I never saw the real use of the USB 'printer port' on the device.
You connect your USB printer to this port. Then, you can print wirelessly from your laptop, without having to fiddle around with cables. Seems fairly obvious. Even includes instructions on how to do it!
A USB video breakout box would seem to be the real deal.
Not sure why I'd want to run video over USB, and I'm pretty sure that more people use their computers for printing documents than watching video. Hence, printing is an obvious and easy feature to include in the first revision of a product. Especially with all the complex sync and compatibility issues involved in wireless video streaming to a TV set.
besides, i don't really remember seeing a whole lot of standard-def tv in widescreen. anyone? anyone ever watch any regular show, on regular tv, that was letterboxed? didn't think so.
Huh? They show movies on 'regular TV' in letterbox format all the time. And then, there are the increasing number of users who have an old 4:3 TV, and use a Digital TV set-top box to playback widescreen digital TV broadcasts on their old TV.
You're assuming that the creatives and the geeks are the same people. They're not. They're at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.
Bullshit. I'm both. Any decent scientist or programmer is creative. Any decent artist knows about science and technology.
It's the non-creative geeks who are the bane of the computer industry. And it's the non-technically-literate "creatives" who are the bane of the art world.
Good technology and art requires both. If you don't have both, then you are only a Beta-Geek, not an Alpha one.
I know, I know. It's harsh. But it's absolutely true. See, the "alpha geeks" are not our market. We don't sell to them
That's such bullshit. The "alpha geeks" in music and publishing are the ones who got Apple to where they are today. It's the Alpha geeks in video editing who have made Final Cut Pro such a dominant application in the industry. It's the Alpha geeks who buy your most expensive hardware - Powermacs.
Geeks are not rational. They base their purchasing decisions on things that, from a rational point of view, just don't make any sense. Things like politics, lack "openness," like "customizability." Things that just don't add up in the cost-benefit analysis.
You have a strange definition of the word "geek." Being a media geek, I base my decisions on power, ease-of-use, quality software and the adoption of industry standards. Not based on politics.
We don't see them as competition at all, because the kinds of people who buy our products would never buy a motherboard. They'd never buy Linux. Never in a million years.
Here's where you get all confused. you don't have to like Linux to be a geek. In fact, you don't even have to own a computer!
Is there some overlap? Sure. We love the fact that some prominent hard-core geeks use Macs. But we're not going to abandon our business plan to woo them.
You have that kind of backwards. For years, Apple has been attracting geeks, and making lots of money from them. Now, you are abandoning them, so you can change your business model.
It's not very smart. these people give so much word-of-mouth advertising for Apple. FREE ADVERTISING! Thousands of new Mac users, all because of the Alpha Geeks who recommend Apple products to their friends and colleagues. These days, Apple is really starting to neglect this market, in the process discarding 2 decades of customer loyalty. You do know that Apple has the greatest customer loyalty of any company on earth, right? Why compromise that? What's wrong with appealing to all market segments?
There's a huge market for entertaining people when they have time to kill.
Maybe there is, but it doesn't mean those people aren't stupid. I mean, if you absolutely have to have TV and video entertainment wherever you go - then you have a really big problem with media addiction. It's not exactly smart to make one's boredom or state-of-mind dependent on consuming entertainment.
Those people could be entertaining themselves by writing, or coming up with new interesting ideas, to "kill time." But instead, they want to be permanently attached to some digital device, rather than using their brain, or their time productively. That's a pretty stupid way to live.
Of course, stupidity is one of the ways companies make a lot of money - so there is money in stupidity.
You mean, all three of them? I'm sure they will be bitterly disappointed. What are they going to do to me when I tell them - throw their cellphone at me? Chuck a hissy-fit?
Who the heck needs a "for dummies" for iTunes and iPod?
Nobody. But that doesn't mean that the interminable "For Dummies" authors won't try to make a buck off any new trend that exists. You said you needed to go to some website to "figure out" how to use the player. People go to iPod websites, to share their playlists, learn about power-user features, or read reviews of iPod accessories and iTMS offerings - not just to "figure out how to use it."
I'll believe this when it happens. Do you have any evidence of the iRiver having sales anywhere near the level of the iPod's? Nearly every MP3 player has claimed to be an "iPod Killer" at one point or the other. Yet none have made an impact on the market.
The fact that they need to promote themselves as the "anti-iPod" instead of touting the actual merits of their players, just strengthens Apple's brand image, and shows the weak position the competitors are in. Why are they trying to copy the iPod instead of innovate?
The proposed infrastructure's transmission power is high enough to reach such and such square miles. But, how do the laptop-powered cards have anywhere enough power to transmit over that large of a distance?
This is not meant for laptops or mobile use. It's for businesses to replace their T1 lines, and they will use a special point-to-point antenna and transmitter.
All the definitions of monopoly that I have heard in my schooling had one premise: ONE (as in "there can be only one").
You obviously didn't have a very good education. The legal definition of a monopoly is about having a controlling marketshare in an industry. You don't have to be the only one in that industry.
And in this case, we are talking about the US government's legal definition of a monopoly, so you are wrong.
Or we could simply throttle your access down to residential broadband speeds. It will not stop people from doing illegal acts (technology can never do that). But it will take some of the benefits out of it.
And also reduce the benfits for legitimate purposes. Is this the way society should work? That the majority gets punished for the acts of a few?
I don't think he's ever claimed to be an official spokesperson, he doesn't have the air of sanitized PR anyway
Why does it matter? I just want to know if he's misrepresenting himself.
The worst accusation you can make at the guy is over-use of the royal "we". Which is generally fine, I do it all the time when referring to my employer (BEA),
I don't think it's fine, especially not the way he does it. It basically amounts to plagiarism, which is the worst "intellectual" offence that one can commit. Especially as he studiosly avoids answering any question about who the hell he is. He won't just give his name, he won't even say which division of Apple he works for. He's just using the "Apple connection" to karma-whore.
You're right, that's pretty scary. "Do my best"? I mean that's obviously training them to be corporate pawns. "Kind and Cheerful"? What sort of Commie trick is that?
That's all just rhetoric. Look up Mein Kampf or the creeds of the Hitler Youth sometime - they contain similar inspirational language. In actual fact, a significant number of the adults who run Boy Scouts are pedophiles, or at least drunk losers who couldn't succeed in the real world, and want to be "big fish" among a bunch of little kids. When you look at the actual reality of Boy Scouts, it's rather twisted and perverted.
And why the heck is it restricted just to males? What's up with that? It's very strange that such a homophobic organization is so attached to excluding women and getting as many young boys in the same place as possible.
The really ironic thing, is that the rapists within the Boy Scouts, almost always accuse their victims of being "gay," even as they they perform the deed. The accusations of gayness are used to shame the victim into not telling anyone about what happened.
Firtly, Godwin's law does not mean you "lose the argument by default." It simply says that the discussion ends there. In any case, Godwin was meant to protect against irrelevant mention of the Nazis. Forgive me for reposting my previous post:
------
How is this a Godwin's law violation? Godwin applies to irrelevant analogies to Nazis. In this case, the analogy is perfectly apt. Is it wrong to even mention Nazi Germany or Hitler? If so, then how can we possibly learn from history?
If we were to apply Godwin in the narrow way that you do, then Godwin's law is worse than useless - it is dangerous and should be scrapped. Honestly, this is getting so fucking ridiculous. Why should Nazi germany be such a forbidden topic, especially when the parallels are becoming more and more relevant to the world we live in today? Seems that many people have lost perspective and unlearned the lessons of WWII due to this prohibition.
How is this a Godwin's law violation? Godwin applies to irrelevant analogies to Nazis. In this case, the analogy is perfectly apt. Is it wrong to even mention Nazi Germany or Hitler? If so, then how can we possibly learn from history?
If we were to apply Godwin in the narrow way that you do, then Godwin's law is worse than useless - it is dangerous and should be scrapped. Honestly, this is getting so fucking ridiculous. Why should Nazi germany be such a forbidden topic, especially when the parallels are becoming more and more relevant to the world we live in today? Seems that many people have lost perspective and unlearned the lessons of WWII due to this prohibition.
I guess I didn't realize that by "perhaps" you meant "obviously."
Well, I guess that must mean you are too stupid to infer the meaning of a slightly-poorly-worded qualifier. Or otherwise, it means you totally misread the post, and are now backpedalling on technicalities. Or you just skimmed the post and didn't read it properly.
Come to think of it, "perhaps" isn't even technically wrong in this case. It's just a different writing style. Think about it. "Perhaps" does make linguistic sense in this context.
is that by not making a stink about that rampant problem,
How is copyright infringement a "rampant problem"? The copyright holders are still making millions, no-one is being directly hurt. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the world's population is starving. Pollution is everywhere, and we don't have a sustainable energy source. Violence and war is widespread.
It's pretty fucked up if "piracy" is considered a real problem in the face of all this. Oh my god, how will Metallica afford that walk-in humidor now? Won't somebody think of the mega-stars?
I *certainly* object to "My tax dollars" funding the likes of a Mapplethorpe - artists that rely solely on the government/Public funds/My tax dollars to fund their work are incompetent whores at best
That's stupid. Just because Mapplethorpe has had exhibitions funded by taxpayers, that doesn't mean he relies on them. His work wasn't commissioned by the taxpayer, but he made them anyway.
In actual fact, the taxpayer funding is used to bring world-class artists like Mapplethorpe to a city for the benefit of the city, not the artist. I should also ask: why did you single out Mapplethorpe for condemnation? Why not condemn artists who are directly funded by the taxpayers via grants - not one who has just had some exhibitions funded?
Similarly, you might not agree with everything the Boy Scouts teach, but as an institution it's probably done more good for more boys than it has done harm.
Speaking as a former Boy Scout, I disagree. It seriously screws up kids, even when they aren't being raped by Scout leaders or other Scouts. Even if you don't get raped or abused in other ways, it teaches a seriously fucked-up value system.
Who are YOU to impose your beliefs upon them? Isn't that the very thing you people are fond of accusing 'conservative' groups of doing?
The grandparent post said nothing about forcing beliefs on anyone. It just said we should not respect or approve of the Boy Scouts. And why the hell should we respect or approve of them?
I submit that whether people will do something voluntarily is an operational criteria for it being worthwhile.
Well, I submit that it is not. Most people won't bother to protect the environment, or exercise and eat well. Even though both of these things benefit society, as well as the individuals concerned. The problem is that most people don't know what is actually good for them, and are just greedy.
Conversely, many people do things voluntarily that are extremely damaging and not worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
You connect your USB printer to this port. Then, you can print wirelessly from your laptop, without having to fiddle around with cables. Seems fairly obvious. Even includes instructions on how to do it!
A USB video breakout box would seem to be the real deal.
Not sure why I'd want to run video over USB, and I'm pretty sure that more people use their computers for printing documents than watching video. Hence, printing is an obvious and easy feature to include in the first revision of a product. Especially with all the complex sync and compatibility issues involved in wireless video streaming to a TV set.
Huh? They show movies on 'regular TV' in letterbox format all the time. And then, there are the increasing number of users who have an old 4:3 TV, and use a Digital TV set-top box to playback widescreen digital TV broadcasts on their old TV.
Bullshit. I'm both. Any decent scientist or programmer is creative. Any decent artist knows about science and technology.
It's the non-creative geeks who are the bane of the computer industry. And it's the non-technically-literate "creatives" who are the bane of the art world.
Good technology and art requires both. If you don't have both, then you are only a Beta-Geek, not an Alpha one.
That's such bullshit. The "alpha geeks" in music and publishing are the ones who got Apple to where they are today. It's the Alpha geeks in video editing who have made Final Cut Pro such a dominant application in the industry. It's the Alpha geeks who buy your most expensive hardware - Powermacs.
Geeks are not rational. They base their purchasing decisions on things that, from a rational point of view, just don't make any sense. Things like politics, lack "openness," like "customizability." Things that just don't add up in the cost-benefit analysis.
You have a strange definition of the word "geek." Being a media geek, I base my decisions on power, ease-of-use, quality software and the adoption of industry standards. Not based on politics.
We don't see them as competition at all, because the kinds of people who buy our products would never buy a motherboard. They'd never buy Linux. Never in a million years.
Here's where you get all confused. you don't have to like Linux to be a geek. In fact, you don't even have to own a computer!
Is there some overlap? Sure. We love the fact that some prominent hard-core geeks use Macs. But we're not going to abandon our business plan to woo them.
You have that kind of backwards. For years, Apple has been attracting geeks, and making lots of money from them. Now, you are abandoning them, so you can change your business model.
It's not very smart. these people give so much word-of-mouth advertising for Apple. FREE ADVERTISING! Thousands of new Mac users, all because of the Alpha Geeks who recommend Apple products to their friends and colleagues. These days, Apple is really starting to neglect this market, in the process discarding 2 decades of customer loyalty. You do know that Apple has the greatest customer loyalty of any company on earth, right? Why compromise that? What's wrong with appealing to all market segments?
Maybe there is, but it doesn't mean those people aren't stupid. I mean, if you absolutely have to have TV and video entertainment wherever you go - then you have a really big problem with media addiction. It's not exactly smart to make one's boredom or state-of-mind dependent on consuming entertainment.
Those people could be entertaining themselves by writing, or coming up with new interesting ideas, to "kill time." But instead, they want to be permanently attached to some digital device, rather than using their brain, or their time productively. That's a pretty stupid way to live.
Of course, stupidity is one of the ways companies make a lot of money - so there is money in stupidity.
You mean, all three of them? I'm sure they will be bitterly disappointed. What are they going to do to me when I tell them - throw their cellphone at me? Chuck a hissy-fit?
Nobody. But that doesn't mean that the interminable "For Dummies" authors won't try to make a buck off any new trend that exists. You said you needed to go to some website to "figure out" how to use the player. People go to iPod websites, to share their playlists, learn about power-user features, or read reviews of iPod accessories and iTMS offerings - not just to "figure out how to use it."
What the fuck is that? Please speak English, or at least geek, instead of MartketingSpeak.
And when you've bought it, head over to http://www.misticriver.net/ to figure out how to use it.
"Figure out" how to use it? WTF?
iRiver = iPod Killer.
I'll believe this when it happens. Do you have any evidence of the iRiver having sales anywhere near the level of the iPod's? Nearly every MP3 player has claimed to be an "iPod Killer" at one point or the other. Yet none have made an impact on the market.
The fact that they need to promote themselves as the "anti-iPod" instead of touting the actual merits of their players, just strengthens Apple's brand image, and shows the weak position the competitors are in. Why are they trying to copy the iPod instead of innovate?
This is not meant for laptops or mobile use. It's for businesses to replace their T1 lines, and they will use a special point-to-point antenna and transmitter.
Less bandwidth than an iPod mini. Lame.
If you're going to be a spelling Nazi, then at least be correct. Both "burned" and "burnt" are correct. Look it up.
You obviously didn't have a very good education. The legal definition of a monopoly is about having a controlling marketshare in an industry. You don't have to be the only one in that industry.
And in this case, we are talking about the US government's legal definition of a monopoly, so you are wrong.
And also reduce the benfits for legitimate purposes. Is this the way society should work? That the majority gets punished for the acts of a few?
Why does it matter? I just want to know if he's misrepresenting himself.
The worst accusation you can make at the guy is over-use of the royal "we". Which is generally fine, I do it all the time when referring to my employer (BEA),
I don't think it's fine, especially not the way he does it. It basically amounts to plagiarism, which is the worst "intellectual" offence that one can commit. Especially as he studiosly avoids answering any question about who the hell he is. He won't just give his name, he won't even say which division of Apple he works for. He's just using the "Apple connection" to karma-whore.
And so the Trekkies were executed in the manner most befitting virgins.
That's all just rhetoric. Look up Mein Kampf or the creeds of the Hitler Youth sometime - they contain similar inspirational language. In actual fact, a significant number of the adults who run Boy Scouts are pedophiles, or at least drunk losers who couldn't succeed in the real world, and want to be "big fish" among a bunch of little kids. When you look at the actual reality of Boy Scouts, it's rather twisted and perverted.
And why the heck is it restricted just to males? What's up with that? It's very strange that such a homophobic organization is so attached to excluding women and getting as many young boys in the same place as possible.
The really ironic thing, is that the rapists within the Boy Scouts, almost always accuse their victims of being "gay," even as they they perform the deed. The accusations of gayness are used to shame the victim into not telling anyone about what happened.
------
How is this a Godwin's law violation? Godwin applies to irrelevant analogies to Nazis. In this case, the analogy is perfectly apt. Is it wrong to even mention Nazi Germany or Hitler? If so, then how can we possibly learn from history?
If we were to apply Godwin in the narrow way that you do, then Godwin's law is worse than useless - it is dangerous and should be scrapped. Honestly, this is getting so fucking ridiculous. Why should Nazi germany be such a forbidden topic, especially when the parallels are becoming more and more relevant to the world we live in today? Seems that many people have lost perspective and unlearned the lessons of WWII due to this prohibition.
How is this a Godwin's law violation? Godwin applies to irrelevant analogies to Nazis. In this case, the analogy is perfectly apt. Is it wrong to even mention Nazi Germany or Hitler? If so, then how can we possibly learn from history?
If we were to apply Godwin in the narrow way that you do, then Godwin's law is worse than useless - it is dangerous and should be scrapped. Honestly, this is getting so fucking ridiculous. Why should Nazi germany be such a forbidden topic, especially when the parallels are becoming more and more relevant to the world we live in today? Seems that many people have lost perspective and unlearned the lessons of WWII due to this prohibition.
Well, I guess that must mean you are too stupid to infer the meaning of a slightly-poorly-worded qualifier. Or otherwise, it means you totally misread the post, and are now backpedalling on technicalities. Or you just skimmed the post and didn't read it properly.
Come to think of it, "perhaps" isn't even technically wrong in this case. It's just a different writing style. Think about it. "Perhaps" does make linguistic sense in this context.
How is copyright infringement a "rampant problem"? The copyright holders are still making millions, no-one is being directly hurt. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the world's population is starving. Pollution is everywhere, and we don't have a sustainable energy source. Violence and war is widespread.
It's pretty fucked up if "piracy" is considered a real problem in the face of all this. Oh my god, how will Metallica afford that walk-in humidor now? Won't somebody think of the mega-stars?
That's stupid. Just because Mapplethorpe has had exhibitions funded by taxpayers, that doesn't mean he relies on them. His work wasn't commissioned by the taxpayer, but he made them anyway.
In actual fact, the taxpayer funding is used to bring world-class artists like Mapplethorpe to a city for the benefit of the city, not the artist. I should also ask: why did you single out Mapplethorpe for condemnation? Why not condemn artists who are directly funded by the taxpayers via grants - not one who has just had some exhibitions funded?
Speaking as a former Boy Scout, I disagree. It seriously screws up kids, even when they aren't being raped by Scout leaders or other Scouts. Even if you don't get raped or abused in other ways, it teaches a seriously fucked-up value system.
The grandparent post said nothing about forcing beliefs on anyone. It just said we should not respect or approve of the Boy Scouts. And why the hell should we respect or approve of them?
But ... but ... that's the best time to drink!
Well, I submit that it is not. Most people won't bother to protect the environment, or exercise and eat well. Even though both of these things benefit society, as well as the individuals concerned. The problem is that most people don't know what is actually good for them, and are just greedy.
Conversely, many people do things voluntarily that are extremely damaging and not worthwhile.