Indeed - and on the topic of reliability, I couldn't noticing when the parents of Madeline McCann were suspects, the media had experts crawling out of the woodwork to tell us how the DNA match they found in the car might have had another explanation.
Yet every other story the media tells about DNA matches being used to convict terrorists and sex offenders, all we hear is how it's a one in billions match. I bet if it was "some mysterious dodgy man" who was under suspicion rather than the parents, we wouldn't have had the media dismissing the evidence...
The iPhone features don't suck and aren't a pain in the ass to use. They just work. Get it?
My phone works too - revolutionary! Is there nothing more you can say about the iphone, is that it only works just the only thing going for it? Not exactly much of a feature list, is it...
You have to hear about them? I guess you had to click on this link and had to read about this story? Probably also faced a similarly impossible-to-resist requirement of having to post your comment, right?
That and the spam Apple send to my inbox, and all the free coverage they get on places like the BBC. Obviously I'm not forced, but see what I mean? If it was any other company, people would complain about spam or adverts, but Apple is held to some different standard.
Where are all the stories and media coverage for all the other phones? No one's forcing you to buy them, so there's no reason to have loads of stories about them all the time, by your logic.
Could you explain just worksTM please, because this doesn't appear to be a meaning that matches up with my understand of "just works". Do you mean to say that web browers, email and computer connection on other phones don't work? Strange, even my dirt cheap phone does all that.
If the market had really got to the stage where just working was "revolutionary", don't you think there would have been more of an uproar about the state of other phones? But no, everyone else carries on with their phones working just fine.
I don't have one yet, because I don't NEED a smartphone.
So you don't even have one, or any smartphone, but you make these claims? See, this is the problem. People ask reasonable questions on why it is revolutionary, and we get these nonsensical buzzwords "Oh hey, it Just WorksTM, Think DifferentTM", which then gets modded up, but still, no one is any wiser as to what's good about it. If people tried the same justifications on any non-Apple story, they'd quickly be modded down and ignored.
Of course there is nothing wrong with people choosing to use Apple products, just like any other products such as Motorola phones, Linux or BeOS. The issue is more with the minority who continually trumpet Apple as being massively wonderful, and claim that it's done everything first, or better than everyone else. From Slashdot to the BBC, we hear about Apple products much more so than other phones and so on; somehow Apple have managed to get a lot of free advertising for themselves (as if the spam they send me wasn't enough!)
It wouldn't be hard at all to argue that the Macintosh GUI (well before Windows and possibly your date of birth) made computing accessible to the masses.
Firstly, that was classic MacOS, not OS X, which was developed from Next. Classic MacOS had to be ditched by Apple because they couldn't update it to include "modern" features. Secondly, if you're talking about what was first, then that was Xerox. Yes, classic MacOS brought it to more people, but so did plenty of other systems (e.g., AmigaOS), and overall, like it or not, Windows brought computing to a far greater number of people. MacOS doesn't win on "first" nor does it win on "to the masses".
I take it you've never had to search for drivers, since XP didn't include them, only to find that the ones you downloaded are buggy? Never had a corrupted registry? Or gone through DLL hell? Never tried dual booting Windows and Linux on a machine that previously ran Linux exclusively?
My phone "just works", and it costs a fraction of the price.
Obviously I don't fit into Apple's target market (though for some reason, I still have to hear about them all the time) and my phone obviously lacks the magical "experience" of Apple - but please don't try to mislead people into suggesting that every other phone doesn't work.
Don't like it? Then vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Well that's exactly what people are suggesting. I mean, what were you thinking? No one is suggesting this should be illegal for Apple to do! But it is certainly fair game to criticise them, point out flaws in their product and suggest buying something else.
After all, Microsoft gets enough flak (including legal troubles, for them) for trying to coerce people into using its media software.
His "frothing at the mouth" is probably because we hear about Iphone-this-Iphone-that, and rarely about any other phone. So obviously it is fair game to criticise the product when it is being treated as a higher standard. (Although I don't see his post has anymore full of anger than yours - I think you're reading too much into it.)
Obviously there is a long way still to go, but I don't think that means we haven't come far. On the contrary, I was thinking the opposite - how just a hundred years ago, so much of our modern everyday gadgets didn't exist, and would have seemed impossible.
but is any of this really that far from clockmaking? Its all just extensions of simplier ideas. Clockmaking extends from the idea of gears. All eletronics extend from the idea of harnessing eletricity.. when will we enter a phase where we seek new mediums to harness? Instead of becoming masters of electrons, we master all energy and matter.
But what do you mean by "new mediums"? If you say that modern electronics is just like clockmaking, wouldn't in the future someone still say than mastering all energy and matter is still just like clockmaking?
Modern electronics harnesses electricity, and requires understanding of quantum mechanics, both things which are fundamentally different to clockmaking. We have harnessed the nuclear force to some degree (albeit not in a "gadget"). The only force still a mystery to us is gravity. I do not see why everything we know today is just like clockmaking, but a future device that harnesses gravitation would be some fundamental new breakthrough.
These include reducing money laundering, less under-age access to alcohol, easier ID confirmation therefore reducing ID fraud, better border controls and more tightly integrated public services.
As I've said, we already have forms of ID. There might be an argument for a cheap standardised form of ID, but this ID card is not it. When the new ID/passport system is more expensive and more hassle to get than even what a passport used to me, it's just made things worse, not easier.
Wherever they start the roll out of the scheme NO2ID will find fault and whatever information the card contains or whatever system is used.
No, people find fault with what we know this ID card scheme is going to involve. Please stop building a strawman to suggest people oppose every possible form of ID. After all, I already have forms of ID, and I've nothing against them.
Being gay is a _sexual_ attraction to the same sex. Anal sex is the closest to normal sex gay men can have with people they're attracted to. It's not a false connection.
There is probably a correlation, but it's not true in all cases. Plenty of gay men don't; plenty of straight men do. If homophobes are grossed out by it, they should note that some gay men might be grossed out by it too, whilst some straight men happily enjoy it (either as active or recipient partner).
I agree that it being a choice implies bisexuality, but I'm not sure that all people making this claim are bisexual. In my experience, bisexuals acknowledge it is only a choice for them, and anyone saying "It's a choice" insist they are straight. Perhaps they're so closeted they can't admit it, but I fear this is just another version of the "homophobes are closeted homosexuals" which I don't see any evidence for.
Also, this doesn't explain the phobia towards bisexuality. These people refuse to accept the logic that this means they are naturally bisexual - rather, they see homosexuality as the default, and anything else, including bisexuality, is a choice.
Consider, you never see people asking if sexuality is a choice, or if heterosexuality is a choice - it's always specifically being gay that is seen as a choice.
There are probably various reasons for homophobia - I think 0xdeadbeef's response is a good one.
This is highly consistent with my own observation that females are able to distinguish 'attractiveness' in other females innately while straight males can only look to the reactions of females. How do you innately know what is attractive without some level of attraction?
It's quite possible - for example, you could simply note which sorts of people are regarded as attracted.
And that would explain your observation, as women are far more sexualised then men. So it's far easier to know what is supposed to be attractive for a woman, and far harder to do so for a man. There is also the fact that women are far more likely to try to make themselves appear attractive. I'm bisexual, but I still note a far greater range in attractiveness among women, where as men mostly are boring and similar. It's easier to pick out the attractive women, than the attractive men.
Also is the fact that male homosexuality is a far greater taboo, such that men will fear even making a statement that a man is attractive, whilst this isn't a taboo in the slightest for women.
Lastly, I note that this is an interesting take on the idea - that the gland size does not dictate sexuality as such, but purely attractiveness towards women. So if women have a small attractiveness towards other women because of this gland, the question is why are they attracted more so to men? And why are men not attracted to other men? Is there another gland which women have, and men don't have at all? Or are there solely social or environmental reasons for making women attracted to men?
There've been studies done which showed that sexual attraction has to do with the size of a particular gland in the brain, attached to the thalmus. Specifically, the larger it is, the more likely you are to be attracted to females. They have found that in normal females, it's smaller than it is in normal males. And more importantly, that in homosexual males, it's more typically female, and in homosexual females, it's more typically male.
I wonder how bisexuality fits into this? Not to mention other aspects of sexuality?
Quite aside from that, most homosexuals know long before they reach puberty that they're different from their peers. It's hard-wired.
To be fair, he said prepubescent.
Whilst I am sure that genetic or environmental factors before birth influence sexuality, that doesn't mean it can't also be influenced by other factors to up to and including adolescence (or even beyond). (And no, obviously I don't mean abuse, which is a stupid stereotype, whether it's cited as a cause of homosexuality, masochism or whatever else - though I don't see where the OP mentioned abuse, anyway?) Sexuality is a complex thing, that isn't just a case of "Big gland means like women, little gland means like men".
There's fairly obvious evolutionary reasons why the two would go hand in hand. The fact that the gender studies cited don't note any discrepancy between the gender reversals and the appropriate sexual preference does tend to confirm that link
What cited evidence? It's still not clear to me how they go hand in hand.
Personally, I've always considered the fact that someone considers it a matter of choice
Who said it was a choice? The person you replied to said prepubescent experiences, i.e., environment, as opposed to being genetically hardwired. Of course it isn't a choice.
that is why I think it is very unfortunate to be attracted sexually to your own gender.
It is only unfortunate if you want to have children with someone you are attracted to. Not everyone does - including straight and bisexual people. Do not confuse the species with individuals - of course some people need to be breeding, but personally I have no plans of having children.
allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract
You sound like an IDer. Evolution is not directed in any sense like this. Or even if we accept your argument - it also wasn't evolved to come into a condom, your girlfriend's mouth, or your kleenex tissues. Not to mention that some straight couples practice anal sex, whilst some gay people don't. So why do you make this point?
that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny
Assuming we have got past the 14 year old male stage where such things are funny, may I ask why?
and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
Perhaps, but that doesn't apply to any of the sexual acts you've described.
If you give everyone ID cards it makes it easy to check how old they are when they try to get into an 18 movie or buy alcohol.
The Government isn't handing out ID cards, you will have to pay a lot of money for them. And there were already cheaper forms of ID (even a passport - but I think there are much cheaper ones) that young people can get.
A National ID card scheme has loads of great advantages and trying to argue that it does not is foolish.
I'll bite - name them. And ones that _this_ ID card scheme has, not some hypothetical ID card scheme that is nothing to do with that proposed by the UK Government.
The only arguments are either that the disadvantages of such a scheme to civil liberties are too great a cost or that the financial costs are so great that equivalent advantages are cheaper or are simply not required if the price is that high.
Yes, it "only" has significant disadvantages. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement (also there are other criticisms btw, such as the national database that goes with it).
There definitely is a certain need for ID cards. There are several situations where you are supposed to identify yourself. The way this is 'solved' currently, is to show a recent UTILITY BILL. Yes, a bill from your supplier of gas/electricity/water. No, I don't think this is funny.
Not true, we already have forms of ID. If someone allows you to do something without proper ID, that is their problem. There is no reason they should change their act due to this new ID system. And surely anyone moving into the UK must already have ID (their passport)?
I'm not sure how ID helps in the examples you described. But if you want ID, just go and get something like a passport. The cost of the new replacement ID/passport is more (and will be more hassle to get - requiring interviews and taking of fingerprints), so this hasn't solved anything, in fact it's made things worse.
The problem is not with an "ID card", the problem is with the system being proposed by the UK Government, which is very different from what many European countries have. Objections include the immense cost, the information stored on the database (including biometric information), or the prison sentences handed down if you fail to update the info or fail to report a card as damaged, lost or stolen.
Well of course, you can rebut his point if you're allowed to make things up. I still agree with you in that I hope that technological progress will continue to accelerate, though certain physical limits will likely put a halt to rapidly established space empires anytime soon.
At 23, Pojut has never used a rotary phone, probably never used a record player, doesn't know what leaded gas or a carburetor is, and probably has never seen a TV that didn't have a remote. Yeah, Pojut's young.
Isn't that part of his point though? Things that still seem relatively recent have been been seen or used by people now in their twenties. Also for example, there's an entire generation that doesn't know what it's like to have life without the Internet, or always-on mobile phones.
Maybe, but note that Apple have yet to do this either - they transitioned to another different existing OS (NeXT) which they then developed, rather than writing a brand new one from scratch. That's all I was saying really - it's certainly a problem facing Microsoft, but not one that Apple have already overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - and on the topic of reliability, I couldn't noticing when the parents of Madeline McCann were suspects, the media had experts crawling out of the woodwork to tell us how the DNA match they found in the car might have had another explanation.
Yet every other story the media tells about DNA matches being used to convict terrorists and sex offenders, all we hear is how it's a one in billions match. I bet if it was "some mysterious dodgy man" who was under suspicion rather than the parents, we wouldn't have had the media dismissing the evidence...
The iPhone features don't suck and aren't a pain in the ass to use. They just work. Get it?
My phone works too - revolutionary! Is there nothing more you can say about the iphone, is that it only works just the only thing going for it? Not exactly much of a feature list, is it...
You have to hear about them? I guess you had to click on this link and had to read about this story? Probably also faced a similarly impossible-to-resist requirement of having to post your comment, right?
That and the spam Apple send to my inbox, and all the free coverage they get on places like the BBC. Obviously I'm not forced, but see what I mean? If it was any other company, people would complain about spam or adverts, but Apple is held to some different standard.
Where are all the stories and media coverage for all the other phones? No one's forcing you to buy them, so there's no reason to have loads of stories about them all the time, by your logic.
Could you explain just worksTM please, because this doesn't appear to be a meaning that matches up with my understand of "just works". Do you mean to say that web browers, email and computer connection on other phones don't work? Strange, even my dirt cheap phone does all that.
If the market had really got to the stage where just working was "revolutionary", don't you think there would have been more of an uproar about the state of other phones? But no, everyone else carries on with their phones working just fine.
I don't have one yet, because I don't NEED a smartphone.
So you don't even have one, or any smartphone, but you make these claims? See, this is the problem. People ask reasonable questions on why it is revolutionary, and we get these nonsensical buzzwords "Oh hey, it Just WorksTM, Think DifferentTM", which then gets modded up, but still, no one is any wiser as to what's good about it. If people tried the same justifications on any non-Apple story, they'd quickly be modded down and ignored.
RTFA - they already did write an article on the Commodore 64, but I can't find the Slashdot article for it.
FWIW, here's the link: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1991/a_history_of_gaming_platforms_the_.php
Of course there is nothing wrong with people choosing to use Apple products, just like any other products such as Motorola phones, Linux or BeOS. The issue is more with the minority who continually trumpet Apple as being massively wonderful, and claim that it's done everything first, or better than everyone else. From Slashdot to the BBC, we hear about Apple products much more so than other phones and so on; somehow Apple have managed to get a lot of free advertising for themselves (as if the spam they send me wasn't enough!)
It wouldn't be hard at all to argue that the Macintosh GUI (well before Windows and possibly your date of birth) made computing accessible to the masses.
Firstly, that was classic MacOS, not OS X, which was developed from Next. Classic MacOS had to be ditched by Apple because they couldn't update it to include "modern" features. Secondly, if you're talking about what was first, then that was Xerox. Yes, classic MacOS brought it to more people, but so did plenty of other systems (e.g., AmigaOS), and overall, like it or not, Windows brought computing to a far greater number of people. MacOS doesn't win on "first" nor does it win on "to the masses".
I take it you've never had to search for drivers, since XP didn't include them, only to find that the ones you downloaded are buggy? Never had a corrupted registry? Or gone through DLL hell? Never tried dual booting Windows and Linux on a machine that previously ran Linux exclusively?
Nope.
My phone "just works", and it costs a fraction of the price.
Obviously I don't fit into Apple's target market (though for some reason, I still have to hear about them all the time) and my phone obviously lacks the magical "experience" of Apple - but please don't try to mislead people into suggesting that every other phone doesn't work.
Don't like it? Then vote with your wallet and buy something else.
Well that's exactly what people are suggesting. I mean, what were you thinking? No one is suggesting this should be illegal for Apple to do! But it is certainly fair game to criticise them, point out flaws in their product and suggest buying something else.
After all, Microsoft gets enough flak (including legal troubles, for them) for trying to coerce people into using its media software.
His "frothing at the mouth" is probably because we hear about Iphone-this-Iphone-that, and rarely about any other phone. So obviously it is fair game to criticise the product when it is being treated as a higher standard. (Although I don't see his post has anymore full of anger than yours - I think you're reading too much into it.)
Obviously there is a long way still to go, but I don't think that means we haven't come far. On the contrary, I was thinking the opposite - how just a hundred years ago, so much of our modern everyday gadgets didn't exist, and would have seemed impossible.
but is any of this really that far from clockmaking? Its all just extensions of simplier ideas. Clockmaking extends from the idea of gears. All eletronics extend from the idea of harnessing eletricity.. when will we enter a phase where we seek new mediums to harness? Instead of becoming masters of electrons, we master all energy and matter.
But what do you mean by "new mediums"? If you say that modern electronics is just like clockmaking, wouldn't in the future someone still say than mastering all energy and matter is still just like clockmaking?
Modern electronics harnesses electricity, and requires understanding of quantum mechanics, both things which are fundamentally different to clockmaking. We have harnessed the nuclear force to some degree (albeit not in a "gadget"). The only force still a mystery to us is gravity. I do not see why everything we know today is just like clockmaking, but a future device that harnesses gravitation would be some fundamental new breakthrough.
These include reducing money laundering, less under-age access to alcohol, easier ID confirmation therefore reducing ID fraud, better border controls and more tightly integrated public services.
As I've said, we already have forms of ID. There might be an argument for a cheap standardised form of ID, but this ID card is not it. When the new ID/passport system is more expensive and more hassle to get than even what a passport used to me, it's just made things worse, not easier.
Wherever they start the roll out of the scheme NO2ID will find fault and whatever information the card contains or whatever system is used.
No, people find fault with what we know this ID card scheme is going to involve. Please stop building a strawman to suggest people oppose every possible form of ID. After all, I already have forms of ID, and I've nothing against them.
Being gay is a _sexual_ attraction to the same sex. Anal sex is the closest to normal sex gay men can have with people they're attracted to. It's not a false connection.
There is probably a correlation, but it's not true in all cases. Plenty of gay men don't; plenty of straight men do. If homophobes are grossed out by it, they should note that some gay men might be grossed out by it too, whilst some straight men happily enjoy it (either as active or recipient partner).
I agree that it being a choice implies bisexuality, but I'm not sure that all people making this claim are bisexual. In my experience, bisexuals acknowledge it is only a choice for them, and anyone saying "It's a choice" insist they are straight. Perhaps they're so closeted they can't admit it, but I fear this is just another version of the "homophobes are closeted homosexuals" which I don't see any evidence for.
Also, this doesn't explain the phobia towards bisexuality. These people refuse to accept the logic that this means they are naturally bisexual - rather, they see homosexuality as the default, and anything else, including bisexuality, is a choice.
Consider, you never see people asking if sexuality is a choice, or if heterosexuality is a choice - it's always specifically being gay that is seen as a choice.
There are probably various reasons for homophobia - I think 0xdeadbeef's response is a good one.
This is highly consistent with my own observation that females are able to distinguish 'attractiveness' in other females innately while straight males can only look to the reactions of females. How do you innately know what is attractive without some level of attraction?
It's quite possible - for example, you could simply note which sorts of people are regarded as attracted.
And that would explain your observation, as women are far more sexualised then men. So it's far easier to know what is supposed to be attractive for a woman, and far harder to do so for a man. There is also the fact that women are far more likely to try to make themselves appear attractive. I'm bisexual, but I still note a far greater range in attractiveness among women, where as men mostly are boring and similar. It's easier to pick out the attractive women, than the attractive men.
Also is the fact that male homosexuality is a far greater taboo, such that men will fear even making a statement that a man is attractive, whilst this isn't a taboo in the slightest for women.
Lastly, I note that this is an interesting take on the idea - that the gland size does not dictate sexuality as such, but purely attractiveness towards women. So if women have a small attractiveness towards other women because of this gland, the question is why are they attracted more so to men? And why are men not attracted to other men? Is there another gland which women have, and men don't have at all? Or are there solely social or environmental reasons for making women attracted to men?
There've been studies done which showed that sexual attraction has to do with the size of a particular gland in the brain, attached to the thalmus. Specifically, the larger it is, the more likely you are to be attracted to females. They have found that in normal females, it's smaller than it is in normal males. And more importantly, that in homosexual males, it's more typically female, and in homosexual females, it's more typically male.
I wonder how bisexuality fits into this? Not to mention other aspects of sexuality?
Quite aside from that, most homosexuals know long before they reach puberty that they're different from their peers. It's hard-wired.
To be fair, he said prepubescent.
Whilst I am sure that genetic or environmental factors before birth influence sexuality, that doesn't mean it can't also be influenced by other factors to up to and including adolescence (or even beyond). (And no, obviously I don't mean abuse, which is a stupid stereotype, whether it's cited as a cause of homosexuality, masochism or whatever else - though I don't see where the OP mentioned abuse, anyway?) Sexuality is a complex thing, that isn't just a case of "Big gland means like women, little gland means like men".
There's fairly obvious evolutionary reasons why the two would go hand in hand. The fact that the gender studies cited don't note any discrepancy between the gender reversals and the appropriate sexual preference does tend to confirm that link
What cited evidence? It's still not clear to me how they go hand in hand.
Personally, I've always considered the fact that someone considers it a matter of choice
Who said it was a choice? The person you replied to said prepubescent experiences, i.e., environment, as opposed to being genetically hardwired. Of course it isn't a choice.
that is why I think it is very unfortunate to be attracted sexually to your own gender.
It is only unfortunate if you want to have children with someone you are attracted to. Not everyone does - including straight and bisexual people. Do not confuse the species with individuals - of course some people need to be breeding, but personally I have no plans of having children.
allow me to add that the male phallus was not evolved to be inserted into the digestive tract
You sound like an IDer. Evolution is not directed in any sense like this. Or even if we accept your argument - it also wasn't evolved to come into a condom, your girlfriend's mouth, or your kleenex tissues. Not to mention that some straight couples practice anal sex, whilst some gay people don't. So why do you make this point?
that females using hand made tools that mimic male organs to have sex is pretty funny
Assuming we have got past the 14 year old male stage where such things are funny, may I ask why?
and that things CAN be both natural (i.e occuring in nature) but abnormal (i.e non-ideal and even destructive from a biological viewpoint) at the same time.
Perhaps, but that doesn't apply to any of the sexual acts you've described.
If you give everyone ID cards it makes it easy to check how old they are when they try to get into an 18 movie or buy alcohol.
The Government isn't handing out ID cards, you will have to pay a lot of money for them. And there were already cheaper forms of ID (even a passport - but I think there are much cheaper ones) that young people can get.
A National ID card scheme has loads of great advantages and trying to argue that it does not is foolish.
I'll bite - name them. And ones that _this_ ID card scheme has, not some hypothetical ID card scheme that is nothing to do with that proposed by the UK Government.
The only arguments are either that the disadvantages of such a scheme to civil liberties are too great a cost or that the financial costs are so great that equivalent advantages are cheaper or are simply not required if the price is that high.
Yes, it "only" has significant disadvantages. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement (also there are other criticisms btw, such as the national database that goes with it).
Yes, similarly no one ever reads Slashdot comments. We only read TFA, and we are never interested in the commentary.
There definitely is a certain need for ID cards. There are several situations where you are supposed to identify yourself. The way this is 'solved' currently, is to show a recent UTILITY BILL. Yes, a bill from your supplier of gas/electricity/water. No, I don't think this is funny.
Not true, we already have forms of ID. If someone allows you to do something without proper ID, that is their problem. There is no reason they should change their act due to this new ID system. And surely anyone moving into the UK must already have ID (their passport)?
I'm not sure how ID helps in the examples you described. But if you want ID, just go and get something like a passport. The cost of the new replacement ID/passport is more (and will be more hassle to get - requiring interviews and taking of fingerprints), so this hasn't solved anything, in fact it's made things worse.
The problem is not with an "ID card", the problem is with the system being proposed by the UK Government, which is very different from what many European countries have. Objections include the immense cost, the information stored on the database (including biometric information), or the prison sentences handed down if you fail to update the info or fail to report a card as damaged, lost or stolen.
New Labour are anything but socialist.
Well of course, you can rebut his point if you're allowed to make things up. I still agree with you in that I hope that technological progress will continue to accelerate, though certain physical limits will likely put a halt to rapidly established space empires anytime soon.
At 23, Pojut has never used a rotary phone, probably never used a record player, doesn't know what leaded gas or a carburetor is, and probably has never seen a TV that didn't have a remote. Yeah, Pojut's young.
Isn't that part of his point though? Things that still seem relatively recent have been been seen or used by people now in their twenties. Also for example, there's an entire generation that doesn't know what it's like to have life without the Internet, or always-on mobile phones.
Maybe, but note that Apple have yet to do this either - they transitioned to another different existing OS (NeXT) which they then developed, rather than writing a brand new one from scratch. That's all I was saying really - it's certainly a problem facing Microsoft, but not one that Apple have already overcome.