I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
powerful.

Goodbye Steve. You're a hero to me.

Yours sincerely,
 Jamie Kahn Genet

-- 
http://www.apple.com/stevejobs/

On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> powerful.

You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about the 
openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve so many 
thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac users.

Like that of a father, blessed be his memory!

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > powerful.
>
> You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about the
> openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve so many
> thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac users.

Openness?  Of Apple?!  I don't know what you all are smoking...  but I
see this as Steve's biggest *failure*.  He went to great lengths to
keep Apple hardware and software under the tightest of wraps.  He took
on IBM as Big Brother only to enable Microsoft (because of Apple's
lack of openness) to take over as Big Brother.  The reason why Gates
blew his doors off financially was because Steve squeezed too hard.

The first computer I ever programmed was an Apple II.  I've always
admired Apple's engineering and design, but the reason why I don't own
a single Apple product is because of how closed it is.  I've never
purchased a single thing on iTunes.  I have no plans to ever buy
anything from Apple.  I require freedom of hardware, and freedom of
software.

Steve Jobs certainly did revolutionize the planet.  In his short span
of years, he managed to pull off the innovation hat trick, radically
changing the computer industry, the cinema animation industry, and the
music industry.  He and Woz made the biggest of impacts by taking a
bite into the Apple and propelling humanity out of our technological
garden of eden in delivering the personalized computer.  His legacy is
innovation and insistence on the highest of quality.  But it was his
lack of openness that enabled others to overtake him in market share
along the trails he blazed.  Android and PC-compatible are hallmarks
of openness.  With Jobs no longer around to lead Apple's innovation
efforts, if the company chooses to maintain their lack of openness
they may find themselves on a steady path of decline toward a
protracted extinction.  I will be forever grateful for what Steve Jobs
gave the world.  Apple is a key part of his legacy.  I hope the
company grows and thrives, but in order to do so in the long term they
will need to wholly re-assess their attitude toward openness.


~ CT

In article 
<d5f9fd2a-3d88-43bf-85de-3319bcb1f041@i33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> > On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> >
> > > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, 
> > > and then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology 
> > > builds on my first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, 
> > > at age five. It was such a friendly computer - from it's openness 
> > > to the warm design of the case, and boy did it open doors in my 
> > > mind. Later when I first got to use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI 
> > > at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was a revelation - 
> > > especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have imagined 
> > > computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically 
> > > powerful.
> >
> > You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about 
> > the openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve 
> > so many thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac 
> > users.
> 
> Openness?  Of Apple?!  I don't know what you all are smoking...  but 
> I see this as Steve's biggest *failure*.  He went to great lengths to 
> keep Apple hardware and software under the tightest of wraps.  He 
> took on IBM as Big Brother only to enable Microsoft (because of 
> Apple's lack of openness) to take over as Big Brother.  The reason 
> why Gates blew his doors off financially was because Steve squeezed 
> too hard.

I realize you're trolling here and I shouldn't waste the breath on you, 
but check the relative market cap values of Microsoft and Apple

> The first computer I ever programmed was an Apple II.  I've always 
> admired Apple's engineering and design, but the reason why I don't 
> own a single Apple product is because of how closed it is.  I've 
> never purchased a single thing on iTunes.  I have no plans to ever 
> buy anything from Apple.  I require freedom of hardware, and freedom 
> of software.

Good for you.

> Steve Jobs certainly did revolutionize the planet.  In his short span 
> of years, he managed to pull off the innovation hat trick, radically 
> changing the computer industry, the cinema animation industry, and 
> the music industry.  He and Woz made the biggest of impacts by taking 
> a bite into the Apple and propelling humanity out of our 
> technological garden of eden in delivering the personalized computer. 

IBM and mainframes were the technological garden of eden?

>  His legacy is innovation and insistence on the highest of quality.  
> But it was his lack of openness that enabled others to overtake him 
> in market share along the trails he blazed.  Android and 
> PC-compatible are hallmarks of openness.  

Tell that to Richard Stallman.  Preferably to his face.  I'd like to 
watch.

> With Jobs no longer around to lead Apple's innovation efforts, if the 
> company chooses to maintain their lack of openness they may find 
> themselves on a steady path of decline toward a protracted 
> extinction.  I will be forever grateful for what Steve Jobs gave the 
> world.  Apple is a key part of his legacy.  I hope the company grows 
> and thrives, but in order to do so in the long term they will need to 
> wholly re-assess their attitude toward openness.

Your logic is of the kind that isn't.

While openness is laudable, look at the market failure that is the Linux 
and BSD-ish Unixen model.  Those systems are so open that they are 
unusable except by a very few with sufficient skills to make them work.  
Interestingly Linux's best market success are in closed systems (e.g., 
imbedded software). 

Look at Windows, installed on hundreds of millions of PCs of varying 
quality and sufficiently unreliable and difficult to use that its users 
are less productive than Mac users.  And that's before we get to the 
real fruits of "the hallmarks of openness:" tens of millions of 
compromised Windows PCs recruited into botnets for the purposes of 
crime.  

Openness is not necessarily a way to technological superiority nor to 
market success.  If it was, Linux would have won.

-- 
Your time is limited.  Don't waste it living someone else's life.

Steve Jobs 1955-2011

Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> writes:

[Hi, Priam]

-- 
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks.  The rest gets trashed.

From Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net>:
> In article
> <d5f9fd2a-3d88-43bf-85de-3319bcb1f...@i33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> > > On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>
> > > > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II,
> > > > and then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology
> > > > builds on my first encounter with an Apple II in primary school,
> > > > at age five. It was such a friendly computer - from it's openness
> > > > to the warm design of the case, and boy did it open doors in my
> > > > mind. Later when I first got to use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI
> > > > at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was a revelation -
> > > > especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have imagined
> > > > computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > > > powerful.
>
> > > You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about
> > > the openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve
> > > so many thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac
> > > users.
>
> > Openness? =A0Of Apple?! =A0I don't know what you all are smoking... =A0=
but
> > I see this as Steve's biggest *failure*. =A0He went to great lengths to
> > keep Apple hardware and software under the tightest of wraps. =A0He
> > took on IBM as Big Brother only to enable Microsoft (because of
> > Apple's lack of openness) to take over as Big Brother. =A0The reason
> > why Gates blew his doors off financially was because Steve squeezed
> > too hard.
>
> I realize you're trolling here and I shouldn't waste the breath on you,
> but check the relative market cap values of Microsoft and Apple
>
> > The first computer I ever programmed was an Apple II. =A0I've always
> > admired Apple's engineering and design, but the reason why I don't
> > own a single Apple product is because of how closed it is. =A0I've
> > never purchased a single thing on iTunes. =A0I have no plans to ever
> > buy anything from Apple. =A0I require freedom of hardware, and freedom
> > of software.
>
> Good for you.
>
> > Steve Jobs certainly did revolutionize the planet. =A0In his short span
> > of years, he managed to pull off the innovation hat trick, radically
> > changing the computer industry, the cinema animation industry, and
> > the music industry. =A0He and Woz made the biggest of impacts by taking
> > a bite into the Apple and propelling humanity out of our
> > technological garden of eden in delivering the personalized computer.
>
> IBM and mainframes were the technological garden of eden?

The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity.  IBM, sans the Steve-
squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
computers into everyone's home.

> > =A0His legacy is innovation and insistence on the highest of quality. =
=A0
> > But it was his lack of openness that enabled others to overtake him
> > in market share along the trails he blazed. =A0Android and
> > PC-compatible are hallmarks of openness. =A0
>
> Tell that to Richard Stallman. =A0Preferably to his face. =A0I'd like to
> watch.

Speaking in relative terms, of course.

> > With Jobs no longer around to lead Apple's innovation efforts, if the
> > company chooses to maintain their lack of openness they may find
> > themselves on a steady path of decline toward a protracted
> > extinction. =A0I will be forever grateful for what Steve Jobs gave the
> > world. =A0Apple is a key part of his legacy. =A0I hope the company grow=
s
> > and thrives, but in order to do so in the long term they will need to
> > wholly re-assess their attitude toward openness.
>
> Your logic is of the kind that isn't.
>
> While openness is laudable, look at the market failure that is the Linux
> and BSD-ish Unixen model. =A0Those systems are so open that they are
> unusable except by a very few with sufficient skills to make them work. =
=A0
> Interestingly Linux's best market success are in closed systems (e.g.,
> imbedded software).
>
> Look at Windows, installed on hundreds of millions of PCs of varying
> quality and sufficiently unreliable and difficult to use that its users
> are less productive than Mac users. =A0And that's before we get to the
> real fruits of "the hallmarks of openness:" tens of millions of
> compromised Windows PCs recruited into botnets for the purposes of
> crime. =A0
>
> Openness is not necessarily a way to technological superiority nor to
> market success. =A0If it was, Linux would have won.

I must concede that Jobs's strategy of hyper-controlled hardware and
software has, through today, triumphed in the market.  But I cannot be
silent here while people laud him for openness.  Dismiss it as
trolling if you like.  I see it as a reality check.


~ CT

On 10/06/2011 03:43 PM, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  writes:
>
> [Hi, Priam]
>
Good catch. Why with the three names I wonder? Typically Linux, T-bird, 
and Eternal September in the headers.

-- 
*Hemidactylus*
  Darwin is daemonic

On 10/06/2011 02:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

[snip]

> While openness is laudable, look at the market failure that is the Linux
> and BSD-ish Unixen model.  Those systems are so open that they are
> unusable except by a very few with sufficient skills to make them work.
> Interestingly Linux's best market success are in closed systems (e.g.,
> imbedded software).
>
It doesn't take too much effort to get Ubuntu or Fedora working, if the 
hardware is supported. The reasonably ambitious (or crazy) person can do 
it.

FreeBSD is much more difficult, but the PC-BSD project is changing that. 
I got the 3rd Beta of PC-BSD9 working on a desktop (with KDE) and an 
earlier Beta on a netbook (GNOME 2 and LXDE options).

No need to belittle Linux as unusable. It's just not that *popular* as 
most folks don't really want to bother with the effort of installing a 
different OS when they can get Mac OS X (kinda BSD-ish too) or Windows 
preinstalled and fully functional OOTB. Popularity, market share, and 
corporate revenue (or capitalization) are not the metrics I use.

I do like how Mac OS X looks and works on my 42" 1080p LCDTV. That's a 
proper metric in my book.

One thing about Linux that I've learned is that if you really screw it 
up royally with over-zealous tweaking, it's nothing to wipe the drive 
with GParted and start over. Been there, done that :-) I've learned more 
about computers screwing around with Linux than I ever would have using 
Windows.

I treat my Mac Mini more gingerly.

-- 
*Hemidactylus*
  Darwin is daemonic

Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

> On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > powerful.
> 
> You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about the
> openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve so many
> thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac users.
> 
> Like that of a father, blessed be his memory!

I will always be grateful for Steve empowering me to change from working
with dirty grey blocks of plastics and mind numbing industrial lumps of
keyboards ... to sitting at an utterly beautiful computer and keyboards
and using a totally beautiful iPhone and then iPad.
I can think of many instances in recent years working with colleagues
where one of them sat back during the day and said ..'this is such a
gorgeous machine!' or words ot that effect. I did the same thing on many
occasions. And the same at meetings with colleagues and friends,
referring to an iPhone.

Having style and beauty in our lives is so important. It is so important
for the spirit.

Steve gave me and many others that beauty.


Howard

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> powerful.
> 
> Goodbye Steve. You're a hero to me.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
>  Jamie Kahn Genet

A beautiful article by Michael Rose on TUAW:

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/06/heres-to-the-crazy-ones-a-farewell-to-ste
ve-jobs/


Howard

On 10/06/2011 07:40 AM, Stuf4 wrote:

> His legacy is
> innovation and insistence on the highest of quality.

Absolutely. When you buy an Apple product, you know that it's not one of 
those cheap piece of junk apt to catch a capacitor plague, with an 
ill-conceived cooling system that will soon overheat, a flaky display 
and so on. It's prime quality S-O-L-I-D stuff, offered at an unbeatable 
price, mainly that it comes with the OS that Steve designed for us to 
enjoy when he was at NeXt.

I'm glad we agree on this.

> But it was his
> lack of openness that enabled others to overtake him in market share
> along the trails he blazed.

They overtook the cheap scrap market. Apple is not interested in this. 
More and more people are beginning to understand what Apple is all about 
and and are joining the ranks.

> Android and PC-compatible are hallmarks
> of openness.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Mac users can go anywhere 
they want. You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple 
store. Music? There's iTunes. And soon there will be the cloud, just for 
Mac users! Where do you see anything being blocked here?

On 10/06/2011 02:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

> I realize you're trolling here and I shouldn't waste the breath on you,
> but check the relative market cap values of Microsoft and Apple

Absolutely! If Stuf4 was right and Apple was closed, it wouldn't succeed 
as it does. There's nowhere you can't go with Apple!

> Look at Windows, installed on hundreds of millions of PCs of varying
> quality and sufficiently unreliable and difficult to use that its users
> are less productive than Mac users.

I wonder how come Apple never thought of using productivity as a sales 
argument. I mean, it's so obvious. Maybe Cook will think of this.

> And that's before we get to the
> real fruits of "the hallmarks of openness:" tens of millions of
> compromised Windows PCs recruited into botnets for the purposes of
> crime.

Yes, I certainly can do without openness to share viruses.

> Openness is not necessarily a way to technological superiority nor to
> market success.  If it was, Linux would have won.

Linux is like Samsung. They would like to have all the patents for free!

On 10/06/2011 03:43 PM, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  writes:
>
> [Hi, Priam]

Who's Priam?

On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 03:43 PM, BreadWithSpam@fractious.net wrote:
>> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> writes:
>>
>> [Hi, Priam]
>>
> Good catch. Why with the three names I wonder? Typically Linux, T-bird,
> and Eternal September in the headers.

Many Mac users are with Eternal September. As for the Linux headers, 
sorry, I can't help it. I'm now in high school and saving money to buy a 
27" iMac and pay for a course in industrial design. Rather expensive, 
you know. For now, I'm using a junkyard PC that my uncle gave me.

Could you please consider opinions instead of headers?

In article <j6l5ss$1u8$2@dont-email.me>,
 Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

> Absolutely. When you buy an Apple product, you know that it's not one of 
> those cheap piece of junk apt to catch a capacitor plague, with an 
> ill-conceived cooling system that will soon overheat, a flaky display 
> and so on.

You know that it is highly unlikely that it's not.  Despite your delusions 
to the contrary, we know that Jobs wasn't God and that Apple isn't perfect.  
We know that there will be some flaws at rare intervals, and we know that 
Apple will address those problems.

We, unlike you, live in the real world.

> You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple store.

And Amazon, Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, Mac Mall, and other chains and 
independent retailers.

> Music? There's iTunes.

And any place that sells CDs, and downloads from Amazon and many other 
download sites.

> I don't understand what you're talking about. Mac users can go anywhere 
> they want. 

For once you've got it right; Mac users can go anywhere they want, within 
the same limitations as users of other brands of computer.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <1k8qkcq.1pqo1kdqo6hdeN%Howard.not@home.com>,
 Howard.not@home.com (Howard) wrote:

> Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

Talking to yourself, Priam?

I trust that you will be joining your buddies at the Westboro Baptist 
Church when they picket Jobs' funeral:

<http://news.yahoo.com/westboro-church-uses-iphone-announce-steve-jobs-funer
al-134752333.html>

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 10/06/2011 03:54 PM, Stuf4 wrote:

> The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity.  IBM, sans the Steve-
> squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
> computers into everyone's home.

No doubt we'd still be stuck in the mainframe area. Steve was the 
revolution in every computer design.

Isn't it weird that we agree on very point except about this openness 
stuff you keep hen-pecking about? Forget about this totally ridicule stance.

On 10/06/2011 06:11 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article<j6l5ss$1u8$2@dont-email.me>,
>   Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  wrote:
>
>> Absolutely. When you buy an Apple product, you know that it's not one of
>> those cheap piece of junk apt to catch a capacitor plague, with an
>> ill-conceived cooling system that will soon overheat, a flaky display
>> and so on.
>
> You know that it is highly unlikely that it's not.Despite your delusions
> to the contrary, we know that Jobs wasn't God and that Apple isn't perfect.
> We know that there will be some flaws at rare intervals, and we know that
> Apple will address those problems.

Well, of course. I never meant that Apple products are perfect but very 
seldom do they break. This is not the case with PCs.

I don't want to complain about a computer that my uncle gave me, but 2 
months after I got it, the HD ground to a halt. So, I asked a friend to 
download Ubuntu for me and I installed it on USB drive that I had to 
save data at school. That's why I run Linux instead of Windows Millenium.

Can you imagine the pain? And now you're giving me shit about it!

Give me a break, will you! PCs spell trouble.

> We, unlike you, live in the real world.
>
>> You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple store.
>
> And Amazon, Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, Mac Mall, and other chains and
> independent retailers.

Well, of course, they're all on the net!

> For once you've got it right; Mac users can go anywhere they want, within
> the same limitations as users of other brands of computer.

That's why I say that Apple products have all the openness you could 
dream of.

But give me a break with Priam!

On 10/06/2011 06:15 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<1k8qkcq.1pqo1kdqo6hdeN%Howard.not@home.com>,
>   Howard.not@home.com (Howard) wrote:
>
>> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  wrote:
>
> Talking to yourself, Priam?

One more like this and I'll killfile you! Don't you have any decency?

In article <j6lbro$563$1@dont-email.me>,
 Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

> One more like this and I'll killfile you!

BFD.  GFY!

> Don't you have any decency?

Much more than you do, Priam.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 03:54 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> > The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity. =A0IBM, sans the Steve-
> > squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
> > computers into everyone's home.
>
> No doubt we'd still be stuck in the mainframe area. Steve was the
> revolution in every computer design.

Weird that with all the news coverage, I haven't seen anyone give him
the broad extent of credit that he deserves.  They typically talk
strictly about Apple products, not his impact in creation of the
entire industry.  I even find the comparisons of him with the likes of
Edison, Bell and Ford to be lacking.  If you combine all three, then
you're approaching the level I see Jobs to have achieved.  Woz today
compared him to John Lennon.  Analyzing that could get convoluted,
including a subtle message that The Beatles were not a solo act.  Heh!

> Isn't it weird that we agree on very point except about this openness
> stuff you keep hen-pecking about? Forget about this totally ridicule stan=
ce.

I have deep admiration for Steve Jobs and the things he's built.  We
visited his Cupertino headquarters in a long roadtrip this summer.
Pixar is a lot harder to get into.  I've been so moved by his death
that I've been acting a lot like iJustine.  Very rare for me.

But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.

~ CT

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 07:40 AM, Stuf4 wrote:

> > Android and PC-compatible are hallmarks
> > of openness.
>
> I don't understand what you're talking about. Mac users can go anywhere
> they want. You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple
> store. Music? There's iTunes. And soon there will be the cloud, just for
> Mac users! Where do you see anything being blocked here?

Just look at your very reply.  You present questions, and then provide
a single option in answer to that question.

But one point I cannot argue against is the level of satisfaction that
Apple users have for their products and processes.  It just doesn't
suit me, as much as I admire the innovation and quality.

~ CT

Stuf4:
> ...

> The first computer I ever programmed was an Apple II.  I've always
> admired Apple's engineering and design, but the reason why I don't own
> a single Apple product is because of how closed it is.  I've never
> purchased a single thing on iTunes.  I have no plans to ever buy
> anything from Apple.  I require freedom of hardware, and freedom of
> software.

The latter assertions cause the curious reader to wonder why you are
here in CSMS. The typical answer is a syndrome called "Apple envy." I
am reminded of a man I know who "hates" BMW's. Says he would never buy
one because they're closed--too hard to customize; you have to pay a
3rd party $ thousands to do it for you. Yet he obsesses over BMW's
(desperately wants one), stops in the street to examine even the
lowest-end model, goes to dealerships, talks to owners and criticizes
their cars, and all. Classic case of envy.

You're not a computer user, but a hobbyist. The Mac is made for users.
Users care about the way in which their computer empowers them. That's
my idea of freedom -- the freedom to create, with the computer as an
all-but-invisible helper. Mac users are not interested in the freedom
to swap motherboards every few days; indeed they don't have time for
that sort of thing. Causing a Windows-based computer to not function
properly and then troubleshooting and fixing the problem is a
legitimate hobby, not subject to criticism, but it's using a computer
in a closed loop, something to be done in one's parents' basement.
Nothing comes out that makes the world a better place or a more fun
place.

"Anyone with a Macintosh and a Sony digital camera can do anything. I
just happen to have a few cameras and a few Macintoshes" � George Lucas

(Lucas has probably never swapped a motherboard in his life, yet he
seems to have succeeded well enough in his chosen profession.)

Screenwriter Terry Rossio (�Pirates of the Caribbean,� �Aladdin,� �Men
in Black,� �Shrek�): �To work on something other than a Mac would be to
marry a woman you don't love...�

(Rossio is another guy who doesn't know a mobo from a pie pan, but
whose movies have done OK.)

"Lord of the Rings Director Peter Jackson used Macs extensively for
post-production. He spent a lot of time traveling by air during the
making of the LOTR trilogy (all three movies were made simultaneously),
and he used his PowerBook and Apple�s Final Cut Pro video editing
software to work on the movie while flying from location to location.
Jackson�s crew also used the iPod�which is best known as a music
player, but which is also a small but high-capacity FireWire drive�to
move large amounts of video around the world. iPods served more than
500 Gigabytes of video data during LOTR post-production." � Peter
Jackson and "The Hollywood Reporter."

That was before the days of the iPod Touch, when the iPod was the
smallest 60GB FireWire HD available.

"Apple... is the only multimedia company to have won an Oscar, an Emmy
and a Grammy for its technology." � "Silicon Valley Internet."

(Microsoft also has a triple-header. It has been convicted of fraud,
theft, and perjury.)

�Many of the computer security folks back at FBI HQ use Macs running OS
X, since those machines can do about anything; run software for Mac,
Unix, or Windows, using either a GUI or the Command Line. And they�re
secure out of the box.� � Dave Thomas, Assistant Special Agent in
Charge of the St. Louis Division of the FBI; former chief of Computer
Intrusion Operations at FBI HQ.

You're dead wrong about iTunes. It is an entirely open system, able to
accept music and video from practically any source on Earth, so long as
the copyright owner has not put DRM on it. That's why it is by far the
world's most popular digital media distribution system. Steve Jobs
strong-armed music companies to end DRM on iTunes songs.

Users. It's about *users* , not motherboards. And you haven't forgotten
that Apple makes pro computers where one has a wide choice of video and
sound cards and other add-ons for creative pros, have you?

Davoud

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Stuf4:

> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.

You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.

Davoud

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 10/06/2011 07:24 PM, Stuf4 wrote:

> Weird that with all the news coverage, I haven't seen anyone give him
> the broad extent of credit that he deserves.  They typically talk
> strictly about Apple products, not his impact in creation of the
> entire industry.  I even find the comparisons of him with the likes of
> Edison, Bell and Ford to be lacking.

Typical news coverage. They never get to the true meaning, just the 
overt facts. Adding Einstein and Oppenheimer would be closer to reality, 
maybe not in terms of achievement, but in terms of caring.

It's when you see the president of a company taking patents on cardboard 
boxes that you understand how much he cares about customers.

>> Isn't it weird that we agree on very point except about this openness
>> stuff you keep hen-pecking about? Forget about this totally ridicule stance.
>
> I have deep admiration for Steve Jobs and the things he's built.  We
> visited his Cupertino headquarters in a long roadtrip this summer.
> Pixar is a lot harder to get into.

I must have watched every Toy Story at least ten times. It speaks so 
much to me!

> I've been so moved by his death
> that I've been acting a lot like iJustine.  Very rare for me.

I must confess I don't know her. How is she like? I just watched her 
video with all the Apple stuff and wonderful music. I mean, this is art!

> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.

I certainly hope you get back to reality and buy a plan offering iPhones.

On 10/06/2011 08:24 PM, Davoud wrote:
> Stuf4:
>
>> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
>> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
> myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.
>
> Davoud

Absolutely! Without the Apple team, there would never have been a 
smartphone. So many things had to be invented.

And now, instead of developing new designs -- say, an egg shaped or 
tennis ball shaped form -- they copy the same patented rectangular shape.

Isn't it a shame how Apple gets rubbed and can only go to court in the 
most obvious cases?

On 10/06/2011 06:00 PM, Paul Morgan Wesley wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 02:13 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> I realize you're trolling here and I shouldn't waste the breath on you,
>> but check the relative market cap values of Microsoft and Apple
>
> Absolutely! If Stuf4 was right and Apple was closed, it wouldn't succeed
> as it does. There's nowhere you can't go with Apple!
>
>> Look at Windows, installed on hundreds of millions of PCs of varying
>> quality and sufficiently unreliable and difficult to use that its users
>> are less productive than Mac users.
>
> I wonder how come Apple never thought of using productivity as a sales
> argument. I mean, it's so obvious. Maybe Cook will think of this.
>
>> And that's before we get to the
>> real fruits of "the hallmarks of openness:" tens of millions of
>> compromised Windows PCs recruited into botnets for the purposes of
>> crime.
>
> Yes, I certainly can do without openness to share viruses.
>
>> Openness is not necessarily a way to technological superiority nor to
>> market success. If it was, Linux would have won.
>
> Linux is like Samsung. They would like to have all the patents for free!
>
>
Then why are you using Linux, troll?

-- 
*Hemidactylus*
  Darwin is daemonic

On 10/06/2011 09:24 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Then why are you using Linux?

I have no choice. I explained this to Michelle Steiner already. Read the 
thread before you post disgraceful comments, troll.

In article
<26b84014-7e31-4ca2-86d7-7c1d62f0d245@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> > On 10/06/2011 03:54 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
> >
> > > The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity. �IBM, sans the Steve-
> > > squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
> > > computers into everyone's home.
> >
> > No doubt we'd still be stuck in the mainframe area. Steve was the
> > revolution in every computer design.
> 
> Weird that with all the news coverage, I haven't seen anyone give him
> the broad extent of credit that he deserves.  They typically talk
> strictly about Apple products, not his impact in creation of the
> entire industry.  I even find the comparisons of him with the likes of
> Edison, Bell and Ford to be lacking.  If you combine all three, then
> you're approaching the level I see Jobs to have achieved.  Woz today
> compared him to John Lennon.  Analyzing that could get convoluted,
> including a subtle message that The Beatles were not a solo act.  Heh!
> 
Then you obviously didn't watch it on MSNBC or CNN, because that's
where my wife followed the story through the evening. They spent a fair
amount of time on his involvement in Pixar, the negotiations with RIAA
and the record labels to establish the basis for legal downloads, and
how NeXT provided the sinew for OS X.

-- 
Spenser

From sbt <dogbre...@chaseabone.com.invalid>:
> In article
> <26b84014-7e31-4ca2-86d7-7c1d62f0d...@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> > > On 10/06/2011 03:54 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> > > > The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity. IBM, sans the Steve-
> > > > squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would delive=
r
> > > > computers into everyone's home.
>
> > > No doubt we'd still be stuck in the mainframe area. Steve was the
> > > revolution in every computer design.
>
> > Weird that with all the news coverage, I haven't seen anyone give him
> > the broad extent of credit that he deserves. =A0They typically talk
> > strictly about Apple products, not his impact in creation of the
> > entire industry. =A0I even find the comparisons of him with the likes o=
f
> > Edison, Bell and Ford to be lacking. =A0If you combine all three, then
> > you're approaching the level I see Jobs to have achieved. =A0Woz today
> > compared him to John Lennon. =A0Analyzing that could get convoluted,
> > including a subtle message that The Beatles were not a solo act. =A0Heh=
!
>
> Then you obviously didn't watch it on MSNBC or CNN, because that's
> where my wife followed the story through the evening. They spent a fair
> amount of time on his involvement in Pixar, the negotiations with RIAA
> and the record labels to establish the basis for legal downloads, and
> how NeXT provided the sinew for OS X.

Huge impact there for sure.  The key part of the story I've been
hoping to see given credit for, just on the computer side of things,
is that Steve-squared are not only the driving force behind Apple
products, but behind the entire IBM-PC compatible universe as well.
Apple was so far ahead of IBM that Big Blue decided to cut corners in
their desperate attempt to catch up.  This led to IBM's cloning
vulnerability, and THAT is what caused the explosion in the home
computing revolution.  The door to competition got kicked wide open.
Prices got driven way down and software & hardware creativity got
driven way up.

With this understanding, EVERY computer you see today (that isn't a
mainframe) deserves to be credited to those humble beginning in that
Los Altos garage of Steve Jobs's adoptive parents.  That includes the
computers we keep in our pockets that we call smartphones.

~ CT

From Davoud <s...@sky.net>:
> Stuf4:
>
> > But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> > escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
> myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.

I happen to see Android as the antithesis of Apple's approach to
mobile computing.  And if Apple had been more open, then Brin & Page
would not have had the impetus to do Android.

....and this mobile story was a classic case of history repeating
itself - the history of PC evolution.  Had Apple been more open with
the Apple II, there would have been no counter-force that gave rise to
the dominance of Microsoft.

These are the reasons why I object so strenuously when I see people
praise Apple for being 'open'.

~ CT

On 10-06-2011 18:00, Paul Morgan Wesley wrote:
> I wonder how come Apple never thought of using productivity as a sales
> argument. I mean, it's so obvious. Maybe Cook will think of this.

Because it's so hard to measure, it would just be puffery.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are two types of people in the world …
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 08:24 PM, Davoud wrote:
>
> > Stuf4:
>
> >> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> >> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> > You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> > invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
> > myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.
>
> > Davoud
>
> Absolutely! Without the Apple team, there would never have been a
> smartphone. So many things had to be invented.
>
> And now, instead of developing new designs -- say, an egg shaped or
> tennis ball shaped form -- they copy the same patented rectangular shape.
>
> Isn't it a shame how Apple gets rubbed and can only go to court in the
> most obvious cases?

Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft.  How
embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
people like XeroxPARC.

There's an excellent TEDtalk where a woman pitches the notion that the
high tech industry could learn a thing or two from the fashion
industry.  Fashion, she explains, is a business where innovators and
leaders are continually getting knocked off by copycats.

As for the notion that without Apple "there would never have been a
smartphone", there were many smartphones on the market long before
Apple ever got into the game.  What Apple did was raise the bar by
several notches.  And then there are some things Apple did to the
phone that I hate.  I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance.
Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.

~ CT

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 07:24 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
<snip>
> > I've been so moved by his death
> > that I've been acting a lot like iJustine. =A0Very rare for me.
>
> I must confess I don't know her. How is she like? I just watched her
> video with all the Apple stuff and wonderful music. I mean, this is art!

I don't know much about her either, but I did see that she cried her
eyes out when she learned Steve died.

> > But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> > escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> I certainly hope you get back to reality and buy a plan offering iPhones.

If I were to design a phone, it would be very different from what
Apple cranks out.  And the fact that they still aren't 4G is outright
humiliating.  If Steve had stayed healthy, I don't see how he would
have tolerated that.  But I'm sure the 4S will be a huge success in
spite of all the faults I see in it.

~ CT

On 10/06/2011 07:11 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<j6lbro$563$1@dont-email.me>,
>   Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  wrote:
>
>> One more like this and I'll killfile you!
>
> BFD.  GFY!
>
>> Don't you have any decency?
>
> Much more than you do, Priam.
>
Too bad the troll doesn't killfile the entire group.

I do think it prudent to cease interacting with it once it has been 
identified.

-- 
*Hemidactylus*
  Darwin is daemonic

On 10/06/2011 11:57 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>  From Paul Morgan Wesley:
>> On 10/06/2011 08:24 PM, Davoud wrote:
>>
>>> Stuf4:
>>
>>>> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
>>>> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>>
>>> You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
>>> invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
>>> myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.
>>
>>> Davoud
>>
>> Absolutely! Without the Apple team, there would never have been a
>> smartphone. So many things had to be invented.
>>
>> And now, instead of developing new designs -- say, an egg shaped or
>> tennis ball shaped form -- they copy the same patented rectangular shape.
>>
>> Isn't it a shame how Apple gets rubbed and can only go to court in the
>> most obvious cases?
>
> Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft.  How
> embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> people like XeroxPARC.

Xerox's interface was totally in its first stage and there's no proof 
that they could have brought it to fruition. Apple did. Microsoft 
copied, then everybody. Linux, you know, as usual.

> There's an excellent TEDtalk where a woman pitches the notion that the
> high tech industry could learn a thing or two from the fashion
> industry.  Fashion, she explains, is a business where innovators and
> leaders are continually getting knocked off by copycats.

This is ludicrous! Samsung has no patents, even on their shipping boxes, 
as Apple does. They'd swamp the market with junk made in Korea instead 
of first quality products designed in the US.

> As for the notion that without Apple "there would never have been a
> smartphone", there were many smartphones on the market long before
> Apple ever got into the game.

There were personal digital assistants and mobile phones but combining 
them as been the feat of Apple.



What Apple did was raise the bar by
> several notches.  And then there are some things Apple did to the
> phone that I hate.  I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance.
> Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.
>
> ~ CT

On 10/06/2011 11:46 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
> On 10-06-2011 18:00, Paul Morgan Wesley wrote:
>> I wonder how come Apple never thought of using productivity as a sales
>> argument. I mean, it's so obvious. Maybe Cook will think of this.
>
> Because it's so hard to measure, it would just be puffery.

My uncle says that since he's bought his new iMac he's so much more 
productive it's plainly amazing. I must confess I haven't seen him 
working on his Mac yet... and I do have doubts on his aptitude to be so 
productive.

But I'm sure a demonstration could be made. I'd go with somebody in 
Hong-Kong. These people are clever and work hard.

On 10/06/2011 07:37 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>  From Paul Morgan Wesley:
>> On 10/06/2011 07:40 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
>>> Android and PC-compatible are hallmarks
>>> of openness.
>>
>> I don't understand what you're talking about. Mac users can go anywhere
>> they want. You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple
>> store. Music? There's iTunes. And soon there will be the cloud, just for
>> Mac users! Where do you see anything being blocked here?
>
> Just look at your very reply.  You present questions, and then provide
> a single option in answer to that question.

Well, you don't need more. As Michelle Steiner noted, you can also go 
everywhere on the web but Apple offers are so much more convenient.

On 10/07/2011 12:04 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
>  From Paul Morgan Wesley:
>> On 10/06/2011 07:24 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
> <snip>
>>> I've been so moved by his death
>>> that I've been acting a lot like iJustine.  Very rare for me.
>>
>> I must confess I don't know her. How is she like? I just watched her
>> video with all the Apple stuff and wonderful music. I mean, this is art!
>
> I don't know much about her either, but I did see that she cried her
> eyes out when she learned Steve died.

Did I ever cry too! Steve was like a father to me and to pretty much all 
of us, I believe.

>>> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
>>> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>>
>> I certainly hope you get back to reality and buy a plan offering iPhones.
>
> If I were to design a phone, it would be very different from what
> Apple cranks out.  And the fact that they still aren't 4G is outright
> humiliating.  If Steve had stayed healthy, I don't see how he would
> have tolerated that.  But I'm sure the 4S will be a huge success in
> spite of all the faults I see in it.

All you see is faults. Give it time. The next release will be it!

On 10/07/2011 12:40 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 07:11 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article<j6lbro$563$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One more like this and I'll killfile you!
>>
>> BFD. GFY!
>>
>>> Don't you have any decency?
>>
>> Much more than you do, Priam.
>>
> Too bad the troll doesn't killfile the entire group.
>
> I do think it prudent to cease interacting with it once it has been
> identified.

Blah, blah, blah...

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/07/2011 12:04 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> > =A0From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> >> On 10/06/2011 07:24 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> I've been so moved by his death
> >>> that I've been acting a lot like iJustine. =A0Very rare for me.
>
> >> I must confess I don't know her. How is she like? I just watched her
> >> video with all the Apple stuff and wonderful music. I mean, this is ar=
t!
>
> > I don't know much about her either, but I did see that she cried her
> > eyes out when she learned Steve died.
>
> Did I ever cry too! Steve was like a father to me and to pretty much all
> of us, I believe.

I cried because of the beauty I see in how much one person was able to
accomplish in such a short span of years.  There are many billions of
people who have breathed the air of this planet.  Steve sure did a lot
with his breaths.

> >>> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> >>> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> >> I certainly hope you get back to reality and buy a plan offering iPhon=
es.
>
> > If I were to design a phone, it would be very different from what
> > Apple cranks out. =A0And the fact that they still aren't 4G is outright
> > humiliating. =A0If Steve had stayed healthy, I don't see how he would
> > have tolerated that. =A0But I'm sure the 4S will be a huge success in
> > spite of all the faults I see in it.
>
> All you see is faults. Give it time. The next release will be it!

There are some aspects of the iPhone I absolutely lust after.  That
max-resolution screen for tops.

~ CT

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 11:57 PM, Stuf4 wrote:

> > =A0From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> >> On 10/06/2011 08:24 PM, Davoud wrote:
>
> >>> Stuf4:
>
> >>>> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> >>>> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
>
> >>> You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> >>> invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of=
 a
> >>> myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.
>
> >>> Davoud
>
> >> Absolutely! Without the Apple team, there would never have been a
> >> smartphone. So many things had to be invented.
>
> >> And now, instead of developing new designs -- say, an egg shaped or
> >> tennis ball shaped form -- they copy the same patented rectangular sha=
pe.
>
> >> Isn't it a shame how Apple gets rubbed and can only go to court in the
> >> most obvious cases?
>
> > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. =A0How
> > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> > people like XeroxPARC.
>
> Xerox's interface was totally in its first stage and there's no proof
> that they could have brought it to fruition. Apple did. Microsoft
> copied, then everybody. Linux, you know, as usual.

Not just no proof, but Xerox cared little for what their wizard
employees were doing at PARC.  If Xerox had cared about PARC, then we
could expect that PARC would have kept their inventions under a tight
lid, far away from people like Jobs.

We could imagine how much more tediously the computer revolution would
have unfolded if PARC's innovations had been kept in isolation.
Instead of the Mac, it would have just been the next Apple - a
slightly improved tool for computer hobbyists.

> > There's an excellent TEDtalk where a woman pitches the notion that the
> > high tech industry could learn a thing or two from the fashion
> > industry. =A0Fashion, she explains, is a business where innovators and
> > leaders are continually getting knocked off by copycats.
>
> This is ludicrous! Samsung has no patents, even on their shipping boxes,
> as Apple does. They'd swamp the market with junk made in Korea instead
> of first quality products designed in the US.
>
> > As for the notion that without Apple "there would never have been a
> > smartphone", there were many smartphones on the market long before
> > Apple ever got into the game.
>
> There were personal digital assistants and mobile phones but combining
> them as been the feat of Apple.

?!

Palm and BlackBerry, to name just two, were around for plenty of years
before the iPhone.  Apple stepped into a well established market, and
they changed the game by incorporating ideas popularized by Minority
Report among others.  Apple did not invent the smartphone.  FAR from
it.  Apple did not even come up with big ideas that made their iPhone
so popular.  Just as the Mac copied ideas developed at PARC, the multi-
touch technology adopted by the iPhone came out of research labs.
Places like MERL (Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs).

> What Apple did was raise the bar by
> > several notches. =A0And then there are some things Apple did to the
> > phone that I hate. =A0I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance.
> > Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.

From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> On 10/06/2011 07:37 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> > =A0From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> >> On 10/06/2011 07:40 AM, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >>> Android and PC-compatible are hallmarks
> >>> of openness.
>
> >> I don't understand what you're talking about. Mac users can go anywher=
e
> >> they want. You want to buy a piece of equipment? There's the Apple
> >> store. Music? There's iTunes. And soon there will be the cloud, just f=
or
> >> Mac users! Where do you see anything being blocked here?
>
> > Just look at your very reply. =A0You present questions, and then provid=
e
> > a single option in answer to that question.
>
> Well, you don't need more. As Michelle Steiner noted, you can also go
> everywhere on the web but Apple offers are so much more convenient.

There is no denying the satisfaction Apple customers feel with what
Apple provides.

~ CT

Stuf4 wrote:

> Palm and BlackBerry, to name just two, were around for plenty of years
> before the iPhone. 


Nokia was first with its Communicator which ran the PSION 16 bit EPOC
and was a clamshell model with keyboard.  Note that that EPOC dated from
 the early 1990s and had pre emptive multitasking available to users.
(it took a long white for Apple to get to that point).

I would say that Blackberry was perhaps first to make a smartphone
"work"  but it was narrowed to the business market only. It is to the
iPhone what character cell 3270 terminals are to a GUI Mac.  It works
but nothing that impressed people.


Apple was first to make a smartphone that got mass market appeal and was
designed to be usable by anyone. It got its volume outside of business
and because of that, has begun to make inroads into business.

Meanwhile, Blackberries have been trying unsuccesfully to break out of
their boring business product image to expand beyond business.


At the technology point of view, the iPhone did make a giant stride with
regards to the user interface and design.

Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

> On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > powerful.
> 
> You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about the
> openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve so many
> thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac users.
> 
> Like that of a father, blessed be his memory!

Well actually it was Woz and the homebrew culture of the time that was
more responsible for the Apple II's open design. By the Mac era Woz was
hardly ever involved and Jobs was far less concerned about openness,
than making a computer 'for the rest of us' by tightly controlling the
user experience (that said I've heard Woz agree many times it's this
control from the ground up that allows the Mac to be so user friendly
and polished).

However I recognise how vital Jobs was to the Apple II getting off the
ground, many aesthetic and UI design issues, what was 'The Right Thing™'
in almost any non-Woz-type technical genius question, marketing, etc. So
perhaps mentioning openness was a poor choice on my part, but at least
for the Apple II Jobs agreed with Woz that an open design was 'The Right
Thing™'. But not afterwards. Nowadays I would never suggest older Steve
Jobs as a champion of open hardware and software design - and that's ok
:-)

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet

-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Howard <Howard.not@home.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > powerful.
> > 
> > Goodbye Steve. You're a hero to me.
> > 
> > Yours sincerely,
> >  Jamie Kahn Genet
> 
> A beautiful article by Michael Rose on TUAW:
> 
> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/06/heres-to-the-crazy-ones-a-farewell-to-ste
> ve-jobs/
> 
> 
> Howard

That was lovely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Howard :-)
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

In article <061020112020462998%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> The Mac is made for users.
> Users care about the way in which their computer empowers them. That's
> my idea of freedom -- the freedom to create, with the computer as an
> all-but-invisible helper. Mac users are not interested in the freedom
> to swap motherboards every few days; indeed they don't have time for
> that sort of thing. Causing a Windows-based computer to not function
> properly and then troubleshooting and fixing the problem is a
> legitimate hobby, not subject to criticism, but it's using a computer
> in a closed loop, something to be done in one's parents' basement.
> Nothing comes out that makes the world a better place or a more fun
> place.

I work in a software and systems development team using agile / scrum 
methodologies to create XML-based content management systems and tools 
for a large multinational semiconductor manufacturing corporation. In 
this corporation that is mostly Windows-PC oriented, my entire team uses 
Macs. Many never touched a Mac before we hired them. Yet they all agree 
they get more done faster with Macs because the computer stays out of 
their way and lets them focus on the real work. This team gets a LOT of 
hard work done very quickly. Often people are surprised our team isn't 
much larger. The proof is in the pudding.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Davoud:
> > You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> > invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of a
> > myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.

Stuf4:
> I happen to see Android as the antithesis of Apple's approach to
> mobile computing.

It may be, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's an iOS imitation.

> And if Apple had been more open, then Brin & Page
> would not have had the impetus to do Android.

Really? Henry Ford built a cheap, reliable car and the rest of the
world said "Well, that's that. It's all over; no need for competition."

That's patently ridiculous. The smartphone market is huge and
profitable and growing and everyone wants a piece. Apple is the most
envied and imitated company in the known Universe. When they came out
with a world-beating smartphone it was absolutely certain that people
like Brin & Co. were going to save $ millions in development costs by
building an imitation of Apple's phone rather than design their own
from scratch. Not one new entrant to the smartphone market since iPhone
was introduced has produced anything other than an iPhone imitation.

Your open device does not have more or better apps than the iOS
devices, nor a wider selection of legal digital media. Here's the
principal "benefit" of your imitation of an iOS device
<http://tinyurl.com/android-buggered-by-malware>.

> These are the reasons why I object so strenuously when I see people
> praise Apple for being 'open'.

You have no right to object strenuously or weakly to anything regarding
Apple. That right comes from having spent money on Apple products. You
are not a user of Apple products, and you have said that you will never
buy anything from Apple. You object to products about which you know
nothing whatsoever except what you have gathered from hearsay (from
others who also don't know anything about Apple products) and from
third-hand reports. You're doing exactly what Steve Jobs warned against
in his now-famous Stanford address "Don�t be trapped by dogma - which
is living with the results of other people�s thinking."

If it weren't for your Apple envy, you wouldn't be trolling this forum.
I can tell you with great certainty that I will never buy a Boeing or
Airbus Industrie commercial aircraft, but I don't troll aircraft forums
spouting off on matters that I know nothing about.

Come to think of it, I do have considerable experience with products
from both aircraft companies, though as a passive user rather than an
operator (indeed, I believe that I have been a passenger on every
Airbus model that has been flown commercially since the company began)
and that probably puts me in the position of knowing far more about
these aircraft than you know about *anything* from Apple. I've had a
lot of Macs (11 in the house at the moment) but I can't even say of
Apple that I have used every product that they have produced!

That I have paid to use these aircraft companies' products earns me the
right to criticize them in a certain, limited way, a right that you
have not earned with Apple products--save the Apple II, and it's a bit
late to be telling us what its faults were. Apple will not be updating
it. Anyway, it's still adequate to certain tasks, and is still in use,
FYI.

You may have noted that airlines are beginning to replace their 40-lb
set of pilot manuals with iPads. Not imitations, because they don't
need this <http://tinyurl.com/android-buggered-by-malware>, but the
real thing. Google: ipad replace "pilot manuals."

Incidentally, both Boeing and Airbus Industrie make products that are
rigidly closed to modification by international treaty; it requires the
approval of several governments to modify one of their technological
products in any way (even the use of iPads by pilots). Yet these most
tightly closed systems seem to be very well suited to their intended
tasks. I think it's because of their tightly regulation that they have
a brilliant safety record. A glance at Aviation Week crash analyses
will show you that accidents occur principally when humans willfully
violate the rules for these devices or fail to observe the operating or
maintenance rules.

Note that, beyond pointing out a simple, indisputable fact--the malware
issue--I have said nothing about your Android other than to opine that
it is a fine device. I have sufficient experience with an Android phone
to know that it is a fine iPhone imitation, as a physician friend
borrowed my iPhone for three days while I took her Android to a tech
shop to be cleared of malware. That required only a few hours, then I
used the Android for 2-1/2 days until I met the physician again. Once
the malware was gone I found the Android to be a very nice imitation of
the iPhone. That didn't prevent the physician from dumping it on eBay
in favor of an iPhone, however, as she her mobile phone is important to
her and she had lost confidence in the Android platform.

Davoud

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 10/6/11 6:24 PM, in article
26b84014-7e31-4ca2-86d7-7c1d62f0d245@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com, "Stuf4"
<tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> From Paul Morgan Wesley:
>> On 10/06/2011 03:54 PM, Stuf4 wrote:
>> 
>>> The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity. �IBM, sans the Steve-
>>> squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
>>> computers into everyone's home.
>> 
>> No doubt we'd still be stuck in the mainframe area. Steve was the
>> revolution in every computer design.
> 
> Weird that with all the news coverage, I haven't seen anyone give him
> the broad extent of credit that he deserves.  They typically talk
> strictly about Apple products, not his impact in creation of the
> entire industry.  I even find the comparisons of him with the likes of
> Edison, Bell and Ford to be lacking.  If you combine all three, then
> you're approaching the level I see Jobs to have achieved.  Woz today
> compared him to John Lennon.  Analyzing that could get convoluted,
> including a subtle message that The Beatles were not a solo act.  Heh!
> 
>> Isn't it weird that we agree on very point except about this openness
>> stuff you keep hen-pecking about? Forget about this totally ridicule stance.
> 
> I have deep admiration for Steve Jobs and the things he's built.  We
> visited his Cupertino headquarters in a long roadtrip this summer.
> Pixar is a lot harder to get into.  I've been so moved by his death
> that I've been acting a lot like iJustine.  Very rare for me.
> 
> But with all the global outpouring of passion for the man, I cannot
> escape the fact that I learned about his death on my Android device.
> 
> ~ CT

Just how many voices are in that demented skull of yours, Priam?!? You seem
VERY conflicted. Electroshock therapy can do wonders, you know?

In article <j6m1cc$lro$2@dont-email.me>,
 Paul Morgan Wesley <pmw@nonotknow.tw.com> wrote:

> Well, you don't need more. As Michelle Steiner noted, you can also go 
> everywhere on the web but Apple offers are so much more convenient.

I also mentioned brick and mortar stores; it's not just the web.  Within a 
15 mile radius of me, I can buy Macintosh computers from at least three 
stores that are not Apple Stores.  I can buy iPods, iPhones, and iPads from 
at least a dozen stores that are not Apple Stores.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<cbc9fb64-d738-477c-8688-fdb030752e3f@u24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> If I were to design a phone, it would be very different from what
> Apple cranks out. 

And it wouldn't sell nearly as well as the iPhone.

> And the fact that they still aren't 4G is outright humiliating. 

Not at all; the technology isn't there yet for a decent 4G phone that 
doesn't have design compromises.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<b3eada43-9088-4c90-bbcd-dc52367b234f@s9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft.  How
> embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> people like XeroxPARC.

If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't copy 
XeroxPARC.

And if you knew anything, you would know that XeroxPARC had nothing to do 
with Apple's suit against Microsoft.

> Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.

Millions of people disagree with you.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Michelle Steiner:
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. =A0How
> > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> > people like XeroxPARC.
>
> If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't cop=
y
> XeroxPARC.

There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
Apple copied key things they invented.  I find them to be far more
persuasive than your rebuttal above.

> And if you knew anything, you would know that XeroxPARC had nothing to do
> with Apple's suit against Microsoft.

? - During Apple v Microsoft, you may recall that Xerox sued Apple.


[Deleted context readded:
"And then there are some things Apple did to the phone that I hate.
I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance.  Removing keypads from
phones was a giant leap backward."]
> > Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.
>
> Millions of people disagree with you.

Opinions noted.

~ CT

In article 
<012e1055-d975-4494-b899-f85be2d10d3f@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> Apple copied key things they invented.  

Who were they? And exactly what did they say was copied?

> > And if you knew anything, you would know that XeroxPARC had nothing to 
> > do with Apple's suit against Microsoft.
> 
> ? - During Apple v Microsoft, you may recall that Xerox sued Apple.

In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple 
alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court 
dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed 
Xerox's.

Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple 
had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the 
Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; 
these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh 
GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if 
Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then 
Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case 
was dismissed, since the company licensed its GUI to Apple for shares of 
the latter in 1979.

> [Deleted context readded:
> "And then there are some things Apple did to the phone that I hate.
> I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance.  Removing keypads from
> phones was a giant leap backward."]
> > > Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.

Deleted context added nothing to the point.

> > Millions of people disagree with you.
> 
> Opinions noted.

Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Howard <Howard.not@home.com> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > 
> > > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > > powerful.
> > > 
> > > Goodbye Steve. You're a hero to me.
> > > 
> > > Yours sincerely,
> > >  Jamie Kahn Genet
> > 
> > A beautiful article by Michael Rose on TUAW:
> > 
> > http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/06/heres-to-the-crazy-ones-a-farewell-to-ste
> > ve-jobs/
> > 
> > 
> > Howard
> 
> That was lovely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Howard :-)


YW.

bte love your sig !  (I am stealing it .... LOL)

In article
<012e1055-d975-4494-b899-f85be2d10d3f@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> From Michelle Steiner:
> > �Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> > > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. �How
> > > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> > > people like XeroxPARC.
> >
> > If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't copy
> > XeroxPARC.
> 
> There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> Apple copied key things they invented.  I find them to be far more
> persuasive than your rebuttal above.

Do you have any links for that claim? 

Apple was already working on a graphical user interface for the Mac
when Apple employees were given a look at the work being done by Xerox
in 1979. Some Apple employees were already aware of that work. Xerox
was compensated for their idea sharing.

Here is a link to an article by somebody who worked at both places:

<http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=On_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progress.
txt>

and here is another about the same myth:

<http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/parc.html>

Xerox was never going to commercialize their ideas. Fortunately, Apple
did.

-- 
Jim Gibson

In article <071020111606155867%jimsgibson@gmail.com>,
 Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:

> and here is another about the same myth:
> 
> <http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/parc.html>

That one leads to this:

<http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/mouse.html>, also interesting in its own 
right.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 10-07-2011 11:57, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't copy
> XeroxPARC.

He was a little cleverer than usual this time,
but eventually slipped and made it obvious that
it was just another Priapism troll.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are two types of people in the world …
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

In article <071020111039494146%star@sky.net>, Davoud  <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote:

>That's patently ridiculous. The smartphone market is huge and
>profitable and growing and everyone wants a piece. Apple is the most
>envied and imitated company in the known Universe. When they came out
>with a world-beating smartphone it was absolutely certain that people
>like Brin & Co. were going to save $ millions in development costs by
>building an imitation of Apple's phone rather than design their own
>from scratch. Not one new entrant to the smartphone market since iPhone
>was introduced has produced anything other than an iPhone imitation.

Not to confuse the matter with facts, but Google bought Android in
2005, and released the first Android distribution in November 2007.
Apple's first iPhone was released in June 2007.
-- 
The problem with socialism is there's always 
someone with less ability and more need.

From Michelle Steiner:
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:

> > [Deleted context readded:
> > "And then there are some things Apple did to the phone that I hate.
> > I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance. =A0Removing keypads from
> > phones was a giant leap backward."]
> > > > Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.
>
> Deleted context added nothing to the point.
>
> > > Millions of people disagree with you.
>
> > Opinions noted.
>
> Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.

My opinion matters to me.  I've never been a person to jump onto a
trend simply because it was a trend.  That appears to be a key
difference between me and the mindset of Apple-adopters.

~ CT

From Jim Gibson <jimsgib...@gmail.com>:
> In article
> <012e1055-d975-4494-b899-f85be2d10...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > From Michelle Steiner:
> > > Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copyin=
g
> > > > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > > > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. How
> > > > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > > > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> > > > people like XeroxPARC.
>
> > > If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't=
 copy
> > > XeroxPARC.
>
> > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > Apple copied key things they invented. =A0I find them to be far more
> > persuasive than your rebuttal above.
>
> Do you have any links for that claim?

Just a handful of months ago I met with Bob Metcalf and he told me
many interesting stories about the early days at PARC.  I'm sure the
references are out there.

> Apple was already working on a graphical user interface for the Mac
> when Apple employees were given a look at the work being done by Xerox
> in 1979. Some Apple employees were already aware of that work. Xerox
> was compensated for their idea sharing.
>
> Here is a link to an article by somebody who worked at both places:
>
> <http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=3DOn_Xerox,_Apple_and_Progres=
s.
> txt>
>
> and here is another about the same myth:
>
> <http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/parc.html>
>
> Xerox was never going to commercialize their ideas. Fortunately, Apple
> did.

I too am glad that Apple did.  But the point at issue is invention.
The articles you're pointing to strike me as weak rebuttals.  I find
it to be irrelevant to have it pointed out that Xerox and Apple used
very different software architectures and very different hardware.
The issue is how Apple was not the first to realize key *interface*
methods, not what is going on behind that interface.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <012e1055-d975-4494-b899-f85be2d10...@hd1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > Apple copied key things they invented. =A0
>
> Who were they? And exactly what did they say was copied?

SRI & PARC were the key innovators for many technologies that are
ubiquitous today.  Apple commercialized them.  Then Microsoft in turn
copied Apple, winning the lions share of the market.

This is the widely known story of the home computer.  If you believe
it to not be accurate, I'd be glad to consider any facts to the
contrary that you may have to offer.

> > > And if you knew anything, you would know that XeroxPARC had nothing t=
o
> > > do with Apple's suit against Microsoft.
>
> > ? - During Apple v Microsoft, you may recall that Xerox sued Apple.
>
> In the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple
> alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's. The district court
> dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed
> Xerox's.
>
> Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming App=
le
> had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the
> Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research la=
b;
> these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintos=
h
> GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if
> Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, th=
en
> Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case
> was dismissed, since the company licensed its GUI to Apple for shares of
> the latter in 1979.

Given these facts, I hope we can now agree that XeroxPARC was the key
reason why Apple lost its suit against Microsoft.

~ CT


> > [Deleted context readded:
> > "And then there are some things Apple did to the phone that I hate.
> > I'm big on tactile feedback, for instance. =A0Removing keypads from
> > phones was a giant leap backward."]
> > > > Removing keypads from phones was a giant leap backward.
>
> Deleted context added nothing to the point.
>
> > > Millions of people disagree with you.
>
> > Opinions noted.
>
> Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.
>
> --
> Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as
> People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article
<d8432533-48eb-4aa2-8c1e-e9dc65be836c@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > > > > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of copying
> > > > > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > > > > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. How
> > > > > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > > > > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was copy
> > > > > people like XeroxPARC.
> >
> > > > If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple didn't
> > > > copy XeroxPARC.
> >
> > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > > Apple copied key things they invented. �I find them to be far more
> > > persuasive than your rebuttal above.
> >
> > Do you have any links for that claim?
> 
> Just a handful of months ago I met with Bob Metcalf and he told me
> many interesting stories about the early days at PARC.  I'm sure the
> references are out there.

then it should be easy for you to cite a couple of them.

From Davoud:
> Davoud:
>
> > > You Android is a fine device. Don't forget, though, that it was
> > > invented by Steve Jobs and his Apple team. It's the product of one of=
 a
> > > myriad of copycats trying to keep up with Apple.
>
> Stuf4:
>
> > I happen to see Android as the antithesis of Apple's approach to
> > mobile computing.
>
> It may be, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's an iOS imitation.
>
> > And if Apple had been more open, then Brin & Page
> > would not have had the impetus to do Android.
>
> Really? Henry Ford built a cheap, reliable car and the rest of the
> world said "Well, that's that. It's all over; no need for competition."
>
> That's patently ridiculous. The smartphone market is huge and
> profitable and growing and everyone wants a piece. Apple is the most
> envied and imitated company in the known Universe. When they came out
> with a world-beating smartphone it was absolutely certain that people
> like Brin & Co. were going to save $ millions in development costs by
> building an imitation of Apple's phone rather than design their own
> from scratch. Not one new entrant to the smartphone market since iPhone
> was introduced has produced anything other than an iPhone imitation.

My Android phone shoots 3D photo and video.  My phone is 4G.  I will
be tickled pink when Apple catches up to those technologies.

> Your open device does not have more or better apps than the iOS
> devices, nor a wider selection of legal digital media. Here's the
> principal "benefit" of your imitation of an iOS device
> <http://tinyurl.com/android-buggered-by-malware>.
>
> > These are the reasons why I object so strenuously when I see people
> > praise Apple for being 'open'.
>
> You have no right to object strenuously or weakly to anything regarding
> Apple. That right comes from having spent money on Apple products. You
> are not a user of Apple products, and you have said that you will never
> buy anything from Apple. You object to products about which you know
> nothing whatsoever except what you have gathered from hearsay (from
> others who also don't know anything about Apple products) and from
> third-hand reports. You're doing exactly what Steve Jobs warned against
> in his now-famous Stanford address "Don=B9t be trapped by dogma - which
> is living with the results of other people=B9s thinking."

Apple is the very first computer I ever programmed.  The Apple II is
the very reason why I fell in love with computers.  I have tried out
*many* of the products Apple has come out with - Macs, iPods, iPads.
I've owned an iPod.  It was given to me as a gift.  I tried it out,
then sold it off in frustration with both the hardware and more so
because of the oppression I felt using iTunes.

There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.

> If it weren't for your Apple envy, you wouldn't be trolling this forum.
> I can tell you with great certainty that I will never buy a Boeing or
> Airbus Industrie commercial aircraft, but I don't troll aircraft forums
> spouting off on matters that I know nothing about.

I admire a lot of things about Steve Jobs and about Apple.  Just not
to the point of adopting.

> Come to think of it, I do have considerable experience with products
> from both aircraft companies, though as a passive user rather than an
> operator (indeed, I believe that I have been a passenger on every
> Airbus model that has been flown commercially since the company began)
> and that probably puts me in the position of knowing far more about
> these aircraft than you know about *anything* from Apple. I've had a
> lot of Macs (11 in the house at the moment) but I can't even say of
> Apple that I have used every product that they have produced!
>
> That I have paid to use these aircraft companies' products earns me the
> right to criticize them in a certain, limited way, a right that you
> have not earned with Apple products--save the Apple II, and it's a bit
> late to be telling us what its faults were. Apple will not be updating
> it. Anyway, it's still adequate to certain tasks, and is still in use,
> FYI.
>
> You may have noted that airlines are beginning to replace their 40-lb
> set of pilot manuals with iPads. Not imitations, because they don't
> need this <http://tinyurl.com/android-buggered-by-malware>, but the
> real thing. Google: ipad replace "pilot manuals."
>
> Incidentally, both Boeing and Airbus Industrie make products that are
> rigidly closed to modification by international treaty; it requires the
> approval of several governments to modify one of their technological
> products in any way (even the use of iPads by pilots). Yet these most
> tightly closed systems seem to be very well suited to their intended
> tasks. I think it's because of their tightly regulation that they have
> a brilliant safety record. A glance at Aviation Week crash analyses
> will show you that accidents occur principally when humans willfully
> violate the rules for these devices or fail to observe the operating or
> maintenance rules.
>
> Note that, beyond pointing out a simple, indisputable fact--the malware
> issue--I have said nothing about your Android other than to opine that
> it is a fine device. I have sufficient experience with an Android phone
> to know that it is a fine iPhone imitation, as a physician friend
> borrowed my iPhone for three days while I took her Android to a tech
> shop to be cleared of malware. That required only a few hours, then I
> used the Android for 2-1/2 days until I met the physician again. Once
> the malware was gone I found the Android to be a very nice imitation of
> the iPhone. That didn't prevent the physician from dumping it on eBay
> in favor of an iPhone, however, as she her mobile phone is important to
> her and she had lost confidence in the Android platform.

I am very glad that Apple produces high quality products.  They've
done phenomenal things for the industry.  Someday they may produce
something that I will like enough and see as a good enough value to
buy and keep.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <cbc9fb64-d738-477c-8688-fdb030752...@u24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > If I were to design a phone, it would be very different from what
> > Apple cranks out.
>
> And it wouldn't sell nearly as well as the iPhone.

Ha, I'd be ecstatic if I could sell one.

> > And the fact that they still aren't 4G is outright humiliating.
>
> Not at all; the technology isn't there yet for a decent 4G phone that
> doesn't have design compromises.

I must say that I have had lots of frustrations with my 4G phones.

~ CT

In article 
<92893803-a1d3-4d85-b38c-4a38267386cd@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.

If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to this 
newsgroup?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<8828018c-b41a-4aa0-920a-d954547a3223@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that 
> > > Apple copied key things they invented. �
> >
> > Who were they? And exactly what did they say was copied?
> 
> SRI & PARC were the key innovators for many technologies that are 
> ubiquitous today.  Apple commercialized them.  Then Microsoft in turn 
> copied Apple, winning the lions share of the market.
> 
> This is the widely known story of the home computer.  If you believe it 
> to not be accurate, I'd be glad to consider any facts to the contrary 
> that you may have to offer.

Replied like a true politician; a whole bunch of words that did not answer 
the question.

Exactly which people who developed the Alto and Star say that Apple copied 
key things they invented?  And specifically what key things did they claim 
that Apple copied?

> Given these facts, I hope we can now agree that XeroxPARC was the key
> reason why Apple lost its suit against Microsoft.

Given those facts, people who are reasonable and knowledgeable know that 
XeroxPARC had nothing to do with why Apple lost the suit.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<d8432533-48eb-4aa2-8c1e-e9dc65be836c@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that 
> > > Apple copied key things they invented. �I find them to be far more 
> > > persuasive than your rebuttal above.
> >
> > Do you have any links for that claim?
> 
> Just a handful of months ago I met with Bob Metcalf and he told me many 
> interesting stories about the early days at PARC.  I'm sure the 
> references are out there.

In other words, you're making it up.

> The articles you're pointing to strike me as weak rebuttals. 

Only because they disprove your lies.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<d0d663a4-294b-4c02-8da3-376a391faea8@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > > > Millions of people disagree with you.
> >
> > > Opinions noted.
> >
> > Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.
> 
> My opinion matters to me.  I've never been a person to jump onto a
> trend simply because it was a trend.  That appears to be a key
> difference between me and the mindset of Apple-adopters.

Apple adopters adopt Apple products because the products let people get 
things done with the minimum of fuss and bother.

The fact that millions of people can use a software keyboard without 
encountering problems is not a trend; it is a fact.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <d0d663a4-294b-4c02-8da3-376a391fa...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > Millions of people disagree with you.
>
> > > > Opinions noted.
>
> > > Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.
>
> > My opinion matters to me. =A0I've never been a person to jump onto a
> > trend simply because it was a trend. =A0That appears to be a key
> > difference between me and the mindset of Apple-adopters.
>
> Apple adopters adopt Apple products because the products let people get
> things done with the minimum of fuss and bother.
>
> The fact that millions of people can use a software keyboard without
> encountering problems is not a trend; it is a fact.

I would say that people killing themselves and others around them by
using ill-designed text entry methods does not exactly count as
"without encountering problems".  Death by text entry is a very real
problem.  I thought everyone was aware of that.

....and if you can fix that problem (with an optimal engineering
design, instead of a legislative ban) then imagine how all the other
uses will benefit when typing into your cellphone is not a life/death
situation.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <8828018c-b41a-4aa0-920a-d954547a3...@d18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > > > Apple copied key things they invented.
>
> > > Who were they? And exactly what did they say was copied?
>
> > SRI & PARC were the key innovators for many technologies that are
> > ubiquitous today. =A0Apple commercialized them. =A0Then Microsoft in tu=
rn
> > copied Apple, winning the lions share of the market.
>
> > This is the widely known story of the home computer. =A0If you believe =
it
> > to not be accurate, I'd be glad to consider any facts to the contrary
> > that you may have to offer.
>
> Replied like a true politician; a whole bunch of words that did not answe=
r
> the question.

Bob Metcalf is one person.  I don't have any written source to point
you to, because he told me in person.

> Exactly which people who developed the Alto and Star say that Apple copie=
d
> key things they invented? =A0And specifically what key things did they cl=
aim
> that Apple copied?
>
> > Given these facts, I hope we can now agree that XeroxPARC was the key
> > reason why Apple lost its suit against Microsoft.
>
> Given those facts, people who are reasonable and knowledgeable know that
> XeroxPARC had nothing to do with why Apple lost the suit.

Curious that you have not offered an explanation of what you have been
repeating, but when I have not answered your questions to your
satisfaction you compare it to me being like a politician.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <d0d663a4-294b-4c02-8da3-376a391fa...@m37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > Millions of people disagree with you.
>
> > > > Opinions noted.
>
> > > Millions of concurring opinions vs. your (and a few others') opinion.
>
> > My opinion matters to me. =A0I've never been a person to jump onto a
> > trend simply because it was a trend. =A0That appears to be a key
> > difference between me and the mindset of Apple-adopters.
>
> Apple adopters adopt Apple products because the products let people get
> things done with the minimum of fuss and bother.
>
> The fact that millions of people can use a software keyboard without
> encountering problems is not a trend; it is a fact.

I would say that people killing themselves and others around them by
using ill-designed text entry methods does not exactly count as
"without encountering problems".  Death by text entry is a very real
problem.  I thought everyone was aware of that.

....and if you can fix that problem (with an optimal engineering
design, instead of a legislative ban) then imagine how all the other
uses will benefit when typing into your cellphone is not a life/death
situation.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <d8432533-48eb-4aa2-8c1e-e9dc65be8...@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > > > Apple copied key things they invented. I find them to be far more
> > > > persuasive than your rebuttal above.
>
> > > Do you have any links for that claim?
>
> > Just a handful of months ago I met with Bob Metcalf and he told me many
> > interesting stories about the early days at PARC.  I'm sure the
> > references are out there.
>
> In other words, you're making it up.
>
> > The articles you're pointing to strike me as weak rebuttals.
>
> Only because they disprove your lies.

If anyone sees anything in any of those articles to constitute proof,
it would help support your position by citing the specific quote.

As for the notion that I have posted anything that is a lie, it would
require me being factually incorrect, and also me having the awareness
that it is incorrect plus an intent to deceive others.  While I see it
to be a possibility that the first criteria could be demonstrated, I
don't see how the other criteria can be proven.

I see it to be much easier to simply prove that XeroxPARC was indeed
the source of innovative ideas that were used in the Lisa and
Macintosh.  My understanding is that the evidence has already been
examined in a court of law, and Apple lost.

It is irrefutable fact that Apple lost that case.  What we are not
seeing eye-to-eye on is the *reason why* Apple lost.  If my
understanding is incorrect, I would be very glad to consider any facts
to the contrary.

~ CT

On Oct 7, 11:32=A0pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <d8432533-48eb-4aa2-8c1e-e9dc65be8...@5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

> Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Anyone who maintains that Apple does not do the same kind of co=
pying
> > > > > > themselves need look no farther than to the reason why they got
> > > > > > slammed in their classic Windows lawsuit against Microsoft. How
> > > > > > embarrassing to sue someone for copying you when you know that
> > > > > > competent lawyers will bring to light that what you did was cop=
y
> > > > > > people like XeroxPARC.
>
> > > > > If you knew anything about anything, you would know that Apple di=
dn't
> > > > > copy XeroxPARC.
>
> > > > There are people who developed the Xerox Alto and Star who say that
> > > > Apple copied key things they invented. I find them to be far more
> > > > persuasive than your rebuttal above.
>
> > > Do you have any links for that claim?
>
> > Just a handful of months ago I met with Bob Metcalf and he told me
> > many interesting stories about the early days at PARC. =A0I'm sure the
> > references are out there.
>
> then it should be easy for you to cite a couple of them.

This has been quite a surprise for me here that it is seen to be
controversial that Apple's Lisa and Macintosh got ideas that had been
developed at XeroxPARC.  I actually thought that it was mainstream
understanding that it was Doug Engelbart and his SRI team who came up
with key innovations, which influenced XeroxPARC, which influenced
Apple, which influenced Microsoft.

This thread has turned into quite a Twilight Zone episode with so many
people bucking against that understanding.  This is not to say that I
am not open to new information that would show this to be inaccurate.
I am all for letting go of deficient points of view to be replaced by
solid ones.  But what makes this thread so strange is people
emotionally arguing against the common view, but an utter lack of
evidence being provided to support that.

Several webpage links have been posted.  I've looked at all of them.
I don't see what others find to be compelling.  If the evidence is
there, it would be simple to find the statement and then post the
quote.  I'd be glad to read it and be glad to potentially improve my
understanding of how today's personal computers came to be.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <92893803-a1d3-4d85-b38c-4a3826738...@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.
>
> If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to this
> newsgroup?

There is an astounding level of hostility here.  It does not leave me
with a very positive impression of people who do use Apple products.

But for anyone who is curious, I am here to discuss the life of a
person who changed the world.

~ CT

In article 
<8eaac7d7-f53e-46aa-b16d-8ee5ec88faa8@u24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> This has been quite a surprise for me here that it is seen to be
> controversial that Apple's Lisa and Macintosh got ideas that had been
> developed at XeroxPARC.

No one is disputing that; what we are disputing is your contention that 
Apple *copied* the Star.

> I actually thought that it was mainstream understanding that it was Doug 
> Engelbart and his SRI team who came up with key innovations, which 
> influenced XeroxPARC, which influenced Apple, which influenced 
> Microsoft.

Influenced, yes, but not copied.

The fact is that you have triggered, if not pegged, our BS meters.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<5d8593d8-6bab-407e-a3fc-f8cd625660c1@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > Replied like a true politician; a whole bunch of words that did not 
> > answer the question.
> 
> Bob Metcalf is one person.  I don't have any written source to point you 
> to, because he told me in person.

And others, as have been related in the URLs provided to you, contradict 
what you say he told you in person.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-1ADACE.22584307102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <92893803-a1d3-4d85-b38c-4a38267386cd@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:
> 
> > There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.
> 
> If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to this 
> newsgroup?

Check the headers.  Stuf4 aka Chris Tuason is a Wintroll.

In article 
<wayne.morris-0FD2FD.12595808102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> In article <michelle-1ADACE.22584307102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <92893803-a1d3-4d85-b38c-4a38267386cd@t11g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.
> > 
> > If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to this 
> > newsgroup?
> 
> Check the headers.  Stuf4 aka Chris Tuason is a Wintroll.

She doesn't care. She loves slumming with the trolls and encouraging 
them to continue.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On 10/07/2011 04:17 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Paul Morgan Wesley<pmw@nonotknow.tw.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
>>> then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
>>> first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
>>> such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
>>> case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
>>> use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
>>> a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
>>> imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
>>> powerful.
>>
>> You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, about the
>> openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe Steve so many
>> thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, Mac users.
>>
>> Like that of a father, blessed be his memory!
>
> Well actually it was Woz and the homebrew culture of the time that was
> more responsible for the Apple II's open design.

Really?

> By the Mac era Woz was
> hardly ever involved and Jobs was far less concerned about openness,
> than making a computer 'for the rest of us' by tightly controlling the
> user experience

Yes, he was really talented at explaining how /Spaces/ and other gizmos 
were such a novelties.

> (that said I've heard Woz agree many times it's this
> control from the ground up that allows the Mac to be so user friendly
> and polished).

You wouldn't have a quote, would you?

> However I recognise how vital Jobs was to the Apple II getting off the
> ground, many aesthetic and UI design issues, what was 'The Right Thing™'
> in almost any non-Woz-type technical genius question, marketing, etc.

Yes, he was really good at teaching America's intellegensia that once 
you learn to do things Apple's way, nay other way was ackward.

> So
> perhaps mentioning openness was a poor choice on my part,

Really?

> but at least
> for the Apple II Jobs agreed with Woz that an open design was 'The Right
> Thing™'. But not afterwards. Nowadays I would never suggest older Steve
> Jobs as a champion of open hardware and software design - and that's ok

Well, of course, it's OK. How else could such a nice huge bubble have 
been built on the Stock Exchange?

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <8eaac7d7-f53e-46aa-b16d-8ee5ec88f...@u24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > This has been quite a surprise for me here that it is seen to be
> > controversial that Apple's Lisa and Macintosh got ideas that had been
> > developed at XeroxPARC.
>
> No one is disputing that; what we are disputing is your contention that
> Apple *copied* the Star.
>
> > I actually thought that it was mainstream understanding that it was Dou=
g
> > Engelbart and his SRI team who came up with key innovations, which
> > influenced XeroxPARC, which influenced Apple, which influenced
> > Microsoft.
>
> Influenced, yes, but not copied.
>
> The fact is that you have triggered, if not pegged, our BS meters.

You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
know to be fact.  But if anyone would like to convince me that my
facts are mistaken, it would require a much more persuasive rebuttal
than I have been presented with so far.

~ CT

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <5d8593d8-6bab-407e-a3fc-f8cd62566...@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > Replied like a true politician; a whole bunch of words that did not
> > > answer the question.
>
> > Bob Metcalf is one person. =A0I don't have any written source to point =
you
> > to, because he told me in person.
>
> And others, as have been related in the URLs provided to you, contradict
> what you say he told you in person.

I've suggested posting precise quotes.  I see this discussion to be at
its end, where you are not persuaded by what I've presented, and I
have not been persuaded with what you've presented.  If and when
anyone may choose to select precise quotes from any of those articles,
I'd be glad to reconsider the accuracy of my understanding.

~ CT

In article 
<96e9888d-ff7e-40e8-a375-93bb7673f9bd@g33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> > > Bob Metcalf is one person. �I don't have any written source to point 
> > > you to, because he told me in person.
> >
> > And others, as have been related in the URLs provided to you, 
> > contradict what you say he told you in person.
> 
> I've suggested posting precise quotes.  I see this discussion to be at 
> its end, where you are not persuaded by what I've presented, and I have 
> not been persuaded with what you've presented.  If and when anyone may 
> choose to select precise quotes from any of those articles, I'd be glad 
> to reconsider the accuracy of my understanding.

If you can't understand it from reading the entire article, why should I 
believe that you would understand an excerpt?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<cd99eb59-4202-41ea-855d-11635feac01b@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
> know to be fact. 

Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born 
outside the USA.

> But if anyone would like to convince me that my facts are mistaken, it 
> would require a much more persuasive rebuttal than I have been presented 
> with so far.

Your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.

What you say you know are facts are what you want to believe are facts; 
therefore the facts won't change your mind.

That is, if you really do believe they are facts, and I don't give you even 
that much credit.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<wayne.morris-0FD2FD.12595808102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:

> > > There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.
> > 
> > If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to 
> > this newsgroup?
> 
> Check the headers.  Stuf4 aka Chris Tuason is a Wintroll.

I know; I just wanted to see what lies he would respond with.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <96e9888d-ff7e-40e8-a375-93bb7673f...@g33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > > Bob Metcalf is one person. I don't have any written source to point
> > > > you to, because he told me in person.
>
> > > And others, as have been related in the URLs provided to you,
> > > contradict what you say he told you in person.
>
> > I've suggested posting precise quotes. =A0I see this discussion to be a=
t
> > its end, where you are not persuaded by what I've presented, and I have
> > not been persuaded with what you've presented. =A0If and when anyone ma=
y
> > choose to select precise quotes from any of those articles, I'd be glad
> > to reconsider the accuracy of my understanding.
>
> If you can't understand it from reading the entire article, why should I
> believe that you would understand an excerpt?

If anyone were to post a quote, my expectation is that their
understanding of those words would be very different from my
understanding.  But I would be open to any explanation offered.

So there appears to be similarity in our assessments that there is low
probability of agreement.  The difference I see is willingness to
consider validity in the opposing points of view.

~ CT

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:54:08 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-042A12.16540808102011@news.eternal-september.org>):

> In article 
> <cd99eb59-4202-41ea-855d-11635feac01b@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:
> 
>> You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
>> know to be fact. 
> 
> Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born 
> outside the USA.

That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, Obama's 
mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That means that 
no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. Unless I'm 
misreading things.

And, in any case, it seems more than clear that he was born in Hawaii, then a 
state of the United States of America, which also makes him a citizen... and 
one up on (just for two examples) John McCain, who was _not_ born in any 
state of the Union (Panama Canal Zone) or Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona 
_before_ it was a state... But, hey, those two were _white Republicans_, so 
it's alright...

> 
>> But if anyone would like to convince me that my facts are mistaken, it 
>> would require a much more persuasive rebuttal than I have been presented 
>> with so far.
> 
> Your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
> 
> What you say you know are facts are what you want to believe are facts; 
> therefore the facts won't change your mind.
> 
> That is, if you really do believe they are facts, and I don't give you even 
> that much credit.

He is more entertaining than Priam, though.



-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <cd99eb59-4202-41ea-855d-11635feac...@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
> > know to be fact.
>
> Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born
> outside the USA.
>
> > But if anyone would like to convince me that my facts are mistaken, it
> > would require a much more persuasive rebuttal than I have been presente=
d
> > with so far.
>
> Your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
>
> What you say you know are facts are what you want to believe are facts;
> therefore the facts won't change your mind.
>
> That is, if you really do believe they are facts, and I don't give you ev=
en
> that much credit.

There certainly is no requirement for you to present any facts
supporting your view.  Nor is there any requirement for us to continue
this discussion.  I see both of our views to be clearly expressed,
although wanting in supporting evidence.  But that's fine too to leave
this topic as it stands.

If I do find references that someone may find persuasive, I can return
to this thread to add them.  And I'll continue to read here in case
anyone posts something that may cause me to change my view.

~ CT

In article <j6qori0vbn@news3.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, 
> Obama's mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That 
> means that no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. 
> Unless I'm misreading things.

It has to do with his mother's age when he was born, and the length of time 
she had lived outside the USA.  But thats getting way afield from being on 
topic.  If you want to discuss it more, email me

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Michelle Steiner:
<snip>
> I know; I just wanted to see what lies he would respond with.

I am amazed with me coming into this forum, and within a couple of
days I am branded as a liar and Wintroll.  Why?  Because I stated I
don't own any Apple products and I stated my understanding that some
key Apple technologies were copied from other inventors?

Astounding level of close-mindedness and hostility here.  Sad to know
that this is the Usenet norm.

I came here to have productive discussion about a great person.  Jobs
was one of the greatest.  Arguably the greatest Arab who has ever
walked the Earth.  But I did not come here to argue.  If this forum is
not open to non-Apple-centric points of view, then this discussion is
a waste of time.  I know I've got better things to do with my time.  I
hope at least one person benefited from facts I've shared.  Like being
open to the fact that Apple did not invent smartphones.  I didn't get
any feedback from the person who expressed this belief, so I don't
know.

But whatever.  We're all free to pursue whatever activities we see to
bring us the greatest benefit.  I am clear that I am not getting all
that much benefit from time I've invested here.  I'm at least glad
that there are people like Steve Jobs who see their time to best be
spent at doing what they can to facilitate human interaction.  But if
his computer technology and smartphone technology is used primarily
for us to crap on each other, then Steve's Jobs' legacy is a wasted
life.

His time, his 56 years, would have been much better spent pursuing
innovation in promulgating spiritual awareness.

~ CT

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 21:31:42 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-EFECA9.18314208102011@news.eternal-september.org>):

> In article <j6qori0vbn@news3.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, 
>> Obama's mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That 
>> means that no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. 
>> Unless I'm misreading things.
> 
> It has to do with his mother's age when he was born, and the length of time 
> she had lived outside the USA.  But thats getting way afield from being on 
> topic.  If you want to discuss it more, email me
> 
> 

Ooh, she was too young, eh? Right. Anyone who reaches to _that_ extent is, at 
best, unbalanced. Birthers are as bad as creationists. And I note that a lot 
of creationists _are_ birthers. Which says all that need be said, so far as 
I'm concerned.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article 
<8d00c16f-6e20-4a4f-949e-9af41b84572d@t16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> I am amazed with me coming into this forum, and within a couple of
> days I am branded as a liar and Wintroll.  Why? 

Because of the duck test.

> If this forum is not open to non-Apple-centric points of view, then this 
> discussion is a waste of time. 

Although the social nature of the list lets it drift off topic at times, 
and trolls drag it off topic at times, it is a list for the discussion of 
the Macintosh Operating System, primarily OS X.

> I know I've got better things to do with my time.

Good.  Do them elsewhere.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born 
> outside the USA.

Add the word "continental" and it is true... he was born outside the
continental USA. And since Hawaii was at one point not part of the USA,
you could argue that he was born outside of the USA from a certain
perspective of a time :-)


And it is ironic that Republicans would use that argument since they
would stand to gain if "foreigners" could be elected as president since
Arnold could then run for office.

From Michelle Steiner:
> In article
> <8d00c16f-6e20-4a4f-949e-9af41b845...@t16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I am amazed with me coming into this forum, and within a couple of
> > days I am branded as a liar and Wintroll. =A0Why?
>
> Because of the duck test.
>
> > If this forum is not open to non-Apple-centric points of view, then thi=
s
> > discussion is a waste of time.
>
> Although the social nature of the list lets it drift off topic at times,
> and trolls drag it off topic at times, it is a list for the discussion of
> the Macintosh Operating System, primarily OS X.
>
> > I know I've got better things to do with my time.
>
> Good. =A0Do them elsewhere.

It would be very interesting to know what Steve's last living thoughts
were.  It's quite possible that he lamented having spurred the boom of
home computers throughout the world, seeing how they came to be used
in such hostility.  Orv lived to see his airplane invention used to
drop atomic bombs on fellow human beings.

~ CT

In article 
<21745d21-7274-4ab6-81d9-35c1a2490039@i28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
 Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> It would be very interesting to know what Steve's last living thoughts 
> were.

Based on the few reports, I'd say that they were of his family; his wife, 
children, and sister.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

From Michelle Steiner:
>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > It would be very interesting to know what Steve's last living thoughts
> > were.
>
> Based on the few reports, I'd say that they were of his family; his wife,
> children, and sister.

I would not be surprised to learn that every person on a deathbed
focuses their thoughts on the closest relationships they've shared in
their life.  ...which becomes ironic in Steve's case because he put so
much of his time and energy into his work.  I saw him say in an
interview that his reason for writing a book was to explain to his
children why he did what he did, and was not around to spend more time
with them.

A simple analysis finds an obvious hole in his explanation.  If you
want your children to know something, you can communicate to your
children.  This does not require a book published to the entire
world.  So perhaps his motivation is to explain to the entire world
why his priorities were what they were.

I am glad he made the choices he did.  He benefited the lives of
billions, at the expense of a handful.  Some see this as a form of
egomania.  I can see validity in that.  He himself stated his and his
company's values very clearly...   Here's to the Crazy Ones.

I am very thankful for that one particular crazy one.  I hope his
loved ones can be, in the entire balance of things, be overall
thankful for him as well.

Along with thoughts of family, I understand Steve to have been a very
spiritual person as well.  That joke about the iGod product testing
was rooted in a seed of truth.  I expect that in his final moments he
had thoughts about the ultimate reality of human existence.  He may
have been steadfast in his chosen belief system, or he may have
pondered the validity of alternate belief systems.  Here one might
guess that he applied a similar system that he used in making
decisions about Apple products.  At what point is it smart to abandon
the myriad of alternatives with various promises in potential in order
to press ahead with what you have faith in with what will actually
work?  Steve now knows that answer to this ultimate question.

....or not.

But that is the meaning behind the iGod Shuffle feature part of that
joke.  Who knows which belief system is durable, and which ones are
garbage?  Maybe there are aspects to all that carry some validity, to
varying degrees.  If I were to guess, I would say that Steve did not
take his final breath with pure certainty in Buddhist dogma.  He
recognized the value in copying, or being influenced by, the success
achieved by other paths.  And that the success of the path he chooses
himself can be enhanced by incorporating key aspects from those
others.

Maybe this is the ultimate lesson we can take from his life.

....or maybe my speculative musings are completely baseless, and we'll
learn that Jobs died a disciple of Richard Dawkins.  I actually see
validity in that belief system as well.  In the ultimate of ironies,
it's quite possible that the non-spiritual view is the most spiritual
of them all.

Whatever the ultimate truth in the matter may be, he was well aware
that him taking that final breath would be the biggest bite out of the
apple.  He so eloquently communicated that in his Palo Alto
Commencement Speech.  He did not make a single mention of a Buddhist
revolving door.  His message was, 'this is it, so make the most of
it'.

....and then again, I don't recall hearing him say, 'family is what's
most important, so be careful not to get too caught up in your
careers'.  We KNOW what his values were.  Every one of us defines our
values through our actions.  Our choices.  A great many of his were
made publicly.  He stepped down as CEO with just a handful of weeks
remaining.  The man's name, after all, was Jobs.  It's quite possible
that the underlying cause of his illness was spiritual imbalance.
It's quite possible that is the cause of all illness.  This has been
reported as his cause of death...

"Jobs succumbed to his protracted battle with P.C."

I hope he was able to laugh in his final days.  Or at least smile.  If
not on his face, then in his heart.  I will imagine that his final
thoughts were of deep satisfaction of what he was able to
accomplish.  ...along with a tinge of regret over what he deliberately
chose not to do.  ...along with a profound sense of mystery over the
ultimate truth he was facing, perhaps too - fear.  ...to all be washed
away with an utter sense of bliss in the experience that is life, and
death.

~ CT

>> It would be very interesting to know what Steve's last living thoughts 
>> were.


Perhaps he was enjoying 1970s drugs again and dreaming in technicolour
and he saw a new pattern that he thought should be added to the itunes
visualiser ?  :-)

Seriously, we'll never know what they were. We dont know whether he was
in pain when last conscious or not. We don't know whether he was alone
or with family when he was last conscious. And we don't know whether he
simply fell asleep at night and didn't wake up the next morning and
stayed in a coma (or constant sleep) for X days.

In the case of my dad, he progressively spent more and more time asleep.
 He'd wake up for short periods and then fall asleep again.

And it is also impossible to know if there were periods where he was
awake but kept eyes closed and didn't speak. (aka: was conscious and
could hear what we said but would not respond because too weak).

From the moment a person realises that death is inevitable and only a
matter of a couple weeks, dasy or hours, things get very different for them.

Stuf4 wrote:

> A simple analysis finds an obvious hole in his explanation. 


William Shatner came to visit him in hospital. Asked an unresolvable
connundrum. As Steve Jobs then began to try to resolve the question, his
body temperature rose due to all of the processing his brain was doing.
Steam started to come out of his ears and he finally exploded in
a million pieces.

The blinking red lights embedded on the chest of every Apple employee
stopped blinking and all of a sudden, they were all free to think
independantly. As well, the exits to the Apple campus unlocked
themselves, allowing Apple employees to walk to the outside for the
first time in years and see that Sun was now controlled by the Oracle
which made them wonder if they were part of the Matrix or not.

In article <michelle-BF0B1F.16552808102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article 
> <wayne.morris-0FD2FD.12595808102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  "Wayne C. Morris" <wayne.morris@this.is.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > There's a reason why I don't own any Apple products.
> > > 
> > > If you don't own any Apple products, why the fuck are you posting to 
> > > this newsgroup?
> > 
> > Check the headers.  Stuf4 aka Chris Tuason is a Wintroll.
> 
> I know; I just wanted to see what lies he would respond with.

Which actually means: "I know, I just love encouraging the trolls here."

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <j6qori0vbn@news3.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:54:08 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
> (in article <michelle-042A12.16540808102011@news.eternal-september.org>):
> 
> > In article 
> > <cd99eb59-4202-41ea-855d-11635feac01b@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
> >> know to be fact. 
> > 
> > Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born 
> > outside the USA.
> 
> That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, Obama's 
> mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That means that 
> no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. Unless I'm 
> misreading things.
> 
> And, in any case, it seems more than clear that he was born in Hawaii, then a 
> state of the United States of America, which also makes him a citizen... and 
> one up on (just for two examples) John McCain, who was _not_ born in any 
> state of the Union (Panama Canal Zone) or Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona 
> _before_ it was a state... But, hey, those two were _white Republicans_, so 
> it's alright...

And there you have hit the nail squarely on the head. It's about race, 
and nothing more. It is disturbing how alive and well true racism still 
is in this country.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

In article <michelle-EFECA9.18314208102011@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <j6qori0vbn@news3.newsguy.com>,
>  J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
> > That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, 
> > Obama's mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That 
> > means that no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. 
> > Unless I'm misreading things.
> 
> It has to do with his mother's age when he was born, and the length of time 
> she had lived outside the USA.  But thats getting way afield from being on 
> topic.  If you want to discuss it more, email me

Nope. It's about him being a black man.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

From JF Mezei:
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > A simple analysis finds an obvious hole in his explanation.
>
> William Shatner came to visit him in hospital. Asked an unresolvable
> connundrum. As Steve Jobs then began to try to resolve the question, his
> body temperature rose due to all of the processing his brain was doing.
> Steam started to come out of his ears and he finally exploded in
> a million pieces.
>
> The blinking red lights embedded on the chest of every Apple employee
> stopped blinking and all of a sudden, they were all free to think
> independantly. As well, the exits to the Apple campus unlocked
> themselves, allowing Apple employees to walk to the outside for the
> first time in years and see that Sun was now controlled by the Oracle
> which made them wonder if they were part of the Matrix or not.

...D OE S...  N OT...  CO MP UTE...

Heh.  Here's how employees felt with Jobs's 1st departure from Apple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FytWjEd2gcg&t=5m50s

Steve the Terrorist.  The incredibly respected terrorist.  (Pre-GWOT,
of course.  Gotta be more sensitive these days to his Syrian half.)

Here's another clip from that same TV show where Jobs says:  "We have
always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
And he goes on to explain how he copied XeroxPARC's GUI ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7TQVFSA1Y&t=35s

And in this clip (again same show, "Triumph of the Nerds") you hear
straight from the XeroxPARC woman who gave Apple the demo of their GUI
innovations, Adele Goldberg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhjVidOFqBo&t=5m30s

^^^^^
THIS video clip is probably the most compelling proof of the views
I've been presenting in this thread.  I would have thought that Apple
enthusiasts especially would be well aware of this widely known story.

Well for anyone who didn't believe it from me, they now can hear it
from Steve Jobs himself.  It's actually very surprising that he wasn't
more legally cautious in saying how they blatantly were stealing ideas
from other companies.  That would be like talk captured by a hidden
camera, not an open interview.

~ CT

J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:54:08 -0400, Michelle Steiner wrote
> (in article <michelle-042A12.16540808102011@news.eternal-september.org>):
> 
> 
>>In article 
>><cd99eb59-4202-41ea-855d-11635feac01b@x16g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>> Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You, and anyone else here, are certainly free to disagree with what I
>>>know to be fact. 
>>
>>Just like the birthers know for a fact that President Obama was born 
>>outside the USA.
> 
> 
> That's one thing which I have never understood. So far as I know, Obama's 
> mother is American, and has never given up her citizenship. That means that 
> no matter where Obama was born, he's an American citizen. Unless I'm 
> misreading things.
The point of the effort of those who want to believe that he was born in 
a foreign country is to delegitimize his presidency.  One of the 
requirements of the office is that one must be a natural born citizen.
> 
> And, in any case, it seems more than clear that he was born in Hawaii, then a 
> state of the United States of America, which also makes him a citizen... and 
> one up on (just for two examples) John McCain, who was _not_ born in any 
> state of the Union (Panama Canal Zone) or Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona 
> _before_ it was a state... But, hey, those two were _white Republicans_, so 
> it's alright...
> 
> 
>>>But if anyone would like to convince me that my facts are mistaken, it 
>>>would require a much more persuasive rebuttal than I have been presented 
>>>with so far.
>>
>>Your mind is made up, don't confuse you with facts.
>>
>>What you say you know are facts are what you want to believe are facts; 
>>therefore the facts won't change your mind.
>>
>>That is, if you really do believe they are facts, and I don't give you even 
>>that much credit.
> 
> 
> He is more entertaining than Priam, though.
> 
> 
> 

On 10/9/11 1:44 AM, in article
db791c62-6c27-45b3-9a84-ccacf4438f53@u24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, "Stuf4"
<tdadamemd-spamblock-@excite.com> wrote:

> From Michelle Steiner:
>>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
>>> It would be very interesting to know what Steve's last living thoughts
>>> were.
>> 
>> Based on the few reports, I'd say that they were of his family; his wife,
>> children, and sister.
> 
> I would not be surprised to learn that every person on a deathbed
> focuses their thoughts on the closest relationships they've shared in
> their life.  ...which becomes ironic in Steve's case because he put so
> much of his time and energy into his work.  I saw him say in an
> interview that his reason for writing a book was to explain to his
> children why he did what he did, and was not around to spend more time
> with them.
> 
> A simple analysis finds an obvious hole in his explanation.  If you
> want your children to know something, you can communicate to your
> children.  This does not require a book published to the entire
> world.  So perhaps his motivation is to explain to the entire world
> why his priorities were what they were.
> 
> I am glad he made the choices he did.  He benefited the lives of
> billions, at the expense of a handful.  Some see this as a form of
> egomania.  I can see validity in that.  He himself stated his and his
> company's values very clearly...   Here's to the Crazy Ones.
> 
> I am very thankful for that one particular crazy one.  I hope his
> loved ones can be, in the entire balance of things, be overall
> thankful for him as well.
> 
> Along with thoughts of family, I understand Steve to have been a very
> spiritual person as well.  That joke about the iGod product testing
> was rooted in a seed of truth.  I expect that in his final moments he
> had thoughts about the ultimate reality of human existence.  He may
> have been steadfast in his chosen belief system, or he may have
> pondered the validity of alternate belief systems.  Here one might
> guess that he applied a similar system that he used in making
> decisions about Apple products.  At what point is it smart to abandon
> the myriad of alternatives with various promises in potential in order
> to press ahead with what you have faith in with what will actually
> work?  Steve now knows that answer to this ultimate question.
> 
> ...or not.
> 
> 
> But that is the meaning behind the iGod Shuffle feature part of that
> joke.  Who knows which belief system is durable, and which ones are
> garbage?  Maybe there are aspects to all that carry some validity, to
> varying degrees.  If I were to guess, I would say that Steve did not
> take his final breath with pure certainty in Buddhist dogma.  He
> recognized the value in copying, or being influenced by, the success
> achieved by other paths.  And that the success of the path he chooses
> himself can be enhanced by incorporating key aspects from those
> others.
> 
> Maybe this is the ultimate lesson we can take from his life.
> 
> ...or maybe my speculative musings are completely baseless, and we'll
> 
> learn that Jobs died a disciple of Richard Dawkins.  I actually see
> validity in that belief system as well.  In the ultimate of ironies,
> it's quite possible that the non-spiritual view is the most spiritual
> of them all.
> 
> Whatever the ultimate truth in the matter may be, he was well aware
> that him taking that final breath would be the biggest bite out of the
> apple.  He so eloquently communicated that in his Palo Alto
> Commencement Speech.  He did not make a single mention of a Buddhist
> revolving door.  His message was, 'this is it, so make the most of
> it'.
> 
> ...and then again, I don't recall hearing him say, 'family is what's
> 
> most important, so be careful not to get too caught up in your
> careers'.  We KNOW what his values were.  Every one of us defines our
> values through our actions.  Our choices.  A great many of his were
> made publicly.  He stepped down as CEO with just a handful of weeks
> remaining.  The man's name, after all, was Jobs.  It's quite possible
> that the underlying cause of his illness was spiritual imbalance.
> It's quite possible that is the cause of all illness.  This has been
> reported as his cause of death...
> 
> "Jobs succumbed to his protracted battle with P.C."
> 
> I hope he was able to laugh in his final days.  Or at least smile.  If
> not on his face, then in his heart.  I will imagine that his final
> thoughts were of deep satisfaction of what he was able to
> accomplish.  ...along with a tinge of regret over what he deliberately
> chose not to do.  ...along with a profound sense of mystery over the
> ultimate truth he was facing, perhaps too - fear.  ...to all be washed
> away with an utter sense of bliss in the experience that is life, and
> death.
> 
> ~ CT

Thought you said a few posts above that you had other things to do.

Go do them, now.

On 10-09-2011 06:27, Stuf4 wrote:
> from Steve Jobs himself.  It's actually very surprising that he wasn't
> more legally cautious in saying how they blatantly were stealing ideas
> from other companies.  That would be like talk captured by a hidden

Because he knew that the truth was thoroughly and legally documented,
he knew there was no risk in a bit of humorous oversimplification.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are two types of people in the world …
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

On 10-09-2011 03:01, JF Mezei wrote:
> in pain when last conscious or not. We don't know whether he was alone
> or with family when he was last conscious. And we don't know whether he

Some of us know that certain media reports say he was surrounded by 
friends and family.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   There are two types of people in the world …
   http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1157

From George Kerby:
> Thought you said a few posts above that you had other things to do.
>
> Go do them, now.

I also said that if I found the information being asked of me that I
would provide it.  Done.

Now I will be curious to see what rebuttals will be offered by those
who still refuse to accept the story I've been presenting.  I am
hoping to be presented with something substantive, but to date I have
yet to see anything that I find compelling on that side of things.
And it would appear that you yourself have little interest in working
toward that end.

....and I'm ok with that.  We can all remain unmoved from our original
understandings.  My own approach is toward continual improvement
toward truth.  I admire Steve Jobs' relentless pursuit toward
perfection.  He did it with hardware and software.  I work on my own
development according to my own values.

One of my values is not being unkind toward fellow sentient beings.
Obviously not a value shared by all.  Or not even by the vast
majority.

~ CT

From Wes Groleau:
> On 10-09-2011 06:27, Stuf4 wrote:
>
> > from Steve Jobs himself. =A0It's actually very surprising that he wasn'=
t
> > more legally cautious in saying how they blatantly were stealing ideas
> > from other companies. =A0That would be like talk captured by a hidden
>
> Because he knew that the truth was thoroughly and legally documented,
> he knew there was no risk in a bit of humorous oversimplification.

Such rebuttals would have far more potential to be compelling when
supported with substance.

The most anyone has provided to date here is a few http links, not
even to specify what it is within those links that they themselves
find to be supportive evidence.

The video links I've provided show 1st person testimony as to how
Xerox invented and Apple copied (in an ironic flip).  It tells the
story from several people within the Apple side.  It tells the story
from people on the PARC side.  Both sides tell the story
consistently.  It provides names, dates and connects the dots.

And even with all that, I still remain open minded that there may be
some validity to all those here who persist in telling me I, and they
apparently, are mistaken.  If and when anyone would like to present
that, I'll be glad to look into it for what you all uphold as truth.

~ CT

A few tidbits:

Steve Jobs was laid to rest last friday in a private family ceremony. I
am very happy that they were able to do this without media
hype/fanfare/helicopters etc.

USA today has revealed caused of death:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2011-10-10/jobs-death-certificate/50723994/1

##
SAN JOSE, Calif. � A copy of Steve Jobs' death certificate made public
Monday indicates that the Apple co-founder died of respiratory arrest
resulting from pancreatic cancer that had spread to other organs.
##


Also, Cook sent an email to employees on Monday:

(taken from an australian news site)

Apple announced Monday it will hold a celebration of his life October 19
in the company's outdoor amphitheatre.

In an internal email to employees reported on the Apple-related website
9to5Mac, chief executive Tim Cook wrote, "Like many of you, I have
experienced the saddest days of my lifetime and shed many tears during
the past week�

"Although many of our hearts are still heavy, we are planning a
celebration of his life for Apple employees to take time to remember the
incredible things Steve achieved in his life and the many ways he made
our world a better place.

"The celebration will be held on Wednesday, October 19, at 10am in the
outdoor amphitheatre�"

From JF Mezei:
> A few tidbits:
>
> Steve Jobs was laid to rest last friday in a private family ceremony. I
> am very happy that they were able to do this without media
> hype/fanfare/helicopters etc.

The quiet ceremony should have been cremation, then his ashes sealed
in a tin can then placed in a corner of that Silicon Valley garage.
The garage is already a shrine.  His ashes would just add to how
sacred it is.  Oh yeah, it would be next to an empty bucket waiting
for Woz of course.

~ CT

Howard <Howard.not@home.com> wrote:

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Howard <Howard.not@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple II, and
> > > > then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology builds on my
> > > > first encounter with an Apple II in primary school, at age five. It was
> > > > such a friendly computer - from it's openness to the warm design of the
> > > > case, and boy did it open doors in my mind. Later when I first got to
> > > > use an Apple IIGS with it's GUI at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was
> > > > a revelation - especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have
> > > > imagined computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > > > powerful.
> > > > 
> > > > Goodbye Steve. You're a hero to me.
> > > > 
> > > > Yours sincerely,
> > > >  Jamie Kahn Genet
> > > 
> > > A beautiful article by Michael Rose on TUAW:
> > > 
> > > http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/06/heres-to-the-crazy-ones-a-farewell-to-ste
> > > ve-jobs/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Howard
> > 
> > That was lovely. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Howard :-)
> 
> 
> YW.
> 
> bte love your sig !  (I am stealing it .... LOL)

Thanks, I found it back in 1999, though I believe it's been around much
longer. I was taking chemisty at Uni back then. Such a geek :-) Still
am.

-- 
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:

> Howard <Howard.not@home.com> wrote:

> > bte love your sig !  (I am stealing it .... LOL)
> 
> Thanks, I found it back in 1999, though I believe it's been around much
> longer. I was taking chemisty at Uni back then. Such a geek :-) Still
> am.

Funny... I took hons organic chemistry too. (a lot earlier though ..)

H

"Stuf4"  wrote in message 
news:142ce676-6155-4a3e-8463-ebb5480477d2@i14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

From Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net>:
> In article
> <d5f9fd2a-3d88-43bf-85de-3319bcb1f...@i33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > From Paul Morgan Wesley:
> > > On 10/05/2011 09:18 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>
> > > > I wouldn't be a computer geek today were it not for the Apple 
> > > > II,
> > > > and then the Mac. All my excitement and love for technology
> > > > builds on my first encounter with an Apple II in primary 
> > > > school,
> > > > at age five. It was such a friendly computer - from it's 
> > > > openness
> > > > to the warm design of the case, and boy did it open doors in 
> > > > my
> > > > mind. Later when I first got to use an Apple IIGS with it's 
> > > > GUI
> > > > at age 11, then the Mac at age 13 it was a revelation -
> > > > especially with the Mac and System 6. I would never have 
> > > > imagined
> > > > computers could be so easy to use, intuitive and graphically
> > > > powerful.
>
> > > You've said it all! I agree completely with you but mainly, 
> > > about
> > > the openness of Apple products. That's the one thing we owe 
> > > Steve
> > > so many thanks for. That's the heritage he leaves to all of us, 
> > > Mac
> > > users.
>
> > Openness?  Of Apple?!  I don't know what you all are smoking... 
> > but
> > I see this as Steve's biggest *failure*.  He went to great lengths 
> > to
> > keep Apple hardware and software under the tightest of wraps.  He
> > took on IBM as Big Brother only to enable Microsoft (because of
> > Apple's lack of openness) to take over as Big Brother.  The reason
> > why Gates blew his doors off financially was because Steve 
> > squeezed
> > too hard.
>
> I realize you're trolling here and I shouldn't waste the breath on 
> you,
> but check the relative market cap values of Microsoft and Apple
>
> > The first computer I ever programmed was an Apple II.  I've always
> > admired Apple's engineering and design, but the reason why I don't
> > own a single Apple product is because of how closed it is.  I've
> > never purchased a single thing on iTunes.  I have no plans to ever
> > buy anything from Apple.  I require freedom of hardware, and 
> > freedom
> > of software.
>
> Good for you.
>
> > Steve Jobs certainly did revolutionize the planet.  In his short 
> > span
> > of years, he managed to pull off the innovation hat trick, 
> > radically
> > changing the computer industry, the cinema animation industry, and
> > the music industry.  He and Woz made the biggest of impacts by 
> > taking
> > a bite into the Apple and propelling humanity out of our
> > technological garden of eden in delivering the personalized 
> > computer.
>
> IBM and mainframes were the technological garden of eden?

>The Apple ][ changed the course of humanity.  IBM, sans the Steve-
>squared shakeup, was not anywhere close to a path that would deliver
>computers into everyone's home.

> >  His legacy is innovation and insistence on the highest of 
> > quality.
> > But it was his lack of openness that enabled others to overtake 
> > him
> > in market share along the trails he blazed.  Android and
> > PC-compatible are hallmarks of openness.
>
> Tell that to Richard Stallman.  Preferably to his face.  I'd like to
> watch.

>Speaking in relative terms, of course.

> > With Jobs no longer around to lead Apple's innovation efforts, if 
> > the
> > company chooses to maintain their lack of openness they may find
> > themselves on a steady path of decline toward a protracted
> > extinction.  I will be forever grateful for what Steve Jobs gave 
> > the
> > world.  Apple is a key part of his legacy.  I hope the company 
> > grows
> > and thrives, but in order to do so in the long term they will need 
> > to
> > wholly re-assess their attitude toward openness.
>
> Your logic is of the kind that isn't.
>
> While openness is laudable, look at the market failure that is the 
> Linux
> and BSD-ish Unixen model.  Those systems are so open that they are
> unusable except by a very few with sufficient skills to make them 
> work.
> Interestingly Linux's best market success are in closed systems 
> (e.g.,
> imbedded software).
>
> Look at Windows, installed on hundreds of millions of PCs of varying
> quality and sufficiently unreliable and difficult to use that its 
> users
> are less productive than Mac users.  And that's before we get to the
> real fruits of "the hallmarks of openness:" tens of millions of
> compromised Windows PCs recruited into botnets for the purposes of
> crime.
>
> Openness is not necessarily a way to technological superiority nor 
> to
> market success.  If it was, Linux would have won.

>I must concede that Jobs's strategy of hyper-controlled hardware and
>software has, through today, triumphed in the market.  But I cannot 
>be
>silent here while people laud him for openness.  Dismiss it as
>trolling if you like.  I see it as a reality check.

Dim is one of those asshole MacFreaks who is incapable of 
comprehending or accepting ANY criticism of Apple.  It shows serious 
issues with self esteem.  He is a Shithead in the truest sense of the 
word, who lives vicariously through Apple.

11 photographs of Steve Jobs over the years by Diana Walker.  (Time
Magazine)

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-photos-of-steve-jobs/#1

From JF Mezei:
> 11 photographs of Steve Jobs over the years by Diana Walker. =A0(Time
> Magazine)
>
> http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-...

So THIS is how it looks to seal a $150M deal...
http://timethemoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/1110170600351.jpg

Ha!  That's so Steve Jobs.

That photo got me to wonder if he's the CEO who pioneered jeans &
sneakers as 'formal wear'.  I can't think of anyone before him who
pulled that off.  He set the standard for Silicon Valley, then Tech,
and then next thing you know, the POTUS goes tieless and jacketless.
I'm thinkin that with all the credit being given to Steve Jobs, we've
all been overlooking his impact on fashion.  There are people who know
a LOT more about fashion than I do, but my best understanding right
now is that Steve Jobs paved the way for this...

http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Obama9_11bill.jpg

The POTUS signing a high-visibility bill while wearing a casual white
polo shirt.

~ CT

On Oct 11, 4:10=A0pm, Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> From JF Mezei:
>
> > 11 photographs of Steve Jobs over the years by Diana Walker. =A0(Time
> > Magazine)
>
> >http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-...
>
> So THIS is how it looks to seal a $150M deal...http://timethemoment.files=
..wordpress.com/2011/10/1110170600351.jpg
>
> Ha! =A0That's so Steve Jobs.
>
> That photo got me to wonder if he's the CEO who pioneered jeans &
> sneakers as 'formal wear'. =A0I can't think of anyone before him who
> pulled that off. =A0He set the standard for Silicon Valley, then Tech,
> and then next thing you know, the POTUS goes tieless and jacketless.
> I'm thinkin that with all the credit being given to Steve Jobs, we've
> all been overlooking his impact on fashion. =A0There are people who know
> a LOT more about fashion than I do, but my best understanding right
> now is that Steve Jobs paved the way for this...
>
> http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Obama9_11bill.jpg
>
> The POTUS signing a high-visibility bill while wearing a casual white
> polo shirt.

A quick search found this article:
"Steve Jobs Leaves Fashion Legacy Too"
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/steve-jobs-leaves-fashion-leg=
acy-too/

....but that was a shallow article on his impact on black turtlenecks.
I was talking about his much broader impact where CEOs and higher, all
the way up to the most powerful leadership positions on the planet, no
longer felt compelled to wear a coat & tie when presenting important
stuff.  I'm thinking it was Jobs who unloaded that burden.  Someone
long before Jobs killed off the tophat.  And coats & ties are far from
dead, but Steve had a huge influence in the decline of their
popularity.

Here he is in a transitional phase, wearing a bowtie:
http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2=
010/04/jobs_sculley.jpg

I'm going to guess that it was him getting canned and then brought
back that was what brought him to the point of shunning appearances in
favor of focusing on content.
....which is somewhat ironic, in knowing what a stickler he was for
appearances when it came to his products, even to the point of being a
perfectionist about the packaging that typically get tossed straight
into the trash.

~ CT

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 11 photographs of Steve Jobs over the years by Diana Walker.  (Time
> Magazine)
> 
> http://lightbox.time.com/2011/10/06/in-a-private-light-diana-walkers-photo
> s-of-steve-jobs/#1

Thanks a lot for that JF !

H

Wired magazine manages to put Jobs and Ritchie together.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/10/thedennisritchieeffect/


Dennis Ritchie: The Shoulders Steve Jobs Stood On