Pac-man is well settled in life.. in times of xbox and PS2, many (including me) still like to play this.. its time for him to get married now..
Good news for you: actually, there is Pac-Man for PS2 called "Pac-Man Fever" - and Ms Pac-Man is one of the key characters in the, ummm, storyline (if you could say so in Pac-Man). You can even run the game in "classic" mode, where it is just the old-school Pac-Man the way you remembered it.
To all of this I would add, I would like to see a resolution like this: "Corporations, by definition possessing no intellect, cannot possess intellectual property."
Yeah, seems catchy at first glance, but I guess some people who actually do have some intellect might kill you for that - because they could no longer WILLINGLY SELL their rights to corporations. If you were a succesful coder, wouldn't you really NEVER EVER regret having lost the possibility of selling your code to some corporation for an obscenely fat paycheck?
I suppose that means we'll be seeing updated PowerMacs soon.:)
Quite unlikely, since they were updated a couple of weeks ago (to the 2.0-2.7 GHz family). The 1.8 single CPU model - the one used by jest3r in his comparison - was introduced last year and it was never the king of performance. It was even slower than the "original" 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5, due to slower bus clock. It's market niche are the customers who don't want to pay the hefty price for the "real" PowerMacs, but they want a modular computer, so iMac/eMac/Macmini is not an option. This model probably will be updated soon, but it will be purposedly crippled not to make it run too good to damage the high-end models sales.
The hippies (counterculture) were busy protesting. It was the people who were into maths, technology, and study that were into computer development.
Well, that is sort of ironic. Working as a journalist, I had opportunitiy to talk to people like Terry Pratchett or Michael Palin about their memories of the 1960's counterculture and almost always I have heard the same answer: "oh yes, that was great, but I had no time for it, I was too busy studying/writing/acting etc.". It looks like the coolest people of that generation today are not those who went to Woodstock and burned their draft cards. The coolest are those who simply had no time for that. Of course, this leads to the question of who will be cool in 2030's from the people who are young today - somehow I doubt you should look for the future leaders among contemporary clubbing afficionados...
Am I the only one who thought that after reading the front page summary? I won't read the rest. What the hell does computer science have to do with the drug scene?
Prior to mid-1970's, a typical "computer engineer" was wearing a necktie and lab overalls. From about 1980's, a typical computer engineer is wearing a t-shirt advocating his favorite rock group, fantasy world or political agenda. Do you really think it had nothing to do with social changes in 1970's California - related, but not limited, to the drug culture?
Mod me down, but I don't really approve mechanized perfection. Somehow making juice with exact proportions everytime frightens me.. There's got to be a little human in it. Juice may be a small thing now, but as we go on trying to make perfect stuff using machines and not with human hands... Kind of reminds me a little like Stepford's Wives.
How very true. Especially when you think that life itself is imperfect and some of the ingredients might accidentally arrive to the mixer in not-so-perfect-condition. It happens rarely but it happens and while a human bartender (or, say, your Significant Other) might detect that immediately when preparing your drink ("sweetheart, when exactly did you prepare this orange juice and are you sure it was this century?"), the machine will just pass it on as usual.
Either way, I give it about a 0 chance they figured out how to quickly find collisions in a strong hash space. If they had, they'd be talking to the NSA, not the RIAA.
I think it's similar to the famous Yugo failure. The flawed premise in "cheap computer" or "cheap car" strategy is that people in the market for sub-$5000 car or sub-$200 computer are actually willing to buy them brand new. No, they are not. People in the market for a cheap car will rather go for a 5-year old Ford. People in the market for a cheap computer will either buy something second hand or try to build their own system. Especially that you still have better service options with a 5-year Ford than a brand new Yugo - or a second hand Dell or Compaq than a brand new Simputer.
If Windows became open source we would see £100 knock down on the price of every single PC. This would then make more people buy PCs, which would help the whole industry except Microsoft. It would encourage growth in hardware and softcore could follow suite nicely.
Absolutely not. You seem to confuse the most obvious difference between "free software" and "open source". "Open source" means just that I allow you to take a peek into the source code of my application - but still I have everything under my firm control. "Free Software" means not just that I will show you my source code, but also I will allow you to do basically anything you want to do, provided that the results will also be distributed as Free Software. So opening source to the entire Microsoft Windows would not necessarily means a price drop - the source code could still be protected by proprietary copyright law. Of course, you could violate the copyright and compile your own copy - but then again, you can pirate MS Windows as well.
Check Microsoft's own website for their own description of Shared Source. A brief quote: Like the CSD (Commercial Software Development) model, the SSI (Shared Source Initiative) rewards innovators for their research and development efforts by protecting their valuable IP rights in the source code they produce. .
Shit. I forgot that the Shuffles were 512/1024MBs. But what good is that much storage space when you can't choose which song plays next?
Using iTunes smart playlists, you can choose what sort of songs are being played. I have currently two iPods - a 1024 Shuffle and 20 GBs click wheel. On the classic iPod, for about 80% of usage time, I play one smart playlists, predefined as "the songs that weren't played for at least a month, with ratings of four and five stars". This playlists emulates a sorf of perfect radio DJ - the one that plays songs that you actually enjoy, but you haven't heard them for quite a while, so you are happy to hear them again. In my case, the size of this playlists is usually around 700-800 MBytes, so I can easily carry this playlist also on my Shuffle. iTunes smart playlists are easily programmable and spare you the effort of manually selecting tracks to play. If you are in the mood for 80's nostalgia, presto, define your "the best of 1980's" smart playlist with a few mouse clicks.
How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these?
You mean, how many people would choose a 1024/512 megabytes players over 256/128 megabytes players? Count me in. And as for the price difference - it will be eaten up quite soon by the non-rechargeable batteries.
A financial settlement with a fresh college grad? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
What sort of settlement would you accept then? Corporal punishment? Or should Apple say "You naughty naughty boy, you pirated our software, but that's OK, we don't want any sort of punishment for you, otherwise emil (695) won't buy our products"?
Cds can be as small as your credit card, besides being much more secure.
Great. So first we have locked out all "not-the-latest-Pentium" computer users - and now we are locking out all slot-loading drive users? My bank uses a nice security device which is also credit card size. It's a, well, card with unique security codes. I can use any Web browser of my choice on any platform to access all the features. I prefer it this way, thank you.
Uh, Sony? They designed and manufactured the 100 for Apple (to Apple's specs, of course).
Manufactured, yes. Designed - not at all. It was designed by Robert Brunner, head of Apple Design Group of that day. He scored many awards for his powerbooks (powerbook 500 was also a huge success).
Bah, if they want to go "all the way", they should mention the so called minicomputers from early 70's. They were compact enough to fit into a car trunk and proto-nerds of that age carried them to be able to work in outdoor situations. Jef Raskin, the father of Macintosh, was carrying a DG Nova 1200, and used to freak out waiters, wheeling this equipment into restaurant complete with console to compute the bill.
On a side note: TFA dissimiates the stupid meme about "Apple stealing GUI from Xerox". If you take something with the owner's consent and pay for it, I wouldn't call it stealing.
If this concept works in the long run, I wonder how (if at all) it might be used to find the "tenth planet" that some scientists think might be orbiting beyond Pluto?
It already was - with negative results. Here's a quote:
When a new NASA satellite called IRAS was launched, we hoped that it could be used to find Planet X. IRAS looks at the sky in the infrared, which would make finding another planet much easier, and it could also find very faint things. People looked very hard (everyone wanted to be the one to find the new planet!), but there is no sign of Planet X. So right now, we believe that there is no Planet X.
What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac.
I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?
MacOS X has two native API's - carbon and cocoa. Carbon hardly has any virtues of its own, it's main advantage is that its relatively easy to port old, non-Unix Mac applications to Carbon, so whenever anyone has any project that has its roots still in last century, he sticks with Carbon. This is not just the case of various Mozilla-derivative projects but also of - say - Microsoft Office for MacOS. Cocoa is the "native native" API and here's where MacOS X really shines. If you use MacOS X a lot, you tend to hate Carbon and favor Cocoa because Cocoa apps offer much better overall integration with systemwide services, such as your favorite spellchecker, they generally run faster and consume less resources. Camino is Cocoa, Firefox is Carbon.
How do you know that, do you own one? What you really mean is "Without functionality similar to iTunes it's half the product". What makes you so sure they won't include some sort of similar software?
If they're so willing to clone the Shuffle's design, why stop there?
It's one thing to repackage your old mp3 players into new shells, it's another to pay good coders to code a good product. The former is a cheap rip-off, the latter is an expensive rip-off. Personally I think they are after the former.
A trademark is anything that identifies the source (origin) of a product or service or that signifies sponsorship or approval of the goods. Trademarks include names, words, logos and product packaging, as well as distinctive non-functional visual aspects of the software, such as icons or user interface designs.
Do you still argue that no trademark is being infringed here?
The only justification for lack of LCD is that you use iTunes to operate your iPod Shuffle. If you don't use iTunes smart playlists and iTunes autofill option, iPod Shuffle is actually quite worthless. It has no LCD because some elements of its UI are incorporated into iTunes. "Fake Shuffle" has no LCD either, but you have no software to make it out for you.
In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in court (if they make it that far.)
If you consider public relations aspect of such a trial, it's really a bad choice. You cannot legally run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, it is explicitely forbidden by MacOS EULA. Obviously CherryOS is an illegal rip-off of a GPL tool - but the legality of said tool is also dubious. It won't look good in the press - I can already imagine headlines quoting the famous communist slogan, "steal what was stolen".
While it's certainly appreciable that journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime, there is no hard evidence that a crime was actually committed, only an allegation that a crime was committed.
I can hear you in the courtroom, making a great speech worth of another John Grisham-based blockbuster - "Your Honor, my client Thinksecret.com had no knowledge that this information is secret, just as my another client, Appleinsider.com had no knowledge that the information comes from Apple insiders".
Go figure. When's the last time you saw a reporter prosecuted, jailed, or, heck, just plain ol' censured (much less, censored) for revealing classified information?
Oh, please. Just because you were not interested in such cases prior to the Apple vs bloggers trial, it doesn't mean such cases did not exist! Check this link. If you don't bother to click on it, here's a brief quote: "Three times this summer, judges have held journalists in contempt of court for refusing to name their anonymous sources (...) Since 1984, a total of 14 journalists have been jailed ? some for only a few hours ? for refusing to comply with court orders demanding that they reveal sources or other information, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press."
I'm looking on this case from across the pond. In Europe, we tend to have specialized law codes for, ummm, basically anything. We have the Press Code, Labor Code, Family Code etc., while you in the USA rather put anything into just civil law of the "someone versus someone" scheme. Anyway, European press codes both guarantee certain privileges to journalists and guarantee that journalists have to obey certain rules of professional ethics. In Europe it's simple: if you break your professional ethics - you're out of protection, buddy. In general, journalist ethics means that you can't break the law just for sake of getting a scoop - you can be protected by the code if you did it in genuine public interest. From European point of view, this ruling was not a surprise, actually the judge said just what we have wrtitten in our law regarding the freedom of press.
Looking at Nick Park. That placid, cheerful face with the extremely plastic eyebrows. It's like he's spent so many hours manipulating his characters he's become one of them.
He always was! I've read an interview with him, where he said that Grommit is his plasticine alter ego. "Grand Day Out" was Nick Park's reflection on a real event from his own childhood, when his father has built a homebrew caravan and took his family on a trip. His father was very proud of himself, but for young Nick, it was more of a traumatic experience - the caravan was largely built of cardboard and general junk and young Nick felt very insecure. He portrayed his father as a crazy inventor, who builds a junk space rocket and takes his dog on a trip - ignoring all the possible perils (all too obvious to the poor, scared dog).
Just a side note: hobbyists often ignore how annoying their passion can be to their families. I wonder how many fellow slashdotters repeated the mistake of Mr Park senior. They said to their significant other (or their children): "Look! This is a computer I made using power supply from an old refrigerator, defunct playstation, keyboard from electric typewriter and screen from our old TV-set, all running a custom-compiled version of BSD! Ain't that cool?". And they fail to see a clear message in the eyes of their families: "why can't we just buy something normal like everyone else?".
Slashdot Mirror
Pac-man is well settled in life.. in times of xbox and PS2, many (including me) still like to play this.. its time for him to get married now..
Good news for you: actually, there is Pac-Man for PS2 called "Pac-Man Fever" - and Ms Pac-Man is one of the key characters in the, ummm, storyline (if you could say so in Pac-Man). You can even run the game in "classic" mode, where it is just the old-school Pac-Man the way you remembered it.
To all of this I would add, I would like to see a resolution like this: "Corporations, by definition possessing no intellect, cannot possess intellectual property."
Yeah, seems catchy at first glance, but I guess some people who actually do have some intellect might kill you for that - because they could no longer WILLINGLY SELL their rights to corporations. If you were a succesful coder, wouldn't you really NEVER EVER regret having lost the possibility of selling your code to some corporation for an obscenely fat paycheck?
I suppose that means we'll be seeing updated PowerMacs soon. :)
Quite unlikely, since they were updated a couple of weeks ago (to the 2.0-2.7 GHz family). The 1.8 single CPU model - the one used by jest3r in his comparison - was introduced last year and it was never the king of performance. It was even slower than the "original" 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5, due to slower bus clock. It's market niche are the customers who don't want to pay the hefty price for the "real" PowerMacs, but they want a modular computer, so iMac/eMac/Macmini is not an option. This model probably will be updated soon, but it will be purposedly crippled not to make it run too good to damage the high-end models sales.
The hippies (counterculture) were busy protesting. It was the people who were into maths, technology, and study that were into computer development.
Well, that is sort of ironic. Working as a journalist, I had opportunitiy to talk to people like Terry Pratchett or Michael Palin about their memories of the 1960's counterculture and almost always I have heard the same answer: "oh yes, that was great, but I had no time for it, I was too busy studying/writing/acting etc.". It looks like the coolest people of that generation today are not those who went to Woodstock and burned their draft cards. The coolest are those who simply had no time for that. Of course, this leads to the question of who will be cool in 2030's from the people who are young today - somehow I doubt you should look for the future leaders among contemporary clubbing afficionados...
Am I the only one who thought that after reading the front page summary? I won't read the rest. What the hell does computer science have to do with the drug scene?
Prior to mid-1970's, a typical "computer engineer" was wearing a necktie and lab overalls. From about 1980's, a typical computer engineer is wearing a t-shirt advocating his favorite rock group, fantasy world or political agenda. Do you really think it had nothing to do with social changes in 1970's California - related, but not limited, to the drug culture?
Mod me down, but I don't really approve mechanized perfection. Somehow making juice with exact proportions everytime frightens me.. There's got to be a little human in it. Juice may be a small thing now, but as we go on trying to make perfect stuff using machines and not with human hands... Kind of reminds me a little like Stepford's Wives.
How very true. Especially when you think that life itself is imperfect and some of the ingredients might accidentally arrive to the mixer in not-so-perfect-condition. It happens rarely but it happens and while a human bartender (or, say, your Significant Other) might detect that immediately when preparing your drink ("sweetheart, when exactly did you prepare this orange juice and are you sure it was this century?"), the machine will just pass it on as usual.
Either way, I give it about a 0 chance they figured out how to quickly find collisions in a strong hash space. If they had, they'd be talking to the NSA, not the RIAA.
What makes you so sure that NSA pays better?
I think it's similar to the famous Yugo failure. The flawed premise in "cheap computer" or "cheap car" strategy is that people in the market for sub-$5000 car or sub-$200 computer are actually willing to buy them brand new. No, they are not. People in the market for a cheap car will rather go for a 5-year old Ford. People in the market for a cheap computer will either buy something second hand or try to build their own system. Especially that you still have better service options with a 5-year Ford than a brand new Yugo - or a second hand Dell or Compaq than a brand new Simputer.
If Windows became open source we would see £100 knock down on the price of every single PC. This would then make more people buy PCs, which would help the whole industry except Microsoft. It would encourage growth in hardware and softcore could follow suite nicely.
Absolutely not. You seem to confuse the most obvious difference between "free software" and "open source". "Open source" means just that I allow you to take a peek into the source code of my application - but still I have everything under my firm control. "Free Software" means not just that I will show you my source code, but also I will allow you to do basically anything you want to do, provided that the results will also be distributed as Free Software. So opening source to the entire Microsoft Windows would not necessarily means a price drop - the source code could still be protected by proprietary copyright law. Of course, you could violate the copyright and compile your own copy - but then again, you can pirate MS Windows as well.
Check Microsoft's own website for their own description of Shared Source. A brief quote: Like the CSD (Commercial Software Development) model, the SSI (Shared Source Initiative) rewards innovators for their research and development efforts by protecting their valuable IP rights in the source code they produce. .
Shit. I forgot that the Shuffles were 512/1024MBs. But what good is that much storage space when you can't choose which song plays next?
Using iTunes smart playlists, you can choose what sort of songs are being played. I have currently two iPods - a 1024 Shuffle and 20 GBs click wheel. On the classic iPod, for about 80% of usage time, I play one smart playlists, predefined as "the songs that weren't played for at least a month, with ratings of four and five stars". This playlists emulates a sorf of perfect radio DJ - the one that plays songs that you actually enjoy, but you haven't heard them for quite a while, so you are happy to hear them again. In my case, the size of this playlists is usually around 700-800 MBytes, so I can easily carry this playlist also on my Shuffle. iTunes smart playlists are easily programmable and spare you the effort of manually selecting tracks to play. If you are in the mood for 80's nostalgia, presto, define your "the best of 1980's" smart playlist with a few mouse clicks.
How many people would choose an iPod Shuffle over one of these?
You mean, how many people would choose a 1024/512 megabytes players over 256/128 megabytes players? Count me in. And as for the price difference - it will be eaten up quite soon by the non-rechargeable batteries.
Name one good thing they've done in 2005.
iPod Shuffle.
A financial settlement with a fresh college grad? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
What sort of settlement would you accept then? Corporal punishment? Or should Apple say "You naughty naughty boy, you pirated our software, but that's OK, we don't want any sort of punishment for you, otherwise emil (695) won't buy our products"?
Cds can be as small as your credit card, besides being much more secure.
Great. So first we have locked out all "not-the-latest-Pentium" computer users - and now we are locking out all slot-loading drive users? My bank uses a nice security device which is also credit card size. It's a, well, card with unique security codes. I can use any Web browser of my choice on any platform to access all the features. I prefer it this way, thank you.
Uh, Sony? They designed and manufactured the 100 for Apple (to Apple's specs, of course).
Manufactured, yes. Designed - not at all. It was designed by Robert Brunner, head of Apple Design Group of that day. He scored many awards for his powerbooks (powerbook 500 was also a huge success).
Bah, if they want to go "all the way", they should mention the so called minicomputers from early 70's. They were compact enough to fit into a car trunk and proto-nerds of that age carried them to be able to work in outdoor situations. Jef Raskin, the father of Macintosh, was carrying a DG Nova 1200, and used to freak out waiters, wheeling this equipment into restaurant complete with console to compute the bill.
On a side note: TFA dissimiates the stupid meme about "Apple stealing GUI from Xerox". If you take something with the owner's consent and pay for it, I wouldn't call it stealing.
If this concept works in the long run, I wonder how (if at all) it might be used to find the "tenth planet" that some scientists think might be orbiting beyond Pluto?
It already was - with negative results. Here's a quote:
When a new NASA satellite called IRAS was launched, we hoped that it could be used to find Planet X. IRAS looks at the sky in the infrared, which would make finding another planet much easier, and it could also find very faint things. People looked very hard (everyone wanted to be the one to find the new planet!), but there is no sign of Planet X. So right now, we believe that there is no Planet X.
What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac. I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?
MacOS X has two native API's - carbon and cocoa. Carbon hardly has any virtues of its own, it's main advantage is that its relatively easy to port old, non-Unix Mac applications to Carbon, so whenever anyone has any project that has its roots still in last century, he sticks with Carbon. This is not just the case of various Mozilla-derivative projects but also of - say - Microsoft Office for MacOS. Cocoa is the "native native" API and here's where MacOS X really shines. If you use MacOS X a lot, you tend to hate Carbon and favor Cocoa because Cocoa apps offer much better overall integration with systemwide services, such as your favorite spellchecker, they generally run faster and consume less resources. Camino is Cocoa, Firefox is Carbon.
How do you know that, do you own one? What you really mean is "Without functionality similar to iTunes it's half the product". What makes you so sure they won't include some sort of similar software?
There's no mention of it on their website
If they're so willing to clone the Shuffle's design, why stop there?
It's one thing to repackage your old mp3 players into new shells, it's another to pay good coders to code a good product. The former is a cheap rip-off, the latter is an expensive rip-off. Personally I think they are after the former.
Here's a brief definition of trademark:
A trademark is anything that identifies the source (origin) of a product or service or that signifies sponsorship or approval of the goods. Trademarks include names, words, logos and product packaging, as well as distinctive non-functional visual aspects of the software, such as icons or user interface designs.
Do you still argue that no trademark is being infringed here?
The only justification for lack of LCD is that you use iTunes to operate your iPod Shuffle. If you don't use iTunes smart playlists and iTunes autofill option, iPod Shuffle is actually quite worthless. It has no LCD because some elements of its UI are incorporated into iTunes. "Fake Shuffle" has no LCD either, but you have no software to make it out for you.
In all seriousness though, this looks like a perfect time to test the GPL in court (if they make it that far.)
If you consider public relations aspect of such a trial, it's really a bad choice. You cannot legally run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, it is explicitely forbidden by MacOS EULA. Obviously CherryOS is an illegal rip-off of a GPL tool - but the legality of said tool is also dubious. It won't look good in the press - I can already imagine headlines quoting the famous communist slogan, "steal what was stolen".
While it's certainly appreciable that journalists cannot refuse to disclose information when it relates to a crime, there is no hard evidence that a crime was actually committed, only an allegation that a crime was committed.
I can hear you in the courtroom, making a great speech worth of another John Grisham-based blockbuster - "Your Honor, my client Thinksecret.com had no knowledge that this information is secret, just as my another client, Appleinsider.com had no knowledge that the information comes from Apple insiders".
Go figure. When's the last time you saw a reporter prosecuted, jailed, or, heck, just plain ol' censured (much less, censored) for revealing classified information?
Oh, please. Just because you were not interested in such cases prior to the Apple vs bloggers trial, it doesn't mean such cases did not exist! Check this link. If you don't bother to click on it, here's a brief quote: "Three times this summer, judges have held journalists in contempt of court for refusing to name their anonymous sources (...) Since 1984, a total of 14 journalists have been jailed ? some for only a few hours ? for refusing to comply with court orders demanding that they reveal sources or other information, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press."
I'm looking on this case from across the pond. In Europe, we tend to have specialized law codes for, ummm, basically anything. We have the Press Code, Labor Code, Family Code etc., while you in the USA rather put anything into just civil law of the "someone versus someone" scheme. Anyway, European press codes both guarantee certain privileges to journalists and guarantee that journalists have to obey certain rules of professional ethics. In Europe it's simple: if you break your professional ethics - you're out of protection, buddy. In general, journalist ethics means that you can't break the law just for sake of getting a scoop - you can be protected by the code if you did it in genuine public interest. From European point of view, this ruling was not a surprise, actually the judge said just what we have wrtitten in our law regarding the freedom of press.
Looking at Nick Park. That placid, cheerful face with the extremely plastic eyebrows. It's like he's spent so many hours manipulating his characters he's become one of them.
He always was! I've read an interview with him, where he said that Grommit is his plasticine alter ego. "Grand Day Out" was Nick Park's reflection on a real event from his own childhood, when his father has built a homebrew caravan and took his family on a trip. His father was very proud of himself, but for young Nick, it was more of a traumatic experience - the caravan was largely built of cardboard and general junk and young Nick felt very insecure. He portrayed his father as a crazy inventor, who builds a junk space rocket and takes his dog on a trip - ignoring all the possible perils (all too obvious to the poor, scared dog).
Just a side note: hobbyists often ignore how annoying their passion can be to their families. I wonder how many fellow slashdotters repeated the mistake of Mr Park senior. They said to their significant other (or their children): "Look! This is a computer I made using power supply from an old refrigerator, defunct playstation, keyboard from electric typewriter and screen from our old TV-set, all running a custom-compiled version of BSD! Ain't that cool?". And they fail to see a clear message in the eyes of their families: "why can't we just buy something normal like everyone else?".