I'm failing to see how the original remark was "incredibly charitable". To me it highlighted the hypocrisy of Gates and the broken nature of the world health and financial systems. The comment does indeed highlight how bad things are. It implies we need a benevolent dictator to fix our problems.
Where is this second web that people keep talking about? I only see one web - or a vast number of them if you look at it that way. Why is there apparently only 2 webs?
Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo,
Not really. It just implies a different way of thinking about or doing things - it doesn't have to be radically different. I think you are getting confused with "revolutionary". Basically, innovation lies in-between obvious incremental upgrades and revolutionary ideas. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Innovation could be thought of as "applied revolution" - the really big ideas often emerge at a much higher theoretical or philosophical level, but the implications and implementations aren't yet worked out. For example, the idea of the computer or "Turing Machine" is revolutionary - the networking of computers together, or the creation of Google is innovative or evolutionary. The idea of democracy is revolutionary, the implementation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is innovative. The idea of feminism is revolutionary, the advent of punk-rock chicks is innovative.
No, it doesn't. You use "Smart Playlists" that the software selects according to your rules. The wonders of algorithms! Once you set up the rules, you don't have to spend any time individually selecting anything.
After working in a repair shop for many years, I noticed it was common for many of the coin cells to have spot welded terminals which are then simply soldered onto the PCB. A soldering iron replaces these with ease if you have any soldering skill. Often a standard coin cell socket will go in it's place.
Well, if you consider that "user replaceable" then so is the iPod's battery. By a user like you or me. But most people wouldn't touch a soldering iron with a ten foot pole.
For example, because Facebook allows users to "tag" photos with the names of friends, it is possible for third-party apps to distribute photos that a user might only want to be seen by their inner circle of friends.'"
Yeah, malware is bad, but if somebody thinks those photos are going stay "within their core circle of friends" when they post them on Facebook, they need their head checked. You know, people in your "circle of friends" have other friends too, that are in other circles of friends. They will surely get passed between the two groups. Even if that doesn't happen, somebody in your "circle" will have an insecure computer.
The bottom line is that if you think you can keep your photos private when posting them online, you are deluding yourself. An idea might be to not take them in the first place if you don't want them seen by others.
I don't like it for the same reason I don't just visit the home page: I don't want all the other junk they include with it. A small, simple picture is welcome, particularly if I choose to read it on a handheld device; the rest of it isn't.
Interesting. When I subscribe to it, all I get is a simple picture. What's "all the other junk" you are referring to? This is the feed I subscribe to: http://feeds.feedburner.com/dilbertdailystrip/
That's some pretty good semantic acrobatics you are playing there. The SMC check is about testing that it is being installed on Mac hardware (as per the EULA) - nothing to do with a previous version of the software. And my box doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere on it. If it were about having a previous version, then why would a 10.4 installer come with the full version for Intel machines, when there was never anything prior to 10.4 available for Intel?
You implied it when you said:
"That's pretty weird, because of all the computer companies out there, Apple is one that comes up with many fresh ideas, rather than only copying others."
That's not implied in any way. I meant that Apple didn't just outright copy things - they put their own unique touches on ideas that they might not have invented outright. You know that "inventors" don't usually come up with fully-formed ideas that can't be improved, don't you? If we were just using things as they were originally invented, that would suck pretty hard. Refining those ideas is not a trivial exercise, and can be more substantial and/or creative than coming up with the idea in the first place.
rather than only copying others. Note the bold.
That's right. Apple didn't just say "hey, I'm going to sell the same computers as everybody else, and just slap Windows on them", which is what most of the industry does.
All subjective. For example, many more people prefer the Windows UI. The same goes for other MP3 players.
Care to provide any evidence that "many more people" prefer the interface on Windows and "other MP3 players"? And notice that Microsoft just copied GUI from Apple. Kind of proves my point, doesn't it?
Wow, I really should just stop responding to you right here since it's obvious that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.
I made a typo. So sue me. Clearly, I meant UNIX.
Considering their first laptop wasn't released until 1991, I seriously doubt that they were the first to do so.
Well, you'd be wrong.
The independent filmmaking industry perhaps. Very few "real" Hollywood filmmakers use Final Cut.
Not true. Many Hollywood filmmakers use it. And even if it were "only" independent filmmakers, how is that an insignificant achievement?
There are literally dozens of excellent image viewers/managers out there, both free and commercial. iPhoto is a drop in the bucket.
Uhhh, I was talking about Aperture, not iPhoto. iPhoto sucks. That's a funny one, coming from someone who claims to know so much.
In addition, whatever I have done, at least I have never hyped nor sought credit for something where it wasn't due, which is more than I can say about Apple.
It was also the size of a brick and had slow USB 1.1 transfer. Why would anyone want to use that? Apple made the first well-designed MP3 player. And sorry, but when did anyone ever claim that Apple invented the MP3 player? Trolls like you are always bringing this up as if it's some kind of revelation - as if people really believe that Apple was the first company to make an MP3 player. The thing is, nobody believes that, and you are clutching at strawmen, because you simply don't understand the discussion that is going on around you.
Did I say they invented anything? No. I said fresh ideas. Like making a personal computer with a great GUI. Like making a portable music player that isn't a piece of shit. Like re-engineering their OS based on Linux. Like building trackballs into laptops in front of the keyboard. Like making a great video editing suite that turned the industry on its head. Like making a great professional photo management application.
Apple hasn't done shit.
Yeah, I'm sure you've accomplished so much more in your life than Apple has. Hell, than even a single employee of Apple has.
Re:I'd like to take a moment to say: I told them s
on
3G iPhone Expected in June
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well, I'm not a fan of the iPhone. But I don't see how you can say that Apple has failed with the iPhone. I don't think making millions of dollars selling a popular product is failure.
If you're after a lens, you need to know what you want to do first. If you're after low-light lenses, there aren't many choices. Just look at lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.0 or wider in fixed focal lengths. If you are after zooms, then f2.8 is considered a low-light zoom. But I prefer the fixed focal lengths - my low-light lenses are: 28mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2.0, 200mm f2.0.
Usually there is only one such option for these in a given manufacturer's lineup.
Really? That's not my experience. This seems to be a habit peculiar to web designers and programmers. Designers in other mediums seem to know when to stop messing with something. In fact, "knowing when to stop" is a well-respected dictum of design.
There was never a copy of 10.4 for Intel Macs sold retail because every single Intel Mac came with a copy of 10.4 (so you never needed an upgarade disk)
Absolute horseshit. I have a retail copy of 10.4 (both Intel and PPC) right here on my shelf, and it's a full installer, not an upgrade.
Fire and the wheel are still technology. It doesn't matter how old a technology is, it's still technology. Perhaps that puts it in too stark terms for you? People would be pretty outraged if they couldn't light a fire or breathe oxygen without paying licensing fees. But that's the way it's going. So, perhaps the term is unexpectedly apt?
Personally, I find "tech," "technological" and "IT" to be more offensive and abused than "technology." What do you think it should be called?
ps I am patenting my own gesture to apple for being a ripoff company.
That's pretty weird, because of all the computer companies out there, Apple is one that comes up with many fresh ideas, rather than only copying others.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm failing to see how the original remark was "incredibly charitable". To me it highlighted the hypocrisy of Gates and the broken nature of the world health and financial systems. The comment does indeed highlight how bad things are. It implies we need a benevolent dictator to fix our problems.
Where is this second web that people keep talking about? I only see one web - or a vast number of them if you look at it that way. Why is there apparently only 2 webs?
Not really. It just implies a different way of thinking about or doing things - it doesn't have to be radically different. I think you are getting confused with "revolutionary". Basically, innovation lies in-between obvious incremental upgrades and revolutionary ideas. It's more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Innovation could be thought of as "applied revolution" - the really big ideas often emerge at a much higher theoretical or philosophical level, but the implications and implementations aren't yet worked out. For example, the idea of the computer or "Turing Machine" is revolutionary - the networking of computers together, or the creation of Google is innovative or evolutionary. The idea of democracy is revolutionary, the implementation of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is innovative. The idea of feminism is revolutionary, the advent of punk-rock chicks is innovative.
No, it doesn't. You use "Smart Playlists" that the software selects according to your rules. The wonders of algorithms! Once you set up the rules, you don't have to spend any time individually selecting anything.
Well, if you consider that "user replaceable" then so is the iPod's battery. By a user like you or me. But most people wouldn't touch a soldering iron with a ten foot pole.
Yeah, malware is bad, but if somebody thinks those photos are going stay "within their core circle of friends" when they post them on Facebook, they need their head checked. You know, people in your "circle of friends" have other friends too, that are in other circles of friends. They will surely get passed between the two groups. Even if that doesn't happen, somebody in your "circle" will have an insecure computer.
The bottom line is that if you think you can keep your photos private when posting them online, you are deluding yourself. An idea might be to not take them in the first place if you don't want them seen by others.
Interesting. When I subscribe to it, all I get is a simple picture. What's "all the other junk" you are referring to? This is the feed I subscribe to: http://feeds.feedburner.com/dilbertdailystrip/
That's some pretty good semantic acrobatics you are playing there. The SMC check is about testing that it is being installed on Mac hardware (as per the EULA) - nothing to do with a previous version of the software. And my box doesn't say "upgrade" anywhere on it. If it were about having a previous version, then why would a 10.4 installer come with the full version for Intel machines, when there was never anything prior to 10.4 available for Intel?
That's not implied in any way. I meant that Apple didn't just outright copy things - they put their own unique touches on ideas that they might not have invented outright. You know that "inventors" don't usually come up with fully-formed ideas that can't be improved, don't you? If we were just using things as they were originally invented, that would suck pretty hard. Refining those ideas is not a trivial exercise, and can be more substantial and/or creative than coming up with the idea in the first place.
rather than only copying others. Note the bold.That's right. Apple didn't just say "hey, I'm going to sell the same computers as everybody else, and just slap Windows on them", which is what most of the industry does.
All subjective. For example, many more people prefer the Windows UI. The same goes for other MP3 players.Care to provide any evidence that "many more people" prefer the interface on Windows and "other MP3 players"? And notice that Microsoft just copied GUI from Apple. Kind of proves my point, doesn't it?
Wow, I really should just stop responding to you right here since it's obvious that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.I made a typo. So sue me. Clearly, I meant UNIX.
Considering their first laptop wasn't released until 1991, I seriously doubt that they were the first to do so.Well, you'd be wrong.
The independent filmmaking industry perhaps. Very few "real" Hollywood filmmakers use Final Cut.Not true. Many Hollywood filmmakers use it. And even if it were "only" independent filmmakers, how is that an insignificant achievement?
There are literally dozens of excellent image viewers/managers out there, both free and commercial. iPhoto is a drop in the bucket.Uhhh, I was talking about Aperture, not iPhoto. iPhoto sucks. That's a funny one, coming from someone who claims to know so much.
In addition, whatever I have done, at least I have never hyped nor sought credit for something where it wasn't due, which is more than I can say about Apple.Got any examples of this "undue credit"?
It was also the size of a brick and had slow USB 1.1 transfer. Why would anyone want to use that? Apple made the first well-designed MP3 player. And sorry, but when did anyone ever claim that Apple invented the MP3 player? Trolls like you are always bringing this up as if it's some kind of revelation - as if people really believe that Apple was the first company to make an MP3 player. The thing is, nobody believes that, and you are clutching at strawmen, because you simply don't understand the discussion that is going on around you.
Oh, you poor man. I think you need to check into a rehab clinic right away. Something with a soothing icon garden and a pet Dogcow.
Did I say they invented anything? No. I said fresh ideas. Like making a personal computer with a great GUI. Like making a portable music player that isn't a piece of shit. Like re-engineering their OS based on Linux. Like building trackballs into laptops in front of the keyboard. Like making a great video editing suite that turned the industry on its head. Like making a great professional photo management application.
Apple hasn't done shit.Yeah, I'm sure you've accomplished so much more in your life than Apple has. Hell, than even a single employee of Apple has.
Hi Frank!
Well, I'm not a fan of the iPhone. But I don't see how you can say that Apple has failed with the iPhone. I don't think making millions of dollars selling a popular product is failure.
If you're after a lens, you need to know what you want to do first. If you're after low-light lenses, there aren't many choices. Just look at lenses with a maximum aperture of f2.0 or wider in fixed focal lengths. If you are after zooms, then f2.8 is considered a low-light zoom. But I prefer the fixed focal lengths - my low-light lenses are: 28mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 135mm f2.0, 200mm f2.0.
Usually there is only one such option for these in a given manufacturer's lineup.
I don't think that this is what proves Adams to be a PHB. I think his spectacular mismanagement of his restaurant chain already did that.
Eh, why not simply subscribe to the RSS feed?
Really? That's not my experience. This seems to be a habit peculiar to web designers and programmers. Designers in other mediums seem to know when to stop messing with something. In fact, "knowing when to stop" is a well-respected dictum of design.
The Chinese have circles now? Shit, before you know it, they'll invent the wheel and Ford will be totally screwed.
How long ago did you stop beating your wife?
Wait.. A G5? WTF?
Absolute horseshit. I have a retail copy of 10.4 (both Intel and PPC) right here on my shelf, and it's a full installer, not an upgrade.
Fire and the wheel are still technology. It doesn't matter how old a technology is, it's still technology. Perhaps that puts it in too stark terms for you? People would be pretty outraged if they couldn't light a fire or breathe oxygen without paying licensing fees. But that's the way it's going. So, perhaps the term is unexpectedly apt?
Personally, I find "tech," "technological" and "IT" to be more offensive and abused than "technology." What do you think it should be called?
That's what gives life meaning.
That's pretty weird, because of all the computer companies out there, Apple is one that comes up with many fresh ideas, rather than only copying others.