What an inaccurate analogy. Newer processors actually behave differently from older processors, while gravity doesn't change.
487 karma · joined January 4, 2011
It is?
> In iMovie, you can take your professional looking photos and stitch them together with the Ken Burns effect. The name says it all right there.
So you acknowledge that iLife is a counter to your point, and your only refutation is that there is a Ken Burns effect? I don't get it.
The premise of this very short article seems to be that, because Apple includes some professionally-made templates and used stock photos in a keynote, they don't get amateur content. iLife is the biggest counter to this argument. Apple does try to make sure that amateur content doesn't look or sound too shitty, but how does that mean they don't understand amateur content at all? It just means they're removing the boring work for the average user who doesn't want to spend an hour making a theme look good. Apple totally gets amateur content. They want every kid with an iPad to be recording music in Garageband.
The amateur content argument is weak and doesn't support the social argument. As for Ping, I never understood the hatred for it as it was always clearly just a way to see the music people were buying and not some major social network competitor. I've used it to browse a few people and found new albums I liked. It did its job in my case.
Facebook was the clean, professional-looking, easier-to-use alternative to the chaotic and amateurish MySpace. The idea that Apple must embrace amateur chaos just doesn't make sense to me and seems like it would be the wrong thing to do. Apple is the kind of company that is often a few years behind but eventually releases something so polished and easy to use that it's successful anyway.
"People that don't have the money to buy bitcoins and see them appreciate are jealous of the ones that do. They hide their insufficiency and jealousy by calling it a ponzi scheme or scam, so they can simultaneously feel superior to the bitcoiners whilst tricking themselves into thinking they wouldn't buy them anyway even if they had the money.
It'd also be a fear that one day they'd have to work on a bitcoin project, which would be rubbing salt in the wounds.
Fact is, there are tons of hackers that could contribute a lot to the bitcoin ecosystem, but they take the negative route instead: they don't want to give anyone a free ride (or they like their rut.)
I could go on, but there are some anti-Israel type tones in the anti-bitcoin brigade, that's my feeling when I write anything positive about bitcoin: I may as well write something positive about Israel.
For many, bitcoin.org is the startup, and buying the currency is the investment. People would upvote any story about their startup, and they'd upvote anything about bitcoin. It's a fair thing to do.
Bitcoin is an extremely hacker-ish thing. It is a hack on the money supply. It is as revolutionary to money (the concept, perhaps not the implementation as yet) as mp3 was to music, or blogs to writers. It has hugely positive implications, so people that hate it, will Really hate it."
"People that don't have the money to buy bitcoins and see them appreciate are jealous of the ones that do. They hide their insufficiency and jealousy by calling it a ponzi scheme or scam, so they can simultaneously feel superior to the bitcoiners whilst tricking themselves into thinking they wouldn't buy them anyway even if they had the money.
It'd also be a fear that one day they'd have to work on a bitcoin project, which would be rubbing salt in the wounds.
Fact is, there are tons of hackers that could contribute a lot to the bitcoin ecosystem, but they take the negative route instead: they don't want to give anyone a free ride (or they like their rut.)
I could go on, but there are some anti-Israel type tones in the anti-bitcoin brigade, that's my feeling when I write anything positive about bitcoin: I may as well write something positive about Israel.
For many, bitcoin.org is the startup, and buying the currency is the investment. People would upvote any story about their startup, and they'd upvote anything about bitcoin. It's a fair thing to do.
Bitcoin is an extremely hacker-ish thing. It is a hack on the money supply. It is as revolutionary to money (the concept, perhaps not the implementation as yet) as mp3 was to music, or blogs to writers. It has hugely positive implications, so people that hate it, will Really hate it."
What a goofy, insecure reaction.
> It is as revolutionary to money (the concept, perhaps not the implementation as yet) as mp3 was to music, or blogs to writers.
The difference between concept and implementation is also the difference between fantasy and reality.
To who? Does grandma give a shit, or will she just buy an iPad?
> As a windows dev and user I was close to having a heart attack until I saw "normal Windows" alongside.
Guys like you are why Microsoft can't let go. :)
I don't understand how you could have ever thought that.
> Truth of the matter is desktops still represent the largest market of devices consumers are buying and at least 90% of them run Windows. This whole post-PC notion is crappy and doesn't hold water - tables and smartphones are complementary products to desktops, and won't replace desktops until you'll be able to attach to them a 21 inch monitor, a keyboard and a mouse/trackball.
There's a contingent of desktop users who just can't let go. The idea of things changing is a scary thought. Tablets are exploding in sales because they're fulfilling the ultimate goal of accessible computing. The maintenance hell of PCs, tying people to a desk, will be viewed as a fluke in an industry that was in its technological infancy, the same way we no longer hand-crank automobiles to start them.
You talk about connecting to a 21-inch monitor and using a keyboard and mouse as if people WANT to do that. People today are using game consoles and touchscreens. If they want to see something on a big screen, they'll plug their mobile devices into their giant HDTVs, or they'll use their Apple TV or their game console. With the exception of Blizzard, PC gaming already died and went to consoles and mobile devices, and it's not as if PCs are going to let users watch YouTube videos, send email, or read books better than an iPad will.
Mobile devices are the futuristic vision of appliance computing that everyone has envisioned for decades. That leaves PCs as something leftover for power users. Steve Jobs gave a quote about desktop PCs, comparing them to pickup trucks. Most people won't need them, but they'll still be around for those who do.
iTunes is still a Carbon application, but in fairness, it mostly has to due with retaining Windows compatibility, and Carbon maps more easily to Win32 than Cocoa would.
The source of desktop innovation today is mobile operating systems. He believes that features from mobile OSes are being "forced" onto desktops, without explaining why it's bad to be adopting mobile features. Full-screen display, automatic document saving, and removing the need to manually quit applications are major innovations that simplify desktop computers even more, moving them closer to the long-sought idea of appliance computing.
I'm tempted to think the article was intentionally written as flamebait. The writing is poor, and there are no examples given to explain why exactly Unity and Gnome are so much more innovative. The absolutist claim that Microsoft and Apple have "completely dropped the ball," as if their operating systems haven't changed in 10 years, is just false.
The source of desktop innovation today is mobile operating systems, or more accurately, appliance computing devices that finally remove extraneous aspects of computer interaction (e.g., manual saving, manual quitting, filesystem management, and so on).
This thing is coming from Ed Bott's Microsoft column on ZDNet, where he's been hitting this hard for the second day in a row based on an "investigation" that involved him scouring the Apple discussion forums for a couple of hours. Two hundred clueless posts on a web forum out of a userbase of millions doesn't mean there's a "malware explosion," as he described it. Why are people falling for this flamebait?
You'll never completely avoid ambiguities no matter what you do. Take the question mark in the following sentence:
Brian asked, "should we go?"
Is Brian asking a question or the person who's quoting Brian?
Apple and Google are Microsoft's biggest competitors. Is he not supposed to compare Microsoft to its direct rivals?
Is this really the basis of your claim? A complete guess that a 400MB increase in memory must be due to a secret use of Flash?