Yes they would, but they wouldn't want it nearly as much as comparable bragging rights on a dramatically larger installed base. That's why marketshare matters.
Of course, last month's marketshare doesn't matter at all, but that's the one that's quoted because it makes Apple look a lot better. That should tell you the author's slant.
"Your vandalism of the language is less important than the sensibilities of others that would prefer to hear tracts of communications that aren't littered by detritus, poop-language, banal references to sex, and other excreta."
Why? What is it about certain words constitutes "vandalism of the language"?
"I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity."
Why?
"If you want to color your world with such muck, it is your choice to lower yourself to this standard. Instead, lift to one that's free of it."
Why is such a thing lowering a standard? The standard is arbitrary. Avoiding it is not lifting either. Your arguments are predicated on the correctness of your point of view. Try saying something compelling.
" On private media, do what you will-- including this one. If you feel compelled to spew, do it in a place where your choices don't sully the common good."
An arbitrary definition of "common good". Free expression of thought is for the common good yet restriction of vocabulary inhibits that.
"Your feelings, scatalogical or obscene, have merit, but not with in the context of a public place."
Obscene yes, but only because "obscene" is defined in precisely that way. You are simply circular language here. It's good to know you consider scatological topics to have merit, but that's not surprising considering your point of view. Eat it up, baby.
"Do I use any of these? Occasionally, within private context, and not on the public airwaves-- which is the context of the post."...and because they are your views, they must be right even though they are totally arbitrary.
What constitutes obscenity changes with time and regulations barring it are arbitrary. Back when communications resources were limited, the government could justify regulating usage of precious public property. Now, such justifications are hard to sustain. If you want to save yourself from challenging language, then choose your sources accordingly. You have no right and are not "deserving" of forcing your morality or your definition of "obscenity" on everyone else. We aren't limited to a few channels anymore and obscenity regulations need to disappear.
"Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users. Apple, unlike the music studios, knows it will be broken and does not really care."
Haha that's funny. Apple does it to protect its revenue stream. Timid users have nothing to do with it.
"He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones."
That completely ignores the efforts Apple has made to break these hacks in the past. Caring about iPhone hacking isn't an all or nothing issue.
Exactly. Capacity needs have not been surpassed by current products ESPECIALLY in notebook drives where these flash devices are targeted. The prediction of 10 years isn't very bold though. A whole lot can happen in 10 years.
680MB in 24 seconds (28 1/3 MB/sec) is not 3-4 times faster than most hard drives, much less so in the future when such drives would become available. I would expect the new 500GB notebook drive to be able to do that.
Yes, of course, that's the only reason. There couldn't be any other.
Why does Sun, or anyone for that matter, have any obligation to provide source under the GPL? How do you know if Sun could release ZFS under a Linux compatible license?
I'm trying to imagine a single app with multiple windows where each window has it's own, unique menu system, then try to imagine how the user would easily differentiate that app from multiple unique apps each controlling similar windows. I think the distinction is academic since each window is performing an independent function in either case. In the latter case, having the menus change would clearly be mac-like. I'd love to hear an example where such approaches are distinct and your assertion is true.
I think having the global menu bar change as you switch apps is one of the most godawful things about a mac.
No, you will have to pay for the 2.0 firmware upgrade and get all the benefits of that upgrade. Apple has had to do this for legal requirements before and it has been discussed. With the iPhone, they apparently went to specific efforts to avoid these feature upgrade charges.
No they aren't. The process is chosen for whatever reason it's chosen and that clearly isn't to implement a simple democracy. Superdelegates exist because the party believes they should. No superdelegate should feel any obligation to vote with the majority.
I fail to see any mandate in a 3.5% electoral advantage anyway. In Texas, HRC and Obama are essentially equally popular. If superdelegates DID choose to vote with the public, they would be evenly split as well. Should a superdelegate vote with the state majority or with his constituency's majority? The answer is neither, of course. He should make an informed vote as he is tasked to do.
"Apple has also been very clear that, at the time of the release, 3G chips were battery hogs."
and Apple would never lie, right? WiFi isn't a battery hog? 3G can't be operated in EDGE mode to "save power"? It's all BS. Even Woz admits that existing 3G phones proved that power wasn't the issue.
"Remember that this device has a hugh, bright screen with the added power draw of the touch interface, a powerful processor, all while barely thicker than the thinnest phone MOTO offers (the SLVR)."
If that's so, then any power disadvantage of 3G would be diluted by the overall increased power consumption that you've stated. You've just provided an argument for why 3G doesn't matter, not why it does.
Incidentally, if the issue were simply thinness (and the iPhone is more than just barely thicker than a SLVR) then Steve left 3G out for nothing more than pure vanity.
"Adding any more power drain would have meant making it thicker (less appealing) and slightly more expensive by adding a bigger battery."
And the Apple peanut gallery would still proclaim it was the perfect design. Who says thicker would be less appealing? If find the thinness and polish of the back surface a design problem.
"All this leads to an obvious conclusion: The first generation iPhone *needed* to be EDGE, not 3G."
If any of it were true. Does it also lead to the obvious conclusion that it shouldn't have IM or GPS too?
"From what I am hearing, that process is going well."
From whom? Steve's RDF or the crazies inside your head? If you have inside information then you probably shouldn't be posting here. Perhaps you're just astroturfing.
"Also, honestly, who here has an iPhone, and thinks the EDGE speeds are slow for what they use them for?"
Me. 3G allows a phone to be much more useful particularly for those device suppliers that aren't assholish enough to disable tethering.
"The only pain I experience is trying to use Google Maps with the satellite or hybrid mode , in a lower coverage area where bandwidth takes a hit."
Yes, because that's the only thing data is used for, right?
I see you've bought into Steve's lies. Woz didn't, as he rightly observed that that the existence of a large number of 3G phones proves that it isn't so. I'm just a programmer, too, and I'm amused at how easily duped fanboys are.
"On another note no one can say that the iPhone did not change the face of the cell phone market."
Anyone can say that. The iPhone didn't "change the face of the cell phone market", it did no more than add another choice. It may be best of breed in some things it does, but like everyone other cell phone it can be improved.
"I can't say if the new Air will do the same thing for the notebook market or not."
I can and it won't. There's nothing innovative about the Air at all. It's nothing more than style over function.
"Now, if Safari is using yet-unpublished APIs, it does so at a possible cost of futur compatibility and, even perhaps, worse performance down the line."
Funny, that's just what Microsoft said about their apps. What a risk Apple is taking!
In the case of patents, the owners DO give something back. That's what the patent is.
Explain again why owners of intellectual property "should be required" to give something back to society? I'm not following that logic at all. You're saying that you should be paid off so as not to steal their property?
If the X300 ran OS X I certain would. The MBA is crippled by its terrible hard drive. Who cares what the processor speed is when the machine has ground to a halt waiting on disk (which OS X does all the time).
The X300 shows just how compromised the MBA is for the sake of being pretty. For the same weight, it offers comparable portability, superior screen, far superior IO, and far greater configuration flexibility. It's inability to run OS X is artificial; they both use substantially the same parts inside. If OS X is the primary factor, then the X300 doesn't matter but I'd rather have a MacBook. The X300 just shows that Apple could have produced a much more useful 3 pound notebook had its designers been as good as fanboys claim they are. This just shows, once again, that Apple is a boutique computer manufacturer---nothing but style over substance.
"* Being able to use it from an airline seat (Macbook Air has a shorter screen and thinner base)"
It accomplishes this by being deeper. The X300 is shallower and taller due to its hinge design. I don't accept Mossberg's opinion that the Apple design is more airplane-friendly.
"* Ait has longer battery life"
Mossberg's MBA battery life measurement is highly suspicious. He hasn't provided any evidence that the MBA battery life for a traveler is actually better and there's plenty of reasons to feel otherwise, namely (a) lower power X300 processor, and (b) more battery options on the X300. You are wrong here.
"* Air has faster processor"
Yes it does, but the Air is crippled by its terrible hard drive and its faster processor is harder on battery life.
"The only technical aspect I could see swaying some people, the X300 has more resolution. But not much more, and the processor/battery life in particular would seem to be key to me."
Yes, resolution is a significant advantage for the X300, just not the only one. If you choose to travel with the DVD drive, as the MBA forces you to do, the X300 becomes lighter. If you choose a conventional hard disk rather than SSD, the X300 will offer a 50% larger drive. If you value battery life, the X300 offers two sizes plus a secondary battery in the DVD bay. Then there's the complete complement of IO, the cellular and the GPS options. You are again mistaken.
The idea is that sperm can be made from bone marrow. Nothing more.
The bone marrow used could just as easily be taken from a male and such a procedure would likely benefit far more hetersexual couples than homosexual ones.
No need to lump this into the category of lesbian issues that we can all feel comfortable taking a shit on.
"Being gay" itself is an arbitrary distinction. That majority of people are, in fact, bisexual yet the overwhelming majority of them identify (arbitrarily) as straight. The whole misguided belief that there is "choice" comes from the experience that those people have it so everyone else must also have. None of this should matter and wouldn't if people didn't harbor such misguided hatred for sexual preferences other than their own.
Homophobia stems from the fear by those who have made this "choice" that they might be missing out. Those insecure, closeted bisexuals need constant reassurance that their "choice" was, and is, the right one. It is an offense to them that others appear to make a "choice" opposite theirs regardless of the fact that homosexuals rarely have such choice at all. Pure heterosexuals have no such insecurities because they have made no choice for which they may feel threatened.
Take religious bigotry out of the equation and a little education would solve this social problem in a generation, but then who would we have to hate?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they would, but they wouldn't want it nearly as much as comparable bragging rights on a dramatically larger installed base. That's why marketshare matters.
Of course, last month's marketshare doesn't matter at all, but that's the one that's quoted because it makes Apple look a lot better. That should tell you the author's slant.
"Your vandalism of the language is less important than the sensibilities of others that would prefer to hear tracts of communications that aren't littered by detritus, poop-language, banal references to sex, and other excreta."
...and because they are your views, they must be right even though they are totally arbitrary.
Why? What is it about certain words constitutes "vandalism of the language"?
"I/we/they deserve a common communications over the free and public airwaves that's free of obscenity."
Why?
"If you want to color your world with such muck, it is your choice to lower yourself to this standard. Instead, lift to one that's free of it."
Why is such a thing lowering a standard? The standard is arbitrary. Avoiding it is not lifting either. Your arguments are predicated on the correctness of your point of view. Try saying something compelling.
" On private media, do what you will-- including this one. If you feel compelled to spew, do it in a place where your choices don't sully the common good."
An arbitrary definition of "common good". Free expression of thought is for the common good yet restriction of vocabulary inhibits that.
"Your feelings, scatalogical or obscene, have merit, but not with in the context of a public place."
Obscene yes, but only because "obscene" is defined in precisely that way. You are simply circular language here. It's good to know you consider scatological topics to have merit, but that's not surprising considering your point of view. Eat it up, baby.
"Do I use any of these? Occasionally, within private context, and not on the public airwaves-- which is the context of the post."
What constitutes obscenity changes with time and regulations barring it are arbitrary. Back when communications resources were limited, the government could justify regulating usage of precious public property. Now, such justifications are hard to sustain. If you want to save yourself from challenging language, then choose your sources accordingly. You have no right and are not "deserving" of forcing your morality or your definition of "obscenity" on everyone else. We aren't limited to a few channels anymore and obscenity regulations need to disappear.
"Yes, but Apple only does this as a safeguard to help protect more timid users. Apple, unlike the music studios, knows it will be broken and does not really care."
Haha that's funny. Apple does it to protect its revenue stream. Timid users have nothing to do with it.
"He doesn't, which is why the last iPhone update did not break jailbroken phones."
That completely ignores the efforts Apple has made to break these hacks in the past. Caring about iPhone hacking isn't an all or nothing issue.
Redefining the term "supercomputer" was another innovative first for Apple. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/435250.stm
Correct. It's value is completely known, it simply can't be represented in a finite number of digits.
/. authors to appreciate the subtlety. They're just hacks.
Don't expect
Exactly. Capacity needs have not been surpassed by current products ESPECIALLY in notebook drives where these flash devices are targeted. The prediction of 10 years isn't very bold though. A whole lot can happen in 10 years.
680MB in 24 seconds (28 1/3 MB/sec) is not 3-4 times faster than most hard drives, much less so in the future when such drives would become available. I would expect the new 500GB notebook drive to be able to do that.
Yes, of course, that's the only reason. There couldn't be any other.
Why does Sun, or anyone for that matter, have any obligation to provide source under the GPL? How do you know if Sun could release ZFS under a Linux compatible license?
I'm trying to imagine a single app with multiple windows where each window has it's own, unique menu system, then try to imagine how the user would easily differentiate that app from multiple unique apps each controlling similar windows. I think the distinction is academic since each window is performing an independent function in either case. In the latter case, having the menus change would clearly be mac-like. I'd love to hear an example where such approaches are distinct and your assertion is true.
I think having the global menu bar change as you switch apps is one of the most godawful things about a mac.
No, you will have to pay for the 2.0 firmware upgrade and get all the benefits of that upgrade. Apple has had to do this for legal requirements before and it has been discussed. With the iPhone, they apparently went to specific efforts to avoid these feature upgrade charges.
"Linux isn't only on i686, so why should we accept binary blobs of code for that processor?"
I was with you up until that point. Those two things are unrelated.
No they aren't. The process is chosen for whatever reason it's chosen and that clearly isn't to implement a simple democracy. Superdelegates exist because the party believes they should. No superdelegate should feel any obligation to vote with the majority.
I fail to see any mandate in a 3.5% electoral advantage anyway. In Texas, HRC and Obama are essentially equally popular. If superdelegates DID choose to vote with the public, they would be evenly split as well. Should a superdelegate vote with the state majority or with his constituency's majority? The answer is neither, of course. He should make an informed vote as he is tasked to do.
"Apple has also been very clear that, at the time of the release, 3G chips were battery hogs."
and Apple would never lie, right? WiFi isn't a battery hog? 3G can't be operated in EDGE mode to "save power"? It's all BS. Even Woz admits that existing 3G phones proved that power wasn't the issue.
"Remember that this device has a hugh, bright screen with the added power draw of the touch interface, a powerful processor, all while barely thicker than the thinnest phone MOTO offers (the SLVR)."
If that's so, then any power disadvantage of 3G would be diluted by the overall increased power consumption that you've stated. You've just provided an argument for why 3G doesn't matter, not why it does.
Incidentally, if the issue were simply thinness (and the iPhone is more than just barely thicker than a SLVR) then Steve left 3G out for nothing more than pure vanity.
"Adding any more power drain would have meant making it thicker (less appealing) and slightly more expensive by adding a bigger battery."
And the Apple peanut gallery would still proclaim it was the perfect design. Who says thicker would be less appealing? If find the thinness and polish of the back surface a design problem.
"All this leads to an obvious conclusion: The first generation iPhone *needed* to be EDGE, not 3G."
If any of it were true. Does it also lead to the obvious conclusion that it shouldn't have IM or GPS too?
"From what I am hearing, that process is going well."
From whom? Steve's RDF or the crazies inside your head? If you have inside information then you probably shouldn't be posting here. Perhaps you're just astroturfing.
"Also, honestly, who here has an iPhone, and thinks the EDGE speeds are slow for what they use them for?"
Me. 3G allows a phone to be much more useful particularly for those device suppliers that aren't assholish enough to disable tethering.
"The only pain I experience is trying to use Google Maps with the satellite or hybrid mode , in a lower coverage area where bandwidth takes a hit."
Yes, because that's the only thing data is used for, right?
I see you've bought into Steve's lies. Woz didn't, as he rightly observed that that the existence of a large number of 3G phones proves that it isn't so. I'm just a programmer, too, and I'm amused at how easily duped fanboys are.
"On another note no one can say that the iPhone did not change the face of the cell phone market."
Anyone can say that. The iPhone didn't "change the face of the cell phone market", it did no more than add another choice. It may be best of breed in some things it does, but like everyone other cell phone it can be improved.
"I can't say if the new Air will do the same thing for the notebook market or not."
I can and it won't. There's nothing innovative about the Air at all. It's nothing more than style over function.
So that means Apple is ethical?
"Now, if Safari is using yet-unpublished APIs, it does so at a possible cost of futur compatibility and, even perhaps, worse performance down the line."
Funny, that's just what Microsoft said about their apps. What a risk Apple is taking!
In the case of patents, the owners DO give something back. That's what the patent is.
Explain again why owners of intellectual property "should be required" to give something back to society? I'm not following that logic at all. You're saying that you should be paid off so as not to steal their property?
If the X300 ran OS X I certain would. The MBA is crippled by its terrible hard drive. Who cares what the processor speed is when the machine has ground to a halt waiting on disk (which OS X does all the time).
The X300 shows just how compromised the MBA is for the sake of being pretty. For the same weight, it offers comparable portability, superior screen, far superior IO, and far greater configuration flexibility. It's inability to run OS X is artificial; they both use substantially the same parts inside. If OS X is the primary factor, then the X300 doesn't matter but I'd rather have a MacBook. The X300 just shows that Apple could have produced a much more useful 3 pound notebook had its designers been as good as fanboys claim they are. This just shows, once again, that Apple is a boutique computer manufacturer---nothing but style over substance.
I meant "without the DVD drive" of course.
"* Being able to use it from an airline seat (Macbook Air has a shorter screen and thinner base)"
It accomplishes this by being deeper. The X300 is shallower and taller due to its hinge design. I don't accept Mossberg's opinion that the Apple design is more airplane-friendly.
"* Ait has longer battery life"
Mossberg's MBA battery life measurement is highly suspicious. He hasn't provided any evidence that the MBA battery life for a traveler is actually better and there's plenty of reasons to feel otherwise, namely (a) lower power X300 processor, and (b) more battery options on the X300. You are wrong here.
"* Air has faster processor"
Yes it does, but the Air is crippled by its terrible hard drive and its faster processor is harder on battery life.
"The only technical aspect I could see swaying some people, the X300 has more resolution. But not much more, and the processor/battery life in particular would seem to be key to me."
Yes, resolution is a significant advantage for the X300, just not the only one. If you choose to travel with the DVD drive, as the MBA forces you to do, the X300 becomes lighter. If you choose a conventional hard disk rather than SSD, the X300 will offer a 50% larger drive. If you value battery life, the X300 offers two sizes plus a secondary battery in the DVD bay. Then there's the complete complement of IO, the cellular and the GPS options. You are again mistaken.
No one ever did die of HIV/AIDS. The opportunistic diseases, though, have been a serious problem.
Except that, considering your name is "Junior J Junior III", that hardly sounds appealing.
Knowing the use of your sperm would condemn future generations of males to "juniordom" is tantamount to child abuse.
The idea is that sperm can be made from bone marrow. Nothing more.
The bone marrow used could just as easily be taken from a male and such a procedure would likely benefit far more hetersexual couples than homosexual ones.
No need to lump this into the category of lesbian issues that we can all feel comfortable taking a shit on.
"Being gay" itself is an arbitrary distinction. That majority of people are, in fact, bisexual yet the overwhelming majority of them identify (arbitrarily) as straight. The whole misguided belief that there is "choice" comes from the experience that those people have it so everyone else must also have. None of this should matter and wouldn't if people didn't harbor such misguided hatred for sexual preferences other than their own.
Homophobia stems from the fear by those who have made this "choice" that they might be missing out. Those insecure, closeted bisexuals need constant reassurance that their "choice" was, and is, the right one. It is an offense to them that others appear to make a "choice" opposite theirs regardless of the fact that homosexuals rarely have such choice at all. Pure heterosexuals have no such insecurities because they have made no choice for which they may feel threatened.
Take religious bigotry out of the equation and a little education would solve this social problem in a generation, but then who would we have to hate?