Even if they could get through all that mess, how could they prove I actually attended the game? I could have given the ticket to a friend watched it on TV.
With OS X, on the other hand, you can't even get a modern browser running on 10.3,
You say this like Microsoft is good and Apple is bad. The problem is that developers no longer target 10.3. But why target an old OS that has such low market share?
Microsoft's part in this is that Vista was a huge flop and they can't pry XP out of people's cold, dead fingers. Developers would be dumb to drop support for an OS still accounting for 67% of the market. (And Windows 2000 is practically the same OS, from a development perspective.)
So if you call Microsoft's failure a success, sure, what you said makes sense.
GPA is relative. If I have a 4.0 from Slackoff Community College, big whoop. If it's a 3.4 from MIT, now you're talking.
The problem is that some colleges/universities have a goal to have a high graduation rate. That's antithetical to the goal of having a prestigious program.
Stupid comments, even against the original phone. His complaints about copy/paste and things of that nature were relevant in 2007, so I'm not dogging his whole post... but some things were just wrong even then.
He obviously doesn't know about how to get an ellipsis with only 3 clicks: hold your finger on the alternate button, and drag up to the period, 3 times. That's been in there since day 1 to my knowledge. How does he even get 9 clicks? I can't figure out how to do it in more than 6.
Just because your browser doesn't suck like PIE, doesn't mean it's better than Mobile Safari. Ever hear of sub-pixel rendering?
I'd rather have 8 GB fixed than a pocket full of SD cards.
He seems to think that 352x416 resolution is better than 320x480. WOW. Do the math... the iPhone has 7168 more pixels, and he thinks the E70's funky resolution is somehow better than half VGA?
And I'll leave you with this quote: "There's no such thing as an iPod."
Using your figures, we assume a 600% inflation rate since 1962 ("... yet cost 1/16th as much adjusted for inflation", applied to $100 million current dollars, yields a little over $6 million dollars or 6 times the unadjusted cost for "Dr. No"). That may seem a little high, but I just put the numbers in an inflation calculator (The Inflation Calculator) and it's close: 679% inflation between 1962 and 2007. So, let's assume that figure.
At 679% inflation, "Dr. No" would have earned $407 million current dollars at an expense of $7 million, or a total profit of $400 million current dollars. On the other hand, "Casino Royale" earned $600 million at an expense of $100 million, or a total profit of $500 million.
So, "Casino Royale" made 25% more profit than "Dr. No", when adjusted for inflation. It's not a huge jump, but it debunks your assertion that the new movie actually made much less by comparison. The new movie made less "percentage-wise" when comparing income to investment, but more actual dollars.
If you can gain 25% profit by investing 16 times more money, and you have the money to invest, you would be wise to do so.
Many companies put the ability to abuse you daily far higher on the requirements list than education.
Sounds like a place I wouldn't want to work. Good thing my MS keeps me marketable to companies who appreciate people with a strong, focused work ethic.
So you just want text messaging. Fair enough. You have that, so I don't see the complaint.
Others, like me, see the place for voice messaging. It's the same argument of talking on the phone vs. sending IMs. I find emoticons lacking when showing some emotions, and when showing dry sarcasm. And voice is simply faster. I'm a fast typist, but it's hard to type at even half the speed of talking.
Voice has its place in real life. If you don't like it, that's your decision and you have plenty of options. But don't cancel my options because you don't like what I do.
Like you, I seem to be one of the few people who actually likes the concept of "voice" mail. But I also think it is flawed, because voicemail fails to accomplish true delayed voice interaction.
With email, I can send a message expecting that the receiver will get around to it whenever they want. IM is the opposite; the receiver is expected to respond immediately. Each of these has its place in the world... if not, email would have died many years ago.
Phone calls mirror IMs in the voice world. But voicemail can only be sent when a person fails to answer a phone call. I think this is a flaw. It might sound nit-picky, but sometimes I want to send someone a voice message without them dropping everything to attend to me. Maybe I want to send it while driving... not that I recommend use of the phone while driving, but it's far better to voice message than to text message.
Visual Voicemail does show the phone number, and it will stay on your screen for a long time. Out of pure laziness, I have messages dating back months showing on my display.
And if you can't "quite make out" some piece of information, how do you expect a computer to do so?
So basically, either you have to ask Microsoft to support it or maybe write support yourself, which you'll probably then have to distribute to everyone. Yeah, way to be open...
Oh, that's ENTIRELY WRONG of them!!! I can't imagine what would have happened if, say, Linux had been created with such ideals...
So basically, either you have to ask Linus to support it or maybe write support yourself, which you'll probably then have to distribute to everyone. Yeah, way to be open...
Banks that suck at managing money need to fail. Period. There are several good banks out there that work. The bad ones should go away. The entire banking industry will not fail, and the consumer is protected when individual banks fail.
Think about it... if somehow the entire banking industry did fail, then that means that it is completely obsolete. Something would come in to replace it... something that makes money by providing financial safety while lending money to consumers. Hmmm... sounds like a bank... sounds like the industry didn't fail.
You obviously didn't RTFA (or even the summary), which says "Firefox 3", not "Firefox 1". The GGP should have said 2008, and then realized that "It's hardly a fair comparison between 2008 and now" would just be silly.
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" - Jean Luc Picard, Star Trek: First Contact
If there's ever been a quote that represents people who disagree with Microsoft, this is it.
Take from it what you will: either that Microsoft bashers primarily want revenge, or that Microsoft represents an overwhelming force that stands on the principle of Embrace and Destroy.
Good for them. I actually get advertising content that I would potentially care about. I don't have to click it.
To me, this isn't harmful until it gets to the point where data is being used against you. And of course it is always your right not to put incriminating data on Facebook.
I wish everyone who cried "Apple is stupid for not allowing OS X to run on PCs!" would read your post.
Why in the world would Apple set themselves up as a direct market competitor to a company known to squash competition?
Maybe later, when they reach a point that even Microsoft gets worried... then, and only then, would I expect Apple to consider licensing OS X to run on all PCs.
Agreed. They've done a fantastic job, but their job will never be over.
I personally think that reversing that effort would be best. If companies were able to develop solid apps for Linux, and be assured that they would work flawlessly and efficiently in Windows, that would be a better way to kill two birds with one stone.
A major project going this direction is andLinux, which is basically the opposite of Wine. It uses the coLinux kernel, a port of the Linux kernel for Windows, to allow Linux programs to run natively in Windows.
Dvorak is an idiot. To use the old adage: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
If a bank trusts a spreadsheet based on a bad formula that is provided by the bank itself, is it the spreadsheet's fault? If the CEO chooses that saving 1 cent a year by outsourcing the call center to India, is that the spreadsheet's fault? Please.
Terrorism isn't about revolting against the government so much as trying to strike fear into people. The motivation for terrorism may be a bad government, or an attempt to destabilize the rich economy that leaves other parts of the world behind, or something else completely (e.g., "I hate homework, I think I'll shoot everyone at school today in protest").
The term "terrorist" is different from "traitor" in the sense that a traitor may be working against the established government for the good of the people. Terrorism is usually the opposite. A terrorist easily becomes an enemy of the people. As a result, a contemporary government would label any armed "traitorous" revolt as an act of terrorism in order to keep the public from becoming part of the rebellion.
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought rule one was "Make 100% sure Bill Gates won't be showing a crowd a BSOD!"
I know you were being funny, but really it doesn't matter. That didn't affect market share one bit.
Even if they could get through all that mess, how could they prove I actually attended the game? I could have given the ticket to a friend watched it on TV.
With OS X, on the other hand, you can't even get a modern browser running on 10.3,
You say this like Microsoft is good and Apple is bad. The problem is that developers no longer target 10.3. But why target an old OS that has such low market share?
Microsoft's part in this is that Vista was a huge flop and they can't pry XP out of people's cold, dead fingers. Developers would be dumb to drop support for an OS still accounting for 67% of the market. (And Windows 2000 is practically the same OS, from a development perspective.)
So if you call Microsoft's failure a success, sure, what you said makes sense.
GPAs are overrated.
GPA is relative. If I have a 4.0 from Slackoff Community College, big whoop. If it's a 3.4 from MIT, now you're talking. The problem is that some colleges/universities have a goal to have a high graduation rate. That's antithetical to the goal of having a prestigious program.
And I'll leave you with this quote: "There's no such thing as an iPod."
Meh... you obviously don't understand. By biggest, they mean most pixels.
The iPhone's App Store is lacking because it has to fit on a phone.
Duh!
I don't think your analysis is complete.
Using your figures, we assume a 600% inflation rate since 1962 ("... yet cost 1/16th as much adjusted for inflation", applied to $100 million current dollars, yields a little over $6 million dollars or 6 times the unadjusted cost for "Dr. No"). That may seem a little high, but I just put the numbers in an inflation calculator (The Inflation Calculator) and it's close: 679% inflation between 1962 and 2007. So, let's assume that figure.
At 679% inflation, "Dr. No" would have earned $407 million current dollars at an expense of $7 million, or a total profit of $400 million current dollars. On the other hand, "Casino Royale" earned $600 million at an expense of $100 million, or a total profit of $500 million.
So, "Casino Royale" made 25% more profit than "Dr. No", when adjusted for inflation. It's not a huge jump, but it debunks your assertion that the new movie actually made much less by comparison. The new movie made less "percentage-wise" when comparing income to investment, but more actual dollars.
If you can gain 25% profit by investing 16 times more money, and you have the money to invest, you would be wise to do so.
Actually, the MOST surprising thing is that your mom paid $150 for it.
* BOOM, Roasted! *
Many companies put the ability to abuse you daily far higher on the requirements list than education.
Sounds like a place I wouldn't want to work. Good thing my MS keeps me marketable to companies who appreciate people with a strong, focused work ethic.
So you just want text messaging. Fair enough. You have that, so I don't see the complaint.
Others, like me, see the place for voice messaging. It's the same argument of talking on the phone vs. sending IMs. I find emoticons lacking when showing some emotions, and when showing dry sarcasm. And voice is simply faster. I'm a fast typist, but it's hard to type at even half the speed of talking.
Voice has its place in real life. If you don't like it, that's your decision and you have plenty of options. But don't cancel my options because you don't like what I do.
Like you, I seem to be one of the few people who actually likes the concept of "voice" mail. But I also think it is flawed, because voicemail fails to accomplish true delayed voice interaction.
With email, I can send a message expecting that the receiver will get around to it whenever they want. IM is the opposite; the receiver is expected to respond immediately. Each of these has its place in the world... if not, email would have died many years ago.
Phone calls mirror IMs in the voice world. But voicemail can only be sent when a person fails to answer a phone call. I think this is a flaw. It might sound nit-picky, but sometimes I want to send someone a voice message without them dropping everything to attend to me. Maybe I want to send it while driving... not that I recommend use of the phone while driving, but it's far better to voice message than to text message.
Visual Voicemail does show the phone number, and it will stay on your screen for a long time. Out of pure laziness, I have messages dating back months showing on my display.
And if you can't "quite make out" some piece of information, how do you expect a computer to do so?
Something more in tune with the Slashdot world: http://www.microsoftsucks.org/, and also: http://applesucks.org/
So basically, either you have to ask Microsoft to support it or maybe write support yourself, which you'll probably then have to distribute to everyone. Yeah, way to be open...
Oh, that's ENTIRELY WRONG of them!!! I can't imagine what would have happened if, say, Linux had been created with such ideals...
So basically, either you have to ask Linus to support it or maybe write support yourself, which you'll probably then have to distribute to everyone. Yeah, way to be open...
Wow... I'm glad that never happened.
Here's the difference between the Dark Knight and the Watchmen:
Banks that suck at managing money need to fail. Period. There are several good banks out there that work. The bad ones should go away. The entire banking industry will not fail, and the consumer is protected when individual banks fail.
Think about it... if somehow the entire banking industry did fail, then that means that it is completely obsolete. Something would come in to replace it... something that makes money by providing financial safety while lending money to consumers. Hmmm... sounds like a bank... sounds like the industry didn't fail.
You obviously didn't RTFA (or even the summary), which says "Firefox 3", not "Firefox 1". The GGP should have said 2008, and then realized that "It's hardly a fair comparison between 2008 and now" would just be silly.
When Firefox came out most people didn't realise they even had a choice. It's hardly a fair comparison between 2004 and now
I didn't realize Firefox 3 came out in 2004... wow!
To think, I was wasting so much time with version 1 and 2 when I could have had 3 all along...
This should help.
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" - Jean Luc Picard, Star Trek: First Contact
If there's ever been a quote that represents people who disagree with Microsoft, this is it.
Take from it what you will: either that Microsoft bashers primarily want revenge, or that Microsoft represents an overwhelming force that stands on the principle of Embrace and Destroy.
Good for them. I actually get advertising content that I would potentially care about. I don't have to click it.
To me, this isn't harmful until it gets to the point where data is being used against you. And of course it is always your right not to put incriminating data on Facebook.
I wish everyone who cried "Apple is stupid for not allowing OS X to run on PCs!" would read your post.
Why in the world would Apple set themselves up as a direct market competitor to a company known to squash competition?
Maybe later, when they reach a point that even Microsoft gets worried... then, and only then, would I expect Apple to consider licensing OS X to run on all PCs.
Agreed. They've done a fantastic job, but their job will never be over.
I personally think that reversing that effort would be best. If companies were able to develop solid apps for Linux, and be assured that they would work flawlessly and efficiently in Windows, that would be a better way to kill two birds with one stone.
A major project going this direction is andLinux, which is basically the opposite of Wine. It uses the coLinux kernel, a port of the Linux kernel for Windows, to allow Linux programs to run natively in Windows.
Dvorak is an idiot. To use the old adage: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
If a bank trusts a spreadsheet based on a bad formula that is provided by the bank itself, is it the spreadsheet's fault? If the CEO chooses that saving 1 cent a year by outsourcing the call center to India, is that the spreadsheet's fault? Please.
Terrorism isn't about revolting against the government so much as trying to strike fear into people. The motivation for terrorism may be a bad government, or an attempt to destabilize the rich economy that leaves other parts of the world behind, or something else completely (e.g., "I hate homework, I think I'll shoot everyone at school today in protest").
The term "terrorist" is different from "traitor" in the sense that a traitor may be working against the established government for the good of the people. Terrorism is usually the opposite. A terrorist easily becomes an enemy of the people. As a result, a contemporary government would label any armed "traitorous" revolt as an act of terrorism in order to keep the public from becoming part of the rebellion.