Unless you keep performing the hostile stock takeovers, and releasing all their IP to F/OSS while shutting down the company. It would send quite a message.
Yes the message would be that you can make money.
Stock isn't free, and buying enough to win control of a company is going to raise the price.
What might work is buying enough stock in a company to file a minority shareholder lawsuit. Seems like you'd have a pretty good case that SCO is ignoring their responsibility to the shareholders in order to wage an all out war on Linux.
While they may still be in some areas, these days they tend to prefer "giving the contractor flexibility" since providing "design direction" isn't what the gov't is supposed to be doing anymore.
Makes sense to me. You want to buy a box to accomplish a task, so you define a spec for this box to a degree of detail such that you could give the spec to two different companies and get back two boxes that are, for your purposes interchangable.
It doesn't really make sense to specfify things that are invisible to you. Formal tests are really expensive, and if you don't have a justification for why it HAS to be done this way, then don't spec it.
Now it might make sense to require a contractor to turn over all drawings and documentation to the military, thus there are standards for drawings and documentation. It seems like you should be arguming for the gov't to do this more often, which isn't actually the same thing as pushing for more standardization.
get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to
Except that doing so provides a financial incentive for other companies to go after Linux in the hopes that you'll do the same thing yet again.
This is one of those ideals that is hard, but must be held firmly to... like not bargaining with terrorists. As soon as you start doing it, you end up encouraging more of the same.
It might solve a short-term problem, but it will cause an even greater long term problem.
No, and I suspect Amphenol would be very surprised to hear it as well;
Crap, looks like I've opened a can of worms.
Looking around, the sources I see that are not Amphenol seem to list both names, and sometimes a few others as well.
So I highly doubt Amphenol would be suprised to hear about this. Anyways, it does seem like Bayonet Neill Concelman is the correct name. Thanks for the correction.
If 'almost too hot to touch' is below the specs for the processor's operating temperature range...it doesn't matter how hot it feels to the user.
First, I have to mention the obvious. The heatsink is going to be COOLER than the processor itself. (That's the whole reason it works as a heat sink.) If the heatsink is below the maximum temp for the processor it doesn't actually mean you're safe. Without knowing the thermal resistances for everything, you simply cannot say whether you're safe or not. Especially thetaCS, the case to heatsink thermal resistance.
Second, even if you're within specs IT DOES MATTER for reliability reasons.
There are also other little niceities like a lower operating temperature meaning a lower leakage current.
It never ceases to amaze me how people with no training will second-guess the basic competency of others with degrees in their field.
It never ceases to amaze me how pompus us people with degrees can be.
I also love the egotistical "we drive 'em hard" implied in the "marathon gaming" bits- as if they're HARDCORE users who STRESS the xbox beyond its limits.
I find this obnoxious too.
I guarantee Microsoft had units running benchmarks/game demos for WEEKS at a time doing burn-in...
Me too, but I certainly DON'T guarantee what the results of that test were. Maybe the results projected that many xboxes would barely outlast their warranty coverage. We don't know. The only thing we can guess is that they were reasonably sure it wouldnt' fail in a manner where it had to be replaced within the warranty period.
On one hand, you would think people could do their job.
On the other hand look at the nice power cords microsoft sent out to 1st gen Xbox owners so their houses don't get burnt down. Could these be those same guys with degrees you're talking about?
People with degrees in their field make mistakes all the time. I'm not saying these guys found one, but acting as if it's crazy to question someone because they may have a degree is out of line.
Take the military for example: the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily
That's probably the worst example you could have possibly picked.
The military has standards for EVERYTHING.
The have specs for connectors, components, hardware.
The have specs for environmental tests, electical tests, mechanical tests.
The military has beens pushing standards forever. The first use of interchangable parts was in the military.
There is no frickin way you're going to be able to get something like an aircraft carrier built without standards.
Yes, there's a good deal of pork out there, but think it's arguable that standardization is the best thing the military has even done and they've done it well.
There are a tons of well-written, very useful military standards out there. They're been a significant boon to other industries as well. Did you know that BNC conntector on the back of your monitor is a Bayonet Naval Connector?
The problem is corruption of the system with people like the "Dukester". If the people at the top are corrupt, it doesn't matter how many standards you have.
the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily
This isn't really true. There are many, many simple things that are mil-standard items that you can just go and buy. Screws and washers would be an example. When it comes to things like an entire radar system, they're not exactly going to publish the drawings so that anyone could make it.
It think at that level however it really comes down to holding companies responsible for fulfilling contracts and having a fair award process.
Using the word "literally" to add emphasis is common usage
And saying "Where you at?" is also common these days. Would you do that in any professional communication?
What it comes down to is that not every use of a word is a correct one. Yes this is "prescriptionist". I suppose a good term to use here is "vulgar". I think it describes certain things that are considered to be "common usage" fairly well.
And if I'm not mistaken, we use the American punctuation rules on slashdot, so put those commas back behind those quotation marks.
I guess what it really comes down to is what makes sense. Saying "It literally burned my house down" should mean that you no longer have a house. It burnt down. If it doesn't then how are you ever going to find out if his house burnt down? What if he's using words like actually, truly and really for "emphasis" as well? Where does it end? The issue is that it is a barrier to effective communication.
As for parenthesis, I believe that the American system by itself is broken. At times it too becomes a barrier to effective communication. IMO should be considered acceptable to place punctuation inside a quotation as shorthand:
Joe said, "Let's go."
It should ALSO be consider acceptable to place it outside: Carrie typed, "For once in my life".
D'oh... word should be ensure.
Anyways, it seems to me that it would make the most of the availible randomness.
Consider an example where the message itself is an ASCII version of the Gettysburg address and your random data IS a random binary sequence but the bits in that sequence have a 95% probabiliy of being a one.
If someone simply takes the cyphertext and flips all the bits, chances are that they will be able to see a large protion of the message. Mathematically, they won't know for sure that they're right, but practically, they just read your message.
A way to get a result like this would be with a gieger counter hooked up to a clock/counter/latch combination that counts too slowly. If most of the "ticks" happen before you've incremented a single count, technically you're still random, but XORing a message with 99% zeros isn't going to be very successful in hiding the contents (in most cases).
Typical Apple zealot response to a post that actually wasn't "anti-Apple".
It's not that I don't like Apple, it's just that they don't always have the best product on the market (or the best price). Saying this doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. It means I researched my purchase.
I just bought myself a black 5G 60Gb iPod. Why?...
Sure it meets those criteria, but it's not the only device that does. So that's not really much of a reason. It's like saying "I bought Pirelli's because I needed tires for my car."
The only thing that you might argue that you can't get elsewhere is looks, but I submit that it wasn't looks but FASHION you were looking for.
It's like buying an $80 pair of jeans. Is it really the look you're after or is it the tag?
I bought an iPod because the DRM is only an issue which music purchased online.
Unlike you, I have a problem with DRM. So I bought an MP3 player with significantly better features than an ipod, sans drm. It's also worth pointing out that DRM is an issue on ANY file you get that happens to have it.
Don't forget also to either use low-pass filtered fonts on your CRTs or to add random noise to the least significant bits of the DVI-D data going to your TFTs. Stops the old Van Eck Phreaking used to read your monitor from the oscillations in your graphics card.
The iPod isn't; but iTunes is. iTunes is *the* reason Apple sells iPods. Have you seen the software that comes with those other players? It ranges from terrible to abomination. Now you might think iTunes is bloated, but at least it works well.
I tend to think iTunes is more successful because it is tied in with the iTunes store, which has cornered the majority of the market for online music downloads.
The software itself could suck donkeyballs but the songs are DRM'ed so it's not like you can switch.
I'm not saying that iTunes necessarily sucks. (Although DRM certainly does.) I'd much rather use it than any version of Microsoft's media player, but I don't believe the quality of the iTunes software is the reason for success.
I suppose I should clarify. You can't record with the ipod you just took out of the box. You need adapters and a mic and those adapters are ipod specfic and don't come with an ipod. It's an extra cost and extra stuff to carry.
IMO, if you're planning on doing a significant amount of recording, you should plan on buying something other than an ipod. Basically I consider recording on the ipod to be an afterthought and an add-on. It's not something you can do with an ipod by itself.
Compare this to my mp3 player which has an internal microphone, AND can record from internal mic, external mic, line, or fiber using industry-standard connections.
You don't need to move the console to play it, and if you are moving it, you are not playing it. . How often do you hear about someone designing for a situation that is totally outside of normal operational parameters?
Unless someone trips over the cord. That NEVER happens does it?
And game systems are never used by anyone but adults right?
You should be able to expect your users to read the warnings in the manual and follow them. That's why they are there.
This is a silly argument. Obviously there are things that can be wrong with a product that are inexcusable, even if there is a warning in the manual. I could understand the argument that it's never meant to be moved, but the argument that they warned about it in the manual therefore it wasn't a stupid design decision just doesn't fly.
You would think people would tend to treat an xbox like a VCR, DVD player, or reciever.
No I would expect them to treat it like a video game system. It has WIRED CONTROLLERS. It is likely to be used by children.
it's just people expecting the designers to protect them from themselves.
That's really just a half-assed opinion. I would say it's more like expecting a piece of equipment to be able to survive in the real world. It's not as if people are doing anything weird here. The issue seems to be that the Xbox's drive is ESPECIALLY sensitve to motion, above and beyond that of other drives. So I have to ask, how bad do you think it's gotta be before MS did something wrong?
There's gotta be a line here. Hell, would you be okay with losing a $60 game every time a pet bumps into the TV stand? How about just a truck driving by outside? What about just the coriolis effect itself fragging your discs?
All the arguments I'm hearing in response basically excuse ANY amount of shittiness on the side of the manufacturer because:
Objects are not supposed to move.
They are warned about it in the manual.
The response to 1 is that it's a silly assumption.
The response to 2 is that admitting you made a lousy product in the manual does not mean it isn't a lousy product.
Apple has been successful with the ipod in the same way that Microsoft was successful with Windows. It's not that they're the best, they're the biggest and they're well established. They're the "kleenex" of MP3 players.
The actual ipod itself isn't that great. No radio, no recording capability, built-in DRM. People who care and know what they're buying can do better for themselves elsewhere.
There's also the huge factor that Apple had the first major online store for music downloads. This speaks nothing about the quality of the ipod or their customer service, but has a significant effect on sales.
Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord.
This is just a piss-poor analogy. You should have at least used the Civic as an example. The cars don't even target the same markets. The base MSRP for a Neon is around $13,000. The base MSRP for an accord is around $23,000. They're different classes of vehicle both is size and price.
Even then, what the heck are you saying? Consumers are more satisfied with high-price, high-quality goods therefore.....what?
Just don't be an idiot who moves the console while it's on. It's not a friggin PSP;-)
Moving to console should NOT damage the disc.
Yes there are gyroscopic forces and such to deal with but that's no excuse. The drive should be designed such that the EDGE of the disc is what bumps, not the all-important data surface. Especially at $60 a game.
It's amazing what some of you guys think is normal. This is a GAME SYSTEM people. It should be able to take movement while powered on and even a small amount of abuse.
You should not have to treat an Xbox like a delicate piece of precious art.
Install an operating system that does make your hardware do whatever you want! Microsoft is under no duty to make the system you wish for, they just make one they believe sells best
Actaully, given that a fedral court has found them to be a monopoly, they may not actually be allowed to do this.
In essence, they're abusing their monopoly position. A company competing in a free market simply wouldn't do this. Their revenue comes from their customers and this is screwing their customers at the behest of the MPAA. Microsoft does this because their position is so entrenched that they feel they can screw their customers and still not have to worry about consequences in the market.
If there was a true, competitive marketplace the solution would be to buy someone else's stuff. Since that's not the case outside intervention is warranted.
The out of context quotes where you distort the original meaning and/or insert meanings that are not there
There is no acutal, specfic, refutable statement being made here. What meaning is being distorted? I suggest there isn't any, which is why you're not providing it.
Go ahead, tell me what:
"your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view"
means if it doesn't mean I've been using an incorrect definition for the word shill.
The main problem with the above is that it is trivially proven to be a self-serving misrepresentation with the simple reubttal that I've stated several time that I don't know if your portrayal of the cigartette article accurate or not...
This is silly. The evidence is available from multiple sources. It is known. The only reason you do not "know" is your own vigorous denial of the obvious.
Quote: your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view.
This is provably false. The facts of the matter show that I was correct in my statement.
I'll repeat myself here: It's dissappointing that you can't admit when you're proven wrong. It also means there's little point in continuing to discuss the original issue.
There's no point in returning to the original issue. You have shown that I can show proof and you will ignore it.
I simply refuse to return to a discussion of the MS issue unless you acknowedge the error of these earlier statements:
There is no implication there, there is merely a statement of an unknown.
Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant (baseless impilcation of inaccuracy)
your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view (I have been using the correct definition here)
Unlike you, I don't automatically consider anyone who argues that the government made an error to be a shill, (see above)
A continued discussion on a more complex subject would be worthless. I have proof. You have failed to directly respond to any of it. You have no leg to stand on here, yet you fail to concede.
Either pony up some evidence why my claims are false or admit the truth.
You lack integrity. It's that simple. You made statements concerning the vercaity of my arguments. I did not force you to do that. Now that you are clearly proven false, a response to your own claims is suddenly not relevant? And what's even more egregious, not just not relevant, but not even acknowedged. If you would admit you were wrong, but maintain that it is irrelevant that you were wrong, then you would at least maintain some tenuous tie to reality. The refusal to offer any admission is simply childish.
You are caught red-handed.
I never implied other are lying, I said they were irrelevant
You lie. You implied it WHILE saying they were irrelevant.
Here's the quote:
"Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant"
You have proven nothing other than a proclivity to attempt misdirection and topic changes.
Lie. You made statements which I have completely discredited. Your only "defense" is that rebuttal to your own statements are somehow offtopic.
you decided to change the topic to Cato.
The topic is at and will remain at Cato until you admit the facts. There's no reason to discuss anything else if you can't be a man and admit the truth.
It would be like playing chess against a man who can't even admit when he's beaten at tic-tac-toe.
If you can admit that Cato is a questionable source, that your statements regarding my definition of a shill were false, and that your implication that my source was incorrect was false and baseless, then we can move on.
Irrelevant. The author of the book on the Microsoft case is not the author of any of the cigarette material you cite.
This is funny. You claim my definition of a "shill" is messed up and imply that others are lying, but when proven wrong you can't even admit to it.
Fess up buddy. Come on, it shouldn't hurt so much since it's "irrelevant".
Again, attacking the messenger, especially an irrelevant one in the Cato case, it a pretty weak rebuttal.
It just a small piece of the argument. But it's important because it points out your dishonesty. I have corroborated evidence verifying my statements on this subject. Your previous statements and implications are provably false. You are discredited.
If you are attempting to sound at all honest, you should acknowledge this. If you fail to do so, there's really no point in my continued discussion with you.
I just don't see where the data states that the poor are going to WalMart in numbers where they are not severely outnumbered by the middle class, more so than their representation in the overall population.
This is due to your own lack of comprehension.
"60% of Americans receive only 26.8% of America's income."
You have no data regarding where those without cars shop.
Actually I do. I know for a fact that this number is not zero. Since it is not zero, your study WILL be baised. Conveniently enough, it will probably be biased to agree with your opinion.
You offered nothing but speculation, anecdotes.
This a the blatant lie. I am the only person in this discussion to offer actual hard data.
I offered an experiment where someone counts new/expensive cars versus old/inexpensive to sample and approximate the socioeconomic standing of a large population of customers.
And you just can't get it through your thick head that this experiment is inherently flawed. What you offer is nothing but a steaming pile of bullcrap. Not every person has a car. Not every car has one person in it. Not every car stays in the lot for the same amount of time. Income distributions vary by region. Different classes of people may shop at different times of the day, and days of the month.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you keep performing the hostile stock takeovers, and releasing all their IP to F/OSS while shutting down the company. It would send quite a message.
Yes the message would be that you can make money.
Stock isn't free, and buying enough to win control of a company is going to raise the price.
What might work is buying enough stock in a company to file a minority shareholder lawsuit. Seems like you'd have a pretty good case that SCO is ignoring their responsibility to the shareholders in order to wage an all out war on Linux.
While they may still be in some areas, these days they tend to prefer "giving the contractor flexibility" since providing "design direction" isn't what the gov't is supposed to be doing anymore.
Makes sense to me. You want to buy a box to accomplish a task, so you define a spec for this box to a degree of detail such that you could give the spec to two different companies and get back two boxes that are, for your purposes interchangable.
It doesn't really make sense to specfify things that are invisible to you. Formal tests are really expensive, and if you don't have a justification for why it HAS to be done this way, then don't spec it.
Now it might make sense to require a contractor to turn over all drawings and documentation to the military, thus there are standards for drawings and documentation. It seems like you should be arguming for the gov't to do this more often, which isn't actually the same thing as pushing for more standardization.
get a group of linux purists together and take over SCO via stock buyout, with no one buying enough to raise the interest of the SEC, but gaining enough ownership overall to
Except that doing so provides a financial incentive for other companies to go after Linux in the hopes that you'll do the same thing yet again.
This is one of those ideals that is hard, but must be held firmly to... like not bargaining with terrorists. As soon as you start doing it, you end up encouraging more of the same.
It might solve a short-term problem, but it will cause an even greater long term problem.
No, and I suspect Amphenol would be very surprised to hear it as well;
Crap, looks like I've opened a can of worms.
Looking around, the sources I see that are not Amphenol seem to list both names, and sometimes a few others as well.
So I highly doubt Amphenol would be suprised to hear about this. Anyways, it does seem like Bayonet Neill Concelman is the correct name. Thanks for the correction.
If 'almost too hot to touch' is below the specs for the processor's operating temperature range...it doesn't matter how hot it feels to the user.
First, I have to mention the obvious. The heatsink is going to be COOLER than the processor itself. (That's the whole reason it works as a heat sink.) If the heatsink is below the maximum temp for the processor it doesn't actually mean you're safe. Without knowing the thermal resistances for everything, you simply cannot say whether you're safe or not. Especially thetaCS, the case to heatsink thermal resistance.
Second, even if you're within specs IT DOES MATTER for reliability reasons.
Even notice how many motherboards die because those big electrolytic caps sitting next to the CPU fail? The failure rate of components is quite signifcantly affected by temperature. For example, an electrolytic capacitor might be rated for 8,000 hrs at 75 C but that increases to 32,000 hours at 55 C. The same is true (but generally to a lesser degree) for virtually all components.
There are also other little niceities like a lower operating temperature meaning a lower leakage current.
It never ceases to amaze me how people with no training will second-guess the basic competency of others with degrees in their field.
It never ceases to amaze me how pompus us people with degrees can be.
I also love the egotistical "we drive 'em hard" implied in the "marathon gaming" bits- as if they're HARDCORE users who STRESS the xbox beyond its limits.
I find this obnoxious too.
I guarantee Microsoft had units running benchmarks/game demos for WEEKS at a time doing burn-in...
Me too, but I certainly DON'T guarantee what the results of that test were. Maybe the results projected that many xboxes would barely outlast their warranty coverage. We don't know. The only thing we can guess is that they were reasonably sure it wouldnt' fail in a manner where it had to be replaced within the warranty period.
On one hand, you would think people could do their job.
On the other hand look at the nice power cords microsoft sent out to 1st gen Xbox owners so their houses don't get burnt down. Could these be those same guys with degrees you're talking about?
People with degrees in their field make mistakes all the time. I'm not saying these guys found one, but acting as if it's crazy to question someone because they may have a degree is out of line.
Take the military for example: the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily
That's probably the worst example you could have possibly picked.
The military has standards for EVERYTHING.
The have specs for connectors, components, hardware.
The have specs for environmental tests, electical tests, mechanical tests.
The military has beens pushing standards forever. The first use of interchangable parts was in the military.
There is no frickin way you're going to be able to get something like an aircraft carrier built without standards.
Yes, there's a good deal of pork out there, but think it's arguable that standardization is the best thing the military has even done and they've done it well.
There are a tons of well-written, very useful military standards out there. They're been a significant boon to other industries as well. Did you know that BNC conntector on the back of your monitor is a Bayonet Naval Connector?
The problem is corruption of the system with people like the "Dukester". If the people at the top are corrupt, it doesn't matter how many standards you have.
the government hires out everything to be made proprietarily
This isn't really true. There are many, many simple things that are mil-standard items that you can just go and buy. Screws and washers would be an example. When it comes to things like an entire radar system, they're not exactly going to publish the drawings so that anyone could make it.
It think at that level however it really comes down to holding companies responsible for fulfilling contracts and having a fair award process.
Using the word "literally" to add emphasis is common usage
And saying "Where you at?" is also common these days. Would you do that in any professional communication?
What it comes down to is that not every use of a word is a correct one. Yes this is "prescriptionist". I suppose a good term to use here is "vulgar". I think it describes certain things that are considered to be "common usage" fairly well.
And if I'm not mistaken, we use the American punctuation rules on slashdot, so put those commas back behind those quotation marks.
I guess what it really comes down to is what makes sense.
Saying "It literally burned my house down" should mean that you no longer have a house. It burnt down. If it doesn't then how are you ever going to find out if his house burnt down? What if he's using words like actually, truly and really for "emphasis" as well? Where does it end?
The issue is that it is a barrier to effective communication.
As for parenthesis, I believe that the American system by itself is broken. At times it too becomes a barrier to effective communication. IMO should be considered acceptable to place punctuation inside a quotation as shorthand:
Joe said, "Let's go."
It should ALSO be consider acceptable to place it outside:
Carrie typed, "For once in my life".
Oh, and why is that?
D'oh... word should be ensure.
Anyways, it seems to me that it would make the most of the availible randomness.
Consider an example where the message itself is an ASCII version of the Gettysburg address and your random data IS a random binary sequence but the bits in that sequence have a 95% probabiliy of being a one.
If someone simply takes the cyphertext and flips all the bits, chances are that they will be able to see a large protion of the message. Mathematically, they won't know for sure that they're right, but practically, they just read your message.
A way to get a result like this would be with a gieger counter hooked up to a clock/counter/latch combination that counts too slowly. If most of the "ticks" happen before you've incremented a single count, technically you're still random, but XORing a message with 99% zeros isn't going to be very successful in hiding the contents (in most cases).
Typical anti-Apple tirade!
Typical Apple zealot response to a post that actually wasn't "anti-Apple".
It's not that I don't like Apple, it's just that they don't always have the best product on the market (or the best price). Saying this doesn't mean I'm anti-Apple. It means I researched my purchase.
I just bought myself a black 5G 60Gb iPod. Why?...
Sure it meets those criteria, but it's not the only device that does. So that's not really much of a reason. It's like saying "I bought Pirelli's because I needed tires for my car."
The only thing that you might argue that you can't get elsewhere is looks, but I submit that it wasn't looks but FASHION you were looking for.
It's like buying an $80 pair of jeans. Is it really the look you're after or is it the tag?
I bought an iPod because the DRM is only an issue which music purchased online.
Unlike you, I have a problem with DRM. So I bought an MP3 player with significantly better features than an ipod, sans drm. It's also worth pointing out that DRM is an issue on ANY file you get that happens to have it.
Don't forget also to either use low-pass filtered fonts on your CRTs or to add random noise to the least significant bits of the DVI-D data going to your TFTs. Stops the old Van Eck Phreaking used to read your monitor from the oscillations in your graphics card.
The right way to do this is to have you numlock LED blink out the message in morse code.
Use a geiger counter to fill a CD with random numbers, send a copy to Mum, and drive CSIS/NSA/GCHQ/etc. nuts with email that they can't decode.
So I'm curious... how random was the geiger counter?
It seems like a difficult hardware problem.
Also, how did you convert the ticks into bits?
Did you use the LSB of a high frequency counter that latched everytime the counter clicked?
(It would seem to me like you want to insure that your random data is uniformly distributed.)
The iPod isn't; but iTunes is. iTunes is *the* reason Apple sells iPods. Have you seen the software that comes with those other players? It ranges from terrible to abomination. Now you might think iTunes is bloated, but at least it works well.
I tend to think iTunes is more successful because it is tied in with the iTunes store, which has cornered the majority of the market for online music downloads.
The software itself could suck donkeyballs but the songs are DRM'ed so it's not like you can switch.
I'm not saying that iTunes necessarily sucks. (Although DRM certainly does.) I'd much rather use it than any version of Microsoft's media player, but I don't believe the quality of the iTunes software is the reason for success.
You can't record with an iPod?
I suppose I should clarify. You can't record with the ipod you just took out of the box. You need adapters and a mic and those adapters are ipod specfic and don't come with an ipod. It's an extra cost and extra stuff to carry.
IMO, if you're planning on doing a significant amount of recording, you should plan on buying something other than an ipod. Basically I consider recording on the ipod to be an afterthought and an add-on. It's not something you can do with an ipod by itself.
Compare this to my mp3 player which has an internal microphone, AND can record from internal mic, external mic, line, or fiber using industry-standard connections.
Who made that rule?
It's called common sense.
You don't need to move the console to play it, and if you are moving it, you are not playing it. . How often do you hear about someone designing for a situation that is totally outside of normal operational parameters?
Unless someone trips over the cord. That NEVER happens does it?
And game systems are never used by anyone but adults right?
You should be able to expect your users to read the warnings in the manual and follow them. That's why they are there.
This is a silly argument. Obviously there are things that can be wrong with a product that are inexcusable, even if there is a warning in the manual. I could understand the argument that it's never meant to be moved, but the argument that they warned about it in the manual therefore it wasn't a stupid design decision just doesn't fly.
No I would expect them to treat it like a video game system.
It has WIRED CONTROLLERS. It is likely to be used by children.
it's just people expecting the designers to protect them from themselves.
That's really just a half-assed opinion. I would say it's more like expecting a piece of equipment to be able to survive in the real world. It's not as if people are doing anything weird here.
The issue seems to be that the Xbox's drive is ESPECIALLY sensitve to motion, above and beyond that of other drives. So I have to ask, how bad do you think it's gotta be before MS did something wrong?
There's gotta be a line here. Hell, would you be okay with losing a $60 game every time a pet bumps into the TV stand? How about just a truck driving by outside? What about just the coriolis effect itself fragging your discs?
All the arguments I'm hearing in response basically excuse ANY amount of shittiness on the side of the manufacturer because:
The response to 1 is that it's a silly assumption.
The response to 2 is that admitting you made a lousy product in the manual does not mean it isn't a lousy product.
People happen to like Apple hardware and software solution because it offers a well integrated solution that minimizes finger pointing.
By deliberately breaking other company's compatibiliy?
Is this also why Windows is so successful?
Apple has been successful with the ipod in the same way that Microsoft was successful with Windows. It's not that they're the best, they're the biggest and they're well established. They're the "kleenex" of MP3 players.
The actual ipod itself isn't that great. No radio, no recording capability, built-in DRM. People who care and know what they're buying can do better for themselves elsewhere.
There's also the huge factor that Apple had the first major online store for music downloads. This speaks nothing about the quality of the ipod or their customer service, but has a significant effect on sales.
Perhaps consumers gravitate towards the Honda Accords instead of the Dodge Neons. Both have a steering wheel and four tires, but most people are willing to pay more for the Accord.
This is just a piss-poor analogy. You should have at least used the Civic as an example. The cars don't even target the same markets. The base MSRP for a Neon is around $13,000. The base MSRP for an accord is around $23,000. They're different classes of vehicle both is size and price.
Even then, what the heck are you saying? Consumers are more satisfied with high-price, high-quality goods therefore.....what?
Just don't be an idiot who moves the console while it's on. It's not a friggin PSP ;-)
Moving to console should NOT damage the disc.
Yes there are gyroscopic forces and such to deal with but that's no excuse. The drive should be designed such that the EDGE of the disc is what bumps, not the all-important data surface. Especially at $60 a game.
It's amazing what some of you guys think is normal. This is a GAME SYSTEM people. It should be able to take movement while powered on and even a small amount of abuse.
You should not have to treat an Xbox like a delicate piece of precious art.
Install an operating system that does make your hardware do whatever you want! Microsoft is under no duty to make the system you wish for, they just make one they believe sells best
Actaully, given that a fedral court has found them to be a monopoly, they may not actually be allowed to do this.
In essence, they're abusing their monopoly position. A company competing in a free market simply wouldn't do this. Their revenue comes from their customers and this is screwing their customers at the behest of the MPAA. Microsoft does this because their position is so entrenched that they feel they can screw their customers and still not have to worry about consequences in the market.
If there was a true, competitive marketplace the solution would be to buy someone else's stuff. Since that's not the case outside intervention is warranted.
The out of context quotes where you distort the original meaning and/or insert meanings that are not there
There is no acutal, specfic, refutable statement being made here. What meaning is being distorted? I suggest there isn't any, which is why you're not providing it.
Go ahead, tell me what:
"your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view"
means if it doesn't mean I've been using an incorrect definition for the word shill.
The main problem with the above is that it is trivially proven to be a self-serving misrepresentation with the simple reubttal that I've stated several time that I don't know if your portrayal of the cigartette article accurate or not...
This is silly. The evidence is available from multiple sources. It is known. The only reason you do not "know" is your own vigorous denial of the obvious.
You have.
Quote:
your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view.
This is provably false. The facts of the matter show that I was correct in my statement.
I'll repeat myself here:
It's dissappointing that you can't admit when you're proven wrong. It also means there's little point in continuing to discuss the original issue.
There's no point in returning to the original issue. You have shown that I can show proof and you will ignore it.
I simply refuse to return to a discussion of the MS issue unless you acknowedge the error of these earlier statements:
A continued discussion on a more complex subject would be worthless. I have proof. You have failed to directly respond to any of it. You have no leg to stand on here, yet you fail to concede.
Either pony up some evidence why my claims are false or admit the truth.
You lack integrity. It's that simple. You made statements concerning the vercaity of my arguments. I did not force you to do that. Now that you are clearly proven false, a response to your own claims is suddenly not relevant? And what's even more egregious, not just not relevant, but not even acknowedged. If you would admit you were wrong, but maintain that it is irrelevant that you were wrong, then you would at least maintain some tenuous tie to reality. The refusal to offer any admission is simply childish.
You are caught red-handed.
There is no implication there, there is merely a statement of an unknown.
It was NOT an unknown. I had already provided a source for the information. You statment questioned the validity of this source.
It's dissappointing that you can't admit when you're proven wrong. It also means there's little point in continuing to discuss the original issue.
You simply lack integrity.
I never implied other are lying, I said they were irrelevant
You lie. You implied it WHILE saying they were irrelevant.
Here's the quote:
"Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant"
You have proven nothing other than a proclivity to attempt misdirection and topic changes.
Lie. You made statements which I have completely discredited. Your only "defense" is that rebuttal to your own statements are somehow offtopic.
you decided to change the topic to Cato.
The topic is at and will remain at Cato until you admit the facts. There's no reason to discuss anything else if you can't be a man and admit the truth.
It would be like playing chess against a man who can't even admit when he's beaten at tic-tac-toe.
If you can admit that Cato is a questionable source, that your statements regarding my definition of a shill were false, and that your implication that my source was incorrect was false and baseless, then we can move on.
The data collected would at least be related to WalMart patronage, unlike your data.
The data is only unrelated if no one in America shops at Walmart.
Irrelevant. The author of the book on the Microsoft case is not the author of any of the cigarette material you cite.
This is funny. You claim my definition of a "shill" is messed up and imply that others are lying, but when proven wrong you can't even admit to it.
Fess up buddy. Come on, it shouldn't hurt so much since it's "irrelevant".
Again, attacking the messenger, especially an irrelevant one in the Cato case, it a pretty weak rebuttal.
It just a small piece of the argument. But it's important because it points out your dishonesty. I have corroborated evidence verifying my statements on this subject. Your previous statements and implications are provably false. You are discredited.
If you are attempting to sound at all honest, you should acknowledge this. If you fail to do so, there's really no point in my continued discussion with you.
I just don't see where the data states that the poor are going to WalMart in numbers where they are not severely outnumbered by the middle class, more so than their representation in the overall population.
This is due to your own lack of comprehension.
"60% of Americans receive only 26.8% of America's income."
You have no data regarding where those without cars shop.
Actually I do. I know for a fact that this number is not zero. Since it is not zero, your study WILL be baised. Conveniently enough, it will probably be biased to agree with your opinion.
You offered nothing but speculation, anecdotes.
This a the blatant lie. I am the only person in this discussion to offer actual hard data.
I offered an experiment where someone counts new/expensive cars versus old/inexpensive to sample and approximate the socioeconomic standing of a large population of customers.
And you just can't get it through your thick head that this experiment is inherently flawed. What you offer is nothing but a steaming pile of bullcrap. Not every person has a car. Not every car has one person in it. Not every car stays in the lot for the same amount of time. Income distributions vary by region. Different classes of people may shop at different times of the day, and days of the month.