> Remember, driving a car is a Privilege, not a Right.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
If you would actually take the time to _read_ case law & history you will quickly see your ignorance of the facts of the matter:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
I could continue ad nauseam but Google "Right To Travel" if you really want to learn.
> the forest is HTML5. > Microsoft is hanging out in the fjords. Amongst the pines.
Hmm, every (major) browser except IE has implemented WebGL. Guess Microsoft doesn't care about standards when they are trying to hawk their own proprietary interface Silverlight but even that seems to be dieing a slow death.
> That definition of Agnosticism is atheist. No it is not. While there is overlap people tend to conflate the two.
> If you don't believe in God, then you are an atheist. If you don't have an opinion either way, then you don't believe in god. Your fallacy is assuming truth is binary.
The phrase "I don't know" doesn't mean A is true nor does it mean ~A is true. It means, "I don't _know_ if A or ~A is true."
> "Evidence now" or fuck off. If you want proof of God, look in the mirror.
What? That doesn't fit _your_ definition of proof? What *kind* of proof would be sufficient? You do realize one man's proof is another man's faith.
2. Your question is akin to asking "Prove your consciousness exists?"
To give you an analogy: You are the blind man asking for proof of color. Do you _now_ understand the difficulty and scope of the problem? Sadly, and unfortunately I can't change this: You don't have a valid frame of reference to understand the problem (or answer.) If you did, you would already _know_ the answer. This sucks.:-/
3. Oh that's right, if you can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist. How quaint! You can't do any of those things with "time" or "numbers" either yet you still believe they exists.
4. You keep assuming ALL knowledge is objective. There is no proof for subjective knowledge. The only answer I _can_ give is that you'll get all the evidence you could possibly want after you are dead and realize your body was just a (physical) container for your consciousness.
Until then, arguing over a proof is a waste of time.
> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method The word 'Gnosticism' means knowledge. The prefix 'a' means "without or lacking." Agnosticism = lack of knowledge.
> here are other definitions including some that say one CANNOT know whether or not their is a god As a mystic that definition is total nonsense. Just because *you* don't have knowledge about God and how she works doesn't imply everyone else is as equally as ignorant.
> the exact opposite of wisdom. I am NOT talking about wisdom. Wisdom is knowing HOW to apply Knowledge.
People don't understand God because they lack knowledge of who & what they truely are. To know God you _must_ first Know Thyself. It is impossible otherwise. i.e. Once you accept the fact that: "You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience" then you can -begin- to understand God. Most people aren't willing to live the lifestyle necessary to come to understand how this is true. Technically all paths lead to this; some just take longer then others.:-)
The Theists and Atheists are like blind men arguing over what sight is. Both are blind. The agnostic admits "I don't know if others can see. I *know* that I _can't_ see." The Mystic is the only one who can see, and sadly, can't tell anyone else about it, because no-one else doesn't have a valid frame of reference to understand.
-- "The Big Bang is our modern scientific creation myth. It comes from the same human need to solve the cosmological riddle [Where did the universe come from?]" - Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode 10, "The Edge of Forever."
b) can't read the original Hebrew. How is there an "Earth day and night" when there was Sun until the 3rd day? i.e. Church Father Origen wrote: âoeWhat man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealedâ (Origen - Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).
> If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.
True religion (little r) is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs, aka, faith is putting your beliefs into practice. (If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that, beliefs.)
Fake Religion (big R) is the crap that passes for religion today. God _always_ needs more money somehow (with apologies to George Carlen). Oh, and you're not worthy. You need this special parent to kill their own son so that you can live. And "our path" is the only path.
Mythology is another man's religion long since dead.
The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)
> Closed might describe their mobile OS well, but that doesn't apply to their desktop OS (yet).
Closed can be read multiple ways. 1. Closed as in closed-source. Contrary to open-source. i.e. So where is the source for Finder or for Quartz or basically all the non-kernel functionality? 2. Closed as in API and what programs are allowed to run. You just can't add whatever API extensions you like to the OS, say like Linux / BSD. For right now you can run whatever programs you want (you don't need Apple's approval.)
OSX (desktop) is both closed source and open source. The app store is helping the OS move towards being closed API where in time it become a locked down platform. You will probably be given a big warning "This application has not been signed. It may be unsecure. Do you still wish to open / run it?"
> 1. "use strict;" is not a hack, but an official part of ECMA-262 v5 (and it should be mandatory for dev environment and should be mandatory OFF for release). And it can't be on by default for fear of breaking old and shitty code.
Putting a string in the global namespace because the language lacks pragmas is a hack.
> 3. Modern JS engines optimise the numerics well enough. You can also use typed arrays for performance - if you're writing performance sensitive JS code, you're probably doing it in an environment that supports them, anyways. That's why I mentioned WebGL. I am quite familiar with Uin8Array, Float32Array, and all the other typed arrays etc. The problem is... let's see who supports this / WebGL:
[x] Firefox
[x] Chrome
[x] Safari
[x] Webkit
[-] Gee, Thanks Microsoft for supporting this only in IE10 which is only available on Windows 7. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/br212916(v=vs.94).aspx
JavaScript has a mechanism that tries to correct faulty programs by automatically inserting semicolons. Do not depend on this. It can mask more serious errors.
It sometimes inserts semicolons in places where they are not welcome. Consider the consequences of semicolon insertion on the return statement. If a return statement returns a value, that value expression must begin on the same line as the return:
return {
status: true };
This appears to return an object containing a status member. Unfortunately, semicolon insertion turns it into a statement that returns undefined. There is no warning that semicolon insertion caused the misinterpretation of the program. The problem can be avoided if the { is placed at the end of the previous line and not at the beginning of the next line:
return {
status: true };
Any language that thinks it knows the intent of the programmer better then the programmer is just a hidden landmine waiting to go off.
> could you please tell me where the language is fundamentally broken ?
I do WebGL development and for the most part enjoy the quick turn around time. (Thank god for "ShaderToy" www.iquilezles.org/apps/shadertoy/ )
While Javascript is a breath of fresh air from hard-core C/C++ work, Javascript is a piss poor programming language...
0. typeof() is broken w.r.t. to arrays var a = []; console.log( typeof( a ) );// does NOT return array, but object?!
1. Variables by default can be used anywhere without being declared. Have a typo? You will most likely never catch it unless a) using an IDE b) using the hack
"use strict"; by placing that literal string hack near the top of your.js file
2. Stupid semicolon statement insertion.
3. ALL numbers are doubles. There are no native signed or unsigned or ints, nor floats. Doubles SUCK for performance especially when all you want & need is integer math.
4. No proper line concatenation i.e. var a = "....\ foo\ bar\ ";//
Technically one shouldn't be able to escape the new line character, but it works... for now. http://bclary.com/2004/11/07/#a-7.8.4 "A 'LineTerminator' character cannot appear in a string literal, even if preceded by a backslash \. The correct way to cause a line t terminator character to be part of the string value of a string literal is to use an escape sequence such as \n or \u000A."
Haven't they learnt ANYTHING from C, Python, etc. ??
5. You have to very careful when doing (string) concatenation else you may not get what you expect.
6. No native way to include.js files inside another.js file and have a callback unless you write it yourself. i.e.
var head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
var script = document.createElement('script');
script.type = 'text/javascript';
script.src = url;
script.onload = callback;
head.appendChild( script );
7. The return statement is broken w.r.t whitespace. You can't have return on an empty line. i.e var foo = (function( callback ) {
return// doesn't work!
1;
}
8. All the debuggers suck ass. Good luck get it to show anonymous functions properly!
LOL - That youtube link is priceless. I hadn't seen that clip "Bertrand Serlet on Windows Vista" before. Thanks for sharing!
OH WOW. $20 for Mountain Lion!? That's great news. Maybe Microsoft will start competing again. Nah, that would make too much sense.:-)
I wonder if because of the success of the iPod / iPhone / iPad that Apple has realized Desktops and especially OS are commodity items? Maybe MS didn't get the memo?;-)
> Wow, you're basically the only Non-AC guy who mentions Zune. Thanks. Not sure why people seem to leave out important details like that. I'm not a fanboy of either Microsoft or Apple so I try to understand the success AND mistakes of BOTH companies to better understand them.
> Apple crushed the phone market with the iPhone But why did it take Apple to show the world that phones don't have to suck?;-)
Bringing this back on topic to the tablet for a minute:
There is a reason why a pencil + pad is the number one creative tool in the world. Simplicity + nothing to get in the way!
Looks like Microsoft had a chance to bring about a digital version but since they care only about one thing: profit, aka no cannibalization, it had to be killed. Customer demand and Innovation be damned if it cuts into their existing products. Apple on the other hand sees devices _augmenting_ their revenue, products, and platforms.
Their tablet 'Courier' was killed because it had no email (?!?!) "Gates' response by explaining that Microsoft makes billions from Exchange, and so a product with no e-mail is a problemâ"a machine that doesn't do e-mail isn't going to help shift Exchange licenses."
Now granted a tablet without email probably would of died anyways, but why was this even considered in the first place. "Hey guys! Let's ship a tablet -- but it won't let people to be able to communicate with others." WTF?
> This feels like a Bet the Farm move. Yup, I would agree with that assessment.
For some real fun, look at how many people are in the Microsoft Store vs the Apple Store. It is "cool/hipster" and fun to be in an Apple store. I don't see too many people "bragging" to their friends that they went to the MS store. One almost feels sad for MS. They try so hard and yet fail so bad.
Microsoft doesn't just understand "sexy marketing", sorry, branding, the way Apple doe, mainly because, aside from the XBox 360, their products are perceived as being BORING.
About the only thing Microsoft invented was MS Bob and Windows NT Almost every other software product they originally bought off a 3rd company and slapped their name on it. Internet Explorer.. Spyglass Mosaic Direct3D.. RenderMorphics
> Remind me to look up the news 4 years from now when the fake urgency wears off. Yup, will be interesting in a few years that's for sure! Especially the upcoming ARM & Intel fight, and Intel vs nVdia & ATI/AMD !
Will MS be able to re-invent itself? IBM was sort of forced too at one point. MS is exactly in the same position as IBM was.
One thing MS could do to reverse their negative image would be to stop fucking consumers over by gouging them $100+ for their OS and charge a reasonable $20 - $40. OK, so OSX isn't that cheap but you get the point.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on for so long but damn, you raised a nice point and got me thinking.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
So basically you're putting a price on life ...
Nice to see where your priorities lie.
> When I get my paycheck I see 1/3 (Federal and State Taxes) go away, That in my mind is money I never had, s
So the _time_ *you* spent doing your job is not yours???
OK, buddy ...
> Look, shit head,
OH! That's a good way to show you respect another man's opinion for being different. Why should he respect yours then??
> Remember, driving a car is a Privilege, not a Right.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
If you would actually take the time to _read_ case law & history you will quickly see your ignorance of the facts of the matter:
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental right which the public and individuals cannot be rightfully deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 IIL200,169 NE 22, 66 ALR 834. Ligare v. Chicago 139 III. 46, 28 NE 934. Booney v. dark, 214 SW 607; 25 A M JUR (I'1) Highways, Sec. 163.
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
I could continue ad nauseam but Google "Right To Travel" if you really want to learn.
> the forest is HTML5.
> Microsoft is hanging out in the fjords. Amongst the pines.
Hmm, every (major) browser except IE has implemented WebGL. Guess Microsoft doesn't care about standards when they are trying to hawk their own proprietary interface Silverlight but even that seems to be dieing a slow death.
> Since then there is no real reason to upgrade other than for shinyness (rather than for productivity).
Disagree. There are 2 main reasons to upgrade the OS:
- Features. (USB3, EFI, etc.)
- Security (because bugfixes won't be back-ported to an earlier version of the OS)
Shinyness is the kool-aid Marketing keeps trying to sell. Meanwhile the IT dept keep telling them to F off.
Oblg. :-)
http://xkcd.com/605/
Where did the extra virgin come from?
Oh wait, I forgot to count the guy :-) /me ducks
wow, there is even a wiki for this stuff? lol
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins
> That definition of Agnosticism is atheist.
No it is not. While there is overlap people tend to conflate the two.
> If you don't believe in God, then you are an atheist. If you don't have an opinion either way, then you don't believe in god.
Your fallacy is assuming truth is binary.
The phrase "I don't know" doesn't mean A is true nor does it mean ~A is true. It means, "I don't _know_ if A or ~A is true."
See my reply:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937605&cid=40446815
> "Evidence now" or fuck off.
If you want proof of God, look in the mirror.
What? That doesn't fit _your_ definition of proof? What *kind* of proof would be sufficient? You do realize one man's proof is another man's faith.
2. Your question is akin to asking "Prove your consciousness exists?"
To give you an analogy: You are the blind man asking for proof of color. Do you _now_ understand the difficulty and scope of the problem? Sadly, and unfortunately I can't change this: You don't have a valid frame of reference to understand the problem (or answer.) If you did, you would already _know_ the answer. This sucks. :-/
3. Oh that's right, if you can't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist. How quaint! You can't do any of those things with "time" or "numbers" either yet you still believe they exists.
4. You keep assuming ALL knowledge is objective. There is no proof for subjective knowledge. The only answer I _can_ give is that you'll get all the evidence you could possibly want after you are dead and realize your body was just a (physical) container for your consciousness.
Until then, arguing over a proof is a waste of time.
Cheers
> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method
The word 'Gnosticism' means knowledge. The prefix 'a' means "without or lacking."
Agnosticism = lack of knowledge.
> Why would you give a piss-poor definition of agnosticism and no definition of atheism or theism?
The definitions are fine. See:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937605&cid=40446815
> here are other definitions including some that say one CANNOT know whether or not their is a god
As a mystic that definition is total nonsense. Just because *you* don't have knowledge about God and how she works doesn't imply everyone else is as equally as ignorant.
> the exact opposite of wisdom.
I am NOT talking about wisdom. Wisdom is knowing HOW to apply Knowledge.
People don't understand God because they lack knowledge of who & what they truely are. To know God you _must_ first Know Thyself. It is impossible otherwise. i.e. Once you accept the fact that: "You are a spiritual being in a physical body having a human experience" then you can -begin- to understand God. Most people aren't willing to live the lifestyle necessary to come to understand how this is true. Technically all paths lead to this; some just take longer then others. :-)
> Please stop insulting people using your misunderstanding of common words.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. See my reply:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2937605&cid=40446815
> No, it means *you* don't fucking know what the answer is. Which apparently is something that plenty of people have trouble accepting.
Fixed that for you.
As a mystic there are 2 *dimensions*:
(has belief) Theism <-- Belief --> Atheism (does not have belief)
Agnostic (lacks knoweldge)
^
|
Knowledge
|
V
Gnostic / Mystic (has knowledge)
The Theists and Atheists are like blind men arguing over what sight is. Both are blind. The agnostic admits "I don't know if others can see. I *know* that I _can't_ see." The Mystic is the only one who can see, and sadly, can't tell anyone else about it, because no-one else doesn't have a valid frame of reference to understand.
--
"The Big Bang is our modern scientific creation myth. It comes from the same human need to solve the cosmological riddle [Where did the universe come from?]"
- Carl Sagan's Cosmos episode 10, "The Edge of Forever."
> It certainly disproves virtually all literal interpretations of Genesis,
It is only a literal interpretation because the idiots
a) ignore the 2 contradictory version of the story
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
b) can't read the original Hebrew. How is there an "Earth day and night" when there was Sun until the 3rd day?
i.e.
Church Father Origen wrote: âoeWhat man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealedâ (Origen - Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).
> If you can tell me the difference between religion and mythology, I'd be interested to know.
True religion (little r) is living the lifestyle necessary to prove your beliefs, aka, faith is putting your beliefs into practice. (If you never do anything with your beliefs, they are just that, beliefs.)
Fake Religion (big R) is the crap that passes for religion today. God _always_ needs more money somehow (with apologies to George Carlen). Oh, and you're not worthy. You need this special parent to kill their own son so that you can live. And "our path" is the only path.
Mythology is another man's religion long since dead.
The problem is Theism and Atheism are both based on ignorance (a belief or lack of belief, not Truth nor facts.) Agnosticism is a step in the right direction -- wisdom _begins_ when you realize you know nothing. Only the mystic has Truth (due to experience.)
You mean like this?
Analyzing Speech to Detect Financial Misreporting
www.hbs.edu/units/am/pdf/HMV010410.pdf
How a person talks can already be used to gauge the amount of respect they have for themselves and one another.
> Closed might describe their mobile OS well, but that doesn't apply to their desktop OS (yet).
Closed can be read multiple ways.
1. Closed as in closed-source. Contrary to open-source. i.e. So where is the source for Finder or for Quartz or basically all the non-kernel functionality?
2. Closed as in API and what programs are allowed to run. You just can't add whatever API extensions you like to the OS, say like Linux / BSD. For right now you can run whatever programs you want (you don't need Apple's approval.)
OSX (desktop) is both closed source and open source. The app store is helping the OS move towards being closed API where in time it become a locked down platform. You will probably be given a big warning "This application has not been signed. It may be unsecure. Do you still wish to open / run it?"
Time will tell I guess.
> 1. "use strict;" is not a hack, but an official part of ECMA-262 v5 (and it should be mandatory for dev environment and should be mandatory OFF for release). And it can't be on by default for fear of breaking old and shitty code.
Putting a string in the global namespace because the language lacks pragmas is a hack.
> 3. Modern JS engines optimise the numerics well enough. You can also use typed arrays for performance - if you're writing performance sensitive JS code, you're probably doing it in an environment that supports them, anyways. ... let's see who supports this / WebGL:
That's why I mentioned WebGL. I am quite familiar with Uin8Array, Float32Array, and all the other typed arrays etc. The problem is
[x] Firefox
[x] Chrome
[x] Safari
[x] Webkit
[-] Gee, Thanks Microsoft for supporting this only in IE10 which is only available on Windows 7.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/br212916(v=vs.94).aspx
"Fuck You Microsoft" /with apologies to Linus.
Javascript will insert a semicolon after a return statement if you have a newline before your return argument.
See my reply where I clarified point 7.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2934357&cid=40423915
i.e.
{
return
2;
}
Javascript will interpret this this as
{
return undefined;
2;
}
This bug can bite you in other ways. See my previous link to
http://oreilly.com/javascript/excerpts/javascript-good-parts/awful-parts.html
quoting...
Any language that thinks it knows the intent of the programmer better then the programmer is just a hidden landmine waiting to go off.
To clarify point 7.
function foo() // OK
{
return 2
}
function bar() // FAIL - returns 'undefined' !?
{
return
2
}
or if you prefer anonymous closures // PASS
var foo = (function() {
return 1;
})();
var bar = (function() { // FAIL - returns 'undefined'
return
1;
})();
> could you please tell me where the language is fundamentally broken ?
I do WebGL development and for the most part enjoy the quick turn around time. (Thank god for "ShaderToy" www.iquilezles.org/apps/shadertoy/ )
While Javascript is a breath of fresh air from hard-core C/C++ work, Javascript is a piss poor programming language ...
0. typeof() is broken w.r.t. to arrays // does NOT return array, but object?!
var a = [];
console.log( typeof( a ) );
1. Variables by default can be used anywhere without being declared. Have a typo? You will most likely never catch it unless .js file
a) using an IDE
b) using the hack
"use strict";
by placing that literal string hack near the top of your
2. Stupid semicolon statement insertion.
3. ALL numbers are doubles. There are no native signed or unsigned or ints, nor floats. Doubles SUCK for performance especially when all you want & need is integer math.
4. No proper line concatenation //
i.e. var a = "....\
foo\
bar\
";
Technically one shouldn't be able to escape the new line character, but it works ... for now.
http://bclary.com/2004/11/07/#a-7.8.4
"A 'LineTerminator' character cannot appear in a string literal, even if preceded by a backslash \. The correct way to cause a line t
terminator character to be part of the string value of a string literal is to use an escape sequence such as \n or \u000A."
Haven't they learnt ANYTHING from C, Python, etc. ??
5. You have to very careful when doing (string) concatenation else you may not get what you expect.
6. No native way to include .js files inside another .js file and have a callback unless you write it yourself. i.e.
var head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0];
var script = document.createElement('script');
script.type = 'text/javascript';
script.src = url;
script.onload = callback;
head.appendChild( script );
7. The return statement is broken w.r.t whitespace. You can't have return on an empty line. // doesn't work!
i.e var foo = (function( callback ) {
return
1;
}
8. All the debuggers suck ass. Good luck get it to show anonymous functions properly!
I could go one, but for a more complete list, see
http://oreilly.com/javascript/excerpts/javascript-good-parts/awful-parts.html
LOL - That youtube link is priceless. I hadn't seen that clip "Bertrand Serlet on Windows Vista" before. Thanks for sharing!
OH WOW. $20 for Mountain Lion!? That's great news. Maybe Microsoft will start competing again. Nah, that would make too much sense. :-)
I wonder if because of the success of the iPod / iPhone / iPad that Apple has realized Desktops and especially OS are commodity items? Maybe MS didn't get the memo? ;-)
> If you're opposed to a particular war, deal with that in the voting booth,
That reminds me of that old cliche:
The 5 boxes of liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in that order.
> I'm curious: how much do you think that someone who runs the internet should be paid?
How much is enough?
Keep in mind: Greed has no limit.
> Wow, you're basically the only Non-AC guy who mentions Zune.
Thanks. Not sure why people seem to leave out important details like that. I'm not a fanboy of either Microsoft or Apple so I try to understand the success AND mistakes of BOTH companies to better understand them.
> Apple crushed the phone market with the iPhone ;-)
But why did it take Apple to show the world that phones don't have to suck?
Bringing this back on topic to the tablet for a minute:
There is a reason why a pencil + pad is the number one creative tool in the world. Simplicity + nothing to get in the way!
Looks like Microsoft had a chance to bring about a digital version but since they care only about one thing: profit, aka no cannibalization, it had to be killed. Customer demand and Innovation be damned if it cuts into their existing products. Apple on the other hand sees devices _augmenting_ their revenue, products, and platforms.
Their tablet 'Courier' was killed because it had no email (?!?!) "Gates' response by explaining that Microsoft makes billions from Exchange, and so a product with no e-mail is a problemâ"a machine that doesn't do e-mail isn't going to help shift Exchange licenses."
Now granted a tablet without email probably would of died anyways, but why was this even considered in the first place. "Hey guys! Let's ship a tablet -- but it won't let people to be able to communicate with others." WTF?
See: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/11/killing-courier-the-right-decision-maybe-not-the-right-reasons/
> This feels like a Bet the Farm move.
Yup, I would agree with that assessment.
For some real fun, look at how many people are in the Microsoft Store vs the Apple Store. It is "cool/hipster" and fun to be in an Apple store. I don't see too many people "bragging" to their friends that they went to the MS store. One almost feels sad for MS. They try so hard and yet fail so bad.
Microsoft doesn't just understand "sexy marketing", sorry, branding, the way Apple doe, mainly because, aside from the XBox 360, their products are perceived as being BORING.
About the only thing Microsoft invented was MS Bob and Windows NT Almost every other software product they originally bought off a 3rd company and slapped their name on it. .. Spyglass Mosaic .. RenderMorphics
Internet Explorer
Direct3D
Microsoft is always late to the party. They are just another "me too" company.
i.e.
http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html
> Remind me to look up the news 4 years from now when the fake urgency wears off.
Yup, will be interesting in a few years that's for sure! Especially the upcoming ARM & Intel fight, and Intel vs nVdia & ATI/AMD !
Will MS be able to re-invent itself? IBM was sort of forced too at one point. MS is exactly in the same position as IBM was.
One thing MS could do to reverse their negative image would be to stop fucking consumers over by gouging them $100+ for their OS and charge a reasonable $20 - $40. OK, so OSX isn't that cheap but you get the point.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on for so long but damn, you raised a nice point and got me thinking. ;-)