Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

your OP made it clear that you were intending your comment as disparagement towards Apple

If you view the accusation of Apple's advice being self-serving as "disparagement", then this was already clearly implied in the original comment, then clearly (and explicitly) spelled out for you in my previous comments!

And you ad hominem attack against me, based on my username, confirms exactly that

Your original comment already smacked of defensive fanboyism before I'd even noticed your username or taken a look at any of your other comments (#); that simply confirmed it for me.

If you'd come across as an otherwise neutral observer with an Apple-related username, you'd have had a point; but this wasn't the case.

You seem to think that "ad hominem" is a universal retort to anyone noting your username; it's not. If it was being used to shut down an unarguably true and factually correct point, you might have a case. However, if one is simply using it as evidence that you're an Apple fan and that this may be reflected in matters of judgement and viewpoint, it's quite legitimate.

Now you claim that makes Apple no better than other OEMs. Conversely, however, it makes them no worse.

Don't think I was suggesting otherwise. If Sony had done something similar and we'd been discussing that, I'd have been equally happy to accuse them of being self-serving in the same manner.

Your problem is (I'm guessing) that- like a lot of fans of anything- you view everything in terms of pro- or anti- your favourite whatever, and assume that everyone else is arguing in terms of that mentality. Hence, criticism of Apple is attack specifically on Apple.

Nope. As far as the point being discussed here is concerned, they're just another corporation- albeit one that is both financially successful and good at getting talked about- exhibiting typical corporate behaviour.

(#) And having done that, I suspected that you might accuse me too of an "ad hominem" attack. I was correct.

Comment Re:Obligatory Mandy Rice-Davies (Score 1) 97

What would you expect them, or indeed any OEM, to say?

Er, I think you missed the point being made. That's precisely what I *would* have expected them to say, because it was in their own interest. Hence the quote.

Or perhaps your problem was with my implication that the motive was driven by their own self-interest, rather than pure, selfless concern for their users? Well, yeah.

Of course, by adding "or indeed any OEM", you're implying that this is an attack/persecution specifically towards Apple and that I'm biased. Nope; doubt I'm any more partisan than someone with the username "macs4all", and I'm sure that most similar corporations in Apple's position would have come up with a similarly self-serving answer. Doesn't make Apple any better than them, though.

Comment Okay, I'm lost now... (Score 2) 57

Am I the only person who's starting to lose track of who owns the rights to what after Nokia sold off its phone business to Microsoft?

I was under the impression that the right to use the "Nokia" name (which MS got the right to after buying the phone division) was due to expire after some time (#) and that was why MS were phasing it out.

The previous story linked in the summary seems to imply that MS sold off the ex-Nokia feature phone business to FIH, but they're still apparently making feature phones as "new Nokia phones" [my emphasis]

Yet Nokia itself announced it was licensing its name to a (different) manufactuer- HMD Global for similar purposes.

So what's going on? Does MS still own the name- or have a license to it- for smartphone and tablet use. Or has Nokia got it back? I can't see either party signing an agreement that would let them both use it for competing products in the same field (i.e. phones and tablets) at the same time; that sounds unworkable.

(#) This seems to be fairly typical when another company Y buys out X's widget division; they get the right to use X's name for a while (and presumably a non-compete from X, not that X is usually concerned with re-entering the field they've just left). I assume (for example) this is why the "Samsung" M3 external USB hard drives have been rebranded as "Maxtor" but remained otherwise identical- Seagate (who have long owned the Maxtor brand) bought out Samsung's HDD business a while back.

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 1) 153

It's one of dozens of cheap Coronation Street crossover shows and they've all done that. The Doctor Who one from way back was unwatchable despite the cast.

Are you thinking of the Doctor Who / EastEnders crossover they did to "celebrate" the 30th anniversary in 1993? That was eye-gougingly bad.

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 2) 387

The sad truth for those people is going to be that using third-party unsupported ink cartridges that HP did not sign for makes your guarantee vaporize.

Does it? I very much doubt that would stand in the EU, and even in the US I would assume that it's possibly covered by the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act...?

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 1) 387

HP used to be a great company, maybe the best, 20+ years ago. Reliable, innovative, well designed and manufactured. Then the PC came...

Bear in mind that they spun off the lab/test equipment division- which the company was founded on and which much of its early business was directed towards- as Agilent in 1999, and also that it merged with Compaq in 2002.

Comment Re: Other than Brother... (Score 1) 387

"Back in the day" HP made excellent hardware. I was using HP test gear in 1970 and there was very little that could touch it. This modern company has gone to the dogs.

Bear in mind that the test equipment division- which the business was originally built on- was spun off as Agilent in 1999, and that the current HP Inc. is one of the two companies remaining after the 2015 split (albeit the one closer to HP's origins and early days than the more service-oriented Hewlett Packard Enterprise), having also merged with Compaq in 2002.

You can decide for yourself how much continuity there is with the original company.

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 1) 153

But didn't they set it in the 80s, i.e. not that much further along than the original?

Yes, but I think the point is that the basic setup is something that's becoming a thing of the past and (presumably) less easy for people to relate to, especially those not old enough to remember. Or maybe not.

That said, I wasn't a fan of Are You Being Served as a kid, and having seen repeats since, I still amn't. Haven't seen the new one anyway...

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 1) 153

OFAH, Yes Minister, Open All Hours were respectively about the petty Thatcherism of the '80s, a competent but peculiar civil service that has mostly been replaced by neoliberals who act more like consultants to private enterprise, a dying breed of shopkeeper through the early '80s thanks to the rise of supermarkets.

Similar comments were made about the recent "Are You Being Served?" reboot, saying that the sort of department store it's based around are effectively an endangered species these days. (As if to ram this point home, it was made around the point that BHS were finally closing their doors).

Red Dwarf could have been more timeless

Red Dwarf hasn't dated too badly- the first series possibly moreso- but the early episodes *were* partly shaped by the post-punk, alternative comedy influences of the 1980s. While not as badly dated as many 80s shows, it often parodied and referenced aspects of the culture of that time.

Comment Re:Smeg (Score 2) 153

Series 10? Not bothering.

Having not liked Red Dwarf 7 so much, I liked Red Dwarf 8 (#) even less, to the extent that I've still never watched it all. (Tried once, abandoned halfway; started again a while later, even less successful).

In no hurry, I checked out Return to Earth a year or so after it first went out. My initial impression- that it wasn't as bad as I'd expected- was quickly revised as soon as I realised this was only because my expectations had been so lowered in the first place. The ultimate plot device was a lazy rehash of (possible spoilers follow) the despair squid in Back to Reality. That in itself was just an excuse to hang a self-indulgently "meta" script (the characters realise they're just fictional entities in a real-life TV show called Red Dwarf (##)), the sort of thing a thirteen-year-old schoolboy would find "clever" and didn't come close to being well done enough to escape being fan-pandering rubbish. They were trying to have their cake and eat it, too with the "no, all this showing Craig Charles as an actor in Coronation Street (etc) crap isn't really breaking the fourth wall, honest, because there's an in-universe rationalisation". Yeah, that rationalisation being "it was all just a dream^w rehashed despair squid induced hallucination".

Then again, the sort of anally-retentive, detail-obsessed-at-the-expense-of-missing-the-big-picture hardcore "fans" that this was aimed at are exactly the type that will accept this sort of indulgent drivel so long as they're thrown a rationalisation of why it doesn't *technically* contradict the "reality" of the utterly fictional universe. Those people are probably more concerned with the inconsistency in the reported number of floors/personnel/whatever between episodes than in why it stopped being funny or any good after series 6.

Oh, and stuff that lazy Blade Runner "homage" too. Yes, I get what you're referencing given that it's done in primary colours and I'm practically being hammered over the head with it, but you're not actually doing anything funny or clever with it beyond screaming "look, we're referenceing Blade Runner!!"

Red Dwarf used to get away with illogicality, inconsistency and scientifically-implausible (###) plots because those were only a means to an end in what was still ultimately a character-based comedy show. Even when it started moving towards being more overtly sci-fi, it still worked as long as Rob Grant was on board.

When he left after series 6, it lost that fundamental grounding. After seeing Back to Earth on top of series 8, it's quite clear that Doug Naylor on his own just isn't capable of recapturing the characterisation or comedy elements, period.

(#) VII and VIII being the final two series of the original 1988-99 BBC run made after Rob Grant had left
(##) Later on, I read someone else's post somwehere that reminded me that the feature film spinoff of TV series The League of Gentlemen had already used exactly the same "we're fictional characters in a TV series" setup a few years earlier. Which makes it even lazier. As that person also noted, League of Gentlemen at least had the excuse that its original premise had been taken as far as it could go, whereas Red Dwarf's loosely-definite sci-fi setup held almost unlimited possibilities. (###) Or downright impossible, cf. cause and effect in "Backwards"

Comment Re:iPhone 7 = the new pet rock (Score 1) 324

Run whatever you want but you probably also still run a floppy drive [..] Apple pushed the tech ahead on both fronts and changed the world for the better [..] you and your ilk claimed apple was crazy for building computers without floppies

Ditching the floppy on the first-generation (1998) iMac was a *genius* move... from a marketing perspective. They still get endless undeserved credit for that.

By the late 1990s, the 1.44 MB floppy disk was already uncomfortably small for most uses (the typical new PC hard drive was already 2 to 4 GB, and CD-ROMs stuffed with 700 MB of multimedia were commonplace). There was a clear impetus for something more in sync with this- the only reason people hadn't moved away from the floppy was that there wasn't a universally-accepted alternative at a comparable price. If there had been, they'd have been using it already, with or without Apple.

Consider the (non-) "alternatives" provided by the iMac:-

* The CD drive was read only and thus useless for outgoing file transfer. Writers were available and rapidly falling in price by the late 90s. However, they were still more expensive than read-only CD drives... which would explain why Apple didn't include one.
* USB pen drives (often mentioned in hindsight) weren't even on the market in 1998. It would be another five or so years before they got really cheap enough to start replacing the floppy en masse.
* The idea that one could use the Internet for file transfer is a no-brainer today when everyone has high speed broadband. It was a far less practical alternative back in 1998 when that meant using the 56 kbps dial-up modem and one couldn't be sure that the recipient had the (then far from universal) Internet access needed to receive it!

We all knew the floppy was due for replacement by that point. Apple did the easy, attention (and credit) grabbing part of ditching it, but they didn't do the difficult work of providing a workable alternative.

The damning proof that Apple jumped the gun on that one is provided by their own users. Why do you think almost every first-generation iMac you saw featured a third-party external USB floppy drive (in colour-matched plastic) hanging off the side?

Enough said.

Comment Re:They are letting users choose (Score 1) 324

You are free to buy any other phone that features legacy [my emphasis] audio technology as a "feature".

That use of language, in itself, shaping the debate in the direction that Apple would prefer; that the traditional jack is viewed as a "legacy" technology, with the implication that it's still in use but obsolescent and superseded by something everyone has agreed is better.

And, yes, people are free to choose another phone. They're also still free to criticise the new iPhone whether or not they make that choice.

Comment Re:Japanese focus on Britain (Score 1) 315

At the risk of stating the obvious, Japan isn't a part of the EU. So how exactly does being able to hold *their* car plant investments to ransom give the UK leverage against the EU?

Oh, and I can assure you that if one was to pull any such BS when you (very briefly) held the upper hand, the long-term damage to your now-toxic reputation and subsequent avoidance of anything resembling investment would massively outweigh any short-term benefit.

Comment Re:Meanwhile the EU is saying... (Score 1) 315

I mean, it's almost like we went into a referendum to leave the EU without having any idea about what this means, or any plans to achieve it.

Almost like?

Er, I believe this is what's known as "humour", m'lud.

I suspect the point the OP is making is that it's *exactly* like we went into a referendum to leave the EU without having any idea about what this means, or any plans to achieve it because that's what in fact happened. :-)

On the other hand, I think :-( might be more appropriate.

Slashdot Top Deals

The test of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Aldo Leopold