I think the basic issue is that in the suburbs its easy to run the fiber based on the income generated. In the city where they'll need to do underground work, and possibly dig up sidewalks/streets its much more cost prohibitive compared to the customers it will get them.
Dunno about that. NYC has FiOS all over the place. I don't have it, though, as I refuse to give Verizon any moreo of my money (they're my local phone company).
My chief problem isn't with the structure or the actors: it's with the writing, and it's because of this I think they're mediocre. There is so much exposition, such that you wonder where Lucas was when they taught "show, don't tell." I have a theory that Lucas just didn't trust his ability to tell the story using only visuals and Brackett's script and felt the need to modify her words in order to drive. the. point. home.
To contrast: I actually do believe the young Luke's scenes with his aunt and uncle. He's this whiny kid stuck in the middle of nowhere, and I buy him and the relationship between he and his guardians. I even buy Harrison Ford and his cowboy swagger. But when the characters start talking about the Force, or the politics of the time, we're suddenly being lectured to. It's almost as if the movie was shot using two scripts, which is what makes me think the shitty parts are Lucas and the good parts are Brackett.
Gotta say, I've gone back and watched those as an adult and been shocked at how mediocre they really are. I guess nine year olds are an easy audience to please.
Now that there is an AppStore with applications in iTunes, why wouldn't Apple move next to distribute all applications through iTunes - both desktop and mobile?
The gales of laughter coming from Adobe, Quark, Microsoft and others when Apple suggests they abandon all of their other retail channels and put all their OS X eggs in Apple's basket.
Seriously, this is old news. Buy the machine bare bones, order the stuff thuird party and install it yourself. As a bonus, it gives you an excuse to buy a set of Torx drivers!
Apple is a great example of how you can take a fanatical fan base, show them nothing but contempt, charge outrageous amounts of money for everything connected with your products...
I know this is Slashdot, where anecdote and off-the-cuff remarks stand in for real argument, but I wonder if you could explain the contempt bit. My experience with Apple products has been that they last me for years and years. My 2G iPod is still going strong on its original battery, and my G5 is three years old and looking like it's got another three years left in it. Fas as I'm concerned, that's great value for the money.
in other words, people who buy apple for quality may be a dying breed.
Careful: linking to a Slashdot post to prove a point in a Slashdot point can create an area of infinite anecdotal density and lead to the formation of a Stupidularity!
I was about to post something similar: I think this is another case of MS mistakintg form for content. The important thing isn't the multitouch interface which, as been pointed out, have been around in one form or another for almost twenty years. The point is to make a multitouch interface which is both usable and to package it in an environment in which is makes sense to use it. The iPhone/iPod is a perfect example: it's a small device on which real estate is at a premium, and the multitouch interface allows Apple to combine browsing, typing and a number of other features in one place. And, as has also been pointed out, since the iPhone/iPod rests in your hand, using the interface with your fingers is both easy, non-tiring and largely intuitive.
The interface doesn't make any sense on a laptop, though. My laptop already has two perfectly good interfaces, the keyboard and the trackpad. Given that these interfaces allow me to keep my hands and arms in a relatively restful position, why would I want to add another interface which makes me take my hands off the keyboard and away from the trackpad to do things I can do without using it? Put another way, unless the multitouch interface allows me to do something unique, which I can't do without out the keyboard an dtrackpad (or which are cumbersome with them) it doesn't make using my laptop any easier. It just adds some bells and whistles which I don't need.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. Obviously people are using their iPods to play music, but they chose the iPod over the Zune or one of the millions of other players to make a fashion statement. At the very least, people are buying iPods because everyone else is doing it, which itself is a form fashion statement.
Fascinating insight. I eagerly look forward to the data behind it. I assume you have done a thorough study of people's buying habits, using a random sample of a large cohort of people who have bought mp3 players. I would ask that you please send me raw data, the questions you asked, and the selection criteria you used in picking your cohort so I can check for any bias in your sampling.
What? You have no such data? You've made no such study? Your conclusion is based on nothing more than your own judgements, preconceptions and projections?
Oh, yeah. I'm on Slashdot.
Now, I've bought two iPods. I bought my first in the winter of 2003. Over five years later it's still going strong, on the original battery, despite the fact I have not been gentle with it. Given that record of reliability, I just bought my second one (a 32 GB Touch) because I am pretty sure I can use the crap out of the thing and it will still be running strong five years from no. I'm not sure how that fits into your taxonomy. Personally, I find the "fashion statement" line of reasoning is usually forwarded by those who can't believe their logic isn't shared by everyone else on the planet.
Stock cars (the Nextel Cup or-whatever-it's-called-these-days variety) don't have airbags.
F1 cars don't have airbags.
Thousands of racing sedans don't have airbags.
Instead, the driver wears a safety harness that fits, sits in a seat that fits, and doesn't spend time hunched over sideways fiddling with the radio controls. And they only die in exceptional circumstances.
True. Also true is that those racing seats are custom made to fit each driver (ever watched a 1000 km race and wonder why they switch seats when they switch drivers?), the safety harness and roll bar/cage costs several thousand dollars together, and the cars themselves are made to literally come apart in pieces as the crash progresses in order to save the driver. So, unless you want to pay for a custom made seat, five point harnesses, a roll cage and have even a relatively minor accident rip the wheel, brake and suspension arms off your car, you'd better stick with airbags.
Comparing custom made race cars to mass-produced passenger cars is just plain stupid.
et me started on Corporate IT departments, whose primary goal it seems to be to make everyone else's jobs harder to make their jobs easier; the opposite of 'service'...
I have found this to be true, too, depending on where I work. Now, I'm not saying that all corporate IT is like this. I have worked at some places where IT is knowledgeable, friendly and quick. But I have also worked at places where IT is no better than any other large corporate clusterfuck: poor staffing, poor communication, poor procedures and, generally, not giving a fuck.
In addition to some of the technical issues raised, I think one of the bars to having more Macs in the corporate sector is the social inertia of these IT departments: they have a set series of procedures in place from which they do no not deviate, a set base of knowledge which they do not wish to enlarge and a nice niche in the corporate structure which they do not wish to jeopardize. I have worked at more than one place where the first level IT techs--the people first sent to solve a user's problem--only know how to 1) check control panels 2) check network connection and 3) take the machine back to the IT cave, wipe the drive and reformat. Anything which might deviate from that pattern isn't allowed. In my experience, it is these people who are most vehement about allowing any other OS, be it OS X or Linux, because other OSes would expose the rather glaring gaps in their knowledge. I've even worked at one place where the IT people were barred from touching the Macs, because during a routine point upgrade they rendered all the machines they touched unbootable. Considering all they had to do was download a.pkg file, quit all apps, double click on the.pkg file and wait for the machine to restart, it was quite an achievement.
In my experience, the good IT departments are staffed with people who like their jobs and love learning new things. Give them a new computer to fool around with and they're happy. The bad IT departments are staffed with people for whom it's just a paycheck, and who really want to do the least to get by.
Or is this the one which was supposed to hit two years ago? Or the one from last year? You see, I get them confused, as it seems every year someone is predicting that Apple's iPod growth will suddenly crater as Teh Next Big Thing comes along and steals Apple's thunder.
I don't know if iPod growth will crater, or slowly slow down or whatever. But I am pretty well convinced that, whatever happens, no "expert" will predict it.
My info comes from here, which says the B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach 0.92 at sea level and Mach 1.25 at altitude. I also know the B-1B doesn't have the fairings around the wing/fuselage junction or the more streamlined tail of the B-1A, both of which were necessary for Mach 2 flight. If you have other info, please point me to it.
The B1-B also is a supersonic bomber -- I don't know if the Russkies have a supersonic bomber or not (and I'm too lazy to go check Jane's or FAS).
Say hello to the Tu-160. And, yes, it look an awful lot like the B-1.
Also note that the B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach 1.25 at altitude. The rapid advances in air-to-air missiles in the 1960s and 1970s changed USAF planing for bomber missions. Instead of flying high and fast (which just makes you a perfect target for SAMs unless you're an SR-71) the idea is fast and low, which is why the B-1s mission profile was changed to flying very fast at very low altitudes. Of course now the thing usually just hangs out on station waiting to be told where to drop its bombs.
So, let's see: Tom Cruise can play Batou. I know Batou is suppoed to be a big dude, and Tom Cruise is 4' 10", but I'm sure Cruise's face can easily be CGI'd onto a big, special effects body. Maybe they can also CGI in some acting ability. Jessica Simpson can play the Major. I know she's not Japanese--hell, she's a blonde--but what does that matter? We can wrap her in some tight, revealing costumes and no one will notice her from the neck up! She's made for the part! And instead of Japan, it can take place in L.A. And instead of hunting criminal, they'll hunt terrorists. Or maybe people who are mean to puppies. Or they guy who yesterday put whole milk instead of skim into Spielberg's latte.
Now, please excuse me while I got stick forks in my eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno about that. NYC has FiOS all over the place. I don't have it, though, as I refuse to give Verizon any moreo of my money (they're my local phone company).
That wasn't the DVD. . .
My chief problem isn't with the structure or the actors: it's with the writing, and it's because of this I think they're mediocre. There is so much exposition, such that you wonder where Lucas was when they taught "show, don't tell." I have a theory that Lucas just didn't trust his ability to tell the story using only visuals and Brackett's script and felt the need to modify her words in order to drive. the. point. home.
To contrast: I actually do believe the young Luke's scenes with his aunt and uncle. He's this whiny kid stuck in the middle of nowhere, and I buy him and the relationship between he and his guardians. I even buy Harrison Ford and his cowboy swagger. But when the characters start talking about the Force, or the politics of the time, we're suddenly being lectured to. It's almost as if the movie was shot using two scripts, which is what makes me think the shitty parts are Lucas and the good parts are Brackett.
Anyway, enough nerding for today.
Gotta say, I've gone back and watched those as an adult and been shocked at how mediocre they really are. I guess nine year olds are an easy audience to please.
Me, too. This was the point at which I realized Lucas was making a product, not a film.
Get yer facts straight.
The spam is out of the can?
The gales of laughter coming from Adobe, Quark, Microsoft and others when Apple suggests they abandon all of their other retail channels and put all their OS X eggs in Apple's basket.
Three rules for owning Macs:
1) Do not talk about Fight Club.
2) Never buy the first generation of hardware.
3) Never order RAM or drives from Apple.
Seriously, this is old news. Buy the machine bare bones, order the stuff thuird party and install it yourself. As a bonus, it gives you an excuse to buy a set of Torx drivers!
I know this is Slashdot, where anecdote and off-the-cuff remarks stand in for real argument, but I wonder if you could explain the contempt bit. My experience with Apple products has been that they last me for years and years. My 2G iPod is still going strong on its original battery, and my G5 is three years old and looking like it's got another three years left in it. Fas as I'm concerned, that's great value for the money.
Careful: linking to a Slashdot post to prove a point in a Slashdot point can create an area of infinite anecdotal density and lead to the formation of a Stupidularity!
Smashing? Out of curiosity, does anyone have any numbers to back up the "smashing" from above? Is it really "smashing" or just better than expected?
TFA says the pad is from the Apollo days.
I was about to post something similar: I think this is another case of MS mistakintg form for content. The important thing isn't the multitouch interface which, as been pointed out, have been around in one form or another for almost twenty years. The point is to make a multitouch interface which is both usable and to package it in an environment in which is makes sense to use it. The iPhone/iPod is a perfect example: it's a small device on which real estate is at a premium, and the multitouch interface allows Apple to combine browsing, typing and a number of other features in one place. And, as has also been pointed out, since the iPhone/iPod rests in your hand, using the interface with your fingers is both easy, non-tiring and largely intuitive.
The interface doesn't make any sense on a laptop, though. My laptop already has two perfectly good interfaces, the keyboard and the trackpad. Given that these interfaces allow me to keep my hands and arms in a relatively restful position, why would I want to add another interface which makes me take my hands off the keyboard and away from the trackpad to do things I can do without using it? Put another way, unless the multitouch interface allows me to do something unique, which I can't do without out the keyboard an dtrackpad (or which are cumbersome with them) it doesn't make using my laptop any easier. It just adds some bells and whistles which I don't need.
Using another OS? That's far out, man.
Fascinating insight. I eagerly look forward to the data behind it. I assume you have done a thorough study of people's buying habits, using a random sample of a large cohort of people who have bought mp3 players. I would ask that you please send me raw data, the questions you asked, and the selection criteria you used in picking your cohort so I can check for any bias in your sampling.
What? You have no such data? You've made no such study? Your conclusion is based on nothing more than your own judgements, preconceptions and projections?
Oh, yeah. I'm on Slashdot.
Now, I've bought two iPods. I bought my first in the winter of 2003. Over five years later it's still going strong, on the original battery, despite the fact I have not been gentle with it. Given that record of reliability, I just bought my second one (a 32 GB Touch) because I am pretty sure I can use the crap out of the thing and it will still be running strong five years from no. I'm not sure how that fits into your taxonomy. Personally, I find the "fashion statement" line of reasoning is usually forwarded by those who can't believe their logic isn't shared by everyone else on the planet.
True. Also true is that those racing seats are custom made to fit each driver (ever watched a 1000 km race and wonder why they switch seats when they switch drivers?), the safety harness and roll bar/cage costs several thousand dollars together, and the cars themselves are made to literally come apart in pieces as the crash progresses in order to save the driver. So, unless you want to pay for a custom made seat, five point harnesses, a roll cage and have even a relatively minor accident rip the wheel, brake and suspension arms off your car, you'd better stick with airbags.
Comparing custom made race cars to mass-produced passenger cars is just plain stupid.
I have found this to be true, too, depending on where I work. Now, I'm not saying that all corporate IT is like this. I have worked at some places where IT is knowledgeable, friendly and quick. But I have also worked at places where IT is no better than any other large corporate clusterfuck: poor staffing, poor communication, poor procedures and, generally, not giving a fuck.
In addition to some of the technical issues raised, I think one of the bars to having more Macs in the corporate sector is the social inertia of these IT departments: they have a set series of procedures in place from which they do no not deviate, a set base of knowledge which they do not wish to enlarge and a nice niche in the corporate structure which they do not wish to jeopardize. I have worked at more than one place where the first level IT techs--the people first sent to solve a user's problem--only know how to 1) check control panels 2) check network connection and 3) take the machine back to the IT cave, wipe the drive and reformat. Anything which might deviate from that pattern isn't allowed. In my experience, it is these people who are most vehement about allowing any other OS, be it OS X or Linux, because other OSes would expose the rather glaring gaps in their knowledge. I've even worked at one place where the IT people were barred from touching the Macs, because during a routine point upgrade they rendered all the machines they touched unbootable. Considering all they had to do was download a .pkg file, quit all apps, double click on the .pkg file and wait for the machine to restart, it was quite an achievement.
In my experience, the good IT departments are staffed with people who like their jobs and love learning new things. Give them a new computer to fool around with and they're happy. The bad IT departments are staffed with people for whom it's just a paycheck, and who really want to do the least to get by.
As with all things, YMMV, etc.
On a Mac it's right between the flux capacitor and the dilithium crystal matrix.
Any annual growth is not cratering. Cratering would mean, by definition, a precipitous decline.
Or is this the one which was supposed to hit two years ago? Or the one from last year? You see, I get them confused, as it seems every year someone is predicting that Apple's iPod growth will suddenly crater as Teh Next Big Thing comes along and steals Apple's thunder.
I don't know if iPod growth will crater, or slowly slow down or whatever. But I am pretty well convinced that, whatever happens, no "expert" will predict it.
My info comes from here, which says the B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach 0.92 at sea level and Mach 1.25 at altitude. I also know the B-1B doesn't have the fairings around the wing/fuselage junction or the more streamlined tail of the B-1A, both of which were necessary for Mach 2 flight. If you have other info, please point me to it.
Say hello to the Tu-160. And, yes, it look an awful lot like the B-1.
Also note that the B-1B has a maximum speed of Mach 1.25 at altitude. The rapid advances in air-to-air missiles in the 1960s and 1970s changed USAF planing for bomber missions. Instead of flying high and fast (which just makes you a perfect target for SAMs unless you're an SR-71) the idea is fast and low, which is why the B-1s mission profile was changed to flying very fast at very low altitudes. Of course now the thing usually just hangs out on station waiting to be told where to drop its bombs.
"Is there anything Hollywood won't shit on?"
So, let's see: Tom Cruise can play Batou. I know Batou is suppoed to be a big dude, and Tom Cruise is 4' 10", but I'm sure Cruise's face can easily be CGI'd onto a big, special effects body. Maybe they can also CGI in some acting ability. Jessica Simpson can play the Major. I know she's not Japanese--hell, she's a blonde--but what does that matter? We can wrap her in some tight, revealing costumes and no one will notice her from the neck up! She's made for the part! And instead of Japan, it can take place in L.A. And instead of hunting criminal, they'll hunt terrorists. Or maybe people who are mean to puppies. Or they guy who yesterday put whole milk instead of skim into Spielberg's latte.
Now, please excuse me while I got stick forks in my eyes.
This must be the kind of case Apple's lawyers fantasize about. You can almost hear them snarling and clawing at their cage door.