There will ALWAYS be problems of one sort or another with the economy, wars, social security, health services, energy, and so on. If we always have to solve every other problem first then it will NEVER get done. And we may only realize the fact when it's much too late...
Yeah, it's not like there have been any major advances in computer-aided design or modeling since then. And materials research has been at a STANDSTILL.
And don't even get me started on the sorry state of the slide-rule industry...
Further, people talk about spending money on "space" like we take the dollars, stuff 'em in a rocket, and shoot it off. Those dollars are spent here, on earth, and create jobs and opportunities for lots of people. Not to mention the spinoffs we get as a byproduct.
We can either just give money away (welfare), or spend it to create jobs and knowledge. I prefer the later.
"Unfortunately for today's youth, it's difficult to make a voice call in the middle of class without attracting the attention of the teacher."
I sincerely hope that's sarcasm. Of course, instead of texting and making calls they could be... oh, I don't know, actually studying and paying attention to the teacher? Given the abysmal lack of respect for education in this country, it's no surprise that even our high school and college "graduates" are idiots.
"...you advocate that people should change their tastes and desires?"
Those "tastes and desires" were SHAPED by the automotive industry. Every time you saw a TV ad that showed a Jeep bounding up the side of a mountain, or a Land Rover dodging fallen trees and boulders, or a Yukon parked in the middle of the wilderness, the industry was trying to convince you that THIS was what YOU needed.
Did you notice how, over the last year, the message has changed, with manufacturers now touting some car as having "the best fuel economy in its class"?
"Tastes" are already changing. Unfortuntely, this time the big three are behind the curve, and not leading it.
So get a Prius. Then you can afford to go three to four times as far. That "freedom" to pay $4.25 a gallon keep a lot of SUV owners at home last summer.
And "versatility" was pretty much a marketing gimmick as well. For 90% of the SUV owners out there "off road" means the parking lot at the local grocery store or WalMart.
And the same applies for most light truck owners. Yes, they could carry a ton of rock... if needed, and if they could get over scratching up the truck bed.
MS did license PlaysForSure... then slapped the licensees in the face when they introduced the Zune, which uses an entirely different, non-licensed version of their software. Care to try that "more open" line again?
As for "locking out" other operating systems, there's a Window's version of course. That, with OS X, gives them 99.14% of the notebook/desktop market (Linux had 0.86% at last count).
And should they succeed in reducing Apple's influence, I think one could pretty much guarantee that Amazon's NEXT contract would contain terms rather less benign...
You're forgetting the fact that applications purchased from the App store are tied to the iTunes account and, as such, to the phone. Thus you're getting 70% of every dollar for EVERY application purchased.
This as opposed to shareware systems where perhaps 2% of the users pay, or many commercial options where 80 to 90% of your users have ripped off the application using bogus names and serial numbers.
Sorry, but with all of the parasites roming around out there you simply can NOT do better. You might get to keep more of each dollar you get, but you'll never enough dollars to make up the difference.
The benefits of a common, SECURE store and payment system can not be overstated.
So the chip supplier for the iPhone's GPS unit is Garmin? TomTom? Doubt it.
Besides, I don't quite see the point of having automotive turn-by-turn navigation for the iPhone. Seems to me that you might want to do other things at the same time, like, maybe TALK on it. Automotive TBT nav is definitly a dedicated application.
I love this line from their site... "General phone users will eventually [sic] appreciate the high spec and performance of the phone and the wide range of free software packages expected [sic] to emerge."
"...being able to compete in the low-end PC market..."
Everyone repeats this fallacy, which assumes that Apple WANTS to compete in the low-end PC market. Why get into a major dogfight over a few pennies?
It's akin to saying (car analogy coming) that if BMW wanted to dramatically increase their market share they should create a competitor to the Yugo or Yaris.
And drop their margins accordingly. Apple has a nice premium brand that appeals to a lot of people. Why screw it up?
"iTunes + iPod are killing everyone else in the music space."
Digital sales are 20% of retail. Apple sells 70% of digital. That's a total market share of 14%. How is that "killing everyone else"? There are plenty of other digital sellers (Amazon), other players (Zune, Archos, cell phones), and services and models (Rhapsody, XM).
Further, in many ways Apple acts as an enabler in the space. iTunes provides a platform for lesser known artists. The iPod/iPhone provides a home for Amazon's MP3's, Audible's audiobooks, to podcasts, to YouTube videos, and so on. SJ recognized long ago that content makes his products MORE valuable, not less.
There are about several things wrong with that scenario, including trying to alter iTunes, protected code, keychains, and a few other things. Try to do so, and "silently" won't come into it.
"...but not the event engine. In essence, the "controller" needs to be hidden away, controlled by attributes only. Specific event handlers (functions or methods) are "called" by the event engine as needed."
The "event engine" is normally considered to be part of the framework. The bundle of specific event handlers for a given application is the real "controller".
I think you're the one that doesn't understand math, because the age totals add up to 97%, which tells me that the numbers given were rounded off, and as such equal 100% of the 19%. Second check, Divide 97 by the 6 age groups, and you get 16%, not 19%. (16.16%, to be precise)
Third check, the very first line says file sharers 19%.
So, you start with 1 in 5 households. And of THAT number, 47% are age 16-24, and so on.
Which still means 4 in 5 do not steal... sorry, "share" files.
Sorry, but your math is off, which means your conclusion is off.
If only 19% are file sharers, then 4 out of 5 are NOT (81%). Of the 19%, 47% are the aforementioned under-age kids sitting in their parent's basement (or now down to 9% of the statistical universe). And of THAT number, 66% (2/3) are probably male. All given your numbers.
So even young male 16-24's are 2/3's of 1/2... of 1/5th (got to keep that other 81% in mind). As such, "sharers" in the minority no matter how you slice it.
Yeah, don't forget Windows Standard Server, Windows Web Server, and Windows Enterprise Server. And the OEM versions. Multiplied by the various versions with differing numbers of CALs.
Apple has it pretty close to being right. There's OS X, and there's OS X Server. Period.
The Windows Home/Business split implies that a machine only has one use, and that "home" users never need to connect their notebook to networks or Exchange servers, or that business users never take them home or want to listen to music while working, watch movies while on the road, and so on.
One version, perhaps with installation options for things like Solitaire and FreeCell, would do just fine.
(I could see a stripped version for OEMs for kiosks, cash registers, and other dedicated systems, but that's not a "public" version.)
"... depending on the options used at compile-time."
Nice way to blow your own argument out of the water. And in the same sentence, no less. Options chosen at compile-time equals conditional code equals DIFFERENT code. So the embedded version is not quite the same as the desktop version, and neither is the same as the server version.
By that logic one can assume that the "mainline" Windows kernel also runs as everything from Windows Mobile to Windows Desktop to Windows Enterprise. Sure, there may be different compile-time options used, but....
Slashdot Mirror
There will ALWAYS be problems of one sort or another with the economy, wars, social security, health services, energy, and so on. If we always have to solve every other problem first then it will NEVER get done. And we may only realize the fact when it's much too late...
Yeah, it's not like there have been any major advances in computer-aided design or modeling since then. And materials research has been at a STANDSTILL.
And don't even get me started on the sorry state of the slide-rule industry...
Further, people talk about spending money on "space" like we take the dollars, stuff 'em in a rocket, and shoot it off. Those dollars are spent here, on earth, and create jobs and opportunities for lots of people. Not to mention the spinoffs we get as a byproduct.
We can either just give money away (welfare), or spend it to create jobs and knowledge. I prefer the later.
"Unfortunately for today's youth, it's difficult to make a voice call in the middle of class without attracting the attention of the teacher."
I sincerely hope that's sarcasm. Of course, instead of texting and making calls they could be... oh, I don't know, actually studying and paying attention to the teacher? Given the abysmal lack of respect for education in this country, it's no surprise that even our high school and college "graduates" are idiots.
"...you advocate that people should change their tastes and desires?"
Those "tastes and desires" were SHAPED by the automotive industry. Every time you saw a TV ad that showed a Jeep bounding up the side of a mountain, or a Land Rover dodging fallen trees and boulders, or a Yukon parked in the middle of the wilderness, the industry was trying to convince you that THIS was what YOU needed.
Did you notice how, over the last year, the message has changed, with manufacturers now touting some car as having "the best fuel economy in its class"?
"Tastes" are already changing. Unfortuntely, this time the big three are behind the curve, and not leading it.
"...but most SUV [owner]s never utilize a quarter of their capacity."
Neither, IMHO, do most truck owners.
"Freedom to go where you want, when you want."
So get a Prius. Then you can afford to go three to four times as far. That "freedom" to pay $4.25 a gallon keep a lot of SUV owners at home last summer.
And "versatility" was pretty much a marketing gimmick as well. For 90% of the SUV owners out there "off road" means the parking lot at the local grocery store or WalMart.
And the same applies for most light truck owners. Yes, they could carry a ton of rock... if needed, and if they could get over scratching up the truck bed.
MS did license PlaysForSure... then slapped the licensees in the face when they introduced the Zune, which uses an entirely different, non-licensed version of their software. Care to try that "more open" line again?
As for "locking out" other operating systems, there's a Window's version of course. That, with OS X, gives them 99.14% of the notebook/desktop market (Linux had 0.86% at last count).
And should they succeed in reducing Apple's influence, I think one could pretty much guarantee that Amazon's NEXT contract would contain terms rather less benign...
You're forgetting the fact that applications purchased from the App store are tied to the iTunes account and, as such, to the phone. Thus you're getting 70% of every dollar for EVERY application purchased.
This as opposed to shareware systems where perhaps 2% of the users pay, or many commercial options where 80 to 90% of your users have ripped off the application using bogus names and serial numbers.
Sorry, but with all of the parasites roming around out there you simply can NOT do better. You might get to keep more of each dollar you get, but you'll never enough dollars to make up the difference.
The benefits of a common, SECURE store and payment system can not be overstated.
So the chip supplier for the iPhone's GPS unit is Garmin? TomTom? Doubt it.
Besides, I don't quite see the point of having automotive turn-by-turn navigation for the iPhone. Seems to me that you might want to do other things at the same time, like, maybe TALK on it. Automotive TBT nav is definitly a dedicated application.
I love this line from their site... "General phone users will eventually [sic] appreciate the high spec and performance of the phone and the wide range of free software packages expected [sic] to emerge."
'Nuff said.
"...being able to compete in the low-end PC market..."
Everyone repeats this fallacy, which assumes that Apple WANTS to compete in the low-end PC market. Why get into a major dogfight over a few pennies?
It's akin to saying (car analogy coming) that if BMW wanted to dramatically increase their market share they should create a competitor to the Yugo or Yaris.
And drop their margins accordingly. Apple has a nice premium brand that appeals to a lot of people. Why screw it up?
"iTunes + iPod are killing everyone else in the music space."
Digital sales are 20% of retail. Apple sells 70% of digital. That's a total market share of 14%. How is that "killing everyone else"? There are plenty of other digital sellers (Amazon), other players (Zune, Archos, cell phones), and services and models (Rhapsody, XM).
Further, in many ways Apple acts as an enabler in the space. iTunes provides a platform for lesser known artists. The iPod/iPhone provides a home for Amazon's MP3's, Audible's audiobooks, to podcasts, to YouTube videos, and so on. SJ recognized long ago that content makes his products MORE valuable, not less.
There are about several things wrong with that scenario, including trying to alter iTunes, protected code, keychains, and a few other things. Try to do so, and "silently" won't come into it.
"...but not the event engine. In essence, the "controller" needs to be hidden away, controlled by attributes only. Specific event handlers (functions or methods) are "called" by the event engine as needed."
The "event engine" is normally considered to be part of the framework. The bundle of specific event handlers for a given application is the real "controller".
"If you are truly worried about people finding out what sites you are browsing then you need to worry a LOT about DNS servers."
Or your ISP, for that matter. Every request you make passes through them.
I think you're the one that doesn't understand math, because the age totals add up to 97%, which tells me that the numbers given were rounded off, and as such equal 100% of the 19%. Second check, Divide 97 by the 6 age groups, and you get 16%, not 19%. (16.16%, to be precise)
Third check, the very first line says file sharers 19%.
So, you start with 1 in 5 households. And of THAT number, 47% are age 16-24, and so on.
Which still means 4 in 5 do not steal... sorry, "share" files.
Yes, but the family pack is just a license bundle. OS X single-user and OS X family have the same exact feature set.
Sorry, but your math is off, which means your conclusion is off.
If only 19% are file sharers, then 4 out of 5 are NOT (81%). Of the 19%, 47% are the aforementioned under-age kids sitting in their parent's basement (or now down to 9% of the statistical universe). And of THAT number, 66% (2/3) are probably male. All given your numbers.
So even young male 16-24's are 2/3's of 1/2... of 1/5th (got to keep that other 81% in mind). As such, "sharers" in the minority no matter how you slice it.
Yep, "everyone" is doing it.
I'm sure George Bush and MS Windows have won a award or two in their time. Still doesn't mean either one is any good.
Yeah, don't forget Windows Standard Server, Windows Web Server, and Windows Enterprise Server. And the OEM versions. Multiplied by the various versions with differing numbers of CALs.
Apple has it pretty close to being right. There's OS X, and there's OS X Server. Period.
The Windows Home/Business split implies that a machine only has one use, and that "home" users never need to connect their notebook to networks or Exchange servers, or that business users never take them home or want to listen to music while working, watch movies while on the road, and so on.
One version, perhaps with installation options for things like Solitaire and FreeCell, would do just fine.
(I could see a stripped version for OEMs for kiosks, cash registers, and other dedicated systems, but that's not a "public" version.)
"... depending on the options used at compile-time."
Nice way to blow your own argument out of the water. And in the same sentence, no less. Options chosen at compile-time equals conditional code equals DIFFERENT code. So the embedded version is not quite the same as the desktop version, and neither is the same as the server version.
By that logic one can assume that the "mainline" Windows kernel also runs as everything from Windows Mobile to Windows Desktop to Windows Enterprise. Sure, there may be different compile-time options used, but....