You don't need to be a programmer to program a computer. My boss isn't a programmer, yet he can program a computer simply by paying me money and telling me what to do. My mum isn't a programmer, but she can program a computer by asking me a favour. Stallman assumes people realise that.
There right there. Even fewer people want to ask/pay other people to program their computers for them. People want to buy a product that does what it says on the tin, maybe a bit more, but no less. They are happy for Apple (or whatever other company) to provide new features in an update, preferably for free, as in beer. The flexibility of free software is mostly useful to corporations, who have deep enough pockets to pay for modifications to the software they use, and to software geeks, who find coding enojyable. For everyone else, the flexibility is not even worth the cost, and is probably lowest on their list of needs.
So your assertion that you don't need to be a progammer is completely true, but also completely besides the point.
That is a good thing. The government should certainly discourage people lending to people who are likely going to be unable to repay their debts. If you can't take responsibility for who lend to, then you should not be lending.
People who do not want their computers to be video game consoles should create their own computers. They should not expect the rest of the computer buying public to pay (either through higher prices, more bugs, lower usability or any combination of these) for features that are only useful to a minority of users.
Dang it, if the public wants video game consoles, then the public should get video game consoles. Those unhapy with that state of affairs can go to Best Buy or similar, buy the required components, install Linux on said machines and enjoy their freedoms.
He put it on the internet, therefore he wanted visibility for it. If he didn't want visibility, he would have written it in a personal journal if at all.
He would have to very naive, nay very stupid, if he thought this wouldn't be picked up by the media.
Well, other more enterprising individuals would have gone and created their printer company, and included said functionality as a key differentiating feature of their technology. Now, I think those enterprising individuals would have done more ultimately for humanity, because they not only solved their own problems, they solved ther own problems, and put out of a business a company that wasn't responsive to their customers' needs. That there is called the free market.
I am not saying that Stallman's stance is less valid, but like it or not, progress in the western world has depended on the survive or die mentality, and that will continue to serve the western world well.
Walled garden that you can leave by not deciding to buy another Apple product.
What about the apps I hear. Well, they are either free on other platforms already, and if not, and if they are already available on Android, whose fault is it that the creator won't give you a code to unlock the apps on another platform once you have bought the same app on the iOS platform.
If you think people are oppressed because they find it difficult not to choose a $500 product, then maybe the US is alright after all. It's not like there is anyone else on the platform with real freedom problems.
I don't think innovation means what you think it means. Jobs perhaps wasn't an inventor, and most definitely not a prolific one, but he was definitely an innovator.
And if you think that all Jobs did was put pretty plastic shells over some electronic bits, then that is why he was the billionaire founder of 3 successful companies, whilst you are probably still working for your next month's living.
At least you acknowledged his ability to grok that user interfaces needed to be designed well. But you obviously do not buy into the less is more thing, but I will attempt to spell it out anyway. Jobs believed in doing relatively fewer things well, rather than trying to be all things to all people, and being nothing to everyone. Look at his company even. He distilled its entire product range into a ridiculously small number of extremely successful and well differntiated products. And in doing so so created the world's most profitable tech company. I think that proves him right, and you wrong.
Of course Jobs was a ridiculously great marketer,. He obviously maximised the value of whatever marketing he did by doing it sparingly, and doing it very well.
Bottom line is, if you thinkg someone who creates 3 successful companies from scratch (basically every company he has ever created) can do it by being a great marketer, then you are either being dishonest, or if you really believe it, then not very bright.
The problem for the Chinese is that they sell back to the USA. So if they produce stuff with stolen IP, they can't sell it in the USA without paying off US companies, which reduces their competitive advantage. What they sell in China is another story though, but there are still the WTO rules to deal with that.
The advantage that China gets is that they industrialise and become more efficient producers. One day, they will create their own IP, and they will be capable of producing much cheaper, and patents will expire. At that point US companies are vulnerable, but even that assumes US companies will not have new patents on then modern tech.
Yeah, because human progress was slower before patents were introduced!
Patents are a good thing when used properly, to protect unique and significant inventions. It means people can be sure of reward if they invent something that is useful and desirable.
Patents are not just about lone inventors, and progress is most certainly not of the slow evolutionary kind. Once in a while, we make a leap forward. The invention of the transistor is a case in point. Sometimes, you have to spend a lot of money to invent, test and refine something before you can profit from it, and a patent helps you recoup your costs.
You are comparing a president directing the entire resources of a nation (which he didn't work for), and a man making something out of nothing, 3 times (Apple, Next, Pixar).
Steve Jobs achieved everything he through his own bloody mindedness, ingenuity and ability. No comparison.
Re:What he took away is more precious than given
on
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
·
· Score: 1
If by that you mean iPhone will one day enjoy a 5-10 percent market share, whilst making most of the profits in the industry like they do with their Macs, then Apple will be doing brilliantly. I think HP would bite Apple's hand off if they were offered to swap their PC business for Apple's Mac business.
False positive errors are not particularly problematic. OK, it means you don't make a positive match (because you have identified the wrong guy), but you can use humans to review the matches before you act on the information. It probably still beats trying to match them all by hand.
False negatives are not too much of a problem either. It's not like one forsakes all other methods of investigation once they decide to use facial recognition software. If facial recognition doesn't work, then use the old fashioned poster on a tree with a phone number, or TV advertising.
Russia distrusts China more than they distrust America. They are bloody neighbours too, so are more likely to have a conflict than Russia-USA or USA-China.
Apple has $80 billion cash and bonds, and you think that is all sizzle and no steak.
Jobs has built a company that is continually in innovate or become irrelevant mode. That is why they succeed, because their success depends on continuing to deliver. Microsoft could lay off all of its software engineers today and be making serious money for the next 10 years. That is why they have lacked innovation, because they didn't need to do anything to print money.
There has already been a third act, Apple 2. Act 2 was Pixar, you know, the little animation company. One could even argue that NeXT was another act, although that could be seen as part of the third act.
No. Apple own the whole stack. They don't give up their profits to Microsoft. The rest of the PC industry is basically a delivery system for Microsoft software (and profits). Microsoft does the low risk bit, and the rest of the industry risk everything to try and make a bit of money, which Microsoft siphons off courtesy the Windows and Office license fees. If the PC manufacturers could negotiate better, they would sell computers at cost of building them + the license fee, for which they would demand an equal share (or substantial) of Microsoft's Windows license fee as their profit.
Definitely $100 each from 1,000 people. It's less profit overall, but more hassle and more like a better return on investment. Better yet, $100 each from 10,000 people. You forget Apple is not miniscule compared to HP and Dell in PC revenues. It's probably about a third or more of the revenue that Dell and HP get and much greater profits. So yeah, HP would love to be Apple right now.
I don't know. But if people are still protesting after being shot and having people beside them killed, then just maybe they are not just opportunists just trying to shop without money.
There were riots in the UK. Factually correct, and most times it is said, it is not intended to be misleading, and it is not generally understood in the wrong way. And I live in Edinburgh.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to be a programmer to program a computer. My boss isn't a programmer, yet he can program a computer simply by paying me money and telling me what to do. My mum isn't a programmer, but she can program a computer by asking me a favour. Stallman assumes people realise that.
There right there. Even fewer people want to ask/pay other people to program their computers for them. People want to buy a product that does what it says on the tin, maybe a bit more, but no less. They are happy for Apple (or whatever other company) to provide new features in an update, preferably for free, as in beer. The flexibility of free software is mostly useful to corporations, who have deep enough pockets to pay for modifications to the software they use, and to software geeks, who find coding enojyable. For everyone else, the flexibility is not even worth the cost, and is probably lowest on their list of needs.
So your assertion that you don't need to be a progammer is completely true, but also completely besides the point.
That is a good thing. The government should certainly discourage people lending to people who are likely going to be unable to repay their debts. If you can't take responsibility for who lend to, then you should not be lending.
People who do not want their computers to be video game consoles should create their own computers. They should not expect the rest of the computer buying public to pay (either through higher prices, more bugs, lower usability or any combination of these) for features that are only useful to a minority of users.
Dang it, if the public wants video game consoles, then the public should get video game consoles. Those unhapy with that state of affairs can go to Best Buy or similar, buy the required components, install Linux on said machines and enjoy their freedoms.
See, everyone happy!
He put it on the internet, therefore he wanted visibility for it. If he didn't want visibility, he would have written it in a personal journal if at all.
He would have to very naive, nay very stupid, if he thought this wouldn't be picked up by the media.
Well, other more enterprising individuals would have gone and created their printer company, and included said functionality as a key differentiating feature of their technology. Now, I think those enterprising individuals would have done more ultimately for humanity, because they not only solved their own problems, they solved ther own problems, and put out of a business a company that wasn't responsive to their customers' needs. That there is called the free market.
I am not saying that Stallman's stance is less valid, but like it or not, progress in the western world has depended on the survive or die mentality, and that will continue to serve the western world well.
Walled garden that you can leave by not deciding to buy another Apple product.
What about the apps I hear. Well, they are either free on other platforms already, and if not, and if they are already available on Android, whose fault is it that the creator won't give you a code to unlock the apps on another platform once you have bought the same app on the iOS platform.
If you think people are oppressed because they find it difficult not to choose a $500 product, then maybe the US is alright after all. It's not like there is anyone else on the platform with real freedom problems.
I don't think innovation means what you think it means. Jobs perhaps wasn't an inventor, and most definitely not a prolific one, but he was definitely an innovator.
And if you think that all Jobs did was put pretty plastic shells over some electronic bits, then that is why he was the billionaire founder of 3 successful companies, whilst you are probably still working for your next month's living.
At least you acknowledged his ability to grok that user interfaces needed to be designed well. But you obviously do not buy into the less is more thing, but I will attempt to spell it out anyway. Jobs believed in doing relatively fewer things well, rather than trying to be all things to all people, and being nothing to everyone. Look at his company even. He distilled its entire product range into a ridiculously small number of extremely successful and well differntiated products. And in doing so so created the world's most profitable tech company. I think that proves him right, and you wrong.
Of course Jobs was a ridiculously great marketer,. He obviously maximised the value of whatever marketing he did by doing it sparingly, and doing it very well.
Bottom line is, if you thinkg someone who creates 3 successful companies from scratch (basically every company he has ever created) can do it by being a great marketer, then you are either being dishonest, or if you really believe it, then not very bright.
The problem for the Chinese is that they sell back to the USA. So if they produce stuff with stolen IP, they can't sell it in the USA without paying off US companies, which reduces their competitive advantage. What they sell in China is another story though, but there are still the WTO rules to deal with that.
The advantage that China gets is that they industrialise and become more efficient producers. One day, they will create their own IP, and they will be capable of producing much cheaper, and patents will expire. At that point US companies are vulnerable, but even that assumes US companies will not have new patents on then modern tech.
Yeah, because human progress was slower before patents were introduced!
Patents are a good thing when used properly, to protect unique and significant inventions. It means people can be sure of reward if they invent something that is useful and desirable.
Patents are not just about lone inventors, and progress is most certainly not of the slow evolutionary kind. Once in a while, we make a leap forward. The invention of the transistor is a case in point. Sometimes, you have to spend a lot of money to invent, test and refine something before you can profit from it, and a patent helps you recoup your costs.
You are comparing a president directing the entire resources of a nation (which he didn't work for), and a man making something out of nothing, 3 times (Apple, Next, Pixar).
Steve Jobs achieved everything he through his own bloody mindedness, ingenuity and ability. No comparison.
If by that you mean iPhone will one day enjoy a 5-10 percent market share, whilst making most of the profits in the industry like they do with their Macs, then Apple will be doing brilliantly. I think HP would bite Apple's hand off if they were offered to swap their PC business for Apple's Mac business.
False positive errors are not particularly problematic. OK, it means you don't make a positive match (because you have identified the wrong guy), but you can use humans to review the matches before you act on the information. It probably still beats trying to match them all by hand.
False negatives are not too much of a problem either. It's not like one forsakes all other methods of investigation once they decide to use facial recognition software. If facial recognition doesn't work, then use the old fashioned poster on a tree with a phone number, or TV advertising.
Russia distrusts China more than they distrust America. They are bloody neighbours too, so are more likely to have a conflict than Russia-USA or USA-China.
Well, maybe they don't have a window to stare out of, but they most probably have Windows (TM) to stare at!
Apple has $80 billion cash and bonds, and you think that is all sizzle and no steak.
Jobs has built a company that is continually in innovate or become irrelevant mode. That is why they succeed, because their success depends on continuing to deliver. Microsoft could lay off all of its software engineers today and be making serious money for the next 10 years. That is why they have lacked innovation, because they didn't need to do anything to print money.
There has already been a third act, Apple 2. Act 2 was Pixar, you know, the little animation company. One could even argue that NeXT was another act, although that could be seen as part of the third act.
I guess that is where the market is headed now. And there will be no need for systems integrators.
No. Apple own the whole stack. They don't give up their profits to Microsoft. The rest of the PC industry is basically a delivery system for Microsoft software (and profits). Microsoft does the low risk bit, and the rest of the industry risk everything to try and make a bit of money, which Microsoft siphons off courtesy the Windows and Office license fees. If the PC manufacturers could negotiate better, they would sell computers at cost of building them + the license fee, for which they would demand an equal share (or substantial) of Microsoft's Windows license fee as their profit.
Terminal access on phone. facepalm! /. geeks should never run companies.
That was meant to read "more likely a better return on investment".
Definitely $100 each from 1,000 people. It's less profit overall, but more hassle and more like a better return on investment. Better yet, $100 each from 10,000 people. You forget Apple is not miniscule compared to HP and Dell in PC revenues. It's probably about a third or more of the revenue that Dell and HP get and much greater profits. So yeah, HP would love to be Apple right now.
I don't know. But if people are still protesting after being shot and having people beside them killed, then just maybe they are not just opportunists just trying to shop without money.
There were riots in the UK. Factually correct, and most times it is said, it is not intended to be misleading, and it is not generally understood in the wrong way. And I live in Edinburgh.
I think third party media players access the GPU just fine. They can just use the built in player.
It is nationwide, as opposed to being only available in Scotland, or South East England. it is not universally available though.