"The mouse works fine in the desktop environment but for home entertainment or working on a notebook it's over"
Er right - so the person telling us the mouse is dead is saying it works fine in the desktop environment... which, last time I looked, is the only place the mouse is used (and even though some people use mice with laptops, that's only when they're using it in a "desktop environment").
So the correct summary would be that the touchpad, along with whatever controls we use on home entertainment, are heading for extinction. The mouse is here to stay.
Unfortunately there isn't a direct quote of his "prediction" - so it's unclear whether he was simply misquoted, or if he does believe that, I fail to see how his logic is consistent. Unless perhaps he believes no one will want to use computers at a desk anymore, we'll all be doing our work lounging around on sofas?
Lights give a definite improvement over candles/torches.
The situation is more that they do not follow the mentality of "must have the latest best thing ever". That's the case with any other type of product - it's not expected that you need to update your fridge or your car every other week in case it blows up.
Furthermore, I have got bitten in the past when I upgraded just because a new version was out there, and I found it broke my installation, or the software had reduced functionality - in one case, a program which used to be free, but then got silently replaced with crippled trialware. Thankfully I still had the old installer lying around.
Now I upgrade when I read and see that there are improved features I want, or for things related to software development (where even though the newest version may have new bugs, it's still better usually to test my software with the latest versions of compilers and libraries). Even then, I do so when I have time to potentially sort out any problems, instead of doing it when my computer prompts me.
The kid obviously did not take the weight of the crime he committed seriously - he acted with contempt and callousness. Someone who acts like this, versus someone who does something bad but admits he was wrong and regrets it
Yes obviously, we can obviously tell this from a single photo. Someone who regretted it would clearly never have fun again. They certainly wouldn't try to put the stress of a trial out of their mind by drinking and socialising with friends. Instead they'd do something like, I don't know, stay at home and post emo poetry to Slashdot.
(The guy may or may not have been an arse, who may or may not deserve prison. But I'm not sure that trial-by-Facebook, where a person's sentence is influenced by whether they are caught having fun one time during their trial , is a good thing.)
Consoles are not phones, and in no way equivalent. It's traditional that development costs for consoles are much better (with some rare exceptions - e.g., the Amiga CD32).
Yes, I admit I'm speculating. If MS ever release a phone, we can see what they do, and what people's reactions here are.
don't you have to pay for the professional version of Microsoft's developer tools ?
No. MS give away complete compilers, development environments and their full software development kit for free. Yes, you can pay more if you want better tools, but why should they be penalised for offering something more? In fact, Apple do they same thing. I am not sure what you mean by "Professional version". "Professional" is not a definition, it's just a marketing label - MS could just as easily label their free versions "Professional", and then call the paid for version "Professional++", but that wouldn't change anything. In fact, I don't see that XCode is called "Professional", either?
Note also that Xcode is based upon GCC, so I am not sure why Apple are getting credit for distributing things for free when that is required due them licencing someone else's code; whilst MS are criticised for giving their own software away for free.
Usenet is dying, but I've thought it a shame that people didn't use NNTP more. Consider, there's nothing stopping people setting up forums that work using NNTP, but are not part of Usenet. So you don't have the spam, and can have moderators if you like. But you do get the advantages of NNTP, such as far better software to read and post with. I can't stand webforums - every webforum looks different, they often lack in features such as threading modes, and don't even think about advanced features like killfiles. You get power-crazy-moderators who love to "lock threads" simply because they personally are bored of the threads. Fundamentally, the point is that you're dependent on the website software, but with NNTP, the control is in the hands of the client.
I have seen some mailing lists that worked over NNTP, but unfortunately there don't appear to be many of them.
The *only* barrier to #2 is the cost of the developer program, ($99) which isn't much of a barrier...
I think that response sums up the attitude that the OP was talking about. If it's Apple, they're amazing because you "only" have to pay $99. If it was Microsoft, there'd be outrage.
Of course I am in full agreement that a platform that can run the dominant OS is better than one that cannot. But the reason it's amusing is that for years before, many Mac fans said it wasn't better. Yet now Macs can run Windows, they suddenly change their tune and say it is a good thing.
The amusing thing to me is that the upwards trend for Apple finally occured once they migrated to the Intel platform, and provided a dual-boot capability.
Indeed. The same thing happened a few years ago - "Macs" became more popular when they finally ditched MacOS and replaced it with OS X. Years before I thought classic MacOS was awful, of course Mac fans disagreed, but then it was Apple themselves who killed it off.
It makes sense from Apple's point of view: "Mac" is simply a brandname that they use for whatever technology they use at the time. But what confuses me is some of the users: "MacOS is great... oh actually it wasn't but OS X is great, Windows is crap... oh Macs can run Windows, that makes them even better!"
If in a few years' time Apple start shipping Windows or Linux as their main OS and ditch OS X, I bet this won't be viewed as giving in. It'll be "Macs are great, they now run Windows!"
What do you mean by "equivalent"? There are plenty of desktops more powerful than the Mac Mini. Or alternatively, get a laptop and have something really is mini.
If you mean there isn't a PC that's exactly like it, that's just a meaningless requirement. There are far more custom PCs which have no Mac equivalent. There are no Mac or PC equivalents to an Amiga 4000. That doesn't say anything about which system is better.
and at this juncture some of the best Windows computers are Macs. You heard me right. They also make some of the best Linux computers. Now that MacIntel is the standard architecture for Macintosh, some people are actually running Windows or Linux on them.
I find it amusing that "Macs" have become good or popular only by switching to Intel, using standard architecture rather than traditional Mac architecture, and running Windows or Linux;)
Still, if it means more people with Macs regardless of what OS they run, that's fine by me.
But why does this matter, if you end up changing the definition of a "Mac" in the process? It becomes nothing more than a trademark. Is there some kind of competition where you win if more machines with a "Mac" sticker are sold? If standard PCs running Windows are labelled Macs, that doesn't increase the number of OS X users, or the number of PowerMac users, or the number of classic Mac users.
Of course it matters to Apple - they make money whatever machines they can sell with a "Mac" label on it. But it doesn't make sense to me that people running a Windows PC with a "Mac" sticker changes anything for people running a Mac when it's a different platform.
There is more to Facebook then the message-sending functionality. Obviously a site set up just so people could send messages to people would be pointless.
You might as well claim that Slashdot is no more convenient than email - consider, why didn't you use email to send your message, instead of sending it via Slashdot?
The advantages may be available to the public, just not any description of them. You can taste Coca-Cola without knowing how it's made.
I am not asking for in-depth technical details on how Apple writes its software or designs its hardware! I just want the details - e.g., "It tastes better" (although if the only advantages of the Iphone are matters of taste, then that's not really relevant in an objective discussion about technology. I'll respond with "My much cheaper phone looks pretty", and that will be that).
When people say "it's easier to use", what they usually mean is "I find it easier to use [and if you don't, why not use something else]".
I know that "It's easier to use" means "I find it easier to use" - that's the same sentence written slightly differently. I still expect them to explain why.
And no, Mac users who state that "It's easier to use", "It Just Works" are not implying that other phones are just as good for other people, they're making a claim that the Iphone actually is better than all other phones.
Likewise with the converse.
I don't understand? I'm not the one making an assertion.
Mac mini: in use as a dick around media station, sits between my TV and my consoles.
A laptop would do the same thing, be smaller and more portable.
iMac: the pc I managed to get my parents on, and aunts, uncles, and assorted friends. Plenty of power for web, e-mail, photo's, and videos. Bonus, no more phone calls for me.
Why would you get phone calls? When helping my parents get their first computers, I resisted people saying that they should spend several hundred pounds more to run a niche platform because it would somehow mean less phone calls. In over a year on Windows, I haven't had any phone calls from them (and yes, the computer is still running fine). With a Mac, they'd be complaining that they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. There's nothing wrong with a niche platform, I've used and loved them myself, but I wouldn't want to force an ordinary computer user onto them.
enough power to compile and play WoW at 90 fps at the same time.
Shocking - running more than one app once. Welcome to the 1980s.
My mac mini is great. I took it out of the box, plugged it in, and turned it on. Other than setting up system prefs on the first day, and clicking "Sure, go ahead, run the update", I haven't done _anything_ to it from a maintenance point of view.
Just how every other computer I've used (Windows included) has worked.
You can buy PCs with a monitor of your choice, and PC sellers offer far greater flexibility than Macs. I'm not saying that matters, but you can't say that Macs have greater flexibility here.
If you're insisting on OS X, well okay, I insist on a machine running AmigaOS, therefore Amigas are the best. Obviously if you limit yourself to one operating system, your choices are limited.
One of the biggest reasons was Apple's switch to OS-X. Just something to dwell on.
Indeed, I think that proves that those of us who said Mac OS was awful were right all along, and they've only got somewhere now by switching to a new OS. But they'll never admit it - instead OS X is embraced as the new "Mac OS". Compare with Microsoft, imagine if they had to ditch Windows and switched to a UNIX OS? They'd be a laughing stock, at least here anyway.
However, it is possible to test for the existence of your rabbit.... Specially since for something to real, it has to interact with reality (word games aside).
Just like it should be for God, right? If God can be mysteriously undetectable, then so is my invisible rabbit.
Now take the "god premise". Something that, according to the theists, lack definition (or defies definition, which amounts to the same).
There are many different definitions of "god", however any individual theist will often have a specific definition. The definition of the Christian God for example is far more well-defined that the definition given for this rabbit.
It is impossible to test for something that lacks definition. Thus, there is no way to prove either way.
If something lacks definition, then it is not a case of "no way to prove either way", but rather that the question is meaningless. I might as well ask if "fgdhjjt" exists. This is not an argument for agnosticism - it sounds more like Ignosticism.
Ah, it's the "I'm superior to both atheists and theists", as if it's somehow possible to exist in limbo-land between the two.
Since you cite Wikipedia, let's take a look:
Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.
Firstly, this is itself an assertion, and could be viewed as a statement of faith. Secondly, it is not mutually exclusive to atheism - many of those atheist scientists could be agnostics too, so your argument doesn't hold. Yes, scientists should be agnostics - but there is nothing wrong with being atheists too.
Thirdly, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about atheism:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]
So in fact, only some of those atheist scientists are stating god doesn't exist.
Agnosticism is not some "middle ground" between theism and atheist - and that's going by the source that you quoted.
What software is "owned" rather than licenced? And is there a court ruling that decided that a piece of software that you buy in a box at the supermarket with no terms explained to you is not covered by a section 117 defence? (Obviously if a company went to another company and arranged some licence for their software, the software company could set whatever terms of agreement they like.) If that's the case, that is messed up (though the precedent was set before the WoW/Glider case, it would have been set by these previous three cases): both that copying-to-RAM in normal usage could be considered infringement in the first place, and that the defence to seemingly allow for it has been ruled useless.
Slashdot Mirror
If they don't use OS X anymore, why not just get a Windows PC "just because they can"?
Yes, this is why we see Apple stories on all the other phones too - Iphone users buy all of those phones, just because they can.
Apple users also buy Windows Vista and install it on their Macs, using it instead of OS X, just because they can.
In addition, the article is misleading. The original BBC article is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7508842.stm , and it quotes the "analyst" Steve Prentice as saying:
"The mouse works fine in the desktop environment but for home entertainment or working on a notebook it's over"
Er right - so the person telling us the mouse is dead is saying it works fine in the desktop environment ... which, last time I looked, is the only place the mouse is used (and even though some people use mice with laptops, that's only when they're using it in a "desktop environment").
So the correct summary would be that the touchpad, along with whatever controls we use on home entertainment, are heading for extinction. The mouse is here to stay.
Unfortunately there isn't a direct quote of his "prediction" - so it's unclear whether he was simply misquoted, or if he does believe that, I fail to see how his logic is consistent. Unless perhaps he believes no one will want to use computers at a desk anymore, we'll all be doing our work lounging around on sofas?
Lights give a definite improvement over candles/torches.
The situation is more that they do not follow the mentality of "must have the latest best thing ever". That's the case with any other type of product - it's not expected that you need to update your fridge or your car every other week in case it blows up.
Furthermore, I have got bitten in the past when I upgraded just because a new version was out there, and I found it broke my installation, or the software had reduced functionality - in one case, a program which used to be free, but then got silently replaced with crippled trialware. Thankfully I still had the old installer lying around.
Now I upgrade when I read and see that there are improved features I want, or for things related to software development (where even though the newest version may have new bugs, it's still better usually to test my software with the latest versions of compilers and libraries). Even then, I do so when I have time to potentially sort out any problems, instead of doing it when my computer prompts me.
Maybe - but that doesn't mean you can judge this from an out of context photo that someone else took. Was he making statements about the crime?
By your own words - it's an "idiotic argument".
The kid obviously did not take the weight of the crime he committed seriously - he acted with contempt and callousness. Someone who acts like this, versus someone who does something bad but admits he was wrong and regrets it
Yes obviously, we can obviously tell this from a single photo. Someone who regretted it would clearly never have fun again. They certainly wouldn't try to put the stress of a trial out of their mind by drinking and socialising with friends. Instead they'd do something like, I don't know, stay at home and post emo poetry to Slashdot.
(The guy may or may not have been an arse, who may or may not deserve prison. But I'm not sure that trial-by-Facebook, where a person's sentence is influenced by whether they are caught having fun one time during their trial , is a good thing.)
Consoles are not phones, and in no way equivalent. It's traditional that development costs for consoles are much better (with some rare exceptions - e.g., the Amiga CD32).
Yes, I admit I'm speculating. If MS ever release a phone, we can see what they do, and what people's reactions here are.
don't you have to pay for the professional version of Microsoft's developer tools ?
No. MS give away complete compilers, development environments and their full software development kit for free. Yes, you can pay more if you want better tools, but why should they be penalised for offering something more? In fact, Apple do they same thing. I am not sure what you mean by "Professional version". "Professional" is not a definition, it's just a marketing label - MS could just as easily label their free versions "Professional", and then call the paid for version "Professional++", but that wouldn't change anything. In fact, I don't see that XCode is called "Professional", either?
Note also that Xcode is based upon GCC, so I am not sure why Apple are getting credit for distributing things for free when that is required due them licencing someone else's code; whilst MS are criticised for giving their own software away for free.
They're free to block it. And he's free to say it sucks and warn others about it.
So you say that viewing is bad, because it's illegal? I think that's rather backwards...
Usenet is dying, but I've thought it a shame that people didn't use NNTP more. Consider, there's nothing stopping people setting up forums that work using NNTP, but are not part of Usenet. So you don't have the spam, and can have moderators if you like. But you do get the advantages of NNTP, such as far better software to read and post with. I can't stand webforums - every webforum looks different, they often lack in features such as threading modes, and don't even think about advanced features like killfiles. You get power-crazy-moderators who love to "lock threads" simply because they personally are bored of the threads. Fundamentally, the point is that you're dependent on the website software, but with NNTP, the control is in the hands of the client.
I have seen some mailing lists that worked over NNTP, but unfortunately there don't appear to be many of them.
The *only* barrier to #2 is the cost of the developer program, ($99) which isn't much of a barrier...
I think that response sums up the attitude that the OP was talking about. If it's Apple, they're amazing because you "only" have to pay $99. If it was Microsoft, there'd be outrage.
Of course I am in full agreement that a platform that can run the dominant OS is better than one that cannot. But the reason it's amusing is that for years before, many Mac fans said it wasn't better. Yet now Macs can run Windows, they suddenly change their tune and say it is a good thing.
The amusing thing to me is that the upwards trend for Apple finally occured once they migrated to the Intel platform, and provided a dual-boot capability.
Indeed. The same thing happened a few years ago - "Macs" became more popular when they finally ditched MacOS and replaced it with OS X. Years before I thought classic MacOS was awful, of course Mac fans disagreed, but then it was Apple themselves who killed it off.
It makes sense from Apple's point of view: "Mac" is simply a brandname that they use for whatever technology they use at the time. But what confuses me is some of the users: "MacOS is great ... oh actually it wasn't but OS X is great, Windows is crap ... oh Macs can run Windows, that makes them even better!"
If in a few years' time Apple start shipping Windows or Linux as their main OS and ditch OS X, I bet this won't be viewed as giving in. It'll be "Macs are great, they now run Windows!"
What do you mean by "equivalent"? There are plenty of desktops more powerful than the Mac Mini. Or alternatively, get a laptop and have something really is mini.
If you mean there isn't a PC that's exactly like it, that's just a meaningless requirement. There are far more custom PCs which have no Mac equivalent. There are no Mac or PC equivalents to an Amiga 4000. That doesn't say anything about which system is better.
and at this juncture some of the best Windows computers are Macs. You heard me right. They also make some of the best Linux computers. Now that MacIntel is the standard architecture for Macintosh, some people are actually running Windows or Linux on them.
I find it amusing that "Macs" have become good or popular only by switching to Intel, using standard architecture rather than traditional Mac architecture, and running Windows or Linux ;)
Still, if it means more people with Macs regardless of what OS they run, that's fine by me.
But why does this matter, if you end up changing the definition of a "Mac" in the process? It becomes nothing more than a trademark. Is there some kind of competition where you win if more machines with a "Mac" sticker are sold? If standard PCs running Windows are labelled Macs, that doesn't increase the number of OS X users, or the number of PowerMac users, or the number of classic Mac users.
Of course it matters to Apple - they make money whatever machines they can sell with a "Mac" label on it. But it doesn't make sense to me that people running a Windows PC with a "Mac" sticker changes anything for people running a Mac when it's a different platform.
Go visit an AA session sometime. Find out what happens to people who think getting sloshed is ok.
Just because people who are alcoholics get "sloshed" doesn't mean that anyone who ever gets sloshed is or will become an alcoholic.
There is more to Facebook then the message-sending functionality. Obviously a site set up just so people could send messages to people would be pointless.
You might as well claim that Slashdot is no more convenient than email - consider, why didn't you use email to send your message, instead of sending it via Slashdot?
The advantages may be available to the public, just not any description of them. You can taste Coca-Cola without knowing how it's made.
I am not asking for in-depth technical details on how Apple writes its software or designs its hardware! I just want the details - e.g., "It tastes better" (although if the only advantages of the Iphone are matters of taste, then that's not really relevant in an objective discussion about technology. I'll respond with "My much cheaper phone looks pretty", and that will be that).
When people say "it's easier to use", what they usually mean is "I find it easier to use [and if you don't, why not use something else]".
I know that "It's easier to use" means "I find it easier to use" - that's the same sentence written slightly differently. I still expect them to explain why.
And no, Mac users who state that "It's easier to use", "It Just Works" are not implying that other phones are just as good for other people, they're making a claim that the Iphone actually is better than all other phones.
Likewise with the converse.
I don't understand? I'm not the one making an assertion.
Mac mini: in use as a dick around media station, sits between my TV and my consoles.
A laptop would do the same thing, be smaller and more portable.
iMac: the pc I managed to get my parents on, and aunts, uncles, and assorted friends. Plenty of power for web, e-mail, photo's, and videos. Bonus, no more phone calls for me.
Why would you get phone calls? When helping my parents get their first computers, I resisted people saying that they should spend several hundred pounds more to run a niche platform because it would somehow mean less phone calls. In over a year on Windows, I haven't had any phone calls from them (and yes, the computer is still running fine). With a Mac, they'd be complaining that they couldn't run the software they wanted to run. There's nothing wrong with a niche platform, I've used and loved them myself, but I wouldn't want to force an ordinary computer user onto them.
enough power to compile and play WoW at 90 fps at the same time.
Shocking - running more than one app once. Welcome to the 1980s.
My mac mini is great. I took it out of the box, plugged it in, and turned it on. Other than setting up system prefs on the first day, and clicking "Sure, go ahead, run the update", I haven't done _anything_ to it from a maintenance point of view.
Just how every other computer I've used (Windows included) has worked.
You can buy PCs with a monitor of your choice, and PC sellers offer far greater flexibility than Macs. I'm not saying that matters, but you can't say that Macs have greater flexibility here.
If you're insisting on OS X, well okay, I insist on a machine running AmigaOS, therefore Amigas are the best. Obviously if you limit yourself to one operating system, your choices are limited.
One of the biggest reasons was Apple's switch to OS-X. Just something to dwell on.
Indeed, I think that proves that those of us who said Mac OS was awful were right all along, and they've only got somewhere now by switching to a new OS. But they'll never admit it - instead OS X is embraced as the new "Mac OS". Compare with Microsoft, imagine if they had to ditch Windows and switched to a UNIX OS? They'd be a laughing stock, at least here anyway.
However, it is possible to test for the existence of your rabbit. ... Specially since for something to real, it has to interact with reality (word games aside).
Just like it should be for God, right? If God can be mysteriously undetectable, then so is my invisible rabbit.
Now take the "god premise". Something that, according to the theists, lack definition (or defies definition, which amounts to the same).
There are many different definitions of "god", however any individual theist will often have a specific definition. The definition of the Christian God for example is far more well-defined that the definition given for this rabbit.
It is impossible to test for something that lacks definition. Thus, there is no way to prove either way.
If something lacks definition, then it is not a case of "no way to prove either way", but rather that the question is meaningless. I might as well ask if "fgdhjjt" exists. This is not an argument for agnosticism - it sounds more like Ignosticism.
Ah, it's the "I'm superior to both atheists and theists", as if it's somehow possible to exist in limbo-land between the two.
Since you cite Wikipedia, let's take a look:
Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable.
Firstly, this is itself an assertion, and could be viewed as a statement of faith. Secondly, it is not mutually exclusive to atheism - many of those atheist scientists could be agnostics too, so your argument doesn't hold. Yes, scientists should be agnostics - but there is nothing wrong with being atheists too.
Thirdly, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about atheism:
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]
So in fact, only some of those atheist scientists are stating god doesn't exist.
Agnosticism is not some "middle ground" between theism and atheist - and that's going by the source that you quoted.
What software is "owned" rather than licenced? And is there a court ruling that decided that a piece of software that you buy in a box at the supermarket with no terms explained to you is not covered by a section 117 defence? (Obviously if a company went to another company and arranged some licence for their software, the software company could set whatever terms of agreement they like.) If that's the case, that is messed up (though the precedent was set before the WoW/Glider case, it would have been set by these previous three cases): both that copying-to-RAM in normal usage could be considered infringement in the first place, and that the defence to seemingly allow for it has been ruled useless.