I'd think you could make very good money by just selling advertising space on sex.com. Or running just about any kind of business whose target market has a smutty sense of humor. For example, start selling discounted college textbooks from a site called sex.com, throw in some gender-selectable eye candy, and students across North America will beat (off) a path to your door.
This is supposed to be more powerful than your typical netbook. It's a different set of features; is it that difficult to imagine that someone else might find it useful to them?
Because most of the millions of people who bought a C64 don't know or care about what happened with the Amiga. Adolf, on the other handm doesn't have any nostalgic associations for most people, and his ignoble legacy is a little better known, so your comparison is a bit of a stretch.
And according to corollaries to Godwin's Law: you lose.:)
If it doesn't run EasyScript, I'm not interested. That was so cool: you could embed printer control codes into your documents, to turn on bold and underline and italics! Even superscript and subscript (if your printer could do that... mine did!)
To be fair, an "all-in-one" that puts the CPU in the keyboard can be handier than the iMac approach: it's a lot easier to carry from place to place and hook up to whatever monitor is handy.
Right: don't assume a conspiracy, when there's a simpler Darwinian explanation: Hardly anyone actually uses line-in jacks, so hardware manufacturers increasingly don't bother spending money to include them.
Unless you're referring only to this hardware line, 1.2MB 5.25" floppy drives were not rare. They were standard equipment on every 286-class or above PC, until 3.5" floppies supplanted them. When a PC had both sizes, the 5.25" drive was almost always the 1.2MB variety.
The serial ports on a PC are/dev/ttyS0 (COM1) and/dev/ttyS1 (COM2). Still very much supported in modern unices. Wiring up the necessary null-modem cable to hook them up should be well within the skillset of anyone attempting this.
The key "unnecessary framework" missing on iPhoneOS is ye olde Finder (probably including Aqua). In other words, it has an altogether different UI, which is what a usable handheld or tablet requires.
A tablet or slate running OS X would suck (for most uses) as badly as a slate running Windows Tablet Edition does. That's why Apple refused to make one: Jobs doesn't like to repeat the colossal, obvious mistakes of others, because that'd make him look mortal.;) Tablets do have some things they're good for – I have an "hpad" (HP TC1100 slate) that I run Photoshop on, and it's a great drawing tablet; I work for a nursing facility that makes some decent use of TabletPC Thinkpads – but it's true: they simply aren't very good as general-purpose laptop replacements.
I remember when ISPs used to seriously police their users, because there was the potential for them (the ISP) to get kicked off the internet, and have that stick. Network admins listened to complaints from other admins, and if they concluded that a given ISP wasn't keeping house and letting too many net.abusers on, they were considered a rogue ISP and cut off. The rogue net couldn't just call up another network access provider and get reconnected, because their reputation preceded them. I'm not saying I'd want to go back to that (even if it were possible), but as a believer in personal responsibility, I miss those days.
And I think that Kirk Alynreeves, Bud Collyereeve, Dean Cainreeves, Tom Wellingreeve, and Brandon Reevesouth (among others) would take issue with your "both actors" comment.:)
What happens when someone puts sex-ed info on a web site in the.kid domain, and American Puritan Society objects? Or someone creates www.heatherhastwomommies.kid and the anti-homosexual lobby cries foul? Who decides whether it's OK?
If people want to create a walled garden online for their kids to play in, and use software to keep them there, I'm perfectly supportive of that. But the top level of the domain hierarchy is the wrong place to do that. Do it at the second level. Let private independent agencies or communities or whatever create walledgarden.org or keepmybabysafe.com or ohlookabutterfly.net, let them manage the content there according to their own standards, and let parents choose to use any of these sites (or none) to entertain their children. Restricting one's children to *.walledgarden.org is no more difficult than restricting them to *.kid. And meanwhile, the rest of us, who are not children, are free to use an internet that doesn't make decisions about content for us.
How, exactly, would you enforce the requirement to embed ratings? There are already such systems in existence, but for reasons that I wish were obvious, they cannot be enforced.... any more than a segregation of "adult" material into a separate domain.
The reason I didn't use it was because I ultimately found it more trouble than it was worth. But I still knew it.
Furthermore, listing version 1.0 would show how deeply I know Windows. For example, there are keyboard shortcuts that Microsoft hasn't bothered mentioning in their documentation in 15 years... but are still supported by the UI. So if I find myself needing to troubleshoot operations on a server that also turns out to have an unusable mouse, I can still do it.
I prefer to think of it as being willing to experiment with developing technology, and maybe even invest a little money in its development. ("What? Pay money to support something? Unheard of!" the modern kids exclaim.) I bought Windows 1.0 because I wanted a way to switch between apps quickly, and Microsoft claimed it would do that. I tried it for a while... and gave up. I upgraded to Windows 2.0 because the reviews all said "hey, this is better, it kinda works" and I was desperate enough to give it another try... and gave up. When Windows 3.0 came out the reviews all said, "I think they got it right this time", so I upgraded again, and... finally it was good enough to keep using.
I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well. I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.
I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, but too many interviewers thought I was joking, because they'd never heard of such a thing (and it started making me look like I might be over 30). One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.
Slashdot Mirror
In the porn industry it's all about sizes.
I'd think you could make very good money by just selling advertising space on sex.com. Or running just about any kind of business whose target market has a smutty sense of humor. For example, start selling discounted college textbooks from a site called sex.com, throw in some gender-selectable eye candy, and students across North America will beat (off) a path to your door.
This is supposed to be more powerful than your typical netbook. It's a different set of features; is it that difficult to imagine that someone else might find it useful to them?
Because most of the millions of people who bought a C64 don't know or care about what happened with the Amiga. Adolf, on the other handm doesn't have any nostalgic associations for most people, and his ignoble legacy is a little better known, so your comparison is a bit of a stretch.
And according to corollaries to Godwin's Law: you lose. :)
If it doesn't run EasyScript, I'm not interested. That was so cool: you could embed printer control codes into your documents, to turn on bold and underline and italics! Even superscript and subscript (if your printer could do that... mine did!)
To be fair, an "all-in-one" that puts the CPU in the keyboard can be handier than the iMac approach: it's a lot easier to carry from place to place and hook up to whatever monitor is handy.
Right: don't assume a conspiracy, when there's a simpler Darwinian explanation: Hardly anyone actually uses line-in jacks, so hardware manufacturers increasingly don't bother spending money to include them.
Unless you're referring only to this hardware line, 1.2MB 5.25" floppy drives were not rare. They were standard equipment on every 286-class or above PC, until 3.5" floppies supplanted them. When a PC had both sizes, the 5.25" drive was almost always the 1.2MB variety.
A late 80's version is hardly "ancient *nix". For that you need to go back to UNIX's first decade, not just anything that predates Linux.
The serial ports on a PC are /dev/ttyS0 (COM1) and /dev/ttyS1 (COM2). Still very much supported in modern unices. Wiring up the necessary null-modem cable to hook them up should be well within the skillset of anyone attempting this.
The key "unnecessary framework" missing on iPhoneOS is ye olde Finder (probably including Aqua). In other words, it has an altogether different UI, which is what a usable handheld or tablet requires.
A tablet or slate running OS X would suck (for most uses) as badly as a slate running Windows Tablet Edition does. That's why Apple refused to make one: Jobs doesn't like to repeat the colossal, obvious mistakes of others, because that'd make him look mortal. ;) Tablets do have some things they're good for – I have an "hpad" (HP TC1100 slate) that I run Photoshop on, and it's a great drawing tablet; I work for a nursing facility that makes some decent use of TabletPC Thinkpads – but it's true: they simply aren't very good as general-purpose laptop replacements.
I remember when ISPs used to seriously police their users, because there was the potential for them (the ISP) to get kicked off the internet, and have that stick. Network admins listened to complaints from other admins, and if they concluded that a given ISP wasn't keeping house and letting too many net.abusers on, they were considered a rogue ISP and cut off. The rogue net couldn't just call up another network access provider and get reconnected, because their reputation preceded them. I'm not saying I'd want to go back to that (even if it were possible), but as a believer in personal responsibility, I miss those days.
Evidently, yes. Why would air lose its physical properties just because it's moving faster than compression waves travel through it?
Because if it vibrates at the right resonant frequency on the treadmill, it might accidentally be transported to the 30th century or to Earth-Two.
I meant: are you related to him?
And I think that Kirk Alynreeves, Bud Collyereeve, Dean Cainreeves, Tom Wellingreeve, and Brandon Reevesouth (among others) would take issue with your "both actors" comment. :)
What happens when someone puts sex-ed info on a web site in the .kid domain, and American Puritan Society objects? Or someone creates www.heatherhastwomommies.kid and the anti-homosexual lobby cries foul? Who decides whether it's OK?
If people want to create a walled garden online for their kids to play in, and use software to keep them there, I'm perfectly supportive of that. But the top level of the domain hierarchy is the wrong place to do that. Do it at the second level. Let private independent agencies or communities or whatever create walledgarden.org or keepmybabysafe.com or ohlookabutterfly.net, let them manage the content there according to their own standards, and let parents choose to use any of these sites (or none) to entertain their children. Restricting one's children to *.walledgarden.org is no more difficult than restricting them to *.kid. And meanwhile, the rest of us, who are not children, are free to use an internet that doesn't make decisions about content for us.
How, exactly, would you enforce the requirement to embed ratings? There are already such systems in existence, but for reasons that I wish were obvious, they cannot be enforced.... any more than a segregation of "adult" material into a separate domain.
What about George?
"It seems to me that a government could not legally block the TLD unless porn was actually illegal in that country."
You do realize that in most countries it's the government which creates the laws making things illegal?
And who, exactly, would determine what is "obscene"?
(I'd offer to do it, but I'm a bit busy.)
The reason I didn't use it was because I ultimately found it more trouble than it was worth. But I still knew it.
Furthermore, listing version 1.0 would show how deeply I know Windows. For example, there are keyboard shortcuts that Microsoft hasn't bothered mentioning in their documentation in 15 years... but are still supported by the UI. So if I find myself needing to troubleshoot operations on a server that also turns out to have an unusable mouse, I can still do it.
I prefer to think of it as being willing to experiment with developing technology, and maybe even invest a little money in its development. ("What? Pay money to support something? Unheard of!" the modern kids exclaim.) I bought Windows 1.0 because I wanted a way to switch between apps quickly, and Microsoft claimed it would do that. I tried it for a while... and gave up. I upgraded to Windows 2.0 because the reviews all said "hey, this is better, it kinda works" and I was desperate enough to give it another try... and gave up. When Windows 3.0 came out the reviews all said, "I think they got it right this time", so I upgraded again, and... finally it was good enough to keep using.
I remember the feeble beginnings of Windows quite well. I started purchasing Windows with 1.04, and started using it with 3.0.
I used to list "Windows 1.0 - [current version]" on the skills section of my resume, but too many interviewers thought I was joking, because they'd never heard of such a thing (and it started making me look like I might be over 30). One of them seriously thought Windows started with 95.
It's times like this where I'm tempted to start calling myself a European-American. (Except that it would come across too white-power-y, so I don't.)
What makes their not-gonna-happen predictions especially bad is the fact that some of those things were already happening in 1995.