well, that is a matter of opinion, I wouldn't necessarily agree. The kinds of people who like apple are usually people who a: don't like Microsoft, b: don't mind DRM and/or C: want a closed source system ("they just want it to work")
It's mostly a gross oversimplification of the fact that basically, computers aren't that simple. They get easier to use, but are more complicated now than they have ever been, and that's a good thing. This doesn't apply to all of the people apple is relevant to, but a lot of people do fit one or more of the above.
Meanwhile, why ask about relevance? The whole question of "does apple matters" is asking a question that the answer wasn't even questioned in the first place. Apple is essentially "relevant" much in the way that oxygen is relevant: it's all over the place, but that doesn't state anything about specific importance.
I don't like apple. Does that mean they are any more or less relevant? answer is that it's not affected.
Having the option to print and not using it is better then wanting to print and being told to fuck yourself.
maybe if you equated something in reality and also read my fucking comment, you'd realize what I was saying. I'm not saying nobody should have the option, I'm just saying not everyone needs it. That doesn't mean you should not be allowed to print or that printing is wrong or something else.
your lack of reading states more about your comment than the argument in it.
Also, really "you could write something down wrong"? Can you not read that ABC 123 6 F gets written down the same way you read it? Was this a troll? Are you not literate? It sure seems it.
please, the worst mistake to make in a market is assuming the next big product is going to kill it off.
It'd be more accurate that saying ping is apple's attempt to compete with facebook, because the details of how ping will actually work matter a lot more than just "We made our own social platform".
I specifically phrased this as to not include work because a lot of people need things on paper for work environments still, and that's fine and reasonable.
However, a great deal of ipad owners are not for the workplace - some are, yes, but not many. So again, the question remains, how many people need to print at home? Train tickets is a legitimate reason if you don't have any other way to do it (and there are many).
however, yes, isn't competition great? we have lots of choices, none of which are actually competitive in comparison to what we'd like to see available in the US. If 100mb/s synchronous was available to consumers right now we'd be talking competition, but as is people are getting what, 20mb/s upstream as the maximum available?
ah yes, and hyper v was contributed why again? let's not act like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was contributed because it violated the GPL license.
It should be noted on this actually, that this speaks volumes about the politeness of open source developers, because they absolutely could have pushed for a lot more to resolve the violation.
this however, has no actual factual basis. MS has never done anything to show people that they've actually changed in this sense.
As noted, a leopard can't change its spots, and people are not ignorant to "embrace, extend extinguish". There is no way for microsoft to be truly pro open source until a MS license is made to be fully GPL v3 compatible and not simply declared open source by OSI, and since that will never happen, neither will MS being supportive of open source.
This is like saying "we support mono", or "we support silverlight" and calling them open source when they really create open source issues.
You know, as opposed to logical or legal arguments, it's just "it's immmoral and therefore bad!" you know, like rock music, file sharing, books, reading, etc.
whos' the ex MS employee or disgruntled? if you mean me, you'd be incorrect on both counts, and I would certainly consider the former an insult. I don't really see one in the entire thread.
what's your offtopic point? It doesn't matter if they're democratic or republican, if they're letting themselves be bought off by lobbyists they shouldn't be a politician period.
yes. since essentially, it's not royalty free forever, only the free part is. so it's not only a: redundant but b: does not fix the licensing issues that exist.
I think it'll make the VP8 vs h264 issue easier, though.
this is simple and correct, but why even go that far? Why not just get colored tape and put one around each tube, maybe even write a description with a pen? Wouldn't that work on a basic level?
that's kinda like saying without war there would be no need for adversity. It's a bit of a backwards argument. Who is to say that open source wouldn't exist without microsoft? An independent licensing scheme involving free software? I'm sure that would happen even if windows was free.
console DRM starts and stops at the discs/cartridges. It also starts at the purchase of the console. Think you can make a backup of those games legally? Think you can use it for anything other than gaming?
Hint: it can do a lot more, but you don't have the choice due to the control over access provisions of the device (DRM).
piracy has no correlation with DRM. This is something people fail to ever understand.
Really, a game's going to be pirated for numerous reasons. Maybe someone wants to try it first (assuming no trial/inaccurate trial/shitty trial), maybe someone's in a country that payment won't be accepted, maybe it's a kid who doesn't have a credit card as needed. All of these can be reasons for piracy, and none of these are helped or fixed by adding DRM.
So yes, there is an incentive to not use DRM. Go look at the humble indie bundle and how it did. It either goes both ways: rewards for using (and not using) DRM, or no rewards for either.
Remote processing is even worse DRM. I mean look at blizzard servers for world of warcraft. People don't even realize how little they have control over. Yes, immensely popular, but if b;ozzard shuts down their servers? Tough luck, your whole account is basically DRM in that case.
trusted hardware is incredibly old, it's not "around the corner", it's been here for years. However, it's only for enterprise, because if you actually had trusted platform enabled on your PC by default there'd be antitrust issues and to say heads would roll is an understatement. It will never happen.
plenty of consoles can and do have keyboards and mice, because they use USB now. why is this some magic surprise? The issue is that consoles have nowhere near the graphics capability of a PC, so adding a keyboard doesn't add to the fact that, well, the games don't play at the same resolutions with the same levels of detail on the console.
you do realize that pc gaming and console gaming really isn't that different as a concept, right?
trying to say that a console business is a bigger industry or whatnot is just looking at apples and oranges, because the business itself is not similar.
Slashdot Mirror
if you think information goes only one way then you don't understand any society.
Information is not just an export, but an import as well.
its not hard to tie together the prevalence of HFCS in foods and a major increase in obesity.
good luck buying any convenience food without hfcs anymore.
yes, thats why I put in apostrophe's. Thank you for failing to read. It was something people perceive is the case.
well, that is a matter of opinion, I wouldn't necessarily agree. The kinds of people who like apple are usually people who a: don't like Microsoft, b: don't mind DRM and/or C: want a closed source system ("they just want it to work")
It's mostly a gross oversimplification of the fact that basically, computers aren't that simple. They get easier to use, but are more complicated now than they have ever been, and that's a good thing. This doesn't apply to all of the people apple is relevant to, but a lot of people do fit one or more of the above.
Meanwhile, why ask about relevance? The whole question of "does apple matters" is asking a question that the answer wasn't even questioned in the first place. Apple is essentially "relevant" much in the way that oxygen is relevant: it's all over the place, but that doesn't state anything about specific importance.
I don't like apple. Does that mean they are any more or less relevant? answer is that it's not affected.
maybe if you equated something in reality and also read my fucking comment, you'd realize what I was saying. I'm not saying nobody should have the option, I'm just saying not everyone needs it. That doesn't mean you should not be allowed to print or that printing is wrong or something else.
your lack of reading states more about your comment than the argument in it.
Also, really "you could write something down wrong"? Can you not read that ABC 123 6 F gets written down the same way you read it? Was this a troll? Are you not literate? It sure seems it.
please, the worst mistake to make in a market is assuming the next big product is going to kill it off.
It'd be more accurate that saying ping is apple's attempt to compete with facebook, because the details of how ping will actually work matter a lot more than just "We made our own social platform".
this is for home, not for work.
I specifically phrased this as to not include work because a lot of people need things on paper for work environments still, and that's fine and reasonable.
However, a great deal of ipad owners are not for the workplace - some are, yes, but not many. So again, the question remains, how many people need to print at home? Train tickets is a legitimate reason if you don't have any other way to do it (and there are many).
you know, reading is a good thing. In your case, you didn't.
I was not stating that they didn't need to be able to print, I asked separately why do people need to print anything these days, really.
That's not for or against feature inclusion. read the fucking post before you comment on it please.
in this day and age, why would you even print anything?
for the most part it's just not as needed. Especially having an ipad. Need to show something to a friend? Just bring the ipad.
giant douche or turd sandwich, basically.
however, yes, isn't competition great? we have lots of choices, none of which are actually competitive in comparison to what we'd like to see available in the US. If 100mb/s synchronous was available to consumers right now we'd be talking competition, but as is people are getting what, 20mb/s upstream as the maximum available?
ah yes, and hyper v was contributed why again? let's not act like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was contributed because it violated the GPL license.
It should be noted on this actually, that this speaks volumes about the politeness of open source developers, because they absolutely could have pushed for a lot more to resolve the violation.
this however, has no actual factual basis. MS has never done anything to show people that they've actually changed in this sense.
As noted, a leopard can't change its spots, and people are not ignorant to "embrace, extend extinguish". There is no way for microsoft to be truly pro open source until a MS license is made to be fully GPL v3 compatible and not simply declared open source by OSI, and since that will never happen, neither will MS being supportive of open source.
This is like saying "we support mono", or "we support silverlight" and calling them open source when they really create open source issues.
all caps IMMORAL would be that, in a nutshell.
You know, as opposed to logical or legal arguments, it's just "it's immmoral and therefore bad!" you know, like rock music, file sharing, books, reading, etc.
the west? this is about china. you know, the east.
whos' the ex MS employee or disgruntled? if you mean me, you'd be incorrect on both counts, and I would certainly consider the former an insult. I don't really see one in the entire thread.
even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?
what's your offtopic point? It doesn't matter if they're democratic or republican, if they're letting themselves be bought off by lobbyists they shouldn't be a politician period.
yes. since essentially, it's not royalty free forever, only the free part is. so it's not only a: redundant but b: does not fix the licensing issues that exist.
I think it'll make the VP8 vs h264 issue easier, though.
this is simple and correct, but why even go that far? Why not just get colored tape and put one around each tube, maybe even write a description with a pen? Wouldn't that work on a basic level?
Also yes, agreed, specific connectors for each.
problem solved. no need for new anything.
that's kinda like saying without war there would be no need for adversity. It's a bit of a backwards argument. Who is to say that open source wouldn't exist without microsoft? An independent licensing scheme involving free software? I'm sure that would happen even if windows was free.
console DRM starts and stops at the discs/cartridges. It also starts at the purchase of the console. Think you can make a backup of those games legally?
Think you can use it for anything other than gaming?
Hint: it can do a lot more, but you don't have the choice due to the control over access provisions of the device (DRM).
piracy has no correlation with DRM. This is something people fail to ever understand.
Really, a game's going to be pirated for numerous reasons. Maybe someone wants to try it first (assuming no trial/inaccurate trial/shitty trial), maybe someone's in a country that payment won't be accepted, maybe it's a kid who doesn't have a credit card as needed. All of these can be reasons for piracy, and none of these are helped or fixed by adding DRM.
So yes, there is an incentive to not use DRM. Go look at the humble indie bundle and how it did. It either goes both ways: rewards for using (and not using) DRM, or no rewards for either.
Remote processing is even worse DRM. I mean look at blizzard servers for world of warcraft. People don't even realize how little they have control over. Yes, immensely popular, but if b;ozzard shuts down their servers? Tough luck, your whole account is basically DRM in that case.
trusted hardware is incredibly old, it's not "around the corner", it's been here for years. However, it's only for enterprise, because if you actually had trusted platform enabled on your PC by default there'd be antitrust issues and to say heads would roll is an understatement. It will never happen.
plenty of consoles can and do have keyboards and mice, because they use USB now. why is this some magic surprise? The issue is that consoles have nowhere near the graphics capability of a PC, so adding a keyboard doesn't add to the fact that, well, the games don't play at the same resolutions with the same levels of detail on the console.
console market more secure? hahahahha.
you do realize that pc gaming and console gaming really isn't that different as a concept, right?
trying to say that a console business is a bigger industry or whatnot is just looking at apples and oranges, because the business itself is not similar.
Consoles are 100% drm by design.
how about the general gaming public's response:
we won't buy anything with annoying DRM. Really, the solution is to add more DRM? Not exactly a solution.
Steam is no exception, and is only tolerable because it has no competition in that aspect.
Once other companies wise up to the steam concept nobody will give a crap for it anymore either.