You appear to be confused by the content of my post. I didn't say the Apple way wasn't successful for a great many people. I pointed out ways in which it is inferior to current solutions. As for the Blackberry way of exclusivity, worked out great for them for almost a decade. Time will tell how well Apple does with its closed environment in the long term.
Historically it is those devices that play well with others that go on to become successful long term. I don't think Apple is in any danger yet, of course people said that about RIM before the iPhone was released.
5yr failure rate on what? On my network the Macs fail just as often as the PCs, they are the same hardware.... The overpriced comment comes from the insanely overpriced Mac Pro towers. For $20k you get crap compared just about any other manufacturer. When it comes to displays I give Apple props for not compromising. We built a top end cad workstation for $10k which has a lot more computing power than the Mac towers we just purchased for our graphics department. The custom job has better graphics, better and more processors, more ram, faster hard drives since SATA III is still not very prevalent this is very easy.
I'll admit that most of the Apple pricing comments are from the days of history, when Apple moved to x86 the price premium started falling. The iPad 2 was overpriced though, the iPad 3 at least had a significantly better screen to justify the price. I can still get comparable or in my opinion better tablets from Acer or Asus though for a smaller price.
It is unlikely that Apple could fix this. The majority of those UI issues crop up because you're talking to multiple different systems. Apple doesn't integrate well with others, they force others to integrate with them. They would have to have a complete stack of software and would still run into compliance issues as they try to keep their software proprietary preventing others from becoming compatible. In other words, say good bye to sending medical records to another hospital unless they too are running all Apple.
And those of us using XBMC have this functionality without the need to force everyone to use an iPhone. All of the major platforms have XBMC remotes, any other platform can use upnp to stream content in the exact same way as airplay. Naturally you can do this from any device with a web browser as well. Displaying a gate camera on screen while watching a movie when someone rings the buzzer? No problem! Press a key on the remote and you can even open the gate.
The problem with the Apple way is that you have to do it the Apple way or it becomes much more difficult than the alternatives. There are way too many different configurations in the living room. As far as the car goes, there's certainly room for improvement and it's a problem Apple has shown they are capable of solving, since there are inherent standards in place they might be able to pull something off. I doubt they are that interested since most cars already support iDevices right off the lot these days. Navigation wise they have a long way to go to catch up but they also have a lot of money.
The only thing I found sluggish was the file browser until I turned accessibility options off. Then everything sped up like I'd expect on a newish i7 laptop. Not sure why the browser doesn't index folders that you use regularly, it can be a real pain to open folders with lots of files like my download or reference folders.
As someone that uses Unity on my 52" tv I find your assertions strange. I don't feel like it gets in the way on any platform. The whole reason it's nice for smaller platforms is because it gets out of your way, this is just as useful on any size screen.
I'll admit there are things in my 11.04 install that needed polish, same with my 11.10 installs,but they are nearly as bad or unreliable as Ubuntu was when it was Gnome 2. Of course in none of those scenarios was my experience bad, I spend a lot of time in CLI anyway so I guess I don't worry a whole hell of a lot about where a few icons are displayed.
Where are you getting your info from? If it's from Fox News you might want to read deeper into the issue. Yes it's growing but.... there's a lot more to the story!
This myopic view that global warming is supposed to have the same effect everywhere at the same time is disheartening and counter to the discussion that the vast majority of conservationists are trying to have, which is better use of our resources which is actually good for everybody in the long run. I am saddened that people haven't learned from the era of lakes catching on fire prompting the creation of the EPA to begin with. We have to live in our environment, using resources responsibly shouldn't be that controversial.
That said, many predictions about global warming actually are accurate, those that thought the sky were falling were and are just as foolish and those that don't think there is a problem. The people in the middle are capable of making a better world for the people that come after us as opposed to raping all resources until they are gone.
Guess that depends on your definition of decent. Current AMD APUs do this without a problem. I built an HTPC almost a year ago which decodes Bluray. The hardest part was getting playback working under Linux. On Windows it was a snap because it's an allowed platform.
As someone that made my way up through the ranks from tech to business I find myself asking why is there such a debate? In what organization can you buy a router without justification? I always needed to state risks to the business along with how and when I would expect a return on investment if a calculation was possible. Backup hardware is the hardest to justify from the business side as you can only estimate the costs of a catastrophic failure. The only difference between what I did then and what I do now is the level of detail at which I communicate the technical specifications. There is much less detail and more of a focus on how it can help the company make more money or make it more efficient meaning that it can do more with current personnel.
The other side is that I am given a clearer picture of cash flow for the company so they make me prioritize projects to mitigate the biggest risks first. Maybe the company I work for makes more sense than others, I kind of doubt that. I also have to gauge the manpower at my disposal and determine what projects I can take on and which risks are better with a cheap band aid until proper funding is given. As long as everything is well documented with illustrations and word explanations I find for the most part they say yes. Most of the company relies on IT so I guess in that regard we are fairly unique.
I definitely think a CIO needs a technical background though. I've found that you cannot effectively judge the risks you are taking without understanding the underlying technology. You are also correct in that you can't only have a technical background. In my experience though few people are all technical.
Except that all the safety systems in place were turned to silent due to false alarms. That had a little something to do with how the fire began which ultimately let to it's sinking.
You said "teenage nonsense" implying childish behavior and illustrated your own childish behavior by phrasing the problem as a black and white, right or wrong issue. When all legal leverage is on the side of the RIAA, you can't begrudge people for wanting to take back rights that always existed in the past such as format shifting.
You have the additional problem of the fact that while the music industry has grown, prices have remain fixed regardless of the cost involved. When distribution costs mere pennies for thousands of songs you have to look at how much you're charging. It was until Apple dragged them kicking and screaming that you could really buy legally online and even though you could only license a single copy with format shifting against the license agreement. Fair-use went out the window.
There are certainly those out there that just want stuff for free regardless of the damage it can cause. These people are far fewer than being portrayed. Most people that pirate music use it as a preview tool to decide what concerts to go to or what songs/albums to buy. Both ways leaves the artist compensated for their work so the moral argument falls flat.
If you're going to call people childish you should probably check your own everything is black or white perspective at the door, especially if you're going to call the analogy idiotic.
The reason people are fighting so hard is because the whole situation is very one-sided. Fair-use was protected in near history, so was the first sale doctrine. Combine that with ridiculous numbers that RIAA and MPAA and BSA put forth and it's very hard to want to take their side. Just about everyone can agree that artists producing works should be compensated for said work. That said, the RIAA famously doesn't reward artists and uses that money for less than ethical purposes.
While I definitely agree with everything you've said, I've also found that many of the women newly effected by planned parenthood changes are becoming much more aware of what is happening in politics because it is effecting their ability to get birth control. Something that used to take 5 minutes for a girl to do now takes more than 30 minutes. As long as republicans keep attacking the interests of a majority of women out there you will at least some one segment of the population become much more politically aware and even active.
Of course I'm an optimist and would hope that we can recover what I still believe is a great model that has been co-opted by greed on both sides of the isle.
While I'll accept that I should have kept my opinion out of the sentence, you are still injecting words that I did not say. You can disagree with someone who clearly had different priorities without seeing them as evil. Additionally, you have the statements backwards. If Republicans are saying many of Obama's actions are evil and they are using the word explicitly, and those actions are the same actions they supported when Bush was doing it, then they are the ones calling the predecessor's actions evil, not me, hence my use of the word disingenuous.
There was no strawman, there is evidence right in this thread of the very behavior to which I was responding directly.
Be as pedantic as you like, it won't make you right. Both Obama and Bush made mistakes, all presidents do. This is the reason we have checks and balances. The unfortunate reality is that those checks aren't being very well enforced, but of course, that's a matter of opinion as I disagree with the priorities set forth by both administrations. It's not us versus them. We are one country and should all be trying to work together to solve problems to our mutual benefit as opposed to screwing the majority to protect certain people.
Again, I have not called anyone evil either directly or indirectly.
You're absolutely correct, but calling him evil is name calling. Of course that is in spite of the fact that congress is the one passing laws that violate that threaten the constitution. Saying that Obama is somehow violating his oath to uphold the values of the constitution is inflammatory rhetoric given that if it were actually true congress could prosecute him.
Distilling something as complicated as the presidency to single sentence attacks is always bound to be trouble.
Except that I didn't call Bush evil, nor Reagan. I said I disagreed with their policies, most of the things people refer to with Obama when they call him evil are the very same things Bush was doing. If you feel the need to put words in other people's mouths that's up to you but that's certainly not what I meant or said.
Except that the only one's using the words evil are those opposing Obama, you should check your inflammatory rhetoric as it will accomplish nothing. You can state that you are unhappy that he hasn't lived up to certain campaign promises but to call him evil in the face of all the horrors that were acceptable under his predecessor is quite disingenuous given that most of these policies started with him. Of course many of the policies we all disagree with go back much further to Reagan.
I hate this hyper-polarized political climate we have these days, people spend way too much time calling people names and not enough time actually debating the issues.
Way to completely miss the point of my post. The offloading of bad debt, all of the market speculation, and trading stocks every second have lead in many ways to where we are. I actually did not place all of the blame but the recently settlement with the big banks should be an indicator to you that no only where the banks acting immorally but they are also acting illegally which gets back to your first comment trying to say that impoverished people committing crimes are less moral when rich people harm way more lives.
Yeah, you prefer to see millions of people kicked out of their homes in foreclosure due to the policies the rich set forth. That's soooo much more moral than stealing a single car.
They are usually right. My sister's were only four years older than me. If they were at a party with alcohol then it would be broken up and they would go on their merry way. When I it was my turn for highschool, the party wouldn't just be broken up, but all kids would be held until their parents picked them and in many cases would be arrested. Today getting arrested is a near certainty. The old statement boys will be boys no longer applies as you have adult sentences pressed on to teenagers more and more these days.
I think you missed what the parent was saying. Parent was trying to say that the drugs make people violent when it is the legal status that causes most of it which is the point I was making.
So the taxes on alcohol and tobacco cause people to commit crimes?
Also, I'm sorry, but drugs don't change people, someone who was an asshole on drugs was an asshole without drugs. This is pretty universal. Someone who stays away from drugs now because of the legal status wouldn't likely try crack because of the known effects and physical consequences which are real. Some people probably would try it, but unless they have an addictive personality they will be fine as they learn the gain isn't worth the other risks.
Your hotel example seems fine and all but you fail to link it to changes in behavior that would be caused by the legalization of drugs. In my high school practically everybody smoked pot and drank alcohol. The legalization of it wouldn't have affected it one way or another. Being a teenager especially these days sucks and you can't really be surprised that they're looking for ways to make it better.
Word to the wise, responsible people are responsible people regardless of the laws that govern them. Assholes will be assholes as much as the law will allow.
It's funny how the paranoia often associated with smoking pot goes away when people get their weed cards. When you force people to the fringes they will feed off of each other. You're right in that there is some violence but that violence is there anyways. There would still be a significant drop in violent crime.
Slashdot Mirror
You appear to be confused by the content of my post. I didn't say the Apple way wasn't successful for a great many people. I pointed out ways in which it is inferior to current solutions. As for the Blackberry way of exclusivity, worked out great for them for almost a decade. Time will tell how well Apple does with its closed environment in the long term.
Historically it is those devices that play well with others that go on to become successful long term. I don't think Apple is in any danger yet, of course people said that about RIM before the iPhone was released.
5yr failure rate on what? On my network the Macs fail just as often as the PCs, they are the same hardware .... The overpriced comment comes from the insanely overpriced Mac Pro towers. For $20k you get crap compared just about any other manufacturer. When it comes to displays I give Apple props for not compromising. We built a top end cad workstation for $10k which has a lot more computing power than the Mac towers we just purchased for our graphics department. The custom job has better graphics, better and more processors, more ram, faster hard drives since SATA III is still not very prevalent this is very easy.
I'll admit that most of the Apple pricing comments are from the days of history, when Apple moved to x86 the price premium started falling. The iPad 2 was overpriced though, the iPad 3 at least had a significantly better screen to justify the price. I can still get comparable or in my opinion better tablets from Acer or Asus though for a smaller price.
It is unlikely that Apple could fix this. The majority of those UI issues crop up because you're talking to multiple different systems. Apple doesn't integrate well with others, they force others to integrate with them. They would have to have a complete stack of software and would still run into compliance issues as they try to keep their software proprietary preventing others from becoming compatible. In other words, say good bye to sending medical records to another hospital unless they too are running all Apple.
And those of us using XBMC have this functionality without the need to force everyone to use an iPhone. All of the major platforms have XBMC remotes, any other platform can use upnp to stream content in the exact same way as airplay. Naturally you can do this from any device with a web browser as well. Displaying a gate camera on screen while watching a movie when someone rings the buzzer? No problem! Press a key on the remote and you can even open the gate.
The problem with the Apple way is that you have to do it the Apple way or it becomes much more difficult than the alternatives. There are way too many different configurations in the living room. As far as the car goes, there's certainly room for improvement and it's a problem Apple has shown they are capable of solving, since there are inherent standards in place they might be able to pull something off. I doubt they are that interested since most cars already support iDevices right off the lot these days. Navigation wise they have a long way to go to catch up but they also have a lot of money.
The only thing I found sluggish was the file browser until I turned accessibility options off. Then everything sped up like I'd expect on a newish i7 laptop. Not sure why the browser doesn't index folders that you use regularly, it can be a real pain to open folders with lots of files like my download or reference folders.
As someone that uses Unity on my 52" tv I find your assertions strange. I don't feel like it gets in the way on any platform. The whole reason it's nice for smaller platforms is because it gets out of your way, this is just as useful on any size screen.
I'll admit there are things in my 11.04 install that needed polish, same with my 11.10 installs,but they are nearly as bad or unreliable as Ubuntu was when it was Gnome 2. Of course in none of those scenarios was my experience bad, I spend a lot of time in CLI anyway so I guess I don't worry a whole hell of a lot about where a few icons are displayed.
Where are you getting your info from? If it's from Fox News you might want to read deeper into the issue. Yes it's growing but.... there's a lot more to the story!
This myopic view that global warming is supposed to have the same effect everywhere at the same time is disheartening and counter to the discussion that the vast majority of conservationists are trying to have, which is better use of our resources which is actually good for everybody in the long run. I am saddened that people haven't learned from the era of lakes catching on fire prompting the creation of the EPA to begin with. We have to live in our environment, using resources responsibly shouldn't be that controversial.
That said, many predictions about global warming actually are accurate, those that thought the sky were falling were and are just as foolish and those that don't think there is a problem. The people in the middle are capable of making a better world for the people that come after us as opposed to raping all resources until they are gone.
Guess that depends on your definition of decent. Current AMD APUs do this without a problem. I built an HTPC almost a year ago which decodes Bluray. The hardest part was getting playback working under Linux. On Windows it was a snap because it's an allowed platform.
As someone that made my way up through the ranks from tech to business I find myself asking why is there such a debate? In what organization can you buy a router without justification? I always needed to state risks to the business along with how and when I would expect a return on investment if a calculation was possible. Backup hardware is the hardest to justify from the business side as you can only estimate the costs of a catastrophic failure. The only difference between what I did then and what I do now is the level of detail at which I communicate the technical specifications. There is much less detail and more of a focus on how it can help the company make more money or make it more efficient meaning that it can do more with current personnel.
The other side is that I am given a clearer picture of cash flow for the company so they make me prioritize projects to mitigate the biggest risks first. Maybe the company I work for makes more sense than others, I kind of doubt that. I also have to gauge the manpower at my disposal and determine what projects I can take on and which risks are better with a cheap band aid until proper funding is given. As long as everything is well documented with illustrations and word explanations I find for the most part they say yes. Most of the company relies on IT so I guess in that regard we are fairly unique.
I definitely think a CIO needs a technical background though. I've found that you cannot effectively judge the risks you are taking without understanding the underlying technology. You are also correct in that you can't only have a technical background. In my experience though few people are all technical.
Except that all the safety systems in place were turned to silent due to false alarms. That had a little something to do with how the fire began which ultimately let to it's sinking.
You said "teenage nonsense" implying childish behavior and illustrated your own childish behavior by phrasing the problem as a black and white, right or wrong issue. When all legal leverage is on the side of the RIAA, you can't begrudge people for wanting to take back rights that always existed in the past such as format shifting.
You have the additional problem of the fact that while the music industry has grown, prices have remain fixed regardless of the cost involved. When distribution costs mere pennies for thousands of songs you have to look at how much you're charging. It was until Apple dragged them kicking and screaming that you could really buy legally online and even though you could only license a single copy with format shifting against the license agreement. Fair-use went out the window.
There are certainly those out there that just want stuff for free regardless of the damage it can cause. These people are far fewer than being portrayed. Most people that pirate music use it as a preview tool to decide what concerts to go to or what songs/albums to buy. Both ways leaves the artist compensated for their work so the moral argument falls flat.
If you're going to call people childish you should probably check your own everything is black or white perspective at the door, especially if you're going to call the analogy idiotic.
The reason people are fighting so hard is because the whole situation is very one-sided. Fair-use was protected in near history, so was the first sale doctrine. Combine that with ridiculous numbers that RIAA and MPAA and BSA put forth and it's very hard to want to take their side. Just about everyone can agree that artists producing works should be compensated for said work. That said, the RIAA famously doesn't reward artists and uses that money for less than ethical purposes.
While I definitely agree with everything you've said, I've also found that many of the women newly effected by planned parenthood changes are becoming much more aware of what is happening in politics because it is effecting their ability to get birth control. Something that used to take 5 minutes for a girl to do now takes more than 30 minutes. As long as republicans keep attacking the interests of a majority of women out there you will at least some one segment of the population become much more politically aware and even active.
Of course I'm an optimist and would hope that we can recover what I still believe is a great model that has been co-opted by greed on both sides of the isle.
While I'll accept that I should have kept my opinion out of the sentence, you are still injecting words that I did not say. You can disagree with someone who clearly had different priorities without seeing them as evil. Additionally, you have the statements backwards. If Republicans are saying many of Obama's actions are evil and they are using the word explicitly, and those actions are the same actions they supported when Bush was doing it, then they are the ones calling the predecessor's actions evil, not me, hence my use of the word disingenuous.
There was no strawman, there is evidence right in this thread of the very behavior to which I was responding directly.
Be as pedantic as you like, it won't make you right. Both Obama and Bush made mistakes, all presidents do. This is the reason we have checks and balances. The unfortunate reality is that those checks aren't being very well enforced, but of course, that's a matter of opinion as I disagree with the priorities set forth by both administrations. It's not us versus them. We are one country and should all be trying to work together to solve problems to our mutual benefit as opposed to screwing the majority to protect certain people.
Again, I have not called anyone evil either directly or indirectly.
You're absolutely correct, but calling him evil is name calling. Of course that is in spite of the fact that congress is the one passing laws that violate that threaten the constitution. Saying that Obama is somehow violating his oath to uphold the values of the constitution is inflammatory rhetoric given that if it were actually true congress could prosecute him.
Distilling something as complicated as the presidency to single sentence attacks is always bound to be trouble.
Except that I didn't call Bush evil, nor Reagan. I said I disagreed with their policies, most of the things people refer to with Obama when they call him evil are the very same things Bush was doing. If you feel the need to put words in other people's mouths that's up to you but that's certainly not what I meant or said.
Except that the only one's using the words evil are those opposing Obama, you should check your inflammatory rhetoric as it will accomplish nothing. You can state that you are unhappy that he hasn't lived up to certain campaign promises but to call him evil in the face of all the horrors that were acceptable under his predecessor is quite disingenuous given that most of these policies started with him. Of course many of the policies we all disagree with go back much further to Reagan.
I hate this hyper-polarized political climate we have these days, people spend way too much time calling people names and not enough time actually debating the issues.
Way to completely miss the point of my post. The offloading of bad debt, all of the market speculation, and trading stocks every second have lead in many ways to where we are. I actually did not place all of the blame but the recently settlement with the big banks should be an indicator to you that no only where the banks acting immorally but they are also acting illegally which gets back to your first comment trying to say that impoverished people committing crimes are less moral when rich people harm way more lives.
Yeah, you prefer to see millions of people kicked out of their homes in foreclosure due to the policies the rich set forth. That's soooo much more moral than stealing a single car.
They are usually right. My sister's were only four years older than me. If they were at a party with alcohol then it would be broken up and they would go on their merry way. When I it was my turn for highschool, the party wouldn't just be broken up, but all kids would be held until their parents picked them and in many cases would be arrested. Today getting arrested is a near certainty. The old statement boys will be boys no longer applies as you have adult sentences pressed on to teenagers more and more these days.
I think you missed what the parent was saying. Parent was trying to say that the drugs make people violent when it is the legal status that causes most of it which is the point I was making.
So the taxes on alcohol and tobacco cause people to commit crimes?
Also, I'm sorry, but drugs don't change people, someone who was an asshole on drugs was an asshole without drugs. This is pretty universal. Someone who stays away from drugs now because of the legal status wouldn't likely try crack because of the known effects and physical consequences which are real. Some people probably would try it, but unless they have an addictive personality they will be fine as they learn the gain isn't worth the other risks.
Your hotel example seems fine and all but you fail to link it to changes in behavior that would be caused by the legalization of drugs. In my high school practically everybody smoked pot and drank alcohol. The legalization of it wouldn't have affected it one way or another. Being a teenager especially these days sucks and you can't really be surprised that they're looking for ways to make it better.
Word to the wise, responsible people are responsible people regardless of the laws that govern them. Assholes will be assholes as much as the law will allow.
It's funny how the paranoia often associated with smoking pot goes away when people get their weed cards. When you force people to the fringes they will feed off of each other. You're right in that there is some violence but that violence is there anyways. There would still be a significant drop in violent crime.
Yeah, look at all those people breaking into home (empty at the time or not) to steal alcohol or money for alcohol or jewelery to pawn for alcohol.
It's legal status I'm sorry is very much the reason for the violence.
Yeah, totally, all criminals are just as bad as all other criminals. Is this intentional snark?