Actually, both theories sound reasonably plausible. You want people to settle, not to fight, and there probably are a lot of under 25 year olds out there.
I never understood why so many teenagers are so eager to take on an angst-filled image of a povery-striken urbanite, the sort of stuff you get in rap and in hip-hop. What the heck's the point?
Apple has this habit of steping on everyone's toes
I used to love the Mac. Coded for it, knew the thing pretty inside out. Apple killed that when they killed the clones. They had a choice, and knew it, and considered it. They could have tried to become a mainstream manufacturer, with a lot of clout, and instead they chose to remain a high-priced niche manufacturer. (This isn't intended to stab at folks that still use Macs -- I'm just doubt I'll ever work in the Mac world again). They chose to serve folks who are willing to put down a fair amount of money for a polished closed-box experience. Not what I wanted -- I found Linux, and that was pretty much it.
So this makes me wonder what the point is of using Darwin. With OS X as a whole, there are some specific benefits that exist. Apple has UI standards in place, provides some services, like iTunes, that you may want. They've done a lot of eye candy. But is there any real point in using Darwin alone versus, say, Linux? Or, if you specifically want BSD, then compare it to plain ol' FreeBSD. I mean, what's the point?
BTW, when I went to high school, we weren't allowed to leave the school grounds at lunch time. Those of us who had at least half a brain were capable of understanding why... and it was nothing to do with pettiness
Back when I was an HS student, I spent time both at an urban school where you could leave school grounds and go get food and other things at shops, run errands, whatever, and a school in the middle of nowhere where you couldn't.
People did drugs, had sex, vandalized stuff, and cut classes in both environments (granted, at the closed campus, they'd have to cut the whole day instead of a single class). The major difference was that on the closed campus, everyone was stuck with school food, everyone resented the situation, simple pragmatism made the guards essentially let anyone go at any time (you can't check up on all the people going in and out of a good size HS each day), and you couldn't get useful errands done during the day.
I like sysadmins that run Windows shops and think that since they are the only ones that know what they set the Administrator password to, their machines can't be modified. They're funny.
Anyone who thinks I'm going to work on Windows without cygwin, JSPager, xemacs, etc, has another think coming. Sysadmins are *support* personnel. They're there to facilitate work getting done. They aren't supervisors of said personnel, and controlling behavior is certainly not in their baliwick unless expressly handed down by management.
That said, I've had grand old times with IT folks who don't feel the need to try to be assholes.
Finally, I don't use any form of instant messaging at work, because I find email and phone to be more convenient. But I *have* done software development before with another person on the other end of an ICQ connection, and if that's the most convenient way to do work, IT should definitely not be trying to be a pain in the ass about it.
How many times have you gone into a store with no intentioned of buying something, but walked out with a product you didn't want, didn't need, but still feel great about purchasing it, and that you got a great deal.
It comes down to this. A little media player driven by a tiny amount of battery power can only put out so much sound and still have a sane battery life.
If someone actually wants quality sound, instead of just some junk to listen to while jogging, they're going to use a non-mobile system.
*Terrorists* wouldn't do this. No masses of legitimate money to throw into markets, hard to ensure that a country gets overthrown.
Evil rich old white men, on the other hand....God, nothing like encouraging economy power players to become involved in politics to the point of overthrowing countries.
Just because some people insist on being idiots doesn't mean economics is crap. There really is a serious theory of economics which is not crap, which we've had since Adam Smith (actually he had predecessors but he was the great popularizer).
[shrug] I'm telling you, this is nothing like biology and creationism -- there are well-respected people on both sides. Stigler was a Nobel winner in economics, and didn't buy into the ideas behind regulation. Akerlof did the opposite, winning the Nobel prize more recently. You simply cannot say that the general body of economists buy into the idea that most markets are efficient markets, because that isn't the case.
No, it is only a randomly picked illustration of the extremely well known and accepted fact that free markets encourage innovation. It's not cherry-picked at all.
My point is that you can do the same for any point of view. You can't simply take an example, then make an unsupported assertion that it's representative of the whole -- there's just no useful data that you've put on the table.
And let's take a look at Blizzard (which does do a damn good job marketing...even if I'm not a fan of their work, I'd want someone like them marketing anything I developed).
Diablo -- I never saw the point in this game, though *damn* it sold well. You find a monster, click click click, it dies, repeat. Of course, I'd played nethack and zangband before, so I saw it as sort of a pale copy of what's out there -- a lot of folks haven't.
Diablo II -- Watched, but didn't play. Looked too much like Diablo I.
Warcraft -- Okay, this is probably one of the more interesting games in their lineup. I didn't ever play Dune 2, so I may be biased, but I enjoyed this, despite the not-so-great unit balance.
Starcraft -- I'll never understand why so many people like this. It was marketed to *death* ("True 3D environments", blah, blah, blah), and wasn't anywhere *near* as much fun as Total Annihilation. It stuck with Blizzard's micromanagement-based approach to RTSes. Most folks early on did the same thing because Warcraft sold so well and they were cloning it, but the market's finally realized that micromanagement isn't so much fun, and is pretty much shifting away from it. Most modern RTSes let you select as many units as you want, build up queues a long way, preset some orders (and in TA's case, preset general behavior). Take a look at, say, Rise of Nations.
Warcraft II -- pretty much same problems as Starcraft.
Warcraft III -- haven't played it -- looks too much like WC II.
Slashdot Mirror
You have a Wired subscription, don't you?
Actually, both theories sound reasonably plausible. You want people to settle, not to fight, and there probably are a lot of under 25 year olds out there.
Song preferences are clearly not Gaussian; personally, I'd guess Zipf.
Oh, you naive critter -- never underestimate what marketing can do to preferences.
I never understood why so many teenagers are so eager to take on an angst-filled image of a povery-striken urbanite, the sort of stuff you get in rap and in hip-hop. What the heck's the point?
I think he had an operation done
He? When did *that* happen?
People don't listen to pop music because it's good music. It's because the singers are sexy or cool, and because it's marketed well.
Pop music, like pop movies, are primarily a marketing phenomenon. Very few pop movies induce me to say "Wow, that was really impressive acting."
Why do you think so few resources go into producing the music, and so much into marketing it?
As pointed out in this post, Microsoft Research's work is primarly designed to maintain oligopolies.
You know how much new tech from Microsoft Research has reached and benefited consumers? Damn little.
I'm remember the Truetype fiasco...
Apple has this habit of steping on everyone's toes
I used to love the Mac. Coded for it, knew the thing
pretty inside out. Apple killed that when they killed the clones. They had a choice, and knew it, and considered it. They could have tried to become a mainstream manufacturer, with a lot of clout, and instead they chose to remain a high-priced niche manufacturer. (This isn't intended to stab at folks that still use Macs -- I'm just doubt I'll ever work in the Mac world again). They chose to serve folks who are willing to put down a fair amount of money for a polished closed-box experience. Not what I wanted -- I found Linux, and that was pretty much it.
So this makes me wonder what the point is of using Darwin. With OS X as a whole, there are some specific benefits that exist. Apple has UI standards in place, provides some services, like iTunes, that you may want. They've done a lot of eye candy. But is there any real point in using Darwin alone versus, say, Linux? Or, if you specifically want BSD, then compare it to plain ol' FreeBSD. I mean, what's the point?
Every IM client I've ever used can log conversations.
VoIP shouldn't be an issue. An additional hundreth or fiftieth of a second is not noticeable.
JSPager is free. :-)
Simple. Use Linux.
Wow, guess you were pretty dumb to purchase it, eh?
BTW, when I went to high school, we weren't allowed to leave the school grounds at lunch time. Those of us who had at least half a brain were capable of understanding why ... and it was nothing to do with pettiness
Back when I was an HS student, I spent time both at an urban school where you could leave school grounds and go get food and other things at shops, run errands, whatever, and a school in the middle of nowhere where you couldn't.
People did drugs, had sex, vandalized stuff, and cut classes in both environments (granted, at the closed campus, they'd have to cut the whole day instead of a single class). The major difference was that on the closed campus, everyone was stuck with school food, everyone resented the situation, simple pragmatism made the guards essentially let anyone go at any time (you can't check up on all the people going in and out of a good size HS each day), and you couldn't get useful errands done during the day.
I like sysadmins that run Windows shops and think that since they are the only ones that know what they set the Administrator password to, their machines can't be modified. They're funny.
Anyone who thinks I'm going to work on Windows without cygwin, JSPager, xemacs, etc, has another think coming. Sysadmins are *support* personnel. They're there to facilitate work getting done. They aren't supervisors of said personnel, and controlling behavior is certainly not in their baliwick unless expressly handed down by management.
That said, I've had grand old times with IT folks who don't feel the need to try to be assholes.
Finally, I don't use any form of instant messaging at work, because I find email and phone to be more convenient. But I *have* done software development before with another person on the other end of an ICQ connection, and if that's the most convenient way to do work, IT should definitely not be trying to be a pain in the ass about it.
How many times have you gone into a store with no intentioned of buying something, but walked out with a product you didn't want, didn't need, but still feel great about purchasing it, and that you got a great deal.
Never! I always feel like I got ripped off!
Why should I foot the bill because someone decided to take a job in an industry designed to annoy me?
Caller ID works as well.
The question then becomes *why* we should have to pay a service fee and do manual filtering to avoid being harassed in our own homes.
Heck, I can't figure out *why* we have to pay extra to have an unlisted number.
It comes down to this. A little media player driven by a tiny amount of battery power can only put out so much sound and still have a sane battery life.
If someone actually wants quality sound, instead of just some junk to listen to while jogging, they're going to use a non-mobile system.
*Terrorists* wouldn't do this. No masses of legitimate money to throw into markets, hard to ensure that a country gets overthrown.
Evil rich old white men, on the other hand....God, nothing like encouraging economy power players to become involved in politics to the point of overthrowing countries.
We're in a Republican era.
So how does this "belief" entail that the RIAA hook up with the Democrats?
Just because some people insist on being idiots doesn't mean economics is crap. There really is a serious theory of economics which is not crap, which we've had since Adam Smith (actually he had predecessors but he was the great popularizer).
[shrug] I'm telling you, this is nothing like biology and creationism -- there are well-respected people on both sides. Stigler was a Nobel winner in economics, and didn't buy into the ideas behind regulation. Akerlof did the opposite, winning the Nobel prize more recently. You simply cannot say that the general body of economists buy into the idea that most markets are efficient markets, because that isn't the case.
No, it is only a randomly picked illustration of the extremely well known and accepted fact that free markets encourage innovation. It's not cherry-picked at all.
My point is that you can do the same for any point of view. You can't simply take an example, then make an unsupported assertion that it's representative of the whole -- there's just no useful data that you've put on the table.
Vivendi folks are assholes.
And let's take a look at Blizzard (which does do a damn good job marketing...even if I'm not a fan of their work, I'd want someone like them marketing anything I developed).
Blackthorne -- boring, stiff movement, repetitive.
Diablo -- I never saw the point in this game, though *damn* it sold well. You find a monster, click click click, it dies, repeat. Of course, I'd played nethack and zangband before, so I saw it as sort of a pale copy of what's out there -- a lot of folks haven't.
Diablo II -- Watched, but didn't play. Looked too much like Diablo I.
Warcraft -- Okay, this is probably one of the more interesting games in their lineup. I didn't ever play Dune 2, so I may be biased, but I enjoyed this, despite the not-so-great unit balance.
Starcraft -- I'll never understand why so many people like this. It was marketed to *death* ("True 3D environments", blah, blah, blah), and wasn't anywhere *near* as much fun as Total Annihilation. It stuck with Blizzard's micromanagement-based approach to RTSes. Most folks early on did the same thing because Warcraft sold so well and they were cloning it, but the market's finally realized that micromanagement isn't so much fun, and is pretty much shifting away from it. Most modern RTSes let you select as many units as you want, build up queues a long way, preset some orders (and in TA's case, preset general behavior). Take a look at, say, Rise of Nations.
Warcraft II -- pretty much same problems as Starcraft.
Warcraft III -- haven't played it -- looks too much like WC II.
Good lord, man. I was talking about the RIAA! They don't have beliefs!
Yeah, Vivendi. Not exactly a name I'd want to be associated with if I was billing myself as a good game developer...