Steve Jobs, the iPad, and cultural sugar water
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Steve Hix on 12 Jul 2010 13:21 In article <jollyroger-1C9EDF.09134812072010(a)news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > In article > <michelle-A1F151.06354412072010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.e > xample.com>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > > > In article <jollyroger-5795CF.08105712072010(a)news.individual.net>, > > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > <http://a.yfrog.com/img341/9007/image1zy.jpg> > > > > > > > > After > > > > <http://a.yfrog.com/img64/6347/imagedht.jpg> > > > > > > No kidding. Safety is important when it comes to cars. I've always > > > thought it's quite ironic that they actually use "smart" in the name of > > > such cars... > > > > <http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/new/smart/fortwo/road-test.h > > tm> > > I got rid of my Consumer Reports subscription some time ago. I bailed on them a couple decades ago. After a while you'd notice that their evaluations were less convincing the more you knew about a given product or topic. For example, they once compared two professional 35mm camera systems, Canon's F1 and Nikon's F2. Bodies, lenses, accessories, they're pretty comparable, differing in strength in various aspects of the systems. CU's final evaluation was that Nikon's offering was a professional system, and Canon's wasn't. Because Canon offered only one fisheye lens, and Nikon two or three. CU is ok if you're looking for the best deal in mayonnaise. Sometimes.
From: Wes Groleau on 12 Jul 2010 13:25 On 07-12-2010 09:10, Jolly Roger wrote: > Tom Stiller<tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> In article<Xns9DB3B887F02noonehomecom(a)74.209.131.13>, >> no one @ home wrote: >>> Just bought a new Smart car - Silver n Black.... >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obn9TJ6Xtc8 >> >> Before >> <http://a.yfrog.com/img341/9007/image1zy.jpg> >> >> After >> <http://a.yfrog.com/img64/6347/imagedht.jpg> > > No kidding. Safety is important when it comes to cars. I've always > thought it's quite ironic that they actually use "smart" in the name of > such cars... For some reason, Thunderbird won't let me reply to Tom. Maybe it's because he was answering the Lounge Lizard. Consumer Reports, as Michelle quoted (after posting a 404 link) gave them a good rating for running head-on into another “Smart”—not a very likely occurrence! I have little basis, other than their size, for guessing how they would fare in a more probable accident. As for the also unlikely occurrence of being crushed between two fully loaded dump trucks, I would think _any_ car (and all occupants!) would be totaled. For that matter, there is no way to tell what model is in the “after” picture. In fact, (1) I get the impression that it is a larger car, and (2) does “Smart” offer more than one hubcap design? The “after” car has (had?) different hubcaps than the other. It's not for me, though. I will soon be selling my gas-guzzling Hyundai accent for something more economical (but possibly not as safe) as a “Smart.” <http://www.industrialbicycles.com/hefty_hauler_images.htm> -- Wes Groleau Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/rulings/pants-fire/
From: nospam on 12 Jul 2010 14:09 In article <sehix-5BFF99.10213912072010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > > I got rid of my Consumer Reports subscription some time ago. > > I bailed on them a couple decades ago. After a while you'd notice that their > evaluations were less convincing the more you knew about a given product or > topic. very true. the problem with consumer reports is that they don't look for the best product, they look for the best *deal* which is very different. they also have very strange priorities on which features are important, especially to someone who actually uses them. > For example, they once compared two professional 35mm camera systems, Canon's > F1 and Nikon's F2. Bodies, lenses, accessories, they're pretty comparable, > differing in strength in various aspects of the systems. both were excellent cameras in their day (and still are in many ways). > CU's final evaluation was that Nikon's offering was a professional system, > and Canon's wasn't. Because Canon offered only one fisheye lens, and Nikon two or > three. that's stupid, especially since the additional fisheye lenses that nikon offered were very expensive and not commonly used. very few people have ever *seen* them, let alone own one. one was the infamous nikon 6mm fisheye that had a 220 degree field of view. it could see *behind* you. it also is one of the coolest looking lenses ever, and one recently sold on ebay for about $34,000. <http://www.geh.org/fm/nikon/m198110370001.jpg>
From: Larry on 12 Jul 2010 22:44 BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote in news:yobiq4l5le1.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com: > If you hate Apple and Apple products, you might find your time > more productively spent in newsgroups not devoted to those products. > Because company bastards just like you try to shut up any dissent.... -- iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships. Larry
From: BreadWithSpam on 13 Jul 2010 00:56
Larry <noone(a)home.com> writes: > BreadWithSpam(a)fractious.net wrote in news:yobiq4l5le1.fsf(a)panix1.panix.com: > > If you hate Apple and Apple products, you might find your time > > more productively spent in newsgroups not devoted to those products. > Because company bastards just like you try to shut up any dissent.... I'm a what? And I've tried to what? Okeeey, but you might seriously want to consider having your meds checked. I regularly point out or agree with notes indicating the real (and there are several) flaws with the products we are discussing here. And I've not only posted factual information about competing products, but have been actively seeking honest discussion and am very much looking forward to both the competing products and the improvement of both Apple's and those products. You, however, seem to just like to call people names and rant and rave, post in all-caps, and regularly post clear falsehoods, even repeating them after they've been disproven to you. Why, exactly, do you bother? It's not like you can post falsehoods here and not expect folks to call you on them. Are you going to claim again that the iPhone doesn't multitask? Seriously? -- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. |