Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets. They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.
Exactly - I did that type of stuff, but I got my vacuum tubes (and other components) at an electronics shop rather than a drugstore. Yes - there were a lot of places that sold tubes and had testers right there. Man, am I old or what... The Pre-RatShack days.
I don't see it that way at all. The iPad is meant to be an 'appliance' while netbooks are meant to be general purpose computers. I don't see a competition aspect at all.
My father used to tell me how neat it was when an airplane flew overhead. All the kids would look up and few had ever seen one close up. There was a sense of amazement and wonderment for him and his friends. Alas, today aircraft are so ubiquitous the amazement and wonderment is for the most part lost on today's youth. So it is with computers. 100 years from now anyone who digs up this discussion thread will chuckle just as I do when I think of my father and his amazement and wonderment of 'flying machines'. I'm 60 years old now. I took my first airplane flight (Cincinnati, Ohio to Alanta, GA) at age 5 in 1955. Almost 20 year later (and many, many commercial flights later) I got my pilots license. I haven't flown as PIV in almost 25 years (it just got too expensive for me), but it sure was fun. My point is simply that things change whether you like it or not, and the changes will not always coincide with what you think they should. People have been telling the next generation about the 'good old days' for centuries. You are already doing the same thing. My point is for each thing amazement and wonderment of is lost on, something newer and even more amazing and wonderful will take its place. It won't be many years and computers as we know them will be things of the past just as the horse and buggy have passed into history for all intents and purposes. WoW! And to think when I first learned to program it was all punch cards...
*Or*, as you 'spread the word' people just look at you kinda funny and think to themselves something like "I want something that just does what I bought it for and have no interest in playing around with it's innards or how it does what it does. Must be one of those guys who lives in his parent's basement." Why would you equate the direction of the iPhone/iPad with the general direction of where all computing platforms are going?
I would settle for getting my microwave not to beep three times when it's done.
You can do that if you *really* want to. You just need the tools to reprogram the microprocessor. Bottom line is you're not interested in that type of coding and the work involved such as taking apart the microwave and j-tagging the chip so you can read from it and write to it (not to mention understanding the chips, their registers and how they work). I know quite a few people who are into programming microprocessors on various devices. Not something I'm interested in but they love it.
Because these devices are your property, and you should expect to have control over your own property.
Only if you buy the product which is *your* decision to make. If the product isn't what you want, or doesn't do exactly what you want it to do, don't buy it. If you *do* buy the product, don't complain about what it can and can't do - You knew that before you bought it. Sheesh...
First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2. What the hell?!?!??! So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
No one is making you buy anything. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? It's an *appliance* that you obviously aren't interested in. No more and no less. Bitching at Apple because they didn't design a device for you personally, with everything you personally want, is a bit silly.
No one disputes that Apple intended this to be a closed architecture. The point is that it could easily be a more general purpose device if the consumer were allowed that choice. [snip]
So what's your *real* point other than Apple did not design the device the way *you* want it designed? You can make that complaint about any product you buy. Companies design products - Cars, stoves, refrigerators, paper, printers, couches, etc., etc. You either like what they design and sell or you don't. If you don't you don't buy it. I can only assume you're upset because Apple didn't design a device in a way you personally think it should have been designed. Life's a bitch, isn't it...;)
No, you don't *have* to buy the hardware. It's your choice to or not to. If you don't like the hardware or its software limitations and/or lockdowns, don't buy it. Simple.
Read what you wrote. It makes no sense. I'm glad you're not one of my employees. That Apple ensures that no one can pirate an app has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone can install an app someone writes. One downloads an app (free or for fee app) and installs it. Considering programming requires logic, if you're a programmer you're in a world of hurt.
Why not let the users complain, then? I don't need, or want, the FSF speaking for me. The FSF speaks for its self and it's own interests like any lobbying group.
Google, in light of these statements, I'd like to make a feature suggestion. I already have an account to log in, preferences to set on which articles I want to see and where they are displayed at for the page.
For the love of god, please, please give me the ability to filter out articles by news organization.
I second that! I would like nothing better than to be able to filter out specific news organizations.
This pretty much means that Google, with their ads on their pages, is getting considerable revenue from the newspaper's content without giving the newspaper a chance to display an ad.
If you take the time to look at the Google news page (which this is about) you will notice there are *no* ads on the page.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent. The JFK bombers, the Sears Tower Plot, etc, etc. If they are so willing to trot out these incompetents and actually take them to trial, you can be pretty sure they would at least charge ONE competent terrorist. But so far, nada.
Those were setups of essentially homeless people by the FBI/CIA. Read about it. Nothing like trumping up some false flag 'attacks' to keep the population thinking something is being done and instilling more fear.
"A lot of for-profit jails and prisons will lobby legalization out of existence."
I've been hearing this thrown around a lot lately...where exactly are these 'for-profit prisons' and jails? The only ones I've ever come across are run by the state and local governments...??
Google is your friend. For-profit, privately owned and operated jails and prisons are all over the US. I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world.
Ha! I'll believe it when they invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in and give them full access to all their nuclear facilities, and fully acknowledge their nuclear capabilities (for example, how many nuclear bombs do they have?). Israel is nothing more than land stolen from other countries after WW II and supported by the US (not only in technology but with billions of US$ in handouts). Israel only exists because the US pays for it to survive. Without the US taxpayers money and the US military support, Israel would shrivel and die.
"You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?"
Yes. I'm pretty sure... I've seen the actual raw data on oil reserves for that region while consulting in the Middle East. They're not peaking for another 200 years or so at the projected outputs.
They've all read the peak oil books and are laughing all the way to the bank.
(posting anonymously for obvious reasons)
Posting anonymously because it's bull. 200 years to peak oil there? Maybe if they don't sell any.
It's been a few years, but the same experience here. I have the dishes w/LNBs and the ird's with their cards in my barn. I was pleased with Dish, I just ended up with other things taking the place of standard TV programming. These days I get all my "TV" from the internet.
Murdoch's point is that google is benefiting from it. They may not be benefiting directly (earning money from ads) but it certainly makes helps promote the google brand.
It will promote the Google brand in my eyes if they exclude every Murdock publication. Less garbage in search results pages...
Actually Windows gained its advantage because Apple had the only 'usable' small computer at the time. IBM had to catch up. IBM bypassed it's standard (at the time) long R&D cycle and also allowed the designer (they brought in a consultant!) to use off the shelf parts, whereas normally they only used their own designed parts. *This is how clones came to be. If I remember correctly only one component, a disk drive interface(?) was proprietary.
Anyway, IBM went to a couple of small companies because they needed OS software. The first company turned IBM down. Bill Gates (aka Microsoft) was the second or third. Gates 'sorta' ripped off CP/M (depends upon who you talk to, but most people would say Gates ripped off CP/M) by rewriting the code a bit (yes, Gates did program at one time) with Bill Allen (if I remember correctly) and *licensed* it to IBM (he wouldn't sell it). Now, remember at the time (1979 to 1981), IBM had its foot in the door of every big business around the world. IBM *was* computers as far as business was concerned. Few knew much about the Apple people who, according to IBM, made a desktop toy, and few trusted this small, newish company (Apple) to make anything which would compete with something from IBM (the 800 pound gorilla). And we all remember the old IBM meme: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM if it had anything to do with computers".
Had IBM waited a year or two so they could have thrown some proprietary parts in the mix, there would probably be no windows clones today (or for a number of years, at least).
Since IBM 'meant' computers to large companies and was big and established world wide and had a very good reputation, and had one heck of a sales force, IBMs PCs were bought by the thousands by thousands of businesses. Companies really didn't have much (any) choice. IBM PCs were the only game in town for most companies.
SO - IBM *made* Miscrosoft what it is for all intents and purposes. But - IBM also lost. It was the first machine they had ever designed and made without mostly proprietary components. This allowed Compaq to reverse engineer the thing and build a clone which would run windows and found a solution to the disk drive interface 'problem'. This opened the door to other companies making clones. Of course, this hurt IBM but was a good thing for Microsoft because the clones needed DOS to run.
As more and more clones made their way to market, all needing Microsoft's OS to run, IBM lost a lot of the hardware market share they expected to 'own' and Microsoft continued to climb.
So - Apple was left in the dust because there was no way to compete with IBM. It had nothing to do with superior hardware or a superior OS.
Over the years Apple (and other companies such as Commodore Business Machines) tried to compete but IBM was was *the* computer company so even getting a foot in the door was next to impossible.
Things have changed over the years, obviously, but even today many businesses are still so entrenched with what is essentially IBM hardware and Microsoft OS that getting out of being tied to what is essentially IBM hardware and Microsoft OS has been, and still is, a long process.
In short, had it not been for IBM needing something FAST to counter Apple way back around 1980, Microsoft probably wouldn't even be around today. Microsoft probably would have been out of business years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, a generation of tinkerers cut their teeth on radio and television sets. They would test the functioning of vacuum tubes in the drugstore, and buy souped up parts to improve the picture.
Exactly - I did that type of stuff, but I got my vacuum tubes (and other components) at an electronics shop rather than a drugstore. Yes - there were a lot of places that sold tubes and had testers right there. Man, am I old or what... The Pre-RatShack days.
I don't see it that way at all. The iPad is meant to be an 'appliance' while netbooks are meant to be general purpose computers. I don't see a competition aspect at all.
I too cut my programming teeth on an Apple ][
I too cut my programming teeth on IBM mainframes using punch cards. What's your point, youngster?
My father used to tell me how neat it was when an airplane flew overhead. All the kids would look up and few had ever seen one close up. There was a sense of amazement and wonderment for him and his friends. Alas, today aircraft are so ubiquitous the amazement and wonderment is for the most part lost on today's youth. So it is with computers. 100 years from now anyone who digs up this discussion thread will chuckle just as I do when I think of my father and his amazement and wonderment of 'flying machines'. I'm 60 years old now. I took my first airplane flight (Cincinnati, Ohio to Alanta, GA) at age 5 in 1955. Almost 20 year later (and many, many commercial flights later) I got my pilots license. I haven't flown as PIV in almost 25 years (it just got too expensive for me), but it sure was fun. My point is simply that things change whether you like it or not, and the changes will not always coincide with what you think they should. People have been telling the next generation about the 'good old days' for centuries. You are already doing the same thing. My point is for each thing amazement and wonderment of is lost on, something newer and even more amazing and wonderful will take its place. It won't be many years and computers as we know them will be things of the past just as the horse and buggy have passed into history for all intents and purposes. WoW! And to think when I first learned to program it was all punch cards...
*Or*, as you 'spread the word' people just look at you kinda funny and think to themselves something like "I want something that just does what I bought it for and have no interest in playing around with it's innards or how it does what it does. Must be one of those guys who lives in his parent's basement." Why would you equate the direction of the iPhone/iPad with the general direction of where all computing platforms are going?
I would settle for getting my microwave not to beep three times when it's done.
You can do that if you *really* want to. You just need the tools to reprogram the microprocessor. Bottom line is you're not interested in that type of coding and the work involved such as taking apart the microwave and j-tagging the chip so you can read from it and write to it (not to mention understanding the chips, their registers and how they work). I know quite a few people who are into programming microprocessors on various devices. Not something I'm interested in but they love it.
Because these devices are your property, and you should expect to have control over your own property.
Only if you buy the product which is *your* decision to make. If the product isn't what you want, or doesn't do exactly what you want it to do, don't buy it. If you *do* buy the product, don't complain about what it can and can't do - You knew that before you bought it. Sheesh...
What world do you live in?
That has *got* to be one of the worst analogies I have ever seen on /.
First off, it is based on iPhone OS 3.2. What the hell?!?!??! So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
No one is making you buy anything. Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? It's an *appliance* that you obviously aren't interested in. No more and no less. Bitching at Apple because they didn't design a device for you personally, with everything you personally want, is a bit silly.
No one disputes that Apple intended this to be a closed architecture. The point is that it could easily be a more general purpose device if the consumer were allowed that choice. [snip]
So what's your *real* point other than Apple did not design the device the way *you* want it designed? You can make that complaint about any product you buy. Companies design products - Cars, stoves, refrigerators, paper, printers, couches, etc., etc. You either like what they design and sell or you don't. If you don't you don't buy it. I can only assume you're upset because Apple didn't design a device in a way you personally think it should have been designed. Life's a bitch, isn't it... ;)
So I have to buy the hardware [snip]
No, you don't *have* to buy the hardware. It's your choice to or not to. If you don't like the hardware or its software limitations and/or lockdowns, don't buy it. Simple.
Read what you wrote. It makes no sense. I'm glad you're not one of my employees. That Apple ensures that no one can pirate an app has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone can install an app someone writes. One downloads an app (free or for fee app) and installs it. Considering programming requires logic, if you're a programmer you're in a world of hurt.
Why not let the users complain, then? I don't need, or want, the FSF speaking for me. The FSF speaks for its self and it's own interests like any lobbying group.
Really? Which one do you use?
I use Shareit and SWReg. I've used them for years and never had a problem with either. Monthly checks/ACH direct deposit.
Google, in light of these statements, I'd like to make a feature suggestion. I already have an account to log in, preferences to set on which articles I want to see and where they are displayed at for the page.
For the love of god, please, please give me the ability to filter out articles by news organization.
I second that! I would like nothing better than to be able to filter out specific news organizations.
This pretty much means that Google, with their ads on their pages, is getting considerable revenue from the newspaper's content without giving the newspaper a chance to display an ad.
If you take the time to look at the Google news page (which this is about) you will notice there are *no* ads on the page.
Don't try to play that game. Absence of evidence is not evidence. But there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - every single indicted terrorist plotter in the US has been a total incompetent. The JFK bombers, the Sears Tower Plot, etc, etc. If they are so willing to trot out these incompetents and actually take them to trial, you can be pretty sure they would at least charge ONE competent terrorist. But so far, nada.
Those were setups of essentially homeless people by the FBI/CIA. Read about it. Nothing like trumping up some false flag 'attacks' to keep the population thinking something is being done and instilling more fear.
"A lot of for-profit jails and prisons will lobby legalization out of existence."
I've been hearing this thrown around a lot lately...where exactly are these 'for-profit prisons' and jails? The only ones I've ever come across are run by the state and local governments...??
Google is your friend. For-profit, privately owned and operated jails and prisons are all over the US. I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Except for the fact that Israel is accountable to the free world.
Ha! I'll believe it when they invite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in and give them full access to all their nuclear facilities, and fully acknowledge their nuclear capabilities (for example, how many nuclear bombs do they have?). Israel is nothing more than land stolen from other countries after WW II and supported by the US (not only in technology but with billions of US$ in handouts). Israel only exists because the US pays for it to survive. Without the US taxpayers money and the US military support, Israel would shrivel and die.
"You sure it isn't because their oil production has peaked and is now declining alarmingly quickly?"
Yes. I'm pretty sure... I've seen the actual raw data on oil reserves for that region while consulting in the Middle East. They're not peaking for another 200 years or so at the projected outputs.
They've all read the peak oil books and are laughing all the way to the bank.
(posting anonymously for obvious reasons)
Posting anonymously because it's bull. 200 years to peak oil there? Maybe if they don't sell any.
It's been a few years, but the same experience here. I have the dishes w/LNBs and the ird's with their cards in my barn. I was pleased with Dish, I just ended up with other things taking the place of standard TV programming. These days I get all my "TV" from the internet.
Being happy and feeling lucky on the pain and suffering of others is wretched, no matter who you are or what the business is.
Banks and big business do it all the time. Nothing new here.... Move along....
Murdoch's point is that google is benefiting from it. They may not be benefiting directly (earning money from ads) but it certainly makes helps promote the google brand.
It will promote the Google brand in my eyes if they exclude every Murdock publication. Less garbage in search results pages...
Actually Windows gained its advantage because Apple had the only 'usable' small computer at the time. IBM had to catch up. IBM bypassed it's standard (at the time) long R&D cycle and also allowed the designer (they brought in a consultant!) to use off the shelf parts, whereas normally they only used their own designed parts. *This is how clones came to be. If I remember correctly only one component, a disk drive interface(?) was proprietary. Anyway, IBM went to a couple of small companies because they needed OS software. The first company turned IBM down. Bill Gates (aka Microsoft) was the second or third. Gates 'sorta' ripped off CP/M (depends upon who you talk to, but most people would say Gates ripped off CP/M) by rewriting the code a bit (yes, Gates did program at one time) with Bill Allen (if I remember correctly) and *licensed* it to IBM (he wouldn't sell it). Now, remember at the time (1979 to 1981), IBM had its foot in the door of every big business around the world. IBM *was* computers as far as business was concerned. Few knew much about the Apple people who, according to IBM, made a desktop toy, and few trusted this small, newish company (Apple) to make anything which would compete with something from IBM (the 800 pound gorilla). And we all remember the old IBM meme: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM if it had anything to do with computers". Had IBM waited a year or two so they could have thrown some proprietary parts in the mix, there would probably be no windows clones today (or for a number of years, at least). Since IBM 'meant' computers to large companies and was big and established world wide and had a very good reputation, and had one heck of a sales force, IBMs PCs were bought by the thousands by thousands of businesses. Companies really didn't have much (any) choice. IBM PCs were the only game in town for most companies. SO - IBM *made* Miscrosoft what it is for all intents and purposes. But - IBM also lost. It was the first machine they had ever designed and made without mostly proprietary components. This allowed Compaq to reverse engineer the thing and build a clone which would run windows and found a solution to the disk drive interface 'problem'. This opened the door to other companies making clones. Of course, this hurt IBM but was a good thing for Microsoft because the clones needed DOS to run. As more and more clones made their way to market, all needing Microsoft's OS to run, IBM lost a lot of the hardware market share they expected to 'own' and Microsoft continued to climb. So - Apple was left in the dust because there was no way to compete with IBM. It had nothing to do with superior hardware or a superior OS. Over the years Apple (and other companies such as Commodore Business Machines) tried to compete but IBM was was *the* computer company so even getting a foot in the door was next to impossible. Things have changed over the years, obviously, but even today many businesses are still so entrenched with what is essentially IBM hardware and Microsoft OS that getting out of being tied to what is essentially IBM hardware and Microsoft OS has been, and still is, a long process. In short, had it not been for IBM needing something FAST to counter Apple way back around 1980, Microsoft probably wouldn't even be around today. Microsoft probably would have been out of business years ago.