The Apple Two The iPad is Steve Jobs' final victory over the company's co-founder Steve Wozniak.
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Tim McNamara on 25 Apr 2010 23:19 In article <sehix-8F5396.14401225042010(a)5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Steve Hix <sehix(a)NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote: > In article <timmcn-89F0F1.15583825042010(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net>, > Tim McNamara <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > > > In article <hr22ts$9fq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Phillip Jones <pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > > > > Depends on the use you need, of course. > > > > The iPad is just a little too small for what I want. If the screen > > was the size of my 12" iBook, it'd be perfect and I'd have bought > > one already. > > I initially thought the same thing, but having used one (as long as I > can keep it away from my wife), it turns out to not be a problem. > > Screen real estate just seems more available in use than a > similar-size screen running a typical laptop OS. Yeah, it's just that my primary use is peculiar. I am a jazz musician and haul about 750 pages of paper charts around with me when I play. I have about 8000 pages of song charts in PDF format, including virtually everything I have on paper, and it'd be great to be able to carry it all electronically. But the screen really needs to be 8.5 x 11 or very close for it to be practical, and thus far most of the things like the iPad and the Kindle have screens not much bigger than a trade paperback. The iPad could just about do most of the things I use my laptop for outside of work, except for the above which is the most important thing. If they make a bigger iPad at some point it would be a very viable option.
From: ZnU on 26 Apr 2010 18:13 In article <hr4so8$pu$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Mark Subtlework <MSW(a)khkhhkhkhkhk.com> wrote: > On 04/26/2010 02:01 PM, Fa-groon wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:26:02 -0700, Mark Subtlework wrote > > (in article<hr4eo7$919$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>): > > <snip> > >> But Maccies keep on buying. When big corporations get into it, the > >> typical American buys anything. He buys cheap corn beers, Big Macs, $5 > >> toothbrushes, hoaxes like 9-11, > > > > 911 is a hoax? Tell that to the families of the 3000 or so killed in that > > "hoax". > > Well, as you know, there are many conspiration theories about 9-11. I'm > not into it. Here are the facts: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks > > So, it takes more than an hour before Flight 11 has been signaled as > "probably been hijacked" and it makes a 100-degree turn, half an hour > after it has effectively crashed into the WTC before the USAF intervenes. > > Two commercial aircrafts have time to crash into New York's highest > skyscraper before the USAF comes to hover the wreckage and you believe > somebody wasn't deliberately holding the RED alarm button to off? Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. [snip] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Kurt Ullman on 27 Apr 2010 08:18 In article <hr5clj$578$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Mark Subtlework <MSW(a)khkhhkhkhkhk.com> wrote: > On 04/26/2010 06:13 PM, ZnU wrote: > > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attac > >> ks > >> > >> > >> > So, it takes more than an hour before Flight 11 has been signaled as > >> "probably been hijacked" and it makes a 100-degree turn, half an > >> hour after it has effectively crashed into the WTC before the USAF > >> intervenes. > >> > >> Two commercial aircrafts have time to crash into New York's > >> highest skyscraper before the USAF comes to hover the wreckage and > >> you believe somebody wasn't deliberately holding the RED alarm > >> button to off? > > > > Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by > > incompetence. > > Their incompetence or your stupidity? Actually it was more the common military occurrence of fighting the last war. At the time, the entire system was set-up on the model of lessons learned during the time hijackings were a cheap and easy way to get to Cuba. The policy of the time was to let the hijacker have the plane, do as they said, and mess around with them until they got where they wanted to go. It was assumed that they wanted the plane for transportation instead of incineration. At the time is wasn't policy to scramble AF for the most part because you did not want to spook the hijackers into doing something rash. You cleared the airspace and watched them, maybe hoping for a screw up if they refueled somewhere. Looking at it under the scenarios of the day before, what happened was pretty much normal SOP. Looking at it under the scenarios of the day after, there were holes. -- I get off on '57 Chevys I get off on screamin' guitars --Eric Clapton
From: Edwin on 27 Apr 2010 10:24 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:18:07 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote: > In article <hr5clj$578$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Mark Subtlework <MSW(a)khkhhkhkhkhk.com> wrote: > >> On 04/26/2010 06:13 PM, ZnU wrote: >> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attac >>>> ks >>>> >>>> >>>> >> So, it takes more than an hour before Flight 11 has been signaled as >>>> "probably been hijacked" and it makes a 100-degree turn, half an >>>> hour after it has effectively crashed into the WTC before the USAF >>>> intervenes. >>>> >>>> Two commercial aircrafts have time to crash into New York's >>>> highest skyscraper before the USAF comes to hover the wreckage and >>>> you believe somebody wasn't deliberately holding the RED alarm >>>> button to off? >>> >>> Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by >>> incompetence. >> >> Their incompetence or your stupidity? > Actually it was more the common military occurrence of fighting > the last war. At the time, the entire system was set-up on the model of > lessons learned during the time hijackings were a cheap and easy way to > get to Cuba. The policy of the time was to let the hijacker have the > plane, do as they said, and mess around with them until they got where > they wanted to go. It was assumed that they wanted the plane for > transportation instead of incineration. > At the time is wasn't policy to scramble AF for the most part because > you did not want to spook the hijackers into doing something rash. You > cleared the airspace and watched them, maybe hoping for a screw up if > they refueled somewhere. > Looking at it under the scenarios of the day before, what happened > was pretty much normal SOP. Looking at it under the scenarios of the day > after, there were holes. There's also the huge problem of shooting down a plane full of innocent people because of what the hijackers *might* do. Hindsight is 20/20. As you say, at the time nobody thought a plane would be hijacked for such a purpose. Are we supposed to shoot down every hijacked plane since this happened?
From: Edwin on 27 Apr 2010 12:11
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:07:39 -0400, Mark Subtlework wrote: > On 04/27/2010 10:24 AM, Edwin wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:18:07 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote: >> >>> In article<hr5clj$578$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Mark Subtlework<MSW(a)khkhhkhkhkhk.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/26/2010 06:13 PM, ZnU wrote: >>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attac >>>>>> ks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> So, it takes more than an hour before Flight 11 has been signaled as >>>>>> "probably been hijacked" and it makes a 100-degree turn, half an >>>>>> hour after it has effectively crashed into the WTC before the USAF >>>>>> intervenes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two commercial aircrafts have time to crash into New York's >>>>>> highest skyscraper before the USAF comes to hover the wreckage and >>>>>> you believe somebody wasn't deliberately holding the RED alarm >>>>>> button to off? >>>>> >>>>> Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by >>>>> incompetence. >>>> >>>> Their incompetence or your stupidity? >>> Actually it was more the common military occurrence of fighting >>> the last war. At the time, the entire system was set-up on the model of >>> lessons learned during the time hijackings were a cheap and easy way to >>> get to Cuba. The policy of the time was to let the hijacker have the >>> plane, do as they said, and mess around with them until they got where >>> they wanted to go. It was assumed that they wanted the plane for >>> transportation instead of incineration. >>> At the time is wasn't policy to scramble AF for the most part because >>> you did not want to spook the hijackers into doing something rash. You >>> cleared the airspace and watched them, maybe hoping for a screw up if >>> they refueled somewhere. >>> Looking at it under the scenarios of the day before, what happened >>> was pretty much normal SOP. Looking at it under the scenarios of the day >>> after, there were holes. >> >> There's also the huge problem of shooting down a plane full of innocent >> people because of what the hijackers *might* do. > > Right. So, you clear the streets in NY and you shoot at the last minute. Too bad that's not as easy to do as it is to say. |