I don't think he's railing against marketing, he's railing against people who mistake advertising for marketing. Advertising is just one bit of marketing and is preceded by finding out what the customer actually wants, building it, developing a way to get it to them, and then advertising. Those proceeding steps are needed because just advertising doesn't work any more as there are too many alternate choices. Likewise, companies who make great products who can't advertise also fail because nobody knows about the products. Marketing has been the whole kit and kaboodle and is based on getting what people want into their hands because that's what makes the most money. However, we have idiots who think that all marketing is just advertising and whoever throws the most money at telling people that their stuff is the best will come out on top when that isn't what happens.
"When somebody dies, do they go into another dimension, with a very thin wall?" asks her partner, Ben Myckan. "I think that's sort of what it is. You can't destroy energy, it's just in a different dimension."
Which means you are just part of the problem, not the solution. People are animals and like any animals, we're most likely going to increase out population to the carrying capacity of our habitat. By not breeding, you are just making more room for people who not only are breeding but probably don't care. Thus when we hit the top of that population S-curve there is going to be some very large up and down adjustment while things sort themselves out. If you had had children and taught them your values that actually cared about the world, those troublesome times would be lessened, and humanity might actually stop its population growth before we hit the Earth's carrying capacity. Instead, you done your part to make sure that when it does, people who don't care about a sustainable earth, or believe that the population should be fruitful and multiply will be in the dominance. Not breeding is not the answer because it fails to pass along the values that caused you not to breed.*
You mean manager types actually use their laptop or even their desktop for something?
They typically use them for email, scheduling meetings, the web, and occationally to log into a business system to push the button only they can do that allows everybody else's work to move forward. That's the point, they don't really need processing power, just communication, and the iPhone not only will do that for them, but also can easily be carried with them at all times. I do desktop support and am already seeing managers getting rid of laptops as soon as they can for iPhones and iPads. It does 98% of what they want it to do and for the other 2% when they need real processing power or proprietary apps, we have RDC servers that they can reach from anywhere with the devices they always have with them.
France never withdrew from NATO (only from the unified command structure). To quote wikipedia:
Hey, close enough for the internet as the snipit you posted is from the wikipedia section titled "French Withdrawal" on NATO. Keep in mind I had to condense enough information to fill a book into a single paragraph from memory just so./ers could read it instead of doing work. There are bound to be some things that need fleshing out or even some misremembered tid bits. For that matter, it is all just my guess. I've never actually seen a historical study on French surrender jokes to see if they began or at least became a more popular meme starting with the 5th Republic.
AFAIK, the UN is not a body of law, it's resolutions are not law, and things signed there do not even have the power of treaties. It is a soapbox for countries to publicly discuss about issues. A resolution like this has no power, it is just a formal statement made openly and to the world that the great powers don't like you, world opinion is against you, and you don't have any friends. The countries are doing what they are doing as individual countries under their own laws, but having been made to go through this effort in the UN, they might as well coordinate their efforts too.
Libya - Nearly 2 million barrels of oil per day [wikipedia.org]
Now, does it make sense?
Not really. Even if everybody went in, took over the country, made everybody there a slave and pumped the oil for free, it wouldn't pay the cost of the war. Same with Iraq.
If anything, its because if those countries all do go bankrupt, then there'll be war, and this means their fighter pilots and support crews can get combat experience without any real chance of danger before the real thing.
You forgot to mention that not only did Hussein not comply with UN mandates with regards to chemical weapons (even though he wasn't developing them), but was actively spreading rumors and leaking information that he was to his neighboring countries so that he could still use fear of them as a stick. This is why every country was for the invasion of Iraq or at least silent except for France and Germany. Hussein was playing the bully and got bear down for it. He could probably still be in power if he had just let inspectors inspect and fail to find the things he didn't have anyway.
BTW, guess what two countries oil companies were pumping and selling Hussein's oil and making lots of money? France and Germany.
Why does everybody talk shit about the French? Their military history is ancient, they were the British empire's primary enemy, and without them America would probably have been crushed during the revolution.
Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.
You're funny. One, most people who are browsing porn will not stand for a service that cuts out what they want to do and businesses will be happy to sell them service. In the end, teenagers and people at work, neither of which are paying for the service, would be the ones blocked. Two, sane operations will scoop up all the good name space they can. Domain names are cheap and something like sex.xxx will be worth millions no matter how many people try and block it. Not to mention that it doesn't have to be the only domain name pointing to their porn filled servers. They'll have their.xxx domain and their.com domain which will all go to the web server through whatever methods keeps it from being blacklisted if one or the other happens to be on a black list.
Like it or not, Apple has good internal design skills. They threw the industry off when the iPhone came out and it was mostly battery and thus had a much longer time than competition thought they'd have and thus was much more of a threat than they gave it credit for before it came out. They know how to design the internals of their devices and can factor price into it I suspect. Also, they knew what they were working towards and could buy up parts when nobody else wanted them. There was an article not too long ago about Apple buying up all the touch screens. They did so when it was much more of a buyers market and they could set a low price. Probably the same with the other components. Afterwards and when everybody is trying to compete to make their own tablets, it's much more of a seller's market and prices are going to be higher even if Apple hadn't bought up most of the production already. Add in that the tablet was the original idea that the iPhone came out of. I suspect that just as OS X was being compiled on x86 the entire time but kept secret till they wanted to switch processors, that the iOS was already prepared and prepped for tablets the entire time the iPhone was coming out. Thus most of the work to make a tablet OS had already been done and was ready to move over to a tablet.
Does that mean I am a god, or do you think there are unicorns?
Of course there are unicorns. They exist on tapestries, in movie, and stories. They exist in legends and histories and we can discuss their origins as to what was actually meant or talked about such as rhinos or antelope. A horn can be strapped to a horses head or possibly even grown there with medical advances theses days. We could also discuss their existence as an allegory for purity and innocence. You used the word, so you must know what it means, therefore it must exist. To say they don't exist without getting around to actually defining what you mean is just an attempt at a straw man argument.
The same goes for God. Some people makes the statement that sky father who controls all actions everybody makes and then rewards or punishes those actions in a publicly visible manner does not exist, therefore God does not exist. Such a statement does not match all people's definitions for or expectations of what God is or should be.
I'm old enough to remember the sci-fi promise that more and more automation would allow humans more leisure time without sacrificing the necessities and comforts they were accustomed to.
That would be true if you were willing to live at a 1930's standard of living. However, I imagine that you are not. Give up your car, most appliances, certainly your computers, TVs, and phones. Only have a weeks worth of clothing and a much blander and staple diet, and you could have a lot more leisure time while living at the standard of living at the time those sci-fi promises were made. Instead of taking the leisure time, people have opted to keep working and buy more stuff.
Yes I feel that the meaning of the article is getting 'lost in translation' by many Americans reading it. Americans use the word 'college' to refer to the ~entire university~. They say 'I went to college' to indicate that they went to university.
Close but not quite. In the US, or at least the system I went to school in, the University is made up of colleges. For example, I graduated from the College of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. IIRC, there were five other colleges that made up the university, eg the College of Arts & Sciences, the College of Business, etc. These are the academic parts of the university, and you must be accepted by one of them when you declare your major (although that is typically just a rubber stamp, at least in the large state colleges). It becomes more important at high levels of education or smaller universities as the college may not accept you even though the university has room.
It's obvious that he had an overall story arc, but his stories move so slowly that it could have easily taken many, many books to complete. He covers a number of years in four books that other authors might cover in four chapters. Of course, now he's running out of Starks and things are coming to a head, but I have a feeling that if this is the actual conclusion to all the story arcs, it will seem really rushed.
Errr... Apple sells a video out cable for the iPad. I bought it. Kinda useless unless you're going on a trip and want to watch TV on the hotel screen, but it does exist.
...or you're and artist that wants to carry around your portfolio, a business man that wants to carry around presentations, or a father than wants to carry around videos of your kids to the grandparents. The doctors I support are already thinking about dumping their laptops for trips and seminars if they can carry everything they need to present and answer their email with the iPad.
Each and every case will just have to taken individually. Mostly likely people will cheer the ones they agree with and jeer the ones they dislike. They may be supportive of some but also agree that charges should follow for the more extreme cases. What we are seeing is nothing more than activism and protests just like we see in the real world. Just because they are happening via computers really doesn't make them anything special. They'll be even less special as the world's population gets more and more used to using computers for everything. PETA, instead of throwing blood on people or posing naked in public will trash other people's websites and spam forums. Populations, instead of gathering in the city square will DDOS the government systems. The same thing happened with the invention of the phone where people would jam the other guy's phone lines or run up their 800 bills by calling their lines. You even had people calling 800 numbers for the lulz as they would just call some 800 number with the purpose of keeping the person who answered on the line for as long as possible while tormenting them verbally. This is just new tech and method of communication, not a new form of human behavior. All this should already be covered and nothing is really changed by adding "cyber-" infront of it.
In fact, at this point a much cheaper Android-based tablet computer may start to look more interesting than before ("Hey, even Apple didn't add much to their own iPad, why not get this $SEMI_ANONYMOUS_BRAND tablet instead?").
Because the reviews for those cheaper Android based tablets pretty much said they were born too soon and not as good as the original iPad. Now that the iPad2 has had better hardware and more apps, plenty in fact, added to it, there isn't any reason for the average consumer to even look at cheaper Android tablets, at least until some begin to gain some reputation for actually being good.
Quick, we need to redefine the meaning of "planet" yet again.
Possibly. As neither has "cleared its neighbourhood" of other masses in their neighborhood, they might be back to being called planetoids like Pluto. Both are to be considered "dwarf planets" until they collide and one becomes obviously dominant. There's already bits that cover things like this, but people are already arguing about the exampled in our own solar system. I be something like this would cause even more hub bub and another conference to further define the meaning of planet yet again.
If by "look pretty" you mean "functionally usable", then yes. Before iTunes would take multiple apps to rip, organize, and play your mp3s. Even then you'd still probably be moving them all about manually file by file. Before the iPhone, phones could view webpages and probably better in bullet points, but were practically useless. You could get more information out of 5 minutes on the iPhone's safari and an hour on most phone browsers. Even what you probably mean in the physical appearance of the products, that's called industrial design. It's what makes things like the Mac Book Pro lighter, smaller, and more efficient than other laptops with similar bullet point specs. It's because too many people seem to think that good design is just making things pretty and use the term marketing as a synonym of advertising is why Apple is that the top and the rest are just copying.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think he's railing against marketing, he's railing against people who mistake advertising for marketing. Advertising is just one bit of marketing and is preceded by finding out what the customer actually wants, building it, developing a way to get it to them, and then advertising. Those proceeding steps are needed because just advertising doesn't work any more as there are too many alternate choices. Likewise, companies who make great products who can't advertise also fail because nobody knows about the products. Marketing has been the whole kit and kaboodle and is based on getting what people want into their hands because that's what makes the most money. However, we have idiots who think that all marketing is just advertising and whoever throws the most money at telling people that their stuff is the best will come out on top when that isn't what happens.
Regardless of the popularity of the various OSs, we've always considered ourself part of the winning team.
Hmmm. Sounds like a string theorist.
Which means you are just part of the problem, not the solution. People are animals and like any animals, we're most likely going to increase out population to the carrying capacity of our habitat. By not breeding, you are just making more room for people who not only are breeding but probably don't care. Thus when we hit the top of that population S-curve there is going to be some very large up and down adjustment while things sort themselves out. If you had had children and taught them your values that actually cared about the world, those troublesome times would be lessened, and humanity might actually stop its population growth before we hit the Earth's carrying capacity. Instead, you done your part to make sure that when it does, people who don't care about a sustainable earth, or believe that the population should be fruitful and multiply will be in the dominance. Not breeding is not the answer because it fails to pass along the values that caused you not to breed.*
*My apologies if you adopt.
They typically use them for email, scheduling meetings, the web, and occationally to log into a business system to push the button only they can do that allows everybody else's work to move forward. That's the point, they don't really need processing power, just communication, and the iPhone not only will do that for them, but also can easily be carried with them at all times. I do desktop support and am already seeing managers getting rid of laptops as soon as they can for iPhones and iPads. It does 98% of what they want it to do and for the other 2% when they need real processing power or proprietary apps, we have RDC servers that they can reach from anywhere with the devices they always have with them.
Hey, close enough for the internet as the snipit you posted is from the wikipedia section titled "French Withdrawal" on NATO. Keep in mind I had to condense enough information to fill a book into a single paragraph from memory just so ./ers could read it instead of doing work. There are bound to be some things that need fleshing out or even some misremembered tid bits. For that matter, it is all just my guess. I've never actually seen a historical study on French surrender jokes to see if they began or at least became a more popular meme starting with the 5th Republic.
AFAIK, the UN is not a body of law, it's resolutions are not law, and things signed there do not even have the power of treaties. It is a soapbox for countries to publicly discuss about issues. A resolution like this has no power, it is just a formal statement made openly and to the world that the great powers don't like you, world opinion is against you, and you don't have any friends. The countries are doing what they are doing as individual countries under their own laws, but having been made to go through this effort in the UN, they might as well coordinate their efforts too.
Not really. Even if everybody went in, took over the country, made everybody there a slave and pumped the oil for free, it wouldn't pay the cost of the war. Same with Iraq.
If anything, its because if those countries all do go bankrupt, then there'll be war, and this means their fighter pilots and support crews can get combat experience without any real chance of danger before the real thing.
You forgot to mention that not only did Hussein not comply with UN mandates with regards to chemical weapons (even though he wasn't developing them), but was actively spreading rumors and leaking information that he was to his neighboring countries so that he could still use fear of them as a stick. This is why every country was for the invasion of Iraq or at least silent except for France and Germany. Hussein was playing the bully and got bear down for it. He could probably still be in power if he had just let inspectors inspect and fail to find the things he didn't have anyway.
BTW, guess what two countries oil companies were pumping and selling Hussein's oil and making lots of money? France and Germany.
Pretty much can be summed up in three words: Charles de Gaulle. The entire "cheese eating surrender monkeys" is just a cheap shot and did not originate during WW2 as far as I can tell. I happened later after the cold war was underway due to policy set by France and de Gaulle. First, de Gaulle thought that NATO didn't have what it took to win the cold war and the heartless Soviets would win the day, so they withdrew from NATO and went their own way. Two, France was in a big hissy to prove that they were a world power and could do anything the US could while Britain was just a US puppet and only had importance because they rode on the US coattails. They insulted Great Britain a lot, tried to throw their weight around, and did things like unilateral nuclear testing after everybody else had agreed on a ban. All of this after the Allies had freed France and given it back to the people because it was expected that we'd all be friends. It was pretty much felt as a big betrayal, so the surrender remarks are the cheap shot that is easy to make without having to actually get into real issues.
You're funny. One, most people who are browsing porn will not stand for a service that cuts out what they want to do and businesses will be happy to sell them service. In the end, teenagers and people at work, neither of which are paying for the service, would be the ones blocked. Two, sane operations will scoop up all the good name space they can. Domain names are cheap and something like sex.xxx will be worth millions no matter how many people try and block it. Not to mention that it doesn't have to be the only domain name pointing to their porn filled servers. They'll have their .xxx domain and their .com domain which will all go to the web server through whatever methods keeps it from being blacklisted if one or the other happens to be on a black list.
Only north of Rampart.
Like it or not, Apple has good internal design skills. They threw the industry off when the iPhone came out and it was mostly battery and thus had a much longer time than competition thought they'd have and thus was much more of a threat than they gave it credit for before it came out. They know how to design the internals of their devices and can factor price into it I suspect. Also, they knew what they were working towards and could buy up parts when nobody else wanted them. There was an article not too long ago about Apple buying up all the touch screens. They did so when it was much more of a buyers market and they could set a low price. Probably the same with the other components. Afterwards and when everybody is trying to compete to make their own tablets, it's much more of a seller's market and prices are going to be higher even if Apple hadn't bought up most of the production already. Add in that the tablet was the original idea that the iPhone came out of. I suspect that just as OS X was being compiled on x86 the entire time but kept secret till they wanted to switch processors, that the iOS was already prepared and prepped for tablets the entire time the iPhone was coming out. Thus most of the work to make a tablet OS had already been done and was ready to move over to a tablet.
Of course there are unicorns. They exist on tapestries, in movie, and stories. They exist in legends and histories and we can discuss their origins as to what was actually meant or talked about such as rhinos or antelope. A horn can be strapped to a horses head or possibly even grown there with medical advances theses days. We could also discuss their existence as an allegory for purity and innocence. You used the word, so you must know what it means, therefore it must exist. To say they don't exist without getting around to actually defining what you mean is just an attempt at a straw man argument.
The same goes for God. Some people makes the statement that sky father who controls all actions everybody makes and then rewards or punishes those actions in a publicly visible manner does not exist, therefore God does not exist. Such a statement does not match all people's definitions for or expectations of what God is or should be.
That would be true if you were willing to live at a 1930's standard of living. However, I imagine that you are not. Give up your car, most appliances, certainly your computers, TVs, and phones. Only have a weeks worth of clothing and a much blander and staple diet, and you could have a lot more leisure time while living at the standard of living at the time those sci-fi promises were made. Instead of taking the leisure time, people have opted to keep working and buy more stuff.
Close but not quite. In the US, or at least the system I went to school in, the University is made up of colleges. For example, I graduated from the College of Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. IIRC, there were five other colleges that made up the university, eg the College of Arts & Sciences, the College of Business, etc. These are the academic parts of the university, and you must be accepted by one of them when you declare your major (although that is typically just a rubber stamp, at least in the large state colleges). It becomes more important at high levels of education or smaller universities as the college may not accept you even though the university has room.
No doubt. He's promised this book twice before and those promises were false.
It's obvious that he had an overall story arc, but his stories move so slowly that it could have easily taken many, many books to complete. He covers a number of years in four books that other authors might cover in four chapters. Of course, now he's running out of Starks and things are coming to a head, but I have a feeling that if this is the actual conclusion to all the story arcs, it will seem really rushed.
...or you're and artist that wants to carry around your portfolio, a business man that wants to carry around presentations, or a father than wants to carry around videos of your kids to the grandparents. The doctors I support are already thinking about dumping their laptops for trips and seminars if they can carry everything they need to present and answer their email with the iPad.
Each and every case will just have to taken individually. Mostly likely people will cheer the ones they agree with and jeer the ones they dislike. They may be supportive of some but also agree that charges should follow for the more extreme cases. What we are seeing is nothing more than activism and protests just like we see in the real world. Just because they are happening via computers really doesn't make them anything special. They'll be even less special as the world's population gets more and more used to using computers for everything. PETA, instead of throwing blood on people or posing naked in public will trash other people's websites and spam forums. Populations, instead of gathering in the city square will DDOS the government systems. The same thing happened with the invention of the phone where people would jam the other guy's phone lines or run up their 800 bills by calling their lines. You even had people calling 800 numbers for the lulz as they would just call some 800 number with the purpose of keeping the person who answered on the line for as long as possible while tormenting them verbally. This is just new tech and method of communication, not a new form of human behavior. All this should already be covered and nothing is really changed by adding "cyber-" infront of it.
Because the reviews for those cheaper Android based tablets pretty much said they were born too soon and not as good as the original iPad. Now that the iPad2 has had better hardware and more apps, plenty in fact, added to it, there isn't any reason for the average consumer to even look at cheaper Android tablets, at least until some begin to gain some reputation for actually being good.
No, it's an acceleration.
Possibly. As neither has "cleared its neighbourhood" of other masses in their neighborhood, they might be back to being called planetoids like Pluto. Both are to be considered "dwarf planets" until they collide and one becomes obviously dominant. There's already bits that cover things like this, but people are already arguing about the exampled in our own solar system. I be something like this would cause even more hub bub and another conference to further define the meaning of planet yet again.
If by "look pretty" you mean "functionally usable", then yes. Before iTunes would take multiple apps to rip, organize, and play your mp3s. Even then you'd still probably be moving them all about manually file by file. Before the iPhone, phones could view webpages and probably better in bullet points, but were practically useless. You could get more information out of 5 minutes on the iPhone's safari and an hour on most phone browsers. Even what you probably mean in the physical appearance of the products, that's called industrial design. It's what makes things like the Mac Book Pro lighter, smaller, and more efficient than other laptops with similar bullet point specs. It's because too many people seem to think that good design is just making things pretty and use the term marketing as a synonym of advertising is why Apple is that the top and the rest are just copying.
I believe the usual term for these would be a "luggable".