com again in the next few months. They don't even have much of a plan (so far as they've mentioned) to stop the suck-train they've all been on (speaking of their products, management and social responsibility) for the last few decades....I see giving them money as a bad investment at this point.
I'd be at least as tempted to fire all the management and turn the companies over to the workers and the unions (freeing up a lot of that money tied up in wages) as I would be to give them what they're asking for.
-Matt
First I'd like to say I got a good chuckle from your post....very stereotypical, I assume on purpose.
Second I just wanted to single out one line for a question:
The left's modern day pro-abortion stance stems from their historical promotion of Eugenics
Any reference links you can provide on this?
-Matt
P.S. Thanks again for the laugh!
I don't understand how someone could be misled by this commercial any more than I can understand how someone would be expected to comprehend the paragraphs of fine print in drug and financing advertisements that's usually in a font size too small to even read.
The bottom line is that for all sorts of reasons, advertisements are not a reflection of reality, they never or oh-so-rarely have been, and there are tons of advertisements on TV/elsewhere that are full of crap and lies much worse than this Apple ad.
-Matt
Maybe if they'd put a warning similar to "screen images simulated, not really an iphone, 5x speed, etc." it wouldn't have been pulled.
A good chunk of the point of the iPhone commercials is to show the actual phone doing actual browsing because no/few other phones can do this.
To wit: The images were not simulated, it really is an iphone and the only "artificial speed" is from the parts that are (obviously) cut out of the video. (e.g. caching a web page)
What you suggested to say would actually be more false than what Apple said.
-Matt
LOL --Matt
He didn't say "a grill" and didn't use it in that form. He said...
someone who really knew how to work 'grill'
...as in a jargonistic statement concerning the wellness with which the person attending the grill does their job. (At least that's how it reads....not how you implied. Can't speak to the OPs intentions I guess.)
-Matt
...in real world web surfing...
I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but advertising is not the real world.
-Matt
No, that analogy would be:
It's like if Mazda advertised its Mazda 2 running all your errands in 30 seconds that would actually take you at least 45 minutes because they edited out all the shopping, standing in line, walking to/from your car, etc.
Then complaining about the "honesty" in that advertisement would be like saying you didn't understand that those cuts in the video could have contained additional footage.
-Matt
Thanks for posting this. :-) I'm a Wendy's fan (in the scope of fast food joints) and have had their food at dozens of outlets in 10 different states and have never had a bad sandwich of any kind.
Then again, I'm "astute enough" not to expect reality to resemble what I find in advertising to any significant degree, so one's mileage on this may vary I guess. :-)
-Matt
LOL
If we ever cooked for ourselves we'd notice that burger meat loses its red and does in fact turn greyish when cooked.
Having said that, the burger you make at home, while it might not be the precise shape of a fast-food burger* they look about the same overall.
The only burgers that actually look freakish are the ones in the ads. That doesn't have much to do with the guy cooking your burger at the local Wendy's. I mean it's not like we're talking about McDonalds or anything. YAK!
-Matt
* They're typically very thin by comparison because the patties aren't hand-formed, and thin cooks quicker....big deal...try 5-Guys if this is your hang up.
P.S. Excellent point about the commercials that companies run which just feature a bunch of Shiny Happy People and an announcer (if you're lucky) shouting at you about how great the world is. I must admit I kinda like the same commercials from the drug companies cuz they run the same kind of ad, but have the Death List of side effects ("Erm...your spleen may fall out") at the end over the top of the Shiny Happy People. That is comedy.
No, that's only the point of the commercial if you close your eyes.
Commercials make me want to close my eyes too, but that's not how they're intended to be watched. Further, as with every single thing on TV one should be prepared not to believe everything one hears or sees. As in the old saying: Believe half of what you read and none of what you hear.
In my opinion, the "speed" part was about the speed of the new iPhone that they call "3G" at the very beginning of the commercial and the jumping visually through the features really fast was about jumping through the features in 30 seconds.
First, go back to the article and look at the comparison video - how long it really takes to do all the things shown in the commercial.
Second, agree that almost everyone (here in the US anyway) has been on the internet before they saw the iPhone commercial and therefore should have an idea of what the speed of the internet is like already.
I have a really hard time thinking that anyone who's been on the internet *at all* is going to believe what's shown in that commercial is really how their experience is going to be. There're obvious edits in the footage for crying out loud.
So, perhaps if you're the person in the US who's never been on the internet before and never seen a commercial before you might mistake this Apple ad for saying you essentially gain the ability to time travel or speed up time when you get an iPhone, but probably nobody else would.
At least that's what I think from watching it.
-Matt
Indeed.
Further, it's pretty obvious why the commercial is really laid out in the fashion it is: It shows off far more features and how they work together than would be possible otherwise.
I'm all for truth in advertising, but only if we're going to apply the same higher standards to everyone. To me this judgement seems both absurd and targeted.
Last, what alternative are we pushing for with judgements like this? More ads that don't even really feature the product or service being pimped? I know which one I'd prefer.
-Matt
Any excuse for us to put even more satellites in the sky... And since having new satellites in the sky costs next to nothing, why not? Right?
-Matt
It's actually much simpler: Apple decides things for you.
Kind of like how Apple decided that the benefits of being able to install any software you want on a device (iPhone) are far outweighed by the risks of you installing something harmful.
...just like every other OS developer.
Compared to how Microsoft decides things will be -- 640K's enough, craptastic interface is "perfect", Internet is irrelevant, reinvent the OS from scratch every few years, etc, etc -- I'll take Apple's version (although not perfect) any day of the week.
BTW, what the f**k is so important for you people to install "on your own" on your f**king iPhone anyway? A) it's a f**king phone, B) get a computer, C) can't you actually install software on it anyway so you're really whining about less than nothing? (Sorry for all the c*rsing, but seriously, what the f**k?)
But when you disagree with Steve Jobs, you have no recourse other than to suck it up or stop buying Apple products.
I'm pretty sure that even in theory this point is full of sh*t. Buy your Mac or i[Phone|Pod] and put what you want on it just like anyone else does. Their desktop/laptop computers are PC's - need I elaborate? See the link above if you really must install some non-App store software on your i[Phone|Pod].
-Matt
If I had mod points, you'd have +1 right now.
In addition to what you said, reading "complaints" like this in the "light of Microsoft's shadow" will also tend to put things into perspective.
I'm glad to know about this new feature as it's the first I've heard of it. Also, as usual this seems to be a lot of hand waving around Apple for mostly no reason. I do hope that unchecking the "Warn when visiting fraudulent websites" checkbox actually turns off the whole feature.
-Matt
P.S. I think it could have been useful in the article summary to see some indication (!!) why Apple implemented this feature. If you're "pro" anti-phishing they were too late, if you're "anti" anti-phishing they've gone too far. Personally I'd call that coercion or even extortion on PayPal's behalf.