Meh, fair enough.
I'm not trying to piss on anyone's dreams of having the next HD-DVD/WiFi/BetaMAX equipped unicorn, or anything like that. If you can get it, I say more power to ya.
This is just the sort of retarded thinking that gets pretty much every lay-user in the technology field in trouble. I'd rather it have less capacity, but some new-uber-get-me-laid-factor. Working in wireless retail I'd get this all the time. Quoting common percent to fail ratios of most Motorola phones, people would still say, yeah, but it's a hot looking flip phone. I proceeded to distance myself from them at once.
Anyways, the point of this, despite my personal ad hominem biases that your post elicits, is a.) there is almost 0 WUSB uptake on PC's at the moment, and b.) there is almost 0 uptake on WUSB on devices at the moment (feel free to google both), and c.) the people likely to have ANY WUSB devices probably have 32 MB's of space stashed in a box of Fig Newtons by this point.
Furthermore, I fail to see ANY gain in making a Jumpdrive with WUSB. I think the point is to have less wires right? You'll first have to show me a jump drive that HAS any wires. I believe in order for there to be any relative footing for argumentation on this point you would simply have to concede either a.) you're too lazy to be bother with keeping up with things the size of, I dunno, your car/house keys or b.) that basically you're not really into a more functional device, but one that somehow increases the wow factor in either some primitive attempt to impress the other males in the tribe, or to try and get laid somehow.
Either way, having first hand experience with both of the last two, particularly at Wireless retail, where looks ALWAYS sell, I think perhaps Slashdot might not be the right forum for you, might I suggest the Yahoo! Message Boards?
I don't mean this to come across as trolling or flamebait, but it's time for a substantial portion of the consumers in the marketplace to figure out what it is they want. I'll happily slap a fresh coat of gee-whiz-bang on a piece of crap if you're willing to buy it, I have no moral compunctions about such an endeavor. Cheers.
I'm curious as to your conclusions regarding public funding however. Wouldn't it seem that if there are so many mistakes going on that additional funding, particularly in the area of educating more scientists seems to be the way to go?
I'll grant you that to put unwavering faith in science is misplaced, science works better when all parties maintain a healthy degree of skeptcism. I don't know if you're familiar with Michael Shermer's book "Borderlands of Science," but he proposes, and I quite agree, that science is not perfect *BUT* it's the best framework we've got for examining ideas at the moment. There are plenty of religious people who believe that perhaps unquestioning faith is the proper approach, but that takes away a lot of tools (the balancing argument of how much ground can science hold v. God is a question for another day), and I for one love having tools, especially as a species.
That you appear to have some background in science (and if I read that right, some occupational experience?), and know someone completely imerssed in the field, are very compelling qualifications, so mainly what I want to know is, is there perhaps some solution you see, and why do you oppose public funding? I have difficulty envisioning a framework outside of the scientific method, but imagination and vision aren't really my strong suits (haha, history background...). Have you glimpsed something, or thought of some new framework, or perhaps innovations to the current framework (scientific method) that could better balance between stricter controls v. suppressing too many ideas?
As a scientist, you're comments are important to me, and I look forward to a reply, if you've got a second.
Okay, I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV... (seriously though, I often do legal research) and quite frankly people need to RTF case. The judge has explicitly said "I don't tell [the patent office] their job, they don't tell me mine." What that means, and it's listed EXPLICITLY that the judge in the case doesn't give a hoot about the Patent Office ruling, and that he (not will not, implying no decision has been rendered) DID not grant RIM's motion to stay pending patent ruling.
He also clearly states that part of the main reason for his rejection of this judgement is that he buys COMPLETELY NTP's argument that if the patents are rejected, they will appeal, a process that could drag on for years (RIM contends it would only be a few short months).
Furthermore RIM is guilty throughout the trial of what is considered 'bad behavior.' There was considerable question that RIM followed all necessary protocols (particularly with an internal investigation of whether the patents were reasonably valid). This is backed up by conflicting evidence from the varies executive party at RIM.
Okay, so no one seems to get this, but I'll spell it out for you, and link the document: RIM lost. Not will lose, not might lose, HAS lost. Their 45 page appeal proceeding (one needs Lexis Nexis to access it, thus I won't be posting that one here) reads VERY poorly for RIM. In fact the only part that was remanded to a lower court does little to allow them to win. NTP won. RIM is in violation (imho because they a.) engaged in 'bad behavior,' which is to say trial etiquette and b.) during the Markman hearing [a hearing where the judge determines things like definitions and scope of patents, est. 1996, Markman v. Westview Instruments] they did horrible job allowing NTP to fully dominate definitions of email and patent scope, giving them enough broad leeway to technically sue any computer manufacturer that makes a wifi laptop that can check e-mail, but I digress... and c.) their initial arguments (which cannot be dropped in favor of new arguments unless the appeal strikes those specifically, and it didn't) were ridiculously weak, and essentially claimed that the Intel chipset inside was the RF device (the NTP patents specifically call for an RF device), not the Blackberry pager itself, and therefore was not liable for infringement (no judge in the WORLD would buy this argument on common sense alone, but there is numerous precedent in US patent law that clearly says that by possessing this part, RIM infringes)...
Here's how it's going to end: RIM is going to pay NTP a ton of money. Everyone's going to keep their Blackberries. In 2012 (when the original patents expire, and thus the payments mandated by the court) or whenever RIM migrates every BB customer to a non-infringing system (whichever comes first) NTP stops getting paid.
Please note, I'm a huge fan of RIM. I think RIM should have won this case hands down, and I passionately pursue research in the area strictly as a hobby, as a fan of both law and technology. I believe that RIM was doomed from the beginning, and a few/. nerds on the defense team would have heavily swung this in the opposite direction (also a little more corporate courtesy on RIM's part). Seriously though, I've heard nothing but nonsense about this case, and I'm happy for a chance to set the record as straight as I have found it.
Here is the rejection by the honorable James Spencer of RIM's motion for a 'stay of proceedings' pending review of the patents by the USPTO. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/rim/ntprim11300 5opn.pdf It's a PDF, and an enlightening read. Enjoy.
If anyone is interested, this is a 30 page suit that is being brought on behalf citizens of California (class action suit) by the EFF. It seems like a well reasoned, and sound case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the EFF is going to beat Sony on this, though I know only a bit about the California Penal Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( the statues under which this is being prosecuted).
compare this with the filing by the State of Texas, six pages, and see if you think that the EFF didn't provide a ton of valuable knowledge to the California filing.
Even if you listen to what this guy has to say, you realize his argument is inherently denied. Aside from from Texas, who's laws allow for civil and criminal proceeding against this (and is thereby being prosecuted by the State of Texas) WHO exactly is supposed to prosecute Sony? If the EFF doesn't do it, no one will. Texas is an exception because of anti-spyware legislation that gives the State, and all it's resources, the ability to tackle Sony. I didn't notice Bonhomie offering to pony up the cash to take on what is probably going to be the corporate equivalent of the Dream Team in Sony's legal muscle...
By simply offering the ability to get your video content from your DVR to your Mac (in this case, the idea is that they are one and the same) is ALREADY a competitive reason to switch from Tivo. I've been toying with the idea of nixing my Tivo in favor of a ReplayTV because frankly, I want to watch some Adult Swim on my PSP when I'm on the bus, and I'm tired of the wait. Getting Tivo files onto a PSP without Windows is like pulling teeth. They've repeatedly told the Mac Faithful, wait, wait, wait, then oops, nothing because it's expensive. Now we get PSP support, MAYBE in the middle of 06? Whatever, I'll wait till after the January Expo to move to ReplayTV, or Apple's new option, assuming it materializes.
Wow, that seems a little judgmental. I think you'd find if someone actually cared enough to follow your life with a different set of values, they'd easily find something you did wrong. Unless you're claiming perfection, that is.
I find it difficult to believe this is only taught in our elementary schools, but I distinctly remember a strong lesson about grouping everyone together under a single umbrella and judging people, not based on their merits or exhibited traits, but rather forming an opinion simply because of uncontrollable traits, such as the color of their skin, or the location of their birth.
The question, especially when you begin examining this on the macro scale, becomes on what standards? Why does it matter if you trust us? You're businesses are all more than happy to take our money. So trade continues, and so what? We're unpopular? I don't know if you were ever a nerd going through high school, but being unpopular often meant, though I'm sure it doesn't in this case, that you were a hard worker, who made tough decisions, even though it wasn't what was 'cool' but because we felt it was right.
What solution would you like to see implemented, even if, you can make someone buy your implicit suggestion that having the trust or popularity of the rest of the world is important? What country should we model ourselves on? Who has the hot styles on the international scene? Which country is the international Jay-Z or Robbie Williams if you hail from the UK, Hasslehoff if you're German, and Lewis if you're french? Who should we follow, and why?
I don't think you're making a very thought provoked statement, and I worry that people tend to simply hear that America is bad, or stupid, or has a monkey for a leader, and accept it, and do NOTHING to learn about our culture or our beliefs, the things that make us uniquely American. Perhaps before you start bashing cultures, you should consider the nature of such things. Perhaps a study in American history would clearly demonstrate that there was no way we COULD give it up, it's not in our nature, and it's not childish in origin, but stems from the early American frontier movement. That, Americans, when pioneers, are often proud of their accomplishments, and as they press to new frontiers, revolution, Constitution, Industrialization, Space Race, and even the Internet, rarely are able to relinquish our successes, and we feel that our initial contributions are a proper moral justification for attempting keep what's ours.
I think that's not far out of line either. I don't suspect that you disagree either. I'm willing to bet that you believe that if you work to create something, that it's wrong for someone to come and tell you that they're taking control of it from you, particularly when you haven't misused it.
On behalf of the children, I apologize for any unfair assumptions or insinuations that I may have made, for they were made in err during an emotional writing. You see, we're not all morons, and IF we're not, then that 'childish' spirit that causes you such chagrin, is precisely the thing that catapults us to power. For the stupid ones, yeah, sure have a good laugh, every country has tourists. for the intelligent ones, I think perhaps some respect, if not measured indifference, is deserved.
If you think that scrawny, hot-wife banging, glasses wearing nerd could whup up on Stevie J, you've been hitting the bong to hard. Everyone knows that Steve Jobs could totally kick Bill Gates ass. Balmer might be tougher though...
Linus Torvald is obviously just a pompous ass software lead, who, while a proper motivator to be sure, uses strong arm tactics and intimidation and harsh language to promote buy-in from his staff. This type of childish behavior should be considered unacceptable because frankly...
Steve Jobs was here first.
The real irony is that Dell's "innovation" was powered by NeXt's WebObjects software.
I also don't think what Dell did was innovation. Simply by applying modern commoditization tactics to a new market isn't innovation, it's logical outgrowth.
To say that Dell innovated is a huge mischaracterization, in anything other than the field of expanding the virtual retail store, which they, in essence, had Jobs build.
Perhaps my history is missing something, but I don't see an 'original' creation, like what Apple did, or Linus, or even, as much as I hate to say it Microsoft. Dell was repackaging and redistrubution through someone else's technology, simply by virtue of the fact that they "did it" isn't very innovative, given that NeXt wasn't really selling hardware by then. I suspect they would have, had they had product to move during the dot com bubble
Yes, god forbid the experience was cheapened by a small screen.
These days you've got the screen, the sound, the lighting, the popcorn, is anything missing?
Oh yeah, about a FREAKIN STORY that doesn't suck, and some actors that don't have the personality of dry Play-Doh?
~a
WTF are you talking about? A freaking TV tuner? Cuz you like 8 channels in analog? A freaking TV tuner.... Jesus christ. Does anyone even think about properly engineering a mass market consumer electronic device? Yeah, a freaking TV tuner, and a cuisinart. How about a machine that doles out free knob shines. I used to hawk cell phones, and I tell ya, the modern consumer technorati drives me bananas. These people don't even know what they're asking for, but they want it. It used to be that when you wanted people to think you had a big penis, you just bought a fast car. Now you buy something that's way outside your expertise level, way outside your usage level, and dump all your service and support on the poor hapless Indians. Damn you corporate america, damn you and your digital penis envy executives. I don't even know why they bother. Everyone knows I've got the biggest.
I think is just what chaps the literati's ass. I have a friend with a degree in English, and with regards to literature, she categorizes everything into "serious" work and everything else. This drives me nuts, I mean, don't get me wrong I love Hemmingway myself, but quite frankly, I've gotta sit there for a few extra hours to make sure I 'get' everything he's trying to portray. With someone like Stephen King (who under no literary circle is considered a 'serious' author) I can burn through his stuff like cutting through butter. My friends, who were fans of the Dark Tower series (one of whom was the aforementioned literati's boyfriend) could never discuss the topic around her because it wasn't in her 'serious' works category. It was like touching someone on the arm with your penis, she just ran screaming and vomiting like something from the exorcist. The reason for this is the self-serving nature of academia. Wikipedia will always fall prey to this. Like the jerk who wants to tell you that they "didn't go to school for eight years to be called Mister." Yeah apparently you went to school for eight years to be called a dick. Anyways, the point is literati like 'serious works' because it's part of their self serving nature. If everyone can produce profound analysis on works of literature, who needs them? I'm not advocating getting rid of them, I love my English friend, and she's a great guide to helping me understand the works I read, that she won't even touch. Nonetheless, people with degrees want their degrees to help them stand out, and frankly they do deserve it. But that's why wikipedia will never gain mass acclaim in academia, which is a damn shame, because it's a helluva tool.
And he's absolutely correct, because Philosophy, while a great discipline to assist one in growing their ability to think, has absolutely ZERO verifiability. There's an entire series of books (All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten) that is dedicated to the fact that kid's can say the darndest things and quite frankly, if he's not talking about the history of Philosophy, then the six year old can have just as much perception into the realm of the unknowable as the PhD in Philosophy. It drives me nuts that Philosophers get so wrapped up in their serious field of "making shit up." Anyone can make stuff up, and there's no reason a six year old's make believe is more or less valid than the other (I mean honestly, have you read Heidegger? Sounds like a six year old's fantasy to me...).
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, fair enough. I'm not trying to piss on anyone's dreams of having the next HD-DVD/WiFi/BetaMAX equipped unicorn, or anything like that. If you can get it, I say more power to ya.
This is just the sort of retarded thinking that gets pretty much every lay-user in the technology field in trouble. I'd rather it have less capacity, but some new-uber-get-me-laid-factor. Working in wireless retail I'd get this all the time. Quoting common percent to fail ratios of most Motorola phones, people would still say, yeah, but it's a hot looking flip phone. I proceeded to distance myself from them at once.
Anyways, the point of this, despite my personal ad hominem biases that your post elicits, is a.) there is almost 0 WUSB uptake on PC's at the moment, and b.) there is almost 0 uptake on WUSB on devices at the moment (feel free to google both), and c.) the people likely to have ANY WUSB devices probably have 32 MB's of space stashed in a box of Fig Newtons by this point.
Furthermore, I fail to see ANY gain in making a Jumpdrive with WUSB. I think the point is to have less wires right? You'll first have to show me a jump drive that HAS any wires. I believe in order for there to be any relative footing for argumentation on this point you would simply have to concede either a.) you're too lazy to be bother with keeping up with things the size of, I dunno, your car/house keys or b.) that basically you're not really into a more functional device, but one that somehow increases the wow factor in either some primitive attempt to impress the other males in the tribe, or to try and get laid somehow.
Either way, having first hand experience with both of the last two, particularly at Wireless retail, where looks ALWAYS sell, I think perhaps Slashdot might not be the right forum for you, might I suggest the Yahoo! Message Boards?
I don't mean this to come across as trolling or flamebait, but it's time for a substantial portion of the consumers in the marketplace to figure out what it is they want. I'll happily slap a fresh coat of gee-whiz-bang on a piece of crap if you're willing to buy it, I have no moral compunctions about such an endeavor.
Cheers.
I'm curious as to your conclusions regarding public funding however. Wouldn't it seem that if there are so many mistakes going on that additional funding, particularly in the area of educating more scientists seems to be the way to go?
I'll grant you that to put unwavering faith in science is misplaced, science works better when all parties maintain a healthy degree of skeptcism. I don't know if you're familiar with Michael Shermer's book "Borderlands of Science," but he proposes, and I quite agree, that science is not perfect *BUT* it's the best framework we've got for examining ideas at the moment. There are plenty of religious people who believe that perhaps unquestioning faith is the proper approach, but that takes away a lot of tools (the balancing argument of how much ground can science hold v. God is a question for another day), and I for one love having tools, especially as a species.
That you appear to have some background in science (and if I read that right, some occupational experience?), and know someone completely imerssed in the field, are very compelling qualifications, so mainly what I want to know is, is there perhaps some solution you see, and why do you oppose public funding? I have difficulty envisioning a framework outside of the scientific method, but imagination and vision aren't really my strong suits (haha, history background...). Have you glimpsed something, or thought of some new framework, or perhaps innovations to the current framework (scientific method) that could better balance between stricter controls v. suppressing too many ideas?
As a scientist, you're comments are important to me, and I look forward to a reply, if you've got a second.
Okay, I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV...
/. nerds on the defense team would have heavily swung this in the opposite direction (also a little more corporate courtesy on RIM's part). Seriously though, I've heard nothing but nonsense about this case, and I'm happy for a chance to set the record as straight as I have found it.
0 5opn.pdf
(seriously though, I often do legal research)
and quite frankly people need to RTF case. The judge has explicitly said "I don't tell [the patent office] their job, they don't tell me mine." What that means, and it's listed EXPLICITLY that the judge in the case doesn't give a hoot about the Patent Office ruling, and that he (not will not, implying no decision has been rendered) DID not grant RIM's motion to stay pending patent ruling.
He also clearly states that part of the main reason for his rejection of this judgement is that he buys COMPLETELY NTP's argument that if the patents are rejected, they will appeal, a process that could drag on for years (RIM contends it would only be a few short months).
Furthermore RIM is guilty throughout the trial of what is considered 'bad behavior.' There was considerable question that RIM followed all necessary protocols (particularly with an internal investigation of whether the patents were reasonably valid). This is backed up by conflicting evidence from the varies executive party at RIM.
Okay, so no one seems to get this, but I'll spell it out for you, and link the document: RIM lost. Not will lose, not might lose, HAS lost. Their 45 page appeal proceeding (one needs Lexis Nexis to access it, thus I won't be posting that one here) reads VERY poorly for RIM. In fact the only part that was remanded to a lower court does little to allow them to win. NTP won. RIM is in violation (imho because they a.) engaged in 'bad behavior,' which is to say trial etiquette and b.) during the Markman hearing [a hearing where the judge determines things like definitions and scope of patents, est. 1996, Markman v. Westview Instruments] they did horrible job allowing NTP to fully dominate definitions of email and patent scope, giving them enough broad leeway to technically sue any computer manufacturer that makes a wifi laptop that can check e-mail, but I digress... and c.) their initial arguments (which cannot be dropped in favor of new arguments unless the appeal strikes those specifically, and it didn't) were ridiculously weak, and essentially claimed that the Intel chipset inside was the RF device (the NTP patents specifically call for an RF device), not the Blackberry pager itself, and therefore was not liable for infringement (no judge in the WORLD would buy this argument on common sense alone, but there is numerous precedent in US patent law that clearly says that by possessing this part, RIM infringes)...
Here's how it's going to end:
RIM is going to pay NTP a ton of money.
Everyone's going to keep their Blackberries.
In 2012 (when the original patents expire, and thus the payments mandated by the court) or whenever RIM migrates every BB customer to a non-infringing system (whichever comes first) NTP stops getting paid.
Please note, I'm a huge fan of RIM. I think RIM should have won this case hands down, and I passionately pursue research in the area strictly as a hobby, as a fan of both law and technology. I believe that RIM was doomed from the beginning, and a few
Here is the rejection by the honorable James Spencer of RIM's motion for a 'stay of proceedings' pending review of the patents by the USPTO.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/rim/ntprim1130
It's a PDF, and an enlightening read.
Enjoy.
If anyone is interested, this is a 30 page suit that is being brought on behalf citizens of California (class action suit) by the EFF. It seems like a well reasoned, and sound case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the EFF is going to beat Sony on this, though I know only a bit about the California Penal Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( the statues under which this is being prosecuted).
s ony112105cmp.pdf
y 112105pet.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/hullv
compare this with the filing by the State of Texas, six pages, and see if you think that the EFF didn't provide a ton of valuable knowledge to the California filing.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/txson
Even if you listen to what this guy has to say, you realize his argument is inherently denied. Aside from from Texas, who's laws allow for civil and criminal proceeding against this (and is thereby being prosecuted by the State of Texas) WHO exactly is supposed to prosecute Sony? If the EFF doesn't do it, no one will. Texas is an exception because of anti-spyware legislation that gives the State, and all it's resources, the ability to tackle Sony. I didn't notice Bonhomie offering to pony up the cash to take on what is probably going to be the corporate equivalent of the Dream Team in Sony's legal muscle...
By simply offering the ability to get your video content from your DVR to your Mac (in this case, the idea is that they are one and the same) is ALREADY a competitive reason to switch from Tivo. I've been toying with the idea of nixing my Tivo in favor of a ReplayTV because frankly, I want to watch some Adult Swim on my PSP when I'm on the bus, and I'm tired of the wait. Getting Tivo files onto a PSP without Windows is like pulling teeth. They've repeatedly told the Mac Faithful, wait, wait, wait, then oops, nothing because it's expensive. Now we get PSP support, MAYBE in the middle of 06? Whatever, I'll wait till after the January Expo to move to ReplayTV, or Apple's new option, assuming it materializes.
Wow, that seems a little judgmental. I think you'd find if someone actually cared enough to follow your life with a different set of values, they'd easily find something you did wrong. Unless you're claiming perfection, that is. I find it difficult to believe this is only taught in our elementary schools, but I distinctly remember a strong lesson about grouping everyone together under a single umbrella and judging people, not based on their merits or exhibited traits, but rather forming an opinion simply because of uncontrollable traits, such as the color of their skin, or the location of their birth. The question, especially when you begin examining this on the macro scale, becomes on what standards? Why does it matter if you trust us? You're businesses are all more than happy to take our money. So trade continues, and so what? We're unpopular? I don't know if you were ever a nerd going through high school, but being unpopular often meant, though I'm sure it doesn't in this case, that you were a hard worker, who made tough decisions, even though it wasn't what was 'cool' but because we felt it was right. What solution would you like to see implemented, even if, you can make someone buy your implicit suggestion that having the trust or popularity of the rest of the world is important? What country should we model ourselves on? Who has the hot styles on the international scene? Which country is the international Jay-Z or Robbie Williams if you hail from the UK, Hasslehoff if you're German, and Lewis if you're french? Who should we follow, and why? I don't think you're making a very thought provoked statement, and I worry that people tend to simply hear that America is bad, or stupid, or has a monkey for a leader, and accept it, and do NOTHING to learn about our culture or our beliefs, the things that make us uniquely American. Perhaps before you start bashing cultures, you should consider the nature of such things. Perhaps a study in American history would clearly demonstrate that there was no way we COULD give it up, it's not in our nature, and it's not childish in origin, but stems from the early American frontier movement. That, Americans, when pioneers, are often proud of their accomplishments, and as they press to new frontiers, revolution, Constitution, Industrialization, Space Race, and even the Internet, rarely are able to relinquish our successes, and we feel that our initial contributions are a proper moral justification for attempting keep what's ours. I think that's not far out of line either. I don't suspect that you disagree either. I'm willing to bet that you believe that if you work to create something, that it's wrong for someone to come and tell you that they're taking control of it from you, particularly when you haven't misused it. On behalf of the children, I apologize for any unfair assumptions or insinuations that I may have made, for they were made in err during an emotional writing. You see, we're not all morons, and IF we're not, then that 'childish' spirit that causes you such chagrin, is precisely the thing that catapults us to power. For the stupid ones, yeah, sure have a good laugh, every country has tourists. for the intelligent ones, I think perhaps some respect, if not measured indifference, is deserved.
If you think that scrawny, hot-wife banging, glasses wearing nerd could whup up on Stevie J, you've been hitting the bong to hard. Everyone knows that Steve Jobs could totally kick Bill Gates ass. Balmer might be tougher though...
Linus Torvald is obviously just a pompous ass software lead, who, while a proper motivator to be sure, uses strong arm tactics and intimidation and harsh language to promote buy-in from his staff. This type of childish behavior should be considered unacceptable because frankly... Steve Jobs was here first.
The real irony is that Dell's "innovation" was powered by NeXt's WebObjects software. I also don't think what Dell did was innovation. Simply by applying modern commoditization tactics to a new market isn't innovation, it's logical outgrowth. To say that Dell innovated is a huge mischaracterization, in anything other than the field of expanding the virtual retail store, which they, in essence, had Jobs build. Perhaps my history is missing something, but I don't see an 'original' creation, like what Apple did, or Linus, or even, as much as I hate to say it Microsoft. Dell was repackaging and redistrubution through someone else's technology, simply by virtue of the fact that they "did it" isn't very innovative, given that NeXt wasn't really selling hardware by then. I suspect they would have, had they had product to move during the dot com bubble
Yeah, but my country can still beat up your country.
Yes, god forbid the experience was cheapened by a small screen. These days you've got the screen, the sound, the lighting, the popcorn, is anything missing? Oh yeah, about a FREAKIN STORY that doesn't suck, and some actors that don't have the personality of dry Play-Doh? ~a
The shark imagery here is by far one of the funniest things I've seen all day long...
WTF are you talking about? A freaking TV tuner? Cuz you like 8 channels in analog? A freaking TV tuner.... Jesus christ. Does anyone even think about properly engineering a mass market consumer electronic device? Yeah, a freaking TV tuner, and a cuisinart. How about a machine that doles out free knob shines. I used to hawk cell phones, and I tell ya, the modern consumer technorati drives me bananas. These people don't even know what they're asking for, but they want it. It used to be that when you wanted people to think you had a big penis, you just bought a fast car. Now you buy something that's way outside your expertise level, way outside your usage level, and dump all your service and support on the poor hapless Indians. Damn you corporate america, damn you and your digital penis envy executives. I don't even know why they bother. Everyone knows I've got the biggest.
I think is just what chaps the literati's ass. I have a friend with a degree in English, and with regards to literature, she categorizes everything into "serious" work and everything else. This drives me nuts, I mean, don't get me wrong I love Hemmingway myself, but quite frankly, I've gotta sit there for a few extra hours to make sure I 'get' everything he's trying to portray. With someone like Stephen King (who under no literary circle is considered a 'serious' author) I can burn through his stuff like cutting through butter. My friends, who were fans of the Dark Tower series (one of whom was the aforementioned literati's boyfriend) could never discuss the topic around her because it wasn't in her 'serious' works category. It was like touching someone on the arm with your penis, she just ran screaming and vomiting like something from the exorcist. The reason for this is the self-serving nature of academia. Wikipedia will always fall prey to this. Like the jerk who wants to tell you that they "didn't go to school for eight years to be called Mister." Yeah apparently you went to school for eight years to be called a dick. Anyways, the point is literati like 'serious works' because it's part of their self serving nature. If everyone can produce profound analysis on works of literature, who needs them? I'm not advocating getting rid of them, I love my English friend, and she's a great guide to helping me understand the works I read, that she won't even touch. Nonetheless, people with degrees want their degrees to help them stand out, and frankly they do deserve it. But that's why wikipedia will never gain mass acclaim in academia, which is a damn shame, because it's a helluva tool.
And he's absolutely correct, because Philosophy, while a great discipline to assist one in growing their ability to think, has absolutely ZERO verifiability. There's an entire series of books (All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten) that is dedicated to the fact that kid's can say the darndest things and quite frankly, if he's not talking about the history of Philosophy, then the six year old can have just as much perception into the realm of the unknowable as the PhD in Philosophy. It drives me nuts that Philosophers get so wrapped up in their serious field of "making shit up." Anyone can make stuff up, and there's no reason a six year old's make believe is more or less valid than the other (I mean honestly, have you read Heidegger? Sounds like a six year old's fantasy to me...).