I DO happen to agree with you about it being cyclical, though. That's given with practically anything out there. Even a basically "here to stay" type of web site such as eBay is more likely part of a longer boom/bust cycle. (I can remember when sites like Amazon auctions were every bit as good and viable a place to buy and sell as eBay. And eBay is steadily angering people with their changes to their feedback system, merger with PayPal and subsequent attempts to force its use for payments, etc.)
But the thing is, I didn't care much for my high-school days either -- yet I *did* build up a list of former friends over the years who I lost track of. That tends to happen when people get married and have kids. They get so involved with "family", they don't have time to just hang out with all their old friends anymore -- and next thing you know? It's a holiday or something and they try to make contact, only to find out that friend has moved and they can't be reached.
Facebook added a lot of "value" for me, giving me a way to re-connect with many of those people I had been wondering about for years. Yet, it still lets you keep them at "arm's reach" if you prefer. (EG. You can make them a "friend" online, allowing you to view their photos, status updates, etc. so you have a current idea of what they've got going on. But you don't have to invest the time required to start calling them on the phone or hanging out in person, which you might otherwise do as a thinly veiled excuse to collect that same info.)
People can get addicted to anything, and Facebooks addicts are out there too. Myself? I check mine once every 1-2 days for a few minutes. It's a small investment of time to gather a lot of current info on people I'm curious about. Saves me more time than it wastes, really.
I guess I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around why I should really care too much about this, though?
I've had a Facebook acct. for a little while now (only "social networking" type site I ever really got into using), and the thing is FREE. I assume they ARE using me and my info as an advertising/marketing tool in some way, or else they wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify keeping it online.
If you post any original content there you believe is of enough "value" so you'd be upset if they got to keep it after you left? Then I'd say YOU were the one being foolish, using their system as its distribution point in the first place!
True, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a nation fixated on watching "mass media" to get their information, either.
IMHO, the big reason we don't see 3rd. parties having a ghost of a chance of getting elected is due to the television and press deciding for us that they're "not worthy".
EG. Give the Constitutional party, the Green party and the Libertarian party equal news coverage to the Republican and Democratic candidates, and I bet you'd be surprised how many more people consider giving the 3rd. party alternatives a vote.
The only reason Ross Perot did so well as a 3rd. party candidate, years ago, was the fact he was wealthy enough to buy himself a lot of attention in the media.
It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government", now seems to be on a rampage of trampling on people's individual rights.
Well, the difference is, in OS X, they only have ONE central place you go to for the updates. Whenever Apple downloads one to you (if you've set it up to download them first, and THEN notify you they're ready to install), it's managed through the one updater application.
They don't have any web page to visit like MS does, for the "recommended" or "optional" updates, while simultaneously having a background process that runs independently to grab the "critical" ones for you.
And yeah, I'm aware you can de-select some of the updates... but by default, when an XP based system visits the "Microsoft Updates" web page, all "critical" updates are selected.
Oh, come on..... I've been primarily a Mac user since around 2000, and yes, one reason I did so was because I want to feel in control of my computers.
That is, I don't like web sites arbitrarily pushing out and launching apps/applets via Active-X and security vulnerabilities in Windows, and I don't like having to run a bunch of resource-intensive software in the background to help "shield" my PC from malware.
Apple's built-in updater in OS X allows you to deselect any update you'd like it not to install, and it lets you select the frequency it goes out to check for updates. As updaters go, I always thought it was quite well-behaved and well-integrated.
(By contrast, look at something like Microsoft's whole "Microsoft Updates" thing. They've got the process that you can let run in the background to notify you and optionally auto-install any "critical updates" they push out. But at the same time, you have to visit their "Microsoft Updates" web page and manually select the rest of the stuff. Many times, it wastes double the bandwidth because you'll visit their page to grab a slew of updates, only to find the background process is ALSO simultaneously trying to download the critical updates the update site tagged and is downloading. It's not smart enough to integrate the two together.)
Realistically, it's still a promise any leader can make with no repercussions. (Technology still isn't advanced enough to make "space weapons" feasible.)
The things that we DO make use of in space are spy satellites, which don't really fall under the category of "weapons" - since they're passive devices.
And don't forget, just because a nation promises they're banning the USE of such devices doesn't mean they aren't still spending big R&D dollars on their development. Once a prototype emerges that really looks promising and affordable enough for the military to accept - you'll see a leader lift the ban.
Umm... yeah, and you're saying by contrast, Apple doesn't get it at all?
Seriously... I don't think MS came up with concepts like the registry in an attempt at vendor lock-in. It was simply somebody's (poor) idea at a way to improve system performance and reduce "clutter".
(Remember, Windows 3.1 had no registry database... only a handful of core.ini files that stored all sorts of settings/parameters for the OS itself AND any apps that decided to append things to them. Still other apps would just create their OWN.ini files and save them in their own directories OR, occasionally, someplace under the C:\WINDOWS folder or one of its sub-folders. Back then, it probably seemed like a big step forward to consolidate everything under one registry.)
Personally? I think the whole "cheap price beats just about anything" attitude is the problem!
We've already become too much of a disposable society. People keep shopping for the lowest priced version of a product, with an attitude that they'll just "throw it away when it breaks, after a year". (Think, for example, inkjet printers. The ink costs more than the printer does after maybe 1 set of replacement cartridges is purchased?)
A "browser in a box" type of portable for $125-175? Bleah... no thanks. It further encourages wastefulness. People THINK they'd like one for school or what-not, but in reality, it'll wind up falling short when they come up with other things they'd like to do with it. It winds up being extra clutter, because they'll get another "full-blown" computer and hang onto it too.
In my experience, many of the people clueless enough to respond to some spam email are also the ones who wouldn't understand the reply that came back to warn them of their behavior.
(Heck, you wouldn't believe how many people I've had to help out, because a free version of their Windows anti-virus software expired, and they couldn't figure out what to do with the windows popping up to tell them they needed to download the newer version. They thought that stuff meant their anti-virus "broke" because they got a virus!)
Ok, but you're comparing completely different products, so your comparison has little meaning.
Whatever your "superior" laptop is that you're talking about -- it doesn't come with Mac OS X (nor can it legally run a copy of it). That's one of the biggest reasons I shop for Apple branded products. I happen to think their OS is FAR superior to Windows, and they (so far, at least) choose to only offer their OS as kind of a "bundle" with their hardware.
As for the 6 in 1 card reader? I added one to my MB Pro for about $20 using one that fit in the ExpressCard slot. Not a big deal....
The 16GB memory limit doesn't really impress or interest me either, in a portable. Maybe down the road that will become important. But currently, I was more concerned about a 2GB memory limit being doubled to 4GB than I was about going a lot further than that. (It's possible a new MB Pro could use 8GB total, as well, if you used costly high-density 4GB chips. Not certain on that?)
Also, though there's nothing wrong about being able to put 2 HDDs in your machine, that tells me it's a heavier, thicker/bulkier notebook than my MB Pro is too. I'm ok with having a thinner, lighter notebook and plugging an external USB or FW800 drive into it as needed, if I need more storage space.
It seems like each and every time Blizzard has filed a suit over something related to "violating the terms of their EULA", they've been handed a victory.
I've been troubled by ALL of these rulings over the years, and this just adds to the total.
As far as I'm concerned, people who pay for a copy of their game software have *every* right to opt to use said software with other, alternate servers, if they so desire. They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple came along and dictated that their operating systems could no longer legally be used as a platform running any "p2p sharing software" (since as we ALL know, torrents and other types of p2p sharing are inherently bad, right?).
Or imagine if you bought the latest edition of a "Call of Duty" game, only to find out the EULA stated it was illegal to play except on weekends? Blizzard has effectively won the legal ability for developers to state and enforce anything like this they'd like to put in the agreement!
Everyone's entitled to their own personal opinion, and I understand people have different needs and wants.
But every time I read a post like yours, I just find myself at a loss.
I owned one of the first aluminum MB Pros (the 2.0Ghz Core Duo model, before they moved to Core 2). It had the matte screen and the "pre chicklet style" backlit keyboard, etc. etc.
I recently sold it and bought a new 2.8Ghz MBP to replace it, and I couldn't be happier with the decision.
The hard drive is finally swappable without tearing the whole machine apart to get to it. The battery life is FAR better than what I had before (and the LED power level indicator on the side is a nice touch too). The video performance is better, and I can put 4GB of RAM in it now, instead of the 2GB limit I had previously. I don't have any real issues with its glossy screen either. Sure, you get some reflections with it, but it's GLASS. That's normal. Especially being a PORTABLE computer, I have no problem picking it up and MOVING it a little bit, if there's some particularly bright and annoying light-source shining directly onto the screen from behind me.
Now granted, I'm not a "pro photographer" or anything... but I think I'm like most notebook computer users. I do a lot of web surfing on mine, some web design, a little gaming and entertainment stuff (especially if I take it on a trip with me), and keep a collection of photos on it that I have incorporated or may incorporate onto said web sites I work with. I might want to watch an occasional movie on it too. It's been great for all of that.
To hear the people focused on ONE specific need scream that it's no longer a "compelling upgrade", and the whole design team must be "crazy".... it really does a disservice to everyone else.
I don't think there's a simple and complete answer to your question. One big factor, I think, was WWII. Before that, we were in the "Great Depression" and there was really no sign of us getting back out of it either. (All those government work programs FDR started back then would likely have just extended the depression, if it weren't for WWII kick-starting our economy.)
I think after the war, you had this great sense of "teamwork" by almost all Americans. Soldiers were coming back, victorious, and people who weren't sent off to war felt like they helped them win too. (Think of all the propaganda about rationing of goods and donating rubber or metal items for the war effort. People felt like they collectively scrimped, saved and donated to make it all happen.)
Nations that otherwise would have been our biggest business competitors (like Germany and Japan) were smashed down, so we had a prime window to "own the world marketplace".
It's easy to see why businesses would prosper, and management and employees would view each other "like family" in that situation.
I don't think that was sustainable though, ultimately. The rest of the world has been playing catch-up with us ever since. Plus, a whole generation has passed since WWII. Now, you have those post-war created companies run by sons of the original owners, who had things handed to them. They tend to grow and profit by mergers and buyouts. After enough of that? The whole sense of "family" is completely lost.
Except I don't think it's really quite that simple.
Possibly, much of that "cheap, overseas labor" companies are taking advantage of are helping them stay profitable, despite the economic decline?
If they ditched that now, and tried to use US labor to replace it? They'd have to offer people nothing more than bare minimum wage and NO benefits of any kind, and still likely be paying out more than they do now.
Despite the rampant unemployment, I don't think America needs more low-paying, dead-end jobs. Those are grabbed up by the desperate, who think "Anything is better than nothing!" But in the long-run, that's not doing anybody any favors. At those low pay-rates, they're still the ones in line for every type of government assistance - because they can't pay their medical bills or pay for their kids to eat lunch at school, or.....
Honestly, I think you just touched on the BIGGEST problem Microsoft has in today's marketplace.
They've mostly reached a point where they can't seem to excite people with what they're doing. It takes a massive effort for them to simply release something "stable/solid, yet boring".
I mean, the days are over when you had transitions like going from the all-text world of MS-DOS to a whole new paradigm, found in Windows 3.x. Or again, the huge jump from that to Windows '95. Those were big, ballsy changes to widely adopted standards that people generally were excited and eager to try out.
They really tried to drum up Vista as yet another huge change from the world of XP, but it just wasn't really there. And now, they're working hard just to make Windows 7 the product they hyped Vista up to be initially. So no matter how good 7 is? Many people will yawn, and say "About time!" or "Why aren't you giving me this thing free, since I got screwed over buying your last OS?"
The original article takes some shots at Apple, saying:
"Just look at the slickness of the Apple PR machine, an operation that has conveniently blinded the mass market to issues such as digital rights management, the heavy pursuit of websites that leak news early and a general level of control freakery that, if practiced by Microsoft, would cause major ructions."
I disagree. MS products have just as much DRM built into them. In fact, my experience with their DRM was far less pleasant than with Apple's - because they had a lot more glitches with theirs. (I remember having a Yahoo Music subscription, for example, where I had random weird issues with songs taking a LONG time to start playing. I never knew exactly when Windows Media Player would decide it needed to refresh its authorization token or whatever - and had delays getting what it wanted from the authorization server.)
Reality is, Apple still knows how to dazzle people with their product updates. Even when they borrow ideas that were already done elsewhere, they put polish on them and introduce them to people who would have NEVER seen the original efforts. They haven't made moves to alienate their customer base like "Product activation" either. THAT'S the difference, really.
I have to side with Jobs himself, on this one. People just need to leave him alone, and stay out of this media crusade to "get to the bottom of what's ailing him".
The ONLY reason people are worked into a frenzy (and even got the SEC involved) in Apple's case is because of the intense focus on Steve Jobs as THE man behind Apple.
(My mom is friends with a guy who went through chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer, very similar to what Jobs had. Even though he was initially doing well, they discovered some of the cancer cells had metastasized to his liver, and about 4 years later, he's looking at a possible liver transplant. So *if* Bloomberg's report is accurate -- I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the REAL story with Jobs' health right now.)
Nonetheless, it's not doing investors or the company any good to keep harping on it, and perpetuating the idea that Apple can't function without Steve in charge!
He's not going to live forever, even if it turns out this whole thing was made up as an excuse for Jobs to give himself a 6 month vacation! There has to be a "plan B", and any decent CEO has certainly given that some thought.
IMHO, Steve Jobs already served his main purpose for Apple. He rescued the company from a downward spiral, completely revamped the product line from top to bottom and turned it into one of the biggest tech success stories out there. He set Apple on a course of being a media distributor as well as a "computer company", and extended that to the cellphone marketplace too. If nobody out there can work with THAT, after it's handed to them on a silver platter? Well, I'm not sure America has any future in tech at all!
Yeah, I realize my post didn't address the pornography-related laws, which are another whole issue.
I'm just saying, in general, I think we've got things all wrong with the ages we've placed on our laws, and lack of exceptions.
(EG. If you require a person to be at least 18 to make pornography, WHY is that the case? I *think* it's to ensure that adults aren't taking advantage of children who aren't mature enough to make a fully informed decision about how "wise" it is to participate. If that's true, then it makes NO sense to punish a teen who takes their OWN photos and distributes them for FREE. There's no profit motive involved, or adult party who stands to profit from the effort.)
I don't think I'd even call the Jamaican law particularly "just" (though probably an improvement over what we're doing here in the US right now).
Frankly, I think we currently have a double-standard in American society. We keep pushing kids to hurry up and become "little adults". (They're only 5 or 6 when they start playing with those Bratz dolls that are dressed up like little prostitutes or something. All the music "idols" for the kids fit certain stereotypes of what we're all supposed to find "sexy". They even sell makeup kits for little kids.) So yes, by the time they're 13, 14 or 15, they're already well aware that their bodies have a sexual attraction to guys -- and some of them want to start experimenting with that new-found discovery.
So we create this situation, and THEN we want to completely reverse the inevitable from happening by making it all illegal?
Personally, I think the "age of consent" needs to be dropped by a few years, especially considering how many countries of the world have it set at a lower age already. At the same time, we could probably stand to re-think some of our idea of "children's entertainment" if we're really so concerned about our kids getting sexually involved with people at too young an age.
I've heard that said several times now.... "Yahoo has the next best search engine to Google". Is this a proven fact, based on studies? Or is it something decided by the fact that it's the "second most commonly used search engine" out there?
And for that matter, is it possible it's as good as it is because they put the resources into feeding it comparatively more data to filter than competitors? (In other words, could a supposedly "inferior" search engine really be superior, if it wasn't underperforming because of a lack of resources allocated to it?)
I guess I'm thinking of "once greats" here like Altavista, which are still around, but appear to return far fewer useful results on a search these days than Yahoo or Google. I always get the idea they might be bandwidth or CPU starved, comparatively, so they don't index as much raw web site material. But hosted by the same people on the same servers, I wonder how they'd do today?
I've been lucky enough to be pretty healthy, but every time I can remember seeing a doctor for something relatively minor, they found ways to use "creative wording" to bill my insurance the maximum amount possible.
EG. One time, I had a wax build-up in my left ear. I woke up one morning and could barely hear out of it. The clinic I went to charged me for the nurse who tried to remove it, but wasn't very skilled at using the rinsing tool that's used to clean out the ear. So she went to ask for help from one of the doctors who was more skilled at it. (He spent a whole 45 seconds to a minute, and got my ear situation fixed.) When my insurance statement came back in the mail later, I saw I was billed the regular fee for the service, but a second fee for "Level 2 care" was added, because the doctor got involved, and that bill was over 3x the first fee.
I mean, technically, I guess this wasn't "fraudulent" -- but I think it's borderline dishonest at the very least. I'm pretty sure if I was paying out of pocket as an uninsured patient, they would never have billed it the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't work... Too many school faculty like to switch things up and go in reverse alphabetical order, ensuring your kids will be dead LAST.
People like you don't "get it", honestly.
I say that because I was one of them myself.
I DO happen to agree with you about it being cyclical, though. That's given with practically anything out there. Even a basically "here to stay" type of web site such as eBay is more likely part of a longer boom/bust cycle. (I can remember when sites like Amazon auctions were every bit as good and viable a place to buy and sell as eBay. And eBay is steadily angering people with their changes to their feedback system, merger with PayPal and subsequent attempts to force its use for payments, etc.)
But the thing is, I didn't care much for my high-school days either -- yet I *did* build up a list of former friends over the years who I lost track of. That tends to happen when people get married and have kids. They get so involved with "family", they don't have time to just hang out with all their old friends anymore -- and next thing you know? It's a holiday or something and they try to make contact, only to find out that friend has moved and they can't be reached.
Facebook added a lot of "value" for me, giving me a way to re-connect with many of those people I had been wondering about for years. Yet, it still lets you keep them at "arm's reach" if you prefer. (EG. You can make them a "friend" online, allowing you to view their photos, status updates, etc. so you have a current idea of what they've got going on. But you don't have to invest the time required to start calling them on the phone or hanging out in person, which you might otherwise do as a thinly veiled excuse to collect that same info.)
People can get addicted to anything, and Facebooks addicts are out there too. Myself? I check mine once every 1-2 days for a few minutes. It's a small investment of time to gather a lot of current info on people I'm curious about. Saves me more time than it wastes, really.
I guess I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around why I should really care too much about this, though?
I've had a Facebook acct. for a little while now (only "social networking" type site I ever really got into using), and the thing is FREE. I assume they ARE using me and my info as an advertising/marketing tool in some way, or else they wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify keeping it online.
If you post any original content there you believe is of enough "value" so you'd be upset if they got to keep it after you left? Then I'd say YOU were the one being foolish, using their system as its distribution point in the first place!
True, but the Founding Fathers didn't live in a nation fixated on watching "mass media" to get their information, either.
IMHO, the big reason we don't see 3rd. parties having a ghost of a chance of getting elected is due to the television and press deciding for us that they're "not worthy".
EG. Give the Constitutional party, the Green party and the Libertarian party equal news coverage to the Republican and Democratic candidates, and I bet you'd be surprised how many more people consider giving the 3rd. party alternatives a vote.
The only reason Ross Perot did so well as a 3rd. party candidate, years ago, was the fact he was wealthy enough to buy himself a lot of attention in the media.
It strikes me as odd that Texas, a state many of us considered the "first and foremost in protecting the rights of its populace against tyranny of federal government", now seems to be on a rampage of trampling on people's individual rights.
http://your-philosophy-sucks.blogspot.com/search/label/gummint
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2324220,00.asp
http://www.infowars.com/texas-lawyer-takes-on-bloodthirsty-cops/
Yep, a sensible and sane policy -- although it can result in people attempting store robberies in some strange ways:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/18637190/detail.html#-
Well, the difference is, in OS X, they only have ONE central place you go to for the updates. Whenever Apple downloads one to you (if you've set it up to download them first, and THEN notify you they're ready to install), it's managed through the one updater application.
They don't have any web page to visit like MS does, for the "recommended" or "optional" updates, while simultaneously having a background process that runs independently to grab the "critical" ones for you.
And yeah, I'm aware you can de-select some of the updates ... but by default, when an XP based system visits the "Microsoft Updates" web page, all "critical" updates are selected.
Oh, come on..... I've been primarily a Mac user since around 2000, and yes, one reason I did so was because I want to feel in control of my computers.
That is, I don't like web sites arbitrarily pushing out and launching apps/applets via Active-X and security vulnerabilities in Windows, and I don't like having to run a bunch of resource-intensive software in the background to help "shield" my PC from malware.
Apple's built-in updater in OS X allows you to deselect any update you'd like it not to install, and it lets you select the frequency it goes out to check for updates. As updaters go, I always thought it was quite well-behaved and well-integrated.
(By contrast, look at something like Microsoft's whole "Microsoft Updates" thing. They've got the process that you can let run in the background to notify you and optionally auto-install any "critical updates" they push out. But at the same time, you have to visit their "Microsoft Updates" web page and manually select the rest of the stuff. Many times, it wastes double the bandwidth because you'll visit their page to grab a slew of updates, only to find the background process is ALSO simultaneously trying to download the critical updates the update site tagged and is downloading. It's not smart enough to integrate the two together.)
Realistically, it's still a promise any leader can make with no repercussions. (Technology still isn't advanced enough to make "space weapons" feasible.)
The things that we DO make use of in space are spy satellites, which don't really fall under the category of "weapons" - since they're passive devices.
And don't forget, just because a nation promises they're banning the USE of such devices doesn't mean they aren't still spending big R&D dollars on their development. Once a prototype emerges that really looks promising and affordable enough for the military to accept - you'll see a leader lift the ban.
Umm... yeah, and you're saying by contrast, Apple doesn't get it at all?
Seriously ... I don't think MS came up with concepts like the registry in an attempt at vendor lock-in. It was simply somebody's (poor) idea at a way to improve system performance and reduce "clutter".
(Remember, Windows 3.1 had no registry database ... only a handful of core .ini files that stored all sorts of settings/parameters for the OS itself AND any apps that decided to append things to them. Still other apps would just create their OWN .ini files and save them in their own directories OR, occasionally, someplace under the C:\WINDOWS folder or one of its sub-folders. Back then, it probably seemed like a big step forward to consolidate everything under one registry.)
Personally? I think the whole "cheap price beats just about anything" attitude is the problem!
We've already become too much of a disposable society. People keep shopping for the lowest priced version of a product, with an attitude that they'll just "throw it away when it breaks, after a year". (Think, for example, inkjet printers. The ink costs more than the printer does after maybe 1 set of replacement cartridges is purchased?)
A "browser in a box" type of portable for $125-175? Bleah... no thanks. It further encourages wastefulness. People THINK they'd like one for school or what-not, but in reality, it'll wind up falling short when they come up with other things they'd like to do with it. It winds up being extra clutter, because they'll get another "full-blown" computer and hang onto it too.
If you pay for dues to a sports club and then violate dress code, they kick you out - or at least politely ask you to go put on a shirt.
They don't file a lawsuit against you, citing federal law!
In my experience, many of the people clueless enough to respond to some spam email are also the ones who wouldn't understand the reply that came back to warn them of their behavior.
(Heck, you wouldn't believe how many people I've had to help out, because a free version of their Windows anti-virus software expired, and they couldn't figure out what to do with the windows popping up to tell them they needed to download the newer version. They thought that stuff meant their anti-virus "broke" because they got a virus!)
Ok, but you're comparing completely different products, so your comparison has little meaning.
Whatever your "superior" laptop is that you're talking about -- it doesn't come with Mac OS X (nor can it legally run a copy of it). That's one of the biggest reasons I shop for Apple branded products. I happen to think their OS is FAR superior to Windows, and they (so far, at least) choose to only offer their OS as kind of a "bundle" with their hardware.
As for the 6 in 1 card reader? I added one to my MB Pro for about $20 using one that fit in the ExpressCard slot. Not a big deal....
The 16GB memory limit doesn't really impress or interest me either, in a portable. Maybe down the road that will become important. But currently, I was more concerned about a 2GB memory limit being doubled to 4GB than I was about going a lot further than that. (It's possible a new MB Pro could use 8GB total, as well, if you used costly high-density 4GB chips. Not certain on that?)
Also, though there's nothing wrong about being able to put 2 HDDs in your machine, that tells me it's a heavier, thicker/bulkier notebook than my MB Pro is too. I'm ok with having a thinner, lighter notebook and plugging an external USB or FW800 drive into it as needed, if I need more storage space.
It seems like each and every time Blizzard has filed a suit over something related to "violating the terms of their EULA", they've been handed a victory.
I've been troubled by ALL of these rulings over the years, and this just adds to the total.
As far as I'm concerned, people who pay for a copy of their game software have *every* right to opt to use said software with other, alternate servers, if they so desire. They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!
It's a really BAD precedent to set, to legally enforce the idea that a software developer can FORCE a customer to use their product only in specific ways they outline. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple came along and dictated that their operating systems could no longer legally be used as a platform running any "p2p sharing software" (since as we ALL know, torrents and other types of p2p sharing are inherently bad, right?).
Or imagine if you bought the latest edition of a "Call of Duty" game, only to find out the EULA stated it was illegal to play except on weekends? Blizzard has effectively won the legal ability for developers to state and enforce anything like this they'd like to put in the agreement!
Everyone's entitled to their own personal opinion, and I understand people have different needs and wants.
But every time I read a post like yours, I just find myself at a loss.
I owned one of the first aluminum MB Pros (the 2.0Ghz Core Duo model, before they moved to Core 2). It had the matte screen and the "pre chicklet style" backlit keyboard, etc. etc.
I recently sold it and bought a new 2.8Ghz MBP to replace it, and I couldn't be happier with the decision.
The hard drive is finally swappable without tearing the whole machine apart to get to it. The battery life is FAR better than what I had before (and the LED power level indicator on the side is a nice touch too). The video performance is better, and I can put 4GB of RAM in it now, instead of the 2GB limit I had previously. I don't have any real issues with its glossy screen either. Sure, you get some reflections with it, but it's GLASS. That's normal. Especially being a PORTABLE computer, I have no problem picking it up and MOVING it a little bit, if there's some particularly bright and annoying light-source shining directly onto the screen from behind me.
Now granted, I'm not a "pro photographer" or anything ... but I think I'm like most notebook computer users. I do a lot of web surfing on mine, some web design, a little gaming and entertainment stuff (especially if I take it on a trip with me), and keep a collection of photos on it that I have incorporated or may incorporate onto said web sites I work with. I might want to watch an occasional movie on it too. It's been great for all of that.
To hear the people focused on ONE specific need scream that it's no longer a "compelling upgrade", and the whole design team must be "crazy" .... it really does a disservice to everyone else.
Yep... If you *really* want an eye-opening look at the "science of marketing" - check out the PBS Frontline series, "The Persuaders".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/
Worrying about the potential for some video game to influence a person's preferred choice of drink or team jersey will seem trivial by comparison.
I don't think there's a simple and complete answer to your question. One big factor, I think, was WWII. Before that, we were in the "Great Depression" and there was really no sign of us getting back out of it either. (All those government work programs FDR started back then would likely have just extended the depression, if it weren't for WWII kick-starting our economy.)
I think after the war, you had this great sense of "teamwork" by almost all Americans. Soldiers were coming back, victorious, and people who weren't sent off to war felt like they helped them win too. (Think of all the propaganda about rationing of goods and donating rubber or metal items for the war effort. People felt like they collectively scrimped, saved and donated to make it all happen.)
Nations that otherwise would have been our biggest business competitors (like Germany and Japan) were smashed down, so we had a prime window to "own the world marketplace".
It's easy to see why businesses would prosper, and management and employees would view each other "like family" in that situation.
I don't think that was sustainable though, ultimately. The rest of the world has been playing catch-up with us ever since. Plus, a whole generation has passed since WWII. Now, you have those post-war created companies run by sons of the original owners, who had things handed to them. They tend to grow and profit by mergers and buyouts. After enough of that? The whole sense of "family" is completely lost.
Except I don't think it's really quite that simple.
Possibly, much of that "cheap, overseas labor" companies are taking advantage of are helping them stay profitable, despite the economic decline?
If they ditched that now, and tried to use US labor to replace it? They'd have to offer people nothing more than bare minimum wage and NO benefits of any kind, and still likely be paying out more than they do now.
Despite the rampant unemployment, I don't think America needs more low-paying, dead-end jobs. Those are grabbed up by the desperate, who think "Anything is better than nothing!" But in the long-run, that's not doing anybody any favors. At those low pay-rates, they're still the ones in line for every type of government assistance - because they can't pay their medical bills or pay for their kids to eat lunch at school, or .....
Honestly, I think you just touched on the BIGGEST problem Microsoft has in today's marketplace.
They've mostly reached a point where they can't seem to excite people with what they're doing. It takes a massive effort for them to simply release something "stable/solid, yet boring".
I mean, the days are over when you had transitions like going from the all-text world of MS-DOS to a whole new paradigm, found in Windows 3.x. Or again, the huge jump from that to Windows '95. Those were big, ballsy changes to widely adopted standards that people generally were excited and eager to try out.
They really tried to drum up Vista as yet another huge change from the world of XP, but it just wasn't really there. And now, they're working hard just to make Windows 7 the product they hyped Vista up to be initially. So no matter how good 7 is? Many people will yawn, and say "About time!" or "Why aren't you giving me this thing free, since I got screwed over buying your last OS?"
The original article takes some shots at Apple, saying:
"Just look at the slickness of the Apple PR machine, an operation that has conveniently blinded the mass market to issues such as digital rights management, the heavy pursuit of websites that leak news early and a general level of control freakery that, if practiced by Microsoft, would cause major ructions."
I disagree. MS products have just as much DRM built into them. In fact, my experience with their DRM was far less pleasant than with Apple's - because they had a lot more glitches with theirs. (I remember having a Yahoo Music subscription, for example, where I had random weird issues with songs taking a LONG time to start playing. I never knew exactly when Windows Media Player would decide it needed to refresh its authorization token or whatever - and had delays getting what it wanted from the authorization server.)
Reality is, Apple still knows how to dazzle people with their product updates. Even when they borrow ideas that were already done elsewhere, they put polish on them and introduce them to people who would have NEVER seen the original efforts. They haven't made moves to alienate their customer base like "Product activation" either. THAT'S the difference, really.
I have to side with Jobs himself, on this one. People just need to leave him alone, and stay out of this media crusade to "get to the bottom of what's ailing him".
The ONLY reason people are worked into a frenzy (and even got the SEC involved) in Apple's case is because of the intense focus on Steve Jobs as THE man behind Apple.
(My mom is friends with a guy who went through chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer, very similar to what Jobs had. Even though he was initially doing well, they discovered some of the cancer cells had metastasized to his liver, and about 4 years later, he's looking at a possible liver transplant. So *if* Bloomberg's report is accurate -- I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is the REAL story with Jobs' health right now.)
Nonetheless, it's not doing investors or the company any good to keep harping on it, and perpetuating the idea that Apple can't function without Steve in charge!
He's not going to live forever, even if it turns out this whole thing was made up as an excuse for Jobs to give himself a 6 month vacation! There has to be a "plan B", and any decent CEO has certainly given that some thought.
IMHO, Steve Jobs already served his main purpose for Apple. He rescued the company from a downward spiral, completely revamped the product line from top to bottom and turned it into one of the biggest tech success stories out there. He set Apple on a course of being a media distributor as well as a "computer company", and extended that to the cellphone marketplace too. If nobody out there can work with THAT, after it's handed to them on a silver platter? Well, I'm not sure America has any future in tech at all!
Yeah, I realize my post didn't address the pornography-related laws, which are another whole issue.
I'm just saying, in general, I think we've got things all wrong with the ages we've placed on our laws, and lack of exceptions.
(EG. If you require a person to be at least 18 to make pornography, WHY is that the case? I *think* it's to ensure that adults aren't taking advantage of children who aren't mature enough to make a fully informed decision about how "wise" it is to participate. If that's true, then it makes NO sense to punish a teen who takes their OWN photos and distributes them for FREE. There's no profit motive involved, or adult party who stands to profit from the effort.)
I don't think I'd even call the Jamaican law particularly "just" (though probably an improvement over what we're doing here in the US right now).
Frankly, I think we currently have a double-standard in American society. We keep pushing kids to hurry up and become "little adults". (They're only 5 or 6 when they start playing with those Bratz dolls that are dressed up like little prostitutes or something. All the music "idols" for the kids fit certain stereotypes of what we're all supposed to find "sexy". They even sell makeup kits for little kids.) So yes, by the time they're 13, 14 or 15, they're already well aware that their bodies have a sexual attraction to guys -- and some of them want to start experimenting with that new-found discovery.
So we create this situation, and THEN we want to completely reverse the inevitable from happening by making it all illegal?
Personally, I think the "age of consent" needs to be dropped by a few years, especially considering how many countries of the world have it set at a lower age already. At the same time, we could probably stand to re-think some of our idea of "children's entertainment" if we're really so concerned about our kids getting sexually involved with people at too young an age.
I've heard that said several times now.... "Yahoo has the next best search engine to Google". Is this a proven fact, based on studies? Or is it something decided by the fact that it's the "second most commonly used search engine" out there?
And for that matter, is it possible it's as good as it is because they put the resources into feeding it comparatively more data to filter than competitors? (In other words, could a supposedly "inferior" search engine really be superior, if it wasn't underperforming because of a lack of resources allocated to it?)
I guess I'm thinking of "once greats" here like Altavista, which are still around, but appear to return far fewer useful results on a search these days than Yahoo or Google. I always get the idea they might be bandwidth or CPU starved, comparatively, so they don't index as much raw web site material. But hosted by the same people on the same servers, I wonder how they'd do today?
Absolutely!
I've been lucky enough to be pretty healthy, but every time I can remember seeing a doctor for something relatively minor, they found ways to use "creative wording" to bill my insurance the maximum amount possible.
EG. One time, I had a wax build-up in my left ear. I woke up one morning and could barely hear out of it. The clinic I went to charged me for the nurse who tried to remove it, but wasn't very skilled at using the rinsing tool that's used to clean out the ear. So she went to ask for help from one of the doctors who was more skilled at it. (He spent a whole 45 seconds to a minute, and got my ear situation fixed.) When my insurance statement came back in the mail later, I saw I was billed the regular fee for the service, but a second fee for "Level 2 care" was added, because the doctor got involved, and that bill was over 3x the first fee.
I mean, technically, I guess this wasn't "fraudulent" -- but I think it's borderline dishonest at the very least. I'm pretty sure if I was paying out of pocket as an uninsured patient, they would never have billed it the same way.