Its pretty damned clear to me that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Not "no citizen," but "no person". Due process applies to anyone in the jurisdiction of the US, regardless of citizenship or residence (or in fact their physical location, but that's another argument). Note that "in actual service" phrase if you think you can use the military exemption clause as cover here - that only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen in time of war or public danger.
Unless it is actually stated in writing, we can not assume that the clause only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen.
I could interpret "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;" as:
In times of war or public danger, any person detained by the military (either land or naval) do not enjoy the right of having their case heard by a grand jury.
I don't agree with how things are being done. I am only pointing out the dangers of assuming what "in cases arising in the land or naval forces" actually mean. This is why we have a court system and a congress. Either of which has the power to make that judgement either by interpretation (courts) or by clarification (congress).
Spam iconic to the Brits? WTF? Maybe to Monty Python, but not the Brits...
Spam is American and is associated with the American C-Ration. I don't have the reference handy, but WWII proved to be a blessing for Spam (and Coca-Cola and Tootsie Rolls) and became entrenched in the local diets possibly due to no other food being available at the time. I can only think of sentimental value as why it remains popular.
Personally, I like Fried Spam sandwiches but I think it's because it reminds me of my younger days (not so long ago). I know its not because it's good for me (It's not).
AdultSwim saved Futurama,and I believe it's still one of the most popular shows, even with it being a constant rerun over the past year or so. Can't wait for the new season (?) movie (?).
I think it worked both ways, meaning Futurama (and Family Guy) also saved Adult Swim.
It was the mass appeal of Futurama that allowed AS to experiment with alternative shows. I believe Futurama and Family Guy would be considered lead-in shows, which all the remaining shows benefited from anyone who decided not to change the channel.
The big question is: What will Adult Swim do? More Family Guy?
You lost me when you tried to make a relation between pseudo-internet control...
I'm sorry, let me try one more time.
My point was not economic but political. I just used foreign reserves as an example of why the US is favored as a "host" nation. I could have used the "United Nations" as another example.
There are no revolutions, no no-confidence votes that can change the figure head, and for the time being the US hasn't interfered with the day-to-day operations of the internet. The US is stable, so why change?
The real question is why is there a push for a change? People usually don't mess with the status quo (especially when everything is working) unless they intend to impose some type of change (good or bad). So what are the intentions of the provocateurs?
I think the number one reason to keep US in "control" of the internet is domestic stability. This is why a lot of foreign countries keep there money here in the US. The fact that we are democratic takes a back seat to stable.
Face it, other than some stupid name resolution, what REAL control does the US have over the internet?
If it's infrastructure, then this can be fixed by the foreign countries laying more cable...
Voting to me really is a complete waste of time, given that it won't change anything. Actually, it costs me time and gas to participate. And after that, I'll still be giving up to 50% of my income to the government with no real alternative.
So your point is that you are a social parasite. You offer nothing, but enjoy its benefits. You complain about the lack of alternatives, yet don't exercise the option to migrate to another country.
In addition to being a parasite, you are a cheap whore that's willing to sell his vote for a mere iPod...
Honestly? My life. I would defend the right to vote 'til death.
What happens with the vote is an entirely different issue.
I equate the "Right To Vote" with "The right to be heard and be a citizen." If we had no vote, we would be serfs in a totalitarian form of government.
I refuse to allow the value of my voting right to be devalued by false rationalizations that our choices are limited or the corporations run everything anyway. An apathetic voting public falls victim to its own self-fulfilling prophecy ("My vote means nothing therefore I won't vote, equate to my non-vote is worth absolutely nothing").
This is what the incumbents want! Keep the masses happy and ignorant and they have carte blanche to do anything they desire.
As for what affect your vote may have. Again this is up to you. Should we blame the system for our apathy (or quite frankly laziness)? In addition to the right to vote, we enjoy the right to free speech (eg. "Civil rights movement", "Vietnam war protests", "equal rights for women",...). Face it, we can't completely trust our politicians to represent our wishes -- We need to actually make ourselves heard (and taken seriously).
Look again at the numbers on Reimer's chart. You will see that there is no year in which the Apple II box or Mac box, or the sum of the two, holds the largest number of units on the row. Hardly a plurality!
I noticed that too. That's why I went through the whole trouble of how the market research was segmented in 3 categories. I quoted Dataquest which the author referenced (They are a market research firm, so I have to give their results weight) and repeated THEIR findings. I can see how the categories make sense. The fact that the categories help my arguments doesn't hurt, but I can see how it would be unfair to lump Apple II, TRS-80, and IBM with the $99 Sinclair and the $299 Atari 400. I think the 200,000 Atari 800s sold should count against Apple, despite the disk drive system being a piece of crap until the 1050 disk drive was introduced.
On a personal note: I owned an Atari 800 (the original Tan model), and Atari ST (again the first release). I worked my way through college selling the Commodore 64, 128 and Amiga (Not to mention Kaypro, Compaq, Sanyo, and the boat anchor called Osborne). I always thought that the Atari 800 was the one well designed machine that could take Apple on. Unfortunately Jack Tramiel (and Warner Bros) couldn't get thier shit together and the rest they say is history. Incidently something from the Atari still lives on today. The Serial Periphial bus influenced the design of USB. I heard somewhere that the hardware guy from Atari, was on the team that designed the USB but I don't have a reference.
Anyway the reality was that despite being an rabid Atari holy warrior in my day, I was outnumbered by the legions of Apple II users. My Atari users group had 40 people at its peak (thanks to crappy marketing on Atari's part), while the local Apple users group (which I was also a member) had well over 200 members. I had friends that owned Franklins (which were actually better and CHEAPER than the original Apple II) and the VTech machines (which were smaller and prettier, but not as compatible). BTW, This is how I knew about the clones.
See, you're still trying to wiggle out of your original claim by pretending you were really talking about software. I already quoted back to you your exact words, but it looks like I'll have to do it again: "I remember when over 90% of the home/education was an Apple ][ or clone." You pulled out every rhetorical trick in the book to backpedal on that one. You're still trying to find a way to be right. -Sigh-
Whatever... Wait let's replay some of my comments in this thread:
From Tuesday November 06, @08:11AM (#21253771)
5. Since my original comment was based on Software, why look only at brand name hardware? Your stat doesn't include the many Apple II clones that came out prior to the upsurge of the IBM PC (are they also in the "other" category?). I'm sure they may have been running Applesoft too. So could this be another hint, that the single stat source may be inappropriate to this discussion?
From Wednesday November 07, @01:22PM (#21271021)
True if we were speaking hardware. However if we were talking about "Desktops" as in software (granted CLI instead of GUI). The number of different machines running the same type of OS, actually improves the percentages. The article you referenced placed Apple at approx 50% (if not a tad over), and these clones pushes it into the majority.
Looking at hardware wouldn't make much sense, due mostly to the fact that Microsoft (the origins of this thread) maintains a 0% share.
From Friday November 09, @11:38AM (#21297195):
...You conveniently ignore the "other" category, and on top of it all you keep referring to a questionable statistic on brand name hardware sales to refute my original humorous comment about desktops which lately is considered software. Especially since Microsoft has 0% of the
OK. So in my zeal to prove you wrong, I have misread the graph. So dial down the insults a bit. I also suffered the "keep repeating it, and it will become apparent" syndrome. Now that my Slashdot insanity has died down, I figure we should probably end this thread with some sanity.
Good news is that I found the source notes from Jeremy Reimer that he used to write his article.
First of all (I was surprised by this myself) while Atari had a huge upsurge in sales for a very short period, it was not even close to the dominate under $1000 computer. The Texas Instruments 99/4A dominated this category despite a historically bad introduction. Here's a quote about 1982:
At the moment, Dataquest estimates that Texas Instruments leads the low-price parade with a 35% share of the market in computers selling for less than $1,000. Next come Timex (26%), Commodore (15%) and Atari (13%). In the race among machines priced between $1,000 and $5,000, Apple still commands 26% followed by IBM (17% and Tandy/Radio Shack (10%). But IBM, which has dominated the mainframe computer market for decades, is coming on very strong. Apple, fighting back, will unveil its new Lisa model in January, putting great emphasis on user friendliness. The user will be able to carry out many functions simply by pointing to a picture of what he wants done rather than typing instructions. IBM is also reported to be planning to introduce new machines in 1983, as are Osborne and others.
Interesting enough, the Atari figures may resulted from being sold as a game console, since it was the cheaper Atari 400 that had the sales numbers not the more capable Atari 800.
Atari 400 and 800 ($299 and $899). With 256 colorss, four separate sound generators and built-in "missile qraphics," the Ataris are the machines of choice for game players and games writers. The 800 has a keyboard suitable to touch typing, but writers would do well to look elsewhere for a first-rate word processor. Nearly 200,000 Atari 8OOs were shipped in 1982 and some 400,000 model 400s.
Hey the Sinclair got a mention!:
Timex Sinclair 1000 ($99). This tiny toy is good for dipping one's toes into the micro revolution and not much more. It will play video games with boxy, black-and-white graphics and speaks only one language: BASIC, A buttonless 'membrane" keyboard is well designed for learning the fundamentals of computer programming, but for written work it is a step down from the old typewriter. With 600,000 sold in 1982 alone, there is sure to be more software on the shelves soon. A more powerful model that speaks child-oriented Logo is expected out this spring.
Anyway, it appears that the market was segmented into three major categories:
The under $1000 where the inexpensive price allowed anyone the opportunity to play with a computer, unfortunately only a small portion of this population were really using these machines. I guess we would be in that minority.
The $1000 to $2000 computer market. This is where most of the more serious hobbyist and small business user would be found (I hope so $1000 was a lot of money back then).
The over $3000 market. Not many home users in this area. I admit that I paid over $3000 for an AST Premium/286 with "paper white" monochrome display (hercules card) and a huge $40 megabyte hard drive.
Anyway, I found the following quotes interesting:
Apple II Plus ($1,330). The hardy bestseller of the late '70s is also the hardy bestseller of the early '80s: 700,000 have been sold: 270,000 in 1982 alone. With so many cheaper and more sophisticated machines available, why does the Apple II still hold the biggest slice of the $1,000-to-$2,000 pie? Software. More programs are available for this si
I think the graph is what is causing some of the confusion. The graph was designed by the author to show the number of personal computers in existence and not to directly compare one brand to another. This is why he used a stacked line graph where the actual datapoint is the top of the line graph, and each colored segment below represents the percentage of the top data point versus computer model (ie. The Apple segment is zero based, the TRS-80 is from the Apple total, the PET is from the TRS-80 total, and the Other is from the PET.
Therefore the top of the line graph represents the total sales which equals Apple + TRS-80 + PET + Other. The problems of using this chart for this discussion are:
1. The chart does not accurately represent what was presented in the text of the article (eg. Why does the text mention that the Apple II nearly equaled the sales of the TRS-80, yet still show Apple's portion smaller than TRS-80s in the chart?).
2. The ordering of the categories do create a disadvantage to the bottom category. Basically, this type of chart is not entirely useful to this thread topic (other than to show the increasing number of personal computers).
3. The chart may use cumulative totals, NONE of the brands show any decline despite the text stating otherwise (eg. Why would Tandy kill the TRS-80 Model 1 if the chart shows it as a success?).
4. If the statistics presented are cumulative, it assumes that once that brand is purchased it is always used. How many Model 1's were replaced by an Apple II?
5. Since the author was concentrating on the hardware manufacturers and not computing platforms, we have no idea about the makeup of the "other" category. Is it full of Apple II clones?
Oh, for Pete's sake. WHERE on the graph or in the stats do you find Apple with anything near 50%?
As I stated earlier, The graph is flawed. Now if you would read the article (as opposed to looking at the pictures), "A combination of great marketing and even better luck propelled the Apple ][ from an also-ran to a serious contender. In 1981 the company sold 210,000 units, leaving the PET in the dust and nearly equaling the TRS-80's numbers." This fact is not accurately reflected in your "chart". Again, I'll refer to my earlier comment about what category should we place the Atari 400/800 in? While the PET, TRS-80, and Apple were usually sold as personal computer systems, the Atari was sold as an advanced game system. The chart doesn't reflect the number of Atari 800s sold with at least a disk drive. Many Ataris were sold as a cartridge based game system. Should this case be included in the desktop market? Does the fact that the Atari 800 has a keyboard automatically make it a desktop computer? Should we at least require a cassette drive or disk drive? If the existence of a keyboard is all that is needed, then what about the Intellivision, Magnavision, etc..?
I also mentioned that there are no references cited in the article that you linked, and questioned the fact that the Apple figures seem pretty exact compared to the estimations given for the PET and TRS-80s.
If you're actually an engineer working on orbital devices, I'm surprised they're not falling out of the sky due to your inability to grasp numbers.
Wow so you are reduced to name calling? You cherry pick small portions of my comments and don't even attempt to offer any rebuttal to the issues that I presented. Hell, you didn't even know about the Apple II clones. You conveniently ignore the "other" category, and on top of it all you keep referring to a questionable statistic on brand name hardware sales to refute my original humorous comment about desktops which lately is considered software. Especially since Microsoft has 0% of the hardware market, yet seems to own 90% of the desktop market.
Let me point out something else from the arstechnica article:
Atari, flushed with the success of PONG and its 2600 games console, released the 400 and 800 series of computers in 1979. The 400 was essentially a cheaper version of the 800 with less memory and an awkward "membrane" keyboard. Designer Jay Miner had fitted these machines with impressive technology, including a custom blitter chip that could blast large sections of graphics on the screen without involving the CPU. The 400/800 could play games, like Frogger, that were indistinguishable from the arcade versions. However, Atari kept most of the details about its hardware secret in order to try and give an advantage to its in-house software developers. This limited the long-term success of the platform, which peaked at 600,000 units in 1982 and went steadily downhill.
Besides the obvious fact that the Atari was designed for games, why does the text describe a peak in 1982, yet the graph still shows exponential growth through 1984? This looks like another disconnect between the article and the graph that goes with the article. (One of the dangers of using a cumulative line graph).
BTW, how many Atari clones were there? Companies usually make clones of computers that have a large and growing market share, otherwise why risk the legal damages? Speaking of clones both Franklin and VTech still exist today (of course no longer making Apple clones), I guess the initial capital they accumulated from the early home computer market was put to good use.
So do you have a reliable statistic that accurately reflects the number of Apple (and clones) versus the other desktop systems of its day? Evidently everybody is content to using the arstech article despite the lack of references.
I should have taken the clue that you are stuck to using an article that was ref
For example, if you wanted to compare against each individual model of machine, saying that the Apple II Plus sold twice as many units as the TRS-80 Model III, that still wouldn't put an Apple on a majority of desktops. FYI.
True if we were speaking hardware. However if we were talking about "Desktops" as in software (granted CLI instead of GUI). The number of different machines running the same type of OS, actually improves the percentages. The article you referenced placed Apple at approx 50% (if not a tad over), and these clones pushes it into the majority.
Looking at hardware wouldn't make much sense, due mostly to the fact that Microsoft (the origins of this thread) maintains a 0% share.
The TRS-80 models hurt Tandy's percentage a little due to the fact that the Model I and Model III were totally different beasts.
Perhaps they are comparable in some ways, but including non-desktop devices in an argument over desktop computer market share is indeed shifting the goalpost. It's cherry-picking on the level equivalent to saying that x percent of MS installs are on laptops (which didn't exist in the 1970s) and therefore are not part of the "desktop" market.
Am I the only one who remembers and actually purchased heathkit, or the $99 sinclair that originally came out as a kit? All I said is that since back in the 70's and early 80's there were systems sold as kits, or from specialty electronic stores. Since these systems are in the "other" category in the arstech chart (well how do we really know, it only says "other") we should include simular devices today. Are you going to say that Microsoft and Apple are the only two games in town? Are you going to say that PowerPC and Intel are the only two CPUs in existance on a desktop machine? Just because the media tend to focus only on the largest players (with advertising revenue) doesn't mean they are the only two players. If we include a "other" category in today's statistics, would microsoft have 90%? How should we count game consoles? How should we count PDAs? Does all IBM-PCs automatically mean Microsoft? Well? You have quoted only one stat that not only not cover 1977 (which was the premise of my original humorous comment) but that one stat source has no references.
It's not my opinion. This is a factual question. And I didn't make an assertion, I refuted your assertion that Apple held at least 90% of the desktop computer market once upon a time.
Techinically, you have an opinion that Apple never enjoyed 90% market share which countered my original comment. You cited a single article from arstechnica that asserted that your opinion was correct (and may be). I countered by questioning the sample space of that single stat, after all if you want to use the stat we should make it apply to both time periods. Face it, someone was offended by my 90% remark so why not also question that if we used the sample space of arstech to prove that Apple had a low percentage of the market in the early days, why not see how that stat compares to today's market with the same sample space (does Microsoft still have 90% of the market share?).
And since this is a pointless Slashdot argument that has no bearing on anything, it's basically about Who's Right. You have provided no evidence at all to rebut the numbers in the Ars Technica article, just the anecdotal evidence of your memory and some old computer ads.
So at this point, your options are: 1) provide some statistics contradicting Ars Technica's research, or explaining why it is incorrect, or 2) admit you were wrong and move on. I love Apple too, but facts are facts.
You must new here. But seriously, I'm just engaging in a dialog with someone else (who showed signs of intelligence) because it was interesting and hell I may learn to view something differently. Anyway.
Problems with your single stat source:
1. The graph is useless, so going by the text there were 253,300 Apple computers on the market and approx 250,000 TRS-80 Model Is (I can't help but notice that the Apple stats are detailed, but both the PET and TRS-80 are vague). So at this point we have an approximate 50% of the desktop share.
2. Later years, TRS-80 is discontinued. The desktop computer market becomes fragmented due to the introduction home computers from commodore and Atari. So it's like a multi-contender race where 90% is impossible in an actual free market economy. Politics aside, should we count game consoles as home PCs? If so, why can't we count playstations? You can run linux on a PS2, so technically its just as much a home PC as the Atari and Commodore computers. So with game consoles in the statistical pool, does Microsoft still enjoy 90% of the desktop share? BTW, how many Atari and Commodore periphials were sold (ie.
People in the USA tend to drive massive, fuel-hungry cars and fly planes a lot, which looks bad.
So we resort to stereotypes? I drive a Honda and have only flown about 7 times in my life (all work related and I'm not young anymore).
Also, the USA didn't sign up to Kyoto.
Thank goodness for small miracles. Kyoto is flawed. China and India were exempt from any restrictions.
Japan and Europe can't meet the restrictions. The only countries that improved their emissions were the former soviet countries, and I assume this was due to modernization.
Evidently the only thing Kyoto did was to give European and Japanese politicians some imaginary moral high ground.
I was raised to believe that "agreeing to do something" and "actually doing something" are two different things. So what does this say for the Kyoto agreement? Basically it means that no nation has honored any of its goals, and the USA (for once) didn't lie about their environmental and industrial intentions (unlike the signatories).
Now, given that, my memory also leans toward Apple being the top contender in those days - but I think that's mostly because I saw them in school every day. I certainly didn't survey homes to see what computer they had bought, but the numbers say it probably was not an Apple. I miss the variety of the old days, too. I remember pining after the Amiga for years, and never getting one.
No, I have no statistics right now. I doubt I'll be able to find any for 37 years ago, but maybe someone else can.
I think my memory suffers the same influence. I saw mostly Apple IIs and the Apple II had a very large users group where I lived. This is while I owned an Atari 800 and later an Atari ST. I use to sell the Amiga (working through college), and always thought it was a great machine but I already had an ST.
Nonetheless, regarding your original assertion ("90% of desktops"), it's clearly not the case. Your attempt to compare to embedded systems, appliances, etc. is just shifting the goalposts. Like it or not, Microsoft won the war. They are on almost every desktop today;
My intent was not to "shift the goalpost" rather to give a comparable measure to the statistics that you presented. The systems available in the late 1970s through early 1980s, are directly comparable to the embedded systems and hobbyist kits available today (BTW these would fall in the same "Other" category in the stats your referenced). I bought my first computer from a specialty electronics store. BTW, what does the result of Microsoft's monopolistic practices today, have anything to do with 70's and 80's? Microsoft wasn't a contender until 1984ish.
Apple never was.
That may be your opinion, but you still haven't proved your assertion. Even the article, that you reference, mentioned that Visicalc gave the Apple II a much needed boost. The article says "In 1981 the company sold 210,000 units, leaving the PET in the dust and nearly equaling the TRS-80's numbers." Wierd since the Model I was discontinued in 1981 and only sold a little over 250,000 in its production lifetime. It was replaced with the Model III in late 1981.
About the TRS-80, the only thing most models of the Tandy machines had in common were the TRS-80 moniker in the beginning of the model Name. The Model I, Model II, and Model III, and the Model IV where largely incompatible with each other (not to mention Model 100, 200, 16, ad nauseum..). The Apple II was basically a platform that included the II+, IIe, IIx, IIc, IIgs...
Apple competed very well in the early days, certainly, but I don't think they ever had 90% of any market.
I would agree that the TRS-80 would give Apple II a run for its money. I will say that the article you referenced talks about the personal computer market as a whole, and not the home personal computer market. The Commodore Pet never gained traction as a home computer (to my recollection - it has been over 30 years and I was young), and the TRS-80 computers didn't seriously target the home market until the Color Computer was introduced.
I think if we limited the statistics to the type of machine that most likely found itself at home, it would be an Apple. All the old advertisements competed with Apple for sales. It wasn't until the Commodore 64, Atari 800, TI99/4A and TRS80 Color Computer were introduced that the home market became too multi-segmented to have a clear majority (not to mention that all the competitors had a price advantage over Apple).
The one thing I miss about the old days is the number of different computing options we had. TI, Sinclair, Commodore, Apple, IBM, Eagle, Bear, Pear, Altair, Kaypro, Osborne, Compaq, Magnavox, Coleco, and some guy in a hobby shop. Hey the personal computer market was in its infancy. Now if we applied the same logic to current statistics that was placed on the statistics given by the arstechnica article (you know the charts with "other"). I seriously doubt Microsoft would have 90% of the share. It would be high, but not 90%. Why? Because we would have to count all the embedded systems, network appliances, cellphones (w/ data access), and hobbyist robotic kits to the mix. Some of the microcontrollers sell for less than $10, and the quantity alone dilutes the general description given to the arstechnica article.
But you are right, 90% is a tall order in any era.
Really, there is just no advantage to Apples product line unless you're an image concious metrosexual, and thats just not a sales pitch you'd want to make to enterprise customers, ie., "our servers are color coordinated."
I know this guy is being silly, but for others who may not don't know the correct answer.
Labor costs, utilities, Labor, building costs, Labor, Telecommunication charges, Labor, oh did I mention labor.
So what does Apple offer? Turn Key solutions.
I use linux servers for most of the GSE and development support, but there is a healthy market for turnkey servers. This why Dell, HP, Sun, Apple, IBM, etc. make tons of money selling very high priced servers.
So while he may be projecting his masculinity issues on others, I hope he relaxes, educate himself more, and don't spend too much time playing his XBOX.
Actually, I was referring to the very early days of Apple II. The Atari 400/800 (former 800 owner here) actually was a response to the success that Apple was having. The Apple II was introduced in 1977, the Atari 800 was introduced early 1979 and commodore vic 20 was introduced in 1980 and the C64 was introduced in 1982.
So, Apple did in fact own the home computer market once. In fact, the Apple II proved that a home computer market existed and paved the way for both the Atari and Commodore machines..
Music subscriptions aren't valuable? What a revelation. Gee, do you really want to pay a monthly fee for limited (DRMed) access to music files, access which goes away if you terminate your service. That value proposition is exceedingly poor, unless you take measures to copy the files into non-DRM form.
Short answer: YES
Long Answer: I am a music subscriber, but I use it as an on-demand music service rather than a method of "owning" music tracks. I travel large distances by car, so I like to have a large selection of music to listen to. Instead of buying satellite radio, I subscribe to Yahoo Unlimited and download what I think I'll listen to while I travel. I'm not actually interested in keeping these songs, just to listen while I drive. I download artists and genres that I never listened to before, because I'm not risking any money on them. Right now, I have around 900 songs on my MP3 player, and I routinely delete songs that I'm tired of and replace them with new songs I never heard before. I think my current ration of keep and delete is around 50%. So I gone through literally thousands of these songs over the past two years, and I'm only out around $250.
The albums that I must really keep are all ripped from CDs.
As a former Napster subscriber, I know the article should really be about Napster losing customers to other music services that are cheaper and/or have a larger selection of music. Napster would really like to blame the subscription model for their own stupidity.
My advice is that if you like to own all your songs, or only listen to a small number of songs then buy CDs. The subscription system only works for me due to the large amount of time traveling and the large number of different songs that I listen to.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless it is actually stated in writing, we can not assume that the clause only refers to the use of military courts to try US servicemen.
I could interpret "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;" as:
In times of war or public danger, any person detained by the military (either land or naval) do not enjoy the right of having their case heard by a grand jury.
I don't agree with how things are being done. I am only pointing out the dangers of assuming what "in cases arising in the land or naval forces" actually mean. This is why we have a court system and a congress. Either of which has the power to make that judgement either by interpretation (courts) or by clarification (congress).
You seemed to have Alabama confused with Mississippi...
Of course it could be worse, you could have confused Alabama with Florida or California.. ;)
Spam iconic to the Brits? WTF? Maybe to Monty Python, but not the Brits...
Spam is American and is associated with the American C-Ration. I don't have the reference handy, but WWII proved to be a blessing for Spam (and Coca-Cola and Tootsie Rolls) and became entrenched in the local diets possibly due to no other food being available at the time. I can only think of sentimental value as why it remains popular.
Personally, I like Fried Spam sandwiches but I think it's because it reminds me of my younger days (not so long ago). I know its not because it's good for me (It's not).
I think it worked both ways, meaning Futurama (and Family Guy) also saved Adult Swim.
It was the mass appeal of Futurama that allowed AS to experiment with alternative shows. I believe Futurama and Family Guy would be considered lead-in shows, which all the remaining shows benefited from anyone who decided not to change the channel.
The big question is: What will Adult Swim do? More Family Guy?
I'm sorry, let me try one more time.
My point was not economic but political. I just used foreign reserves as an example of why the US is favored as a "host" nation. I could have used the "United Nations" as another example.
There are no revolutions, no no-confidence votes that can change the figure head, and for the time being the US hasn't interfered with the day-to-day operations of the internet. The US is stable, so why change?
The real question is why is there a push for a change? People usually don't mess with the status quo (especially when everything is working) unless they intend to impose some type of change (good or bad). So what are the intentions of the provocateurs?
I was hoping you would know this was tongue-in-cheek.
Note to self: /s/There/Their.
Need more coffee...
I think the number one reason to keep US in "control" of the internet is domestic stability. This is why a lot of foreign countries keep there money here in the US. The fact that we are democratic takes a back seat to stable.
Face it, other than some stupid name resolution, what REAL control does the US have over the internet?
If it's infrastructure, then this can be fixed by the foreign countries laying more cable...
So your point is that you are a social parasite. You offer nothing, but enjoy its benefits. You complain about the lack of alternatives, yet don't exercise the option to migrate to another country.
In addition to being a parasite, you are a cheap whore that's willing to sell his vote for a mere iPod...
Did I miss anything?
Honestly? My life. I would defend the right to vote 'til death.
What happens with the vote is an entirely different issue.
I equate the "Right To Vote" with "The right to be heard and be a citizen." If we had no vote, we would be serfs in a totalitarian form of government.
I refuse to allow the value of my voting right to be devalued by false rationalizations that our choices are limited or the corporations run everything anyway. An apathetic voting public falls victim to its own self-fulfilling prophecy ("My vote means nothing therefore I won't vote, equate to my non-vote is worth absolutely nothing").
This is what the incumbents want! Keep the masses happy and ignorant and they have carte blanche to do anything they desire.
As for what affect your vote may have. Again this is up to you. Should we blame the system for our apathy (or quite frankly laziness)? In addition to the right to vote, we enjoy the right to free speech (eg. "Civil rights movement", "Vietnam war protests", "equal rights for women", ...). Face it, we can't completely trust our politicians to represent our wishes -- We need to actually make ourselves heard (and taken seriously).
I noticed that too. That's why I went through the whole trouble of how the market research was segmented in 3 categories. I quoted Dataquest which the author referenced (They are a market research firm, so I have to give their results weight) and repeated THEIR findings. I can see how the categories make sense. The fact that the categories help my arguments doesn't hurt, but I can see how it would be unfair to lump Apple II, TRS-80, and IBM with the $99 Sinclair and the $299 Atari 400. I think the 200,000 Atari 800s sold should count against Apple, despite the disk drive system being a piece of crap until the 1050 disk drive was introduced.
On a personal note: I owned an Atari 800 (the original Tan model), and Atari ST (again the first release). I worked my way through college selling the Commodore 64, 128 and Amiga (Not to mention Kaypro, Compaq, Sanyo, and the boat anchor called Osborne). I always thought that the Atari 800 was the one well designed machine that could take Apple on. Unfortunately Jack Tramiel (and Warner Bros) couldn't get thier shit together and the rest they say is history. Incidently something from the Atari still lives on today. The Serial Periphial bus influenced the design of USB. I heard somewhere that the hardware guy from Atari, was on the team that designed the USB but I don't have a reference.
Anyway the reality was that despite being an rabid Atari holy warrior in my day, I was outnumbered by the legions of Apple II users. My Atari users group had 40 people at its peak (thanks to crappy marketing on Atari's part), while the local Apple users group (which I was also a member) had well over 200 members. I had friends that owned Franklins (which were actually better and CHEAPER than the original Apple II) and the VTech machines (which were smaller and prettier, but not as compatible). BTW, This is how I knew about the clones.
Whatever... Wait let's replay some of my comments in this thread:
From Tuesday November 06, @08:11AM (#21253771)
From Wednesday November 07, @01:22PM (#21271021)
From Friday November 09, @11:38AM (#21297195):
OK. So in my zeal to prove you wrong, I have misread the graph. So dial down the insults a bit. I also suffered the "keep repeating it, and it will become apparent" syndrome. Now that my Slashdot insanity has died down, I figure we should probably end this thread with some sanity.
Good news is that I found the source notes from Jeremy Reimer that he used to write his article.
Here is a direct link: http://www.wowdailynews.com/pegasus/total_share.html
So here are the highlights:
First of all (I was surprised by this myself) while Atari had a huge upsurge in sales for a very short period, it was not even close to the dominate under $1000 computer. The Texas Instruments 99/4A dominated this category despite a historically bad introduction. Here's a quote about 1982:
Interesting enough, the Atari figures may resulted from being sold as a game console, since it was the cheaper Atari 400 that had the sales numbers not the more capable Atari 800.
Hey the Sinclair got a mention!:
Anyway, it appears that the market was segmented into three major categories:
The under $1000 where the inexpensive price allowed anyone the opportunity to play with a computer, unfortunately only a small portion of this population were really using these machines. I guess we would be in that minority.
The $1000 to $2000 computer market. This is where most of the more serious hobbyist and small business user would be found (I hope so $1000 was a lot of money back then).
The over $3000 market. Not many home users in this area. I admit that I paid over $3000 for an AST Premium/286 with "paper white" monochrome display (hercules card) and a huge $40 megabyte hard drive.
Anyway, I found the following quotes interesting:
I think the graph is what is causing some of the confusion. The graph was designed by the author to show the number of personal computers in existence and not to directly compare one brand to another. This is why he used a stacked line graph where the actual datapoint is the top of the line graph, and each colored segment below represents the percentage of the top data point versus computer model (ie. The Apple segment is zero based, the TRS-80 is from the Apple total, the PET is from the TRS-80 total, and the Other is from the PET.
Therefore the top of the line graph represents the total sales which equals Apple + TRS-80 + PET + Other. The problems of using this chart for this discussion are:
1. The chart does not accurately represent what was presented in the text of the article (eg. Why does the text mention that the Apple II nearly equaled the sales of the TRS-80, yet still show Apple's portion smaller than TRS-80s in the chart?).
2. The ordering of the categories do create a disadvantage to the bottom category. Basically, this type of chart is not entirely useful to this thread topic (other than to show the increasing number of personal computers).
3. The chart may use cumulative totals, NONE of the brands show any decline despite the text stating otherwise (eg. Why would Tandy kill the TRS-80 Model 1 if the chart shows it as a success?).
4. If the statistics presented are cumulative, it assumes that once that brand is purchased it is always used. How many Model 1's were replaced by an Apple II?
5. Since the author was concentrating on the hardware manufacturers and not computing platforms, we have no idea about the makeup of the "other" category. Is it full of Apple II clones?
As I stated earlier, The graph is flawed. Now if you would read the article (as opposed to looking at the pictures), "A combination of great marketing and even better luck propelled the Apple ][ from an also-ran to a serious contender. In 1981 the company sold 210,000 units, leaving the PET in the dust and nearly equaling the TRS-80's numbers." This fact is not accurately reflected in your "chart". Again, I'll refer to my earlier comment about what category should we place the Atari 400/800 in? While the PET, TRS-80, and Apple were usually sold as personal computer systems, the Atari was sold as an advanced game system. The chart doesn't reflect the number of Atari 800s sold with at least a disk drive. Many Ataris were sold as a cartridge based game system. Should this case be included in the desktop market? Does the fact that the Atari 800 has a keyboard automatically make it a desktop computer? Should we at least require a cassette drive or disk drive? If the existence of a keyboard is all that is needed, then what about the Intellivision, Magnavision, etc..?
I also mentioned that there are no references cited in the article that you linked, and questioned the fact that the Apple figures seem pretty exact compared to the estimations given for the PET and TRS-80s.
Wow so you are reduced to name calling? You cherry pick small portions of my comments and don't even attempt to offer any rebuttal to the issues that I presented. Hell, you didn't even know about the Apple II clones. You conveniently ignore the "other" category, and on top of it all you keep referring to a questionable statistic on brand name hardware sales to refute my original humorous comment about desktops which lately is considered software. Especially since Microsoft has 0% of the hardware market, yet seems to own 90% of the desktop market.
Let me point out something else from the arstechnica article:
Besides the obvious fact that the Atari was designed for games, why does the text describe a peak in 1982, yet the graph still shows exponential growth through 1984? This looks like another disconnect between the article and the graph that goes with the article. (One of the dangers of using a cumulative line graph).
BTW, how many Atari clones were there? Companies usually make clones of computers that have a large and growing market share, otherwise why risk the legal damages? Speaking of clones both Franklin and VTech still exist today (of course no longer making Apple clones), I guess the initial capital they accumulated from the early home computer market was put to good use.
So do you have a reliable statistic that accurately reflects the number of Apple (and clones) versus the other desktop systems of its day? Evidently everybody is content to using the arstech article despite the lack of references.
I should have taken the clue that you are stuck to using an article that was ref
True if we were speaking hardware. However if we were talking about "Desktops" as in software (granted CLI instead of GUI). The number of different machines running the same type of OS, actually improves the percentages. The article you referenced placed Apple at approx 50% (if not a tad over), and these clones pushes it into the majority.
Looking at hardware wouldn't make much sense, due mostly to the fact that Microsoft (the origins of this thread) maintains a 0% share.
The TRS-80 models hurt Tandy's percentage a little due to the fact that the Model I and Model III were totally different beasts.
You know you're old when you get the joke... PL/I haha
Here's a list of Apple II clones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apple_II_clones
Keep in mind that both the Franklin Ace 1000 & 1200 and the VTech Laser 128 was carried by Sears.
I'll leave it to you to figure out the total sales.
Am I the only one who remembers and actually purchased heathkit, or the $99 sinclair that originally came out as a kit? All I said is that since back in the 70's and early 80's there were systems sold as kits, or from specialty electronic stores. Since these systems are in the "other" category in the arstech chart (well how do we really know, it only says "other") we should include simular devices today. Are you going to say that Microsoft and Apple are the only two games in town? Are you going to say that PowerPC and Intel are the only two CPUs in existance on a desktop machine? Just because the media tend to focus only on the largest players (with advertising revenue) doesn't mean they are the only two players. If we include a "other" category in today's statistics, would microsoft have 90%? How should we count game consoles? How should we count PDAs? Does all IBM-PCs automatically mean Microsoft? Well? You have quoted only one stat that not only not cover 1977 (which was the premise of my original humorous comment) but that one stat source has no references.
Techinically, you have an opinion that Apple never enjoyed 90% market share which countered my original comment. You cited a single article from arstechnica that asserted that your opinion was correct (and may be). I countered by questioning the sample space of that single stat, after all if you want to use the stat we should make it apply to both time periods. Face it, someone was offended by my 90% remark so why not also question that if we used the sample space of arstech to prove that Apple had a low percentage of the market in the early days, why not see how that stat compares to today's market with the same sample space (does Microsoft still have 90% of the market share?).
You must new here. But seriously, I'm just engaging in a dialog with someone else (who showed signs of intelligence) because it was interesting and hell I may learn to view something differently. Anyway.
Problems with your single stat source:
1. The graph is useless, so going by the text there were 253,300 Apple computers on the market and approx 250,000 TRS-80 Model Is (I can't help but notice that the Apple stats are detailed, but both the PET and TRS-80 are vague). So at this point we have an approximate 50% of the desktop share.
2. Later years, TRS-80 is discontinued. The desktop computer market becomes fragmented due to the introduction home computers from commodore and Atari. So it's like a multi-contender race where 90% is impossible in an actual free market economy. Politics aside, should we count game consoles as home PCs? If so, why can't we count playstations? You can run linux on a PS2, so technically its just as much a home PC as the Atari and Commodore computers. So with game consoles in the statistical pool, does Microsoft still enjoy 90% of the desktop share? BTW, how many Atari and Commodore periphials were sold (ie.
So we resort to stereotypes? I drive a Honda and have only flown about 7 times in my life (all work related and I'm not young anymore).
Thank goodness for small miracles. Kyoto is flawed. China and India were exempt from any restrictions. Japan and Europe can't meet the restrictions. The only countries that improved their emissions were the former soviet countries, and I assume this was due to modernization.
Evidently the only thing Kyoto did was to give European and Japanese politicians some imaginary moral high ground.
I was raised to believe that "agreeing to do something" and "actually doing something" are two different things. So what does this say for the Kyoto agreement? Basically it means that no nation has honored any of its goals, and the USA (for once) didn't lie about their environmental and industrial intentions (unlike the signatories).
No, I have no statistics right now. I doubt I'll be able to find any for 37 years ago, but maybe someone else can.
I think my memory suffers the same influence. I saw mostly Apple IIs and the Apple II had a very large users group where I lived. This is while I owned an Atari 800 and later an Atari ST. I use to sell the Amiga (working through college), and always thought it was a great machine but I already had an ST.
My intent was not to "shift the goalpost" rather to give a comparable measure to the statistics that you presented. The systems available in the late 1970s through early 1980s, are directly comparable to the embedded systems and hobbyist kits available today (BTW these would fall in the same "Other" category in the stats your referenced). I bought my first computer from a specialty electronics store. BTW, what does the result of Microsoft's monopolistic practices today, have anything to do with 70's and 80's? Microsoft wasn't a contender until 1984ish.
That may be your opinion, but you still haven't proved your assertion. Even the article, that you reference, mentioned that Visicalc gave the Apple II a much needed boost. The article says "In 1981 the company sold 210,000 units, leaving the PET in the dust and nearly equaling the TRS-80's numbers." Wierd since the Model I was discontinued in 1981 and only sold a little over 250,000 in its production lifetime. It was replaced with the Model III in late 1981.
About the TRS-80, the only thing most models of the Tandy machines had in common were the TRS-80 moniker in the beginning of the model Name. The Model I, Model II, and Model III, and the Model IV where largely incompatible with each other (not to mention Model 100, 200, 16, ad nauseum..). The Apple II was basically a platform that included the II+, IIe, IIx, IIc, IIgs...
I would agree that the TRS-80 would give Apple II a run for its money. I will say that the article you referenced talks about the personal computer market as a whole, and not the home personal computer market. The Commodore Pet never gained traction as a home computer (to my recollection - it has been over 30 years and I was young), and the TRS-80 computers didn't seriously target the home market until the Color Computer was introduced.
I think if we limited the statistics to the type of machine that most likely found itself at home, it would be an Apple. All the old advertisements competed with Apple for sales. It wasn't until the Commodore 64, Atari 800, TI99/4A and TRS80 Color Computer were introduced that the home market became too multi-segmented to have a clear majority (not to mention that all the competitors had a price advantage over Apple).
The one thing I miss about the old days is the number of different computing options we had. TI, Sinclair, Commodore, Apple, IBM, Eagle, Bear, Pear, Altair, Kaypro, Osborne, Compaq, Magnavox, Coleco, and some guy in a hobby shop. Hey the personal computer market was in its infancy. Now if we applied the same logic to current statistics that was placed on the statistics given by the arstechnica article (you know the charts with "other"). I seriously doubt Microsoft would have 90% of the share. It would be high, but not 90%. Why? Because we would have to count all the embedded systems, network appliances, cellphones (w/ data access), and hobbyist robotic kits to the mix. Some of the microcontrollers sell for less than $10, and the quantity alone dilutes the general description given to the arstechnica article.
But you are right, 90% is a tall order in any era.
I know this guy is being silly, but for others who may not don't know the correct answer.
Labor costs, utilities, Labor, building costs, Labor, Telecommunication charges, Labor, oh did I mention labor.
So what does Apple offer? Turn Key solutions.
I use linux servers for most of the GSE and development support, but there is a healthy market for turnkey servers. This why Dell, HP, Sun, Apple, IBM, etc. make tons of money selling very high priced servers.
So while he may be projecting his masculinity issues on others, I hope he relaxes, educate himself more, and don't spend too much time playing his XBOX.
Actually, I was referring to the very early days of Apple II. The Atari 400/800 (former 800 owner here) actually was a response to the success that Apple was having. The Apple II was introduced in 1977, the Atari 800 was introduced early 1979 and commodore vic 20 was introduced in 1980 and the C64 was introduced in 1982.
So, Apple did in fact own the home computer market once. In fact, the Apple II proved that a home computer market existed and paved the way for both the Atari and Commodore machines..
So my memory is just fine.... thanks for asking.
I remember when over 90% of the home/education was an Apple ][ or clone. So yeah, Apple was there too. ;)
Short answer: YES
Long Answer: I am a music subscriber, but I use it as an on-demand music service rather than a method of "owning" music tracks. I travel large distances by car, so I like to have a large selection of music to listen to. Instead of buying satellite radio, I subscribe to Yahoo Unlimited and download what I think I'll listen to while I travel. I'm not actually interested in keeping these songs, just to listen while I drive. I download artists and genres that I never listened to before, because I'm not risking any money on them. Right now, I have around 900 songs on my MP3 player, and I routinely delete songs that I'm tired of and replace them with new songs I never heard before. I think my current ration of keep and delete is around 50%. So I gone through literally thousands of these songs over the past two years, and I'm only out around $250.
The albums that I must really keep are all ripped from CDs.
As a former Napster subscriber, I know the article should really be about Napster losing customers to other music services that are cheaper and/or have a larger selection of music. Napster would really like to blame the subscription model for their own stupidity.
My advice is that if you like to own all your songs, or only listen to a small number of songs then buy CDs. The subscription system only works for me due to the large amount of time traveling and the large number of different songs that I listen to.