I did this recently with a TV at Best Buy. The sale price on the one I wanted was close enough to what I could find online.
I was able to actually see the TV, see how it looked, and spin the thing around to look at how the I/O ports are configured. I probably paid a little bit more than I would have online, but I firmly believe that the little extra cost is worth it to keep actual displays available at brick-and-mortar mortar locations.
You can still get tricked into an inferior product. And its wouldn't even be the store's fault.
I got a new LG TV during the Black "Friday" sale (which lasted a week). Turns out the exact same model number can ship with two different screen technologies: either IPS (in-plane switching) or VA (vertical array). Luckily I didn't buy right away and my research dug up not only this fact, but also that IPS is far superior, and that you can tell which are IPS panels based on the full product code stamped on a box label. I made sure this was correct on the box I chose and later verified by inspecting the LCD panel itself (IPS pixels' RGB elements appear as chevrons, instead of vertical bars).
That's me with hours to kill on internet research, no significant other or dependents to take up my time. How can regular consumers be reasonably expected to make sure they're not getting shortchanged?
I got mine at Future Shop (owned by Best Buy in Canada). I already price-matched them $50 + 10% against our version of Circuit City, and found out I could price-match them again against Walmart and get another $55 off. I'd bet dollars to donuts Walmart only has the VA panels, so anyone comparing prices on just the model number won't really be getting the "deal" they think they are.
This is precisely why Apple doesn't listen to the analysts or even some investors who say they should do things like other big businesses, and instead operates more like you suggest.
Apple doesn't care about the low-end market (the sub-$500 PC/laptop, free phone contracts, or $30 mp3 players), which would greatly expand their market share. Dell is doing great at following analyst expectations--competing on price, cutting operational costs, leading in market share, low inventory--but absolutely crap profit margin to show for it. Yeah, $822M net income last quarter sounds respectable to us, but not when compared against the $15.4B revenue.
And despite defying analyst demands, they still keep exceeding their expectations each quarter.
Not to mention, cheap crap is bad for the environment--both in quantities of material consumed when creating them, and the quantities of material thrown out by the buyer when it breaks down or wears out far earlier than expected.
I needed a nailclipper. I bought it for $2 at the "dollar or two" store. It was unusable right away because the cheap metal was too thin and flexed when applying pressure, and the cutting edges were dull.
The same idea would apply for a frying pan that loses its non-stick coating after one year instead of lasting 5 years with the same frequency of use.
Or a cheap $500 laptop that's already obsolete when released, and will break down in a year, versus a $1000 that will last at least 3 years.
Problem sometimes is, how can you tell when a product is truly better? My examples were trivial, but for any given type of product, Walmart's medium-priced offerings could work and last just as well as a "premium" brand at a more "reputable" store.
Seriously? I enjoyed Firefly very much. The movie was even better. However, the characters were not nearly as well developed as they are on SGU. The sets were - the ship, and the wild west. Not sure how that blew you away...
The characters on Firefly had a dozen episodes to develop (a few more if you count the DVD episodes, or the pilot which they aired at the *end* of the series). SGU has had 30.
Despite the unfair comparison, I learned far more (and cared far more) about Firefly's characters in that half-season, than I did most of Voyager's characters despite the latter running 7 seasons.
I would say that SGU was at least something different from Atlantis, but it also looped back on itself. It's a closed environment that is hard to develop.
Yes, at least Atlantis wasn't a starship. Oh, wait... were there any sharks in the water when it took off the first time, and would a vertical launch be considered "jumping" them?
You do remember that Atlantis took off for the first time (from the viewer's POV) about 2 minutes into the pilot episode?
It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses.
If only that were the case in Canada. Last year Tamil Tiger supporters held a mass protest without public warning in downtown Ottawa, blocking the major transit and car arteries just as afternoon rush hour hit. A bus ride that normally takes me 20 minutes took almost 2 hours. Their supporters in Toronto blocked a major expressway. The police did jack, and IIRC charges were never laid.
This isn't like redefining a megabyte to mean a different amount of storage. Certain descriptive terms should be updated as technology progresses. The desktop or even mini-tower "computer" for instance would've been referred to as a micro-computer in the late 70s or early 80s (to distinguish from the computers (servers), or mini-computer workstations).
Perhaps it should've been more clearly labeled, e.g. this is "broadband 2.0" or "broadband 2008", but when a 3G phone is able to pull down data at 5 or 6 Mbps, calling 256k "broadband" is misleading.
I'm certainly in agreement it's not a left/right thing, my own post centered on why exactly you used "communist" in the title, which implies a political leaning that's not at all evident in DesCorp's post, especially since most Wikileaks attacks have originated from the right.
Maybe it garnered more eyeballs, but IMHO it detracted from an otherwise spot-on post.
I agreed with everything in your post--except for one word in your title. Communist!? Seriously?
Overwhelmingly it's been the supposed conservative defenders of freedoms that have been throwing a fit over Wikileaks, or inferring that Assange should be assassinated (one of those clowns was advisor to Canada's current prime minister, who heads the so-called Conservative party).
Call them neo-conservative if you must, as libertarian Ron Paul did in his speech.
Meanwhile, the same neo-conservatives are labelling Wikileaks supporters as leftist, anarchists, socialists, communists, or terrorist sympathizers intent on disrupting the world order. Yet on CBC, Canada's supposed pinko socialist news source (according to neo-conservatives, anyway), comments left on their wikileaks news articles are overwhelmingly in support of Wikileaks.
Seriously, I hope you don't think suppression of freedoms is a strictly "left" trait, the "right" is doing its best to do it better.
Re:That's one heck of a "long goodbye"
on
Goodbye, VGA
·
· Score: 2
My Mac extended keyboard has two USB ports on it. My USB2 3.5" hard drive is connected to one, an ancient Logitech mouse on the other, and the HDD speeds are perfectly in line with a USB2 device.
USB2 thumb drives works fine off of it too. The only thing it can't do is power an external 2.5" drive or my iPhone--have to connect directly to the computer's USB for that.
So, hardly for show only.
Conclusion: it's not USB keyboards that's the problem, it's poor-quality ones.
How were such characters produced when manual (not even electric) typewriters were still the norm?
Yes, the most likely explanation would be to use the backspace key and overtype the marks onto the standard characters, but what keys produced those marks?
I'm in a technical job in IT. I'm right-handed. The mouse is left of the keyboard, standard configuration. Index finger switches between left and right button as needed, the rest of my fingers are curled and rest on the sides of the mouse.
This is much better at preventing carpel tunnel than palming regular-shaped mouse and stretching your first two fingers on the mouse buttons.
I used to mouse with my right, but switched when I started to feel carpal tunnel strain after starting to use Windows at work ten years ago (grew up with and still use Mac at home). I now mouse with the right only for games or when high precision is needed.
Trackpad with my right hand though; 2-finger tapping to get a secondary click beats the hell out of a physical right button, and 2-finger scrolling beats the hell out of wasting the right margin.
> They want to sell new hardware, not provide new software.
Why? Software is cheaper and more likely to retain the customer. Services are more profitable than things. Offering the customer a free OS upgrade if they sign an new contract makes sense.
Why would a customer want a free OS upgrade when you can get a whole new, latest-and-greatest phone with that new contract?
I havea 3GS too, the responsiveness issues may be related to its Gamecenter integration. It stutters frequently when I have wireless or 3G on, but I was in airplane mode one time and found it was back to it's usual smoothness.
Not to excuse the devs, they should still improve whatever code is causing the stuttering.
And your 2010 Accord is analogous to.... what, exactly, in the manned space program? Certainly not the Soyuz spacecraft (don't get me wrong, the Soyuz is a proven and reliable design). And the private spacecraft being tested aren't even capable of doing the errands in your car analogy, let alone make it on this cross-country trip.
it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.
To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.
The public has an exceedingly poor grasp of what's important. The majority don't even bother going out to vote, yet that's one of the most important things in a democratic society.
Second: Deep Throat and numerous other whistleblowers invariably go to media outlets because a) their "brand" ensures good coverage, and b) the whistleblower believes the outlet in question is distanced enough from the issues they're blowing the whistle on. Considering the lovefest much of the US media had for the Iraq invasion and their being too easily influenced by the threat of having their White House press passes revoked, it's no surprise they weren't chosen to receive the classified and confidential information.
when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes
Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.
Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.
So the public has to be spoon-fed "important" information now? That's what the traditional media is for. The public should have the option to sift through it all and decide for themselves.
Recall that Wikileaks released two versions of the helicopter attack video, they were blasted for releasing the edited version, rather than just the full video (which was already edited by the source).
These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.
Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.
Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website.
You're contradicting yourself. Wikileaks and their sources obviously thought the world was evil, and did something about it--they revealed the evil (or what they believe is evil) to the world, with minimal to moderate editorializing (the "collateral murder" stepped over the line, though).
What do you want them (Wikileaks and the GP poster) to do, take up arms and fight the US military? Spew harsh language at the people who run the world? Write opinion pieces to the New York Times?
Yes, and at one point you could actually ACCESS those non-US-gov't leaks. Now however, all that is on their website is the last few gigantic anti-US leaks. Thoughts on why that might be?
Storage limitations are the most obvious. With limited disk space, you prioritize the popular stuff, and like it or not, that's the US Iraq and cable leaks.
Let's face it, there's no other *good* reason. Bias makes no sense... the material was there before. So, what, they suddenly became rabidly anti-American overnight, and decided to express that by removing non-US-related material? Please.
I'm not saying one way or the other their reasons, but at almost literally a dime a dozen (gigabytes), "storage limitations" are an extremely poor excuse.
And to cut off the obvious rebuttal, conserving bandwidth would be a red herring too... they have enough to host the latest materials, and no one's bothering with the old materials... except to notice they're no longer available.
Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.
This is a double-edged sword. Assange is counting on the major powers NOT wanting the insurance file decrypted to prevent them pulling some assassination plot on him.
There are other entities, however, who might try taking him out for the exact opposite reason. After all, the insurance file must almost by definition be bigger than Iraq, diplomatic cables that embarrass many nations, and massive bank conspiracies.
I sure as hell hope that's what you were going for, because anyone who truly believes this is the one and only reason for America's success is as delusional as the hippies who think fighting must be avoided at all costs.
Firewire isn't exactly dead-end, but it is one of Apple's biggest mistakes after Jobs returned. Not for developing it or promoting it, but for charging licensing fees to include it in your hardware. It was fairly cheap--IIRC it was $1 at first, but if you were Dell or HP and moving millions of machines, that added up.
That provided all the boost USB2 needed. Inferior in every way to Firewire except for price (480 Mbps is the theoretical maximum burst speed, sustained speed is far less), USB2 quickly overtook Firewire until even Apple switched their portable devices to USB2-only. My first iDevice with USB2 only, it was painful how much slower it was to sync music compared to Firewire.
Some might compare this to Mac vs PC, or iPhone vs Android, but there's a key difference. Apple charges a minor premium on these and doesn't compete on the extreme low-end, but as long as they're profitable lines they don't care that much about market share. With Firewire, Apple killed its own baby, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
If you're *starting* a new project, D might be an option, but the GGP's assertion was that Objective-C was a mistake that Apple made.
According to Wikipedia, D first appeared in 1999, long after Apple acquired NeXT and its Objective-C based OS which was the foundation for Mac OS X. iOS is based on OSX, so it follows that they'd re-use the core parts rather than re-write it from scratch and have to maintain two distinct OS programming skillsets, if a different language didn't provide substantial benefits over staying with Obj-C.
Never mind the juice glasses, think about the bottles of wine and liqueur from duty free stores (within the secure zone), and the shards of sharp glass they can make.
Why aren't they banned? Apparently people's rights are fair game, but the economic well being of those duty free stores must be protected.
Slashdot Mirror
I did this recently with a TV at Best Buy. The sale price on the one I wanted was close enough to what I could find online.
I was able to actually see the TV, see how it looked, and spin the thing around to look at how the I/O ports are configured. I probably paid a little bit more than I would have online, but I firmly believe that the little extra cost is worth it to keep actual displays available at brick-and-mortar mortar locations.
You can still get tricked into an inferior product. And its wouldn't even be the store's fault.
I got a new LG TV during the Black "Friday" sale (which lasted a week). Turns out the exact same model number can ship with two different screen technologies: either IPS (in-plane switching) or VA (vertical array). Luckily I didn't buy right away and my research dug up not only this fact, but also that IPS is far superior, and that you can tell which are IPS panels based on the full product code stamped on a box label. I made sure this was correct on the box I chose and later verified by inspecting the LCD panel itself (IPS pixels' RGB elements appear as chevrons, instead of vertical bars).
That's me with hours to kill on internet research, no significant other or dependents to take up my time. How can regular consumers be reasonably expected to make sure they're not getting shortchanged?
I got mine at Future Shop (owned by Best Buy in Canada). I already price-matched them $50 + 10% against our version of Circuit City, and found out I could price-match them again against Walmart and get another $55 off. I'd bet dollars to donuts Walmart only has the VA panels, so anyone comparing prices on just the model number won't really be getting the "deal" they think they are.
This is precisely why Apple doesn't listen to the analysts or even some investors who say they should do things like other big businesses, and instead operates more like you suggest.
Apple doesn't care about the low-end market (the sub-$500 PC/laptop, free phone contracts, or $30 mp3 players), which would greatly expand their market share. Dell is doing great at following analyst expectations--competing on price, cutting operational costs, leading in market share, low inventory--but absolutely crap profit margin to show for it. Yeah, $822M net income last quarter sounds respectable to us, but not when compared against the $15.4B revenue.
And despite defying analyst demands, they still keep exceeding their expectations each quarter.
Not to mention, cheap crap is bad for the environment--both in quantities of material consumed when creating them, and the quantities of material thrown out by the buyer when it breaks down or wears out far earlier than expected.
I needed a nailclipper. I bought it for $2 at the "dollar or two" store. It was unusable right away because the cheap metal was too thin and flexed when applying pressure, and the cutting edges were dull.
The same idea would apply for a frying pan that loses its non-stick coating after one year instead of lasting 5 years with the same frequency of use.
Or a cheap $500 laptop that's already obsolete when released, and will break down in a year, versus a $1000 that will last at least 3 years.
Problem sometimes is, how can you tell when a product is truly better? My examples were trivial, but for any given type of product, Walmart's medium-priced offerings could work and last just as well as a "premium" brand at a more "reputable" store.
Seriously? I enjoyed Firefly very much. The movie was even better. However, the characters were not nearly as well developed as they are on SGU. The sets were - the ship, and the wild west. Not sure how that blew you away...
The characters on Firefly had a dozen episodes to develop (a few more if you count the DVD episodes, or the pilot which they aired at the *end* of the series). SGU has had 30.
Despite the unfair comparison, I learned far more (and cared far more) about Firefly's characters in that half-season, than I did most of Voyager's characters despite the latter running 7 seasons.
I would say that SGU was at least something different from Atlantis, but it also looped back on itself. It's a closed environment that is hard to develop.
Yes, at least Atlantis wasn't a starship. Oh, wait... were there any sharks in the water when it took off the first time, and would a vertical launch be considered "jumping" them?
You do remember that Atlantis took off for the first time (from the viewer's POV) about 2 minutes into the pilot episode?
It's opposed because they didn't properly prepare for it and the police are not obligated to support it so if things get ugly for whatever reason, people may get out of control and hurt. And if you march on streets that are normally occupied by vehicles without police support, you're going to get hit with obstruction offenses.
If only that were the case in Canada. Last year Tamil Tiger supporters held a mass protest without public warning in downtown Ottawa, blocking the major transit and car arteries just as afternoon rush hour hit. A bus ride that normally takes me 20 minutes took almost 2 hours. Their supporters in Toronto blocked a major expressway. The police did jack, and IIRC charges were never laid.
This isn't like redefining a megabyte to mean a different amount of storage. Certain descriptive terms should be updated as technology progresses. The desktop or even mini-tower "computer" for instance would've been referred to as a micro-computer in the late 70s or early 80s (to distinguish from the computers (servers), or mini-computer workstations).
Perhaps it should've been more clearly labeled, e.g. this is "broadband 2.0" or "broadband 2008", but when a 3G phone is able to pull down data at 5 or 6 Mbps, calling 256k "broadband" is misleading.
I'm certainly in agreement it's not a left/right thing, my own post centered on why exactly you used "communist" in the title, which implies a political leaning that's not at all evident in DesCorp's post, especially since most Wikileaks attacks have originated from the right.
Maybe it garnered more eyeballs, but IMHO it detracted from an otherwise spot-on post.
I agreed with everything in your post--except for one word in your title. Communist!? Seriously?
Overwhelmingly it's been the supposed conservative defenders of freedoms that have been throwing a fit over Wikileaks, or inferring that Assange should be assassinated (one of those clowns was advisor to Canada's current prime minister, who heads the so-called Conservative party).
Call them neo-conservative if you must, as libertarian Ron Paul did in his speech.
Meanwhile, the same neo-conservatives are labelling Wikileaks supporters as leftist, anarchists, socialists, communists, or terrorist sympathizers intent on disrupting the world order. Yet on CBC, Canada's supposed pinko socialist news source (according to neo-conservatives, anyway), comments left on their wikileaks news articles are overwhelmingly in support of Wikileaks.
Seriously, I hope you don't think suppression of freedoms is a strictly "left" trait, the "right" is doing its best to do it better.
My Mac extended keyboard has two USB ports on it. My USB2 3.5" hard drive is connected to one, an ancient Logitech mouse on the other, and the HDD speeds are perfectly in line with a USB2 device.
USB2 thumb drives works fine off of it too. The only thing it can't do is power an external 2.5" drive or my iPhone--have to connect directly to the computer's USB for that.
So, hardly for show only.
Conclusion: it's not USB keyboards that's the problem, it's poor-quality ones.
How were such characters produced when manual (not even electric) typewriters were still the norm?
Yes, the most likely explanation would be to use the backspace key and overtype the marks onto the standard characters, but what keys produced those marks?
I'm in a technical job in IT. I'm right-handed. The mouse is left of the keyboard, standard configuration. Index finger switches between left and right button as needed, the rest of my fingers are curled and rest on the sides of the mouse.
This is much better at preventing carpel tunnel than palming regular-shaped mouse and stretching your first two fingers on the mouse buttons.
I used to mouse with my right, but switched when I started to feel carpal tunnel strain after starting to use Windows at work ten years ago (grew up with and still use Mac at home). I now mouse with the right only for games or when high precision is needed.
Trackpad with my right hand though; 2-finger tapping to get a secondary click beats the hell out of a physical right button, and 2-finger scrolling beats the hell out of wasting the right margin.
> They want to sell new hardware, not provide new software.
Why? Software is cheaper and more likely to retain the customer. Services are more profitable than things. Offering the customer a free OS upgrade if they sign an new contract makes sense.
Why would a customer want a free OS upgrade when you can get a whole new, latest-and-greatest phone with that new contract?
I havea 3GS too, the responsiveness issues may be related to its Gamecenter integration. It stutters frequently when I have wireless or 3G on, but I was in airplane mode one time and found it was back to it's usual smoothness.
Not to excuse the devs, they should still improve whatever code is causing the stuttering.
And your 2010 Accord is analogous to.... what, exactly, in the manned space program? Certainly not the Soyuz spacecraft (don't get me wrong, the Soyuz is a proven and reliable design). And the private spacecraft being tested aren't even capable of doing the errands in your car analogy, let alone make it on this cross-country trip.
To me, the two are mutually exclusive. Putting a 'brand' on it means to me that you're trying to sell it, if its important, it really doesn't need 'sold'.
The public has an exceedingly poor grasp of what's important. The majority don't even bother going out to vote, yet that's one of the most important things in a democratic society.
Second: Deep Throat and numerous other whistleblowers invariably go to media outlets because a) their "brand" ensures good coverage, and b) the whistleblower believes the outlet in question is distanced enough from the issues they're blowing the whistle on. Considering the lovefest much of the US media had for the Iraq invasion and their being too easily influenced by the threat of having their White House press passes revoked, it's no surprise they weren't chosen to receive the classified and confidential information.
Theres a difference between announcing you're going to announce something, then announcing something that you're going to release, then releasing it slowly over time but without bothering to filter out the cruft that offers no value and may cause damage to legitimate 'good' operations.
Watergate involved some actual journalism, fact finding, confirmation, filtering and reporting. People didn't have to sift through 250k memos, getting a handful at a time in a daily serving from the 'leaker'. They got journalists who bothered to read through the documents and figure out what the fuck was going on.
So the public has to be spoon-fed "important" information now? That's what the traditional media is for. The public should have the option to sift through it all and decide for themselves.
Recall that Wikileaks released two versions of the helicopter attack video, they were blasted for releasing the edited version, rather than just the full video (which was already edited by the source).
Oh for fucks sake, stop being so melodramatic and fucking self absorbed. The world is no different today than it was 2000 years ago. You aren't experiencing anything your parents didn't experience in the political world, even if you are too ignorant of history to know any better.
Wikileaks may be a 'response' but its a fucking retarded one. The proper response if you think the world is so evil is to do something about it rather than drone on about how someone else is changing the world on some website.
You're contradicting yourself. Wikileaks and their sources obviously thought the world was evil, and did something about it--they revealed the evil (or what they believe is evil) to the world, with minimal to moderate editorializing (the "collateral murder" stepped over the line, though).
What do you want them (Wikileaks and the GP poster) to do, take up arms and fight the US military? Spew harsh language at the people who run the world? Write opinion pieces to the New York Times?
Yes, and at one point you could actually ACCESS those non-US-gov't leaks. Now however, all that is on their website is the last few gigantic anti-US leaks. Thoughts on why that might be?
Storage limitations are the most obvious. With limited disk space, you prioritize the popular stuff, and like it or not, that's the US Iraq and cable leaks.
Let's face it, there's no other *good* reason. Bias makes no sense... the material was there before. So, what, they suddenly became rabidly anti-American overnight, and decided to express that by removing non-US-related material? Please.
I'm not saying one way or the other their reasons, but at almost literally a dime a dozen (gigabytes), "storage limitations" are an extremely poor excuse.
And to cut off the obvious rebuttal, conserving bandwidth would be a red herring too... they have enough to host the latest materials, and no one's bothering with the old materials... except to notice they're no longer available.
Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.
This is a double-edged sword. Assange is counting on the major powers NOT wanting the insurance file decrypted to prevent them pulling some assassination plot on him.
There are other entities, however, who might try taking him out for the exact opposite reason. After all, the insurance file must almost by definition be bigger than Iraq, diplomatic cables that embarrass many nations, and massive bank conspiracies.
You say that like being a whore is a bad thing.
It isn't. It's certainly a job that's more reputable than many others, such as telemarketer or Visual Basic developer.
But it's also a job many wouldn't like to exercise...
What kind of exercise would you possibly get anyway, laying on your back the whole time?
Mod +5 Funny.
I sure as hell hope that's what you were going for, because anyone who truly believes this is the one and only reason for America's success is as delusional as the hippies who think fighting must be avoided at all costs.
Firewire isn't exactly dead-end, but it is one of Apple's biggest mistakes after Jobs returned. Not for developing it or promoting it, but for charging licensing fees to include it in your hardware. It was fairly cheap--IIRC it was $1 at first, but if you were Dell or HP and moving millions of machines, that added up.
That provided all the boost USB2 needed. Inferior in every way to Firewire except for price (480 Mbps is the theoretical maximum burst speed, sustained speed is far less), USB2 quickly overtook Firewire until even Apple switched their portable devices to USB2-only. My first iDevice with USB2 only, it was painful how much slower it was to sync music compared to Firewire.
Some might compare this to Mac vs PC, or iPhone vs Android, but there's a key difference. Apple charges a minor premium on these and doesn't compete on the extreme low-end, but as long as they're profitable lines they don't care that much about market share. With Firewire, Apple killed its own baby, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
I thought I gnu OOP but it was learning Objective-C that really let it sink in.
So I take it you didn't gno OOP?
Fixed that for both of you.
If you're *starting* a new project, D might be an option, but the GGP's assertion was that Objective-C was a mistake that Apple made.
According to Wikipedia, D first appeared in 1999, long after Apple acquired NeXT and its Objective-C based OS which was the foundation for Mac OS X. iOS is based on OSX, so it follows that they'd re-use the core parts rather than re-write it from scratch and have to maintain two distinct OS programming skillsets, if a different language didn't provide substantial benefits over staying with Obj-C.
Kind of like North Korea, wouldn't you say?
Not that I'm saying the RIAA is on the same level as those whackjobs (at least they haven't killed anyone yet... right?)
Never mind the juice glasses, think about the bottles of wine and liqueur from duty free stores (within the secure zone), and the shards of sharp glass they can make.
Why aren't they banned? Apparently people's rights are fair game, but the economic well being of those duty free stores must be protected.