The first post had the phrase "There's no place like 127.0.0.1" in his signature sparking the usual slashdot tradition of debating anything except the actual featured article.
What about a basketball game where you can make Kobe Bryant a 5" skinny white guy? Just doesn't fit.
If it's only 5 inches, I'd say it'd have no problem fitting - isn't that more or less average for a white guy anyway? Or presumably you meant 5 feet (5').
There would have been a great opportunity for a Spinal Tap joke here if I didn't lack imagination and go for the cheap gag.
It's like the entire design philosophy behind Hotmail has made a 180 degree turn since the Microsoft acquisition.
And your point is? Frankly, if a company purchases a service outright, they pretty much have the right to do whatever they want with it. Especially if it's provided for free. You want to call it a travesty? Fine. Blame the people who sold it, not the ones who bought it. If I sell someone a used-car, I have no right to expect them to drive it in the same manner as I did.
Furthermore, given that there are numerous other (and perhaps better) services out there, people will just go elsewhere if they fail to adhere to what users want.
I may be entirely wrong on this, but it was my understanding that The "Church" of Scientology only became a religion in the first place in order to gain certain enshrined protections, as they were being investigated by law enforcement at the time. Becoming a religion meant that they couldn't be banned under U.S. law.
"I'd much rather play a satisfying sequel than face the disappointment Lost Planet offers: originality without entertainment."
How fun will gaming be when all the developers make sequels? If no-one tries for originality then we will never see any, ever again.
I'm confused as to how you made your observation from the comment you quoted. He was just making the point that in this case, although the game contains originality, it doesn't play well. He's not saying companies should just make sequels.
While I can't stretch to modding you informative (since you probably said what we're all thinking, and I don't have the points anyway) I admire your brevity. Point well made!
But why would I buy a PS3 when the demo units at the stores are usually frozen and the demo game is unimpressive?
Furthermore, who the hell is going to buy one now, when it's now public knowledge that a price cut could be around the corner. In the short term, Sony have just ensured that no one (except the occasional fool) is going to want to part with their money.
've done that already, also, just before this story was posted, I submitted a story with the title: "BBC proposing DRM for Linux", and both the links from my post in it. There's not a huge amount more I can do, short of writing to my, electronically illiterate, elected representatives that is, and they have no power over the BBC anyway; they can only bring moral pressure to bear.
It's difficult to imagine how more inaccurate you could be. The BBC would like to be able to make programmes available for much longer if not indefinitely. In their original proposal they wanted a time frame of 13 weeks, which was cut to 30 days. Who cut it? Not the BBC themselves, but an organization called 'The BBC Trust', an independent body that replaced the corporation's governors at the beginning of 2007. Basically a bunch of stooges appointed by the government to make sure that the BBC no longer has the ability to be totally independent and go against the wishes of the almighty Tony Blair and his cronies. The sole purpose of this 'DRM for Linux' is to satisfy this fucking stupid 30 day rules that the Trust has forced on them.
Why did it get cut? Because of pressure from the elected representatives (i.e. the government) who due to the fact that they are in bed with big business (i.e. Rupert Murdoch etc.) didn't want to do anything that might piss off their rich buddies. In other words they exerted considerably more than just 'moral pressure'.
The BBC have released non-DRM'd mp3 copies of their radio output for ages - I have no doubt they'd like to do something similar for TV, but hey, we all know whose interests are at the heart of government these days, and it sure as hell ain't the people who elected them.
I came here thinking this was a bold statement even for Gates though. On my RSS menu, the article title gets abbreviated to: Gates Proclaims Internet to Revolutionize TV in 5...
Naturally I assumed the missing part was: 4... 3... 2... 1...
I really don't give a #$%#^ about all those whiners that think Apple's DRM is so damn unfair. Hello, thats what DRM is all about.
So DRM is all about protecting a single company's virtual monopoly on hardware? I see - thanks for that insight. Obviously the last 1,000 articles I've read about it have all been wrong. Someone should tell the RIAA too, as they're clearly barking up the wrong tree.
I mean c'mon Microsoft get a pass for operating systems 90% for most cases in most countries [...] don't just posture against Apple.
No one is posturing against Apple. Microsoft has been fined to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars in Europe due to their anti-competitive practices. I've hesitated using the word 'fanboy' in this thread because I can't stand the term, but you certainly come across as having no objective opinion other than the mindless support of Jobs Inc.
I suspect anyone who thinks it's a good idea to kill off everyone with an IQ less than 130 is not as wise as he thinks he is.
I dunno. It would remove the president, the majority of his administration and most of the people who voted him in, in a single stroke. I can see the merits.
It's exactly that "if you can't figure it out, no one cares" attitude that kept Linux out of the mainstream for so long and had nerds scratching their heads as to why it wasn't being adopted by more desktop users. At least in recent times, distributions (e.g. Ubuntu) have started to raise the bar a little and offer a more user-centred approach.
The result was a system that actually encourages communication between unlike hardware from different manufacturers, something that those manufacturers still try to block when they can.
So in essence having created this system that encourages communication, he is now advocating that this communication should be restricted, unless more money is handed over. And you think this guy still possesses insight!?
Speaking as someone who used to interview candidates for tech jobs on an almost weekly basis, I'd say that it would make little difference whether you've worked in 3 or 4 commonly used languages, or 2 In order to get to 20, you'd have to include a fair bunch of obscure languages which tend to only get rolled out for academic/experimental use and rarely have any relevance in the commercial arena -yes, I've worked with Eiffel, Prolog and Miranda too but I wouldn't waste the time of an interviewer who couldn't care less because they're looking for someone with good Java.
At your age, which appears to be around 24, I think most companies would be interested in your previous work experience so far and what you've done in the short space of time since you graduated (assuming you attended university/college).
With all due respect to Mr.Kahn, who I am told invented TCP/IP: Just why should we give any weight to his notion of the best way to keep the Internet from becoming just another channel for corporate interests
Absolutely. Let's face it, although it's a widely used standard, without which the internet wouldn't function, the invention of a network protocol doesn't mean you automatically have some inspirational insight into the future governance of something which affects the daily lives of people worldwide.
I'm so glad to hear there's at least one other person in the world who share's my repulsion at the way we've let big business's pursuit of profit at all cost completely dominate our lives. I'm sick of hearing how a company has decided to reduce it's workforce by 10% to 'make efficiency savings' shortly after it announces hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Why is it so necessary to fuck up people's lives when the company was already healthy and had impressive profitability?
But hey... A company like Craigslist comes out and says that profit is not their main motivation and company culture is more important to them, and they're described in the media as "communist". Well more power to communism in that case!
The Final Fantasy article was just rubbish. It was not much more than a preview of FFXII for the Australian market with a few fairly vague puffs about how it sometimes had complex menus, character classes aren't clearly defined etc. Totally vague rubbish, and particularly disappointing to anyone who might consider themselves even a passing FF fan. There are better articles written by 13 year old bloggers.
Apple underpromises? "Apple reinvents the phone." "The future is already here." "What do you do when you reach enlightenment? Keep going. " Those are underpromises?
Mod parent "abso-bloody-lutely'
Although you forgot "5 years ahead of other mobile phones." - I'm looking forward to that moment in the future when I can compare a 5-year-old iPhone to what is available then.
I suspect that you may be right in a sense, in that Jobs has become to obsessed with the iPod coolness factor and is trying to move Apple in a different direction.
Furthermore, I think that launching the phone has little to do with expanding their business and much more to do with consolidating it. Jobs has realized that not long from now (even in the 'several generations behind' U.S. market) phones will be getting close to the point where they can more or less match an iPod in terms of storage and playback capability and a lot of people aren't going to need to buy a 6th,7th or 8th generation iPod. Heck... here in Japan I know a lot more people that listen to music on their phone, than do on an Apple device.
The phone *is* the device that other consumer devices migrate into - its the electronic Swiss Army Knife. It's become a platform in its own right, and it always remains first and foremost a phone in people's minds (note: no one suggested Apples gadget was an iPod with phone capabilities - it's a phone with iPod functionality). It's been happening with digital cameras - for everyday shots, I'm quite happy with my 3 megapixel phone camera. It's happening with mp3 players, and it'll happen with anything else that could previously be bought separately in a pocket sized form factor. Jobs simply realized that the iPods days as a straight music player are numbered, and for Apple to keep selling these things, they needed the phone platform to build on.
Moving away from the Mac would be insanity though. They have *never* been in a better position to seriously take on Microsoft and convince people that they are a viable and practical alternative. They have a product that is far and away the best it's ever been (on quality, reliability and price) and to squander that now and look elsewhere would be admitting defeat just when they've become a real contender.
For me, it's not that Jobs didn't focus on the iPhone. It's the fact that he DIDN'T focus on Macintosh. This is a fundamentally bigger point than hyping the device, or building expectations too high. This is more or less a copy of post I made on another site, but I think it's worth repeating.
The launch of Vista is literally days away. What does this mean?
1. Average Joe is going to start thinking about whether he needs to upgrade.
2. If he decides to upgrade to Vista, he may consider buying new hardware.
Apple should be adding a third point to this:
3. Since he's upgrading, and considering a new hardware purchase, why not tempt him to look at some of the alternatives out there?
The Vista upgrade release is a fundamental, time-lined opportunity for Apple to win converts. With Bootcamp they can even offer that upgrade with the comfort of knowing that you can still run Windows if you need to. Macintosh should have been absolutely FRONT AND CENTER of the keynote.
If a consumer upgrades buys new non-Mac hardware, that's it. Apple has lost them for *at least* another couple of years until they decide to go through the process again.
Jobs missed a golden opportunity at this keynote. Given the momentum and the increased buzz around Apple, their slowly increasing market share, more developers on board, Bootcamp etc. he could have finally presented Apple as a serious and viable alternative to Microsoft. For everyone. But instead he decided to go with a f**king phone, which doesn't even launch until the summer in the US, end of the year in Europe and 2008 in Asia.
In that case, the spammers have won. A lot of captchas have become so distorted these days, it takes me 2 or 3 attempts before I pass. Especially when they're case sensitive or use zeroes and ohs (0 and O). If the best OCR system known to man (the human brain) can't process it, god help technology.
I should hope so. Otherwise I certainly hope Apple made it clear they would start charging. Issuing a beta which seizes a chunk of your hard drive space and then expires rending it useless is pretty sneaky.
Slashdot Mirror
Two words. George Elliot.
If it's only 5 inches, I'd say it'd have no problem fitting - isn't that more or less average for a white guy anyway? Or presumably you meant 5 feet (5').
There would have been a great opportunity for a Spinal Tap joke here if I didn't lack imagination and go for the cheap gag.
And your point is? Frankly, if a company purchases a service outright, they pretty much have the right to do whatever they want with it. Especially if it's provided for free. You want to call it a travesty? Fine. Blame the people who sold it, not the ones who bought it. If I sell someone a used-car, I have no right to expect them to drive it in the same manner as I did.
Furthermore, given that there are numerous other (and perhaps better) services out there, people will just go elsewhere if they fail to adhere to what users want.
I may be entirely wrong on this, but it was my understanding that The "Church" of Scientology only became a religion in the first place in order to gain certain enshrined protections, as they were being investigated by law enforcement at the time. Becoming a religion meant that they couldn't be banned under U.S. law.
It's difficult to imagine how more inaccurate you could be. The BBC would like to be able to make programmes available for much longer if not indefinitely. In their original proposal they wanted a time frame of 13 weeks, which was cut to 30 days. Who cut it? Not the BBC themselves, but an organization called 'The BBC Trust', an independent body that replaced the corporation's governors at the beginning of 2007. Basically a bunch of stooges appointed by the government to make sure that the BBC no longer has the ability to be totally independent and go against the wishes of the almighty Tony Blair and his cronies. The sole purpose of this 'DRM for Linux' is to satisfy this fucking stupid 30 day rules that the Trust has forced on them.
Why did it get cut? Because of pressure from the elected representatives (i.e. the government) who due to the fact that they are in bed with big business (i.e. Rupert Murdoch etc.) didn't want to do anything that might piss off their rich buddies. In other words they exerted considerably more than just 'moral pressure'.
The BBC have released non-DRM'd mp3 copies of their radio output for ages - I have no doubt they'd like to do something similar for TV, but hey, we all know whose interests are at the heart of government these days, and it sure as hell ain't the people who elected them.
I came here thinking this was a bold statement even for Gates though. On my RSS menu, the article title gets abbreviated to: Gates Proclaims Internet to Revolutionize TV in 5...
Naturally I assumed the missing part was: 4... 3... 2... 1...
It's exactly that "if you can't figure it out, no one cares" attitude that kept Linux out of the mainstream for so long and had nerds scratching their heads as to why it wasn't being adopted by more desktop users. At least in recent times, distributions (e.g. Ubuntu) have started to raise the bar a little and offer a more user-centred approach.
Speaking as someone who used to interview candidates for tech jobs on an almost weekly basis, I'd say that it would make little difference whether you've worked in 3 or 4 commonly used languages, or 2 In order to get to 20, you'd have to include a fair bunch of obscure languages which tend to only get rolled out for academic/experimental use and rarely have any relevance in the commercial arena -yes, I've worked with Eiffel, Prolog and Miranda too but I wouldn't waste the time of an interviewer who couldn't care less because they're looking for someone with good Java.
At your age, which appears to be around 24, I think most companies would be interested in your previous work experience so far and what you've done in the short space of time since you graduated (assuming you attended university/college).
I'm so glad to hear there's at least one other person in the world who share's my repulsion at the way we've let big business's pursuit of profit at all cost completely dominate our lives. I'm sick of hearing how a company has decided to reduce it's workforce by 10% to 'make efficiency savings' shortly after it announces hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. Why is it so necessary to fuck up people's lives when the company was already healthy and had impressive profitability?
But hey... A company like Craigslist comes out and says that profit is not their main motivation and company culture is more important to them, and they're described in the media as "communist". Well more power to communism in that case!
The Final Fantasy article was just rubbish. It was not much more than a preview of FFXII for the Australian market with a few fairly vague puffs about how it sometimes had complex menus, character classes aren't clearly defined etc. Totally vague rubbish, and particularly disappointing to anyone who might consider themselves even a passing FF fan. There are better articles written by 13 year old bloggers.
Although you forgot "5 years ahead of other mobile phones." - I'm looking forward to that moment in the future when I can compare a 5-year-old iPhone to what is available then.
Furthermore, I think that launching the phone has little to do with expanding their business and much more to do with consolidating it. Jobs has realized that not long from now (even in the 'several generations behind' U.S. market) phones will be getting close to the point where they can more or less match an iPod in terms of storage and playback capability and a lot of people aren't going to need to buy a 6th,7th or 8th generation iPod. Heck... here in Japan I know a lot more people that listen to music on their phone, than do on an Apple device.
The phone *is* the device that other consumer devices migrate into - its the electronic Swiss Army Knife. It's become a platform in its own right, and it always remains first and foremost a phone in people's minds (note: no one suggested Apples gadget was an iPod with phone capabilities - it's a phone with iPod functionality). It's been happening with digital cameras - for everyday shots, I'm quite happy with my 3 megapixel phone camera. It's happening with mp3 players, and it'll happen with anything else that could previously be bought separately in a pocket sized form factor. Jobs simply realized that the iPods days as a straight music player are numbered, and for Apple to keep selling these things, they needed the phone platform to build on.
Moving away from the Mac would be insanity though. They have *never* been in a better position to seriously take on Microsoft and convince people that they are a viable and practical alternative. They have a product that is far and away the best it's ever been (on quality, reliability and price) and to squander that now and look elsewhere would be admitting defeat just when they've become a real contender.
For me, it's not that Jobs didn't focus on the iPhone. It's the fact that he DIDN'T focus on Macintosh. This is a fundamentally bigger point than hyping the device, or building expectations too high. This is more or less a copy of post I made on another site, but I think it's worth repeating.
The launch of Vista is literally days away. What does this mean?
1. Average Joe is going to start thinking about whether he needs to upgrade.
2. If he decides to upgrade to Vista, he may consider buying new hardware.
Apple should be adding a third point to this:
3. Since he's upgrading, and considering a new hardware purchase, why not tempt him to look at some of the alternatives out there?
The Vista upgrade release is a fundamental, time-lined opportunity for Apple to win converts. With Bootcamp they can even offer that upgrade with the comfort of knowing that you can still run Windows if you need to. Macintosh should have been absolutely FRONT AND CENTER of the keynote.
If a consumer upgrades buys new non-Mac hardware, that's it. Apple has lost them for *at least* another couple of years until they decide to go through the process again.
Jobs missed a golden opportunity at this keynote. Given the momentum and the increased buzz around Apple, their slowly increasing market share, more developers on board, Bootcamp etc. he could have finally presented Apple as a serious and viable alternative to Microsoft. For everyone. But instead he decided to go with a f**king phone, which doesn't even launch until the summer in the US, end of the year in Europe and 2008 in Asia.
In that case, the spammers have won. A lot of captchas have become so distorted these days, it takes me 2 or 3 attempts before I pass. Especially when they're case sensitive or use zeroes and ohs (0 and O). If the best OCR system known to man (the human brain) can't process it, god help technology.
I should hope so. Otherwise I certainly hope Apple made it clear they would start charging. Issuing a beta which seizes a chunk of your hard drive space and then expires rending it useless is pretty sneaky.