Both arguements (full responsibility for success hinging on the CEO or the engineers) are equally silly; you have to have talent in management AND talent on the floor. HP had a giant, talented braintrust: Fucked. Motorola had a giant, talented braintrust: Fucked. The list goes on. And there plenty of examples that go the other way, where management pushes a project that has fantastic potential, but gets fucked by the inadequacy of their design/production/marketing teams in execution.
The Apples of the world get our respect because they're in the happy position of having both talented managers and talented staff, AND they're making smart choices. It takes two to tango.
During the Reagan years, Richard Nixon wrote a book entitled "1999: Victory Without War" in which he predicted that the USSR was changing, but fundamentally stable enough to survive. I hardly think of Nixon as a posterboy for the left-elite. I also think you give Reagan way to much credit; it's easy to say "Oh, he meant that all along" after the fact. There isn't any more reason to say that Reagan "was right all along" because things worked out the way they did than there would be when somebody sinks a 100' basket over their back, accidentally. You've got just as much evidence of his 'genius' as I do of his 'insane luck;' the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. He had some evidence to suggest that the Soviets were in trouble, but he was also a pure and simple hawk, crusader, and paranoiac.
Well, I guess all of us Duke and Arizona State graduates should crumple up our worthless degrees then, because nobody's going to take us seriously. I KNEW I should have gone to Stanford; aside from the killer academics, that nice, bland TREE mascot just screams PROFESSIONAL!!
Even better than that, why not have mobo makers start making PPC motherboards for the Freescale & IBM PPC's. Make 'em in ATX form factor, with all the PCI, SATA, etc stuff just like your AMD/Intel motherboard Then you could have your linux-on-PPC, built-it-yourself computer without paying the 'apple tax.';) Then if we could just get Apple to open up the boot rom (I believe that's what they use to make OSX only boot on genuine apple systems, correct me if I'm wrong here) specs, or stop using it all together and use something like the GNU Bios (whatever it's called). Then you could have commodity PPC boxes, or even OSX boxes, without Apple dirtying their little hands or guaranteeing any kind of compatability. Because you can buy a full copy of OSX already, you just don't have any non-Apple hardware to run it on.
This of course presupposes that there is a substantial market for PPC motherboards, which, apparently, manufactures believe there is not.
And that by old he means "early model toilet-seat iBook." My aging iBook G4 happily keeps a half-dozen programs open or minimized, plus plays my iTunes library, and manages 3 IMs.
None of the pedals do what you'd expect, and there's a couple extra levers that also do seemingly random things. Tonight, if you say prayers, give a little thanks for modern transmissions and synchromesh. Trust me, they're a beautiful thing.
They also said that Xandros' web browswer is "Internet Explorer" and that they used iMovie as the default movie player in OSX.
The only people more clueless than the authors would be the people who purchase this 'review.'
Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
I did say there are exceptions either way:D See other the other responand for details;)
Re:"Apples == expensive" not a stereotype
on
Top 10 Apple Flops
·
· Score: 1
-1 Not Informative
Anybody who is honestly not biased, who prices out Macs and PCs, can get similar performance for similar price; there are always exceptions each way, but in general Apple products equal or exceed the value of their TRUE COUNTERPARTS. Most price comparisons are by people with a vested interest, who try to put up an iMac vs. an Alienware, or a PowerMac G5 against some piece of shit Dell starter kit. Do your own price comparisons using your own "usability" criteria and you will get a reality check.
Re:PC competition for I-Mini MAC?
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 0, Troll
hey trolly, cut and paste is so weak... why not write a new troll from time to time?
Today's 50 yr old may have had their first experience with computers 20-30 years ago, when they were arcane specialty machines. If they formed their beliefs then (Computers = arcane, too complicated for me), they're likely to view today's computer as MORE complicated, not less! It's the same self-fulfilling prophesy that turns a bright 3rd grader into a "I can't do math" adult when they run up against a wall early on, and aren't supported around it.
Add to that the fact that the "multi-function button" as opposed to the "single, explicit-function button" is a major paradigm shift for many people. Why do media center remotes have so many thousand buttons, all with unique functions? These things will give a tech-savvy engineer pause!! Why does a new STOVE have so many damned buttons? Why does the timer and the temperature need their own up/down buttons? Because people are coming from an explicit-button world, and manufacturers think they'd get confused by a multi-function panel, even if it would be so much more intuitive to me and all the other computer users in the world. So you've got a rediculously complicated VCR controller, which is only going to reinforce the "computers are complicated" syndrome.
There really are no Motorola G4 processors anymore; Freescale is the manufacturer of G5 processors and is Motorola's direct successor (i.e. Motorola spun off their processor division which became Freescale).
Also, WebTV failed because it sucked. It was a sucky AOL-inspired "gateway to teh internet" experience, over a sucky modem, that was displayed on your sucky old-school TV (with its wonderful 320xwhatever resolution).
The set-top box of the future will be another beast entirely, as it will be on a broadband network, a fully capable home computer, interacting with your entertainment system, and displaying on your gorgeous new HDTV (hence the reason Apple didn't put a crappy old analog video out on the Mac Mini, and tried to push you to DVI for crisp, digital, full resolution--they don't want you thinking "gee, these fonts sure are fuzzy, having a computer in the living room is stupid").
If I buy speakers from a panel van, I can play the "I didn't know they were stolen" game all day and it doesn't make a difference. Breaking an NDA or any other contract is tantamount to theft: The employee was paid for services, and walked away without filling the order (to keep their mouth shut). They took salary they didn't deserve, and information they lied to receive access to. Then they passed said information off to a fence; TS made money on this deal. Just like I can get in trouble for buying stolen speakers, even if the guy I buy them from is 2 or 3 layers removed, I don't see why ThinkSecret should be able to make money on stolen information. At the very least, they should be charged for ever red cent that they got in ad impressions since the 'story.'
Spy photoes of proptotype cars are protected in the same way that celebrity photos are; photographers (paparazzi) can take pictures of anything they want (in public) and sell them. The only thing they can't do is trespass, break & enter, or break other laws to get the pictures (such as local laws around where I live that say people can't use ladders to peer directly over their neighbor's walls if they're a certain height). Taking pictures in public--and the right to sell them--is protected by the law. There are other situations/reasons that require photographers to make you sign waivers, etc., for example, to keep you from claiming wages as a model or actor when they stage you up for a 'man-on-the-street' commercial, or when you scream at your ex on Rikki Lake, but these are considered different than walking down the beach and photographing Brad Pitt walking his dog.
The car makers may be coy about their cars and put little disguises on them, but they still drive them around publicly accessable places. In fact, sometimes (here in AZ) you can see them driving on public roads with the disguises on. If you sit on a public mountain with a telephoto lens, you can snap whatever pictures you want of the test track below. But you can bet they'd throw a fit if one of their designers, on an NDA, published a book of secret, unrealized concepts and thought he could chuckle all the way to the bank with it.
How about this scenario: AMD gets a corporate spy hired on at Intel. Spy signs NDA, gets access to Intel's skunkworks projects. Spy leaks detailed design info to AMD, who publishes it on the internet and cries 'freedom of press!' Is AMD in the clear? I don't know, IANAL, but it sure as hell doesn't seem right. Should Intel be allowed to force AMD to reveal the spy, so that Intel can exact their revenge and dissuade other people from breaking NDAs? I think so, otherwise an NDA has no teeth!!
Because of the way they took and used info protected by an NDA, ThinkSecret is nothing more than corporate spies. They profit from stolen goods, not by making competing products, but by generating ad revenue for posting it on the internet.
It has nothing to do with what 'I' like; I would say the same thing if it was Microsoft.
The employee was bound by the NDA to keep information confidential; they elected to enter that contract. When they elected to break it, they stole property from Apple. If I come up with a brilliant idea, show it to somebody who signs an NDA, and then they break it, I want the law and precedents on MY side so that I can enforce that agreement--regardless of how 'insignificant' the damage is. A 'victimless crime' is still a crime, right?
The 'victimless crim' arguement seems no different from arguing that I should be able to sell a couple dishwashers that my buddy nicks from Best Buy, since it won't really hurt their bottom line (a drop in the bucket). Best Buy should be able to try to compell me to reveal my accomplice... actually, the police will probably do it for them gratis. We can argue back and forth about the protection of 'trade secrets' as such all we want, but this is an issue even without trade secret law--it's contract law and profitting from illicitly received material. If they win, ThinkSecret is weakening NDAs (which may be misused like anything else, but aren't necessarily a bad thing). ThinkSecret has a complete business plan:
1)Broken contract
2)post on internet
3)Profit!!
They should not be allowed to generate income this way.
What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet? Would they be silly enough to claim 1st Amendment protection?? Does this make them 'journalists' who got a 'scoop'? NO! They are scoring a quick buck and some notoriety, profitting from stolen goods!
What about distributing sensitive classified government documents, such as the names of undercover agents, on "ThinkCIA.com"? When they get offed, and the feddies come knocking, you will be free to argue your 1st Amendment rights to yourself for the rest of your life while you rot in solitary confinement.
ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!
The only event in which this *would* be protected speech would be if the stolen information exposed some crime in Apple, in which case whistleblower laws would protect the informants. Get a clue, gentlemen: the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to broadcast whatever you want. It does not protect you from having your trolls deleted by forum mods, or your letter to the editor from being thrown away unpublished. It protects you against being censored by the **government** for spreading your political and/or religious beliefs, even if they are contrary to what the govt. is promoting. THAT is your freedom, not the right to post warez, not the right to break your NDA, and not the right to take a handoff from somebody that breaks THEIR NDA and make a pocketfull of cash on it. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this; paying any attention in High School Govt. class (for US citizens) should be background enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Sell Blizzard's debt to a collections agency :D
Have fun trying to clean THAT one off your credit score, suckers!!!
Both arguements (full responsibility for success hinging on the CEO or the engineers) are equally silly; you have to have talent in management AND talent on the floor. HP had a giant, talented braintrust: Fucked. Motorola had a giant, talented braintrust: Fucked. The list goes on. And there plenty of examples that go the other way, where management pushes a project that has fantastic potential, but gets fucked by the inadequacy of their design/production/marketing teams in execution.
The Apples of the world get our respect because they're in the happy position of having both talented managers and talented staff, AND they're making smart choices. It takes two to tango.
During the Reagan years, Richard Nixon wrote a book entitled "1999: Victory Without War" in which he predicted that the USSR was changing, but fundamentally stable enough to survive. I hardly think of Nixon as a posterboy for the left-elite. I also think you give Reagan way to much credit; it's easy to say "Oh, he meant that all along" after the fact. There isn't any more reason to say that Reagan "was right all along" because things worked out the way they did than there would be when somebody sinks a 100' basket over their back, accidentally. You've got just as much evidence of his 'genius' as I do of his 'insane luck;' the real truth lies somewhere in the middle. He had some evidence to suggest that the Soviets were in trouble, but he was also a pure and simple hawk, crusader, and paranoiac.
Yep, when they go from producing useful tools to just being tools.
For the record, you really didn't either. I hardly think "avoids most problems" counts. You could tack that onto anything.
Well, I guess all of us Duke and Arizona State graduates should crumple up our worthless degrees then, because nobody's going to take us seriously. I KNEW I should have gone to Stanford; aside from the killer academics, that nice, bland TREE mascot just screams PROFESSIONAL!!
Well, if that's the case, then it also bears mentioning that Washington is far from the only state that has provisions for ballot iniatives.
Even better than that, why not have mobo makers start making PPC motherboards for the Freescale & IBM PPC's. Make 'em in ATX form factor, with all the PCI, SATA, etc stuff just like your AMD/Intel motherboard Then you could have your linux-on-PPC, built-it-yourself computer without paying the 'apple tax.' ;) Then if we could just get Apple to open up the boot rom (I believe that's what they use to make OSX only boot on genuine apple systems, correct me if I'm wrong here) specs, or stop using it all together and use something like the GNU Bios (whatever it's called). Then you could have commodity PPC boxes, or even OSX boxes, without Apple dirtying their little hands or guaranteeing any kind of compatability. Because you can buy a full copy of OSX already, you just don't have any non-Apple hardware to run it on.
This of course presupposes that there is a substantial market for PPC motherboards, which, apparently, manufactures believe there is not.
I read this as Outlaw Star. Sad thing is I don't watch that much TV...
And that by old he means "early model toilet-seat iBook." My aging iBook G4 happily keeps a half-dozen programs open or minimized, plus plays my iTunes library, and manages 3 IMs.
You've obviously never driven a Model-T.
None of the pedals do what you'd expect, and there's a couple extra levers that also do seemingly random things. Tonight, if you say prayers, give a little thanks for modern transmissions and synchromesh. Trust me, they're a beautiful thing.
Motorola makes nothing. Freescale makes the G4 ;)
parent is a copy/past troll. Move along, nothing to see here.
They also said that Xandros' web browswer is "Internet Explorer" and that they used iMovie as the default movie player in OSX.
The only people more clueless than the authors would be the people who purchase this 'review.'
I did say there are exceptions either way :D See other the other responand for details ;)
-1 Not Informative
Anybody who is honestly not biased, who prices out Macs and PCs, can get similar performance for similar price; there are always exceptions each way, but in general Apple products equal or exceed the value of their TRUE COUNTERPARTS. Most price comparisons are by people with a vested interest, who try to put up an iMac vs. an Alienware, or a PowerMac G5 against some piece of shit Dell starter kit. Do your own price comparisons using your own "usability" criteria and you will get a reality check.
hey trolly, cut and paste is so weak... why not write a new troll from time to time?
MOD PARENT UP!
Today's 50 yr old may have had their first experience with computers 20-30 years ago, when they were arcane specialty machines. If they formed their beliefs then (Computers = arcane, too complicated for me), they're likely to view today's computer as MORE complicated, not less! It's the same self-fulfilling prophesy that turns a bright 3rd grader into a "I can't do math" adult when they run up against a wall early on, and aren't supported around it.
Add to that the fact that the "multi-function button" as opposed to the "single, explicit-function button" is a major paradigm shift for many people. Why do media center remotes have so many thousand buttons, all with unique functions? These things will give a tech-savvy engineer pause!! Why does a new STOVE have so many damned buttons? Why does the timer and the temperature need their own up/down buttons? Because people are coming from an explicit-button world, and manufacturers think they'd get confused by a multi-function panel, even if it would be so much more intuitive to me and all the other computer users in the world. So you've got a rediculously complicated VCR controller, which is only going to reinforce the "computers are complicated" syndrome.
pgup and pgdn do the trick for me :)
There really are no Motorola G4 processors anymore; Freescale is the manufacturer of G5 processors and is Motorola's direct successor (i.e. Motorola spun off their processor division which became Freescale).
Also, WebTV failed because it sucked. It was a sucky AOL-inspired "gateway to teh internet" experience, over a sucky modem, that was displayed on your sucky old-school TV (with its wonderful 320xwhatever resolution).
The set-top box of the future will be another beast entirely, as it will be on a broadband network, a fully capable home computer, interacting with your entertainment system, and displaying on your gorgeous new HDTV (hence the reason Apple didn't put a crappy old analog video out on the Mac Mini, and tried to push you to DVI for crisp, digital, full resolution--they don't want you thinking "gee, these fonts sure are fuzzy, having a computer in the living room is stupid").
If I buy speakers from a panel van, I can play the "I didn't know they were stolen" game all day and it doesn't make a difference. Breaking an NDA or any other contract is tantamount to theft: The employee was paid for services, and walked away without filling the order (to keep their mouth shut). They took salary they didn't deserve, and information they lied to receive access to. Then they passed said information off to a fence; TS made money on this deal. Just like I can get in trouble for buying stolen speakers, even if the guy I buy them from is 2 or 3 layers removed, I don't see why ThinkSecret should be able to make money on stolen information. At the very least, they should be charged for ever red cent that they got in ad impressions since the 'story.'
Spy photoes of proptotype cars are protected in the same way that celebrity photos are; photographers (paparazzi) can take pictures of anything they want (in public) and sell them. The only thing they can't do is trespass, break & enter, or break other laws to get the pictures (such as local laws around where I live that say people can't use ladders to peer directly over their neighbor's walls if they're a certain height). Taking pictures in public--and the right to sell them--is protected by the law. There are other situations/reasons that require photographers to make you sign waivers, etc., for example, to keep you from claiming wages as a model or actor when they stage you up for a 'man-on-the-street' commercial, or when you scream at your ex on Rikki Lake, but these are considered different than walking down the beach and photographing Brad Pitt walking his dog.
The car makers may be coy about their cars and put little disguises on them, but they still drive them around publicly accessable places. In fact, sometimes (here in AZ) you can see them driving on public roads with the disguises on. If you sit on a public mountain with a telephoto lens, you can snap whatever pictures you want of the test track below. But you can bet they'd throw a fit if one of their designers, on an NDA, published a book of secret, unrealized concepts and thought he could chuckle all the way to the bank with it.
How about this scenario: AMD gets a corporate spy hired on at Intel. Spy signs NDA, gets access to Intel's skunkworks projects. Spy leaks detailed design info to AMD, who publishes it on the internet and cries 'freedom of press!' Is AMD in the clear? I don't know, IANAL, but it sure as hell doesn't seem right. Should Intel be allowed to force AMD to reveal the spy, so that Intel can exact their revenge and dissuade other people from breaking NDAs? I think so, otherwise an NDA has no teeth!!
Because of the way they took and used info protected by an NDA, ThinkSecret is nothing more than corporate spies. They profit from stolen goods, not by making competing products, but by generating ad revenue for posting it on the internet.
It has nothing to do with what 'I' like; I would say the same thing if it was Microsoft.
The employee was bound by the NDA to keep information confidential; they elected to enter that contract. When they elected to break it, they stole property from Apple. If I come up with a brilliant idea, show it to somebody who signs an NDA, and then they break it, I want the law and precedents on MY side so that I can enforce that agreement--regardless of how 'insignificant' the damage is. A 'victimless crime' is still a crime, right?
The 'victimless crim' arguement seems no different from arguing that I should be able to sell a couple dishwashers that my buddy nicks from Best Buy, since it won't really hurt their bottom line (a drop in the bucket). Best Buy should be able to try to compell me to reveal my accomplice... actually, the police will probably do it for them gratis. We can argue back and forth about the protection of 'trade secrets' as such all we want, but this is an issue even without trade secret law--it's contract law and profitting from illicitly received material. If they win, ThinkSecret is weakening NDAs (which may be misused like anything else, but aren't necessarily a bad thing). ThinkSecret has a complete business plan:
1)Broken contract
2)post on internet
3)Profit!!
They should not be allowed to generate income this way.
What if somebody stole a manuscript for the next Harry Potter book, or StarWars Episode III, and slipped it to "ThinkPotter" or "ThinkJedi.com," who promptly posted it on the internet? Would they be silly enough to claim 1st Amendment protection?? Does this make them 'journalists' who got a 'scoop'? NO! They are scoring a quick buck and some notoriety, profitting from stolen goods!
What about distributing sensitive classified government documents, such as the names of undercover agents, on "ThinkCIA.com"? When they get offed, and the feddies come knocking, you will be free to argue your 1st Amendment rights to yourself for the rest of your life while you rot in solitary confinement.
ThinkSecret redistributed stolen, protected information. This is not protected speech. In this case ThinkSecret are not journalists, they are accomplices!! And accomplices that **profited** from their actions, I might add!
The only event in which this *would* be protected speech would be if the stolen information exposed some crime in Apple, in which case whistleblower laws would protect the informants. Get a clue, gentlemen: the 1st Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to broadcast whatever you want. It does not protect you from having your trolls deleted by forum mods, or your letter to the editor from being thrown away unpublished. It protects you against being censored by the **government** for spreading your political and/or religious beliefs, even if they are contrary to what the govt. is promoting. THAT is your freedom, not the right to post warez, not the right to break your NDA, and not the right to take a handoff from somebody that breaks THEIR NDA and make a pocketfull of cash on it. You don't have to be a lawyer to know this; paying any attention in High School Govt. class (for US citizens) should be background enough.