When is the last time you saw someone with a cell phone from one of those so-called competitors?
This is a big market for a company to jump into. Apple may be doing well, but they are no Virgin or Walt Disney, and they don't have those kind of resources.
Apple has surprised us all before at one time or another, but I'm going to say it anyway: I don't think this would happen.
It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with how either Apple or OSS/KDE/KHTML have gone in this project. While there were high hopes that Apple's efforts would contribute significantly to khtml, of course Apple is going to taylor the project to their needs - not the needs of everybody. There's no gain for them in that. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. khtml can use these changes or not use these changes, that's its choice. If it decides not to go along with Apple (or if it can't), that's fine. Nobody should really complain about what either company/group has done.
And over that entire timespan, including the life of this new model, it has proven to NOT be an iPod killer. In fact, Creatives sales remained flat year over year last quarter, while Apple had their sales go up nearly 18%.
Re:Hmm, why doesn't this company get yelled at
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
They wanted you to virus up their servers they set up for the purpose, I believe it was.
Hmm, why doesn't this company get yelled at
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
So some mac company (I forget who offhand) offered the same type of contest, and they got screamed at. So why isn't this company getting yelled at for doing this?
I'll admit I didn't bother reading 90% of the article, but:
If (and/or when) this card is available for OSX based Mac's, I'd be interested in seeing how it ran. I'm not sure how Windows does its graphics processing, but the Mac, with every point release, seems to push more and more processing to the graphics card, so that the CPU et al does less and less. Especially with Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it's actually ENABLED in 10.4), a ton of graphics memory seems to be used, if available.
I'd certainly pay $50/yr for access to the archives. I read the NYTimes daily online, from work, and love it. And I get the print version at home. But there's many times I'm talking to someone about something, or I see something happen in the world, and I think "hey wasn't there a NYT article on that"? But then I can't get to the article without paying $2.95/article for articles older than a week, or whatever they currently charge. Which... I'm not going to do.
Somewhere in the $30-50/yr range for unlimited access to the archives seems reasonable to me though.
After reading the Pogue article (one of my favorite writers), and seeing him mention that Dashboard is like Konfabulator, I must ask this (not having yet used Tiger):
Isn't Spotlight pretty much like Launchbar? http://www.obdev.at/products/launchbar/
I'm not saying exactly, but just like Spotlight, LB you type your hotkeys (cmd-space, in my case, just like Spotlight), and just start typing and it'll bring up any file on the hd, any program, any mp3 or document, etc. It doesn't do searching inside of docs though, that's true.
We're not talking about personal sites here - if you're running ads (ok, excluding google ads, perhaps), you're a commercial entity.
Now, let's look up at the ads at the top of this page;)
Like it or not, if/. had no ads, it would not be here today.
Everyone has to pay for quality content - you pay people to write news, you pay people to manage finances and business actions, you pay people to take pictures, whatever it is that makes your site interesting takes man hours, which all cost money.
As you say, many sites are just there to reinforce other businesses - and in that case, they mostly do not run ads. IBM's website does not have ads. Apple's site does not have ads.
But your example of a news site is not really valid. Those sites are there partly to reinforce the TV brand, but they're required to make money in their own right. If they weren't, they wouldn't have ads. Sure, the TV earnings COULD pay for it, but that's not justification for running a site. "Hey lets start a website to drain earnings from our other business operations" doesn't tend to be a corporate chant. And heck, in all cases it is not true that other earnings could pay for the site - MSNBC loses money, so what's supposed to pay for their site?
They have figured out how to run them. They run ads.
This is not a matter of you passively causing sites to not make money - it is a matter of you ACTIVELY avoiding their moneymaking methods.
In the long run, it's no different than pirate software or stealing extra copies of the NY Times from the newspaper box.
Unless you plan on paying the site you're visiting for serving their content to you, I think that yes, there's some kind of social contract you're agreeing to saying that you accept their ads. Sites cannot be run for free. Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. More importantly, quality content to fill the site with costs money. You have to be willing to pay the sites you visit. If you aren't doing that in cash, then you are doing that by viewing their ads. To not do so is to cheap out, to break your contract (social or otherwise) with the site.
And using the excuse that you're annoyed by all the advertising - pop ups, pop unders, etc - is a gross generalization. The majority of sites do not use such annoying tactics. Yet adblockers block ALL ads - or at least, as many as they can.
Of course Moore's law can't hold forever - transistors can only get so small, afterall.
But what about the common belief of what the law actually says - that processors will double in speed, rather than transistors.
Granted that's an inaccurate interpretation of the law, but it's what most people think it says, outside of geek circles. And that could soldier on.
Ah, but many things can meet your needs without being the BEST solution for them. For example, I COULD run everything through a text based interface - it would meet my needs - but that doesn't mean that it would be the fastest or easiest way to do things.
Obviously that's a more extreme example, but necessary to more easily show the point.
I know how to use Windows to achieve the necessary results better than the Mac or Linux. Does that means I should never try to use the Mac or Linux? Does that mean that I won't achieve better results if I learn to properly use the Mac or Linux?
Actually yes, people are using Xserves. Without being specific, I've been saying for years that we should put them into our datacenters alongside our IBM boxes, and I just found out recently that one of our sister sites out near Denver has started installing them for some customers.
When Cell Phones were new, no one was advertising them saying you could ditch your traditional land lines. Even today, it's a small minority of people who have no land line at all.
This contrasts with VoIP, where you're quite literally replacing your traditional line. It needs to work at least as well in all respects as the traditional line, and hopefully better, not worse.
This is one of the reasons I won't switch to VOIP. Until it's at least as good in every respect, I see it as a downgrade (and of course, the 911 issue isn't the only issue with it. Power is another big one).
Slashdot Mirror
When is the last time you saw someone with a cell phone from one of those so-called competitors?
This is a big market for a company to jump into. Apple may be doing well, but they are no Virgin or Walt Disney, and they don't have those kind of resources.
Apple has surprised us all before at one time or another, but I'm going to say it anyway: I don't think this would happen.
Your guess is as good as mine as to whether this pic is real... I'm guessing no. But regardless, if it's real, wow, if it's not, it's pretty funny:
http://forum.macosx.nl/album_pic.php?pic_id=7142
It seems so obvious, doesn't it? Don't sue the people who pay your bills.
Unless you have a monopoly (or group who collectively has a monopoly) in your market (See: RIAA, MPAA)
It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with how either Apple or OSS/KDE/KHTML have gone in this project. While there were high hopes that Apple's efforts would contribute significantly to khtml, of course Apple is going to taylor the project to their needs - not the needs of everybody. There's no gain for them in that. To expect otherwise is unrealistic. khtml can use these changes or not use these changes, that's its choice. If it decides not to go along with Apple (or if it can't), that's fine. Nobody should really complain about what either company/group has done.
And over that entire timespan, including the life of this new model, it has proven to NOT be an iPod killer. In fact, Creatives sales remained flat year over year last quarter, while Apple had their sales go up nearly 18%.
They wanted you to virus up their servers they set up for the purpose, I believe it was.
So some mac company (I forget who offhand) offered the same type of contest, and they got screamed at. So why isn't this company getting yelled at for doing this?
But where do I find a jedi master to train me?
I'll admit I didn't bother reading 90% of the article, but:
If (and/or when) this card is available for OSX based Mac's, I'd be interested in seeing how it ran. I'm not sure how Windows does its graphics processing, but the Mac, with every point release, seems to push more and more processing to the graphics card, so that the CPU et al does less and less. Especially with Quartz 2D Extreme (not that it's actually ENABLED in 10.4), a ton of graphics memory seems to be used, if available.
I'd certainly pay $50/yr for access to the archives. I read the NYTimes daily online, from work, and love it. And I get the print version at home. But there's many times I'm talking to someone about something, or I see something happen in the world, and I think "hey wasn't there a NYT article on that"? But then I can't get to the article without paying $2.95/article for articles older than a week, or whatever they currently charge. Which... I'm not going to do. Somewhere in the $30-50/yr range for unlimited access to the archives seems reasonable to me though.
After reading the Pogue article (one of my favorite writers), and seeing him mention that Dashboard is like Konfabulator, I must ask this (not having yet used Tiger): Isn't Spotlight pretty much like Launchbar? http://www.obdev.at/products/launchbar/ I'm not saying exactly, but just like Spotlight, LB you type your hotkeys (cmd-space, in my case, just like Spotlight), and just start typing and it'll bring up any file on the hd, any program, any mp3 or document, etc. It doesn't do searching inside of docs though, that's true.
You make me sad ;)
But yeah, SG1, B5, both Prometheus.
Can I start a "bring back B5" campaign now? ;)
We're not talking about personal sites here - if you're running ads (ok, excluding google ads, perhaps), you're a commercial entity.
;)
/. had no ads, it would not be here today.
Now, let's look up at the ads at the top of this page
Like it or not, if
Everyone has to pay for quality content - you pay people to write news, you pay people to manage finances and business actions, you pay people to take pictures, whatever it is that makes your site interesting takes man hours, which all cost money.
As you say, many sites are just there to reinforce other businesses - and in that case, they mostly do not run ads. IBM's website does not have ads. Apple's site does not have ads.
But your example of a news site is not really valid. Those sites are there partly to reinforce the TV brand, but they're required to make money in their own right. If they weren't, they wouldn't have ads. Sure, the TV earnings COULD pay for it, but that's not justification for running a site. "Hey lets start a website to drain earnings from our other business operations" doesn't tend to be a corporate chant. And heck, in all cases it is not true that other earnings could pay for the site - MSNBC loses money, so what's supposed to pay for their site?
They have figured out how to run them. They run ads. This is not a matter of you passively causing sites to not make money - it is a matter of you ACTIVELY avoiding their moneymaking methods. In the long run, it's no different than pirate software or stealing extra copies of the NY Times from the newspaper box.
Unless you plan on paying the site you're visiting for serving their content to you, I think that yes, there's some kind of social contract you're agreeing to saying that you accept their ads. Sites cannot be run for free. Servers cost money. Bandwidth costs money. More importantly, quality content to fill the site with costs money. You have to be willing to pay the sites you visit. If you aren't doing that in cash, then you are doing that by viewing their ads. To not do so is to cheap out, to break your contract (social or otherwise) with the site. And using the excuse that you're annoyed by all the advertising - pop ups, pop unders, etc - is a gross generalization. The majority of sites do not use such annoying tactics. Yet adblockers block ALL ads - or at least, as many as they can.
Of course Moore's law can't hold forever - transistors can only get so small, afterall. But what about the common belief of what the law actually says - that processors will double in speed, rather than transistors. Granted that's an inaccurate interpretation of the law, but it's what most people think it says, outside of geek circles. And that could soldier on.
According to the News.com article, more than 3x (current Microdrives are at 6 GB, these would debut at 20 GB). 230 Gigabits per square inch.
SUPERCRAPTACULAR Act of 2005?
Ah, but many things can meet your needs without being the BEST solution for them. For example, I COULD run everything through a text based interface - it would meet my needs - but that doesn't mean that it would be the fastest or easiest way to do things.
Obviously that's a more extreme example, but necessary to more easily show the point.
I know how to use Windows to achieve the necessary results better than the Mac or Linux. Does that means I should never try to use the Mac or Linux? Does that mean that I won't achieve better results if I learn to properly use the Mac or Linux?
Actually yes, people are using Xserves. Without being specific, I've been saying for years that we should put them into our datacenters alongside our IBM boxes, and I just found out recently that one of our sister sites out near Denver has started installing them for some customers.
I don't think they are dead. But even if they were... it's the AG suing, not the family, I believe.
When Cell Phones were new, no one was advertising them saying you could ditch your traditional land lines. Even today, it's a small minority of people who have no land line at all. This contrasts with VoIP, where you're quite literally replacing your traditional line. It needs to work at least as well in all respects as the traditional line, and hopefully better, not worse. This is one of the reasons I won't switch to VOIP. Until it's at least as good in every respect, I see it as a downgrade (and of course, the 911 issue isn't the only issue with it. Power is another big one).