It seems pretty simple to me. The mother, who cares about performance and utility, wasn't impressed. The tweenage daughter, who cares about gadgets and superficial appearances liked it.
Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia can run out of things to document has a pretty narrow view of just how much information humans generate (and uncover in the Universe). This is not a matter of finishing the job, or anything nearly so monumental. It's just that for something like Wikipedia to thrive, it needs a lot of volunteers-- and that means a lot of people who think it is *cool* enough to spend their time on. The buzz is fading, and people are moving on to other trends. Nothing more, nothing less.
So your agument is that this is different, but not enough to matter to you? Okay, I'll buy that. Now explain to me how your preferences affect their strategic move to appeal to the general populace.
This is a case of "one bad apple spoiling the whole lot"... The unlockers opened a can of worms. If the only hacks were interface mods, third party apps, ringtones, etc. I don't think Apple would care. Unfortunately, the jailbreaking that allows these also allows unlocking. Unless the network unlockers are going away, Apple has to stop the good along with the bad.
Am I right that they called it "Steam" just so journalists would have to keep using the phrases "Steam-powered" and "powered by steam" and "valve releases steam"? Think of the confusing sentences if they released a Castle Falkenstein game, and journos had to summarize that.
If you are including every device contected to the Internet, then surely it is more than that. The vending machine in my building is on the Internet. My phone is on the Internet. My laser printer is on the Internet, and in a way, I believe my cable box is too. Between infrastructure, servers, telecommunications, and end systems, a huge fraction of the electricity-using devices we interact with are on the Net.
I'm going to ignore my Mod points, and comment instead...
There is something really wrong in America right now. At first glance, it's easy to say "The Terrorists Are Winning" because we are all afraid. However, we are not just afraid because of Terrorists-- at least, not the ones that most people think of.
We are afraid because of people in power who are abusing, and inflating, our fears, to further their own agendas. My favorite example is how you can't bring an 8 oz. water bottle on a plane, and for a while couldn't bring a fingernail clipper. The idea here isn't to make us safe-- it is to make us feel so inconvenienced that we know the powers that be are trying really hard to make us feel safe. This isn't an effort to protect us, it is a marketing effort on the part of the politicians in power. It doesn't protect us from anything.
My point is that it isn't "We are all afraid, so the Terrorists are winning"-- it is "We are all afraid, because our own leaders are using our fear to have better control over us." We are afraid because certain people in power, and others who want it, know that they can control us better if we see them as protecting us from the unfaceable threat of the brown-skinned, foreign-language-speaking, different-religion "Terrorists".
Terrorism is creating fear in a civilian population, to achieve political and idealogical goals. Osama Bin Laden is no more guilty of Terrorism, by that definition, than George W. Bush. One of those men is committing terrorism on a people he sees as an enemy-- the other on his own people.
Here's a simpler point for you. I paid $600 for my phone, and after a few months with it, I really like it. It does what I want, how I want to do it. Is it perfect? No. Would I chose another device over it, having used it? No. Is it for everyone? No. It's worth what people will pay for it, and so far, a million people paid $400-$600 bucks for one. So clearly, it's worth $400.
Oh, absolutely. My point is mostly that it's a narrow field, and a different kind of device from a "Phone"-- it's one of many things that the iPhone integrates. People saying $400 is too much to pay for a phone, when referring to the iPhone, are being silly. It's not just a phone, it's also a phone. You certainly don't find many devices with the iPhone's feature set in the $0-$100 after contract price range.
If you only use it as a phone, it's really not the right device for you. My iPod is a great phone (far more useful for calling than my SLVR L7 was), a great iPod (for barely more than the nearly identical iPod touch), a media viewer (movies and my photo portfolio in my pocket, on a real screen), not to mention a little thing called the Internet (real email, real web browsing, and some handy applets).
I would have paid $100 for a nice phone. Yes, there are free ones, but not everyone wants the ones that are free.
I would have paid $300 for an iPod. Yes, they are a popular device, so even if you don't want one, it's valuable.
I would have paid... Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again? From a bunch of other devices that cost just as much, or certainly nearly as much.
I paid $600 for my phone, and I pay a little over $70 a month with taxes for all the calls, texts, and Internet I will ever use. I've had it since it was released, and every day I'm glad I have all of those functions, working elegantly, in one device in my pocket. For $400, it's a steal. Even if you don't want one-- because plenty of people do.
A few years ago, I got hit with a Joe Job. Someone sent out spam to a very large list, pretending to be me, advertising a service I actually provided then. The email was badly spelled, made the emphasis very unprofessional, and linked to my site. The goal, and maybe the result, was to make me look like an ignorant, asshole spammer. They paaid to do this, though not a lot I imagine. This seems to be a very similar kind of attack.
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if, like Linux distributions, Mac OS X or Windows were designed by a committee. I guess I know the answer, though-- if there were two GUIs for the Mac, competing for mindspace among users, with hardcore types arguing over which was better-- none of us would ever have heard of the Mac. As long as the Linux platform is this disorganized, all you are going to be is hobbyists arguing with eachother over which components will get the mainstream folks to start playing with the same toys as you.
Speaking as a techie who isn't part of this whole movement thing you folks have got going, I have to say this makes the whole thing look even more silly. "You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front."
One might argue that language, and the narrow classifications that it demands of us, are inherent to the manner of thinking that separates humans from animals, for ill or good. If we can name something, we can think about it in shorthand, and that allows our thought processes to flow more smoothly. Personally, I don't care about your gender, or that of your spouse-- it just bugs me that you go out of your way not to say it.
You may be misreading those of us who comment. I am not upset, I'm merely confused by the misuse of language.
The word spouse is meant to refer to a case where the gender is ambiguous, such as general cases like "People tend to spend more time with their spouses than their siblings." If I use any such term, when there is a specific term available, it's strange-- For instance, I don't talk about my "sibling", my "parent", etc. when I know which individual I am talking about, as "brother" or "mother" are clearly the correct word choices.
I suspect the reason people comment so much is not because they mind your little "social experiment", but precisely because you are conducting an experiment. You've basically said that your word choice is in order to get a reaction, so you must be aware that it stands out. People noticing it is hardly surprising.
I guess that I'm saying is that your "experiment" lacks a control, and your results will be whatever you expect them to be.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems pretty simple to me. The mother, who cares about performance and utility, wasn't impressed. The tweenage daughter, who cares about gadgets and superficial appearances liked it.
Anyone who thinks that Wikipedia can run out of things to document has a pretty narrow view of just how much information humans generate (and uncover in the Universe). This is not a matter of finishing the job, or anything nearly so monumental. It's just that for something like Wikipedia to thrive, it needs a lot of volunteers-- and that means a lot of people who think it is *cool* enough to spend their time on. The buzz is fading, and people are moving on to other trends. Nothing more, nothing less.
So your agument is that this is different, but not enough to matter to you? Okay, I'll buy that. Now explain to me how your preferences affect their strategic move to appeal to the general populace.
This is a case of "one bad apple spoiling the whole lot"... The unlockers opened a can of worms. If the only hacks were interface mods, third party apps, ringtones, etc. I don't think Apple would care. Unfortunately, the jailbreaking that allows these also allows unlocking. Unless the network unlockers are going away, Apple has to stop the good along with the bad.
I think the point is more, how to we make the survival rate even better. Not every problem means chosing to avoid a solution.
That really is scary. I could have sworn the federal code determined what was authorized as fair use, not the copyright holder.
Would it be immature for me to end this post by saying "Sheesh!"?
Am I right that they called it "Steam" just so journalists would have to keep using the phrases "Steam-powered" and "powered by steam" and "valve releases steam"? Think of the confusing sentences if they released a Castle Falkenstein game, and journos had to summarize that.
Another way of looking at that equation is "but you need one for every viewer, instead of just one for your TV room".
If you are including every device contected to the Internet, then surely it is more than that. The vending machine in my building is on the Internet. My phone is on the Internet. My laser printer is on the Internet, and in a way, I believe my cable box is too. Between infrastructure, servers, telecommunications, and end systems, a huge fraction of the electricity-using devices we interact with are on the Net.
There is something really wrong in America right now. At first glance, it's easy to say "The Terrorists Are Winning" because we are all afraid. However, we are not just afraid because of Terrorists-- at least, not the ones that most people think of.
We are afraid because of people in power who are abusing, and inflating, our fears, to further their own agendas. My favorite example is how you can't bring an 8 oz. water bottle on a plane, and for a while couldn't bring a fingernail clipper. The idea here isn't to make us safe-- it is to make us feel so inconvenienced that we know the powers that be are trying really hard to make us feel safe. This isn't an effort to protect us, it is a marketing effort on the part of the politicians in power. It doesn't protect us from anything.
My point is that it isn't "We are all afraid, so the Terrorists are winning"-- it is "We are all afraid, because our own leaders are using our fear to have better control over us." We are afraid because certain people in power, and others who want it, know that they can control us better if we see them as protecting us from the unfaceable threat of the brown-skinned, foreign-language-speaking, different-religion "Terrorists".
Terrorism is creating fear in a civilian population, to achieve political and idealogical goals. Osama Bin Laden is no more guilty of Terrorism, by that definition, than George W. Bush. One of those men is committing terrorism on a people he sees as an enemy-- the other on his own people.
Here's a simpler point for you. I paid $600 for my phone, and after a few months with it, I really like it. It does what I want, how I want to do it. Is it perfect? No. Would I chose another device over it, having used it? No. Is it for everyone? No. It's worth what people will pay for it, and so far, a million people paid $400-$600 bucks for one. So clearly, it's worth $400.
Oh, absolutely. My point is mostly that it's a narrow field, and a different kind of device from a "Phone"-- it's one of many things that the iPhone integrates. People saying $400 is too much to pay for a phone, when referring to the iPhone, are being silly. It's not just a phone, it's also a phone. You certainly don't find many devices with the iPhone's feature set in the $0-$100 after contract price range.
If you only use it as a phone, it's really not the right device for you. My iPod is a great phone (far more useful for calling than my SLVR L7 was), a great iPod (for barely more than the nearly identical iPod touch), a media viewer (movies and my photo portfolio in my pocket, on a real screen), not to mention a little thing called the Internet (real email, real web browsing, and some handy applets).
I would have paid $100 for a nice phone. Yes, there are free ones, but not everyone wants the ones that are free.
I would have paid $300 for an iPod. Yes, they are a popular device, so even if you don't want one, it's valuable.
I would have paid... Oh wait, where can I get a standards-compliant web browser with a 3.5" screen, and a fully-functional POP/IMAP email client, on a phone again? From a bunch of other devices that cost just as much, or certainly nearly as much.
I paid $600 for my phone, and I pay a little over $70 a month with taxes for all the calls, texts, and Internet I will ever use. I've had it since it was released, and every day I'm glad I have all of those functions, working elegantly, in one device in my pocket. For $400, it's a steal. Even if you don't want one-- because plenty of people do.
That's the second time this week someone has used Pascal's Wager as an explanatory device on Slashdot, that I've seen.
Ah, but you haven't seen his daughter from the adult-only sequel they have planned.
It's like carrying holy water and a crucifix to Transylvania.
It's amazing how illustrative Pascal's Wager can be for most two-way decisions...
Oh my god, I made a typo. You have shamed me for life.
A few years ago, I got hit with a Joe Job. Someone sent out spam to a very large list, pretending to be me, advertising a service I actually provided then. The email was badly spelled, made the emphasis very unprofessional, and linked to my site. The goal, and maybe the result, was to make me look like an ignorant, asshole spammer. They paaid to do this, though not a lot I imagine. This seems to be a very similar kind of attack.
What? It did say he was Chinese, right?
What?
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if, like Linux distributions, Mac OS X or Windows were designed by a committee. I guess I know the answer, though-- if there were two GUIs for the Mac, competing for mindspace among users, with hardcore types arguing over which was better-- none of us would ever have heard of the Mac. As long as the Linux platform is this disorganized, all you are going to be is hobbyists arguing with eachother over which components will get the mainstream folks to start playing with the same toys as you.
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm
One might argue that language, and the narrow classifications that it demands of us, are inherent to the manner of thinking that separates humans from animals, for ill or good. If we can name something, we can think about it in shorthand, and that allows our thought processes to flow more smoothly. Personally, I don't care about your gender, or that of your spouse-- it just bugs me that you go out of your way not to say it.
The word spouse is meant to refer to a case where the gender is ambiguous, such as general cases like "People tend to spend more time with their spouses than their siblings." If I use any such term, when there is a specific term available, it's strange-- For instance, I don't talk about my "sibling", my "parent", etc. when I know which individual I am talking about, as "brother" or "mother" are clearly the correct word choices.
I suspect the reason people comment so much is not because they mind your little "social experiment", but precisely because you are conducting an experiment. You've basically said that your word choice is in order to get a reaction, so you must be aware that it stands out. People noticing it is hardly surprising.
I guess that I'm saying is that your "experiment" lacks a control, and your results will be whatever you expect them to be.