That seems a strange comment to make. The hard core left-wing crowd that mindlessly bash everything from the right is just as bad, and, at least appear to be, far more numerous.
Say what? Hard-core leftists are almost non-existent on Slashdot. Even vaguely liberal comments are lambasted as being socialist or communist around here.
There's certainly no shortage of right wingers around this place.
Yeah, you'd think so, but that stupid "story" about the passenger's computer spread like wildfire across the media, without many seriously questioning it. It was like a game of "Chinese whispers."
a whole one, eh? no Mach, BSD or NeXT technologies were involved, is that what you're saying?
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Those are components of the operating system. Just because Apple uses some code that was developed elsewhere, doesn't make their OS any less of a whole one. I mean, what modern OS doesn't use some of other people's code? Is Mac OS only half an OS, is that what you're saying?
In any case, Apple continues to develop and contribute back to those other projects.
anyway, i think the post's point was that Apple goes to great lengths to market things--some of which are novel and innovative, some of which aren't.
Great lengths? How do you define that? Seem to be they do a typical amount of advertising for a company their size. But the poster went beyond that saying Apple had ALWAYS done this. Which is utter BS. In the 90s, Apple hardly marketed at all. Mac fans were going nuts, because Apple had some great products, but they didn't seem to want to tell anybody about them. Seriously, Apple during the 90s, was one of the most under-marketed companies around. They seemed to eschew advertising, thinking that word of mouth from fans would be enough - or that they would always have the loyal graphic designer market.
Since Steve came back, they have picked up their marketing game, and about time, too. But I still see a lot more advertising for Dell - junk mail, print ads, etc. When you think about it, Dell is a much more heavily marketed company. Because that's all they really have. They don't do anything original - they just assemble cheap PCs and bundle Windows. So they are heavily dependent on marketing.
It's interesting how you don't hear people commenting much about Dell's marketing, even as they say Apple is all marketing. I think it's because Apple does "stylish" marketing, while Dell does "lowest common denominator" marketing. HP is somewhere in-between. Like Apple, they are a broader, more innovative company than Dell, and their latest campaigns have gone for "lifestyle".
Huh? Maybe newer cameras are starting to drop firewire, but the vast majority of cameras that consumers already own do have firewire. And most consumer hard drives might not have firewire, but those that do, perform a lot better than their USB cousins.
Just because you don't see the benefit, doesn't mean that many users don't get a lot out of having firewire. Particularly in the Mac world, where firewire is very common.
Ummm... have you set up a right-click function in the System Preferences for mouse & keyboard? Because right-clicking is not set up by default on the Mighty Mouse. You need to enable it in software.
Yeah right, they only spend 1/10th of their time developing a whole Operating System, designing computers and developing new techniques for manufacturing them, designing iPods and iPhones, running a music store, writing professional and consumer video editing and DVD authoring software.
You, sir, are full of shit. If that were the case, the marketing department would dwarf the rest of Apple. But it doesn't, of course.
My father told me a story about sitting next to the speaker at an Iron Butterfly concert. All he could hear for three days was "In Da Gada La Vida" (/ "In the Garden of Eden") over and over again.
I think that's the effect of the LSD he took, not the volume.
Think about it. How many employees now blow off hours at a time during the workday by playing solitaire, going to MySpace, releasing the latest trojan into their LAN via email attachments...
And how much of your workforce are you going to be left with once everybody quits because of your GUI-less, diversion-free system?
Uhhh, but if it's just a "common item" then it is popular, by definition. I think what you might mean is that it is no longer cool or trendy. Toilet paper is popular, but not cool.
And, of course, trousers is the greatest word that the English language has ever created - which contrasts nicely with pants. Trousers is best when said in the voice of Rick from The Young Ones.
It's ok to give currency to things you can trust. Photos were once our eyes on the world.
And they were just as unreliable then as they are now. What makes you think you could blindly trust them back then? The fact is that you couldn't, and many photographic hoaxes were perpetrated long before digital technology.
Now that world has digital lipstick and pancake makeup.
And 100 years ago, we had airbrushes and paintbrushes do the same thing. What's the difference?
through a skeptic's eye, as though everyone is known to lie first, and we must somehow extract truth from lies, which is nigh impossible.
Nonsense. You don't seem to have any idea of what it means to be a skeptic. It does not mean that you assume everything to be lies. It means that you look at things deeply and logically. To seek truth.
You said initially upthread that you don't trust any images, and so what now is the difference that you give any of them credence?
Again, you don't seem to comprehend what I'm writing. I didn't say that I don't trust any images. I said that all images are alterations of reality.
I'm a photographer. I've taken around one hundred thousand images. So, I'm acutely aware of how the photograph differs from what I saw with my own eyes. I know what aspects I can "trust" and I know the effects of optics, light and technology.
My point is that people should educate themselves about these things. That will give you much more protection. If you're not educated as to the effects of different photographic decisions, then how useful is a disclaimer going to be, anyway?
No one thinks that it would be a good idea to have such a thing as a 'photo approval bureau(cracy)'.
Didn't you talk about a constitutional amendment upthread? That would have the precise effect of creating a photo approval bureaucracy.
We're all wrinkles and all, pores on our face, acne, little weird hairs. That's how we are. Don't feed the cosmetic and beauty industry trolls.... among others.
Uhhhh... what? When have I said anything in defence of the cosmetic industry? I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything I've said.
I also don't see how your warning labels would have any effect on this. Do you think the women that read beauty and fashion magazines don't know that they images they look at are manipulated 10 ways from Sunday? Of course they know! They just don't care. You could put your warning labels on those magazines, and they would still avidly read them. Hell, these days plenty of women are willing to under the knife to cosmetically alter themselves - do you really think they're bothered by Photoshop manipulations?
Slashdot Mirror
That seems a strange comment to make. The hard core left-wing crowd that mindlessly bash everything from the right is just as bad, and, at least appear to be, far more numerous.
Say what? Hard-core leftists are almost non-existent on Slashdot. Even vaguely liberal comments are lambasted as being socialist or communist around here.
There's certainly no shortage of right wingers around this place.
Yeah, you'd think so, but that stupid "story" about the passenger's computer spread like wildfire across the media, without many seriously questioning it. It was like a game of "Chinese whispers."
In this case, talking on the phone is exactly as dangerous as talking to the person next to you in the car.
Which is often pretty damn dangerous.
Conclusion: yes, we can.
How does that follow? You shouldn't be talking to the person next to you if it endangers your driving.
Except that it was a journalist who made the claim of interference from a passenger's computer, not QANTAS.
Because every other manufacturer makes their laptops by milling a billet of aluminum?
It also means that Macbooks may be able to run FinalCut
Uhhh, my old iBook can run Final Cut Pro. Every Macbook ever made is certainly capable.
a whole one, eh? no Mach, BSD or NeXT technologies were involved, is that what you're saying?
Nope, that's not what I'm saying. Those are components of the operating system. Just because Apple uses some code that was developed elsewhere, doesn't make their OS any less of a whole one. I mean, what modern OS doesn't use some of other people's code? Is Mac OS only half an OS, is that what you're saying?
In any case, Apple continues to develop and contribute back to those other projects.
anyway, i think the post's point was that Apple goes to great lengths to market things--some of which are novel and innovative, some of which aren't.
Great lengths? How do you define that? Seem to be they do a typical amount of advertising for a company their size. But the poster went beyond that saying Apple had ALWAYS done this. Which is utter BS. In the 90s, Apple hardly marketed at all. Mac fans were going nuts, because Apple had some great products, but they didn't seem to want to tell anybody about them. Seriously, Apple during the 90s, was one of the most under-marketed companies around. They seemed to eschew advertising, thinking that word of mouth from fans would be enough - or that they would always have the loyal graphic designer market.
Since Steve came back, they have picked up their marketing game, and about time, too. But I still see a lot more advertising for Dell - junk mail, print ads, etc. When you think about it, Dell is a much more heavily marketed company. Because that's all they really have. They don't do anything original - they just assemble cheap PCs and bundle Windows. So they are heavily dependent on marketing.
It's interesting how you don't hear people commenting much about Dell's marketing, even as they say Apple is all marketing. I think it's because Apple does "stylish" marketing, while Dell does "lowest common denominator" marketing. HP is somewhere in-between. Like Apple, they are a broader, more innovative company than Dell, and their latest campaigns have gone for "lifestyle".
Uhhh, the Macbook keyboard is NOT a "chicklet" keyboard. It uses springed switches, just like any other modern keyboard.
Huh? Maybe newer cameras are starting to drop firewire, but the vast majority of cameras that consumers already own do have firewire. And most consumer hard drives might not have firewire, but those that do, perform a lot better than their USB cousins.
Just because you don't see the benefit, doesn't mean that many users don't get a lot out of having firewire. Particularly in the Mac world, where firewire is very common.
Ummm... have you set up a right-click function in the System Preferences for mouse & keyboard? Because right-clicking is not set up by default on the Mighty Mouse. You need to enable it in software.
Why would being a Linux user have anything to do with your choice of hardware? You do realize you can run Linux on a Mac, don't you?
Apple spends 9/10 of their time marketing.
Yeah right, they only spend 1/10th of their time developing a whole Operating System, designing computers and developing new techniques for manufacturing them, designing iPods and iPhones, running a music store, writing professional and consumer video editing and DVD authoring software.
You, sir, are full of shit. If that were the case, the marketing department would dwarf the rest of Apple. But it doesn't, of course.
Shouldn't that be Adobe Flash now?
Don't forget "Steve's Rave" and the recurring theme that if you do drugs, you'll set fire to your house or car, maiming or killing your loved ones.
What? The idea of having high-dynamic range music is that you can turn up the volume more - i.e: the loud parts are loud, the quiet parts are quiet.
My father told me a story about sitting next to the speaker at an Iron Butterfly concert. All he could hear for three days was "In Da Gada La Vida" (/ "In the Garden of Eden") over and over again.
I think that's the effect of the LSD he took, not the volume.
This will go great with my skull-shaped bong.
Yes, but what if your business involves something other than low-level data entry work?
... which car has the "I just came" face?
Think about it. How many employees now blow off hours at a time during the workday by playing solitaire, going to MySpace, releasing the latest trojan into their LAN via email attachments...
And how much of your workforce are you going to be left with once everybody quits because of your GUI-less, diversion-free system?
Uhhh, but if it's just a "common item" then it is popular, by definition. I think what you might mean is that it is no longer cool or trendy. Toilet paper is popular, but not cool.
Why, because he might wet his pants and cry like a little girl? Why else would he push the "tough guy" image, if he wasn't a scared little wuss?
And, of course, trousers is the greatest word that the English language has ever created - which contrasts nicely with pants. Trousers is best when said in the voice of Rick from The Young Ones.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllsssshhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(pounds fists on ground in despair)
It's ok to give currency to things you can trust. Photos were once our eyes on the world.
And they were just as unreliable then as they are now. What makes you think you could blindly trust them back then? The fact is that you couldn't, and many photographic hoaxes were perpetrated long before digital technology.
Now that world has digital lipstick and pancake makeup.
And 100 years ago, we had airbrushes and paintbrushes do the same thing. What's the difference?
through a skeptic's eye, as though everyone is known to lie first, and we must somehow extract truth from lies, which is nigh impossible.
Nonsense. You don't seem to have any idea of what it means to be a skeptic. It does not mean that you assume everything to be lies. It means that you look at things deeply and logically. To seek truth.
You said initially upthread that you don't trust any images, and so what now is the difference that you give any of them credence?
Again, you don't seem to comprehend what I'm writing. I didn't say that I don't trust any images. I said that all images are alterations of reality.
I'm a photographer. I've taken around one hundred thousand images. So, I'm acutely aware of how the photograph differs from what I saw with my own eyes. I know what aspects I can "trust" and I know the effects of optics, light and technology.
My point is that people should educate themselves about these things. That will give you much more protection. If you're not educated as to the effects of different photographic decisions, then how useful is a disclaimer going to be, anyway?
No one thinks that it would be a good idea to have such a thing as a 'photo approval bureau(cracy)'.
Didn't you talk about a constitutional amendment upthread? That would have the precise effect of creating a photo approval bureaucracy.
We're all wrinkles and all, pores on our face, acne, little weird hairs. That's how we are. Don't feed the cosmetic and beauty industry trolls.... among others.
Uhhhh... what? When have I said anything in defence of the cosmetic industry? I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything I've said.
I also don't see how your warning labels would have any effect on this. Do you think the women that read beauty and fashion magazines don't know that they images they look at are manipulated 10 ways from Sunday? Of course they know! They just don't care. You could put your warning labels on those magazines, and they would still avidly read them. Hell, these days plenty of women are willing to under the knife to cosmetically alter themselves - do you really think they're bothered by Photoshop manipulations?