No, I understand that, but too many people give credit to Apple for being "revolutionary", when they're anything but.
Really? I hardly ever hear anybody say that. I hear people saying they make good products, but about the only time I hear the "R-Word" is when people want to bash Apple for failing to be revolutionary every single time they release a product.
Some overstatement is probably needed in the current climate of Apple fanboys.
Again, this seems like an odd statement, as we're really entering the age of the post-Apple-fanboy. It's just a mainstream product now. The Apple zealotry was MUCH more shrill when Apple was on the back foot, and seemingly facing extinction.
Rather, I think we're in an era of anti-Apple backlash, because people who once felt confident in their Windows as the "one true OS" are being threatened by the the resurgence of Apple and Linux, and the mediocrity of Vista and post-Gates MS.
Interestingly, you won't see even the biggest Apple fan denying the influence companies like Microsoft and IBM in the computing field - but you constantly have these attempts by Apple haters (or frustrated PC fans) to ignore history, and pretend that Apple was never anything special, and everything that was ever significant came from anybody but Apple. I just don't get it. Hate Apple if you like, but to ignore facts and rewrite history is just desperate (and that is not directed at you, of course, but rather the likes of revisionists like Timmarthy above).
I disagree. It didn't represent a dramatic new shift for the industry. It popularized an existing concept way beyond what it had achieved before, but that isn't revolution. Revolution is the creation of the concept.
That's where I have to disagree... revolution is the culmination of a concept into an impact on society. The iPod is like a rock star, a huge part of the popular consciousness. It's nothing like what was happening before in the portable media market.
And the reason the iPod succeeded was because of the concept - make an MP3 player that's enjoyable to use, and not frustrating. Make it a pleasure. None of the other companies really cared about that - they were simply taking the walkman concept and form-factor and applying digital technology to it.
The telephone was revolutionary. The cellular phone was revolutionary. The $model of cell phone was not.
But what if people decided they didn't like the tele[phone, and it never got adopted widely by society? Would it still be revolutionary?
As far as models go, we usually refer to political revolutions by their "model number" rather than generically - "The French Revolution", "The Feminist Revolution" - and usually what is most interesting about those is the specifics, and how they actually took place. People support the concepts, but are moved by the implementation. People are moved to tears by MLK's "I have a dream" speech in a way they aren't by the abstract idea of Civil Rights. The revolution in the French Revolution was the actual uprising - the concepts underpinning it had been created long ago.
I stand by my statement that Apple hasn't had a revolutionary idea in years. Not a slam on them, not many people do put forth revolutionary ideas.
I think "revolutionary" is not a very useful word in the first place. I think "innovative" is a better fit. And I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with the idea that something can't be good unless it's revolutionary. As we know from history, revolutions often come at a great cost.
If the stuff you listed is revolutionary, pretty much any product that ever comes out is.
Come on, that's a bit off the mark. Most products that come out are also-rans that don't influence anything or add anything new. that can't be said for the products in question. Does a new model of MP3 player have as much influence as the original iPod? I don't think so.
I think you may be forgetting just how different things were before things like the iPod. Today, people who are computer illiterate even know what an iPod is. When it was released, your typical person had no idea what an MP3 player was.
I think by your own overly-strict judgement, not even Personal Computing can be considered a revolution, because lots of people were thinking about similar ideas - and the PC didn't just suddenly emerge fully-formed. There are a whole lot of matters of degree here - nothing is black and white.
P.S - I should point out that the post I was replying to said that ONLY revolution Apple EVER had was a marketing revolution, which is clearly nonsense. It didn't say anything about it being limited to recent years.
Well, revolution is a difficult thing to define. There are revolutionary ideas that never end up affecting the real world, and there are evolutionary ideas that do. More recently, Apple influenced the position the trackball/trackpad goes on a laptop with the Mac portable/Powerbook line - now everybody puts the input device in front of the keyboard. But not until Apple did it first.
What about the iPod and the iTunes store? I don't think you can't argue that had massive implications for society - before it came along, people just weren't using MP3 players or buying downloadable music. The iPod became a a serious threat to the juggernaut medium of the audio CD, and in combination with the iTunes store, turned the music sales industry on its head.
I'm guessing you think none of that counts, because Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but that's not very sound reasoning.
How about Mac OS X? They completely rebuilt the OS from the ground up - and then they went a switched processor architectures with barely a hiccup. The end result was that the trajectory of the Mac was completely reversed, and when from a declining curiosity used in a few niche industries, into a popular mainstream OS that is eating into Windows marketshare.
Or how about Final Cut Pro, which changed the way the video and film industries think about software, and managed to unseat entrenched players in the space?
So, it actually seems that Apple has had quite a few revolutions lately. Now, can you tell me what other computer companies have?
They're offering students to be able to do X, Y, Z and V. Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
But are they? Are they really offering students the right to download any illicit music they like? They might say they won't sue, but how do we know they won't turn around and do exactly that? I haven't seen the details of the deals, so I'm not sure exactly what they entail.
Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
But there's the problem. Nobody is the copyright holder of all the music on Earth. How could they stop an independent music producer from suing for copyright infringement? That producer holds the copyright on their own music, not these organizations. Such an organization can not declare copyright law as non-applicable to certain people. Only the government can do that.
If I got offered a yearly license fee to download any music I want (at the rate that the article was talking about), I'd take it.
I guess it's true - there is a sucker born every day. How about I sell you this rock, which protects you from tiger attacks, for a low yearly fee?
I get really annoyed with Slashdot people who laugh at 'tubes' yet still use the word 'pipe'.
So, what about the people who laugh at Ted Stevens, but never use the word "pipe" to refer to an internet connection? Are we in the clear? I always thought that "pipe" was a pretty stupid piece of jargon.
Are you completely ignorant of the history of computing? Apple shaped the entire way we interact with computers - Windows, Linux are both heavily influenced by the original Mac OS. And yes, now you'll bitch about XEROX PARC and all that... again, missing the point. Apple did not invent the GUI, but put a lot of hard work and great ideas into refining it into a mainstream product. Even the mouse was shaped by Apple - no, they didn't invent the mouse, but again, refined it from being a technical curiosity into a workable, durable item. They put a lot of research into making it something that was smooth and didn't break easily. Go look it up some time.
Inventions are one thing, but turning inventions into real-world products is just as difficult and challenging.
What about clicking? You tap, it gives a physical sensation not unlike clicking. Probably a more natural action for a human, anyway.
Personally, I have to avoid mouses, as I have tendonitis, and clicking buttons aggravates it. So I use a graphics tablet... so much better than a mouse. Quick and light.
They are doing it, and they are successful - probably why they became multi-billion dollar companies in the first place
But usually the end results aren't very good, compared to what Apple does.
the point is that every company does that too, and they don't get free Slashvertising on here.
Again, they don't do much that's interesting or outstanding enough. Hell, many of these huge companies manage to sell products that could almost be described as defective.
Anyway, you have to admit that Apple changed the face of computing. The Mac set the standard, and all of our GUI systems today have been influenced by Apple's choices. The whole field of digital publishing was defined by Apple, Adobe and Xerox. You can't say that about your typical PC company.
Interesting. I guess I missed that, because I thought the very concept was ridiculous - when it's so easy to do with a computer, and you get more control over the editing and stuff. So, despite, having a CD mastering business in the very early days of the medium, I completely overlooked that phenomenon.
Still, that's not the case with today's burners, and the majority of units people come into contact with. What was the deal with that, anyway? Why did the manufacturers want to limit compatibility? Was there some special deal with the blank media makers for revenue sharing or something?
Err... you do realise out of court settlements happen ALL the time, right?
Yeah, so? I'm not talking about out of court settlements. I'm talking about asking for "protection money" from innocents before any case is even alleged.
Its (the majority of) students who have made this problem.
Bullshit. This entire storm in a teacup is nobody's fault but the music industry and RIAA's.
Although I do feel sorry for the very few ones who don't break the law. Which is why I'd like to see it be voluntary.
But it's not just college students who pirate stuff, it's people from all walks of life. Most likely the majority of the general population. So, should we all be paying these up-front piracy fees? I'm sure the music industry would love that if they could get away with it. But it's much easier to target vulnerable and stereotyped groups like students.
Re:Does it always produce true responses?
on
Torture in Games
·
· Score: 1
My question was if there is proof of torture yielding less reliable, actionable evidence.
And you were repeatedly given very good data - but for some reason ignore those posts. If you pretend the data doesn't exist, I guess you can continue to believe you are correct.
The marketshare of PHONES SOLD IN Q308 ONLY is 12.9% vs. MS' 11.1% in a quarter when Apple introduced the 3G and Windows Mobile had no significant product launches. Many people were waiting for the HTC Touch Pro.
What's really funny about this is that these are the exact same arguments that Apple fans would use to boost the marketshare numbers for Apple in the dark days, and now they are being used to enhance Microsoft/other numbers now that Apple is actually gaining marketshare.
Afterall, white plastic coated in clear plastic is a whole lot of plastic. It feels like quality because its shiny and has some weight behind it. Metal feels more firm than plastic.
The "original mini" you were complaining about was cased in aluminum, unlike every other MP3 player on the market at the time. iPod Nanos are still made with aluminum, unlike... that's right, every other MP3 player on the market.
Right. Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
Nope. But it's racketeering to accept payments to "look the other way" and have a double-standard for who you will and won't threaten.
But moreover, it's just disgustingly manipulative. With the cost of education these days, the last things students need is somebody else demanding a handout from students and institutions. And what of the legal issues? Doesn't it undermine their stance on piracy? Everybody else has to pay market rates for their media, but students have some kind of loophole? If anything, that's insulting to students. And what happens when they graduate - do they legally own their pirated material? Or is it considered something you are allowed to "experiment with in college" but then must dispose of when you become a non-student?
Nope. It's just bullshit on the packaging. It's the same disc, priced much higher for "audiophiles" and other uninformed newbies. The stuff in the CD-R manual is similar to the "only use genuine EPSON ink cartridges, or you may damage your printer" etc.
Re:Does it always produce true responses?
on
Torture in Games
·
· Score: 1
Torture produces what you want to hear. Nothing else. More precisely, what the subject tortured thinks that you want to hear so, as you pointed out, you stop torturing it
But the topic is torture in a specific videogame. Based on my experience with such games, I'm thinking that the likelihood of the torture victim (NPC) giving false information because of the torture is low. i think it's more likely that in a typical game world, the application of torture will yield the answers the player needs to complete the quest. Therefore, the game is not giving a true impression of torture and its effects - which often backfires on the torturer and leads them to waste time and resources on false leads (assuming the torturer was after actual information and not just sadistic).
I guess the real-world question I have is - how many torturers in real-life are actually seeking information, as opposed to simply getting off on seeing the "enemy" suffer?
A large plastic bulk that moves where you move it isn't tactile enough for you?
But it's not related to anything that happens on the screen or with the interface. It's not "feedback" in that sense. You don't "feel" the edges of windows, etc. If that's your argument for tactility, then how is a touch interface non-tactile? After all, you're moving your hand/fingers around and physically touching the screen. Heck, tactility is referenced by the very word "touch".
How can you make an argument that one method has tactile feedback, and the other does not? Either they both do, or neither does. Very similar motions are involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Using a DUI for an analogy, the poor lane control would be the GPS dish, and the film of the air facilities the half-empty beer bottle.
So, what's the dead hooker in the back seat?
No, I understand that, but too many people give credit to Apple for being "revolutionary", when they're anything but.
Really? I hardly ever hear anybody say that. I hear people saying they make good products, but about the only time I hear the "R-Word" is when people want to bash Apple for failing to be revolutionary every single time they release a product.
Some overstatement is probably needed in the current climate of Apple fanboys.
Again, this seems like an odd statement, as we're really entering the age of the post-Apple-fanboy. It's just a mainstream product now. The Apple zealotry was MUCH more shrill when Apple was on the back foot, and seemingly facing extinction.
Rather, I think we're in an era of anti-Apple backlash, because people who once felt confident in their Windows as the "one true OS" are being threatened by the the resurgence of Apple and Linux, and the mediocrity of Vista and post-Gates MS.
Interestingly, you won't see even the biggest Apple fan denying the influence companies like Microsoft and IBM in the computing field - but you constantly have these attempts by Apple haters (or frustrated PC fans) to ignore history, and pretend that Apple was never anything special, and everything that was ever significant came from anybody but Apple. I just don't get it. Hate Apple if you like, but to ignore facts and rewrite history is just desperate (and that is not directed at you, of course, but rather the likes of revisionists like Timmarthy above).
I disagree. It didn't represent a dramatic new shift for the industry. It popularized an existing concept way beyond what it had achieved before, but that isn't revolution. Revolution is the creation of the concept.
That's where I have to disagree... revolution is the culmination of a concept into an impact on society. The iPod is like a rock star, a huge part of the popular consciousness. It's nothing like what was happening before in the portable media market.
And the reason the iPod succeeded was because of the concept - make an MP3 player that's enjoyable to use, and not frustrating. Make it a pleasure. None of the other companies really cared about that - they were simply taking the walkman concept and form-factor and applying digital technology to it.
The telephone was revolutionary. The cellular phone was revolutionary. The $model of cell phone was not.
But what if people decided they didn't like the tele[phone, and it never got adopted widely by society? Would it still be revolutionary?
As far as models go, we usually refer to political revolutions by their "model number" rather than generically - "The French Revolution", "The Feminist Revolution" - and usually what is most interesting about those is the specifics, and how they actually took place. People support the concepts, but are moved by the implementation. People are moved to tears by MLK's "I have a dream" speech in a way they aren't by the abstract idea of Civil Rights. The revolution in the French Revolution was the actual uprising - the concepts underpinning it had been created long ago.
I stand by my statement that Apple hasn't had a revolutionary idea in years. Not a slam on them, not many people do put forth revolutionary ideas.
I think "revolutionary" is not a very useful word in the first place. I think "innovative" is a better fit. And I'm not sure why people are so obsessed with the idea that something can't be good unless it's revolutionary. As we know from history, revolutions often come at a great cost.
If the stuff you listed is revolutionary, pretty much any product that ever comes out is.
Come on, that's a bit off the mark. Most products that come out are also-rans that don't influence anything or add anything new. that can't be said for the products in question. Does a new model of MP3 player have as much influence as the original iPod? I don't think so.
I think you may be forgetting just how different things were before things like the iPod. Today, people who are computer illiterate even know what an iPod is. When it was released, your typical person had no idea what an MP3 player was.
I think by your own overly-strict judgement, not even Personal Computing can be considered a revolution, because lots of people were thinking about similar ideas - and the PC didn't just suddenly emerge fully-formed. There are a whole lot of matters of degree here - nothing is black and white.
P.S - I should point out that the post I was replying to said that ONLY revolution Apple EVER had was a marketing revolution, which is clearly nonsense. It didn't say anything about it being limited to recent years.
Well, revolution is a difficult thing to define. There are revolutionary ideas that never end up affecting the real world, and there are evolutionary ideas that do. More recently, Apple influenced the position the trackball/trackpad goes on a laptop with the Mac portable/Powerbook line - now everybody puts the input device in front of the keyboard. But not until Apple did it first.
What about the iPod and the iTunes store? I don't think you can't argue that had massive implications for society - before it came along, people just weren't using MP3 players or buying downloadable music. The iPod became a a serious threat to the juggernaut medium of the audio CD, and in combination with the iTunes store, turned the music sales industry on its head.
I'm guessing you think none of that counts, because Apple didn't invent the MP3 player, but that's not very sound reasoning.
How about Mac OS X? They completely rebuilt the OS from the ground up - and then they went a switched processor architectures with barely a hiccup. The end result was that the trajectory of the Mac was completely reversed, and when from a declining curiosity used in a few niche industries, into a popular mainstream OS that is eating into Windows marketshare.
Or how about Final Cut Pro, which changed the way the video and film industries think about software, and managed to unseat entrenched players in the space?
So, it actually seems that Apple has had quite a few revolutions lately. Now, can you tell me what other computer companies have?
They're offering students to be able to do X, Y, Z and V. Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
But are they? Are they really offering students the right to download any illicit music they like? They might say they won't sue, but how do we know they won't turn around and do exactly that? I haven't seen the details of the deals, so I'm not sure exactly what they entail.
Not exactly a loophole and well within their rights as the copyright holder.
But there's the problem. Nobody is the copyright holder of all the music on Earth. How could they stop an independent music producer from suing for copyright infringement? That producer holds the copyright on their own music, not these organizations. Such an organization can not declare copyright law as non-applicable to certain people. Only the government can do that.
If I got offered a yearly license fee to download any music I want (at the rate that the article was talking about), I'd take it.
I guess it's true - there is a sucker born every day. How about I sell you this rock, which protects you from tiger attacks, for a low yearly fee?
Yeah, but if you were sending somebody some delicious nuts, and there was a packet collision, you might suffer kernel panic.
I get really annoyed with Slashdot people who laugh at 'tubes' yet still use the word 'pipe'.
So, what about the people who laugh at Ted Stevens, but never use the word "pipe" to refer to an internet connection? Are we in the clear? I always thought that "pipe" was a pretty stupid piece of jargon.
Are you completely ignorant of the history of computing? Apple shaped the entire way we interact with computers - Windows, Linux are both heavily influenced by the original Mac OS. And yes, now you'll bitch about XEROX PARC and all that... again, missing the point. Apple did not invent the GUI, but put a lot of hard work and great ideas into refining it into a mainstream product. Even the mouse was shaped by Apple - no, they didn't invent the mouse, but again, refined it from being a technical curiosity into a workable, durable item. They put a lot of research into making it something that was smooth and didn't break easily. Go look it up some time.
Inventions are one thing, but turning inventions into real-world products is just as difficult and challenging.
What about clicking? You tap, it gives a physical sensation not unlike clicking. Probably a more natural action for a human, anyway.
Personally, I have to avoid mouses, as I have tendonitis, and clicking buttons aggravates it. So I use a graphics tablet... so much better than a mouse. Quick and light.
They are doing it, and they are successful - probably why they became multi-billion dollar companies in the first place
But usually the end results aren't very good, compared to what Apple does.
the point is that every company does that too, and they don't get free Slashvertising on here.
Again, they don't do much that's interesting or outstanding enough. Hell, many of these huge companies manage to sell products that could almost be described as defective.
Anyway, you have to admit that Apple changed the face of computing. The Mac set the standard, and all of our GUI systems today have been influenced by Apple's choices. The whole field of digital publishing was defined by Apple, Adobe and Xerox. You can't say that about your typical PC company.
Interesting. I guess I missed that, because I thought the very concept was ridiculous - when it's so easy to do with a computer, and you get more control over the editing and stuff. So, despite, having a CD mastering business in the very early days of the medium, I completely overlooked that phenomenon.
Still, that's not the case with today's burners, and the majority of units people come into contact with. What was the deal with that, anyway? Why did the manufacturers want to limit compatibility? Was there some special deal with the blank media makers for revenue sharing or something?
Err... you do realise out of court settlements happen ALL the time, right?
Yeah, so? I'm not talking about out of court settlements. I'm talking about asking for "protection money" from innocents before any case is even alleged.
Its (the majority of) students who have made this problem.
Bullshit. This entire storm in a teacup is nobody's fault but the music industry and RIAA's.
Although I do feel sorry for the very few ones who don't break the law. Which is why I'd like to see it be voluntary.
But it's not just college students who pirate stuff, it's people from all walks of life. Most likely the majority of the general population. So, should we all be paying these up-front piracy fees? I'm sure the music industry would love that if they could get away with it. But it's much easier to target vulnerable and stereotyped groups like students.
My question was if there is proof of torture yielding less reliable, actionable evidence.
And you were repeatedly given very good data - but for some reason ignore those posts. If you pretend the data doesn't exist, I guess you can continue to believe you are correct.
The marketshare of PHONES SOLD IN Q308 ONLY is 12.9% vs. MS' 11.1% in a quarter when Apple introduced the 3G and Windows Mobile had no significant product launches. Many people were waiting for the HTC Touch Pro.
What's really funny about this is that these are the exact same arguments that Apple fans would use to boost the marketshare numbers for Apple in the dark days, and now they are being used to enhance Microsoft/other numbers now that Apple is actually gaining marketshare.
Afterall, white plastic coated in clear plastic is a whole lot of plastic. It feels like quality because its shiny and has some weight behind it. Metal feels more firm than plastic.
The "original mini" you were complaining about was cased in aluminum, unlike every other MP3 player on the market at the time. iPod Nanos are still made with aluminum, unlike... that's right, every other MP3 player on the market.
Be realistic though, what apple have done is not exactly rocket science, they took existing off the shelf tech and wedged it in to a piece of plastic.
So, why is it that so many multi-billion dollar companies fail to do this successfully? Why aren't you doing it?
Vista Mobile... now there's an oxymoron!
I had a good chuckle before I explained to her the benefits of non-apple hardware...seeing people's eyes open is truly a beautiful thing
What you experienced is generally known to others as something called a "hallucination."
While my day job is as a Computer Progammer Analyst
You analyze computer programmers for a living? That job must be either a real hoot, or daily torture.
I dunno, I think the RIAA Curve was developed by engineers. And it probably prevented people from damaging their hearing.
Right. Its racketeering to sue someone for infringing on their copyright?
Nope. But it's racketeering to accept payments to "look the other way" and have a double-standard for who you will and won't threaten.
But moreover, it's just disgustingly manipulative. With the cost of education these days, the last things students need is somebody else demanding a handout from students and institutions. And what of the legal issues? Doesn't it undermine their stance on piracy? Everybody else has to pay market rates for their media, but students have some kind of loophole? If anything, that's insulting to students. And what happens when they graduate - do they legally own their pirated material? Or is it considered something you are allowed to "experiment with in college" but then must dispose of when you become a non-student?
Nope. It's just bullshit on the packaging. It's the same disc, priced much higher for "audiophiles" and other uninformed newbies. The stuff in the CD-R manual is similar to the "only use genuine EPSON ink cartridges, or you may damage your printer" etc.
Torture produces what you want to hear. Nothing else. More precisely, what the subject tortured thinks that you want to hear so, as you pointed out, you stop torturing it
But the topic is torture in a specific videogame. Based on my experience with such games, I'm thinking that the likelihood of the torture victim (NPC) giving false information because of the torture is low. i think it's more likely that in a typical game world, the application of torture will yield the answers the player needs to complete the quest. Therefore, the game is not giving a true impression of torture and its effects - which often backfires on the torturer and leads them to waste time and resources on false leads (assuming the torturer was after actual information and not just sadistic).
I guess the real-world question I have is - how many torturers in real-life are actually seeking information, as opposed to simply getting off on seeing the "enemy" suffer?
A large plastic bulk that moves where you move it isn't tactile enough for you?
But it's not related to anything that happens on the screen or with the interface. It's not "feedback" in that sense. You don't "feel" the edges of windows, etc. If that's your argument for tactility, then how is a touch interface non-tactile? After all, you're moving your hand/fingers around and physically touching the screen. Heck, tactility is referenced by the very word "touch".
How can you make an argument that one method has tactile feedback, and the other does not? Either they both do, or neither does. Very similar motions are involved.