I remember getting in trouble in grade school for calling someone a homo sapiens (yes I knew I wasn't REALLY insulting the idiot kid, but HE didn't know that, but I got in trouble because he "felt" insulted.
Then again, most of my teachers in grade school were fucking assholes.
Only die-hard Apple Haters (of which Slashdot holds many) ever come up with drivel like that, meant to belittle others who have the audacity to like something. People like you though seem to want to pretend the whole thing was just about that easy to produce, to make sure Apple gets no credit whatsoever for the work that went into it.
Wow. Just...wow.
It wasn't mean to belittle. It was meant to illustrate the point (that many rabidly Pro-Apple/Pro-Jobs people are hung up on HIGHLY revisionist history).
And look throughout the rest of the thread. I've openly SAID that Apple revolutionized the smartphone market. But they did NOT create it, and they CERTAINLY did not do it from "nothing".
Sure, a bunch of weak sisters are going to fall by the wayside in the interim.
But we'll continue to see major OEMs produce standardized machines, and we'll continue to see boutique shops selling highly customized ones. The market is not going anywhere.
Perhaps your problem is the definition of nothing, but to me that part is accurate since Apple did not sell any kind of phone or touchscreen device up until that point... and it really was a dramatically different device than any smartphone sold at the time.
The thing is, the phone built on the foundation of the Apple Newton and what they learned from that. As well as the iPod (which was also influenced by the Apple Newton).
So, again, it wasn't "something out of nothing". But an iterative process between 1987 (when the Newton was released) and 2007 (when the iPhone was released). And while I'm sure there were tons of creative leaps that came more or less out of nowhere, it isn't like Steve Jobs was seized by inspiration, locked himself in his office for a week and then walked out with a fully functional iPhone (REGARDLESS of how the fanbois wanna spin it).
Apple didn't -create- the markets. What Apple did was get Joe and Jane Sixpack to buy stuff.
Right. This is the long and short of my point.
Apple also came with real security. There still has not been a single case of a non-jailbroken iDevice hacked and infected with malware, which is a sterling record.
Microsoft still dominates the increasingly irrelevant and dying desktop PC market
Fallacy. The desktop is, and will remain relevant. Fallacy. The PC market is NOT dying.
The PC market is in the midst of a correction. Prior to the latest rounds of smartphone/tablet introduction, people were primarily using PCs in situations where a full-blown Wintel system was complete and utter overkill. With touchscreen smartphones and tablets becoming more or less ubiquitous over the last 3-5 years, we're seeing people looking to replace their older desktop/media/laptop PCs with something, and finding that tablets and the like fit the need better and at a better price point than a full-blown desktop/laptop.
Additionally, in business, we're seeing virtualization starting to make inroads into reversing the trend of moving from centralized resources to localized resources. As noted, modern Wintel hardware is GROTESQUELY overpowered for most office productivity uses. And in lots of businesses, servers are wasting massive power on idle cycles. On top of that, the support costs, even with dedicated personnel, can be astronomical. So, instead of dropping a $500-1000 system on everyone's desk, they're virtualizing. Users get a thin client or RDP into a terminal server and work from there. This way, the business can lock down their platform, deliver only the software needed for the business (saving them money), and allows them to be more agile, since they can set up an office pretty much ANYWHERE, so long as they have internet connectivity.
Now, neither the virtualization market, nor the smartphone/tablet markets have hit critical mass yet. So there's likely to be a bit more of a drain from the desktop PC market for a bit. But it'll eventually peter out and the PC market, while smaller, will still be there. Additionally, it'll allow PC manufacturers to better utilize their resources to deliver products that fit their new market. Rather than shotgunning product all over the place.
So, anyone who's trying to sell you the "The PC is dying" line, basically doesn't know what they're talking about.
There was NO smartphones before the iPhone. Speaking as a guy that used them all, everything else was utter garbage compared to the iPhone.
Ah. When in doubt, ad hominem it out!
They were garbagephones, not smartphones.
Please provide both qualitative and quantitative differentiation and proof that all the products you're slandering conform to those definitions.
Are you fucking kidding?
Do you want the NICE answer or the HONEST one?
NICE: No. I'm not kidding you.
HONEST: No. I'm not kidding you. And if you weren't so hung up on brand fascism, you'd be adult enough to realize that I wasn't kidding in the first place.
Things like momentum scroll and pinch-to-zoom were made out of thin air by Apple. There was nothing like it.
Yes. You're talking about a singular FEATURE. Yes, the feature helped revolutionize the market. But the market existed BEFORE the feature. Simply because the feature becomes ubiquitous doesn't mean that the entity that introduced it created the original market, or that the market somehow died and was replaced by a similar (but not too similar) market wholly created by the people who brought the feature to you.
THIS is the REAL mobile market that Apple created from scratch.
Oh. Now we're going to go with a "No True Scotsman". Because the market that pre-existed Apple was somehow a "fake" market. But Apple created a "real" one.
I'm just going to laugh at this. That's about all the attention this deserves.
There was absolutely nothing like it, no matter how hard the Android/MS fangirls try to rewrite history to claim that Apple didn't invent the modern smartphone industry.
They didn't. The only revisionism is on the Apple Fanboi end (where you're coming from). They basically helped redefine the modern smartphone market. I'll give them that. And all of the big players in the market owe them kudos. But, getting down to brass tacks, they didn't "invent" it.
If you don't believe me, then explain why Google had to REDESIGN Android after seeing the iPhone introduction?
*Facepalm*
*Deletes the rest of the the Jobsian knob-slobbery as there's no arguing blatant fantasy.*
all of the carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the plants, and will be released either through decomposition, or burning as fuel.
Doubtful. And by "released", that means "back into the environment".
By the way, electric cars do have fuel tanks, they're called "batteries."
Yep. And come back to me when the storage and distribution (refill) technology has gotten to the point where I can pretty much go anyplace, rather than having to carefully plan my route around quick-charge stations over overnight stays every 1-300 miles or rent a gasoline/diesel/e85 car..
In 15 years
This technology is PERPETUALLY "10-15 years away". Call me after it has ARRIVED and is actually pushing towards ubiquity.
Okay, if we have a market that can absorb the use of biofuel in liquid format right now, exactly how would we truly be better suited towards saying "fuck it" and replacing it with a bunch of solar panels that:
A) Don't fill a fuel tank B) Requires new solar panels to be built, usually in a country that doesn't give a shit about environmental impacts C) Requires massive investment in reworking and expanding the transmission and delivery infrastructure D) Essentially requires that more vehicles be built to then take advantage of the power?
Now, ARE biofuels truly carbon neutral or carbon negative? No.
Still, I'm in favor taking steps, even baby steps, that help lower carbon emissions in a real way NOW. Rather than having someone saw on and on and on (and on and on and on) about how this pie-in-the-sky OTHER thing would be SOOOO much better if only it were implemented now, and never actually gets implemented for numerous reasons.
It's all the people living in dreamland, thinking there's some magical way we could cease carbon output "tomorrow" that are holding up real (even if smaller) REAL progress.
Because I'm CERTAIN that it's MUCH safer to just leave storage casks sitting OUT IN THE OPEN IN A PARKING LOT at the plant. Right? No possibility of ground water contamination there right?
This is where the whole notion of risk management comes into play.
Now, if you're a world famous nuclear scientist working on spurting-edge fusion power experiments, a stupid-rich CEO of an unpopular company or a politician with even more dirty laundry than your AVERAGE political hack, you're probably a FAR bigger target than "Joe Familyguy".
I'm not saying "don't secure your shit.
But at some point, the risk/return equation simply becomes unacceptable for most people.
Technically, if you disassembled your machine, broke it down to component parts, sealed each part inside an air/water-tight safe (a different safe for every part), and buried each part in a location only known to you in a concrete and rebar cage. Your shit would be REALLY fucking secure.
But actually using the system (let alone accessing the data) becomes an unacceptable hassle.
So, at some point, there's ALWAYS tradeoffs between security and usability. ALWAYS. Anyone telling you different is selling you a line of high-grade BULLSHIT.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember getting in trouble in grade school for calling someone a homo sapiens (yes I knew I wasn't REALLY insulting the idiot kid, but HE didn't know that, but I got in trouble because he "felt" insulted.
Then again, most of my teachers in grade school were fucking assholes.
Since Sauron is a Maia, he predates what we know as "creation".
So the answer to this is probably "no".
As always, Eru Illuvatar did not make himself available for comment.
Only die-hard Apple Haters (of which Slashdot holds many) ever come up with drivel like that, meant to belittle others who have the audacity to like something. People like you though seem to want to pretend the whole thing was just about that easy to produce, to make sure Apple gets no credit whatsoever for the work that went into it.
Wow. Just...wow.
It wasn't mean to belittle. It was meant to illustrate the point (that many rabidly Pro-Apple/Pro-Jobs people are hung up on HIGHLY revisionist history).
And look throughout the rest of the thread. I've openly SAID that Apple revolutionized the smartphone market.
But they did NOT create it, and they CERTAINLY did not do it from "nothing".
Those who can squeeze by on the margins.
Sure, a bunch of weak sisters are going to fall by the wayside in the interim.
But we'll continue to see major OEMs produce standardized machines, and we'll continue to see boutique shops selling highly customized ones. The market is not going anywhere.
Perhaps your problem is the definition of nothing, but to me that part is accurate since Apple did not sell any kind of phone or touchscreen device up until that point... and it really was a dramatically different device than any smartphone sold at the time.
The thing is, the phone built on the foundation of the Apple Newton and what they learned from that. As well as the iPod (which was also influenced by the Apple Newton).
So, again, it wasn't "something out of nothing". But an iterative process between 1987 (when the Newton was released) and 2007 (when the iPhone was released).
And while I'm sure there were tons of creative leaps that came more or less out of nowhere, it isn't like Steve Jobs was seized by inspiration, locked himself in his office for a week and then walked out with a fully functional iPhone (REGARDLESS of how the fanbois wanna spin it).
This is a stupid hill to die on, Chas.
Who says I'm the one dying? Especially since I'm right.
Basically ANYONE fapping over any brand's products needs an ass-kicking.
That includes my uncle, the asshole Microsoft evangelist.
Again. I don't hate Apple.
I just hate the fanboy bullshit.
Did Apple revolutionize the market?
YES! FUCK YES! HELL THE FUCK YES!
Did they CREATE the market out of "nothing"?
No.
Apple didn't -create- the markets. What Apple did was get Joe and Jane Sixpack to buy stuff.
Right. This is the long and short of my point.
Apple also came with real security. There still has not been a single case of a non-jailbroken iDevice hacked and infected with malware, which is a sterling record.
http://time.com/3560875/iphone...
You may want to check your factbook.
Ah. Goalposts firmly moved into PDA-land now...
How refreshing...
The older Jobs, butthurt after being ousted by Apple, returns as a control freak
No. Steve was ALWAYS a control freak.
Uh. They most certainly did NOT create the smartphone sector. And they sure as fuck didn't do it out of "nothing"
They certainly did give it a kick in the ass though.
Oh! No doubt! I won't even waste anyone's time trying to deny this.
But can we stop slobbing the Apple knob?
If in the ideal world of the apple hater, I wonder what version of DOS we would be using on our Blackberry's?
I don't "hate" Apple.
Their products aren't my particular cup of tea. But I don't hate them.
I save my hatred for the circle-jerking culture club that grew up around it. Mostly because rampant idiocy and fanaticism annoy the fuck out of me.
Microsoft still dominates the increasingly irrelevant and dying desktop PC market
Fallacy. The desktop is, and will remain relevant.
Fallacy. The PC market is NOT dying.
The PC market is in the midst of a correction.
Prior to the latest rounds of smartphone/tablet introduction, people were primarily using PCs in situations where a full-blown Wintel system was complete and utter overkill.
With touchscreen smartphones and tablets becoming more or less ubiquitous over the last 3-5 years, we're seeing people looking to replace their older desktop/media/laptop PCs with something, and finding that tablets and the like fit the need better and at a better price point than a full-blown desktop/laptop.
Additionally, in business, we're seeing virtualization starting to make inroads into reversing the trend of moving from centralized resources to localized resources.
As noted, modern Wintel hardware is GROTESQUELY overpowered for most office productivity uses. And in lots of businesses, servers are wasting massive power on idle cycles. On top of that, the support costs, even with dedicated personnel, can be astronomical.
So, instead of dropping a $500-1000 system on everyone's desk, they're virtualizing. Users get a thin client or RDP into a terminal server and work from there.
This way, the business can lock down their platform, deliver only the software needed for the business (saving them money), and allows them to be more agile, since they can set up an office pretty much ANYWHERE, so long as they have internet connectivity.
Now, neither the virtualization market, nor the smartphone/tablet markets have hit critical mass yet. So there's likely to be a bit more of a drain from the desktop PC market for a bit. But it'll eventually peter out and the PC market, while smaller, will still be there. Additionally, it'll allow PC manufacturers to better utilize their resources to deliver products that fit their new market. Rather than shotgunning product all over the place.
So, anyone who's trying to sell you the "The PC is dying" line, basically doesn't know what they're talking about.
There was NO smartphones before the iPhone. Speaking as a guy that used them all, everything else was utter garbage compared to the iPhone.
Ah. When in doubt, ad hominem it out!
They were garbagephones, not smartphones.
Please provide both qualitative and quantitative differentiation and proof that all the products you're slandering conform to those definitions.
Are you fucking kidding?
Do you want the NICE answer or the HONEST one?
NICE: No. I'm not kidding you.
HONEST: No. I'm not kidding you. And if you weren't so hung up on brand fascism, you'd be adult enough to realize that I wasn't kidding in the first place.
Things like momentum scroll and pinch-to-zoom were made out of thin air by Apple. There was nothing like it.
Yes. You're talking about a singular FEATURE. Yes, the feature helped revolutionize the market. But the market existed BEFORE the feature. Simply because the feature becomes ubiquitous doesn't mean that the entity that introduced it created the original market, or that the market somehow died and was replaced by a similar (but not too similar) market wholly created by the people who brought the feature to you.
THIS is the REAL mobile market that Apple created from scratch.
Oh. Now we're going to go with a "No True Scotsman". Because the market that pre-existed Apple was somehow a "fake" market. But Apple created a "real" one.
I'm just going to laugh at this. That's about all the attention this deserves.
There was absolutely nothing like it, no matter how hard the Android/MS fangirls try to rewrite history to claim that Apple didn't invent the modern smartphone industry.
They didn't. The only revisionism is on the Apple Fanboi end (where you're coming from). They basically helped redefine the modern smartphone market. I'll give them that. And all of the big players in the market owe them kudos. But, getting down to brass tacks, they didn't "invent" it.
If you don't believe me, then explain why Google had to REDESIGN Android after seeing the iPhone introduction?
*Facepalm*
*Deletes the rest of the the Jobsian knob-slobbery as there's no arguing blatant fantasy.*
Uh. They most certainly did NOT create the smartphone sector. And they sure as fuck didn't do it out of "nothing".
Now I admit, yes, Apple's been disruptive, in a good way, for the industry. But can we stop slobbing the Apple knob?
all of the carbon was removed from the atmosphere by the plants, and will be released either through decomposition, or burning as fuel.
Doubtful. And by "released", that means "back into the environment".
By the way, electric cars do have fuel tanks, they're called "batteries."
Yep. And come back to me when the storage and distribution (refill) technology has gotten to the point where I can pretty much go anyplace, rather than having to carefully plan my route around quick-charge stations over overnight stays every 1-300 miles or rent a gasoline/diesel/e85 car..
In 15 years
This technology is PERPETUALLY "10-15 years away". Call me after it has ARRIVED and is actually pushing towards ubiquity.
Okay, if we have a market that can absorb the use of biofuel in liquid format right now, exactly how would we truly be better suited towards saying "fuck it" and replacing it with a bunch of solar panels that:
A) Don't fill a fuel tank
B) Requires new solar panels to be built, usually in a country that doesn't give a shit about environmental impacts
C) Requires massive investment in reworking and expanding the transmission and delivery infrastructure
D) Essentially requires that more vehicles be built to then take advantage of the power?
Now, ARE biofuels truly carbon neutral or carbon negative? No.
Still, I'm in favor taking steps, even baby steps, that help lower carbon emissions in a real way NOW. Rather than having someone saw on and on and on (and on and on and on) about how this pie-in-the-sky OTHER thing would be SOOOO much better if only it were implemented now, and never actually gets implemented for numerous reasons.
It's all the people living in dreamland, thinking there's some magical way we could cease carbon output "tomorrow" that are holding up real (even if smaller) REAL progress.
Ah. Unpopular opinion and smidgen of fact labeled "troll".
Mazel tov!
Further proof that anyone can have a mix of crappy hardware and software cause them problems.
Can I get a loud "Well DUH!" from anyone who's life isn't consumed by rampant brand fanboyism?
Because I'm CERTAIN that it's MUCH safer to just leave storage casks sitting OUT IN THE OPEN IN A PARKING LOT at the plant. Right?
No possibility of ground water contamination there right?
So, a field of solar panels is more efficient. Hurray!
Lemme just stop by and get a gallon of solar!
Oh wait!
Maybe, if we had a grid and road system that supported wholesale, on-the-go electrification of cars, this would be more important.
But, with our current infrastructure, while biofuels offer less energy density, they result in a product that's appropriate for the uses required.
This is where the whole notion of risk management comes into play.
Now, if you're a world famous nuclear scientist working on spurting-edge fusion power experiments, a stupid-rich CEO of an unpopular company or a politician with even more dirty laundry than your AVERAGE political hack, you're probably a FAR bigger target than "Joe Familyguy".
I'm not saying "don't secure your shit.
But at some point, the risk/return equation simply becomes unacceptable for most people.
Technically, if you disassembled your machine, broke it down to component parts, sealed each part inside an air/water-tight safe (a different safe for every part), and buried each part in a location only known to you in a concrete and rebar cage. Your shit would be REALLY fucking secure.
But actually using the system (let alone accessing the data) becomes an unacceptable hassle.
So, at some point, there's ALWAYS tradeoffs between security and usability. ALWAYS. Anyone telling you different is selling you a line of high-grade BULLSHIT.
$550-750 for a 6 year old, low-resolution, low memory laptop?
I mean, if I absolutely HAD to have something FSF-compliant without the possible security risk of AMT...
But, honestly, that same amount of money will get you a MUCH better NEW laptop and there are ways to secure a system around AMT.
Yes, but then you're dancing around the possibility of additional disk failures while waiting on that replacement.
If you pop a few more drives (which, if you got your disks in lots is QUITE possible), you're in deep shit.
As opposed to the first myomer bundle bicep. "The Schwarzenegger Bundle"