What’s even funnier than the quarter million dollar billboards with errors or the facing posters begging to be taken seriously are the posters admonishing AI to stop poking fun at an incompetent corporation with billions of dollars to proofread or even sanity check its ads.
And who then turn around and enter into mass histrionics whenever AI has a typo of near-zero consequence.
Of course Daniel, I suppose they are only "near-zero consequence" when you make them?
Every year or so when I go to renew my car registration or licence in NSW, Australia, I am amazed to see that there is still one of these behind every counter:-
They must, just work for work.
I never owned one of those, and whenever I see one I wish that I had. I'll have to pick one up, one day. I just adore that design. There's something very forward-looking about it, and at the same very "Jetsons" too.
They must not be worried about security then, that version of OS X hasn't been patched for a long time
Security is obviously catered for by the network they are connected to, judging by their age and given the fact they are still in use, I would say that over time they became a good investment.
Security is obviously catered for by the network they are connected to, judging by their age and given the fact they are still in use, I would say that over time they became a good investment.
Well if they are connected to any network then that is a security risk
Just keep in mind that this doesn't mean that every politicians lies. Some are honest. Nor does it mean that even a grossly dishonest one always lies. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when LBJ announced that he wouldn't seek a second term. Perhaps because I knew the guy was liar, I refused to believe him. But another factor was his emphasis, "I will not seek, nor will I accept..." I read that as saying, "OK, if you push me a little, I'll run." In that case, I was wrong.
"I will not seek, nor will I accept the nomination ..." is absolutely standard political language. There's nothing under the hood going on. It's just the language of politics, and it means exactly what it says.
Having said that, I'm actually surprised that the Surface has done as badly as it has. While I've only fooled with one for a minute or two in a retail store, it just doesn't seem that awful. Several developers in the firm I consult for have purchased hybrid machines (laptop/pad) and they seem to love them. I think there is a case to be made that you can't do real work without a real keyboard. I wouldn't want to be typing even these three paragraphs on a touch screen. And I think there's a case to be made that a hybrid machine is not a bad solution if executed properly.
They don't sell because they are priced WAY out of the market. For what you're getting, it's simply not a good investment -- regardless of how one feels about RT or the actual hardware.
I mean, I might consider paying $40k for a Mercedes (if I drove anymore, that is ). But if you are asking me to pay $40k for a Ford Focus (well, the Electric version is about $40k -- but ...) then my answer is "NO way."
Also, I think that part of the problem with *some* users may be that no one really knows what the resale value of these things is going to be. I know from past experience that I can sell my new iPad or new iPhone for either a very high percentage of the price I paid, or, as in the case of my iPhone 5, for about $30 MORE than I paid for it. So, when I want to upgrade next year, the cost will be minimal. The Surface line hasn't really been around long enough for people to have a good idea.
"I will not seek, nor will I accept the nomination ..." is absolutely standard political language. There's nothing under the hood going on. It's just the language of politics, and it means exactly what it says.
I assume you're speaking in jest with "means exactly what it says," After all, "the language of politics," when stated by a politician as corrupt, dishonest and ill-mannered as LBJ, means exactly nothing. I was right to be suspicious. Lie enough, and you'll not be believed even when you're honest. Remember the tale about the boy crying "Wolf."
By the way, a friend of mine was the USAF still photographer selected to accompany LBJ on a tour through Asia and can he tell some revealing stories. LBJ bullied, threatened and treated badly both our military leaders and foreign leaders. He wasn't the syrupy, 'down home,' just plain folks guy you saw giving speeches. He was the classic ugly American, throwing his weight around and deserving to be hated.
Keep in mind that I'm a writer not a journalist/reporter. I consider the latter one of the worst of insults. During the 1992 campaign, I kept hearing breathless adoration about the 'Man from Hope'--Bill Clinton. "The press is so enthused about him," I told myself, "that this Clinton must be crooked, incompetent or both." Then I heard Clinton speak. Before he'd finished a single sentence, I thought "con man." He had the classic, syrupy sweet, "ah feel yore pain' voice of a con man. Strangely enough, when the press finally figured out Clinton, they'd talk about him being a "very good liar." He's not. He's the worst of liars. He's someone who comes across as a liar even when he's stating something honest. It's the press that was taken in as usual.
That's why one of Perry's Laws is that the quickest route to the truth in politics is to take what the press is saying about someone and flip it. If the press calls someone brilliant (i.e. Obama), you can know with near certainty that's he's a mental lightweight. That's why Obama has blocked the release of any of his grades. All we know is that, since he didn't graduate 'with honors' from Columbia, he wasn't in the top 30% of his class, even though his major, political science, isn't that hard.
And that's an interesting thing about LBJ. I don't recall the press treating him as a liar. For status-conscious reporters, his problem was that he wasn't 'rich and cool' like JFK had been. It was LBJ's obvious lies, particularly about Vietnam, that go him into so much trouble with an awakening public. Whatever people thought about Vietnam, they didn't like a President who ran in 1964 on keeping us out of Vietnam and then soon after escalated the war. That's why LBJ couldn't run again in 1968. In 1964, he'd won by a landslide. In 1968 he'd have lost against almost anyone by a landslide. That's why so many Democrats were challenging him.
Of course, there is one journalist I like--G. K. Chesterton. But he was most untypical. He wasn't taken in. He was warning in 1932 that, if the leaders of Britain and France didn't act, the next European war would break out over a border dispute between Germany and Poland--precisely what happened in 1939.
--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II
Comments
Of course Daniel, I suppose they are only "near-zero consequence" when you make them?
Every year or so when I go to renew my car registration or licence in NSW, Australia, I am amazed to see that there is still one of these behind every counter:-
They must, just work for work.
I never owned one of those, and whenever I see one I wish that I had. I'll have to pick one up, one day. I just adore that design. There's something very forward-looking about it, and at the same very "Jetsons" too.
It really was a beautiful design, IMO.
Security is obviously catered for by the network they are connected to, judging by their age and given the fact they are still in use, I would say that over time they became a good investment.
It’s an allusion to something Steve Jobs once said. It’s okay if you don’t get the jokes, they’re not for everyone.
Just another reason articles need to be marked with "Editorial" in their title.
Well if they are connected to any network then that is a security risk
Just keep in mind that this doesn't mean that every politicians lies. Some are honest. Nor does it mean that even a grossly dishonest one always lies. I'm old enough to remember 1968, when LBJ announced that he wouldn't seek a second term. Perhaps because I knew the guy was liar, I refused to believe him. But another factor was his emphasis, "I will not seek, nor will I accept..." I read that as saying, "OK, if you push me a little, I'll run." In that case, I was wrong.
"I will not seek, nor will I accept the nomination ..." is absolutely standard political language. There's nothing under the hood going on. It's just the language of politics, and it means exactly what it says.
Having said that, I'm actually surprised that the Surface has done as badly as it has. While I've only fooled with one for a minute or two in a retail store, it just doesn't seem that awful. Several developers in the firm I consult for have purchased hybrid machines (laptop/pad) and they seem to love them. I think there is a case to be made that you can't do real work without a real keyboard. I wouldn't want to be typing even these three paragraphs on a touch screen. And I think there's a case to be made that a hybrid machine is not a bad solution if executed properly.
They don't sell because they are priced WAY out of the market. For what you're getting, it's simply not a good investment -- regardless of how one feels about RT or the actual hardware.
I mean, I might consider paying $40k for a Mercedes (if I drove anymore, that is
). But if you are asking me to pay $40k for a Ford Focus (well, the Electric version is about $40k -- but ...) then my answer is "NO way."
Also, I think that part of the problem with *some* users may be that no one really knows what the resale value of these things is going to be. I know from past experience that I can sell my new iPad or new iPhone for either a very high percentage of the price I paid, or, as in the case of my iPhone 5, for about $30 MORE than I paid for it. So, when I want to upgrade next year, the cost will be minimal. The Surface line hasn't really been around long enough for people to have a good idea.
"I will not seek, nor will I accept the nomination ..." is absolutely standard political language. There's nothing under the hood going on. It's just the language of politics, and it means exactly what it says.
I assume you're speaking in jest with "means exactly what it says," After all, "the language of politics," when stated by a politician as corrupt, dishonest and ill-mannered as LBJ, means exactly nothing. I was right to be suspicious. Lie enough, and you'll not be believed even when you're honest. Remember the tale about the boy crying "Wolf."
By the way, a friend of mine was the USAF still photographer selected to accompany LBJ on a tour through Asia and can he tell some revealing stories. LBJ bullied, threatened and treated badly both our military leaders and foreign leaders. He wasn't the syrupy, 'down home,' just plain folks guy you saw giving speeches. He was the classic ugly American, throwing his weight around and deserving to be hated.
Keep in mind that I'm a writer not a journalist/reporter. I consider the latter one of the worst of insults. During the 1992 campaign, I kept hearing breathless adoration about the 'Man from Hope'--Bill Clinton. "The press is so enthused about him," I told myself, "that this Clinton must be crooked, incompetent or both." Then I heard Clinton speak. Before he'd finished a single sentence, I thought "con man." He had the classic, syrupy sweet, "ah feel yore pain' voice of a con man. Strangely enough, when the press finally figured out Clinton, they'd talk about him being a "very good liar." He's not. He's the worst of liars. He's someone who comes across as a liar even when he's stating something honest. It's the press that was taken in as usual.
That's why one of Perry's Laws is that the quickest route to the truth in politics is to take what the press is saying about someone and flip it. If the press calls someone brilliant (i.e. Obama), you can know with near certainty that's he's a mental lightweight. That's why Obama has blocked the release of any of his grades. All we know is that, since he didn't graduate 'with honors' from Columbia, he wasn't in the top 30% of his class, even though his major, political science, isn't that hard.
And that's an interesting thing about LBJ. I don't recall the press treating him as a liar. For status-conscious reporters, his problem was that he wasn't 'rich and cool' like JFK had been. It was LBJ's obvious lies, particularly about Vietnam, that go him into so much trouble with an awakening public. Whatever people thought about Vietnam, they didn't like a President who ran in 1964 on keeping us out of Vietnam and then soon after escalated the war. That's why LBJ couldn't run again in 1968. In 1964, he'd won by a landslide. In 1968 he'd have lost against almost anyone by a landslide. That's why so many Democrats were challenging him.
Of course, there is one journalist I like--G. K. Chesterton. But he was most untypical. He wasn't taken in. He was warning in 1932 that, if the leaders of Britain and France didn't act, the next European war would break out over a border dispute between Germany and Poland--precisely what happened in 1939.
--Michael W. Perry, Chesterton on War and Peace: Battling the Ideas and Movements that Led to Nazism and World War II