I think what you're saying is perhaps true is a small minority of highly educated, highly well-off socio-economic across most countries (in that they like their PCs and good cars and washing machines and Polo LR and Hollywood and Coca Cola), but I don't think it applies to a vast majority. I think you're over-generalizing.
It applies to everyone as far as I can tell. Culture is derived from their environment, not from an artificial classification of race. If you have 1.3 billion Chinese and they are all from a very similar genetic string that's another circumstance of their environment as most living things breed due to propinquity.
Now in my Brasil example note that both sets of her grandparents were from Japan. In a country that i so diverse and Asiatic decent being a rarity how did her 1st generation parents meet, fall in love, get married, and bear offspring? Well her parents surely picked up cultural traits from her grandparents that were still firmly rooted in Japan.
Her parents might have felt pressure from their parents. They might have lived in a Japanese heavy community not unlike the sections in cities in the US that are heavily populated to Chinese, Italians, Cubans, etc. This would all be a result of culture as a result of their environment, not because they are some "race".
I'm doing the opposite of over-generalizing. I'm trying not to generalize at all. It's an over-generalization to deem any group of people to be one way or another based on some superficial appearances. There is no proof that any skin color, eye shape, or hair type that makes someone smarter, stupider, better or worse than anyone else in the world. It's an artificial classification with no basis in science and a large basis in supporting racism. I place its merits up there with phrenology.
Let me ask you a question: If you took a Chinese orphaned newborn and placed it with a family in Japan would that child grow up with Chinese values and culture or Japanese? Would it feel uncomfortable in the Japanese environment because it didn't belong there genetically? What about if we move to something more visually disparate?
PS: I'm not sure if he was intentionally being racist or not but Carl Linnaeus measured he cranial cavities and skull shapes to determine intelligence and purity. He believed the God's shape was a sphere. The most round skull he found was in Turkey. This was deemed a scientific way to classify people.
PPS: The common phrase highbrow to denote someone intelligent has its roots in phrenology. I find it interesting how we can renounce one thing but hold onto other aspects that are also rooted in that same falsehood.
People often ask why no one came up with the iPad design before Apple. The answer is, they did. We saw it in small company products, science fiction, and Apple fan concepts.
You're talking about the concept of a tablet, not a tablet design with a clean black bezel with a certain bezel width, metallic display rim and a circular home button along with an icon grid layout with rounded rectangles (not plain icons) for the home screen. That design wasn't seen before the iPad and that's what Apple wants to protect.
Making a style statement instead, is something only a company like Apple can accomplish. Kudos to them!
Yeah, I remember using mobile devices with all the touch gestures, software keyboards, powerful GPUs, capacitive screens, high quality components, running a unix OS, buying apps seamlessly from an App Store, being able to switch them from landscape to portrait by turning them, being able to use them without a stylus. But they were just so ugly, kudos indeed to Apple for only making them in a particular shape of rounded rectangle. You really don't feel they deserve a little more credit than that?
There is no proof that any skin color, eye shape, or hair type that makes someone smarter, stupider, better or worse than anyone else in the world. It's an artificial classification with no basis in science and a large basis in supporting racism. I place its merits up there with phrenology.
I have no argument with that, so the rest of your post is moot.
As to the first part of your response (i.e.,, whether you were overgeneralizing) I'll let others decide. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have mentioned it! :-)
As to the first part of your response (i.e.,, whether you were overgeneralizing) I'll let others decide. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have mentioned it! :-)
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. Every debate is a chance to revise my thoughts.
The depth of my knowledge and experience is visible in my posts. I have seen none in yours.
"Decades of touch experience" is what I said. I talked a bit about my early 1990s capacitive touch experiences in this post and this one. The browsers I talked about in this post.
Great, now, how do we verify that? After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Normally, I wouldn't care what anyone's background is, since its irrelevant, but, since you attempt to use your "credentials" to give validity to your "arguments", you're fair game.
Apple's recent design patents, at least any I've read, are typically broad rather than highly detailed and restrictive. And yes FWIW, Apple has filed for and been granted a US design patent on a rounded rectangle shape for an electronic device and not for "all the details that make an iPad an iPad"
It might be just me, but while Apple might abuse the situation, the main fault here lies with the United States of America's Patent Office, which is failing to do its job. Patent too wide --> patent not granted, apply again.
I'd like to have a patent on "an innovative new method". No, that's the patent description. Its main characteristics is being innovative, you see?
Great, now, how do we verify that? After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Normally, I wouldn't care what anyone's background is, since its irrelevant, but, since you attempt to use your "credentials" to give validity to your "arguments", you're fair game.
He at least knows enough to use the right technical references in the right place. That gives him more credibility than you credit him for.
He's urbane. You're not.
He justifies his thoughts with verifiable sources. You don't.
On top of it, you're now angling the debate towards "you KDarling need to give out your personal details so that I anonymouse might consider to possibly maybe even give you a pretense of listening to". You know what? Who the **** should care about your opinion now that you've shown how insulting, disrespectful and aggressive you can be? Unpleasant, am I? Then don't do the same.
I think what he says is worth reading, and what you've said in this thread is not. Note that I'm not writing you off entirely, just your contribution to this debate. Let's say it's a bad day.
And if you don't care about anything, feel free to ignore my opinion. It's just an opinion.
Well my larger point still holds - Apple's neither the first, nor will be the last to be involved in patent litigation. This innovate don't litigate slogan is just silly.
I agree. Sure innovation should be in the forefront of Apple's plans, but obviously they're in a market where replicating (however poorly or superior) and taking ideas is almost necessary for evolution and advancement. Litigation is necessary to try to protect what's yours and I don't see anything wrong with that. Apple protecting its brand by securing the likeness of the iPad isn't anything we should be opposed to.
"Apple is also moving to position its premium products as more affordable within the Chinese market, introducing installment payments that allow customers to take up to 24 months to pay off their purchases."
Is this really true? Why is that just being implemented in the Chinese market?
“Apple has likely approached maximum penetration in China’s higher economic stratas, and now needs to be able to appeal to students, workers and rural residents sustain robust growth,”
Why shouldn't financing be available in the US considering it is "the best route to make expensive luxury items affordable to those unable to save the cash for them" ? Am I naive to think that even if this was implemented, Apple would still hold it's "status symbol tag" ?
Comments
It applies to everyone as far as I can tell. Culture is derived from their environment, not from an artificial classification of race. If you have 1.3 billion Chinese and they are all from a very similar genetic string that's another circumstance of their environment as most living things breed due to propinquity.
Now in my Brasil example note that both sets of her grandparents were from Japan. In a country that i so diverse and Asiatic decent being a rarity how did her 1st generation parents meet, fall in love, get married, and bear offspring? Well her parents surely picked up cultural traits from her grandparents that were still firmly rooted in Japan.
Her parents might have felt pressure from their parents. They might have lived in a Japanese heavy community not unlike the sections in cities in the US that are heavily populated to Chinese, Italians, Cubans, etc. This would all be a result of culture as a result of their environment, not because they are some "race".
I'm doing the opposite of over-generalizing. I'm trying not to generalize at all. It's an over-generalization to deem any group of people to be one way or another based on some superficial appearances. There is no proof that any skin color, eye shape, or hair type that makes someone smarter, stupider, better or worse than anyone else in the world. It's an artificial classification with no basis in science and a large basis in supporting racism. I place its merits up there with phrenology.
Let me ask you a question: If you took a Chinese orphaned newborn and placed it with a family in Japan would that child grow up with Chinese values and culture or Japanese? Would it feel uncomfortable in the Japanese environment because it didn't belong there genetically? What about if we move to something more visually disparate?
PS: I'm not sure if he was intentionally being racist or not but Carl Linnaeus measured he cranial cavities and skull shapes to determine intelligence and purity. He believed the God's shape was a sphere. The most round skull he found was in Turkey. This was deemed a scientific way to classify people.
PPS: The common phrase highbrow to denote someone intelligent has its roots in phrenology. I find it interesting how we can renounce one thing but hold onto other aspects that are also rooted in that same falsehood.
You're talking about the concept of a tablet, not a tablet design with a clean black bezel with a certain bezel width, metallic display rim and a circular home button along with an icon grid layout with rounded rectangles (not plain icons) for the home screen. That design wasn't seen before the iPad and that's what Apple wants to protect.
Yeah, I remember using mobile devices with all the touch gestures, software keyboards, powerful GPUs, capacitive screens, high quality components, running a unix OS, buying apps seamlessly from an App Store, being able to switch them from landscape to portrait by turning them, being able to use them without a stylus. But they were just so ugly, kudos indeed to Apple for only making them in a particular shape of rounded rectangle. You really don't feel they deserve a little more credit than that?
I have no argument with that, so the rest of your post is moot.
As to the first part of your response (i.e.,, whether you were overgeneralizing) I'll let others decide. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have mentioned it! :-)
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. Every debate is a chance to revise my thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The depth of my knowledge and experience is visible in my posts. I have seen none in yours.
"Decades of touch experience" is what I said. I talked a bit about my early 1990s capacitive touch experiences in this post and this one. The browsers I talked about in this post.
Great, now, how do we verify that? After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Normally, I wouldn't care what anyone's background is, since its irrelevant, but, since you attempt to use your "credentials" to give validity to your "arguments", you're fair game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple's recent design patents, at least any I've read, are typically broad rather than highly detailed and restrictive. And yes FWIW, Apple has filed for and been granted a US design patent on a rounded rectangle shape for an electronic device and not for "all the details that make an iPad an iPad"
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/11/apple-awarded-design-patent-for-actual-rounded-rectangle/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-rectangle-with-rounded-corners
It might be just me, but while Apple might abuse the situation, the main fault here lies with the United States of America's Patent Office, which is failing to do its job. Patent too wide --> patent not granted, apply again.
I'd like to have a patent on "an innovative new method". No, that's the patent description. Its main characteristics is being innovative, you see?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Great, now, how do we verify that? After all, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog.
Normally, I wouldn't care what anyone's background is, since its irrelevant, but, since you attempt to use your "credentials" to give validity to your "arguments", you're fair game.
He at least knows enough to use the right technical references in the right place. That gives him more credibility than you credit him for.
He's urbane. You're not.
He justifies his thoughts with verifiable sources. You don't.
On top of it, you're now angling the debate towards "you KDarling need to give out your personal details so that I anonymouse might consider to possibly maybe even give you a pretense of listening to". You know what? Who the **** should care about your opinion now that you've shown how insulting, disrespectful and aggressive you can be? Unpleasant, am I? Then don't do the same.
I think what he says is worth reading, and what you've said in this thread is not. Note that I'm not writing you off entirely, just your contribution to this debate. Let's say it's a bad day.
And if you don't care about anything, feel free to ignore my opinion. It's just an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Well my larger point still holds - Apple's neither the first, nor will be the last to be involved in patent litigation. This innovate don't litigate slogan is just silly.
I agree. Sure innovation should be in the forefront of Apple's plans, but obviously they're in a market where replicating (however poorly or superior) and taking ideas is almost necessary for evolution and advancement. Litigation is necessary to try to protect what's yours and I don't see anything wrong with that. Apple protecting its brand by securing the likeness of the iPad isn't anything we should be opposed to.
"Apple is also moving to position its premium products as more affordable within the Chinese market, introducing installment payments that allow customers to take up to 24 months to pay off their purchases."
Is this really true? Why is that just being implemented in the Chinese market?
From http://www.thetechstorm.com/2013/01/tech-sina-new-installment-payment-could-affect-apples-class-status/
“Apple has likely approached maximum penetration in China’s higher economic stratas, and now needs to be able to appeal to students, workers and rural residents sustain robust growth,”
Why shouldn't financing be available in the US considering it is "the best route to make expensive luxury items affordable to those unable to save the cash for them" ? Am I naive to think that even if this was implemented, Apple would still hold it's "status symbol tag" ?