Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information about what was presented and said. Its also manipulative if you are doing it because you have some axe to grind.
Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew. Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game.
Rewriting the dictionary won't make you an honest person or a person of integrity.
Dishonesty is a characteristic not a name.
In addition to your dishonesty your attitude towards ownership of property marketed in digital form suggests that you don't respect other peoples property when you think that its socially acceptable not to.
You seem to think that Apple is so bad that its OK to deliberately misrepresent them by posting distorted information on slashdot, to the point of representing yourself as different people, to the point of rewriting the dictionary, etc.
You are confused. This isn't an argument and on your end its was never about facts.
I suppose that defining things in just the right way in your own mind
allows you to maintain the pretense of integrity even if the reference you
cited did say what you are asserting.
The bottom line is that you deliberately misrepresent information
and yourself.
Its called dishonesty.
You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe.
Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry.
In order to attract customers so that they can make a profit they do their
best to make this as easy on their customers as possible. They also have to
do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term
ability to do the business they want to do.
Additionally, DRM has some basis in legitimate ownership of real products
products that happen to have digital form. You may not like the current law regarding DRM
and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for
something satanic. Its something to be understood and improved to everyone's benefit.
Apple is a business and they are in business to make money.
They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit
company. You seem to think that there is something nefarious about
this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with
Apple.
On the reality distortion field issue.
Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business
because they've go most users believing that they are getting what
they deserve (screwed) for their money. They've got their customers confused
between what they do deliver and what they promise to deliver in the future,
between the graphic appearance of functionality and the real functionality, between
quality software and abusive garbage and between numerical hardware specifications
and real integrated hardware-software functionality.
The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS
and the open source movement. They want to deny peoples right to ownership of their
intellectual property.
as a for profit company. Why are you so offended by that.
The biggest reality distortion fields in this industry
The original article is wrong in that it asserts a negative that is directly contradicted by the article it sites. Steve Jobs did not disallow the possibility that the iphone would accept 3rd party apps.
If you don't "see" the reasoning that I see for the controlled environment based on what Jobs said then I was wrong in what I said about what "you can see". You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry to have so grossly misrepresented you.
You might see it if unlike the author of this little article you read both quotes in the extraction from the times article from end to end. If you know about software engineering that meets the standards that he's talking about and if you've ever had to use or write software with those requirements then you would see what I see with the same clarity. If you want to conclude that he's not giving all his reasons or that he is diverting attention from his main reasons then that is quite possible but its also a different issue.
What Steve Jobs actually said about 3rd Party Apps
on
iPhone Not Running OS X
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The following is taken verbatim from the NY Times interview article
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
So he's saying that Apple and possibly others might write software for the iPhone. From what Jobs said you can see that the emphasis will be on control to ensure that all Apps are very robust so that the phone works reliably.
Context is important here. To some extent Steve Jobs is necessary to to offset the other maniacs driving the tech industry.
I think that the real question is something like: What would happen if RMS choked to death on a sandwich and Linus decided that he was tired effing with the Linux kernal, Bill Gates decided to screw the public some other way and Steve Jobs got fired.
Having removed the manic drivers from the playing field you are left with looking at the products in hand.
Microsoft will probably self-destruct over time no matter what Bill Gates does. It will take a long time for this to happen so in a way it should be of no great concern to the faithful. In trying to follow everyone else its lost its way.
The Open Source movement has a chance but it has to find a viable economic model to go along with the idea of freedom software. Economics isn't RMS's strong suit. He's basically a software socialist and can't seem to see any other possibilities.
Apple has good products that its growing base of faithful customers like. It is diversifying into consumer electronics and recognizes that more buttons and features does not make a better product. As long as they keep a focus on end user functionality they won't need Jobs.
I'm beginning to think that the slashdot website is degenerating into a trollsite.
This time I didn't bother to read the article because I've read enough of Arstechnica's twisted spew to conclude that the excuse-for-content of the entire article can be extrapolated from the title.
Almost every Arstechnica posting I've read via slashdot is some sort political or religious rant posturing as an informative article. The deliberate distortion combined with aggressive ignorance in these articles is nauseating.
Is there a single writer for that mag over the emotional age of 6.
For a better excuse for technology information go to www.digg.com
Yes the Mac adverts are annoying if you don't like to hear about how Apple is delivering products that really appeal to the home user in functionality, user interfaces, and language that they can relate to and get excited about.
The article is basically an MS fan boy whining about the fact that Apple is producing a superior user end experience without regard for how the underlying technology as characterized by geeks. His level of annoyance is basic acknowledgment that his idols are not looking too good in the face of the competition.
In the process of whining and expressing his hope the MS will eventually care about end users in a meaningful way he is arguing that differences in OS's are a non issue. I take this as an expression of dismay and implicit acknowledgment on his part that the OS quality war is over and that OS X has won.
In fact the superiority of OS X will play a key role in coming developments. OS X is a large part of the foundation for delivering that user experience that Apple is rightfully proud of. The iPhone runs some form of OS X and the implications of that for Apple and its customers is going to be big.
As a matter of fact Apple can deliver a better user experience than MS on MS Windows. The iPod and the new iPhone deliver better user functionality through the iTunes software on a PC than MS is delivering on the Zune on their own operating system. Even considering the fact that the Zune is a first generation product MS should be embarrassed by the quality of the end user experience they're delivering with this over priced geek featured product that only works with a PC in an operating system that MS produces and controls.
To listen to Bill Gates talk about this stuff at CES with all the passion, excitement and vision that he would bring to bear on a discussion of bowel movements really should give everyone a clue. Give me the the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field any day over Gates' mind deadening discussion of how MS is going to provide businesses with mundanized technology that has been poorly copied form people with passion and vision for the future of technology and its real promise for improving our lives. The very name that MS is giving their new product, Home Server, suggests that MS leadership remains without clue, vision, or a shred of passion about the user end experience that they are trying emulate.
As long as creative, passionate and visionary people are on the playing field MS will never be be able to fully realize their dream of an MS tax that must be paid by any technology user without regard for what MS delivers.
The biggest Reality Distortion Field overlaying the technology industry today is the one generated by MS in getting their customers to believe that they are getting what they deserve for their money.
"I thought, I don't really know that much about software development."
Thats right Dorothy, you and Toto aren't in Kansas anymore. There's this evil thing called software engineering ( sometimes referred to by prominent freedom coders as "the wicked witch" ).
Is there a correlation between the level of formal software engineering education and the belief that software should be free ?
Fantastic technology for its day. The ROM kernal manuals were a great way to learn about an efficient real-world real-time multi-tasking system with a built in graphics system. It was truly fantastic.
Today I use OS X and for different reasons I think that it is equally great technology for its day.
I believe that Mr. Balmer is trying to say is that without regard for how software is packaged and without regard for whether it is freed or enslaved Microsoft intends to make money from it. There is nothing wrong with this and even the right reverand RMS would probably not have a problem with this. Incidentally, most worthwhile software will never be "free" as in "beer".
Hire someone to do your web pages while you focus on learning enough about anything to generate useful content (a problem more closely related though, by your own admission, not directly related to your actual job.
You lost me. I looked up the definition of conformist and insecure just to make sure that the definitions hadn't changed. Here is the scoop.
Conformists tend to do what most other people do, i.e. they conform. In this case that is Windows. Insecure people don't choose something different from what everyone else has chosen. They choose what most other people have chosen, Windows in this case, so that they don't have to defend their choice as much.
The bass ackwards thing that you are saying would only make sense to you if you thought that it were apparent to everyone that Apple makes superior products. If that were the case then it might make some sort of sense for an insecure person to feel comfortable buying an Apple but even then the sheer numbers of Windows users would make them feel insecure.
If someone or a company, as a disinterested party providing a professional service, paid you as an otherwise disinterested party to develop an honest opinion about something then that could be a very useful opinion and it could be reasonable, assuming a qualified professional effort, to value that opinion.
If someone pays you to give them an honest opinion about them or their stuff then its an entirely different matter and if you can't see the conflict in that then there isn't much else to say to you regarding the matter.
Regarding professionalism: The oldest known professionals will, when you give them money, gladly give you "honest" opinions about yourself and take extra effort to make sure that you know just how honest and sincere they are about those opinions.
The article gives a useful appraisal of Linux for anyone wanting to try it as a desktop OS. For the reasons given in this article we use Linux on our compute server and OS X on our desktops. The combination of OS X and Linux works well and we believe that is a lower hassle/cost solution for our needs than using Windows for everything.
The authors implicit belief that Windows gives easy compatibility and ease of use is a socially acceptable belief that is not based on the realities of Windows use. On a typical Windows desktop there is almost always something inexplicably malfunctioning. These malfunctions regularly swallow gobs of time and/or support staff. On top of that, using the Windows interface is like walking in shoes with a little bit of sand in them. The shoes look fine and are arguably as good as any others but you can't get the sand out and wearing them generates an ambient stress level that the user mistakenly comes to ignore/accept as the price for wearing shoes.
I often hear Windows and Office users say that they have "no problems" using these products. A threshold of pain that high can only be achieved through the removal of most of the nervous endings via the wallet.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not interested in facts.
Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information
about what was presented and said. Its also manipulative if you are doing it
because you have some axe to grind.
Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew.
Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game.
Rewriting the dictionary won't make you an honest person or a person of integrity.
Dishonesty is a characteristic not a name.
In addition to your dishonesty your attitude towards ownership of property marketed in digital form
suggests that you don't respect other peoples property when you think that its socially acceptable not to.
You seem to think that Apple is so bad that its OK to deliberately
misrepresent them by posting distorted information on slashdot,
to the point of representing yourself as different people, to the point of rewriting the dictionary, etc.
You are confused. This isn't an argument and on your end its was never about facts.
I suppose that defining things in just the right way in your own mind allows you to maintain the pretense of integrity even if the reference you cited did say what you are asserting. The bottom line is that you deliberately misrepresent information and yourself. Its called dishonesty.
You are also a dishonest person.
You just contradicted yourself.
So are you still asserting that Steve Jobs said that 3rd party apps aren't going to be allowed ?
So are both accounts yours ?
Did you write the article misrepresenting what Jobs actually said about 3rd party apps and then make up the name dfgjk to hide your embarassment.
You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe. Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry. In order to attract customers so that they can make a profit they do their best to make this as easy on their customers as possible. They also have to do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term ability to do the business they want to do. Additionally, DRM has some basis in legitimate ownership of real products products that happen to have digital form. You may not like the current law regarding DRM and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for something satanic. Its something to be understood and improved to everyone's benefit. Apple is a business and they are in business to make money. They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit company. You seem to think that there is something nefarious about this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with Apple. On the reality distortion field issue. Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business because they've go most users believing that they are getting what they deserve (screwed) for their money. They've got their customers confused between what they do deliver and what they promise to deliver in the future, between the graphic appearance of functionality and the real functionality, between quality software and abusive garbage and between numerical hardware specifications and real integrated hardware-software functionality. The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS and the open source movement. They want to deny peoples right to ownership of their intellectual property. as a for profit company. Why are you so offended by that. The biggest reality distortion fields in this industry
The original article is wrong in that it asserts a negative that is directly contradicted by the article it
sites. Steve Jobs did not disallow the possibility that the iphone would accept 3rd party apps.
If you don't "see" the reasoning that I see for the controlled environment based on what Jobs said
then I was wrong in what I said about what "you can see". You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry
to have so grossly misrepresented you.
You might see it if unlike the author of this little article you read both quotes in the extraction from
the times article from end to end. If you know about software engineering that meets the standards that he's talking
about and if you've ever had to use or write software with those requirements then you would see what I see with
the same clarity. If you want to conclude that he's not giving all his reasons or that he is diverting
attention from his main reasons then that is quite possible but its also a different issue.
The following is taken verbatim from the NY Times interview article
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
So he's saying that Apple and possibly others might write software for the iPhone. From what Jobs said
you can see that the emphasis will be on control to ensure that all Apps are very robust so that the phone
works reliably.
Context is important here. To some extent Steve Jobs is necessary to
to offset the other maniacs driving the tech industry.
I think that the real question is something like:
What would happen if RMS choked to death on a sandwich and Linus decided
that he was tired effing with the Linux kernal, Bill Gates decided to screw the
public some other way and Steve Jobs got fired.
Having removed the manic drivers from the playing field you are left with looking
at the products in hand.
Microsoft will probably self-destruct over time no matter what Bill Gates does. It will take a long time for this to happen
so in a way it should be of no great concern to the faithful. In trying to follow everyone else its lost its way.
The Open Source movement has a chance but it has to find a viable economic model to
go along with the idea of freedom software. Economics isn't RMS's strong suit. He's basically
a software socialist and can't seem to see any other possibilities.
Apple has good products that its growing base of faithful customers like. It is diversifying
into consumer electronics and recognizes that more buttons and features does not make
a better product. As long as they keep a focus on end user functionality they won't need Jobs.
I'm beginning to think that the slashdot website is degenerating into a trollsite.
This time I didn't bother to read the article because I've read enough of
Arstechnica's twisted spew to conclude that the excuse-for-content
of the entire article can be extrapolated from the title.
Almost every Arstechnica posting I've read via slashdot is some sort
political or religious rant posturing as an informative article.
The deliberate distortion combined with aggressive ignorance in these articles is nauseating.
Is there a single writer for that mag over the emotional age of 6.
For a better excuse for technology information go to www.digg.com
Yes the Mac adverts are annoying if you don't like to hear
about how Apple is delivering products that really appeal to the home
user in functionality, user interfaces, and language that they can
relate to and get excited about.
The article is basically an MS fan boy whining about
the fact that Apple is producing a superior user end experience
without regard for how the underlying technology as characterized
by geeks. His level of annoyance is basic acknowledgment that
his idols are not looking too good in the face of the competition.
In the process of whining and expressing his hope the MS will eventually care
about end users in a meaningful way he is arguing that differences in OS's are a non issue.
I take this as an expression of dismay and implicit acknowledgment on his part that the
OS quality war is over and that OS X has won.
In fact the superiority of OS X will play a key role in coming developments. OS X is a
large part of the foundation for delivering that user experience that Apple
is rightfully proud of. The iPhone runs some form of OS X and the implications
of that for Apple and its customers is going to be big.
As a matter of fact Apple can deliver a better user experience than MS on MS Windows.
The iPod and the new iPhone deliver better user functionality through the iTunes software on a PC
than MS is delivering on the Zune on their own operating system. Even considering the fact that the Zune is a
first generation product MS should be embarrassed by the quality of the end user experience they're delivering with this
over priced geek featured product that only works with a PC in an operating system that MS produces and controls.
To listen to Bill Gates talk about this stuff at CES with all the passion, excitement
and vision that he would bring to bear on a discussion of bowel movements
really should give everyone a clue. Give me the the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field any day
over Gates' mind deadening discussion of how MS is going to provide
businesses with mundanized technology that has been poorly copied form people with passion and vision for
the future of technology and its real promise for improving our lives. The very name that MS is giving their
new product, Home Server, suggests that MS leadership remains without clue, vision, or a shred
of passion about the user end experience that they are trying emulate.
As long as creative, passionate and visionary people are on the playing field
MS will never be be able to fully realize their dream of an MS tax that must be paid by any
technology user without regard for what MS delivers.
The biggest Reality Distortion Field overlaying the technology industry today
is the one generated by MS in getting their customers to believe that they are getting what they deserve for
their money.
"I thought, I don't really know that much about software development."
Thats right Dorothy, you and Toto aren't in Kansas anymore. There's this evil thing called
software engineering ( sometimes referred to by prominent freedom coders as "the wicked witch" ).
Is there a correlation between the level of formal software engineering education and the belief that software
should be free ?
Fantastic technology for its day.
The ROM kernal manuals were a great way to learn about an
efficient real-world real-time multi-tasking system with a built in graphics system.
It was truly fantastic.
Today I use OS X and for different reasons I think that it is equally great technology
for its day.
I believe that Mr. Balmer is trying to say is that without regard for how software is packaged and without regard for whether it is freed or enslaved Microsoft intends to make money from it. There is nothing wrong with this and even the right reverand RMS would probably not have a problem with this.
Incidentally, most worthwhile software will never be "free" as in "beer".
I hate Microsoft
Hire someone to do your web pages while you focus on learning enough about anything to
generate useful content (a problem more closely related though, by your own admission, not
directly related to your actual job.
You lost me. I looked up the definition of conformist and insecure
just to make sure that the definitions hadn't changed. Here is the
scoop.
Conformists tend to do what most other people do, i.e. they conform. In this case
that is Windows. Insecure people don't choose something different
from what everyone else has chosen. They choose what most other people
have chosen, Windows in this case,
so that they don't have to defend their choice as much.
The bass ackwards thing that you are saying would only make sense to you
if you thought that it were apparent to everyone that Apple makes superior products.
If that were the case then it might make some sort of sense
for an insecure person to feel comfortable buying an Apple but even then
the sheer numbers of Windows users would make them feel insecure.
Why would a prostitute tell you that you are handsome even if you aren't ?
Because you paid them.
If someone or a company, as a disinterested party providing a professional service,
paid you as an otherwise disinterested party to develop an honest opinion about something then
that could be a very useful opinion and it could be reasonable, assuming a qualified professional
effort, to value that opinion.
If someone pays you to give them an honest opinion about them or their stuff then its an entirely
different matter and if you can't see the conflict in that then there isn't much else to say to you
regarding the matter.
Regarding professionalism: The oldest known professionals will, when you give them money,
gladly give you "honest" opinions about yourself and take extra effort to make sure that you know
just how honest and sincere they are about those opinions.
I think that you are missing the point of many people's objections to this
and other published technical opinions.
Why would anyone trust your opinion about anything when
you freely admit that Microsoft bought your opinion ?
Finally. A sensible explanation of my experience with neighbors.
Thanks. I now have a new and powerful handle on coping with HOAs.
Don't confuse interbreeding with the effects of overspanking the monkey.
The article gives a useful appraisal of Linux for anyone wanting to try it as a desktop OS. For the reasons given in this article we use Linux on our compute server and OS X on our desktops. The combination of OS X and Linux works well and we believe that is a lower hassle/cost solution for our needs than using Windows for everything.
The authors implicit belief that Windows gives easy compatibility and ease of use is a socially acceptable belief that is not based on the realities of Windows use. On a typical Windows desktop there is almost always something inexplicably malfunctioning. These malfunctions regularly swallow gobs of time and/or support staff. On top of that, using the Windows interface is like walking in shoes with a little bit of sand in them. The shoes look fine and are arguably as good as any others but you can't get the sand out and wearing them generates an ambient stress level that the user mistakenly comes to ignore/accept as the price for wearing shoes.
I often hear Windows and Office users say that they have "no problems" using these products. A threshold of pain that high can only be achieved through the removal of most of the nervous endings via the wallet.