...and *surprise* the Mac always blows away the windows machine. Then a few weeks later when the machines ship and real people start testing them, turns out they can't keep up with Pentiums.
I'm not saying the G5s aren't impressive, but Apple has burned a LOT of karma points over the years by fudging on the speed issue. I'll believe they're fast when someone who's not on Apple's payroll gets their hands on them.
... when they own the browser, that's a lot of leverage towards capturing the search engine. And what do you want to bet that once they've run Google into the ground, their search engine won't work if you're using Mozilla, Safari, Opera, etc?
...I see comments like this in the press pretty regularly. I'm glad he brought it up, it was very interesting to see the responses. And isn't that what slashdot is all about? *group hug*
Peace.
"
I also feel that ALL of the professors are very behind-the-times when it comes to IT. Just today I had a professor tell me she would not allow me to post a PDF file to my portfolio because she was worried about getting a virus when she read it?! "
I work at a large university, and I'd agree that most of the professors are a bit less than savvy when it comes to IT, and nobody really expects them to be. The exception being our CS faculty. If you're taking CS classes and your instructors don't know IT, may be time to shop around.
Nice little player...just what I've been looking for.
Re:What "cheap, high speed cable access" ?
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 1
Good point about the cost of laying fiber. But $20 for dial-up is a ripoff. I pay $5.95 a month on Qwickconnect, and their service has been pretty solid.
What "cheap, high speed cable access" ?
on
Copyright Defeats?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I guess "cheap" is relative, but I consider $500+ per year for a cable modem to be just this side of extortion. I'll admit I don't know what their costs are, but every time they jack my cable TV bill, they claim it's to cover the increased cost of programming. Can't use that excuse for internet access. The fact is as long as the cable and phone companies have a near-monopoly on high-speed access, we consumers are screwed.
I do agree with you about the "good internet", and Britney Spears.
...is that the legislature recently passed a surcharge on hybrid vehicles, reasoning that they are too fuel efficient so their owners aren't paying their share of taxes! God, our reps are unbelievable sometimes.
This story's got more holes than swiss cheese: "Last year construction employment declined by 1.3 percent, transportation and public utilities jobs shrank by 2.8 percent, and manufacturing employment slipped by 3.5 percent....Services employment went up 1.5 percent, and finance, insurance, and real estate increased almost 1 percent." In other words, lost jobs in three of the highest paying, productive, employement sectors were partly offset by jobs in the lowest-paying sector (services), and in sales and paper-pushing. If contruction jobs are down and real estate jobs are up, doesn't that mean we have less product(buildings) being peddled by more salesmen(real estate agents)?
Another positive indicator he cites is rising home prices. This may not be so much an indicator of prosperity as it is of insufficient supply. Sure, it's great if you own a house (or two or three), but if you don't and prices are rising faster than your wages, that's not good news.
As for the average salary increasing by 3.7 percent, is that figure skewed by CEOs giving themselves and their VPs huge raises? Did the average guy in the trenches really get his 3.7 percent?
His figure of 2.8 percent growth sounds respectable, but how much of that is real growth? Economists include just about everything in this figure, but investing in prisons, enhanced airline security, etc. does not make us any more productive. Not that it's not worth doing, but counting it as growth is misleading.
It's funny what you can do with statistics. I can't say this article is wrong, but there isn't enough real information there to draw any conclusions.
I'm not slamming Macs, just pointing out that creating a service that deliberatley excludes 97% of computer users doesn't seem like a smart move. Looks like Apple is more interested in selling hardware (big surprise), than revolutionizing the music business. Yeah, they might open it up to everyone later on, but why not just do it right off the bat? Hell, they might do a lot of things, but I'm just going off what's in the post. Pardon me for not being psychic.
Of course, what do I know? Apple has never made a mistake before, which is why their market share continues to expand.....doesn't it?
Anybody notice this service is only for Mac and iPod owners? No way will this do enough volume to turn a profit. If Apple was smart, they'd make it platform neutral and increase their potential customer base 30 fold.
Slashdot Mirror
...'cause it sounds like my wife is your mother-in-law! My wife and the computer....oh, the horror...the horror!
Come by for dinner some time, son, but keep this discussion under your hat.
...and *surprise* the Mac always blows away the windows machine. Then a few weeks later when the machines ship and real people start testing them, turns out they can't keep up with Pentiums.
I'm not saying the G5s aren't impressive, but Apple has burned a LOT of karma points over the years by fudging on the speed issue. I'll believe they're fast when someone who's not on Apple's payroll gets their hands on them.
...but the city keeps dragging its feet.
www.monorail.org
... when they own the browser, that's a lot of leverage towards capturing the search engine. And what do you want to bet that once they've run Google into the ground, their search engine won't work if you're using Mozilla, Safari, Opera, etc?
Win2k maybe, but Notepad can't compare to some of the free alternatives, like Metapad.
...I see comments like this in the press pretty regularly. I'm glad he brought it up, it was very interesting to see the responses. And isn't that what slashdot is all about? *group hug* Peace.
" I also feel that ALL of the professors are very behind-the-times when it comes to IT. Just today I had a professor tell me she would not allow me to post a PDF file to my portfolio because she was worried about getting a virus when she read it?! "
I work at a large university, and I'd agree that most of the professors are a bit less than savvy when it comes to IT, and nobody really expects them to be. The exception being our CS faculty. If you're taking CS classes and your instructors don't know IT, may be time to shop around.
Nice little player...just what I've been looking for.
Good point about the cost of laying fiber. But $20 for dial-up is a ripoff. I pay $5.95 a month on Qwickconnect, and their service has been pretty solid.
I guess "cheap" is relative, but I consider $500+ per year for a cable modem to be just this side of extortion. I'll admit I don't know what their costs are, but every time they jack my cable TV bill, they claim it's to cover the increased cost of programming. Can't use that excuse for internet access. The fact is as long as the cable and phone companies have a near-monopoly on high-speed access, we consumers are screwed.
I do agree with you about the "good internet", and Britney Spears.
...is that the legislature recently passed a surcharge on hybrid vehicles, reasoning that they are too fuel efficient so their owners aren't paying their share of taxes! God, our reps are unbelievable sometimes.
This story's got more holes than swiss cheese:
"Last year construction employment declined by 1.3 percent, transportation and public utilities jobs shrank by 2.8 percent, and manufacturing employment slipped by 3.5 percent....Services employment went up 1.5 percent, and finance, insurance, and real estate increased almost 1 percent." In other words, lost jobs in three of the highest paying, productive, employement sectors were partly offset by jobs in the lowest-paying sector (services), and in sales and paper-pushing. If contruction jobs are down and real estate jobs are up, doesn't that mean we have less product(buildings) being peddled by more salesmen(real estate agents)?
Another positive indicator he cites is rising home prices. This may not be so much an indicator of prosperity as it is of insufficient supply. Sure, it's great if you own a house (or two or three), but if you don't and prices are rising faster than your wages, that's not good news.
As for the average salary increasing by 3.7 percent, is that figure skewed by CEOs giving themselves and their VPs huge raises? Did the average guy in the trenches really get his 3.7 percent?
His figure of 2.8 percent growth sounds respectable, but how much of that is real growth? Economists include just about everything in this figure, but investing in prisons, enhanced airline security, etc. does not make us any more productive. Not that it's not worth doing, but counting it as growth is misleading.
It's funny what you can do with statistics. I can't say this article is wrong, but there isn't enough real information there to draw any conclusions.
I'm not slamming Macs, just pointing out that creating a service that deliberatley excludes 97% of computer users doesn't seem like a smart move. Looks like Apple is more interested in selling hardware (big surprise), than revolutionizing the music business. Yeah, they might open it up to everyone later on, but why not just do it right off the bat? Hell, they might do a lot of things, but I'm just going off what's in the post. Pardon me for not being psychic. Of course, what do I know? Apple has never made a mistake before, which is why their market share continues to expand.....doesn't it?
Anybody notice this service is only for Mac and iPod owners? No way will this do enough volume to turn a profit. If Apple was smart, they'd make it platform neutral and increase their potential customer base 30 fold.
Check out http://www.martiansoftware.com/nailgun/