Translation: you are some sort of extremist political idealogue that thinks mentioning the reality of the Electoral College and the facts of vote counts makes one a "Republican". You are humor-lorn too, and you think that the Swedish Chef of the Muppets is a belittling racist stereotype.
This knee-jerk reactionism says a lot more about you than it does about me. Lighten up.
Re:Like many on /. , you're an insulated geek
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
" Do you expect a command line on your DVD player or your microwave? Of course not"
They don't have anything like a full keyboard, so it doesn't make sense there. But if they did, they would need it.
"The computer is now a piece of consumer electronics and the interface matters. That began with the Macintosh."
It began long before the Macintosh. Besides, in the mid 1980s Apple was one of a few companies with the GUI. The "piece of consumer electronics" started with the C= Pet, TRS-80, and Apple ][. The Macintosh came, what was it, 6 or so years later when things were well underway, and it was a Apple was a minor player by then. Apple then, as now, even tried to avoid being a major player of consumer electronics by intentionally making its machines hard to buy with the idiotic dealer situation. The iPod is their first serious attempt: you can get them at Target, and don't have to put up with dealers at Official Apple Stores who are only open from 10 to 5.
In an alternate reality, Macs might possiby have dominated things if Apple had early on made the decision to have them sold at as many places as possible. But this did not happen: the company still shoots itself in the foot with the "official Apple store" problem.
Let's say it is 6:00 at night, and I want to see the latest Toshiba laptop. No problem, just go to Best Buy. But wait, there is something called a Powerbook that might be better? Go over to the Apple store. The lazy bums don't even want to sell them: the store closed over an hour ago.
As for your mention about insulated geeks, the mom and pop non-geeks during the Mac's early years still prefered PCs. The mom and pop non-geeks still do.
"calculators are not high-volume CE devices"
Commodore is an excellent example. Back when Commodore was in it, calculators were a big deal, and not something you get for $2 on a keychain without thinking about it.
"The only important innovation of the Palm was their special alphabet Graffiti."
The other important innovation was that they made a well-designed machine that gained wide acceptance. The previous makers (of which Apple with its Newton was only one) never had succeeded at that. The Willard (oops, too much Seinfeld)... I mean Sharp Wizard never had mass acceptance.
")!It did not sell well because they did not properly manage expectations with respect to handwriting recognition."
That was just one of many problems. Apple, like usual, also made the Newton hard to get by limiting the distribution stream. It was also a mess compared to the Palm.
"Consoles are getting there now, but were not when Microsoft introduced the X-Box."
Do you think that history began in 1999? The Atari 2600 was one of many high-volume game consoles that preceeded the X Box. Intellivision, Coleco, others...
"What, the ones that systematically modded down all my posts ont he subject. Apple is a strange one for that; if you say something bad about them, someone here will look at your posting history and try to "punish" you."
You have to learn to look at it differently. Approach it from the standpoint of a religious discussion, instead of an emotionless technical discussion. Or, imagine if the old Hatfields and McCoys were around today carrying on their feud on "Slashdot". If you are a McCoy, the Hatfields will always remember what you said.
I have little to add to that. I see what you are saying. Except that yes, the broadcasters should do what some judge to be responsible, but due to the subjective nature of this, and the tendency for government action to be a tool of party (and other) ideology, the government should stay out of judging what is responsible or not.
"Informed people don't believe in fairies and magic skydaddies"
Translation: Only those who have your religious faith are informed. Thank you, Mr Ayatollah.
"I was going to say re-elected, but then I realised the prefix "re" only applies to something has actually happened at least once before."
The other responder had a good point. You need to learn about the electoral college. Just because you do not like it or do not know about it does not mean it does not exist. Turns out that Bush was elected the exact same way Clinton was: he won enough states to get the majority of electoral votes. At least the right-wingers didn't do what the bush bashers do now: insist that the guy they did not like was "not elected" just because they did not like him. The right-wingers impeached him instead:)
"But jokes about other people's lack of english skills mostly come from persons who have never mastered a foreign language (we don't even talk about their own...), that pisses me off."
I did it because I loved the Muppets character called Swedish Chef. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Bork" is not a very common word in Swedish, as far as I know. "
"But if he's going to say "All Christians are evil because they eat babies.." He better be ready to allow a Christian on the air to defend himself. Why? Because that's what's -fair-"
I strongly disagree. The freedom to be able to express opinions like this is the reason the First Amendment was written. In the real world, if someone said this and you really want "Fairness", chances are that there is a Christian radio station at the low end of the FM dial to "speak back": on their own station, not yours (if you are the one saying Christians are evil).
"but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either."
The decision of a station not to air such things is part of "freedom of the press", and is not censorship: just like when the New York Times chooses not to print a letter from a neo-nazi crank on its op/ed/letters page. Broadcast radio must be treated just the same. There are ways to help with the fairness that you want that do not involve government micro-management of programming decisions or "if you air this, you must air that" mandates.
I think that the government needs to take a "hands off" approach to the editorial process of a station. I am not opposed to fairness or more voices getting access: perhaps the method to do this is to make it easier to get your own station. Attempts have been made to do this, which I have strongly supported. Or, perhaps there needs to be a station set up for the purpose of "talkback". I just want the government out of station editorial/political content decisions. I will quote again Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." In this context, fairness is determined by the broadcaster and the listener, not by the government.
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
The file sharer was heard to say: "I cupy zee-a feeles und shere-a muosic vit my friends. Policee breek duon my duor und keeck my kittee. I im nut heppy. Bork Bork Bork!
The upper classes have produced this Vorta-eared fellow as an example of the best breeding. They sure know good breeding there! I imagine the results of this program will look like Chuck but with Austin Powers teeth. "Fancy a shag, Camilla?"
"Looks to me more like censorship means removing of rights TO SAY SOMETHING, not forcing the media to allow ANOTHER PERSON TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT."
The last part should be replaced with "forcing someone to say what the government wants them to say". Then, the fairness doctrine says both.
The Doctrine removed the right to say something by opening the station up to government management of content if they aired something controversial. It is a situation of "if you air music, you can air whatever you want. But if you air political content, watch what you say or we will force you to alter your schedule to air whatever we think is fair". After the fairness doctrine was removed, a lot of radio stations converted to a talk format.
"If a broadcaster didn't want to do that (give equal time), then he best not give HIS side the air time"
Thanks for illustrating exactly how the censorship works. You can you say it is not censorship when here you admit that the Fairness Doctrine says to the broadcaster "he best not give HIS side the air time."
Telling the broadcaster to shut up is a perfect example of "censor:to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
"You have mistaken the press, that is, stuff printed by anyone who could afford to run a printing press, with stuff sent over the airwaves which belong to the public by entities holding licenses to use those airwaves in the public interest."
There is no mistake. The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters. Besides, if you want them to serve the public interest, they should be able to communicate to the public without the government micro-managing content.
In light of your points, I should not say that the Doctrine was designed specifically to censor. However, it is clear that those who want it desire it mainly for censorship. I've argued with several individuals about it. One of them, Concern, began his discussion by saying that Rupert Murdoch must be banned from the airwaves. Mabu also mentioned silencing the 'right wing' as his reason. Neither of them, in many lengthy messages, ever mentioned groups who had their views silenced and were in need of media access. They want the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to silence, not as a tool to diversify speech.
You are correct, however, that the Fairness Doctrine made much more sense when the electronic media was (were) so limited, and you did not have the situation like today where public access cable is common, and someone can respond to that editorial with their own little show if they wanted.
"Anyone who disagreed could go into their own pockets and print their own newspaper"
I live in a market where the local TV stations outnumber the newspapers.
"Apple, and to a large extent Microsoft too, have very strong brands. They love branding"
The problem is, with Microsoft branding, the experience is a lot like what a cow feels at the end of the roundup. "Yeeha! Dogies. Stand still so we can brand you with the MS of the Billygates Ranch. The brandin' irons are heatin' up."
ring ring ring
Mabel: "Henry!"
Henry: "What, dear?
Mabel: "It's one of those calls again.
Henry: "What calls, dear?"
Mabel: "Every 20 minutes or so, the phone rings and I pick it up and I hear some of that damn rock music"
Meanwhile, somewhere 5 states away, Jason is grooving down the streets, buds in ears, with one hand on the iPod phone as he hits the controls and surfs through his really impressive Led Zep collection. Every once in a while, he presses a button and the song does not change. No idea why.
"OK, so the whole breakdown of the human-machine truce from the end of Revolutions based on Morpheus demanding Neo's body is a bit lame it's better than humans starting a trade war or something equally Lucas-esque."
Lucas-esque? Come to think of it, those dreadlocked ghost twins were sort of like Jar Jar.
"Apparently, ripples from inflation in the early universe may account for the observed expansion rate of the universe." "
Does anyone still have one of those "WIN" buttons left? Perhaps if enough of us wear them, we can stop the catastrophic overexpansion of the universe.
After reading this, I can say but one thing.
on
24 Hours In The Matrix
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"Whoa..."
Do you have one of those 1970s Mavicas?
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 2, Funny
" I can see a time when you buy a digital iCamera, and instead of accepting tapes it just uses an iPod for storage."
The only thing I can figure is that you have one of Sony's 1973 model "Mavica" 0.3 kilopixel digital cameras that stores the pictures on an 8-track tape you insert in the side of the camera.
Slashdot Mirror
This knee-jerk reactionism says a lot more about you than it does about me. Lighten up.
They don't have anything like a full keyboard, so it doesn't make sense there. But if they did, they would need it.
"The computer is now a piece of consumer electronics and the interface matters. That began with the Macintosh."
It began long before the Macintosh. Besides, in the mid 1980s Apple was one of a few companies with the GUI. The "piece of consumer electronics" started with the C= Pet, TRS-80, and Apple ][. The Macintosh came, what was it, 6 or so years later when things were well underway, and it was a Apple was a minor player by then. Apple then, as now, even tried to avoid being a major player of consumer electronics by intentionally making its machines hard to buy with the idiotic dealer situation. The iPod is their first serious attempt: you can get them at Target, and don't have to put up with dealers at Official Apple Stores who are only open from 10 to 5.
In an alternate reality, Macs might possiby have dominated things if Apple had early on made the decision to have them sold at as many places as possible. But this did not happen: the company still shoots itself in the foot with the "official Apple store" problem.
Let's say it is 6:00 at night, and I want to see the latest Toshiba laptop. No problem, just go to Best Buy. But wait, there is something called a Powerbook that might be better? Go over to the Apple store. The lazy bums don't even want to sell them: the store closed over an hour ago.
As for your mention about insulated geeks, the mom and pop non-geeks during the Mac's early years still prefered PCs. The mom and pop non-geeks still do.
"calculators are not high-volume CE devices"
Commodore is an excellent example. Back when Commodore was in it, calculators were a big deal, and not something you get for $2 on a keychain without thinking about it.
"The only important innovation of the Palm was their special alphabet Graffiti."
The other important innovation was that they made a well-designed machine that gained wide acceptance. The previous makers (of which Apple with its Newton was only one) never had succeeded at that. The Willard (oops, too much Seinfeld)... I mean Sharp Wizard never had mass acceptance.
")!It did not sell well because they did not properly manage expectations with respect to handwriting recognition."
That was just one of many problems. Apple, like usual, also made the Newton hard to get by limiting the distribution stream. It was also a mess compared to the Palm.
"Consoles are getting there now, but were not when Microsoft introduced the X-Box."
Do you think that history began in 1999? The Atari 2600 was one of many high-volume game consoles that preceeded the X Box. Intellivision, Coleco, others...
Trite maybe (or certainly!), but you are batting 0 for 0 on the political part of it.
You have to learn to look at it differently. Approach it from the standpoint of a religious discussion, instead of an emotionless technical discussion. Or, imagine if the old Hatfields and McCoys were around today carrying on their feud on "Slashdot". If you are a McCoy, the Hatfields will always remember what you said.
I have little to add to that. I see what you are saying. Except that yes, the broadcasters should do what some judge to be responsible, but due to the subjective nature of this, and the tendency for government action to be a tool of party (and other) ideology, the government should stay out of judging what is responsible or not.
Next thing, I will mention Kermit the Frog, and will get flamed for bashing the French and swamp-dwellers.
looking for someone to say "fun fact: he really is Swedish, and he really is a chef".
Modded +4 Insightful for bashing the muppet "Swedish Chef"!
Translation: Only those who have your religious faith are informed. Thank you, Mr Ayatollah.
"I was going to say re-elected, but then I realised the prefix "re" only applies to something has actually happened at least once before."
The other responder had a good point. You need to learn about the electoral college. Just because you do not like it or do not know about it does not mean it does not exist. Turns out that Bush was elected the exact same way Clinton was: he won enough states to get the majority of electoral votes. At least the right-wingers didn't do what the bush bashers do now: insist that the guy they did not like was "not elected" just because they did not like him. The right-wingers impeached him instead :)
I did it because I loved the Muppets character called Swedish Chef. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Bork" is not a very common word in Swedish, as far as I know. "
Refer to aforementioned Muppet chef.
I strongly disagree. The freedom to be able to express opinions like this is the reason the First Amendment was written. In the real world, if someone said this and you really want "Fairness", chances are that there is a Christian radio station at the low end of the FM dial to "speak back": on their own station, not yours (if you are the one saying Christians are evil).
"but I'm also not for the censorship of the other side of the story, either."
The decision of a station not to air such things is part of "freedom of the press", and is not censorship: just like when the New York Times chooses not to print a letter from a neo-nazi crank on its op/ed/letters page. Broadcast radio must be treated just the same. There are ways to help with the fairness that you want that do not involve government micro-management of programming decisions or "if you air this, you must air that" mandates.
I think that the government needs to take a "hands off" approach to the editorial process of a station. I am not opposed to fairness or more voices getting access: perhaps the method to do this is to make it easier to get your own station. Attempts have been made to do this, which I have strongly supported. Or, perhaps there needs to be a station set up for the purpose of "talkback". I just want the government out of station editorial/political content decisions. I will quote again Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." In this context, fairness is determined by the broadcaster and the listener, not by the government.
Your take on this is refreshing. I'm tired of those whose reason for supporting the Fairness Doctrine comes explicitly out of a desire to reduce the speech of someone they do not like.
The file sharer was heard to say: "I cupy zee-a feeles und shere-a muosic vit my friends. Policee breek duon my duor und keeck my kittee. I im nut heppy. Bork Bork Bork!
Now I know why Columbine happened.
However, those nuclear dorsal spines on the baby Big G's back would warrant a Ceasarean section.
The upper classes have produced this Vorta-eared fellow as an example of the best breeding. They sure know good breeding there! I imagine the results of this program will look like Chuck but with Austin Powers teeth. "Fancy a shag, Camilla?"
The last part should be replaced with "forcing someone to say what the government wants them to say". Then, the fairness doctrine says both.
The Doctrine removed the right to say something by opening the station up to government management of content if they aired something controversial. It is a situation of "if you air music, you can air whatever you want. But if you air political content, watch what you say or we will force you to alter your schedule to air whatever we think is fair". After the fairness doctrine was removed, a lot of radio stations converted to a talk format.
"If a broadcaster didn't want to do that (give equal time), then he best not give HIS side the air time"
Thanks for illustrating exactly how the censorship works. You can you say it is not censorship when here you admit that the Fairness Doctrine says to the broadcaster "he best not give HIS side the air time."
Telling the broadcaster to shut up is a perfect example of "censor :to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
There is no mistake. The First Amendment does not demand the censorship of broadcasters. Besides, if you want them to serve the public interest, they should be able to communicate to the public without the government micro-managing content.
In light of your points, I should not say that the Doctrine was designed specifically to censor. However, it is clear that those who want it desire it mainly for censorship. I've argued with several individuals about it. One of them, Concern, began his discussion by saying that Rupert Murdoch must be banned from the airwaves. Mabu also mentioned silencing the 'right wing' as his reason. Neither of them, in many lengthy messages, ever mentioned groups who had their views silenced and were in need of media access. They want the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to silence, not as a tool to diversify speech.
You are correct, however, that the Fairness Doctrine made much more sense when the electronic media was (were) so limited, and you did not have the situation like today where public access cable is common, and someone can respond to that editorial with their own little show if they wanted.
"Anyone who disagreed could go into their own pockets and print their own newspaper"
I live in a market where the local TV stations outnumber the newspapers.
Thanks. I always wondered about Apple's brief involvement with Battlebots.
The problem is, with Microsoft branding, the experience is a lot like what a cow feels at the end of the roundup. "Yeeha! Dogies. Stand still so we can brand you with the MS of the Billygates Ranch. The brandin' irons are heatin' up."
Mabel: "Henry!"
Henry: "What, dear?
Mabel: "It's one of those calls again.
Henry: "What calls, dear?"
Mabel: "Every 20 minutes or so, the phone rings and I pick it up and I hear some of that damn rock music"
Meanwhile, somewhere 5 states away, Jason is grooving down the streets, buds in ears, with one hand on the iPod phone as he hits the controls and surfs through his really impressive Led Zep collection. Every once in a while, he presses a button and the song does not change. No idea why.
If you are instead reading a web article about Starbucks while logged in on your Mac, does this come close at all?
Lucas-esque? Come to think of it, those dreadlocked ghost twins were sort of like Jar Jar.
Does anyone still have one of those "WIN" buttons left? Perhaps if enough of us wear them, we can stop the catastrophic overexpansion of the universe.
"Whoa..."
The only thing I can figure is that you have one of Sony's 1973 model "Mavica" 0.3 kilopixel digital cameras that stores the pictures on an 8-track tape you insert in the side of the camera.