After all these years generating sympathy and antipathy, occasionally denting ol' Bill's armor, re-orienting markets with "why didn't I think of that?" design, they no longer are a hardware or a software company. The brand includes hardware for sure, and nicely designed at that (Lexus hardware - one step better - not two - than Dell). But it also includes the slickest mass-OS out there, the iPod, a music store with oh-so-slightly subversive policies, etc.
And it includes all the marketing. I have seen Picasso, Edison, and Einstein "think different" in frames. What other brand has that? Yeah, there are some, but those are all brand-based more than product-based.
So, what's their knitting? What *has* to be protected at all costs? Not the hardware, although that comes close. Not the current hotties, iPod and OS X. But Apple itself. The *combination* of all those things.
I'm not sure where this thought leads, but it certainly undermines many of the assertions being floated around!
So how do those sig's work? [naive sympathy karma ploy - darn - you caught me!]
Refining "planet" doesn't go far enough
on
Defining "Planet"
·
· Score: 1
As one who tends to think functionally (as demonstrated by my membership in ten-step programs for living with addiction to obscure programming languages...) I am sympathetic to the refining of the term "planet". I really never liked all those pictures of the solar system with Pluto flying wild and off he plane of the other planets anyway.
But size doesn't do the trick either, as well cited. Reflecting light...bah. Tradition...puhleez! this is what future kids are going to be learning as one of the uber-sciences.
No, I think we need to admit that good ol' Sol doesn't have a handful of one thing (which we want to call "planet"), but an inventory along the lines of (from inside out):
- 4 rocky round thing (one of which is probably best seen as a double-rocky thing)
- a boatload of little rocky things (asteroids)
- 4 gas giants
- another boatload of little rocky things (comets/Kuiper belt object)
I'm sure that looking closer will yield more detail in a nice fractal manner, as it does in most any taxonomic endeavor, but whaddeva.
Just think about how much clearer reports of "planets" in other systems would be if the headline distinguished "gas giant found" from "rocky round thing found" - I certainly am looking for the latter as I scan!
There's one big "gotcha" that you've overlooked: If certs were successfully adopted widely enough (obviously quite a big *if*, as already noted), then the spamming would become less attractive.
The next step is either a) spammers figure out how to get into your mailbox anyway or b) spam goes down, then cert use goes down, raising spam use...until an equilibrium is reached.
I suspect that in the end, cert's usefulness would therefore be self-limiting. Alternatively, you could see this as a way to keep spam at an "acceptable" (equilibrium) leve.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this hardware/software question is wrong.
I think Apple is a brand company.
After all these years generating sympathy and antipathy, occasionally denting ol' Bill's armor, re-orienting markets with "why didn't I think of that?" design, they no longer are a hardware or a software company. The brand includes hardware for sure, and nicely designed at that (Lexus hardware - one step better - not two - than Dell). But it also includes the slickest mass-OS out there, the iPod, a music store with oh-so-slightly subversive policies, etc.
And it includes all the marketing. I have seen Picasso, Edison, and Einstein "think different" in frames. What other brand has that? Yeah, there are some, but those are all brand-based more than product-based.
So, what's their knitting? What *has* to be protected at all costs? Not the hardware, although that comes close. Not the current hotties, iPod and OS X. But Apple itself. The *combination* of all those things.
I'm not sure where this thought leads, but it certainly undermines many of the assertions being floated around!
So how do those sig's work? [naive sympathy karma ploy - darn - you caught me!]
As one who tends to think functionally (as demonstrated by my membership in ten-step programs for living with addiction to obscure programming languages...) I am sympathetic to the refining of the term "planet". I really never liked all those pictures of the solar system with Pluto flying wild and off he plane of the other planets anyway.
But size doesn't do the trick either, as well cited. Reflecting light...bah. Tradition...puhleez! this is what future kids are going to be learning as one of the uber-sciences.
No, I think we need to admit that good ol' Sol doesn't have a handful of one thing (which we want to call "planet"), but an inventory along the lines of (from inside out):
- 4 rocky round thing (one of which is probably best seen as a double-rocky thing)
- a boatload of little rocky things (asteroids)
- 4 gas giants
- another boatload of little rocky things (comets/Kuiper belt object)
I'm sure that looking closer will yield more detail in a nice fractal manner, as it does in most any taxonomic endeavor, but whaddeva.
Just think about how much clearer reports of "planets" in other systems would be if the headline distinguished "gas giant found" from "rocky round thing found" - I certainly am looking for the latter as I scan!
There's one big "gotcha" that you've overlooked: If certs were successfully adopted widely enough (obviously quite a big *if*, as already noted), then the spamming would become less attractive.
The next step is either a) spammers figure out how to get into your mailbox anyway or b) spam goes down, then cert use goes down, raising spam use...until an equilibrium is reached.
I suspect that in the end, cert's usefulness would therefore be self-limiting. Alternatively, you could see this as a way to keep spam at an "acceptable" (equilibrium) leve.