I happily switched from a Verizon land line to Vonage back when it was first a feasible option.
I was so happy to ditch Verizon, a company that has, in its many forms, sapped extraordinary amounts of money from me for years in all forms of fees and extraordinary charges from charging me $49 to switch from messenger service to standard service to hundreds of dollars for a measly yellow pages ad, which they never cancelled even when I requested it.
Their FiOS could become the greatest thing since the wheel, their cellular phone coverage could blanket the globe; they've charged me outrageous prices for mediocre service for most of my adult life. They're not getting another penny from me. Ever.
I'm not the only one who feels this way and they know it. Vonage represents a nice alternative to their bloated service that thousands of people have flocked to. That's why they're trying to kill it.
Verizon can kill Vonage. I'll just go someplace else.
I'll go back to Verizon on the day Jessica Alba comes to my house with black silk teddy on bearing a fruit basket and massage oil.
The hyperbole used by some in our society has created a "boy who cried wolf scenario" that will have repercussions later.
Sounds great ... but.
on
Vonage going IPO
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm a Vonage customer since 2004 and I received the IPO e-mail a few days ago. If you're in the same boat I highly recommend reading their risk prospectus first. They will be posting losses for the foreseeable future.
No, I would actually bet that the average guy running Apple has at least 1 full brain running in his/her skull (unless there's a nasty war injury).
The collective intelligence of those brains, being much more than the 1/2 of a brain that you are suggesting you need, knows that the company operating in Cupertino, California is not the same company that is running in Redmond, Washington.
Therefore your 1/2 of a brain may think that all the $$$ in computers is in software, where as the multitude of brains at Apple, running together as one big super-brain knows what their company can make to stay successful.
At the moment it is digital lifestyle hardware with snazzy 100% compatible operating systems which give the best overall user experience.
----
Folks with 1/2 brains are usually in hospitals having lawyers and priests fighting over whether they are living or dead and not making company policy.
If any of this is wrong let me know. I like Apple, but the only reason I see it as more expensive is because there is a subset of the population that is willing to pay for "more expensive".
I know this analogy is older than white dog shit and slightly simplistic, but Apple hardware is more expensive for roughly the same reason that a 2005 BMW 325 is more expensive than a 2005 Ford Focus.
I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:
"But Apple is a hardware company."
It is.
Has been since Jimmy Carter wandered the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company.
Not impossible, just not likely an easy thing to do after almost thirty years.
I've been watching this argument now for years and it seems the folks who can't understand the concept of Apple being a hardware company aren't regular Mac users or followers of Apple on a regular basis.
If you look at their numbers, they aren't making squat on selling OSX, Final Cut Pro etc. They're raking it in on the huge margins they get on the Macintoshes, PowerBooks and iPods.
Apple is not Microsoft, even though they compete in the same general arena.
The fact that a lot of folks seem to think that Microsoft's software heavy business strategy would somehow work for Apple IMO shows an ignorance towards how Apple Computer actually operates.
... the misinformed and misled think their situation merits prayer.
Look at the guy's sig. He probably prays that his toast doesn't get burnt every morning.
People like that comment on things from the distorted perspective of thinking that every waking moment we're being watched, judged, and in some cases, manipulated by a higher being.
Creepy way to live IMO. Someone whose comments should be taken within that context and judged appropriately.
The new designs will do nothing to protect from a Challenger style accident.
I disagree.
I've mentioned this system before in this thread, but I'll reiterate.
If you look closely at the diagram of the "new" manned vehicle, there's a little rocket attached to the capsule at the top of the system. If a series of sensors could detect a catastrophic failure of the booster system, the fact that the crew is on the extremity of the vehicle will allow that nifty little rocket to fire them safely away from the explosion and save the crew.
Apollo had it, Soviet systems have it and used it successfully saved a few cosmonauts once.
Re:Well this renders space experimentation useless
on
NASA's Shuttle Plans
·
· Score: 2, Informative
... now that we're reseparating the cargo from its users...
It's OK, NASA figured out how to rendezvous in space with two nearly simultaneously launched vehicles in a little program called Gemini.
I think they were successful, might have to check Wikipedia though... =p
Yes, but the idea they're trying to convey is that the further away you are from the initial problem, the more time and better chance you have to escape. The Apollo system and several Soviet systems had an escape rocket attached to the top of the capsule that would fire the crew compartment to safety in case of a catastrophe.
This system actually saved a Soviet cosmonaut crew from an on-the-ground failure.
If you look closely at the new crew design it appears that there is a little rocket on top of the crew capsule that would most likely go off at the first sign of a massive failure (kind of like an airbag in your car) and give the crew a much better chance of escaping.
When the O-rings failed on Challenger the main fuel tank, mounted directly below the Shuttle blew up and took the shuttle with it pretty much instantaneously. Had the shuttle been higher on the system and an escape system installed, a few astronauts might have survived.
This isn't news for nerds, but it sure fits with the leftism on this site.
Well, considering most of the properly modded commentary here seems to actually take this issue and place it fairly in the appropriate historical context for discussion and hasn't mostly broken down into the whole "teh nuke is teh sux0r" with 20/20 hindsight... this point is ridiculous.
"If you see things all the way from the right, everyone is left."
"If you see everything from the left, everyone is right."
Therefor the truth must be somewhere in the middle.
As I am right about everything, there must be some reason that people hold opinions different than mine. Aha! They are being brainwashed by their peers here on slashdot. It's groupthink. Good, now I can rest comfortably without having to think about opinions that contradict my cherished worldview.
And you forgot to add the ubiquitous line:
I'm just going to be modded -1 troll anyway so I don't know why I even bother posting this...
The average Mac user who's not a paid-up Penguin Jedi doesn't care about OSX being technically better than Windows; they'd care even less than about the PowerPC being better than x86.
The average Mac user only sees OS X. The average Mac user sometimes doesn't even know what processor is inside his/her Macintosh.
I concider myself an average Mac user and OS X is the most important aspect of my choice to use a Macintosh, both because it is technically better than Windows and because the user experience is far superior.
I'd rather eat a steady diet of pocket lint than use Windows. I don't care what the architecture of the internals of my machine are.
Slashdot Mirror
I happily switched from a Verizon land line to Vonage back when it was first a feasible option.
I was so happy to ditch Verizon, a company that has, in its many forms, sapped extraordinary amounts of money from me for years in all forms of fees and extraordinary charges from charging me $49 to switch from messenger service to standard service to hundreds of dollars for a measly yellow pages ad, which they never cancelled even when I requested it.
Their FiOS could become the greatest thing since the wheel, their cellular phone coverage could blanket the globe; they've charged me outrageous prices for mediocre service for most of my adult life. They're not getting another penny from me. Ever.
I'm not the only one who feels this way and they know it. Vonage represents a nice alternative to their bloated service that thousands of people have flocked to. That's why they're trying to kill it.
Verizon can kill Vonage. I'll just go someplace else.
I'll go back to Verizon on the day Jessica Alba comes to my house with black silk teddy on bearing a fruit basket and massage oil.
Nope, at least not an .m4p you bought from the iTunes music store. Try it and you get a friendly message that basically says "nice try".
Same here. I want one of those modulators that all the cranky NPR folks here are claiming "pollute the airwaves for miles."
My last car had the antenna in the rear window and I would end up listening more to college radio or NPR than Sirius.
Of all the days I don't have mod points.
The hyperbole used by some in our society has created a "boy who cried wolf scenario" that will have repercussions later.
I'm a Vonage customer since 2004 and I received the IPO e-mail a few days ago. If you're in the same boat I highly recommend reading their risk prospectus first. They will be posting losses for the foreseeable future.
Not a deal-breaker but just a heads up.
If Apple had half a brain ...
No, I would actually bet that the average guy running Apple has at least 1 full brain running in his/her skull (unless there's a nasty war injury).
The collective intelligence of those brains, being much more than the 1/2 of a brain that you are suggesting you need, knows that the company operating in Cupertino, California is not the same company that is running in Redmond, Washington.
Therefore your 1/2 of a brain may think that all the $$$ in computers is in software, where as the multitude of brains at Apple, running together as one big super-brain knows what their company can make to stay successful.
At the moment it is digital lifestyle hardware with snazzy 100% compatible operating systems which give the best overall user experience.
----
Folks with 1/2 brains are usually in hospitals having lawyers and priests fighting over whether they are living or dead and not making company policy.
How is calling someone on their flawed claims zealotry?
I saw this this morning and all I could see was the abandoned Republic XF-103.
If any of this is wrong let me know. I like Apple, but the only reason I see it as more expensive is because there is a subset of the population that is willing to pay for "more expensive".
I know this analogy is older than white dog shit and slightly simplistic, but Apple hardware is more expensive for roughly the same reason that a 2005 BMW 325 is more expensive than a 2005 Ford Focus.
I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:
"But Apple is a hardware company."
It is.
Has been since Jimmy Carter wandered the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company.
Not impossible, just not likely an easy thing to do after almost thirty years.
I've been watching this argument now for years and it seems the folks who can't understand the concept of Apple being a hardware company aren't regular Mac users or followers of Apple on a regular basis.
If you look at their numbers, they aren't making squat on selling OSX, Final Cut Pro etc. They're raking it in on the huge margins they get on the Macintoshes, PowerBooks and iPods.
Apple is not Microsoft, even though they compete in the same general arena.
The fact that a lot of folks seem to think that Microsoft's software heavy business strategy would somehow work for Apple IMO shows an ignorance towards how Apple Computer actually operates.
Hey, we 'Mericans make things possessive that aren't either!
I just went to Target's to git some stuff 'cause Wal-Mart's is too crowded these days.
Don't even git me started on Sears's!
It's not you. As soon as someone writes MAC instead of Mac, I automatically disregard anything they're writing.
If they don't even know to write the name properly, they obviously know nothing of the nuances of the platform.
... the misinformed and misled think their situation merits prayer.
Look at the guy's sig. He probably prays that his toast doesn't get burnt every morning.
People like that comment on things from the distorted perspective of thinking that every waking moment we're being watched, judged, and in some cases, manipulated by a higher being.
Creepy way to live IMO. Someone whose comments should be taken within that context and judged appropriately.
The new designs will do nothing to protect from a Challenger style accident.
I disagree.
I've mentioned this system before in this thread, but I'll reiterate.
If you look closely at the diagram of the "new" manned vehicle, there's a little rocket attached to the capsule at the top of the system. If a series of sensors could detect a catastrophic failure of the booster system, the fact that the crew is on the extremity of the vehicle will allow that nifty little rocket to fire them safely away from the explosion and save the crew.
Apollo had it, Soviet systems have it and used it successfully saved a few cosmonauts once.
It's OK, NASA figured out how to rendezvous in space with two nearly simultaneously launched vehicles in a little program called Gemini.
I think they were successful, might have to check Wikipedia though
Yes, but the idea they're trying to convey is that the further away you are from the initial problem, the more time and better chance you have to escape. The Apollo system and several Soviet systems had an escape rocket attached to the top of the capsule that would fire the crew compartment to safety in case of a catastrophe.
This system actually saved a Soviet cosmonaut crew from an on-the-ground failure.
If you look closely at the new crew design it appears that there is a little rocket on top of the crew capsule that would most likely go off at the first sign of a massive failure (kind of like an airbag in your car) and give the crew a much better chance of escaping.
When the O-rings failed on Challenger the main fuel tank, mounted directly below the Shuttle blew up and took the shuttle with it pretty much instantaneously. Had the shuttle been higher on the system and an escape system installed, a few astronauts might have survived.
Call me pessimistic.
pessimistic = realistic
Type in all caps, swear, curse, insult and offer absolutely no intelligent content then post as an AC.
That'll show how smart you are and how absolutely correct your position is.
Don't expect that when America's luck runs out the next big kid will be nicer.
...
China.
Sleep tight folks
This isn't news for nerds, but it sure fits with the leftism on this site.
... this point is ridiculous.
Well, considering most of the properly modded commentary here seems to actually take this issue and place it fairly in the appropriate historical context for discussion and hasn't mostly broken down into the whole "teh nuke is teh sux0r" with 20/20 hindsight
"If you see things all the way from the right, everyone is left."
"If you see everything from the left, everyone is right."
Therefor the truth must be somewhere in the middle.
As I am right about everything, there must be some reason that people hold opinions different than mine. Aha! They are being brainwashed by their peers here on slashdot. It's groupthink. Good, now I can rest comfortably without having to think about opinions that contradict my cherished worldview.
...
And you forgot to add the ubiquitous line:
I'm just going to be modded -1 troll anyway so I don't know why I even bother posting this
The average Mac user who's not a paid-up Penguin Jedi doesn't care about OSX being technically better than Windows; they'd care even less than about the PowerPC being better than x86.
The average Mac user only sees OS X. The average Mac user sometimes doesn't even know what processor is inside his/her Macintosh.
I concider myself an average Mac user and OS X is the most important aspect of my choice to use a Macintosh, both because it is technically better than Windows and because the user experience is far superior.
I'd rather eat a steady diet of pocket lint than use Windows. I don't care what the architecture of the internals of my machine are.
You may want to make plans to move to the Third World then, because when EP 3 is done, the TV series begin.
Pretty empty criticism coming from someone who mentions hating an entire demographic in his/her sig.
All of your furniture is from Ikea.
Hey! Only some of my furniture comes from Ikea.
It's a long drive to New Jersey.