and even if I were I wouldn't sign up with Rogers. I'm not about to forgive them for renaming the Skydome to Rogers Center and buying out my old faithful cell phone service provider
The irony in this is that Inushuk was actually owned by Sprint and THEY were going to do something like that together with Microcell.
It is sort of ironic to now have Rogers do this after they gobbled up both Sprint AND Microcell.
But yeah, I am with you. I have a kick ass plan from Fido and I won't part with it, alone the per second billing is worth it and thanks to them being GSM I can just buy whatever phone I like and use anyways.
The problem with ABS is that most people don't konw that the pedal is supposed to vibrate, it seems a lot of people get "freaked out" by it and get off the brake pedal at that point which sort of defeats the purpose a bit.
In MOST circumstances I would wager that ABS is gonig to increase the safety of the driver and everybody around them, I did had to do a "pump & evade" once, and that is NOT fun.
Because there's still a lot of new cars out there that don't have ABS. I can't even imagine that you think on board display screens and backup sensors are anywhere near standard equipment. I guess if you can afford cars with all those fancy features, but I just don't see to many people with them. Hell, my car doesn't even have power steering (and it's a 2001).
I don't think you can find a car without ABS in Europe anymore, I do know though that in North America it is still some kind of a "luxury".
Personally I think ABS is a very good safety feature, a DVD player in the Dashboard though I don't think it is.
It reminds me of a former collegue who told me when he bought his Nissan a couple of years back the guy at the dealership was going on and on and on about the stereo and "comfort" features, and was a bit surprised when he asked about the ABS, later admitting that most people didn't know what it was nor did they care.
Guess that shows you how they drive too.
The point is that all this fancy crap is likely never going to be standard equipment on all cars. The reason GM is putting Onstar onto all its cars is simply that Onstar is an added revenue stream for them. They figure they can make another $200 a year for each car a year and all they have to do is put a cheap computer and cell phone hooked in to the onboard diagnostics that already has to exist.
ABS should be standard, ASR not so much, but power steering can help in tight spots (not that there are that many in North America).
As for "kick ass audio system" well, I think even Kia these days is going in that direction, the stuff comes cheap and the kids love it.
And you had to fix them a hell of a lot more often. It's a documented fact that in general cars made today are far more reliable than the cars made in the 70s and 80s.
I think the problems just have shifted. In the past a lot of those cars were made by hand so the tolerances were rather big, these days pretty much all the mechanical parts are put together by machines with very very slight tolerances. The problems have shifted over into the electronics part though, can't wait for the first serious bug. There are already cars out there where the accelerator is controlled by a computer instead of straight "feedback" via a wire.
ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs.
And what a profitable 5% they are.
If all their iPod to Mac user sales dropped off the face of the Earth, they'd continue raking in the moolah.
Yes, on the iPod. How long will it be the king of portable music players though? Sooner or later someone else comes along. Apple at one point in time also had a large part of the home PC market.
If, on the other hand, they decided to limit sales of iPods to Mac users, they'd be out of the portable music player (and online music sales) business in six months.
Maybe, or the iPod would just become more expensive again.
The integration issue is a myth as far as it concerns Macs and iPods. It's a wetdream propogated by the Mac-enthusiast club who need reasons to believe the Mac revival is just around the corner.
A lot of the things that you see in the iPod today came from the Mac first, there is a reason for that as well: Apple could control this end to end and they KNEW it would work.
As for the revival: I know a LOT of people who have bought a Mac Mini or iMac after they had an iPod and played a bit with my Macs. They are definetly selling more Macs these days and you can find them at BestBuy and CompuSmart, two places who didn't had them just a few years ago.
The only integration that exists is between iTunes and iPod. The Mac is only a part of it insofar as the Mac can run iTunes, but as Windows can also run iTunes, it's no more a key component than a Belkin mouse or Sony monitor.
True, to some extend. iPod relies on iTunes and iTMS, but there are still things that are first "prototyped" on the Mac before they show up in windows (Quicktime 7).
So, even though the iPod can work without a Mac, there are good reasons for the Mac to be around still.
iTunes Inc is the future of the company today known as Apple. The future of Macintosh lies in the PC industry.
They won't sell the Apple brand and they won't rename themselves, maybe one day they'll get out of the PC business, but I don't really see that either. Apple has a very profitable business there, and Mac OS X seems to be the main drawing point. Maybe they will abandonen the boxes one day and just make the software, or sell the assetts off, but not the Apple product name, it has too much of a history and too high of a brand recognition.
The idea was that they'd use these businesses to ride out the slumps in the economic cycle...in reality, all it did was divert management's attention from their core business.
A good resturant produces the same food, EXACTLY the same, everytime you order it no matter what the time of day or day of the week or not matter how busy it is. Any variation is really considered a mistake. Too much salt? Mistake. Medium-rare is not as rare as you experienced before? Mistake. Really, once the recipe is given, any deviation is just sloppy work.
Nothing will ever be 100% the same, but yes, obviously they try to give yo the same experience over and over, but the ingridients clearly have an effect on the taste as well, and no chef in a kitchen will go out and cook 200l of Soup, then add chemicals to taste just so that for the next week or so they'll have the same stuff.
Exactly what can a human add to the cooking process that a correctly designed and calibrated machine cannot? Say that I give a recipe to a robot and a human, why would the human's dish automatically be better?
The main difference is how the ingridients are handled and how it is prepared.
A machine doesn't care if there is a "bad" spot on a fruit or piece of meat, a machine also doesn't do a "taste test" to make sure it is okay.
Finally, whatever a machine spits out is intended to be stored for a while, that alone requires a change in preparation.
The the ingridients need to have a certain consistancy, otherwise the machine will not be able to really process them etc. etc.
There IS a difference between cooking and "ready to microwave food".
1. Wine is huge vats of rotten grapes. Yet you wouldn't turn your nose up to it. Same thing with cheese.
It may be made in huge vats, but in comparision to what the food industry is putting out it is miniscule, a lot depends on the grapes, the barrel and the person making the wine.
As for cheese, that may be initially be prepared in huge vats but the "taste" is developed through aging (most cheeses).
2. Just because something is wrapped in plastic doesn't mean its not good. One of the biggest things recently in fine French dining is actually wrapping food in plastic, sous vide.
Wrapping something in plastic after cooking per se doesn't make something "bad" but the idea that a machine can follow a recipe and spit out millions of the same stuff in a good way won't happen until you can molecularly create the food from scratch.
For years margarine were touted as a healthy alternative to butter. Decades later we find out that trans-fats in margarine is the main cause of several endemic conditions that, ironically, people were told butter caused.
Actually that depends on what Margerine you're using. if you use the "hard" variety yes, then you have a problem, the soft one is fine though, no transfats.
What is this? 20 years ago everything was organic, now only the rich can get normal food. The rest of us must eat crap that has been genetically modified.
More like 50. The "Green Revolution" took care of that AND made food more affordable (okay, it just shifted the cost but still).
I think that chefs sometimes fall into the same catagory. If one uses real food massive amounts of butter are not neccesary. However, if your food comes from the local food parts facility, then there is little to do but cover up the lack of quality with grease.
I think a way bigger issue is that a lot of people don't even KNOW anymore how food is supposed to taste.
Eat a carrot without dip? "ugh". Eat a grape? "sour"
etc. etc.
I think we really have surrendered our tastebuds to the industry and shouldn't be too surprised if nobody knows how to cook anymore.
Turns out, what is good for drug delivery is also good for coloring and flavorant delivery. A couple phone calls by an astute professor with a cheese fetish, and Kraft gives us Velveeta.
I'd call that a lot of things, but not cheese....
I think "eadible oil by product" is probably the closest I would go with it.
I stay away from oils because they can ruin your whole system, and I think they reinforce our current fatty deposits, by feeding it somehow (it's not that much of a mystery).
You actually DO need some fats in your diet. If you cook for yourself you can control not only what kind of fats but how much you get.
A good salad with a nice olive oil base is delicious and by far not that dangerous.
The mistake many people make is eating out, all the food is so heavily modified and machined that there is no taste left, so they add it in, and a bit more, because, hey, if we make it EXTRA sweet people will like it even better.
I read a while ago that there are now kids who don't really like for example a cherry anymore, because it doesn't taste "right".
I wouldn't call what Kraft & Co are spitting out 'cooking'.
It is a designer meal replacement that resembles cooked food.
Maybe I am old fashined, but anything that gets made in huge vats by machines and then packaged in plastic may be something that keeps me alive, but it DEFINETLY is not cooked.
and even then it doesn't quite feel like a real PC FPS.
That's because it's a console game, duh!
Seriously though, I have no need really to play on the PC anymore, and most big game titles will show up on the Mac eventually, so what, it's not on the first day that the Windows version comes out, but then I am not in Highschool anymore either and need all the "cool" stuff right now so that my friends actually respect me.
Where can you buy a OS X for the x86 architecture right now?
And while we're at it, we're back at what the Copyright Holder wants. Apple apparantly DOESN'T allow you to use the software they are selling on just any computer, why can't they say that?
It is funny that you allow people to give their stuff away, but if someone DOESN'T want to give stuff to certain people all hell breaks loose.
Haven't we covered this a million times on Slashdot? A person is free not to accept the GPL. But if they don't, they are guilty of copyright infringement if they distribute any of the code.
Unless I missed something, that is as unproven in court as is the whole 'shrink wrap license' argument, no?
And why does the GPL (in your opinion) have to be obeyed, yet a license that a commercial company has issued is void?
A company has every right to not sell to people who don't agree to a contract - but if they sell it without asking people if they will accept the contract, it's their own damn fault.
Let's assume for a moment that Apple will sell the boxes only under the condition to the store that they only sell it to people who are going to use it on Apple computers.
If that is the case and the sales person is NOT asking you about this / pointing it out / refusing to sell to you if you say no you're still in breach I would guess.
If you buy stolen property you do NOT gain any legal right to said property, I would guess the same would apply under these circumstances, no?
The last piece of software I was buying had a sticker on it saying: "If you open me you do agree to all the rules that we have laid out in that nice little piece of paper that was in the box."
IANAL, obviously, but still, the way I see this is that if you do open it and not return the box you do agree to that.
And if not: why not?
By your reasoning, what binds ANYBODY to abide by the GPL? They can just download it, then use the code and put it in their own software, after all, it was just lying around there, no?
What I am trying to get at is that most technical products come with a "you can only use it with...." out of a variety of reasons, why should it be different for software?
The only thing implicit in handing over money is that I want to buy the thing. You don't get to make assumptions about whether or not the person agrees with your additional contract - if you want to do that, you need to present the contract, allow them to negiotate, and then explicitly ask if they clearly accept or not.
Ummm.
"I'll sell you this piece of software, but only under the condition of.... Do you agree?"
"Yes, I do"
"Okay, I sell it to you."
The way I see it, the moment you did fork over the money you said "Yes, I agree to your stipulation".
Most companies do this: "We give you the software under the following conditions, if you don't like it, return it to the dealer because we really don't want to sell it to you in any other way."
Just because you want to tinker and are willing to "lie" about it to the vendor doesn't really give you any rights to complain about the fact that they don't want you to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... How do you drive to border???
Edmonton --> Calgary can be done in ~3 hours (or 2 if you really don't care if the RCMP is after you).
The irony in this is that Inushuk was actually owned by Sprint and THEY were going to do something like that together with Microcell.
It is sort of ironic to now have Rogers do this after they gobbled up both Sprint AND Microcell.
But yeah, I am with you. I have a kick ass plan from Fido and I won't part with it, alone the per second billing is worth it and thanks to them being GSM I can just buy whatever phone I like and use anyways.
The problem with ABS is that most people don't konw that the pedal is supposed to vibrate, it seems a lot of people get "freaked out" by it and get off the brake pedal at that point which sort of defeats the purpose a bit.
In MOST circumstances I would wager that ABS is gonig to increase the safety of the driver and everybody around them, I did had to do a "pump & evade" once, and that is NOT fun.
I don't think you can find a car without ABS in Europe anymore, I do know though that in North America it is still some kind of a "luxury".
Personally I think ABS is a very good safety feature, a DVD player in the Dashboard though I don't think it is.
It reminds me of a former collegue who told me when he bought his Nissan a couple of years back the guy at the dealership was going on and on and on about the stereo and "comfort" features, and was a bit surprised when he asked about the ABS, later admitting that most people didn't know what it was nor did they care.
Guess that shows you how they drive too.
ABS should be standard, ASR not so much, but power steering can help in tight spots (not that there are that many in North America).
As for "kick ass audio system" well, I think even Kia these days is going in that direction, the stuff comes cheap and the kids love it.
I think the problems just have shifted. In the past a lot of those cars were made by hand so the tolerances were rather big, these days pretty much all the mechanical parts are put together by machines with very very slight tolerances. The problems have shifted over into the electronics part though, can't wait for the first serious bug. There are already cars out there where the accelerator is controlled by a computer instead of straight "feedback" via a wire.
And what a profitable 5% they are.
Yes, on the iPod. How long will it be the king of portable music players though? Sooner or later someone else comes along. Apple at one point in time also had a large part of the home PC market.
Maybe, or the iPod would just become more expensive again.
A lot of the things that you see in the iPod today came from the Mac first, there is a reason for that as well: Apple could control this end to end and they KNEW it would work.
As for the revival: I know a LOT of people who have bought a Mac Mini or iMac after they had an iPod and played a bit with my Macs. They are definetly selling more Macs these days and you can find them at BestBuy and CompuSmart, two places who didn't had them just a few years ago.
True, to some extend. iPod relies on iTunes and iTMS, but there are still things that are first "prototyped" on the Mac before they show up in windows (Quicktime 7).
So, even though the iPod can work without a Mac, there are good reasons for the Mac to be around still.
They won't sell the Apple brand and they won't rename themselves, maybe one day they'll get out of the PC business, but I don't really see that either. Apple has a very profitable business there, and Mac OS X seems to be the main drawing point. Maybe they will abandonen the boxes one day and just make the software, or sell the assetts off, but not the Apple product name, it has too much of a history and too high of a brand recognition.
So what about GE?
Terrorists? They are such a small target that the chances for anyone to "nuke 'em" is pretty slim.
Foreign powers? Why would they be interested in threatening the US?
Politics it is, let's try to scare the people so that they forget about... Oh, the WMDs in Iraq (not), or Katrina and the aftermath.
Geeez.
Besides,
since when is Venezuela a communist country?
Nothing will ever be 100% the same, but yes, obviously they try to give yo the same experience over and over, but the ingridients clearly have an effect on the taste as well, and no chef in a kitchen will go out and cook 200l of Soup, then add chemicals to taste just so that for the next week or so they'll have the same stuff.
The main difference is how the ingridients are handled and how it is prepared.
A machine doesn't care if there is a "bad" spot on a fruit or piece of meat, a machine also doesn't do a "taste test" to make sure it is okay.
Finally, whatever a machine spits out is intended to be stored for a while, that alone requires a change in preparation.
The the ingridients need to have a certain consistancy, otherwise the machine will not be able to really process them etc. etc.
There IS a difference between cooking and "ready to microwave food".
It may be made in huge vats, but in comparision to what the food industry is putting out it is miniscule, a lot depends on the grapes, the barrel and the person making the wine.
As for cheese, that may be initially be prepared in huge vats but the "taste" is developed through aging (most cheeses).
Wrapping something in plastic after cooking per se doesn't make something "bad" but the idea that a machine can follow a recipe and spit out millions of the same stuff in a good way won't happen until you can molecularly create the food from scratch.
And even THEN it is not cooking.
Actually that depends on what Margerine you're using. if you use the "hard" variety yes, then you have a problem, the soft one is fine though, no transfats.
More like 50. The "Green Revolution" took care of that AND made food more affordable (okay, it just shifted the cost but still).
I think a way bigger issue is that a lot of people don't even KNOW anymore how food is supposed to taste.
Eat a carrot without dip? "ugh".
Eat a grape? "sour"
etc. etc.
I think we really have surrendered our tastebuds to the industry and shouldn't be too surprised if nobody knows how to cook anymore.
Then it is "Microwaved" still not cooking though.
But nice try
I'd call that a lot of things, but not cheese....
I think "eadible oil by product" is probably the closest I would go with it.
You actually DO need some fats in your diet. If you cook for yourself you can control not only what kind of fats but how much you get.
A good salad with a nice olive oil base is delicious and by far not that dangerous.
The mistake many people make is eating out, all the food is so heavily modified and machined that there is no taste left, so they add it in, and a bit more, because, hey, if we make it EXTRA sweet people will like it even better.
I read a while ago that there are now kids who don't really like for example a cherry anymore, because it doesn't taste "right".
Seriously.
I wouldn't call what Kraft & Co are spitting out 'cooking'.
It is a designer meal replacement that resembles cooked food.
Maybe I am old fashined, but anything that gets made in huge vats by machines and then packaged in plastic may be something that keeps me alive, but it DEFINETLY is not cooked.
That's because it's a console game, duh!
Seriously though, I have no need really to play on the PC anymore, and most big game titles will show up on the Mac eventually, so what, it's not on the first day that the Windows version comes out, but then I am not in Highschool anymore either and need all the "cool" stuff right now so that my friends actually respect me.
Where can you buy a OS X for the x86 architecture right now?
And while we're at it, we're back at what the Copyright Holder wants. Apple apparantly DOESN'T allow you to use the software they are selling on just any computer, why can't they say that?
It is funny that you allow people to give their stuff away, but if someone DOESN'T want to give stuff to certain people all hell breaks loose.
Geez.
Unless I missed something, that is as unproven in court as is the whole 'shrink wrap license' argument, no?
And why does the GPL (in your opinion) have to be obeyed, yet a license that a commercial company has issued is void?
Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
Let's assume for a moment that Apple will sell the boxes only under the condition to the store that they only sell it to people who are going to use it on Apple computers.
If that is the case and the sales person is NOT asking you about this / pointing it out / refusing to sell to you if you say no you're still in breach I would guess.
If you buy stolen property you do NOT gain any legal right to said property, I would guess the same would apply under these circumstances, no?
The last piece of software I was buying had a sticker on it saying: "If you open me you do agree to all the rules that we have laid out in that nice little piece of paper that was in the box."
IANAL, obviously, but still, the way I see this is that if you do open it and not return the box you do agree to that.
And if not: why not?
By your reasoning, what binds ANYBODY to abide by the GPL? They can just download it, then use the code and put it in their own software, after all, it was just lying around there, no?
And yet they probably will.
Because someone may read your website, try it, and blow up his engine, then goes on to sue Ford.
Yeah yeah, it's their own fault, but since when has THAT stopped anyone to sue anyways?
What I am trying to get at is that most technical products come with a "you can only use it with...." out of a variety of reasons, why should it be different for software?
Ummm.
"I'll sell you this piece of software, but only under the condition of
"Yes, I do"
"Okay, I sell it to you."
The way I see it, the moment you did fork over the money you said "Yes, I agree to your stipulation".
Most companies do this: "We give you the software under the following conditions, if you don't like it, return it to the dealer because we really don't want to sell it to you in any other way."
Just because you want to tinker and are willing to "lie" about it to the vendor doesn't really give you any rights to complain about the fact that they don't want you to do it.