the word of mouth about it had nothing negative to say about it.
You make a good point, one which I hadn't put much thought to before. I own and iPod, and people have asked me about it, and there isn't really anything bad I have to say about it. Sure, it was kind of pricey, but not long after using it, I found out it was well worth the price, to me at least. Some may need it to last longer than 8 hours (now bumped up to 12 with the new models), but I have never needed to use it for longer than 8 hours at a time, and if I ever go anywhere away from my laptop for extended periods of time, the power adapter is not a big deal to carry around. The only minor gripe I have with mine is the amount of time required to switch between shuffle and normal playback, but again, this is fixed on the new models.
This is very true. People simply know how to use Windows, regardless of its GUI design, or lack thereof. I personally don't see why the average Joe would have an incentive to use something they've either never heard of, or have only read about in passing, and basically know nothing about. I used to use Gnome back in the 1.x days (I went back to using a Mac once I bought a PowerBook a couple years ago), and I personally felt that it had a more intuitive, albeit very similar, user interface than Windows. Granted, I don't use Windows a whole lot, and while I know how to use it, it feels awkward and clunky (especially after using OS X since it debuted). But Windows is a refined clunkyness , whereas Linux desktops seem to be not only clunky, but rather inconsistent as well. Almost anyone can sit down at a Windows machine and figure out how to get around the thing for the simple fact that it's familiar to them. Does a "regular dude" know the difference between KDE and Gnome, does he even know what those things are? Once he fires up the computer for the first time, it's going to be slightly familiar, with a start-menu-like thing and taskbar and whatnot, but he's going to notice the dissimilarities right away, and think to himself "this sucks, I'm gonna get my computer friend to install Windows for me."
Linux, in the desktop setting, is currently still for the enthusiasts who are proactive and want to learn Linux.
In the server market, things are much more in Linux's favor. The people running the stuff already know a whole lot about computing in general, and they can by and large run everything without GUI, and if they want to use one, they'll have no problem choosing one, installing it, and figuring it out. Also, since Linux is a lot like the BSDs and other UNIX flavors, it can be picked up relatively quickly by the admins and such... plus the lack of license fees is icing on the cake.
Right now, Linux is much more viable in the server market, than the desktop one, just as the rest of UNIX is, barring OS X.
For Linux to make it in the desktop market, it needs a set of GUI standards such as the one Apple made for the Macintosh. If people can't sit down at the computer and have it operate as they expect it to (and that does not necessarily mean copying Windows or OS X), then they aren't going to use it.
One may even argue against making it like Windows, since the dissimilarities would probably end up causing the user more grief than if they had to learn an entirely new system. Also, if they came up with some genuinely innovative GUI features, it might start to turn people's heads.
I've heard that bipedalism gave us humans an evolutionary edge. Walking on two legs made humans (and their ancestors... homo erectus, etc.) able to see over tall prairie grasses that other animals, aside from birds, had a hard time doing. This enabled them to find and hunt down prey easier.
This would also support the theory that larger, more powerful brains came after bipedalism. And even today, some people still can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
True, it has a good likelihood of dying in committee, but that's not to say something like this shouldn't appear on Slashdot. It has a broader reach than this specific bill. Perhaps a few people from Utah will realize what crap Senator Hatch is coming out with, and they will be convinced to vote against him the next time he's up for reelection. Also, this negative press can only help in getting the bill killed off, as its publicity may cause some people to write to their senators (as the article poster suggests) about how they disagree with the proposed legislation.
Re:Most expensive liquid on the planet?
on
Dell CEO Tells All
·
· Score: 1
It would be corporate suicide to sell printer ink for the price of calf batter, er, bull jizz.
Didn't you hear? They are coming out with new white ink cartridges.
But... a $61 million profit on $2.01 billion in revenue comes out to about a 3% profit margin. While the individual units may cost $800 or whatever, Apple still has to pay those responsible for the design, creation, management, marketing and so on. Once you distribute this cost to the individual units, they may end up costing Apple $1500, at which point they'd be breaking even.
With a profit margin of 3%, apple can't really raise prices as they'll lose business, but they also can't lower the price too much without hurting profits. And if they spend less money on R&D, then the overall quality will suffer, and they could lose business that way as well. The iPod battery and iPod mini static problems come to mind, as those have not very good press for Steve & Co.
Over and over nuclear technology has proven that you can't trust it's owners. There's too much money at stake.
Very true... in Illinois we have some of the highest electricity bills in the country. In Illinois, we also have more nuclear plants than any other state. And while ComEd's greed and lack of competent management may have something to do with the high rates, no doubt the cost of keeping these aging reactors maintained, inspected and safe cannot be cheap at all.
Re:What is google gaining from your personal life?
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 1
Gimme a break. The more they know about you, the better they can target ads to you... plain and simple. Think about this: Google is planning an IPO in the near future, at which point they will be accountable to stockholders in one way or another. Sure, they could sell your personal information, and cash in all at once, but after that, consumers would lose trust in them, and the stockholders would bail out. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Targeted ads would most definitely bring in a much higher revenue stream that those stupid "punch the monkey, win a prize" banner ads you see on low class websites...
I agree. While I think the thing he did at Bilbao works for an art museum, the "Gehry bandshell" at the over-budget Millennium Park here in Chicago looks excessive and needless. The overall area isn't too bad, with a canopy over the grassy area from which speakers are hung, eliminating the need for towers, but the actual bandshell looks ridiculous in the Windy City. 20 years or so down the road people will look at his stuff and think "wow, that stuff is ugly."
Thankfully, Gehry is in his in his mid-70s so hopefully he only has a few more years of design left in him.
I disagree. While NASA may not be one of the US's big-spending bureaucracies, $20 billion up front, and $2 billion for every subsequent mission is by no means inexpensive. And call me cynical, but this is NASA we're talking about... $20B on paper might be feasible, but realistically, would the final bill be anywhere near this low? Either way, $20 billion+ is not chump change.
And while a manned mission to Mars would not be without its benefits, would those benefits outweigh spending that money here on earth on, say cancer or AIDS research for instance. Surely, $20 billion spent down here would benefit many more individuals than sending a few folks up to Mars would.
Also, what's all this about humans needing to go out and colonize the solar system in order to move forward? I think it would be far more useful to try to make this world a better place than to create problems elsewhere. Sure, colonizing Mars may help humanity survive a bit longer if we decide to nuke earth, but chances are, those same self-destructive tendencies would not be destroyed along with it. I fail to comprehend how branching out into space would inherently bring about forward progress. Making new problems is no way to solve present ones. Sure, we'd be technologically more advanced than before, but does that necessarily mean that we, as a population as a whole, has actually made progress? I don't think so.
And politically--simply put--it makes Bush look good. For Bush, it's practically a win-win situation. It puts America back in the spotlight as China and Europe ramp up their space programs, but more importantly, by the time the US actually sends someone to Mars, Bush will be long out of office. If anything goes wrong, it can be blamed on any number of factors, but if all goes right, Bush gets the notoriety of being the guy that made the decision to put a man on Mars, much like Kennedy gets the credit for pushing to get a man on the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
That was only Captain Redbeard Rum who, according to Blackadder, actually enjoyed drinking his own urine.
And for those who would rather view it in HTML (courtesy of Google, and lacking images), here it is.
Speaking of which, in the 'Potato' episode, they nearly ended up drinking their own pee on their naval expedition.
the word of mouth about it had nothing negative to say about it.
You make a good point, one which I hadn't put much thought to before. I own and iPod, and people have asked me about it, and there isn't really anything bad I have to say about it. Sure, it was kind of pricey, but not long after using it, I found out it was well worth the price, to me at least. Some may need it to last longer than 8 hours (now bumped up to 12 with the new models), but I have never needed to use it for longer than 8 hours at a time, and if I ever go anywhere away from my laptop for extended periods of time, the power adapter is not a big deal to carry around. The only minor gripe I have with mine is the amount of time required to switch between shuffle and normal playback, but again, this is fixed on the new models.
Actually, I do believe it was Blackadder Goes Forth. The III was when he was a butler for that nitwit who was Prince of Wales.
Ah, yes...
"One thing puzzles me Baldrick; how did you manage to get so much custard out of such a small cat?"
Classic.
SPF is all nice and such, but it won't help stop spam at all.
But thankfully, it prevents skin cancer.
Aw, shucks, this means getting your eyes corrected won't get you out of a draft.
However... in a Dana Carvey skit a loooong time ago, he, referring to the movie Water World, said the following:
"You can't pee into a Mr. Coffee and expect it to come out Taster's Choice."
Or something to that effect.
This is very true. People simply know how to use Windows, regardless of its GUI design, or lack thereof. I personally don't see why the average Joe would have an incentive to use something they've either never heard of, or have only read about in passing, and basically know nothing about. I used to use Gnome back in the 1.x days (I went back to using a Mac once I bought a PowerBook a couple years ago), and I personally felt that it had a more intuitive, albeit very similar, user interface than Windows. Granted, I don't use Windows a whole lot, and while I know how to use it, it feels awkward and clunky (especially after using OS X since it debuted). But Windows is a refined clunkyness , whereas Linux desktops seem to be not only clunky, but rather inconsistent as well. Almost anyone can sit down at a Windows machine and figure out how to get around the thing for the simple fact that it's familiar to them. Does a "regular dude" know the difference between KDE and Gnome, does he even know what those things are? Once he fires up the computer for the first time, it's going to be slightly familiar, with a start-menu-like thing and taskbar and whatnot, but he's going to notice the dissimilarities right away, and think to himself "this sucks, I'm gonna get my computer friend to install Windows for me."
Linux, in the desktop setting, is currently still for the enthusiasts who are proactive and want to learn Linux.
In the server market, things are much more in Linux's favor. The people running the stuff already know a whole lot about computing in general, and they can by and large run everything without GUI, and if they want to use one, they'll have no problem choosing one, installing it, and figuring it out. Also, since Linux is a lot like the BSDs and other UNIX flavors, it can be picked up relatively quickly by the admins and such... plus the lack of license fees is icing on the cake.
Right now, Linux is much more viable in the server market, than the desktop one, just as the rest of UNIX is, barring OS X.
For Linux to make it in the desktop market, it needs a set of GUI standards such as the one Apple made for the Macintosh. If people can't sit down at the computer and have it operate as they expect it to (and that does not necessarily mean copying Windows or OS X), then they aren't going to use it.
One may even argue against making it like Windows, since the dissimilarities would probably end up causing the user more grief than if they had to learn an entirely new system. Also, if they came up with some genuinely innovative GUI features, it might start to turn people's heads.
Easy.... the band works in Mysterious Ways.
Well, we saw to it that these animals would become extinct.
I've heard that bipedalism gave us humans an evolutionary edge. Walking on two legs made humans (and their ancestors... homo erectus, etc.) able to see over tall prairie grasses that other animals, aside from birds, had a hard time doing. This enabled them to find and hunt down prey easier.
Haha, at first I misread that as Chimpy McFlingshit
This would also support the theory that larger, more powerful brains came after bipedalism. And even today, some people still can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
True, it has a good likelihood of dying in committee, but that's not to say something like this shouldn't appear on Slashdot. It has a broader reach than this specific bill. Perhaps a few people from Utah will realize what crap Senator Hatch is coming out with, and they will be convinced to vote against him the next time he's up for reelection. Also, this negative press can only help in getting the bill killed off, as its publicity may cause some people to write to their senators (as the article poster suggests) about how they disagree with the proposed legislation.
It would be corporate suicide to sell printer ink for the price of calf batter, er, bull jizz.
Didn't you hear? They are coming out with new white ink cartridges.
I guess they're just that enthusiastic about the whole OSS thing.
When I say "Novell" what do you think of first?
The crappy Novell Netware client stuff they used on the computers back in high school.
But... a $61 million profit on $2.01 billion in revenue comes out to about a 3% profit margin. While the individual units may cost $800 or whatever, Apple still has to pay those responsible for the design, creation, management, marketing and so on. Once you distribute this cost to the individual units, they may end up costing Apple $1500, at which point they'd be breaking even.
With a profit margin of 3%, apple can't really raise prices as they'll lose business, but they also can't lower the price too much without hurting profits. And if they spend less money on R&D, then the overall quality will suffer, and they could lose business that way as well. The iPod battery and iPod mini static problems come to mind, as those have not very good press for Steve & Co.
Over and over nuclear technology has proven that you can't trust it's owners. There's too much money at stake.
Very true... in Illinois we have some of the highest electricity bills in the country. In Illinois, we also have more nuclear plants than any other state. And while ComEd's greed and lack of competent management may have something to do with the high rates, no doubt the cost of keeping these aging reactors maintained, inspected and safe cannot be cheap at all.
Gimme a break. The more they know about you, the better they can target ads to you... plain and simple. Think about this: Google is planning an IPO in the near future, at which point they will be accountable to stockholders in one way or another. Sure, they could sell your personal information, and cash in all at once, but after that, consumers would lose trust in them, and the stockholders would bail out. Money talks and bullshit walks.
Targeted ads would most definitely bring in a much higher revenue stream that those stupid "punch the monkey, win a prize" banner ads you see on low class websites...
It's time to take off your tinfoil hat now.
Not so fast, the article indeed shows that "There Are Infinitely Many Prime Twins." Maybe mathematicians are finally on to something....
I agree. While I think the thing he did at Bilbao works for an art museum, the "Gehry bandshell" at the over-budget Millennium Park here in Chicago looks excessive and needless. The overall area isn't too bad, with a canopy over the grassy area from which speakers are hung, eliminating the need for towers, but the actual bandshell looks ridiculous in the Windy City. 20 years or so down the road people will look at his stuff and think "wow, that stuff is ugly."
Thankfully, Gehry is in his in his mid-70s so hopefully he only has a few more years of design left in him.
I disagree. While NASA may not be one of the US's big-spending bureaucracies, $20 billion up front, and $2 billion for every subsequent mission is by no means inexpensive. And call me cynical, but this is NASA we're talking about... $20B on paper might be feasible, but realistically, would the final bill be anywhere near this low? Either way, $20 billion+ is not chump change.
And while a manned mission to Mars would not be without its benefits, would those benefits outweigh spending that money here on earth on, say cancer or AIDS research for instance. Surely, $20 billion spent down here would benefit many more individuals than sending a few folks up to Mars would.
Also, what's all this about humans needing to go out and colonize the solar system in order to move forward? I think it would be far more useful to try to make this world a better place than to create problems elsewhere. Sure, colonizing Mars may help humanity survive a bit longer if we decide to nuke earth, but chances are, those same self-destructive tendencies would not be destroyed along with it. I fail to comprehend how branching out into space would inherently bring about forward progress. Making new problems is no way to solve present ones. Sure, we'd be technologically more advanced than before, but does that necessarily mean that we, as a population as a whole, has actually made progress? I don't think so.
And politically--simply put--it makes Bush look good. For Bush, it's practically a win-win situation. It puts America back in the spotlight as China and Europe ramp up their space programs, but more importantly, by the time the US actually sends someone to Mars, Bush will be long out of office. If anything goes wrong, it can be blamed on any number of factors, but if all goes right, Bush gets the notoriety of being the guy that made the decision to put a man on Mars, much like Kennedy gets the credit for pushing to get a man on the moon.