You know how controversial subjects in the Wikipedia get fights over entries. Back and forth it goes, with one person putting their "truth" and then the opposite side removing or replacing it with their version of the "truth." Now, just picture it: The deadline for the gold master version to be put on disc is announced, and like people pouncing on an EBay auction at the last second, the warring factions will rapidly replace each other's versions of an article, hoping that their version is the one to be immortalized on disc.
"- we can't implement frequency capping very well. this means you have a much higher chance of seeing the same damn ad, again and again and again. you like?"
No, I do not like seeing the same ad again and again, but it doesn't happen. I don't look at ads. I have trained my peripheral vision to recognize ad space on a web site, and I deliberately avoid looking. A pop-under escaped my block-pop-up technology yesterday, and there it was sitting under my main window. So I positioned my mouse so that when I clicked the pop-under would become the primary window. I closed my eyes, clicked, and pressed the key combo to close that window. I then went back to reading what I was reading, having not the slightest idea which advertiser I had just ignored. I literally did not see the ad, not even peripherally.
Take note, advertisers: We do not want you around.
Take note, webmasters: We do not want to see ads.
Still feel the need to run ads? It's your choice, and I respect your choice. But I'll make my own choice at the same time and ignore your ads, and try hard not to even see them directly. Your choice, my choice.
I also remember the old "home page" days, and wonder what makes a blog a blog. I've had people tell me about my headlines site, "I like your blog." Uh, thanks, but how is it a blog? I don't post my own thoughts, or talk about myself in any way. In that, it's not even a home page. It's a joke page, but people think about blogs so much that every page becomes a blog.
I heard that you can get a $35-off coupon from Amazon on Tiger. Sure enough, you can. And there are two date-related items involved in this that give a clue as to Tiger's release:
1. The coupon says you have to pre-order by 5/31/05, and then postmark the coupon by 7/1. OK, that doesn't necessarily mean much, but that 5/31 date looks suspiciously as if the release will be June 1.
2. After I ordered it, Amazon gave me an estimated shipping date of 6/1/05.
Now maybe they don't know either and they are just giving themselves lots of room just in case. Or maybe they do know, and this is an indication of a 5/31 or 6/1 release of Tiger.
Totally untrue. They work great for the vast majority of typical computer users. For the moms and pops of the world, they work better. I've seen that myself in several cases. I've yet to have anyone I recommended a Mac to later say they missed Windows. Everything worked as expected, there were no compatibility issues, it was easier. Only a small subset of users will find that Macs don't work well for them.
"Steve Jobs wanted style. An iPod on wheels. This is why, despite being the best personal computers money can buy, Apple has a market share of 3 percent."
The market share is a reflection of the Windows lock-in that occurs in corporate America, and for which Microsoft has been taken to court and lost. It has little to do with Apple having computers that work and look good.
"It's only a matter of time before the various competing MP3 players out there do the same thing to the iPod."
I don't think so. This is no longer the computer market. Now we're in the home electronics market and in that one style matters. That's why people care about having a cool flatscreen TV, and a stereo system that looks good on the rack, and cool features in their cell phone. This is no longer the "oh who cares if it's a big, beige boxy machine, I'll just stick it out of sight on the floor" market. This is the market where you look at the thing all the time, and you personalize it "It's my cell phone" and "It's my iPod."
In this market, style and extra performance is king, or else everyone would have Daewoo TVs instead of Sonys. This is the market for iPods, and it helps explain why as more competitors enter the market, the iPod percentage of the market keeps climbing. The knockoff Japanese manufacturers haven't caught on to the shift in thinking that differentiates the iPod market from the computer market. They think they are still shipping big beige boxes, but the market is saying "Nope, I'll pay more for a cooler machine." Precisely the opposite approach most people took to buying computers, which should tell you right there this is a different market.
Re:Really out of the box thinking?
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Whatever happened to the Apple that had all those great new ideas?"
They're still coming up with great new ideas. In the meantime, we have this article under discussion involving ideas from people who do NOT work at Apple, so why are you complaining about Apple?
"But if the original author of a book is willing to rite the script as well, I fail to see why anyone would reject the idea, especially if the author is one as respected and experienced as OSC."
Because writing novels and writing screenplays are worlds apart. One quick example: In a novel, the author describes actions and character's thoughts. The screenplay writer cannot do that. Instead he or she has to create everything through dialogue. It's like the difference between a book and a play. On the stage, it's dialogue all the way through. On the page, it's authorial voice much of the time.
It's one thing to know this difference, and another to be able to be competent in a totally different format. Therefore it is typical for a movie to hire experienced screenwriters to adapt a book rather than have the original writer, inexperienced at screenwriting, try to learn a new art form.
Yeah, good point. Now if your friend has been really quick, she could have said, "Ah, but you are using late-Egyptian interpretation, whereas I was clearly using the early-Egyptian interpretation, as you can see by the stance of this priest figure over there in the corner. No, way in the corner and near the ground. Keep looking." And then beating a hasty retreat.
"Why yes, I do know Akkadian. Listen to this: xlsdke didue sdkfjhds dudys dk,d! I just said may your ancestors live a thousand years, thus confusing your family reunions no end. Prove I didn't just say it."
OK, I'm sure I'm going to get lots of replies along the lines of "Dude! I have 12,137!" Fine, you are the exception. I'm sure the vast majority of iPod users have fewer than 10,000 songs. Me? About 550. That's all I want. I have no use for another 9,500 songs. My collection grows slowly but surely, but it will take decades to reach the thousands at this rate.
Maybe I'm not typical either, but I'll bet the typical user is closer to 550 than 10,000. And how did I get my 550? Mostly ripped from CDs in my existing collection, plus about 90-100 bought from iTunes over the last year. That's $90-$100 for me instead of $15x12 or $180. And I get to burn them to CD if I want (and I do want), and keep them for as long as I want. My monthly bill? Whatever I happened to buy that month. Maybe $2 or $3 or even zero. The Napster math makes absolutely no sense to someone like me. I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it. It's cheaper this way too.
And there is a sizable portion of the computer-user population that views their computer as a simple tool for a specific job. Grandma wants her email, and so to her it's an email receiver and not much else. Any ol' OS will do the job for her, so whatever she has is what she's used to is what she'll keep. Forever. It's not as if machines break down all that often. And if all you use the machine for is one simple job, it doesn't seem slow to the user. It's good enough.
It's like the toaster to them. Who buys a new toaster or blender until the old one breaks? Same with computers for a surprising number of people. I've seen it with my relatives, I've seen it with friends. I've been appalled by what some of them use, but talk to them about upgrading and it's "No thanks, it works just fine."
The 14th thing that makes no sense: Not reading the article that is posted right there in the submission and easily reachable to inform the reader, and yet feeling fully qualified to write something as a comment without that knowledge.
Sadly, you are not wrong. From the Stallman article I linked:
"Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime."
Ugh, now you've put that song in my head! If there's one thing people who read my site have come to expect from me is I'll use a bad song to make a bad joke any chance I get.
OK, lemme see, Eye of the Tiger as a commentary on the SCO case....
Just remember, folks: "Trusted computing" is an Orwellian phrase that actually means your computer won't trust you. So if you want your computer to have to ability to say to you, "Sorry, I won't play that MP3 file" or "Sorry, that movie is not authorized for this PC," well step right up. Barnum & Co. -- er, sorry, I mean major PC hardware companies have some new machines to sell to you.
It's not over yet. Jail time may yet await all those newly-rich folks. Their reputations are already ruined. And don't forget, after SCO loses their case, IBM gets to move forward with their counter-suit.
SCO vs IBM will go down in history as a monumental failure, temporary stock pumping riches notwithstanding.
Slashdot Mirror
User types "666" into the Google search box, hits Enter. "AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
You know how controversial subjects in the Wikipedia get fights over entries. Back and forth it goes, with one person putting their "truth" and then the opposite side removing or replacing it with their version of the "truth." Now, just picture it: The deadline for the gold master version to be put on disc is announced, and like people pouncing on an EBay auction at the last second, the warring factions will rapidly replace each other's versions of an article, hoping that their version is the one to be immortalized on disc.
You clearly need targeted V!agra and C!al!s ads.
No, I do not like seeing the same ad again and again, but it doesn't happen. I don't look at ads. I have trained my peripheral vision to recognize ad space on a web site, and I deliberately avoid looking. A pop-under escaped my block-pop-up technology yesterday, and there it was sitting under my main window. So I positioned my mouse so that when I clicked the pop-under would become the primary window. I closed my eyes, clicked, and pressed the key combo to close that window. I then went back to reading what I was reading, having not the slightest idea which advertiser I had just ignored. I literally did not see the ad, not even peripherally.
Take note, advertisers: We do not want you around.
Take note, webmasters: We do not want to see ads.
Still feel the need to run ads? It's your choice, and I respect your choice. But I'll make my own choice at the same time and ignore your ads, and try hard not to even see them directly. Your choice, my choice.
I also remember the old "home page" days, and wonder what makes a blog a blog. I've had people tell me about my headlines site, "I like your blog." Uh, thanks, but how is it a blog? I don't post my own thoughts, or talk about myself in any way. In that, it's not even a home page. It's a joke page, but people think about blogs so much that every page becomes a blog.
1. Reduce the number of articles online so that they will fit into a 27-volume set of printed books.
2. The person making this list will be sacked.
3. Reduce the use of fluffy language on Wikipedia, and make everything more stuffy.
4. The person who sacked the person making this list will be sacked.
5. More cheesey goodness!
6. Sack everyone else.
7. ?????
8. Profit!!!!
1. The coupon says you have to pre-order by 5/31/05, and then postmark the coupon by 7/1. OK, that doesn't necessarily mean much, but that 5/31 date looks suspiciously as if the release will be June 1.
2. After I ordered it, Amazon gave me an estimated shipping date of 6/1/05.
Now maybe they don't know either and they are just giving themselves lots of room just in case. Or maybe they do know, and this is an indication of a 5/31 or 6/1 release of Tiger.
Philip K. Dick would, of course, find something darkly paranoid about this honor and would have accepted with suspicion. :)
I'm afraid your statement does not follow. There are all sorts of examples of people doing things that are not good for them.
Totally untrue. They work great for the vast majority of typical computer users. For the moms and pops of the world, they work better. I've seen that myself in several cases. I've yet to have anyone I recommended a Mac to later say they missed Windows. Everything worked as expected, there were no compatibility issues, it was easier. Only a small subset of users will find that Macs don't work well for them.
The market share is a reflection of the Windows lock-in that occurs in corporate America, and for which Microsoft has been taken to court and lost. It has little to do with Apple having computers that work and look good.
"It's only a matter of time before the various competing MP3 players out there do the same thing to the iPod."
I don't think so. This is no longer the computer market. Now we're in the home electronics market and in that one style matters. That's why people care about having a cool flatscreen TV, and a stereo system that looks good on the rack, and cool features in their cell phone. This is no longer the "oh who cares if it's a big, beige boxy machine, I'll just stick it out of sight on the floor" market. This is the market where you look at the thing all the time, and you personalize it "It's my cell phone" and "It's my iPod."
In this market, style and extra performance is king, or else everyone would have Daewoo TVs instead of Sonys. This is the market for iPods, and it helps explain why as more competitors enter the market, the iPod percentage of the market keeps climbing. The knockoff Japanese manufacturers haven't caught on to the shift in thinking that differentiates the iPod market from the computer market. They think they are still shipping big beige boxes, but the market is saying "Nope, I'll pay more for a cooler machine." Precisely the opposite approach most people took to buying computers, which should tell you right there this is a different market.
They're still coming up with great new ideas. In the meantime, we have this article under discussion involving ideas from people who do NOT work at Apple, so why are you complaining about Apple?
Ah, I did miss that, and I apologize.
Because writing novels and writing screenplays are worlds apart. One quick example: In a novel, the author describes actions and character's thoughts. The screenplay writer cannot do that. Instead he or she has to create everything through dialogue. It's like the difference between a book and a play. On the stage, it's dialogue all the way through. On the page, it's authorial voice much of the time.
It's one thing to know this difference, and another to be able to be competent in a totally different format. Therefore it is typical for a movie to hire experienced screenwriters to adapt a book rather than have the original writer, inexperienced at screenwriting, try to learn a new art form.
For backing up their hard disk, as I use my iPod for.
Yeah, good point. Now if your friend has been really quick, she could have said, "Ah, but you are using late-Egyptian interpretation, whereas I was clearly using the early-Egyptian interpretation, as you can see by the stance of this priest figure over there in the corner. No, way in the corner and near the ground. Keep looking." And then beating a hasty retreat.
Wow, that really sounds profound!
"Why yes, I do know Akkadian. Listen to this: xlsdke didue sdkfjhds dudys dk,d! I just said may your ancestors live a thousand years, thus confusing your family reunions no end. Prove I didn't just say it."
Maybe I'm not typical either, but I'll bet the typical user is closer to 550 than 10,000. And how did I get my 550? Mostly ripped from CDs in my existing collection, plus about 90-100 bought from iTunes over the last year. That's $90-$100 for me instead of $15x12 or $180. And I get to burn them to CD if I want (and I do want), and keep them for as long as I want. My monthly bill? Whatever I happened to buy that month. Maybe $2 or $3 or even zero. The Napster math makes absolutely no sense to someone like me. I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it. It's cheaper this way too.
It's like the toaster to them. Who buys a new toaster or blender until the old one breaks? Same with computers for a surprising number of people. I've seen it with my relatives, I've seen it with friends. I've been appalled by what some of them use, but talk to them about upgrading and it's "No thanks, it works just fine."
Such as this comment...
"Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out how, and told someone, that could be a crime."
OK, lemme see, Eye of the Tiger as a commentary on the SCO case....
Just remember, folks: "Trusted computing" is an Orwellian phrase that actually means your computer won't trust you. So if you want your computer to have to ability to say to you, "Sorry, I won't play that MP3 file" or "Sorry, that movie is not authorized for this PC," well step right up. Barnum & Co. -- er, sorry, I mean major PC hardware companies have some new machines to sell to you.
It's not over yet. Jail time may yet await all those newly-rich folks. Their reputations are already ruined. And don't forget, after SCO loses their case, IBM gets to move forward with their counter-suit.
SCO vs IBM will go down in history as a monumental failure, temporary stock pumping riches notwithstanding.