Likewise, I used to recommended users buy a slower processor of a decent family and put the extra money into a better keyboard, mouse and screen. Because in a few years, they'd probably still like the keyboard, mouse and screen, whereas the processor would be laughable.
Even if their methodology was clear. Even if their methodology was valid. Even if every percentage point was accurate. Even if all of their arguments were valid. (And none of these are true.) Why would I care enough about 5% to let that pick my OS?
I'd love to see proof that IAmRich was removed because it pissed Apple off. It seems far more like that IAmRich was removed because people only ever bought it by mistake and then asked Apple for refunds. That's called protecting your customers.
I couldn't find it in the archive because the search tool is down, but Schlock Mercenary by Howard Tayler once made the observation that great discoveries are less "Eureka!" and more "Hey, that's funny."
Who else is going to improve the technology? If it was one of the companies already in the industry, it'd be done by now. Don't give the entrenched guys anything. Give it to new companies.
Just because the rich get it first doesn't mean we won't get it, too. Look down at the device under your hands as you flame me for proof.
I noticed that, too. Ridiculous comparison. I'd love to know what the actual time would be to do what the Apple ad does, but the "recreation" gets me no closer to that.
Years later, Firefox still isn't really ready for prime time either. At this point, I think Google's got a good shot at getting there first.
For the record, this isn't to say I think IE is any good. It's horrible, and easily the worst of the crowd. But Firefox is far from a perfect browser, and some days barely hits "passable."
I think you're right that we'll never agree, and I want to stop the discussion before we both conclude each other are idiots. Maybe some other time we'll bump heads and it'll be clearer to both of us.
It was the point he was trying to make, but he failed: In this imaginary universe, regular cars can still use regular gas. It isn't like it's been discontinued. You want a car that can run sugar-gas? Buy one.
I actually always pay (well, almost always to be completely honest). But I pay for a DVD version, not an all-digital version. That way I can watch it on my TV at full quality, or rip it to whatever quality I want to use.
If I downloaded it, nobody would get paid and I'd be re-compressing an already-compressed movie. Not my thing.
It's capable of running its own proprietary OS that is specifically designed to not run on any otherwise capable hardware...That would be like Halliburton putting sugar in all its petroleum products and designing a car that runs on sugar-gas, calling it a "feature".
That's fair enough, if in fact the custom car ran better on sugar gas than regular cars did on regular gas while continuing to be functional with regular gas.
And, of course it was impossible to put sugar gas in a regular car by mistake or on purpose without a hack saw.
But, honestly, this car analogy started thin and is getting thinner.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. I was going to say 1-2%, but I saw a 5% somewhere in the article and decided to give them the biggest possible number.
Likewise, I used to recommended users buy a slower processor of a decent family and put the extra money into a better keyboard, mouse and screen. Because in a few years, they'd probably still like the keyboard, mouse and screen, whereas the processor would be laughable.
True, but I'm sure you can get better than a 5% gain through factors other than changing the OS.
Even if their methodology was clear.
Even if their methodology was valid.
Even if every percentage point was accurate.
Even if all of their arguments were valid.
(And none of these are true.)
Why would I care enough about 5% to let that pick my OS?
I'd love to see proof that IAmRich was removed because it pissed Apple off. It seems far more like that IAmRich was removed because people only ever bought it by mistake and then asked Apple for refunds. That's called protecting your customers.
I didn't realize that! I'd like to think I've read most of Asimov's work, but there's so much of it I've probably only scratched it.
I couldn't find it in the archive because the search tool is down, but Schlock Mercenary by Howard Tayler once made the observation that great discoveries are less "Eureka!" and more "Hey, that's funny."
Who else is going to improve the technology? If it was one of the companies already in the industry, it'd be done by now. Don't give the entrenched guys anything. Give it to new companies.
Just because the rich get it first doesn't mean we won't get it, too. Look down at the device under your hands as you flame me for proof.
I noticed that, too. Ridiculous comparison. I'd love to know what the actual time would be to do what the Apple ad does, but the "recreation" gets me no closer to that.
Anti-Hawking! I shudder at the thought.
Say, does the theory allow for the Anti-Hawking to have fallen back in before Hawking emerged?
Just wondering if he's finishing his second term now.
Just think of it: We could have a better scapegoat for society than Mexicans, Muslims and homosexuals.
The -ster suffix seems to have evolved to mean "We acknowledge at some level that this will probably get us shut down sooner or later."
Not so much sad as expected. There are enough other online games out there that a launch has to be extremely compelling or near flawless.
Years later, Firefox still isn't really ready for prime time either. At this point, I think Google's got a good shot at getting there first.
For the record, this isn't to say I think IE is any good. It's horrible, and easily the worst of the crowd. But Firefox is far from a perfect browser, and some days barely hits "passable."
I think you're right that we'll never agree, and I want to stop the discussion before we both conclude each other are idiots. Maybe some other time we'll bump heads and it'll be clearer to both of us.
In the meantime, have a good weekend. :)
"Rest your case?" Why not try "Oh, I guess we agree, then!"
I certainly did understand the analogy, it's just fatally flawed.
And who said otherwise? I certainly didn't.
I'll drink to that!
(It helps that it's been a long day.)
I pointed out the analogy made no sense as is whatsoever, and your point was what exactly?
Because if this was really a court room, you'd be an idiot to rest your case before actually making one. :)
Seriously? Ugh, I just threw up a little.
Of course not! Apple's hardware prices reflect the development of the software. Why do people have a problem with paying more for good software?
It was the point he was trying to make, but he failed: In this imaginary universe, regular cars can still use regular gas. It isn't like it's been discontinued. You want a car that can run sugar-gas? Buy one.
I actually always pay (well, almost always to be completely honest). But I pay for a DVD version, not an all-digital version. That way I can watch it on my TV at full quality, or rip it to whatever quality I want to use.
If I downloaded it, nobody would get paid and I'd be re-compressing an already-compressed movie. Not my thing.
Which is not true of the Mac, so the analogy never applied to begin with. Which was my point. :)
It's capable of running its own proprietary OS that is specifically designed to not run on any otherwise capable hardware...That would be like Halliburton putting sugar in all its petroleum products and designing a car that runs on sugar-gas, calling it a "feature".
That's fair enough, if in fact the custom car ran better on sugar gas than regular cars did on regular gas while continuing to be functional with regular gas.
And, of course it was impossible to put sugar gas in a regular car by mistake or on purpose without a hack saw.
But, honestly, this car analogy started thin and is getting thinner.