They didn't influence the industry with their force to USB. Sorry, I know that Mac users would like to think so but when you look at the history it is clear it made little to no difference.
To say that Apple's move to USB made little or no difference is simply not true. The original iMac did in fact influence multiple industries in terms of industrial design, and in the tech industry by popularizing the new technology in the minds of consumers. Intel mandated it on all new motherboards, but they did not prohibit the use of legacy ports. PC manufacturers took the wait-and-see attitude, and even today most PC's still include legacy ports side-by-side with USB ports. Apple jumped in with both feet, and the iMac was the first personal computer to be completely free of legacy ports. While USB peripherals had existed before, it was only after the iMac became a hit that the wave of translucent, candy-colored printers, scanners, USB floppy drives, external hard drives etc., began to appear. Not to mention pencil sharpeners, staplers, electric grills etc. Remember that phase? I don't recall seeing any plain vanilla USB peripherals in the late 90's, and consumers wanting a new printer or scanner were confronted by the plethora of brightly-colored USB peripherals. Joe Sixpack's first encounter with USB was typically with a device that had been inspired by the iMac's design.
Sounds like a very good idea - making an interface exclusive for a manufacture which makes less than 10% of the computers. That will off course make the third party appliance makers go wild and support this interface instead of USB3 which can be used with the other 90% of the computers... really a great idea.
You're absolutely correct. Like when Apple stupidly introduced the iMac back in 1998 with no floppy drive and those bizarre little USB ports. Not to mention the colors and attention to design, which flew in the face of the beige-box standard. Considering that Macintosh only had market share of around 3%, peripheral manufacturers refused to waste time and resources supporting USB, and consumers ignored the iMac because floppy drives to this day remain a must-have for personal computers. The iMac failed dramatically as predicted by tech pundits, and it will be remembered as just another inane idea by Steve Jobs. So typical of Apple, to arrogantly believe that they can influence the tech industry with their pie-in-the-sky toys.
It might be interesting to try introducing meerkats in a few areas. They're incredibly cute, and they also like to eat rodents. They also like to make burrows, and could probably invade a lot of the rodents' turfs. There are some other mongooses (mongeese?) that also have potential for urban rodent control.
The entire business of introducing non-native species to solve a local problem can be held up as a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Here in Jamaica mongooses are extremely common and have caused untold damage to native species. The British released several pairs in the 1700's with the notion that they'd breed and control the rats (another introduced species) that were a huge headache to the sugar plantations. They bred alright, but they were useless against the rats, which quickly learned that climbing trees was an effective method of avoidance. The mongooses had no natural predators and nearly drove the two species of native constrictors, the Jamaican Green Snake and the Jamaican Yellow Snake, as well as the Jamaican Iguana, to extinction. The Jamaican Iguana was thought to be extinct until a tiny remnant population was discovered a few years ago, but all three species remain critically endangered.
That being said, cats and pigs are by far the worst animals to have been introduced into many ecosystems, and between them have caused the extinction of many, many species, particularly ground-nesting birds, which have absolutely no defense against them (cats kill the nesting birds and pigs destroy the eggs).
'We could unpublish it from the catalog so that it was no longer available, but if it was very rogue then we could remove applications from handsets - we don't want things to go that far, but we could.'
"Unpublish it"? As opposed to simply de-listing it, or removing it from the catalog? "Very rogue"? I had no idea there was a spectrum of roguishness. I sincerely hope that English is his second language. I don't feel the need to correct the spelling or grammar of Slashdot commentators, but this guy is speaking on behalf of a giant corporation.
The CNN piece asks whether Microsoft is a dying consumer brand, which they clearly are, not a dying company, which they clearly are not, and it's important to note the distinction. Their brand is their corporate identity, how they are perceived by the public, and I happen to agree that consumers are thinking less and less of Microsoft. The simple fact that half of Macs purchased in Apple Stores are bought by users new to OS X speaks to this. All those new Mac owners damn sure aren't migrating from Linux, and those are all consumer machines, which means fewer average folks using Windows. Macintosh now has market share north of 10% in the U.S., up from about 3% when Jobs returned to Apple; Macintosh sales have continued to grow at a faster rate than PC sales year over year; Internet Explorer market share has fallen to approximately 50% from the high 90's in only a couple years; and with the Vista catastrophe and Kin embarassment, Microsoft is being increasingly viewed by the general public as the tech equivalent of The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Microsoft's grip on the consumer market is loosening, and if that's not a reflection of how their brand is being perceived by the public, I don't know what is.
As to the 240 million Windows 7 licenses that Mr.Softee's defenders like to point to as evidence that the company is doing well, there's no argument here. They are doing well. Very well indeed. Microsoft still makes jaw-dropping profits on astonishing revenues, mostly from their core businesses, Windows and Office. But the good news about Windows 7 uptake is largely tempered by the fact that it was due to pent-up demand from companies, not consumers, as the CNN piece points out. Companies avoided Vista like it was a child molester and chose to cling to XP until Microsoft could address the problems. They deferred their refresh cycles again when the recession took hold,and only when it became apparent that the new OS was what they'd been waiting for did they migrate to new desktops, resulting in a tsunami of sales for Windows 7. What's important to note is that it is the enterprise that's largely responsible for Windows 7's success, not consumers. So yes, while Microsoft remains extremely important to corporate customers, they are increasingly irrelevant to consumers.
Times change. Companies change. Apple dropped the "Computer" from their name a couple years ago in recognition of the fact that they are much more of a consumer electronics manufacturer now, even though Macs are still a significant part of their business. Microsoft is simply too rich and powerful to fade away overnight, and to my mind they'll eventually become much more of an enterprise services company, a la the transformation of IBM under Lou Gerstner. Apple has moved away from their roots and Microsoft has been slowly doing the same, and I haven't considered either company to be rivals for years now. Apple and Microsoft both have a common adversary in Internet services in Google, but in terms of Microsoft's core businesses, their major rival is much more Oracle than Apple.
Turns out a group mentality can culminate into an irrational act like nuclear war.
You're exactly correct. In the years leading up to World War I, the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II was an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist state seeking to make a mark in global affairs, their "place in the sun", as the Kaiser put it. England and France put aside their ancient enmity to face this new threat as allies, with France particularly thirsting for revenge after their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
[ Bismarck had orchestrated the war in order to unify the various German kingdoms into an empire under Wilhelm I, King of Prussia. After a bloody, destructive invasion of France, Wilhelm was crowned Kaiser in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, a humiliation the French never forgot. That led to them imposing harsh reparations on Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles after the German defeat in WW I, which ultimately ruined the Germany economy and fueled the ultranationalist movement in Germany, culminating in Hitler's rise to power. The seeds of World War II were sown in the War of 1870.]/digression.
People forget that the general public in Britain, France, and Germany were clamoring for war, and at the outbreak of hostilities, when Germany mobilized after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, cheering crowds filled the streets of London in celebration, prompting Foreign Secretary Edward Grey's prophetic statement: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."
As German forces streamed westward, it began to dawn on the Kaiser what he had unleashed, and he ordered his General Staff to immediately recall them, only to be told that it was far too late, and that Germany would be at a severe military disadvantage if they were to turn aside. The wheels were already in motion and England and France were eager for war; they would not accept any negotiations at such a late stage. Thus Wilhelm could only watch helplessly as the genie he released from the bottle swept across Europe and irrevocably shaped the history of the 20th Century.
Excellent analogy, thank you. And I certainly wasn't hating on Jobs, merely trying to make the point that it really doesn't matter what he's like personally. And I agree completely that his temperament is that of an artist. He's a perfectionist with a clear-cut vision of what he wants, and God help anyone who can't or won't help him achieve it.
Maybe the thief wanted access to the "unnamed professor's" data for whatever reason, but didn't feel justified in depriving him of it permanently. Maybe he also wants him to continue his research so he can steal more of it later. I'd tell him to take a good hard look at his colleagues and students.
Except that it isn't Jobs, he's a dork. I think all of the engineers and un-named employees at Apple would take exception to the perception that is being fabricated that the Dork is responsible for Apple's comeback.
As seems pretty typical of large corporations one person at the top takes credit for the brilliance of innovator's below.
Two things:
Firstly, Jobs isn't a dork, he's a jerk. An obsessive, abusive, megalomaniacal control freak, who will brook no dissent when it comes to achieving his vision (Android boss Andy Rubin likened Apple to North Korea, and it's instructive that Jobs's best friend is Larry Ellison, another brilliant, capable, world-class jerk). But what a vision it is. Ex-Apple employees have said that they have never been so concerned about being fired as when they worked at Apple, and of course there's the famous story that people are afraid to get into the elevator with him because they're terrified that they'll be unemployed by the time they reach their floor. But they also say that his vision is so compelling that they buy into it and will move heaven and earth to achieve it. Sure he's a jerk. So are Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, and many others, including Richard Stallman. But...so what? People are willing to excuse assholes if they deliver.
Secondly, he's absolutely responsible for Apple's recovery and current success, and only a fool would deny it. Sure Apple has many brilliant engineers and designers, but as CEO he's the one who sets the overall vision and direction, and decides what goes out the door, and he's been remarkably successful at it. It's well-known that there are a lot of ongoing projects that may never see the light of day if they don't fit his overall strategy, and to my mind Jobs is just as remarkable for what he doesn't ship. Remember the switch from PowerPC to x86? Many commentators were shocked to learn that Apple had ALWAYS had a parallel version of OS X ready to go if a change of architecture was necessary, and I'm willing to bet that there are mature, concurrent versions of OS X for other architectures as well, ready to go if something better comes along. Jobs is a minimalist, and is firmly of the philosophy that less is more. That philosophy is glaringly apparent, not only in the design of their hardware and software, stores, website etc, but also in the incremental addition of new features in subsequent iterations of their products. Sure they could have added copy-and-paste to the first version of iOS, but knowing Jobs, he wouldn't allow it if he felt that their implementation didn't meet his standards.
As CEO, he's responsible for more than merely shipping cool shit that the designers and engineers come up with. He has to set a vision and direct the talents of all the brilliant engineers and innovators (and marketers, retailers etc) to support his vision and Apple's business strategy. It's not enough to merely have enormous resources and armies of talent. A CEO actually has to do something with it. Why is it that Steve Ballmer is catching so much shit from analysts and investors? No one can truthfully say that Microsoft doesn't have legions of bright and talented engineers at their disposal, and they're still making obscene profits from Windows and Office, yet their stock has been flat since Gates relinquished leadership to Uncle Fester. That's a vote of no-confidence in his ability to grow Microsoft beyond their traditional markets, and with the fast-paced, fluid nature of the tech industry, it's a potentially a serious problem if they're caught flatfooted in a changewave. It's happening now with the rapid rise of mobile devices. Microsoft were left flailing by the success of iPhone and iPad, and Windows Phone 7 is seen as their last ditch attempt to remain relevant in that space. There have been rumblings that Ballmer will be removed if it fails in the market, and he desperately needs a monumental smash hit following his expensive, painful failures with Vista, Zun
My eldest niece is now 25 years old and suffers from cerebral palsy. It's easy to make fun of people with special needs, but it's an insulting slap in the face to their heroic caregivers. When I think about the endless love, countless hours of attention, and enormous amounts of money my brother and sister-in-law spent on their child and the heartache they endured, to have some smug, basement-dwelling maggot going for the cheap laughs enrages me to the point that I want to rip their eyeballs out through their assholes.
After a function in Washington D.C. which was attended by former presidents Carter, Ford, and Nixon, then-Senator Bob Dole famously quipped, "Last night Washington was treated to the presence of three former inhabitants of the White House: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Evil."
I can't help but feel that he could have been describing Google, Facebook and Microsoft: Don't Be Evil, Privacy is Evil, and Evil.
Better start responding to all those emails where they need help transferring money in from those swish bank accounts.
I'm aware that businesses are tailoring services to narrower demographics, but I had no idea that there were financial institutions that catered solely to drag queens.
Give a problem to a soldier and they'll charge at it until its fixed. If its a machine gun nest, they'll keep charging until they run out of bodies. No questions asked.
I don't know where to begin to address this ridiculous idea. I served in the U.S. Army Infantry in the 80's and I'm willing to bet that I know a hell of a lot more combat veterans than you do. This notion that the military wants mindless automatons who follow orders without question is so utterly at odds with the the training I received that it's laughable. One of the most prized characteristics a soldier or Marine can possess is the ability to improvise, especially under pressure (read: people shooting at you).
Contrary to popular belief fostered by countless poorly made war movies, combat units don't exist merely to break things and hurt people. It's about the mission, and they accomplish their mission by the threat of force, and failing that, by its application. The major reason fighting men and women put themselves in harm's way is not out of some sense of bravado or a thirst for glory. It's for the bonds of brotherhood they feel with their comrades and the reluctance to let them down by not doing their jobs.
Many geeks tend to be loners, and in my experience have an inflated sense of superiority over those they consider to possess a lesser intellect. They tend to have zero understanding of the leap of faith required to put their very lives in someone else's hands, and conversely to accept that the lives of their buddies depend on their performing their part, no matter the personal dangers they may face. People who have never served don't truly understand the willingness to sacrifice for the greater good: the lives of your brothers; the successful completion of your mission; the knowledge that your mission is an essential part of a greater effort.
I had the privilege of serving with many true warriors, men who desire peace above all and truly believed that a warrior's role is to end war, and if it's necessary to fight, to accomplish their mission with the minimum of bloodshed. These men adhered to the philosophy that the ultimate expression of the warrior ethic is to mold themselves through hard training, sacrifice, and an almost ascetic self-discipline, into weapons that a potential adversary would be loath to face, thereby avoiding conflict altogether. Nations start wars for one reason, and one reason only: because they think they can win. True warriors frown on wars of aggression and consider the outbreak of war to be a dramatic failure of political leadership, on one or both sides. In my experience, being both a warrior and a pacifist is not a dichotomy. And let me add that not all warriors carry weapons. Warriors are those willing to sacrifice for something greater. Firefighters, cops, nurses, teachers, EMT's count many warriors among their number, and in my view Richard Stallman is absolutely a warrior.
Give a similar problem to a geek and they'll examine the problem and devise a solution that keeps their ass from getting shot off. And they'll push back if the orders don't make sense.
Any leader worth his salt will also devise a solution that minimizes the danger to his men, while also accomplishing the mission. On July 1st, 1916, the opening day of the Battle of the Somme, the British Army marched across no man's land, rifles at the ready, dress-right-dress in perfect formation, toward the German positions. The acres of barbed wire channeled them into tight masses towards the few gaps, which German machine gunners had already ranged. The British suffered 26,000 casualties that day, the worst one-day loss in their long military history. Even though the high command were fully aware that 17th Century-style mass attacks were useless against automatic weapons, they discounted the machine guns and refused to alter their traditional tactics. Notably, one young British officer ordered his men to advance across t
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware that there are multiple moons, but there's only one named "the Moon" (I did capitalize).
...it's a space station.
So apropos for once.
Actually it is a moon AND a space station.
Actually it's THE Moon and THE Space Station.
Amazingly appropriate, considering that the very next Slashdot story is about Pink Floyd.
[For all you mystified young 'uns, Locke2005 posted the complete lyrics for Eclipse from Dark Side of the Moon.]
Unless the submitter is a lesbian I call shenanigans.
I mean, isn't that the accepted leetspeak spelling for "crap"?
In this case the bug is the feature.
To say that Apple's move to USB made little or no difference is simply not true. The original iMac did in fact influence multiple industries in terms of industrial design, and in the tech industry by popularizing the new technology in the minds of consumers. Intel mandated it on all new motherboards, but they did not prohibit the use of legacy ports. PC manufacturers took the wait-and-see attitude, and even today most PC's still include legacy ports side-by-side with USB ports. Apple jumped in with both feet, and the iMac was the first personal computer to be completely free of legacy ports. While USB peripherals had existed before, it was only after the iMac became a hit that the wave of translucent, candy-colored printers, scanners, USB floppy drives, external hard drives etc., began to appear. Not to mention pencil sharpeners, staplers, electric grills etc. Remember that phase? I don't recall seeing any plain vanilla USB peripherals in the late 90's, and consumers wanting a new printer or scanner were confronted by the plethora of brightly-colored USB peripherals. Joe Sixpack's first encounter with USB was typically with a device that had been inspired by the iMac's design.
You're absolutely correct. Like when Apple stupidly introduced the iMac back in 1998 with no floppy drive and those bizarre little USB ports. Not to mention the colors and attention to design, which flew in the face of the beige-box standard. Considering that Macintosh only had market share of around 3%, peripheral manufacturers refused to waste time and resources supporting USB, and consumers ignored the iMac because floppy drives to this day remain a must-have for personal computers. The iMac failed dramatically as predicted by tech pundits, and it will be remembered as just another inane idea by Steve Jobs. So typical of Apple, to arrogantly believe that they can influence the tech industry with their pie-in-the-sky toys.
Wait...
The entire business of introducing non-native species to solve a local problem can be held up as a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Here in Jamaica mongooses are extremely common and have caused untold damage to native species. The British released several pairs in the 1700's with the notion that they'd breed and control the rats (another introduced species) that were a huge headache to the sugar plantations. They bred alright, but they were useless against the rats, which quickly learned that climbing trees was an effective method of avoidance. The mongooses had no natural predators and nearly drove the two species of native constrictors, the Jamaican Green Snake and the Jamaican Yellow Snake, as well as the Jamaican Iguana, to extinction. The Jamaican Iguana was thought to be extinct until a tiny remnant population was discovered a few years ago, but all three species remain critically endangered.
That being said, cats and pigs are by far the worst animals to have been introduced into many ecosystems, and between them have caused the extinction of many, many species, particularly ground-nesting birds, which have absolutely no defense against them (cats kill the nesting birds and pigs destroy the eggs).
Ah. Thank you for the corollary. I should have made it explicit that I was referring to normal usage scenarios, not manual override.
Well let's see. If you're a typical Slashdot denizen it's never been used and 3.5 inch floppy is standard.
You should clear just enough to buy some razor blades to slit your wrists.
In Soviet Russia cash abandons YOU!
I'm so very very sorry. It's a compulsion. I'll let myself out now.
Please. Don't look at me like that...
"Unpublish it"? As opposed to simply de-listing it, or removing it from the catalog? "Very rogue"? I had no idea there was a spectrum of roguishness. I sincerely hope that English is his second language. I don't feel the need to correct the spelling or grammar of Slashdot commentators, but this guy is speaking on behalf of a giant corporation.
Which is a should be a relief for most people here. From what I've seen they only possess a handful of brain cells to begin with.
The CNN piece asks whether Microsoft is a dying consumer brand , which they clearly are, not a dying company , which they clearly are not, and it's important to note the distinction. Their brand is their corporate identity, how they are perceived by the public, and I happen to agree that consumers are thinking less and less of Microsoft. The simple fact that half of Macs purchased in Apple Stores are bought by users new to OS X speaks to this. All those new Mac owners damn sure aren't migrating from Linux, and those are all consumer machines, which means fewer average folks using Windows. Macintosh now has market share north of 10% in the U.S., up from about 3% when Jobs returned to Apple; Macintosh sales have continued to grow at a faster rate than PC sales year over year; Internet Explorer market share has fallen to approximately 50% from the high 90's in only a couple years; and with the Vista catastrophe and Kin embarassment, Microsoft is being increasingly viewed by the general public as the tech equivalent of The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Microsoft's grip on the consumer market is loosening, and if that's not a reflection of how their brand is being perceived by the public, I don't know what is.
As to the 240 million Windows 7 licenses that Mr.Softee's defenders like to point to as evidence that the company is doing well, there's no argument here. They are doing well. Very well indeed. Microsoft still makes jaw-dropping profits on astonishing revenues, mostly from their core businesses, Windows and Office. But the good news about Windows 7 uptake is largely tempered by the fact that it was due to pent-up demand from companies, not consumers, as the CNN piece points out. Companies avoided Vista like it was a child molester and chose to cling to XP until Microsoft could address the problems. They deferred their refresh cycles again when the recession took hold,and only when it became apparent that the new OS was what they'd been waiting for did they migrate to new desktops, resulting in a tsunami of sales for Windows 7. What's important to note is that it is the enterprise that's largely responsible for Windows 7's success, not consumers. So yes, while Microsoft remains extremely important to corporate customers, they are increasingly irrelevant to consumers.
Times change. Companies change. Apple dropped the "Computer" from their name a couple years ago in recognition of the fact that they are much more of a consumer electronics manufacturer now, even though Macs are still a significant part of their business. Microsoft is simply too rich and powerful to fade away overnight, and to my mind they'll eventually become much more of an enterprise services company, a la the transformation of IBM under Lou Gerstner. Apple has moved away from their roots and Microsoft has been slowly doing the same, and I haven't considered either company to be rivals for years now. Apple and Microsoft both have a common adversary in Internet services in Google, but in terms of Microsoft's core businesses, their major rival is much more Oracle than Apple.
You're exactly correct. In the years leading up to World War I, the German Empire under Kaiser Wilhelm II was an aggressive, militaristic, expansionist state seeking to make a mark in global affairs, their "place in the sun", as the Kaiser put it. England and France put aside their ancient enmity to face this new threat as allies, with France particularly thirsting for revenge after their humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
[ Bismarck had orchestrated the war in order to unify the various German kingdoms into an empire under Wilhelm I, King of Prussia. After a bloody, destructive invasion of France, Wilhelm was crowned Kaiser in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, a humiliation the French never forgot. That led to them imposing harsh reparations on Germany under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles after the German defeat in WW I, which ultimately ruined the Germany economy and fueled the ultranationalist movement in Germany, culminating in Hitler's rise to power. The seeds of World War II were sown in the War of 1870.]/digression.
People forget that the general public in Britain, France, and Germany were clamoring for war, and at the outbreak of hostilities, when Germany mobilized after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, cheering crowds filled the streets of London in celebration, prompting Foreign Secretary Edward Grey's prophetic statement: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime."
As German forces streamed westward, it began to dawn on the Kaiser what he had unleashed, and he ordered his General Staff to immediately recall them, only to be told that it was far too late, and that Germany would be at a severe military disadvantage if they were to turn aside. The wheels were already in motion and England and France were eager for war; they would not accept any negotiations at such a late stage. Thus Wilhelm could only watch helplessly as the genie he released from the bottle swept across Europe and irrevocably shaped the history of the 20th Century.
Excellent analogy, thank you. And I certainly wasn't hating on Jobs, merely trying to make the point that it really doesn't matter what he's like personally. And I agree completely that his temperament is that of an artist. He's a perfectionist with a clear-cut vision of what he wants, and God help anyone who can't or won't help him achieve it.
Maybe the thief wanted access to the "unnamed professor's" data for whatever reason, but didn't feel justified in depriving him of it permanently. Maybe he also wants him to continue his research so he can steal more of it later. I'd tell him to take a good hard look at his colleagues and students.
Two things:
Firstly, Jobs isn't a dork, he's a jerk. An obsessive, abusive, megalomaniacal control freak, who will brook no dissent when it comes to achieving his vision (Android boss Andy Rubin likened Apple to North Korea, and it's instructive that Jobs's best friend is Larry Ellison, another brilliant, capable, world-class jerk). But what a vision it is. Ex-Apple employees have said that they have never been so concerned about being fired as when they worked at Apple, and of course there's the famous story that people are afraid to get into the elevator with him because they're terrified that they'll be unemployed by the time they reach their floor. But they also say that his vision is so compelling that they buy into it and will move heaven and earth to achieve it. Sure he's a jerk. So are Ellison, Zuckerberg, Gates, and many others, including Richard Stallman. But...so what? People are willing to excuse assholes if they deliver.
Secondly, he's absolutely responsible for Apple's recovery and current success, and only a fool would deny it. Sure Apple has many brilliant engineers and designers, but as CEO he's the one who sets the overall vision and direction, and decides what goes out the door, and he's been remarkably successful at it. It's well-known that there are a lot of ongoing projects that may never see the light of day if they don't fit his overall strategy, and to my mind Jobs is just as remarkable for what he doesn't ship. Remember the switch from PowerPC to x86? Many commentators were shocked to learn that Apple had ALWAYS had a parallel version of OS X ready to go if a change of architecture was necessary, and I'm willing to bet that there are mature, concurrent versions of OS X for other architectures as well, ready to go if something better comes along. Jobs is a minimalist, and is firmly of the philosophy that less is more. That philosophy is glaringly apparent, not only in the design of their hardware and software, stores, website etc, but also in the incremental addition of new features in subsequent iterations of their products. Sure they could have added copy-and-paste to the first version of iOS, but knowing Jobs, he wouldn't allow it if he felt that their implementation didn't meet his standards.
As CEO, he's responsible for more than merely shipping cool shit that the designers and engineers come up with. He has to set a vision and direct the talents of all the brilliant engineers and innovators (and marketers, retailers etc) to support his vision and Apple's business strategy. It's not enough to merely have enormous resources and armies of talent. A CEO actually has to do something with it. Why is it that Steve Ballmer is catching so much shit from analysts and investors? No one can truthfully say that Microsoft doesn't have legions of bright and talented engineers at their disposal, and they're still making obscene profits from Windows and Office, yet their stock has been flat since Gates relinquished leadership to Uncle Fester. That's a vote of no-confidence in his ability to grow Microsoft beyond their traditional markets, and with the fast-paced, fluid nature of the tech industry, it's a potentially a serious problem if they're caught flatfooted in a changewave. It's happening now with the rapid rise of mobile devices. Microsoft were left flailing by the success of iPhone and iPad, and Windows Phone 7 is seen as their last ditch attempt to remain relevant in that space. There have been rumblings that Ballmer will be removed if it fails in the market, and he desperately needs a monumental smash hit following his expensive, painful failures with Vista, Zun
My eldest niece is now 25 years old and suffers from cerebral palsy. It's easy to make fun of people with special needs, but it's an insulting slap in the face to their heroic caregivers. When I think about the endless love, countless hours of attention, and enormous amounts of money my brother and sister-in-law spent on their child and the heartache they endured, to have some smug, basement-dwelling maggot going for the cheap laughs enrages me to the point that I want to rip their eyeballs out through their assholes.
Oh, and fuck you too.
No wonder you posted anonymously you smegma-munching flatworm.
After a function in Washington D.C. which was attended by former presidents Carter, Ford, and Nixon, then-Senator Bob Dole famously quipped, "Last night Washington was treated to the presence of three former inhabitants of the White House: See No Evil, Hear No Evil, and Evil."
I can't help but feel that he could have been describing Google, Facebook and Microsoft: Don't Be Evil, Privacy is Evil, and Evil.
I'm aware that businesses are tailoring services to narrower demographics, but I had no idea that there were financial institutions that catered solely to drag queens.
I don't know where to begin to address this ridiculous idea. I served in the U.S. Army Infantry in the 80's and I'm willing to bet that I know a hell of a lot more combat veterans than you do. This notion that the military wants mindless automatons who follow orders without question is so utterly at odds with the the training I received that it's laughable. One of the most prized characteristics a soldier or Marine can possess is the ability to improvise, especially under pressure (read: people shooting at you).
Contrary to popular belief fostered by countless poorly made war movies, combat units don't exist merely to break things and hurt people. It's about the mission, and they accomplish their mission by the threat of force, and failing that, by its application. The major reason fighting men and women put themselves in harm's way is not out of some sense of bravado or a thirst for glory. It's for the bonds of brotherhood they feel with their comrades and the reluctance to let them down by not doing their jobs.
Many geeks tend to be loners, and in my experience have an inflated sense of superiority over those they consider to possess a lesser intellect. They tend to have zero understanding of the leap of faith required to put their very lives in someone else's hands, and conversely to accept that the lives of their buddies depend on their performing their part, no matter the personal dangers they may face. People who have never served don't truly understand the willingness to sacrifice for the greater good: the lives of your brothers; the successful completion of your mission; the knowledge that your mission is an essential part of a greater effort.
I had the privilege of serving with many true warriors, men who desire peace above all and truly believed that a warrior's role is to end war, and if it's necessary to fight, to accomplish their mission with the minimum of bloodshed. These men adhered to the philosophy that the ultimate expression of the warrior ethic is to mold themselves through hard training, sacrifice, and an almost ascetic self-discipline, into weapons that a potential adversary would be loath to face, thereby avoiding conflict altogether. Nations start wars for one reason, and one reason only: because they think they can win. True warriors frown on wars of aggression and consider the outbreak of war to be a dramatic failure of political leadership, on one or both sides. In my experience, being both a warrior and a pacifist is not a dichotomy. And let me add that not all warriors carry weapons. Warriors are those willing to sacrifice for something greater. Firefighters, cops, nurses, teachers, EMT's count many warriors among their number, and in my view Richard Stallman is absolutely a warrior.
Any leader worth his salt will also devise a solution that minimizes the danger to his men, while also accomplishing the mission. On July 1st, 1916, the opening day of the Battle of the Somme, the British Army marched across no man's land, rifles at the ready, dress-right-dress in perfect formation, toward the German positions. The acres of barbed wire channeled them into tight masses towards the few gaps, which German machine gunners had already ranged. The British suffered 26,000 casualties that day, the worst one-day loss in their long military history. Even though the high command were fully aware that 17th Century-style mass attacks were useless against automatic weapons, they discounted the machine guns and refused to alter their traditional tactics. Notably, one young British officer ordered his men to advance across t
"...but it sure can buy a yacht big enough to sail right up next to it."
- David Lee Roth