Oh man, the "Tiny wireless camera!!!" ads? I remember them from the late 90s. I think that they were just flat out ubiquitous, as opposed to following specific people around.
X10, as the other reply mentions. Those ads- specifically their irritating popunder nature- were the reason I switched from Yahoo to Google and never switched back.
While I doubt Yahoo give a toss about the loss of a single, atypical net user like me, I wonder if in general a lot of people were put off using Yahoo because of them, and if the income from the ads offset the long-term damage to the company's market share?
The worst part of those ads was the pervyness. The ads would blare "for security," but they all ran with pictures of half-dressed women.
IIRC there was at least one with a "keep an eye on your teenage daughter and her friends" that had a somewhat, er, jailbaity vibe to them. One website actually had one as part of a list of X10 adverts they were pulling to pieces, and it was definitely hovering around the edge of dubious territory...
I suspect a lot of Nintendo's appeal to "older" gamers is rooted in goodwill from the past and nostalgia.
I bought a Nintendo DS Lite when it came out because had more interesting-looking "pick up and play" style titles that appealed to me when the PSP's "home console style games on a handheld" didn't.
FWIW, nostalgia had nothing to do with it- I always had a vague dislike of Nintendo due to their Disney-meets-Barney style characters, and I never grew up with them (here in the UK, the original NES was *never* particularly big nor culturally significant, mostly because Nintendo never really gave a toss about marketing in Europe at the time- even the Sega Master System outsold it in the UK, and the market remained home-computer driven until the 16-bit console era).
Nintendo identified and expanded the casual and "fun" gaming market and went for it when Sony continued to aim for the old-school "serious" gamers they thought were still their core market.
Have you not seen the PSP Go and what a big mess up it is?
This sums it up, paying more and getting less:
Question is how many did they sell? If they sold a metric assload of them (at a profit obviously), I doubt Sony would care *what* the critics thought...
Ha! I'd love to come last if it meant selling 60 million handhelds.
While I suspect that the PSP is probably in the black and making money quite comfortably for Sony at this point, I'd be wary of making blanket statements like that in general.
From what I remember, MS are still in the red on the XBox 360, despite the fact that it's been around for almost 5 years and seems to be very popular. (Remember that it's MS's *second* generation console, and one would expect them to be recovering some of the costs of market entry which would have been more tolerable on the original XBox).
Meanwhile, again from what I remember, the PS3 cost Sony an ungodly amount of money to develop, and they lost billions more subsidising the early models that cost more to make than they sold for. This 2008 report suggests that Sony may have to sell a *lot* of PS3s just to recover those early costs.
Now they've got the cost down significantly (and sales seem to be picking up as a consequence), but while the cost price now appears to be below that of retail (e.g. cost $250 according to Wikipedia, sold by Amazon US for $300, Amazon UK for the equivalent of US $330), by the time marketing, retailer's margins and other overheads are taken into account I doubt they're making a notable amount on the consoles alone.
Sure, handhelds aren't flagship home consoles, and probably cost much less to develop in general. But I wouldn't automatically assume that having sold 60 million of anything automatically means I'm in profit. Actually, that could apply even if you were the market leader.
No, AFAICT the inspiration for the PXL-2000 was the advent of mass-market camcorders in the mid-1980s. While those were the first time such portable video equipment was affordable to amateurs and consumers, they were still very expensive (IIRC around the UK £1000 mark- approximately £2000 or US $3000 in today's money) and way out of reach for kids. By using normal audio cassettes and various tricks the PXL-2000 was much cheaper.
I remember seeing what (in retrospect) must have been the PXL-2000 on the UK show Tomorrow's World and thinking it looked like a great idea, but they never released it in the UK, I think because there were legal and technical issues with it in the US. Shame.
Even the summary makes it clear that the Kodak prototype preceded your experience by 14 years.
That and (as the OP acknowledges, but slightly minimises the significance of) the fact that the Xapshot wasn't digital. I'm guessing that the Xapshot was comparable to the Mavica still video cameras (*) Sony produced during the mid-to-late 1980s (**) which effectively recorded a single frame of NTSC-resolution video to a single track of a floppy disc in fully analogue format. I assume that it would still have required some form of digitiser to get it into the Amiga, so while such cameras were an important step in the commercial development of digital photography, they were only half the equation.
I remember seeing a video digitiser for the Atari 8-bit computers circa 1986 which digitised still frames from a video source. Such a source could of course include an analogue video camera or camcorder (which became popular during the mid-80s). But even that combo was over 10 years after Kodak had created the first truly digital camera shown.
(*) Sony later marketed some truly digital cameras under the "Digital Mavica" name, but the original Mavicas were analogue.
(**) In fact, Sony demonstrated a Mavica camera circa *1981*, although it's not clear if this early model was ever actually sold commercially.
You make some good points, but discussing where the Internet is going misses the point that we were talking about television's *initial potential* regardless of where it went after that.
The Internet is harder to pin down on that one because there isn't such a clear cut point where it was "created" or appeared in its currently-accepted form (perhaps a good point is how it was when it crossed from the academic to the general public consciousness during the early-to-mid 90s). But regardless, we're talking about initial potential, not where it ultimately went.
Whether the Internet clearly had the initial potential to reach everyone is open to question- but even if it didn't (and certainly if it did), its influence may- or should- ultimately be greater than that of television.
From my perspective, television was the single invention of the 20th century with the most potential to uplift society; it was also a monumental standout in the sense of doing an astonishingly comprehensive job of not living up to that potential.
Don't forget that the Internet is a product of the late 20th century. I'd say that it had (and has) even greater potential than television ever did. Though I'd definitely agree that prior to that, television was the medium with the most education potential, though it was mostly squandered in the US and many other countries.
Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.
Are you sure? While Hearst might (or might not) have had slightly more direct influence in the US alone, Murdoch has business interests in very many countries around the world.
Not really. I wasn't the one who picked on someone else's comment as not meeting high standards- I was pointing out that it was ironic that someone who *did* made mistakes themselves.
Secondly, the OP's implication that this was a grammar issue was clear. Holding them to that isn't pedantry- if they meant it as a catch-all for language issues, it shows that they don't understand or care about the difference, which doesn't say much for their authority on the subject.
If the boundaries between the bits are more "discreet", then they are more hidden. If the boundaries between the bits are more "discrete", then they are more distinct, and presumably will interfere with each other less often.
-Your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi
For someone nitpicking someone else's lingual mistakes, it's ironic you missed the fact that it *wasn't* an example of incorrect grammar!
I started calling it that after Deja News (remember that?) updated their web site with bells and whistles, essentially destroying the utility for me.
I remember that- it was when they changed their name to deja.com and I remember thinking of it as "Deja Fruit Machine" thanks to all the extraneous blinking rubbish on each side.
I couldn't have told you from memory alone specifically what it was they were trying to be, but I do remember it was quite clear they were trying to be more portalish, to the detriment of their original purpose- according to WP, they were focusing more on being a shopping comparison site.
Over and over we see illustrations of the claim that no man (or woman) does evil in their own eyes.
Well, that (depending on how you intended it) is either wrong or a strawman from the start.
I sure as hell do *not* think of, nor present myself as a perfect human being.
I do know that by my own moral standards, I'm a better person than Murdoch. This really isn't saying anything in itself.
It's become quite fashionable [my emphasis] to wail about the failings of the powerful
No it hasn't- it's always been that way to varying degrees. (That phrase is a nice way of associating your opponent with modern/woolly-minded-liberalism/bandwagon-jumping thought though, whether done intentionally or otherwise- either way it says as much about the viewpoint, thought processes and prejudices of the person uttering it as their opponent).
Similarly, because a person is a prominent target does *not* mean that the criticism isn't justified. I'm sure there are other people as amoral and potentially worthless as Murdoch, but they're not prominent, don't have as much potential for damage and life's too short to waste one's breath on nobody tossers.
the loudest complaints come from those that would impose their own petty little dictatorships on us all
That's your (questionable) opinion and a tired and cliched ad hominem argument. I'm quite entitled to my opinion on Murdoch, didn't suggest more than that, yet you felt entitled to project your preconceptions about my position onto me. Your problem, not mine.
If you're wishing anyone a slow painful death from cancer, I'd say that according to Devin Brown's definition above, you're far more evil than Murdoch
I'm not sure that Devin Brown (whoever he is) is defining anything there. It strikes me that you're imposing your own interpretation onto *his* interpretation of Lewis(!) That makes it little more than your personal opinion (which you're entitled to), despite your attempt to bolster its moral and intellectual authority with a third-hand out-of-context appropriation of someone else's work whose (very indirect) application to your argument is questionable at best.
[Google's genius was] also in not being absolute dicks when trying to make money off the page view. And that's why most people switched to Google.
IIRC, I switched to Google not because they had better search results, but because I got sick of those obnoxious (and notorious) pop-up and pop-under ads for X10 cameras on Yahoo. (Remember those? The ones that seemed to imply you could use the cameras to spy^w keep an eye on on your teenage daughter's jailbait friends and the like? Not at all dodgy!)
That just leaves the "p", which, obviously, already belongs to Sean "P Diddy" Combs.
Ken Dodd had the "Diddy" long before that f***wit did. BTW, the linked mashup is horrible, but anything that makes that tit Combs look stupid (besides himself) is okay by me.:-)
A powerful, mean and hateful man - who's wealth and power have brought no comfort to his cramped and ugly little self.
Nice as it would be to think that Rupert Murdoch died unfulfilled, his life a sham, I don't get the impression that by his own standards he's worked out nor feels that way. Quite the opposite, I'd say that by his own standards he's probably a massive success and enjoys that.
From all the evidence I've seen, Murdoch is a man who has virtually no interest in anything beyond advancing his own business interests and power. Everything he has ever done indicates that he has no sense of morality or feels its absence. This is a man who has no principles, who has never stood up for anything except his own interests- and has stood up for *those* ferociously, regardless of their detriment to anything else.
He has used his media empire to pursue, smear and attack anyone who stands in the way of those business interests, showing no sign of ever having cared about journalistic or political integrity in his life.
I don't even believe that Murdoch really cares about the free market per se- he only supports it insofar as it aids his own advancement and will (e.g.) happily do what the Chinese government want if it benefits him.
All this has made Murdoch a shrewd businessman, but worthless as a human being.
The paucity of his humanity is demonstrated with every pathetic grab he makes.
There are very few people I'd wish a slow and painful death from cancer to, but it would be the most appropriate end for one who has pursued his own interests regardless of what or who he destroyed in the process... put simply, the guy himself is a worthless and malign cancer on human society.
Much as I'd also enjoy watching his business empire crumble while he is still alive, that's not going to happen. However, I wouldn't bet my life on it surviving his death- despite his children having their finger in many pies, some people think that the political tensions and power struggles between them may tear it apart after Murdoch's gone- especially as the co-owners of the parts that the Murdochs don't own outright will only tolerate such nepotism so far if it becomes damaging to *their* interests. We'll see.
If sex is the second most overrated thing, what's the most overrated thing, then?
Alcohol.
Seriously, yeah, it's *okay* and fun on occasion, but I just never found the effect it had on me all that interesting.
Yeah, it's a drug, and drugs have different effects on different people, but the way some people talk you'd think it'd be a lot more fun than it was. It'd be nice if I got what they got out of it, but it ultimately doesn't make me more sociable or happy, just somewhat intoxicated. Meh.
I realize saying this is pointless because Apple-haters have taken over the site. It's been non-stop Apple bashing in the comments for months now
You're kidding. I just had a look at your comment history and- as I suspected- it's full of endless comments rushing to defend Apple, including five in this thread alone. Frankly, this suggests you're the type who brands anyone that is even remotely critical of Apple as a "hater".
Quite the opposite to what you'd like to claim, the slightest criticism of Apple brings out numerous fanboys rushing to flood the thread with defences of Apple.
usually directed at Steve Jobs, as if he can hear them or cares
Unfortunately, the shrill and rabid Apple fandom evidently *do* care about even the most minor slight.
Hahaha, nobody buys an iPhone for the phone. Are you stuck in the mid 90s?
I disagree with those who seem to think that the phone is the iPhone's *sole* purpose. It's not- it's as much a PDA, or rather, what the PDA would probably have evolved into had that market not basically died a few years ago. The fact is that it evolved from the direction of being a phone because that's where the market- and technological development- was coming from.
Still, IMHO what you say is wrong. While the phone functionality isn't the *sole* point of the iPhone, it's certainly an important one, and I suspect the majority of owners would be very pissed off if they couldn't make any phone calls at all. I would assume that poor phone performance also correlates with poor data/Internet performance, but that's another issue.
But then again the main reason I hate them is because I'm a wrestling fan and they got wrestling taken off of TBS.
Apparently TBS is a Turner-owned TV station, who got bought by Time Warner at some point, so it's probably more accurate to say that they had a common parent- except that AOL was sold off by them at the end of 2009, so it doesn't affect them any more. Though I assume they lost assloads on the ludicrous price they paid for it at the height of the dotcom boom anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, the "Tiny wireless camera!!!" ads? I remember them from the late 90s. I think that they were just flat out ubiquitous, as opposed to following specific people around.
X10, as the other reply mentions. Those ads- specifically their irritating popunder nature- were the reason I switched from Yahoo to Google and never switched back.
While I doubt Yahoo give a toss about the loss of a single, atypical net user like me, I wonder if in general a lot of people were put off using Yahoo because of them, and if the income from the ads offset the long-term damage to the company's market share?
The worst part of those ads was the pervyness. The ads would blare "for security," but they all ran with pictures of half-dressed women.
IIRC there was at least one with a "keep an eye on your teenage daughter and her friends" that had a somewhat, er, jailbaity vibe to them. One website actually had one as part of a list of X10 adverts they were pulling to pieces, and it was definitely hovering around the edge of dubious territory...
I suspect a lot of Nintendo's appeal to "older" gamers is rooted in goodwill from the past and nostalgia.
I bought a Nintendo DS Lite when it came out because had more interesting-looking "pick up and play" style titles that appealed to me when the PSP's "home console style games on a handheld" didn't.
FWIW, nostalgia had nothing to do with it- I always had a vague dislike of Nintendo due to their Disney-meets-Barney style characters, and I never grew up with them (here in the UK, the original NES was *never* particularly big nor culturally significant, mostly because Nintendo never really gave a toss about marketing in Europe at the time- even the Sega Master System outsold it in the UK, and the market remained home-computer driven until the 16-bit console era).
Nintendo identified and expanded the casual and "fun" gaming market and went for it when Sony continued to aim for the old-school "serious" gamers they thought were still their core market.
Have you not seen the PSP Go and what a big mess up it is? This sums it up, paying more and getting less:
Question is how many did they sell? If they sold a metric assload of them (at a profit obviously), I doubt Sony would care *what* the critics thought...
Ha! I'd love to come last if it meant selling 60 million handhelds.
While I suspect that the PSP is probably in the black and making money quite comfortably for Sony at this point, I'd be wary of making blanket statements like that in general.
From what I remember, MS are still in the red on the XBox 360, despite the fact that it's been around for almost 5 years and seems to be very popular. (Remember that it's MS's *second* generation console, and one would expect them to be recovering some of the costs of market entry which would have been more tolerable on the original XBox).
Meanwhile, again from what I remember, the PS3 cost Sony an ungodly amount of money to develop, and they lost billions more subsidising the early models that cost more to make than they sold for. This 2008 report suggests that Sony may have to sell a *lot* of PS3s just to recover those early costs.
Now they've got the cost down significantly (and sales seem to be picking up as a consequence), but while the cost price now appears to be below that of retail (e.g. cost $250 according to Wikipedia, sold by Amazon US for $300, Amazon UK for the equivalent of US $330), by the time marketing, retailer's margins and other overheads are taken into account I doubt they're making a notable amount on the consoles alone.
Sure, handhelds aren't flagship home consoles, and probably cost much less to develop in general. But I wouldn't automatically assume that having sold 60 million of anything automatically means I'm in profit. Actually, that could apply even if you were the market leader.
No, AFAICT the inspiration for the PXL-2000 was the advent of mass-market camcorders in the mid-1980s. While those were the first time such portable video equipment was affordable to amateurs and consumers, they were still very expensive (IIRC around the UK £1000 mark- approximately £2000 or US $3000 in today's money) and way out of reach for kids. By using normal audio cassettes and various tricks the PXL-2000 was much cheaper.
I remember seeing what (in retrospect) must have been the PXL-2000 on the UK show Tomorrow's World and thinking it looked like a great idea, but they never released it in the UK, I think because there were legal and technical issues with it in the US. Shame.
Even the summary makes it clear that the Kodak prototype preceded your experience by 14 years.
That and (as the OP acknowledges, but slightly minimises the significance of) the fact that the Xapshot wasn't digital. I'm guessing that the Xapshot was comparable to the Mavica still video cameras (*) Sony produced during the mid-to-late 1980s (**) which effectively recorded a single frame of NTSC-resolution video to a single track of a floppy disc in fully analogue format. I assume that it would still have required some form of digitiser to get it into the Amiga, so while such cameras were an important step in the commercial development of digital photography, they were only half the equation.
I remember seeing a video digitiser for the Atari 8-bit computers circa 1986 which digitised still frames from a video source. Such a source could of course include an analogue video camera or camcorder (which became popular during the mid-80s). But even that combo was over 10 years after Kodak had created the first truly digital camera shown.
(*) Sony later marketed some truly digital cameras under the "Digital Mavica" name, but the original Mavicas were analogue.
(**) In fact, Sony demonstrated a Mavica camera circa *1981*, although it's not clear if this early model was ever actually sold commercially.
You make some good points, but discussing where the Internet is going misses the point that we were talking about television's *initial potential* regardless of where it went after that.
The Internet is harder to pin down on that one because there isn't such a clear cut point where it was "created" or appeared in its currently-accepted form (perhaps a good point is how it was when it crossed from the academic to the general public consciousness during the early-to-mid 90s). But regardless, we're talking about initial potential, not where it ultimately went.
Whether the Internet clearly had the initial potential to reach everyone is open to question- but even if it didn't (and certainly if it did), its influence may- or should- ultimately be greater than that of television.
From my perspective, television was the single invention of the 20th century with the most potential to uplift society; it was also a monumental standout in the sense of doing an astonishingly comprehensive job of not living up to that potential.
Don't forget that the Internet is a product of the late 20th century. I'd say that it had (and has) even greater potential than television ever did. Though I'd definitely agree that prior to that, television was the medium with the most education potential, though it was mostly squandered in the US and many other countries.
Finally it was a great thumb in the eye of a newsman who had vastly more power than Murdoch could hope to have, today.
Are you sure? While Hearst might (or might not) have had slightly more direct influence in the US alone, Murdoch has business interests in very many countries around the world.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if image stabilization becomes cheap enough to put in hand-helds.
Er, it's already in handhelds- even relatively inexpensive ones like this circa-2009 Canon I bought as a present a while back.
Blago is your standard corrupt Chicago politician. Remember, this is same the city where the dead rise to vote on a yearly basis.
They should put up a candidate with the surname "Brain" then. Or "Brainsssssss". He'd win a landslide....
Well, assuming he didn't get his.... well, brains eaten, that is.
Not really. I wasn't the one who picked on someone else's comment as not meeting high standards- I was pointing out that it was ironic that someone who *did* made mistakes themselves.
Secondly, the OP's implication that this was a grammar issue was clear. Holding them to that isn't pedantry- if they meant it as a catch-all for language issues, it shows that they don't understand or care about the difference, which doesn't say much for their authority on the subject.
If the boundaries between the bits are more "discreet", then they are more hidden. If the boundaries between the bits are more "discrete", then they are more distinct, and presumably will interfere with each other less often.
-Your friendly neighborhood Grammar Nazi
For someone nitpicking someone else's lingual mistakes, it's ironic you missed the fact that it *wasn't* an example of incorrect grammar!
:-P
BTW, *this* is a grammar Nazi.
It it can't be displayed in Lynx I am not interested...
Pfft... newbie wuss. If you were really serious, you'd have demanded it ran on Gopher. :-)
I started calling it that after Deja News (remember that?) updated their web site with bells and whistles, essentially destroying the utility for me.
I remember that- it was when they changed their name to deja.com and I remember thinking of it as "Deja Fruit Machine" thanks to all the extraneous blinking rubbish on each side.
I couldn't have told you from memory alone specifically what it was they were trying to be, but I do remember it was quite clear they were trying to be more portalish, to the detriment of their original purpose- according to WP, they were focusing more on being a shopping comparison site.
Over and over we see illustrations of the claim that no man (or woman) does evil in their own eyes.
Well, that (depending on how you intended it) is either wrong or a strawman from the start.
I sure as hell do *not* think of, nor present myself as a perfect human being.
I do know that by my own moral standards, I'm a better person than Murdoch. This really isn't saying anything in itself.
It's become quite fashionable [my emphasis] to wail about the failings of the powerful
No it hasn't- it's always been that way to varying degrees. (That phrase is a nice way of associating your opponent with modern/woolly-minded-liberalism/bandwagon-jumping thought though, whether done intentionally or otherwise- either way it says as much about the viewpoint, thought processes and prejudices of the person uttering it as their opponent).
Similarly, because a person is a prominent target does *not* mean that the criticism isn't justified. I'm sure there are other people as amoral and potentially worthless as Murdoch, but they're not prominent, don't have as much potential for damage and life's too short to waste one's breath on nobody tossers.
the loudest complaints come from those that would impose their own petty little dictatorships on us all
That's your (questionable) opinion and a tired and cliched ad hominem argument. I'm quite entitled to my opinion on Murdoch, didn't suggest more than that, yet you felt entitled to project your preconceptions about my position onto me. Your problem, not mine.
If you're wishing anyone a slow painful death from cancer, I'd say that according to Devin Brown's definition above, you're far more evil than Murdoch
I'm not sure that Devin Brown (whoever he is) is defining anything there. It strikes me that you're imposing your own interpretation onto *his* interpretation of Lewis(!) That makes it little more than your personal opinion (which you're entitled to), despite your attempt to bolster its moral and intellectual authority with a third-hand out-of-context appropriation of someone else's work whose (very indirect) application to your argument is questionable at best.
[Google's genius was] also in not being absolute dicks when trying to make money off the page view. And that's why most people switched to Google.
IIRC, I switched to Google not because they had better search results, but because I got sick of those obnoxious (and notorious) pop-up and pop-under ads for X10 cameras on Yahoo. (Remember those? The ones that seemed to imply you could use the cameras to spy^w keep an eye on on your teenage daughter's jailbait friends and the like? Not at all dodgy!)
That just leaves the "p", which, obviously, already belongs to Sean "P Diddy" Combs.
Ken Dodd had the "Diddy" long before that f***wit did. BTW, the linked mashup is horrible, but anything that makes that tit Combs look stupid (besides himself) is okay by me. :-)
A powerful, mean and hateful man - who's wealth and power have brought no comfort to his cramped and ugly little self.
Nice as it would be to think that Rupert Murdoch died unfulfilled, his life a sham, I don't get the impression that by his own standards he's worked out nor feels that way. Quite the opposite, I'd say that by his own standards he's probably a massive success and enjoys that.
From all the evidence I've seen, Murdoch is a man who has virtually no interest in anything beyond advancing his own business interests and power. Everything he has ever done indicates that he has no sense of morality or feels its absence. This is a man who has no principles, who has never stood up for anything except his own interests- and has stood up for *those* ferociously, regardless of their detriment to anything else.
He has used his media empire to pursue, smear and attack anyone who stands in the way of those business interests, showing no sign of ever having cared about journalistic or political integrity in his life. I don't even believe that Murdoch really cares about the free market per se- he only supports it insofar as it aids his own advancement and will (e.g.) happily do what the Chinese government want if it benefits him.
All this has made Murdoch a shrewd businessman, but worthless as a human being.
The paucity of his humanity is demonstrated with every pathetic grab he makes.
There are very few people I'd wish a slow and painful death from cancer to, but it would be the most appropriate end for one who has pursued his own interests regardless of what or who he destroyed in the process... put simply, the guy himself is a worthless and malign cancer on human society.
Much as I'd also enjoy watching his business empire crumble while he is still alive, that's not going to happen. However, I wouldn't bet my life on it surviving his death- despite his children having their finger in many pies, some people think that the political tensions and power struggles between them may tear it apart after Murdoch's gone- especially as the co-owners of the parts that the Murdochs don't own outright will only tolerate such nepotism so far if it becomes damaging to *their* interests. We'll see.
If sex is the second most overrated thing, what's the most overrated thing, then?
Alcohol.
Seriously, yeah, it's *okay* and fun on occasion, but I just never found the effect it had on me all that interesting.
Yeah, it's a drug, and drugs have different effects on different people, but the way some people talk you'd think it'd be a lot more fun than it was. It'd be nice if I got what they got out of it, but it ultimately doesn't make me more sociable or happy, just somewhat intoxicated. Meh.
But who's to say you can't improve on the feeling of the vaginal wall through technology?
You think they might remake American Pie with an iPhone then?
Meh, I'll stick to blinding them by setting pixels to #ZZZZZZ.
Did HatfulOfHollow ever become rich and famous then?
;-)
I want to be first to use it in order to punish those who commit crimes against hexadecimal...
I realize saying this is pointless because Apple-haters have taken over the site. It's been non-stop Apple bashing in the comments for months now
You're kidding. I just had a look at your comment history and- as I suspected- it's full of endless comments rushing to defend Apple, including five in this thread alone. Frankly, this suggests you're the type who brands anyone that is even remotely critical of Apple as a "hater".
Quite the opposite to what you'd like to claim, the slightest criticism of Apple brings out numerous fanboys rushing to flood the thread with defences of Apple.
usually directed at Steve Jobs, as if he can hear them or cares
Unfortunately, the shrill and rabid Apple fandom evidently *do* care about even the most minor slight.
Hahaha, nobody buys an iPhone for the phone. Are you stuck in the mid 90s?
I disagree with those who seem to think that the phone is the iPhone's *sole* purpose. It's not- it's as much a PDA, or rather, what the PDA would probably have evolved into had that market not basically died a few years ago. The fact is that it evolved from the direction of being a phone because that's where the market- and technological development- was coming from.
Still, IMHO what you say is wrong. While the phone functionality isn't the *sole* point of the iPhone, it's certainly an important one, and I suspect the majority of owners would be very pissed off if they couldn't make any phone calls at all. I would assume that poor phone performance also correlates with poor data/Internet performance, but that's another issue.
But then again the main reason I hate them is because I'm a wrestling fan and they got wrestling taken off of TBS.
Apparently TBS is a Turner-owned TV station, who got bought by Time Warner at some point, so it's probably more accurate to say that they had a common parent- except that AOL was sold off by them at the end of 2009, so it doesn't affect them any more. Though I assume they lost assloads on the ludicrous price they paid for it at the height of the dotcom boom anyway.