The Library of Congress does not administer or distribute International Standard Book Numbers. Please contact R.R. Bowker at: 630 Central Avenue New Providence, NJ 07974
My Canadian friend got her own ISBN prefix for free, so she can publish as many books as she wants, all with matching ISBN prefix. But me, I have to pay a hundred bucks per book, and my ISBN's won't match. Typical US privatization bullshit highway robbery, just like the private cell networks and private medical care. These are not private sector pursuits, they are infrastructure that enables more and better private sector pursuits.
I read Tape Op on iPad ($5.99 per year to subscribe, 6 issues) and Rolling Stone ($19.99 per year to subscribe, 24 issues) and some others and the content is better than the Web, the reading experience is better than the Web, and even the ads are better than the Web. An ad will be full page, topical, and dismissed with a swipe if you are not interested. Web ads will show you off-topic ads. Web ads place ads on you instead of the content. You can buy back issues within the magazine, and you get a notification when a new issue arrives. Everything is EASY — everything you want to do is 1 tap or 1 swipe. The experience is so much better than the Web, it is worth paying for, and you don't need to make a username or get out your credit card, and sharing your personal info with the publisher is optional, a box asks you if you wan to share and you say no.
You're paying $50 per month or more to your ISP — you can spend $50 per year on magazine subscriptions and get 60 or more issues of various magazines that you like, and your brain will thank you.
Cheap is better than free. Free always sucks — it's 90% ads, it's closing soon, the content is 100 words you've already read on another site. But cheap is sustainable and can have great content, well-written, well-edited, well-curated. Valuable.
And Rolling Stone has push button audio clips next to music reviews. Sure, they could have done on that on the Web, but they didn't because they'd have to do it multiple times to work around the lack of ISO media support in some browsers, and the content simply doesn't exist outside of ISO MPEG-4. Another example of the Web killing itself.
When the Web started, we thought it would look like CD-ROM in no time. Instead, decades later, the Web looks like a shitty Windows app. Web design is now the art and science of making a document as unreadable as possible. I barely use the Web anymore because there are better options now on a $329 iPad that slips in your jacket pocket and weighs 300 grams and runs 10 hours on a charge.
So these guys need to make an iPad magazine and charge $10 per year and make something that is special and great and sustainable.
What's next? Mozilla won't run on OS X because Apple won't let them replace the TCP/IP stack?
A Safari user can run Safari on every form factor and sync bookmarks between them. A Firefox user could easily do the same. The fact that the rendering engine would be Gecko on their PC and WebKit on their iPhone just doesn't fucking matter. Especially not when Gecko runs like crap on mobiles.
It really shows that Mozilla's focus is on themselves and software developers, not on the consumer end user, who has been running Firefox on their PC for years now and Safari on their iPhone for years now and just wants a Firefox interface and bookmark syncing on their iPhone.
If that is Mozilla's focus, then they don't belong on iOS and good riddance. On iOS, the end user is at the top of the hierarchy, and software developers and content producers all work for the user. The user already has an HTML5 renderer in their iPhone, they already have a TCP/IP stack. You do not need to replace them to build a browser, and in fact, it is much better security that you can't replace them. That is what is best for the consumer: a secure renderer that is highly-optimized specifically for their device.
> as long as Apple doesn't mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers
That is just propaganda. There are hundreds of 3rd party browsers on iOS, many with very innovative features. Like Skyfire, which converts Flash Video to ISO standard video on a server and essentially enables you to run Flash on iPhone or iPad. There are browsers that are exploring lots of gestures, or deep social integration. Mozilla is missing out on all of that because they are pouty, entitled developers who want their feet rubbed and cheeks kissed before they deign to bless us with their bloated, mangled code. And of course, Mozilla knows better than Apple what Apple users want. As if.
And finally, Mozilla's hypocrisy: note that the one and only HTML renderer on Firefox OS is Gecko. And Firefox OS has zero 3rd party browsers as of right now.
Being gay does not mean you are emasculated. It is 100% masculine to be a gay man, same as it is 100% masculine to be a straight man. Even an effeminate gay man (not the only way to be gay) is not emasculated. Nobody has taken anything from him. And there are many gay men who are big, tough motherfuckers. Excuse me — Daddy fuckers.
> The problem is the other half (or some significant percent) that seeks to ban vice and considers it sin.
The problem is not people seeking to ban vice. It's already banned. The problem is the Religious Police. In the US, 75% of police budgets goes to punishing smokers. Americans are like, “OMG in Iran the Religious Police will tell you to get a haircut!” Well, it's not Iran that leads the world in incarceration — that is the US. We got there by putting sinners in jail. We arrest taxpaying smokers, take away their kids, put the smoker into a prison cell with a professional murderer, expect him to get raped, he does and gets AIDS, and he dies. That is what we do. We like doing that. We thrive on it. Some of us profit from it.
You can't walk around in the US with a camera strapped to your face. That is called “evidence gathering,” or “case building.” If you go to a party, there will be somebody smoking an illegal cigarette, or there will be an illegal poker game, or a 20 year old adult will be drinking alcohol.
Fucking Zuckerburg had photos of himself smoking a water pipe on his Facebook page at one point, and when it accidentally went public, he took it down. The share-everything Facebook guy, protected by his wealth and the privileges of racism, took a photo down immediately. Not even a video — a low-res still photo.
No, Google Glass has a touchpad on the side, you scroll menus and click to activate.
I think the main thing with the voice is to issue commands, such as “camera on” or whatever. The Mac has had that for many, many years (since before Mac OS X) and although it is surprisingly accurate at understanding a basic list of commands (like “launch Photoshop”,) almost nobody uses it. I think when you are controlling a computer with a mouse or touch and somebody says, “hey, you could control that computer with your voice!” that sounds easy, but the reality is, it's a chore. It's slower and it feels like more work in almost every context.
Humans are hand-based creatures. We're defined by our unique, tool-using hands. We work with our hands, we communicate with our voices. I think voice commands are a way to turn the voice into a fairly lousy 3rd hand. Useful if driving, but probably nowhere else.
The reason voice looks so good on Star Trek is they are just communicating with the computer, they're not working it. The computer is essentially just another character in Star Trek. Notice they still fly the ship with their hands.
> I've seen many people walking around with them on in the Bay Area, > and they actually look pretty natural and non-geeky.
That's like someone from Los Angeles saying breast implants don't make you look like a stripper.
I'm in San Francisco as well, and while Google Glass doesn't shock me, I certainly wouldn't talk to someone who had them stuck on their face. Same as I wouldn't talk to someone who is talking on a cell phone or listening to headphones. That person is already occupied with something else, they're not physically present. They're doing FaceTime, not face time.
I think his point is that people who wear glasses can wear Google Glasses without that big of a change. There is still something bolted to your face. People who don't wear glasses have to adjust to the idea of changing the way their face looks, adjust to being separated from the visual world by a device.
I've never worn glasses and the idea that I will have to someday just because I'm getting older is ridiculously frightening. Glasses feel like watching everything through a camera to me. I have no idea what shape or material to get, no idea how I'll carry them.
I get what you're trying to say about Russia, but the thing is, the only reason you see Russia that way is because the Russian way of being patriarchal is slightly different from the way of being patriarchal where you live. Russia actually has a history of Communism, where women rolling up their sleeves and working on a factory line was promoted as a virtue. Someone in Russia who is looking at the US might see it as being too patriarchal. The US has almost no women in government and has never had a female President. Never mind patriarchal — that is literal patriarchy.
And if you take way New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and a few other cities, North America is pretty fucking patriarchal.
No, that is not true. Not allowing women to fight would be sexist. It is pretty common today to see women fighting in real life and in movies, even fighting men. The Avengers movie featured some very badass female fighting. Women also fight in real life of course, and there are many women who could beat the majority of men in a fight. There are martial arts moves now that are designed for women.
A man slapping a woman who has not slapped him is definitely sexist. The reason is that women essentially give up 25% or more of their physical size and muscle (as compared to a fraternal male twin) in order to physically birth the next generation of humans. So slapping a woman at any time is like slapping a woman who is holding a baby or is pregnant, while the man is holding extra muscle. It's not a fair fight, and it's exploiting a male advantage, so it is by definition sexist. And men have traditionally used this size advantage to deny women their innate equality with men. If you participate in that by slapping a woman, you're continuing a long, sad, sexist tradition.
As to why you can't slap a woman in a movie where it is just fantasy — you can. It still happens. Only today, it's only villains that do it, because the audience vilifies them for it. If you see a man haul out and slap a woman in a movie today, 30 minutes later the guy will land on a spike or something and the audience will applaud.
So the Google way to make cyborg glasses fashionable is to send Sergey Brin to fashion shows?
Why not partner with Oakley or Ray-Ban or someone like that (like Apple did with Nike to make iPod more athlete-friendly) and make glasses that look so good that models would be wearing them on the runway?
> Once someone is conned, they have a strong interest in hiding the fact from themselves and from > others. They become part of the con artists salesforce. This is how you get "cults".
Honestly, you're making me think of the Windows PC. Individuals and companies endlessly reinstalling Windows while they tell you how they saved $300 as compared to buying a Mac. Then they buy 2 Windows PC's for every Mac their neighbor bought. Then a virus transferred their bank account to Russia. But they're still using Windows.
> Many people voted for Bush Jr. twice.
Not that many. Less than half the electorate both times. And the electorate is only like half the country.
And Bush is right-wing, like Bill Gates. Jobs supported the left-wing party. The one whose Presidents actually win their elections instead of stealing them.
> fellating a dead guy who most people can agree was a world class douchebag...
Ah, but “world class!”
Most people who know who Steve Jobs is have a very high opinion of him, actually. And even people who knew him and thought he was a douchbag still respected him.
And the fucker was right. He was RIGHT. If you're using a computer, you're either using one of his products or a clone of one of his products.
On the day that Steve Jobs died, there was a bagpiper playing outside the Apple headquarters. They were Scottish pipes and complete bagpiping regalia, but the guy playing them was French-Canadian. He went down to Apple HQ on his own after hearing the news that Jobs had died and grown men stopped and cried their fucking eyes out.
I hope you have at least 1/10th of that at your funeral.
I think you're forgetting how shitty hard drives were in the mid-80's when the NeXT project started, and how shitty they were even 10 years later. NeXT shipped in 1988 and it is not that different from a Mac Pro today. Give them a break on the magneto-optical.
I really am not impressed by your long-winded attempt to prove that Apple is a failure. A clue that you might be wrong is that Apple right now has the biggest market cap of any tech company, has 75% of the profits in the Intel PC market, has 75% of the profits in the entire phone market (not just smartphones,) has 98% of the profits in the tablet market, has 90% of the profits in the music player market, is the biggest vendor of consumer video and audio editing software, the biggest vendor of pro video and audio editing software, is the creator of the #1 Windows app (iTunes,) has the biggest online media stores, the most developer support, and the highest sales-per-square-foot of any retailer.
Further, if you're not using an Apple product right now, you're using a clone of an Apple product.
NOT FAILURE. By definition, it is not failure.
> XT
It's great if programming an XT was bliss for you. Too bad you didn't get a fucking Apple II about 7 years earlier.
> Mac > floppy disk
Yes, yes, yes — the original Mac in 1984 was not quite complete yet. It didn't yet have a hard disk, it didn't yet have a printer. But all the other computers didn't even have GRAPHICS and TYPOGRAPHY. And hard disks and printers and more RAM and so on all arrived shortly after and the Mac was the center of almost every innovation in computing from about 1986 through 1995, including desktop publishing, desktop video, CD-ROM, online services. And the ones that the Mac was not at the center of were either centered on NeXT (World Wide Web, object-oriented software,) or inspired by NeXT (Java, Windows 95, Windows NT.)
If you think the Mac was hard to develop on in 1984, you should have tried developing for fucking Windows at that time. That is the comparison.
> but his fixation on removing floppy disk drive buttons rather than laying the fundamentals > for demand paged virtual memory nearly killed Apple before he could rush back to save it
What outrageously crazy bullshit.
The Mac saved Apple in the 1980's. The fact that Steve Jobs lead the Mac team and the people on that team did amazing work is what saved Apple from dying in 1988 when Apple II sales dried up. Apple was going with a lineup of Lisa and Apple II and Jobs saw that was not going to cut it and put a pirate flag on the shittiest building they had and tasked a team with obsoleting both Lisa and Apple II. If not for that, Hipsters would be wearing 1980's Apple T-shirts ironically today, like they do with Atari, because Apple would have gone out of business in the 80's.
> virtual memory
The foundations of the classic Mac OS were laid in 1982. Jobs is the one who laid a new foundation with virtual memory and other modern features with the “Big Mac” project while at Apple in 1985. When he was fired, he took Big Mac with him and it shipped in 1988 as NeXT. NeXT had virtual memory and other modern features. So Jobs was selling virtual memory in 1988, about 8 years before the Copeland mess at Apple that you are blaming on him. If he had not been fired, Apple would have shipped the NeXT workstation, sold the Mac at a lower and lower price to consumers, and over time the technologies from NeXT would have appeared on the Mac until there was a similar situation to Mac (workstation) and iPad (consumers) today. That was the plan that got Steve Jobs fired. That is the plan he came back to Apple and executed and had great success with.
And you're not even right about the Mac floppy drive being buttonless. The button was on the fucking keyboard with the other 80 buttons, right where the user's hands were. You press either Command+E or an actual dedicated Eject key on the keyboard. This is still true today.
The rest of your comment is just as ill-informed and vapid.
A 1988 desktop publishing setup of Mac and LaserWriter and Aldus Pagemaker that replaced a million dollar printing press is expensive and underperforming?
A Mac that ran Microsoft Office 8 to 10 years before it started running on Windows is underperforming?
A Mac that ran Photoshop 5 years before it started running on Windows is underperforming?
Macs are 75% of Google and Facebook and Twitter, 100% of Genentech, almost 100% of Hollywood, and were used to create the majority of music albums in the world. That's underperforming?
There are only 2 virus-free computing platforms: Mac OS X and iOS. Is that underperforming?
> He nearly killed Apple before he was fired
Bullshit. The last thing he did before he was fired was lead the Macintosh team, which saved Apple. If not for Macintosh, Apple would have been selling the Lisa and Apple II through the 1980's, and would have gone out of business in 1988 when the Apple II stopped selling.
Jobs was fired in 1985 because the Mac was seen as a failure because it did not sell as much as anticipated in its first year. Then in 1986, Apple shipped LaserWriter (first laser printer) and essentially completed the Mac (no printer in those days was like no Internet connectivity today,) and Aldus shipped PageMaker and desktop publishing started and the Mac never looked back. And now Apple is by far the oldest PC maker.
> and failed spectacularly with NeXT.
The NeXT software is running on almost a half a billion devices right now. The same kernel, the same frameworks, the same display architecture. The NeXT developer tools were used to create the World Wide Web in 1990, Mac OS X in 1997–2001, and every iPhone app since 2008, and every iPad app since 2010.
Some failure!
> Eventually he found a talent for creating markets in new breeds of consumer electronics.
That is what he always did. How is Apple II not a new breed of consumer electronics? There was no such thing as a consumer PC, and then Apple II came out and there was.
If you're going to criticize, at least learn some fucking history first.
> Maybe if he did, he could have gotten more than 12% market share for his desktop systems.
The Mac has 75% profit share in Intel PC's. Maybe you want to explain to me how that is a failure?
The reason market share was deified is it was supposed to lead to lots of developer support. Yet it turned out that developers chase profit. That is why Apple has all the developer support.
And iPhone also has 75% profit share of the entire phone market (not just smartphones.)
I'm just not seeing your “Steve Jobs as a failure” thesis.
> Jobs knew how to manipulate people into wanting what he had to sell them. He was an excellent salesman.
That is ridiculous. Jobs was a terrible salesman. Jobs could only sell things he was really, really passionate about. A good salesman can sell anything.
And there was no manipulation with Jobs. He just said look at this awesome thing that I really like, isn't it fucking great? Maybe you will like it too. If you don't, I don't fucking care.
Slashdot Mirror
From http://www.loc.gov/publish/
The Library of Congress does not administer or distribute International Standard Book Numbers.
Please contact R.R. Bowker at:
630 Central Avenue
New Providence, NJ 07974
Tel: (877) 310-7333
Fax: (908) 665-2895
How? Do you have a link or do you just not know what you are talking about?
My Canadian friend got her own ISBN prefix for free, so she can publish as many books as she wants, all with matching ISBN prefix. But me, I have to pay a hundred bucks per book, and my ISBN's won't match. Typical US privatization bullshit highway robbery, just like the private cell networks and private medical care. These are not private sector pursuits, they are infrastructure that enables more and better private sector pursuits.
I read Tape Op on iPad ($5.99 per year to subscribe, 6 issues) and Rolling Stone ($19.99 per year to subscribe, 24 issues) and some others and the content is better than the Web, the reading experience is better than the Web, and even the ads are better than the Web. An ad will be full page, topical, and dismissed with a swipe if you are not interested. Web ads will show you off-topic ads. Web ads place ads on you instead of the content. You can buy back issues within the magazine, and you get a notification when a new issue arrives. Everything is EASY — everything you want to do is 1 tap or 1 swipe. The experience is so much better than the Web, it is worth paying for, and you don't need to make a username or get out your credit card, and sharing your personal info with the publisher is optional, a box asks you if you wan to share and you say no.
You're paying $50 per month or more to your ISP — you can spend $50 per year on magazine subscriptions and get 60 or more issues of various magazines that you like, and your brain will thank you.
Cheap is better than free. Free always sucks — it's 90% ads, it's closing soon, the content is 100 words you've already read on another site. But cheap is sustainable and can have great content, well-written, well-edited, well-curated. Valuable.
And Rolling Stone has push button audio clips next to music reviews. Sure, they could have done on that on the Web, but they didn't because they'd have to do it multiple times to work around the lack of ISO media support in some browsers, and the content simply doesn't exist outside of ISO MPEG-4. Another example of the Web killing itself.
When the Web started, we thought it would look like CD-ROM in no time. Instead, decades later, the Web looks like a shitty Windows app. Web design is now the art and science of making a document as unreadable as possible. I barely use the Web anymore because there are better options now on a $329 iPad that slips in your jacket pocket and weighs 300 grams and runs 10 hours on a charge.
So these guys need to make an iPad magazine and charge $10 per year and make something that is special and great and sustainable.
What's next? Mozilla won't run on OS X because Apple won't let them replace the TCP/IP stack?
A Safari user can run Safari on every form factor and sync bookmarks between them. A Firefox user could easily do the same. The fact that the rendering engine would be Gecko on their PC and WebKit on their iPhone just doesn't fucking matter. Especially not when Gecko runs like crap on mobiles.
It really shows that Mozilla's focus is on themselves and software developers, not on the consumer end user, who has been running Firefox on their PC for years now and Safari on their iPhone for years now and just wants a Firefox interface and bookmark syncing on their iPhone.
If that is Mozilla's focus, then they don't belong on iOS and good riddance. On iOS, the end user is at the top of the hierarchy, and software developers and content producers all work for the user. The user already has an HTML5 renderer in their iPhone, they already have a TCP/IP stack. You do not need to replace them to build a browser, and in fact, it is much better security that you can't replace them. That is what is best for the consumer: a secure renderer that is highly-optimized specifically for their device.
> as long as Apple doesn't mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers
That is just propaganda. There are hundreds of 3rd party browsers on iOS, many with very innovative features. Like Skyfire, which converts Flash Video to ISO standard video on a server and essentially enables you to run Flash on iPhone or iPad. There are browsers that are exploring lots of gestures, or deep social integration. Mozilla is missing out on all of that because they are pouty, entitled developers who want their feet rubbed and cheeks kissed before they deign to bless us with their bloated, mangled code. And of course, Mozilla knows better than Apple what Apple users want. As if.
And finally, Mozilla's hypocrisy: note that the one and only HTML renderer on Firefox OS is Gecko. And Firefox OS has zero 3rd party browsers as of right now.
> There are no gay people on slashdot.
Sure there are. Uh — DickBreath.
Being gay does not mean you are emasculated. It is 100% masculine to be a gay man, same as it is 100% masculine to be a straight man. Even an effeminate gay man (not the only way to be gay) is not emasculated. Nobody has taken anything from him. And there are many gay men who are big, tough motherfuckers. Excuse me — Daddy fuckers.
> The problem is the other half (or some significant percent) that seeks to ban vice and considers it sin.
The problem is not people seeking to ban vice. It's already banned. The problem is the Religious Police. In the US, 75% of police budgets goes to punishing smokers. Americans are like, “OMG in Iran the Religious Police will tell you to get a haircut!” Well, it's not Iran that leads the world in incarceration — that is the US. We got there by putting sinners in jail. We arrest taxpaying smokers, take away their kids, put the smoker into a prison cell with a professional murderer, expect him to get raped, he does and gets AIDS, and he dies. That is what we do. We like doing that. We thrive on it. Some of us profit from it.
You can't walk around in the US with a camera strapped to your face. That is called “evidence gathering,” or “case building.” If you go to a party, there will be somebody smoking an illegal cigarette, or there will be an illegal poker game, or a 20 year old adult will be drinking alcohol.
Fucking Zuckerburg had photos of himself smoking a water pipe on his Facebook page at one point, and when it accidentally went public, he took it down. The share-everything Facebook guy, protected by his wealth and the privileges of racism, took a photo down immediately. Not even a video — a low-res still photo.
No, Google Glass has a touchpad on the side, you scroll menus and click to activate.
I think the main thing with the voice is to issue commands, such as “camera on” or whatever. The Mac has had that for many, many years (since before Mac OS X) and although it is surprisingly accurate at understanding a basic list of commands (like “launch Photoshop”,) almost nobody uses it. I think when you are controlling a computer with a mouse or touch and somebody says, “hey, you could control that computer with your voice!” that sounds easy, but the reality is, it's a chore. It's slower and it feels like more work in almost every context.
Humans are hand-based creatures. We're defined by our unique, tool-using hands. We work with our hands, we communicate with our voices. I think voice commands are a way to turn the voice into a fairly lousy 3rd hand. Useful if driving, but probably nowhere else.
The reason voice looks so good on Star Trek is they are just communicating with the computer, they're not working it. The computer is essentially just another character in Star Trek. Notice they still fly the ship with their hands.
Google Glass has a touchpad on the side that you use to scroll and select. It's conveniently as far away from your hands as possible.
> I've seen many people walking around with them on in the Bay Area,
> and they actually look pretty natural and non-geeky.
That's like someone from Los Angeles saying breast implants don't make you look like a stripper.
I'm in San Francisco as well, and while Google Glass doesn't shock me, I certainly wouldn't talk to someone who had them stuck on their face. Same as I wouldn't talk to someone who is talking on a cell phone or listening to headphones. That person is already occupied with something else, they're not physically present. They're doing FaceTime, not face time.
I think his point is that people who wear glasses can wear Google Glasses without that big of a change. There is still something bolted to your face. People who don't wear glasses have to adjust to the idea of changing the way their face looks, adjust to being separated from the visual world by a device.
I've never worn glasses and the idea that I will have to someday just because I'm getting older is ridiculously frightening. Glasses feel like watching everything through a camera to me. I have no idea what shape or material to get, no idea how I'll carry them.
Glasses are a prosthetic. Nobody wants them.
I get what you're trying to say about Russia, but the thing is, the only reason you see Russia that way is because the Russian way of being patriarchal is slightly different from the way of being patriarchal where you live. Russia actually has a history of Communism, where women rolling up their sleeves and working on a factory line was promoted as a virtue. Someone in Russia who is looking at the US might see it as being too patriarchal. The US has almost no women in government and has never had a female President. Never mind patriarchal — that is literal patriarchy.
And if you take way New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and a few other cities, North America is pretty fucking patriarchal.
> Not allowing slapping of women would be sexist.
No, that is not true. Not allowing women to fight would be sexist. It is pretty common today to see women fighting in real life and in movies, even fighting men. The Avengers movie featured some very badass female fighting. Women also fight in real life of course, and there are many women who could beat the majority of men in a fight. There are martial arts moves now that are designed for women.
A man slapping a woman who has not slapped him is definitely sexist. The reason is that women essentially give up 25% or more of their physical size and muscle (as compared to a fraternal male twin) in order to physically birth the next generation of humans. So slapping a woman at any time is like slapping a woman who is holding a baby or is pregnant, while the man is holding extra muscle. It's not a fair fight, and it's exploiting a male advantage, so it is by definition sexist. And men have traditionally used this size advantage to deny women their innate equality with men. If you participate in that by slapping a woman, you're continuing a long, sad, sexist tradition.
As to why you can't slap a woman in a movie where it is just fantasy — you can. It still happens. Only today, it's only villains that do it, because the audience vilifies them for it. If you see a man haul out and slap a woman in a movie today, 30 minutes later the guy will land on a spike or something and the audience will applaud.
“Effeminate” can be a verb is you want it to. The only rule in English is there are no rules. Feel free to verbify.
So the Google way to make cyborg glasses fashionable is to send Sergey Brin to fashion shows?
Why not partner with Oakley or Ray-Ban or someone like that (like Apple did with Nike to make iPod more athlete-friendly) and make glasses that look so good that models would be wearing them on the runway?
Mandroid!!!
> Once someone is conned, they have a strong interest in hiding the fact from themselves and from
> others. They become part of the con artists salesforce. This is how you get "cults".
Honestly, you're making me think of the Windows PC. Individuals and companies endlessly reinstalling Windows while they tell you how they saved $300 as compared to buying a Mac. Then they buy 2 Windows PC's for every Mac their neighbor bought. Then a virus transferred their bank account to Russia. But they're still using Windows.
> Many people voted for Bush Jr. twice.
Not that many. Less than half the electorate both times. And the electorate is only like half the country.
And Bush is right-wing, like Bill Gates. Jobs supported the left-wing party. The one whose Presidents actually win their elections instead of stealing them.
> fellating a dead guy who most people can agree was a world class douchebag...
Ah, but “world class!”
Most people who know who Steve Jobs is have a very high opinion of him, actually. And even people who knew him and thought he was a douchbag still respected him.
And the fucker was right. He was RIGHT. If you're using a computer, you're either using one of his products or a clone of one of his products.
On the day that Steve Jobs died, there was a bagpiper playing outside the Apple headquarters. They were Scottish pipes and complete bagpiping regalia, but the guy playing them was French-Canadian. He went down to Apple HQ on his own after hearing the news that Jobs had died and grown men stopped and cried their fucking eyes out.
I hope you have at least 1/10th of that at your funeral.
If he thinks Jobs' taste is bad, I'd love to hear what he thinks of the guy who created Slashdot's eye-fucking design.
I think you're forgetting how shitty hard drives were in the mid-80's when the NeXT project started, and how shitty they were even 10 years later. NeXT shipped in 1988 and it is not that different from a Mac Pro today. Give them a break on the magneto-optical.
I really am not impressed by your long-winded attempt to prove that Apple is a failure. A clue that you might be wrong is that Apple right now has the biggest market cap of any tech company, has 75% of the profits in the Intel PC market, has 75% of the profits in the entire phone market (not just smartphones,) has 98% of the profits in the tablet market, has 90% of the profits in the music player market, is the biggest vendor of consumer video and audio editing software, the biggest vendor of pro video and audio editing software, is the creator of the #1 Windows app (iTunes,) has the biggest online media stores, the most developer support, and the highest sales-per-square-foot of any retailer.
Further, if you're not using an Apple product right now, you're using a clone of an Apple product.
NOT FAILURE. By definition, it is not failure.
> XT
It's great if programming an XT was bliss for you. Too bad you didn't get a fucking Apple II about 7 years earlier.
> Mac
> floppy disk
Yes, yes, yes — the original Mac in 1984 was not quite complete yet. It didn't yet have a hard disk, it didn't yet have a printer. But all the other computers didn't even have GRAPHICS and TYPOGRAPHY. And hard disks and printers and more RAM and so on all arrived shortly after and the Mac was the center of almost every innovation in computing from about 1986 through 1995, including desktop publishing, desktop video, CD-ROM, online services. And the ones that the Mac was not at the center of were either centered on NeXT (World Wide Web, object-oriented software,) or inspired by NeXT (Java, Windows 95, Windows NT.)
If you think the Mac was hard to develop on in 1984, you should have tried developing for fucking Windows at that time. That is the comparison.
> but his fixation on removing floppy disk drive buttons rather than laying the fundamentals
> for demand paged virtual memory nearly killed Apple before he could rush back to save it
What outrageously crazy bullshit.
The Mac saved Apple in the 1980's. The fact that Steve Jobs lead the Mac team and the people on that team did amazing work is what saved Apple from dying in 1988 when Apple II sales dried up. Apple was going with a lineup of Lisa and Apple II and Jobs saw that was not going to cut it and put a pirate flag on the shittiest building they had and tasked a team with obsoleting both Lisa and Apple II. If not for that, Hipsters would be wearing 1980's Apple T-shirts ironically today, like they do with Atari, because Apple would have gone out of business in the 80's.
> virtual memory
The foundations of the classic Mac OS were laid in 1982. Jobs is the one who laid a new foundation with virtual memory and other modern features with the “Big Mac” project while at Apple in 1985. When he was fired, he took Big Mac with him and it shipped in 1988 as NeXT. NeXT had virtual memory and other modern features. So Jobs was selling virtual memory in 1988, about 8 years before the Copeland mess at Apple that you are blaming on him. If he had not been fired, Apple would have shipped the NeXT workstation, sold the Mac at a lower and lower price to consumers, and over time the technologies from NeXT would have appeared on the Mac until there was a similar situation to Mac (workstation) and iPad (consumers) today. That was the plan that got Steve Jobs fired. That is the plan he came back to Apple and executed and had great success with.
And you're not even right about the Mac floppy drive being buttonless. The button was on the fucking keyboard with the other 80 buttons, right where the user's hands were. You press either Command+E or an actual dedicated Eject key on the keyboard. This is still true today.
The rest of your comment is just as ill-informed and vapid.
> For much of his life, he was out of touch with reality,
Bullshit.
> producing expensive, overdesigned, underperforming computers.
Apple II was expensive and underperforming?
A 1988 desktop publishing setup of Mac and LaserWriter and Aldus Pagemaker that replaced a million dollar printing press is expensive and underperforming?
A Mac that ran Microsoft Office 8 to 10 years before it started running on Windows is underperforming?
A Mac that ran Photoshop 5 years before it started running on Windows is underperforming?
Macs are 75% of Google and Facebook and Twitter, 100% of Genentech, almost 100% of Hollywood, and were used to create the majority of music albums in the world. That's underperforming?
There are only 2 virus-free computing platforms: Mac OS X and iOS. Is that underperforming?
> He nearly killed Apple before he was fired
Bullshit. The last thing he did before he was fired was lead the Macintosh team, which saved Apple. If not for Macintosh, Apple would have been selling the Lisa and Apple II through the 1980's, and would have gone out of business in 1988 when the Apple II stopped selling.
Jobs was fired in 1985 because the Mac was seen as a failure because it did not sell as much as anticipated in its first year. Then in 1986, Apple shipped LaserWriter (first laser printer) and essentially completed the Mac (no printer in those days was like no Internet connectivity today,) and Aldus shipped PageMaker and desktop publishing started and the Mac never looked back. And now Apple is by far the oldest PC maker.
> and failed spectacularly with NeXT.
The NeXT software is running on almost a half a billion devices right now. The same kernel, the same frameworks, the same display architecture. The NeXT developer tools were used to create the World Wide Web in 1990, Mac OS X in 1997–2001, and every iPhone app since 2008, and every iPad app since 2010.
Some failure!
> Eventually he found a talent for creating markets in new breeds of consumer electronics.
That is what he always did. How is Apple II not a new breed of consumer electronics? There was no such thing as a consumer PC, and then Apple II came out and there was.
If you're going to criticize, at least learn some fucking history first.
> The claim is that he know what people wanted. A 12% market share shows that he clearly did not.
The thing is, the other 88% of the market is all Apple clones, duh.
> Maybe if he did, he could have gotten more than 12% market share for his desktop systems.
The Mac has 75% profit share in Intel PC's. Maybe you want to explain to me how that is a failure?
The reason market share was deified is it was supposed to lead to lots of developer support. Yet it turned out that developers chase profit. That is why Apple has all the developer support.
And iPhone also has 75% profit share of the entire phone market (not just smartphones.)
I'm just not seeing your “Steve Jobs as a failure” thesis.
> Jobs knew how to manipulate people into wanting what he had to sell them. He was an excellent salesman.
That is ridiculous. Jobs was a terrible salesman. Jobs could only sell things he was really, really passionate about. A good salesman can sell anything.
And there was no manipulation with Jobs. He just said look at this awesome thing that I really like, isn't it fucking great? Maybe you will like it too. If you don't, I don't fucking care.