next »

[allen]

How is the personal computer revolution a bad thing?
Or digital distribution (itunes proved its the way to go)?
Or portable internet?

1) no one really said it's a bad thing. it's just nothing really special. it's simple technology advancement. as compared to major medicinal advances such as polio vaccine or finding out the structure of dna-it is minor and relatively unimportant.
2) no, napster proved that digital distribution is the way to go.
3) not even going to comment, the iphone and ipad were far from the first devices with usable portable internet. they just made it more "casual" and toy-like (ie the blackberry was usually seen and portrayed as a more professional device, same thing with the palm pilots)

edit cuz i just saw this

tl;dr Its wrong to try and say Apple didn't change the world. If you want to argue that Steve Jobs wasn't responsible for their inventions, go ahead, but I still think that's wrong, and I think you undervalue the leadership and vision Steve provided by arguing this.

no one is saying this, stop fucking reapting this. they did change the world, but what they changed is irrelevant and doesn't matter to the world at large. only to the world of consumer electronics. what they changed did nothing of any real importance to this world, unless you consider the ability to play angry birds on the toilet at wal-mart revolutionary.

[The Monster King]

the good things they did were also a while ago, inventing the early macs was cash

everything after iTunes is just image and status symbol
and bitching that somehow a mac is different from a pc

[Mikademus]

Why can't we all just get along and realise that KDE4 is the best PC interface?

[Christian Knudsen]

Gnome 2 4 lyf

[Glaiel-Gamer]

1) no one really said it's a bad thing. it's just nothing really special. it's simple technology advancement. as compared to major medicinal advances such as polio vaccine or finding out the structure of dna-it is minor and relatively unimportant.

I thought we already resolved the fact that "Its not important if its not in medicine" or its strawman equivalent, "If you didn't cure cancer, you're Hitler. No, worse than Hitler, cause Hitler at lease had decency to kill himself" is a stupid argument.

There's not a single industry personal computers haven't changed. Including medicine.
Folding@Home, there medicinal achievement that lies on the backs of personal computers.

How about all the recent middle east revolutions, where smartphones were a huge necessary part of gathering support for these people?

I shouldn't have to go list stuff like this

I'm done arguing here though, have work to get done

[Nix]

Its wrong to try and say Apple didn't change the world.

Yeah totally, in fact, returning to the philanthropy topic, Steve should have donated free iPhones to these kids on Christmas:



Because, you know, Apple and its products are universally important around the world

[Alevice]

Let's not forget when gamers cured aids.

[Alevice]

also if someone makes a functional flying car, who gives a fuck, its not like it will help world starvation

i suppose satoshi kon's movie posters would make decent food.

[allen]

Tyler you are the worst of the mac fanboys and it's incredibly difficult talking to you because of it.

I shouldn't have to remind you that you don't need folding@home to advance medicine or smart-phones to gather support for revolutions. Revolutions have been quite successful (and at times more successful) in the past without them. And it didn't require folding@home to cure polio or find out the structure of dna.

No one said it's not important if it isn't related to medicine or other fields of science, it's just relatively unimportant. I'm arguing that we should praise people who truly advance society, not praise people who make toys. So what if a few of those toys helped (I'm being extremely kind in using that word) in the process of a few scientific advances? Do you want to credit the pen and paper as well for E=MC2?

and a special golf clap to Tyler Glaiel for bringing Hitler into the conversation. Can't believe it took more than 20 pages.

[Alevice]

No one said it's not important if it isn't related to medicine or other fields of science, it's just relatively unimportant. I'm arguing that we should praise people who truly advance society, not praise people who make toys.

Why not just both? As said before, bring to the spotlight important people when a discovery is made of when they die. Simple as that. Even if other people don't care at least you will demonstrate how you care.

So what if a few of those toys helped (I'm being extremely kind in using that word) in the process of a few scientific advances? Do you want to credit the pen and paper as well for E=MC2?

You mean chalk and chalk board, if caricatures are to be believed.

and a special golf clap to Tyler Glaiel for bringing Hitler into the conversation. Can't believe it took more than 20 pages.

Jimmy did it already:

Besides, even despite the things he's done, his ideas have changed the world way more than the majority of us could have possibly done. So condolences to Steve Jobs family and friends, he was a good man.

you know who else's ideas have changed the world?  hitler's. 

[allen]

Yes, I would have less of a problem with people praising Steve Jobs if people that truly deserve got it. But they don't, which is why I'm arguing.

Oh well about the Hitler thing. I must have missed it.

Here's something Tyler should read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_fetishism

"Fetishism" in this context refers to symbolic attribution of power to an object to the point where people believe and act as though the fetish object really has that power, and this power is even regarded as being intrinsic to (a natural, inherent characteristic of) the object, rather than a human attribution. In reality, that power is not an intrinsic characteristic of the object at all. However, in terms of social behavior, if a sufficient proportion of people act as though the object has the power, then the object can function as if it had that power.

[Alevice]

Yes, I would have less of a problem with people praising Steve Jobs if people that truly deserve got it. But they don't, which is why I'm arguing.

Make the difference bro, be the one helping promoting awareness, make the brand recognition.

[allen]

This is me trying, but people instead would rather argue and try to make me believe that Steve Jobs deserves all this praise instead of listening to what I'm really saying. They want so hard to prove to me that their toys have meaning because they are so emotionally attached to them.

They want to pin me as a guy who hates Apple products and Steve Jobs for not doing anything to advance science or medicine, and act as if I am trying to befoul his legacy. I'm just saying his legacy is moot when compared to others and we should recognize their influence on the world rather than focus on Steve Jobs, a billionaire who created toys.

[Alevice]

A good advertisement strategy is making good publicity of your product, rather than just pissing on other products.

IE, important person dies, make a thread dedicated to it.

[allen]

This is the problem, you guys think I'm pissing on Steve Jobs or his products but I'm not. I've said they are fine products, but that's all they are. Products. They aren't advances in science or medicine, they are products. I've said he's a good businessman, but that's all he was. A businessman.

and you damn well know if I posted a thread about an important person it would have 2 posts in it and be buried. Putting my opinions in a thread about someone cares about is a lot easier to get noticed and my opinion heard. Too bad no one is listening.