The modern day sucks. Send me back to the days of Trainspotting and a vaguely optimistic future pre-Al Qaede.
I was totally born 5 years too late. The films then were excellent. The music likewise awesome (apart from Dance. Which to this day I cannot stand). But even when it was gak, it was tolerable. Simon Cowell had no grip on the industry. hippity Hoppity actually meant something.
Surely some Dakkaite has a time machine that I might go and reclaim my wasted youth? Better misspent than saved up for the numbing world of maturity!
90s are overrated, remember when people didn't have hi-speed internet and cell phones?
You had to plan gak out carefully. Now it's meet at ____ and everything works out. Back then you actually had to call everybody and set a meeting and exact time at someone's house otherwise it went downhill because there was no way to change the plan once someone was in a car.
I didn't get my first cell phone until 2004. And we didn't have internet until 2000 at my childhood home. Hell, we didn't even own a colour TV with -buttons- until about 1996. Before then, we had an antenna and a black and white picturebox with dials. That's right. dials. And forget about a remote, that was way too space age for that TV
When we finally did get a colour TV, I'm pretty sure I screeched with childish glee for a good 20 minutes until my parents put me outside. No more black and white Canucks games for that boy!
I'm with the OP, the 90s were a lot better art-wise, meaning music and movies, and GW was cheaper and more fun, than the present, but it wasn't that great. Sure you could still smoke in restaurants and play NHL'94 on your Sega Genesis, but there were also things that totally sucked in the 90s too. Arsenio Hall to name but one. The constant resurrection of Woodstock was another. The last days of action movies where the 'star' wasn't the special effects.
Actually, the 90s was great for metal fans as the genre had lost its clout. I remember seeing Ozzy, Motorhead, White Zombie, Sabbath, Dio, Maiden and a bunch of other 'legends' in small venues the size of a school gym. I'm getting misty eyed now. Where are my Doc Marten's?
Personally, I think the early to mid 70s would've been a great time to be young. The music was great. The cars cool. The girls not fat. No cell phones. High tide of Western Civilization.
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
Thats actually not true. Tape recordings weren't compressed but they had a limited capacity for recording sound. High bitrate digital audio sounds better with a fuller, more capable audio range then tape was really capable of at the time. A lot of that has to do with the recording methods used while tapes were in vogue though, magnetic strips are capable of giving basically any range of audio(As well as doing basically everything else if you design it right (they just didn't because high end magnetic tape recording and manufacture is stupid expensive)).
Also I can surf the internet. Remember the internet? Oh, your going back to the nineties. Have fun with that!
metallifan wrote:I didn't get my first cell phone until 2004. And we didn't have internet until 2000 at my childhood home. Hell, we didn't even own a colour TV with -buttons- until about 1996. Before then, we had an antenna and a black and white picturebox with dials. That's right. dials.
I didn't get my first cellphone till late last year. And the only reason i got it was cause my dad never used it.
Same deal with internet.
I had a tv with A button. No remote. I think I beat you.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats actually not true. Tape recordings weren't compressed but they had a limited capacity for recording sound. High bitrate digital audio sounds better with a fuller, more capable audio range then tape was really capable of at the time. A lot of that has to do with the recording methods used while tapes were in vogue though, magnetic strips are capable of giving basically any range of audio(As well as doing basically everything else if you design it right (they just didn't because high end magnetic tape recording and manufacture is stupid expensive).!
And we can't forget how easy it was to ruin magnetic tapes. I can't imagine how many I crapped up by getting something on the exposed tape areas, then playing it and spreading it all over the entire track. Still, tapes have a soft spot with me. Like my first cellphone, I didn't own a discman until 2000. So most of my early life was spend with a walkman and a huge stack of tapes. I've only ever had 2 MP3 players, 1 of which was a 3G I bought at a London Drugs for $10.00. I still have it too... somewhere
Gotta love the warped sounds you could get from a tape accidently left on the dash in summer though
I wish we could have the tech of today with the people of the 90's - if that actually makes any sense.
I really dont think I would miss any music post 2000 (and theres alot from the 90's thats only good because its so laughably bad ), theres a coupla bands/songs I don't hate, but overall most of my favorite stuff is from before I was born anyway
I hear you, I guess. I'd personally rather be 16 in 1965, honestly. The 60's were better than anything else.
LSD, the hell's angels, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Richard Nixon...Everything about the 60's is amazing...Including the constant threat of nuclear holocaust
The 90s. Why? Today is much better. Nowadays you can still get hold of class A drugs while simultaneously hearing 99% less reasons why they are going to kill you on the news every single night. What's not to love?
whatwhat wrote:The 90s. Why? Today is much better. Nowadays you can still get hold of class A drugs while simultaneously hearing 99% less reasons why they are going to kill you on the news every single night. What's not to love?
whatwhat wrote:The 90s. Why? Today is much better. Nowadays you can still get hold of class A drugs while simultaneously hearing 99% less reasons why they are going to kill you on the news every single night. What's not to love?
Getting killed by the class A drugs.
Seriously that was just about the most incessant news story of the nineties, why ecstasy and cocaine are bad for you and why your going to have a slow and painful death. (at least in the UK it was anyway). Kind of happy the 'drugs are bad, aids will kill us all' and the plethora of other 90s 'you should be scared, if you're not scared, you should be!' news stories, are gone.
Although to be fair nowadays it's: 'You've got no fething money, be scared! Now!'
avantgarde wrote:90s are overrated, remember when people didn't have hi-speed internet and cell phones?
You had to plan gak out carefully. Now it's meet at ____ and everything works out. Back then you actually had to call everybody and set a meeting and exact time at someone's house otherwise it went downhill because there was no way to change the plan once someone was in a car.
I'm glad we're past the stone age.
I don't a cel and it works out fine. The only reason you need to change plans in the 20min before you leave your house and get where you are going is if your friends are total flakes and decide to bail 5 min before you meet.
Dial up wasn't that horrible. It just meant that you couldn't download movies very well and music took a couple of hours instead of minutes. Browsing the web wasn't that bad either because sites had to be a lot simpler and have better layouts so you didn't have thousands of pictures on the main page.
But the 90's did suck. The music was slightly better than most of what was out today but it was still really bad. People never seem to remember the bad music from a time period only the good stuff. People look back on the 80's and think they were cool too but if you were to look at top 40 charts you probably wouldn't recognize much from anything pre 5 years ago. I think the only reason it feels like there is far more garbage out there now is that it is easier to find all the bad music. With myspace and youtube it's so easy to make a bad band and spam bad music and some idiot out there will think it's great and catchy and then someone will hear of you. They probably had all those same bands in the 80's and 90's it's just that they were stuck in their mums basement where they couldn't bother anyone.
I think the reason it's easier to find garbage now is because it's now. So it's easier to find garbage. We all exist in a single flowing pathway for time for some reason, and one of the most important effects of that is that we experience music linearly according to the date of our perception.
If we could experience the music from the 80's like it was in the 80's now, I'm sure we wouldn't think now was so bad. But here we are. In the now.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
Good times...
Yeh but as you will realise once you get over that 'grumpy old man' whinge, he does have a point. Nice to be able to have your music collection on something smaller than a cassette.
Samus_aran115 wrote:I hear you, I guess. I'd personally rather be 16 in 1965, honestly. The 60's were better than anything else.
LSD, the hell's angels, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Richard Nixon...Everything about the 60's is amazing...Including the constant threat of nuclear holocaust
How do you know if you weren't there?
ok will give you Hendrix
But didn't appreciate his genius back then
There was also a lot of crap but I was too young to know the difference.
Being English and 7 in 1966 was pretty cool
Being 10 in 1969 and watching moon missions was nearly as awesome Ok it was amazing
Airfix kits available in newsagents for a couple of bob with hobby shops everywhere was cool too.
In comparison?
Today is miles better. If you don't like the gakk in the hit parades then you have an amazing backlog to choose from.
Back in the 1960's the back catalogue was square man!
As for the 1990's
Sheesh
from a miniatures gaming point of view this is a golden age in terms of sculpts coming out.
I appreciate some vets like the OOP stuff and some newer gamers like the feel of th eold stuff.
But imho the likes of Red Box Scribor et al are doing amazing things and GW also are making some excellent sculpts.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
Good times...
Yeh but as you will realise once you get over that 'grumpy old man' whinge, he does have a point. Nice to be able to have your music collection on something smaller than a cassette.
Because you will listen to that entire music collection while walking around? I agree mp3 players are far better than a walkman. They are small, have awesome rechargeable batteries, and last way longer because of the lack of moving parts. The downside is people spend half the time skipping through songs and never really listen to their music. I guess when most of the collection is todays garbage that isn't such a bad thing though.
The other reason the 60's suck is that the drugs today are so much better. Talk to your parents about the stuff they smoked when they were young compare it to the stuff from today.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
Good times...
Yeh but as you will realise once you get over that 'grumpy old man' whinge, he does have a point. Nice to be able to have your music collection on something smaller than a cassette.
Because you will listen to that entire music collection while walking around? I agree mp3 players are far better than a walkman. They are small, have awesome rechargeable batteries, and last way longer because of the lack of moving parts. The downside is people spend half the time skipping through songs and never really listen to their music. I guess when most of the collection is todays garbage that isn't such a bad thing though.
The other reason the 60's suck is that the drugs today are so much better. Talk to your parents about the stuff they smoked when they were young compare it to the stuff from today.
I don't believe I was the only one thinking before the days of mp3s that it would be good if you could have access to your entire music collection anywhere without having to carry it in a suitcase. + considering I don't find all of today's music "garbage" (where was dubstep in the 90s?) I can't really comment on the rest of your post.
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
Good times...
Wow. That's unnecessary.
BrockRitcey wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
I like being able to compress a million audio files into one little player that's about the size of one cassette.
I like the zombie like state that these boxes and other distraction gadgets induce in morons who can't seem to function without being jacked in to some device at any given moment of the day.
I enjoy nothing more then watching them rear end the car in front of them, walk into inanimate objects or crash hard down flight of stairs while text walking, etc.
Good times...
Yeh but as you will realise once you get over that 'grumpy old man' whinge, he does have a point. Nice to be able to have your music collection on something smaller than a cassette.
Because you will listen to that entire music collection while walking around? I agree mp3 players are far better than a walkman. They are small, have awesome rechargeable batteries, and last way longer because of the lack of moving parts. The downside is people spend half the time skipping through songs and never really listen to their music. I guess when most of the collection is todays garbage that isn't such a bad thing though.
I've got gigs of music on my Zune and it's all stuff that I like and listen to. No you can't listen to it all at once, but you can't listen to all your cassettes at once either so I don't get what the problem is. It's all on one device for when you do want to listen to it.
The modern day sucks. Send me back to the days of Trainspotting and a vaguely optimistic future pre-Al Qaede.
I was totally born 5 years too late. The films then were excellent. The music likewise awesome (apart from Dance. Which to this day I cannot stand). But even when it was gak, it was tolerable. Simon Cowell had no grip on the industry. hippity Hoppity actually meant something.
Actually Simon Cowell was a fairly major figure in the music industry back then - he just didn't have a public profile. He worked behind the scenes.
The late '90s were great in the UK - there seemed to be a lot better bands back then than there are now. The general standard just seemed higher. In terms of overall standard you can't really beat the '70s, though.
Funk, Soul, Disco, Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Prog Rock, Punk, Early electronica - even the pop was generally of a high standard. I put it down to cocaine. It makes you ambitious.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote: I had a tv with A button. No remote. I think I beat you.
No dude. That black and white cube didn't even have a power button. It was an on/off dial. And it had no RCA Jacks, so no VCR
ShumaGorath wrote:But here we are. In the now.
Waynes World referance wins this thread
Also, for some reason, I suddenly wish I still had my '85 Sonoma. That thing had an 8-track player. The confused looks people showed when they saw it and thought it was a VCR were priceless
I'm class of '94 and live in Seattle, the Grunge Mecca. I remember the 90's very, very well.
They were lame. The 90's marked the point were you were no longer guaranteed to see tits in a horror movie. Both guys and girls wore colorful vests and buttoned up shirts. Pauly Shore was very popular.
Though that was the heydey of Necromunda and Mordhiem.
Samus_aran115 wrote:No, the internet was invented by jesus That was at least 50 years ago..The bible told me
Actually the Internet was invented by Al Gore.
Also if I was gonna be sent back to a time period, it'd be the 80's and I would be around 14 at the beginning of them.
Otherwise, I like where I am, thankyouverymuch. I appreciate what I have now, stuff that the OP takes for granted is stuff that makes the 2000's so cool and different from the 90's. Sure the 80's were great, but I'd rather have the internet and a cellphone that didn't make me grow a tentacle due to radiation.
It's already time to be nostalgic for the 90s? Damn, I thought we were still being nostalgic for the 80s.
Is it just me or does it seem like the cycle of being there/moving on and thinking it was daggy or horrible/remembering it with nostalgia is getting shorter? It feels at this rate we'll be nostalgic for the 00s by next week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vladsimpaler wrote:Actually the Internet was invented by Al Gore.
Al Gore is Jesus?! He really should have mentioned that in his campaign.
sebster wrote:It's already time to be nostalgic for the 90s? Damn, I thought we were still being nostalgic for the 80s.
Is it just me or does it seem like the cycle of being there/moving on and thinking it was daggy or horrible/remembering it with nostalgia is getting shorter? It feels at this rate we'll be nostalgic for the 00s by next week.
Apparently VH1 is already doing "I Love the 00's" so apparently we were nostalgic for them a few weeks ago.
Oh the 90's, oh the memories, oh the 80's oh the hypercolour t-shirts, they all kinda blended in my memory until about 1999 when all of a sudden my happy pants and sweat hogs mesh top were uncool to go raging in! I know terrible isn't it! but I still kept them! it;ll all come back in fashion...it will....won't it?
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
Thats actually not true. Tape recordings weren't compressed but they had a limited capacity for recording sound. High bitrate digital audio sounds better with a fuller, more capable audio range then tape was really capable of at the time. A lot of that has to do with the recording methods used while tapes were in vogue though, magnetic strips are capable of giving basically any range of audio(As well as doing basically everything else if you design it right (they just didn't because high end magnetic tape recording and manufacture is stupid expensive)).
Also I can surf the internet. Remember the internet? Oh, your going back to the nineties. Have fun with that!
Have fun with your sheep tool.
and you are funny man... you are Dakka's own Kenneth Eng....
I wish I could have been a teenager in the 80's. Instead, I was born in 1980 and was a teenager in the 90's. Although, I thought the 90's were awesome! But I do really enjoy the technology of now.
Yea the 90s were awesome. We'd finally kicked the crap out of the Indians. Edison's invention was breaking the Oil Trusts. Light At night for the first time!!!
Samus_aran115 wrote: I tend to avoid that lady gaga I added months ago though
Up till this point, I thought you were a pretty cool person.
I understand completely. My friends were like: "Just put it on there and if you feel like listening to it, it's there!"
Playcount<1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Samus_aran115 wrote:You're old.
My grandmother had sex with santana, no joke.
I am old but I don't care
Meh
everyone had sex with your grandmother
Ha, that's almost true! I remeber the 90's though....Well, after 1996 that is...Seinfeld, Friends, xena, hercules and white guys with cornrows are what I remember quite vividly...
Best recent "morons using tech" moment: One of my wife's students (college mind you) this past semester trying to finish her term paper in class the day it was due on her phone...
Best recent "morons using tech" moment: One of my wife's students (college mind you) this past semester trying to finish her term paper in class the day it was due on her phone...
Priceless.
What was that old guy's excuse when he drove through that farmer's market in California?
Best recent "morons using tech" moment: One of my wife's students (college mind you) this past semester trying to finish her term paper in class the day it was due on her phone...
Priceless.
What was that old guy's excuse when he drove through that farmer's market in California?
He was a Californian?
Regardless, Term papers shouldn't be written as text messages...
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
Thats actually not true. Tape recordings weren't compressed but they had a limited capacity for recording sound. High bitrate digital audio sounds better with a fuller, more capable audio range then tape was really capable of at the time. A lot of that has to do with the recording methods used while tapes were in vogue though, magnetic strips are capable of giving basically any range of audio(As well as doing basically everything else if you design it right (they just didn't because high end magnetic tape recording and manufacture is stupid expensive)).
Also I can surf the internet. Remember the internet? Oh, your going back to the nineties. Have fun with that!
Have fun with your sheep tool.
and you are funny man... you are Dakka's own Kenneth Eng....
The 90s? no thanks! lived it, hated it... for me personally it was a time when i couldn't be myself... just in the last decade was I able to come out and be the real me.
You know, one thing I miss about growing up in the 90's...
Yogurt, Pudding, and Applesauce all came in -real- portions. None of this 'one spoonful and you're done' crap. I miss when yogurt and pudding came in the white plastic bowls with thick tinfoil lids. Thank the space emprah that Applesauce still comes packaged like that
I don't see what that's supposed to prove. I know guys that still use walkmans because they find tapes to have a cleaner sound than a compressed audio file on an mp3 player.
Thats actually not true. Tape recordings weren't compressed but they had a limited capacity for recording sound. High bitrate digital audio sounds better with a fuller, more capable audio range then tape was really capable of at the time. A lot of that has to do with the recording methods used while tapes were in vogue though, magnetic strips are capable of giving basically any range of audio(As well as doing basically everything else if you design it right (they just didn't because high end magnetic tape recording and manufacture is stupid expensive)).
Also I can surf the internet. Remember the internet? Oh, your going back to the nineties. Have fun with that!
Have fun with your sheep tool.
and you are funny man... you are Dakka's own Kenneth Eng....
Did they ban you from reddit?
no, in fact. And when know-it-all holier-than-thou types such as yourself show up, they are usually extinguished rather quickly, I prefer it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think one of the cooler parts of the 90's were kids shows!. I mean, classic Nick Toons were tits. Rocko's Modern Life, Doug, etc. Also, are you afraid of the dark? Pete and Pete? Salute your shorts?! badass.
whatwhat wrote:The 90s. Why? Today is much better. Nowadays you can still get hold of class A drugs while simultaneously hearing 99% less reasons why they are going to kill you on the news every single night. What's not to love?
Now THAT was good TV. Honestly, I'm suprised they lasted for the whole 2 seasons that they did. Watching those shows now, there're so many obvious, inappropriate, adult jokes on those shows that it's a wonder my friends and I didn't all grow up to be full-on perverts
it has nothing to do with needing to be on a team, man. You team is chosen for you by what computer you have. I live and work in a city that is extremely divided, as is my school. Apple and PC are like perisa and sparta in Seattle. Not only do I live in Seattle, I study and work in the high tec/gaming/animation production area, where what computer you use is VITALLY important. It's an ongoing thing, this debate. I guess you don't get it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: yeah, New Hampshire...you don't get it.
IG_urban wrote:it has nothing to do with needing to be on a team, man. You team is chosen for you by what computer you have. I live and work in a city that is extremely divided, as is my school. Apple and PC are like perisa and sparta in Seattle. Not only do I live in Seattle, I study and work in the high tec/gaming/animation production area, where what computer you use is VITALLY important. It's an ongoing thing, this debate. I guess you don't get it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: yeah, New Hampshire...you don't get it.
You're a 19 year old hater that just started going to a design college and decided to rebel against the "norm". It's not hard to get it.
For reference the Ipod is the third MP3 player I've owned. The first was a sandisk, the second was a zune. You're just a fanboi that externalizes hate that has no logical basis or reason. We're in this exact same conversation in another thread in fact! I'm also attending likely what is either the same or a very similar major at my college. We have the same platform war. You're just not enough of an adult to rise above it.
I do. far better than Blair and the days when it was a crime to be British.
You point me to swathes of Britain forced to depend upon the State under Blair and we'll talk. But part of my feels you must have spent your youth entirely in the South East, i.e. where Thatcher channelled all the money too, telling everyone else to get knotted. Vicious little right wing mare that she was.
BUT! Crashing on! This is a subject for PM, nes pas?
IG_urban wrote:it has nothing to do with needing to be on a team, man. You team is chosen for you by what computer you have. I live and work in a city that is extremely divided, as is my school. Apple and PC are like perisa and sparta in Seattle. Not only do I live in Seattle, I study and work in the high tec/gaming/animation production area, where what computer you use is VITALLY important. It's an ongoing thing, this debate. I guess you don't get it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: yeah, New Hampshire...you don't get it.
You're a 19 year old hater that just started going to a design college and decided to rebel against the "norm". It's not hard to get it.
For reference the Ipod is the third MP3 player I've owned. The first was a sandisk, the second was a zune. You're just a fanboi that externalizes hate that has no logical basis or reason. We're in this exact same conversation in another thread in fact! I'm also attending likely what is either the same or a very similar major at my college. We have the same platform war. You're just not enough of an adult to rise above it.
Im 23 and in my 3rd year of a BFA in Media Arts and animation at very nice school, following an Associates in Business, you ass. Get off your high horse and go feth yourself.
It's not just hate. It's dislike of extreme proprietary design in both software and hardware, it's exorbitant overpricing, it's lack of user-based modification and repair, it's the alienation of it's users, etc.
rise above it? like I go an badmouth every mac user I see? no...take the piss out of some dbag online that has a iPhone? definitely.
Automatically Appended Next Post: you haven no idea what goes on in my life and the lives of those around me, your arrogance is absolutely infuriating.
Im 23 and in my 3rd year of a BFA in Media Arts and animation at very nice school, following an Associates in Business, you ass. Get off your high horse and go feth yourself.
Yeah, I'm the same age doing the same thing, though my associates was in new media.
you haven no idea what goes on in my life and the lives of those around me, your arrogance is absolutely infuriating.
Monster Rain wrote:I didn't realize people hate MP3 players and/or Smartphones so much.
How odd.
I love smartphones and MP3 players. I dislike Apple products and Steve Jobs and I REALLY dislike a rather large amount of Apple product users.
Because your a bandwagon hopper who thinks that his stupid opinion means anything to apple? God I'm sick of you kinds of People. "I hate apple, everything it makes, everything it stands for and all of it's customers because...It's bad for gaming and they're too shiny"
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Have you ever picked up an Ipod and actually thought about how far superior it is to every other Mp3 player out there? Every used a mac and considered how efficient and reliable it is? Ever picked up an iphone and realized that every piece of crap on the market is a bad attempt to copy the iphone's genius? Of course not.
On topic, i was wondering what the world would be like if kurt cobain was still alive...I honestly think it would be a much different place. Better? Maybe not..Different though.
IG_urban wrote:it has nothing to do with needing to be on a team, man. You team is chosen for you by what computer you have. I live and work in a city that is extremely divided, as is my school. Apple and PC are like perisa and sparta in Seattle. Not only do I live in Seattle, I study and work in the high tec/gaming/animation production area, where what computer you use is VITALLY important. It's an ongoing thing, this debate. I guess you don't get it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: yeah, New Hampshire...you don't get it.
You're a 19 year old hater that just started going to a design college and decided to rebel against the "norm". It's not hard to get it.
For reference the Ipod is the third MP3 player I've owned. The first was a sandisk, the second was a zune. You're just a fanboi that externalizes hate that has no logical basis or reason. We're in this exact same conversation in another thread in fact! I'm also attending likely what is either the same or a very similar major at my college. We have the same platform war. You're just not enough of an adult to rise above it.
Im 23 and in my 3rd year of a BFA in Media Arts and animation at very nice school, following an Associates in Business, you ass. Get off your high horse and go feth yourself.
It's not just hate. It's dislike of extreme proprietary design in both software and hardware, it's exorbitant overpricing, it's lack of user-based modification and repair, it's the alienation of it's users, etc.
rise above it? like I go an badmouth every mac user I see? no...take the piss out of some dbag online that has a iPhone? definitely.
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Technically a lot of OSX's good attributes are refinements lifted from other unix based platforms and microsoft has done quite a bit to revolutionize the computer space over the last few years. The Ipod and mobile market is basically apples plaything at this point, but their only real advancement in the last few years in the PC OS space is interface driven and fairly iterative. Most of their other side projects are somewhat gimmicky (appletv) but not particularly interesting or inventive.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was a picture of an ipod touch, I have a tracfone.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Because your a bandwagon hopper who thinks that his stupid opinion means anything to apple? God I'm sick of you kinds of People. "I hate apple, everything it makes, everything it stands for and all of it's customers because...It's bad for gaming and they're too shiny"
I don't care what Apple thinks of my opinion.
It's not just hate. It's dislike of extreme proprietary design in both software and hardware, it's exorbitant overpricing, it's lack of user-based modification and repair, it's the alienation of it's users, etc.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
No they aren't. Almost every aspect of the iPhone was pioneered by Korean electronics companies. What have they advanced in music? except capitalize on the demonization of Napster and start an online music store along with hundreds of others? So you think other companies should aspire to creating overpriced gadgets that they can charge insane amounts for because of a brand?
Samus_aran115 wrote:Have you ever picked up an Ipod and actually thought about how far superior it is to every other Mp3 player out there? Every used a mac and considered how efficient and reliable it is? Ever picked up an iphone and realized that every piece of crap on the market is a bad attempt to copy the iphone's genius? Of course not.
Macs are not reliable, at all, if you are doing anything taxing on the system, they are just as reliable as PCs, except with macs, data re aquisition after a crash is nearly impossible. The iphone is just a hodge podge of "copied" genius already pioneered by different companies, Apple just had the wherewithal and the resources and the good timing to do it all together and market it correctly.
No they aren't. Almost every aspect of the iPhone was pioneered by Korean electronics companies.
No, actually no. Neither Samsung, nor HTC developed the advancements in the Iphone. You're just flailing at this point, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about the A4 chip or something? Did you listen to a gizmodo podcast once and draw all of your opinions from it?
What have they advanced in music? except capitalize on the demonization of Napster and start an online music store along with hundreds of others?
Itunes and legal digital distribution. It was pretty revolutionary and no one feels sad that you couldn't get your limp bizkit album on kaazaa without looking over your shoulder.
So you think other companies should aspire to creating overpriced gadgets that they can charge insane amounts for because of a brand?
At this point you're just making uninformed and clearly juvenile rants. You should sit back and take a deep breath.
Macs are not reliable, at all, if you are doing anything taxing on the system, they are just as reliable as PCs, except with macs, data re aquisition after a crash is nearly impossible.
That doesn't even make sense. Macs don't perform 256 pass hard drive formats whenever they crash, the data is just as retrievable. You legitimately don't understand the words you're attempting to string together.
The iphone is just a hodge podge of "copied" genius already pioneered by different companies, Apple just had the wherewithal and the resources and the good timing to do it all together and market it correctly.
I'm IG Urban. I will never support any of these opinions. I have no reason to say most of them. I'm basically just trolling everyone because cody didn't invite me to his 21st and when mom washed my turtleneck it turned red.
Mr Mystery wrote:ENOUGH! Piss off and have your pointless little arguement elsewheres! Like PMs.
In the meantime, another reason to rue the passing of the 90's....
But that song came out and you can listen to it whenever you want on the internet. Why are you sad about that? It's not like we're not allowed to listen to 90's music any more.
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding. The only difference nowadays is their product is actually of a decent quality. Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together. Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
No they aren't. Almost every aspect of the iPhone was pioneered by Korean electronics companies.
No, actually no. Neither Samsung, nor HTC developed the advancements in the Iphone. You're just flailing at this point, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about the A4 chip or something? Did you listen to a gizmodo podcast once and draw all of your opinions from it?
What have they advanced in music? except capitalize on the demonization of Napster and start an online music store along with hundreds of others?
Itunes and legal digital distribution. It was pretty revolutionary and no one feels sad that you couldn't get your limp bizkit album on kaazaa without looking over your shoulder.
So you think other companies should aspire to creating overpriced gadgets that they can charge insane amounts for because of a brand?
At this point you're just making uninformed and clearly juvenile rants. You should sit back and take a deep breath.
Macs are not reliable, at all, if you are doing anything taxing on the system, they are just as reliable as PCs, except with macs, data re aquisition after a crash is nearly impossible.
That doesn't even make sense. Macs don't perform 256 pass hard drive formats whenever they crash, the data is just as retrievable. You legitimately don't understand the words you're attempting to string together.
The iphone is just a hodge podge of "copied" genius already pioneered by different companies, Apple just had the wherewithal and the resources and the good timing to do it all together and market it correctly.
I'm IG Urban. I will never support any of these opinions. I have no reason to say most of them. I'm basically just trolling everyone because cody didn't invite me to his 21st and when mom mom washed my turtleneck it turned red.
Yes, actually yes. I am speaking of the Touch Screen, Real Time web browsing, HTML support, And the basic idea of a smart phone. Just because it doesnt sell in America, does not mean it doesnt exist. I am not flailing at all.
I don't listen to Limp Bizkit. Never used Limewire or Kazaa, and have never paid for music unless it was buying albums directly from an artists' site.
How is that uninformed? Don't go around throwing accusations you can't back up.
I understand exactly what I am talking about. And the data is NOT just as retrievable, it just isn't. In a emergency data loss situation, especially.
If I am trolling, then you are the master of all trolls.
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding.
The smartphone is largely attributed to be apples brainchild, as is digital music distribution.
Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together.
Yeah, the company is a genuine "back from the ashes" story. A decade ago google didn't exist though, so really, I think you're focusing on things that are largely irrelevant.
Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
Actually... No. The MP3 player library was not well established. In fact it was largely unknown, with poor products featuring little support and generally poor designs. Itunes certainly had absolutely no competition at launch, and most of it's critics believed it was a poor concept that was too daring in a world dominated by the CD sale.
Seriously, this argument is just counterculture BS with no historical perspective. I expected better whatwhat.
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding.
The smartphone is largely attributed to be apples brainchild, as is digital music distribution.
Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together.
Yeah, the company is a genuine "back from the ashes" story. A decade ago google didn't exist though, so really, I think you're focusing on things that are largely irrelevant.
Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
Actually... No. The MP3 player library was not well established. In fact it was largely unknown, with poor products featuring little support and generally poor designs. Itunes certainly had absolutely no competition at launch, and most of it's critics believed it was a poor concept that was too daring in a world dominated by the CD sale.
Seriously, this argument is just counterculture BS with no historical perspective. I expected better whatwhat.
Again, my point was they wre all existing products and it was apples re branding and bringing together which made the difference. You've said nothing to contradict that. Apple aren't inovators, they take existing stuff and rebrand it. There were touch screens and web browsers, camers etc. on phones before the iphone. They packaged them up and rebranded the product.
Yes, actually yes. I am speaking of the Touch Screen, Real Time web browsing, HTML support, And the basic idea of a smart phone.
Those were featurephones. A smartphone is classified by it's inbuilt ability to load and alter programs on the fly. The closest we really had was windows mobile which was basically a straight port of win95 to the mobile space (and was pretty dysfuncional).
It sold in america. In fact America was the primary audience for the smartphone (cheap featurephones were the norm in asia) you just have no perspective concerning product design or history on this issue. It shows plain as day.
I am not flailing at all.
I'm sure you don't think so.
I don't listen to Limp Bizkit. Never used Limewire or Kazaa, and have never paid for music unless it was buying albums directly from an artists' site.
except capitalize on the demonization of Napster and start an online music store along with hundreds of others?
Well you certainly seem to have an awful strong opinion concerning the issue.
How is that uninformed? Don't go around throwing accusations you can't back up.
It's uninformed because you legitimatly don't know what you're talking about and think volume and place of your college make you somehow correct.
I understand exactly what I am talking about. And the data is NOT just as retrievable, it just isn't. In a emergency data loss situation, especially.
Please, explain to me why it isn. Explain how the hard disk is somehow depolarizing because my mac crashed.
Please. Explain it to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding.
The smartphone is largely attributed to be apples brainchild, as is digital music distribution.
Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together.
Yeah, the company is a genuine "back from the ashes" story. A decade ago google didn't exist though, so really, I think you're focusing on things that are largely irrelevant.
Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
Actually... No. The MP3 player library was not well established. In fact it was largely unknown, with poor products featuring little support and generally poor designs. Itunes certainly had absolutely no competition at launch, and most of it's critics believed it was a poor concept that was too daring in a world dominated by the CD sale.
Seriously, this argument is just counterculture BS with no historical perspective. I expected better whatwhat.
Again, my point was they wre all existing products and it was apples re branding and bringing together which made the difference. You've said nothing to contradict that. Apple aren't inovators, they take existing stuff and rebrand it. There were touch screens and web browsers, camers etc. on phones before the iphone. They packaged them up and rebranded the product.
If thats your requirement for an innovator then no company innovates anything. Ideas are universally iterative and products and services are iterative by definition, catering to a demand that exists before the product does. This is a poor argument WhatWhat. The cellphone followed the introduction of the radiotower and the phone, thus it can't have ever been new by that definition. Radio tuners followed the introduction of single band frequency antennas, thus radios could never be new by that definition. This list continuities all the way back until the discovery of fire and its a bs argument that one would only use if they truly understood nothing about design and the logic of invention.
whatwhat wrote:Again, my point was they wre all existing products and it was apples re branding and bringing together which made the difference. You've said nothing to contradict that. Apple aren't inovators, they take existing stuff and rebrand it. There were touch screens and web browsers, camers etc. on phones before the iphone. They packaged them up and rebranded the product.
If thats your requirement for an innovator then no company innovates anything. Ideas are universally iterative and products and services are iterative by definition, catering to a demand that exists before the product does. This is a poor argument WhatWhat.
Erm, no. The peole who first made the touch screen, mp3 player, online music store. They are innovators. Some people are actually innovators. Hey maybe theyre are some intricate things in a few of their products that Apple actually have inovated. The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
ShumaGorath wrote:This list continuities all the way back until the discovery of fire and its a bs argument that one would only use if they truly understood nothing about design and the logic of invention.
See now you're just being a douche. Take a break or something.
I know what I am talking about. If you want to continue this pissing contest, PM me. We can debate forever. Maybe there you wont go out of your way to get personal with your comments so you look like a big cool guy in front of everybody.
Erm, no. The peole who first made the touch screen, mp3 player, online music store. They are innovators.
Touchscreens were developed in the 70s and bell labs tossed around the concept of entirely touch based interfaces in PARC. The concept of the touch based interface was pioneered over a thousand years ago in mythological literature. You're being intentionally obtuse, no man is an island and no invention is truly new.
Some people are actually innovators. Hey maybe theyre are some intricate things in a few of their products that Apple actually have inovated.
in·no·vate   [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
Seriously. Just stop.
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
See now you're just being a douche. Take a break or something.
Says the man whose entire argument is based on the wrong definition of the word innovate.
I'm not a fan of Mac. Mostly because of when quicktime used to be bundled with itunes and you had to install itunes to watch a video on the internet. That and any mac that I ever tried using crash all the time. Of course it's probably been 6 or 7 years since I've been on a mac.
The ipods are a fairly good design. It is annoying that they don't have a drag and drop interface and you need to use a special program to load then.
I don't really like itunes much, as a program to download music or for a media player. I always like winamp because it's simplicity. I open some folders and hit play. I've always had good naming and organization of my music files so I never needed a program that relied on the tags attached to my files.
As far as iphones go, if I want to go on the internet I can do that at home. Nothing is going to be so important on Dakka dakka that it can't wait a few more hours. I never really used my cel phones when I had them so I can't say that I find the iphones exciting.
Now on the other side of the fence I haven't ever had a bad experience with windows or linux. It can be difficult to get some windows programs to work on linux and a few things just won't work but i've been happy with PC's and laptops with both of those programs on there.
Erm, no. The peole who first made the touch screen, mp3 player, online music store. They are innovators.
Touchscreens were developed in the 70s and bell labs tossed around the concept of entirely touch based interfaces in PARC. The concept of the touch based interface was pioneered over a thousand years ago in mythological literature. You're being intentionally obtuse, no man is an island and no invention is truly new.
Some people are actually innovators. Hey maybe theyre are some intricate things in a few of their products that Apple actually have inovated.
in·no·vate   [in-uh-veyt] Show IPA verb, -vat·ed, -vat·ing.
–verb (used without object)
1.
to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
Seriously. Just stop.
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
See now you're just being a douche. Take a break or something.
Says the man whose entire argument is based on the wrong definition of the word innovate.
No seriously, you are being a douche.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that. If the word innovation is as explicit as you make it no one would use it. The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
ShumaGorath wrote:
The orignal post I was responding to though stated they are the only company who have made any technological advancements in recent times. Which is untrue on two counts. One being that's not the case. And two , Apple arent that much of an innovator.
Yes, I know what your post was about. I read it.
Then what are you actually arguing against then. Do you agree with the statement that apple have made all the innovations of recent times?
You deserve it. You want me to take you out for ice cream and let you down softly when you're absolutely 100% wrong about something and you're wrong because of something so simple as the definition of a common word? I have the five dollars, I'll get you your gellato.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that.
Not now. Now that you know you're wrong. You certainly were before.
The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation.
Yes. Yes it is. Thats the entire point.
That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones.
No, thats an innovation based on the combination of two technologies (capacitive touch and mobile high contrast LCD screens). What you think it isn't is a brand new technology, or perhaps a unique invention. What you think doesn't actually make any sense though, and thats the issue here.
whatwhat wrote: Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
That's a fairly arbitrary standard for what constitutes an innovation. Is the general cell phone you're mentioning simply a combination of batteries and a home phone?
You deserve it. You want me to take you out for ice cream and let you down softly when you're absolutely 100% wrong about something and you're wrong because of something so simple as the definition of a common word? I have the five dollars, I'll get you your gellato.
Look, yeh I get that all inovations are based on something before. I'm not being as literal as that.
Not now. Now that you know you're wrong. You certainly were before.
The point is apples so called 'inovations' aren't different enough from their original to call them inovations. Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation.
Yes. Yes it is. Thats the entire point.
That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones.
No, thats an innovation based on the combination of two technologies (capacitive touch and mobile high contrast LCD screens). What you think it isn't is a brand new technology, or perhaps a unique invention. What you think doesn't actually make any sense though, and thats the issue here.
What are you actually trying to prove? That apple are "resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use."? Yes that's what I was originally rebutting. You actually believe that. I already have said that Apple may well have made some innovations. That's not what I'm disagreeing with.
whatwhat wrote:
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Apple making advancements in technology? All they are doing, and in fact all they have ever done, is take existing ideas and repackage them in their own branding. The only difference nowadays is their product is actually of a decent quality. Go back ten or so years and the only thing the mac had over the pc for example, was it looked better. At the time it was an inferior piece of kit. They make their money by putting the ideas together. Mp3 players, music library software and online mp3 stores were all well established before apple brought out the ipod, itunes and the connected itunes store all under one branding.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote: Anyone can take a touchscreen technology and put it on a phone. That's not an inovation. That's a product made up of two inovations which with apples iphone branding, sells phones
That's a fairly arbitrary standard for what constitutes an innovation. Is the general cell phone you're mentioning simply a combination of batteries and a home phone?
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
The idea of a touchscreen facilitating a operation system was not new. Apple did not innovate that. They just used that on a phone. So they didn't create the touchscreen. Nor did they create what was needed to make the touchscreen work as a keypad. So simply taking what was there and replacing a phone keypad with it. If we are calling that an innovation it certainly isn't much of one. So go ahead. it doesn't take away from my original post.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics and they put enough things together in one package that the package started to look and feel like something totally new. When the app store was introduced it only compounded the idea that apple was an industry leader in the mobile space.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
Actually, one of my posts predated your concerning apples innovation. I noted that within the desktop and laptop space they often times curb innovations found in Unix systems.
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
Touchscreens are more technologically taxing then a radio antennae being added to a telephone.
Sure, that's all cell phones were. Just an added antenna. That;s why they were the size of bricks when they first came out.
Miniaturisation isn't the most difficult concept to bear.
Theyre claiming that cell phones were as simple to make by combingng a phone and batteries, as an iphone was by combining a phone and a touchscreen. And your on about what now?
The iphone had the phone, (capacative) touchscreen, and the mobile operating system in tandem. Together they create a product that was highly innovative and very much unlike anything competing in the field. Execution matters as much as technology in innovation design for consumer electronics.
Yeh ok fine. Call it an inovation. Youre the one who brought me into what is and what's not an innovation crap if you want to read back. I still stand by my statement that most of what apple do is branding and most of their ideas aren't new. Which is the point. The statement I was rebuting was..."Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use: " that's advancement in technology. I interpereted that as 'inovation.' now that you've dragged me round the fecking universe about the definititon of innovation. Are you going to disagree that Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use? If so maybe you can appreciate arguing with me about the use of the word innovation wasn't so important to my point.
Actually, one of my posts predated your concerning apples innovation. I noted that within the desktop and laptop space they often times curb innovations found in Unix systems.
And?
You also posted this...
ShumaGorath wrote:Technically a lot of OSX's good attributes are refinements lifted from other unix based platforms and microsoft has done quite a bit to revolutionize the computer space over the last few years. The Ipod and mobile market is basically apples plaything at this point, but their only real advancement in the last few years in the PC OS space is interface driven and fairly iterative. Most of their other side projects are somewhat gimmicky (appletv) but not particularly interesting or inventive.
In reaction to the same comment I was responding to, this:
Apple is leading the way into the 21st century with its products while the PC companies like HP, Dell and Sony are making the same crap they did at the turn of the century. Apple is resonsible for almost every advancement in recent technology that consumers use:
Computers, phones and music. They are the standard to which all other companies should aspire to.
Which would suggest we actually agree with each other.
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Blur I can tolerate. Oasis sound the same now as they did then (i.e. crap Beatles knock offs).
The other bands though, they made the era for me. But of course, you have been on Dakka longer than I, thus must be right, nes pas?
Which would suggest we actually agree with each other.
Huh? Nah, I think they innovate all kinds of things. Every product they release usually has something new or unique about it that the competing industries race to copy. I disagreed that they are the foundation for all advancement. They are simply the foundation for most advancement in the mobile space and in online media distribution (Two of the three businesses they are actually in).
Mr Mystery wrote:Oasis and Blur? Utter pish the pair of them. One set wants to be the Beatles, the other Paul Weller.
Gimme me fringe and make it 90's!
So you dislike oasis and blur and you want to go back to the nineties? You are aware Blur and Oasis were just about the biggest bands of the nineties? ...them and the Spice Girls. Have fun.
Blur I can tolerate. Oasis sound the same now as they did then (i.e. crap Beatles knock offs).
The other bands though, they made the era for me. But of course, you have been on Dakka longer than I, thus must be right, nes pas?
Oh I'm not arguing, just wondering. Although I would disagree that Oasis are Beatles knock offs. Mcartney and lennon don't sing like they've smoked a thousand ciggarettes in the ten hours beforehand.
Didja know ringo is actually left handed, but they threatened him with death unless he played right handed, so now he plays all funny..By 'now' I mean...After 1965.
whatwhat wrote:
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Then you're really just playing a game with connotation, and not the literal meaning of the word.
whatwhat wrote:
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
I don't know about you, but none of the smart phones I've seen confine their touch screen functionality to use as a keypad.
Samus_aran115 wrote:Didja know ringo is actually left handed, but they threatened him with death unless he played right handed, so now he plays all funny..By 'now' I mean...After 1965.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
As I said, if the term innovation is so explicit nobody would use it. And it works both ways.
Then you're really just playing a game with connotation, and not the literal meaning of the word.
Have we not yet established that the use of the word innovation really wasn't that important to my original point. If not, I give in, you can have your brownie points.
dogma wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Also what you have done there is compare what I said with a much more complicated combination of technologies. Making a touchscreen act as a keypad is nowhere near as comlicated as making a phone call work without wires.
I don't know about you, but none of the smart phones I've seen confine their touch screen functionality to use as a keypad.
ftr. once you have the technology of the touchscreen. All you have to do is write a piece of code to get the rest. i.e. touch here phone does this. drag here this does this. That's not difficult. Give me the commands to interact with the thouchscreen and I can do the above with my very limited programming skills in mx flash.
And you're comparing that to creating wireless communication via a handset?
Samus_aran115 wrote:Spice girls? LOL. I forgot they even existed!
lol Today I saw Geri Halliwell's white platform boots
They were on display at a costume exhibition the Cooper Gallery in Barnsley.
Along with a snare drum (I think) from Oasis and some other paraphenalia relevant to this thread including a Cher necklace
Going again next week armed with a camera!
Sorry chaps but Fred Astaire's shoes > Geri's boots
see Samus I am happy to be old
Being old is fun, I'm sure. Going to college because your country needed scientists must have been fun too. Now you just go to make money and fart around for another 8 years after your masters
Mr Mystery wrote:At least Geeks in my day just argued over Star Trek and that. But now? Oh no! Your choice of luxury good makes you a gimp to the right person.
whatwhat wrote:
And you're comparing that to creating wireless communication via a handset?
Yes, I thought that was obvious by now.
Regardless, its incredibly easy to establish wireless communication via handset. Hand held radio phones have been around for quite some time, and I could very easily have built one in the 90's after a quick run through Radioshack. I was able to do this because someone else had invented the parts, just as you are easily able to code a basic OS because someone else invented a programming language. Innovation does not occur in either case, because we would both be replicating something built by someone else. Compare this to a smart phone, which is a fundamentally different think when compared to older cell phones; notably involving elements that were functionally beyond earlier devices.
If we could perhaps take the somewhat pointless -- even for the OT board and that's saying something ! -- shouting and general name calling elsewhere-- preferably the woods a long long way away, where they can freed and left to shiver in the cold and then die an ignoble death from eating poisonous berries as they don't know any better. -- that'd be great, and we could then continue in a somewhat bemusing attempt to retcon the 1990s into an oasis of enlightenment and uber coolness the likes of which mortal man was not supposed to witness until we've ascended to a higher plane of being where we all kind of float around and build bonzai,self contained universes where we are free to act out our deepest dreams and desires in a consequence free environment. AND bitch about movies of course.
Leave the old grudges and score settling behind please. ta.
Bah. I lived my college years in the 90s and I gotta say I miss being in the same age range as hot punky rock grunge girls with pink hair, but other than that most of it was pretty gay. That's right I said it, GAY. the techno revolution, the billion alternative bands that sound the same, the fact that suddenly all these kids who were mean to me because I didn't fit in during high school all of a sudden discovered that 'individual' was a buzzword for cool. Yeah yeah I know, we are all individuals now, and we all show it off with our wimpy ballad singing wanna be rock tastes like the Verve Pipe or the Nixons, our 'different' clothing that looks just like everyone else's 'different' clothing. Now all of a sudden a Rancid CD made all these kids who used to be scared of wearing anything but fashionable clothes suddenly rip up their jeans, wear combat boots, and buy a leather jacket to be cool.
Have fun back in the dark ages of the internet, where your connection could be lost by a sparrow flying in the wrong direction, and you payed by the hour for AOL!
Please, say hi to MC Hammer for me- and to Hammerman.
And by the way, feth "political correctness". Whining fething maggots with nothing better to do than bitch about wording. feth "affirmative action" and sloped college entrance requirements. feth everyone claiming to be bi-curious so they can be seen as progressive and hence get laid by a member of the opposite sex. feth Matchbox 20 teaming up with Carlos Santana to give them an ounce of artistic credibility. feth the Spice Girls. feth it move along. The only fond memory I have of the 90s is that gas was cheaper. Well, that, and the fact that I was more of age with the hot punky chicks.
That's because we could still get it up back then without viagra, well according to modern commercials at least. I think Bill Clinton's BJ being a hot news item was at once hillariously irrelevant, and dangerously creepy, as far as how people percieved politics. Oliver North has his own TV show now after all the BS during the Reagan/Bush era, where a lot more actually relevant things were happening than who got sucked off by who, but Bill's sex life became almost as popular as the OJ trial. Let's not forget that the 90s gave us Jerry Springer and the birth of MTV's Real World... which gave us reality TV nowadays...
Guitardian wrote: the fact that suddenly all these kids who were mean to me because I didn't fit in during high school all of a sudden discovered that 'individual' was a buzzword for cool.
Y'know, this is so true. The same thing happened to me. I started playing the Guitar when I was like, 12-13, and I was one of about 4 in my school who did. We got pretty universally slaughtered for it by the 'popular' kids. BUT THEN! BUT THEN!
Oasis and Blur came out, and apparently everyone had ALWAYS been listening to guitar music all along, apparently. It's not an exaggeration to say that we became cool overnight:
The older we get, the easier it is to look back and see the things differently than the way we looked at them back in the days. Pop culture, whether it is movies (the 90's invented the 'remake' movies trend too, and 2nd gen. Star Wars), or the music (yeah NSync was so much more 'real' than the NewKidsOnTheBlech), or political games (Clinton's BJ vs. Obama's Kenyan roots vs. Bush's ranch visits). A thin veil of what is currently considered 'cool' to the kiddies masks the fact that it is the same damn thing just in different costumes from what I can tell. The kids love the costumes though.
And no I don't need a sedative. I'll take a rain check though.
You know what really pisses me off? Nirvana T-shirts...
You don't know anything about what they stood for or anything about their lives, and you're a stupid tool who has one of those fgt side swoop emo haircuts. Take that shirt off before I rip your Fething head off and make you eat gak while Playing Territorial Pissings on my hand-held, battery operated stereo. On cassete.
Same with the beatles. Or the sex pistols, or jimi hedrix. Don't wear a shirt if you know nothing about them.
Ya we have front row seats to the end of the world man. God damn economy, god damn iran with oil and tones of resources (most lithium ever found). God damn china.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nirvana is so overrated. You don't think emo kids should wear Nirvana shirts? Nirvana was the birth of emo.
Thats the truth man. I come from a rich family and i am going to pretend to be a bum and sleep one night under a bridge and sing about hardships i have put on myself. Awesome story bro lol
Monster Rain wrote:Nirvana is so overrated. You don't think emo kids should wear Nirvana shirts? Nirvana was the birth of emo.
Nirvana were ok, but a number of the the bands they revered and emulated should have gotten more recognition for being the influences that shaped Nirvana, and because in many ways they were more artistically and sonically innovative than Nirvana:
Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr., The Pixies, etc.
Nirvana took the dynamics, sonic experimentation, and aesthetics of these bands and then rode them to the top. Nirvana became the poster boys for an approach to music that they didn't create and became anointed with a title they didn't really earn imho...
That being said the fact that really bad commercial metal got a stake put in it's heart is still a positive outcome of the whole affair.
Getting killed helped to maintain there status for way way to long. Should have let them go on to run out of ideas and have everyone forget about them.
kaidsin wrote:@Samus
Hey man, its not like i am saying the music now days is any better. CURSE YOU KANYE
Anything from before '96 is better than what we have now. Really. The only thing I listen to from this millennium is MGMT. And live cuts from artists who were good before 96
Feth? Gakk? Geez I AM old! I have never heard these slang words before... I grew up in the late 70-80s as a youngster/teenager. So I know it's not from that time period. Although, maybe I should say that, "oh hey there's senile old Melanie posting again."
Melanieshaman wrote:Feth? Gakk? Geez I AM old! I have never heard these slang words before... I grew up in the late 70-80s as a youngster/teenager. So I know it's not from that time period. Although, maybe I should say that, "oh hey there's senile old Melanie posting again."
It's the swear filter.
"feth you, you fething gakkicking fethgakker!" for example.
I hated nirvana t-shirts in the 90's. One week everyone was like, grunge sucks, nirvana are lame, and the next everyone loved them, because their singer killed himself. I was like, these guys still suck what's going on? It's even worse now because the kids wearing the shirts probably have never even listened to any of the bands who's shirts they are wearing. Why would you ever wear a shirt with a band on it unless you really liked the band?
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:They are Warhammer related colloquiallisms Melanie
If you don't remember your namesake with her brand new key then you's a spring chicken!
wierd i used to play warhammer almost 2 decades ago..i don't remember those.
Has Crystal Pepsi made a comeback yet? I'm curious to know. They only just re-introduced 7-Up here. Unfortunately, it has aspartame in it instead of real tooth rotting sugar, so I won't drink it.
As for Nirvana, I remember when he offed himself. I was drinking beer in my friend's car in the parking lot at school. I was never really into them, but they had a few OK songs. Slayer was way better. It's strange how music tastes divide teenagers into feuding camps.
Was Limp Bizkit in the 90s? I don't remember when, I just remember the suck.
BrockRitcey wrote:I hated nirvana t-shirts in the 90's. One week everyone was like, grunge sucks, nirvana are lame, and the next everyone loved them, because their singer killed himself. I was like, these guys still suck what's going on? It's even worse now because the kids wearing the shirts probably have never even listened to any of the bands who's shirts they are wearing. Why would you ever wear a shirt with a band on it unless you really liked the band?
My point. Nirvana just considered themselves rock at the time, not grunge. Grunge didn't really exist until about the middle of nirvana's career (about 91-92)...The whole thing is just stupid. What did they expect to happen?
The very music tells people not to be false and to be natural, and the kids go and steal the mood and pretend to be something they aren't....It's just dumb.Really. Grunge was dumb.
BrockRitcey wrote:I hated nirvana t-shirts in the 90's. One week everyone was like, grunge sucks, nirvana are lame, and the next everyone loved them, because their singer killed himself. I was like, these guys still suck what's going on? It's even worse now because the kids wearing the shirts probably have never even listened to any of the bands who's shirts they are wearing. Why would you ever wear a shirt with a band on it unless you really liked the band?
My point. Nirvana just considered themselves rock at the time, not grunge. Grunge didn't really exist until about the middle of nirvana's career (about 91-92)...The whole thing is just stupid. What did they expect to happen?
The very music tells people not to be false and to be natural, and the kids go and steal the mood and pretend to be something they aren't....It's just dumb.Really. Grunge was dumb.
"Grunge" is a label that the media, industry and pop culture applied to music and various bands during that time because it makes writing articles, organizing music racks and doing awful retrospective shows easier to market to clueless consumers.
Look at the bands that got lumped together, many of them have very little in common. Sound garden and Alice in Chains fell within that classification mostly based on geography, and they have very little in common with Nirvana musically, and the list could go on and on. What is "grunge"? Flannel shirts? Nope flannel was worn for many many years prior to Grunge, but somehow that becomes "grunge", etc.
In fact many bands desperately wanted to be called "grunge" because it was beneficial to them at the time.
Nirvana was a noise-pop version of the bands they emulated (Sonic Youth, Mud Honey, Meat Puppets, etc.), bands that had been making far superior and sonically similar music for a good number of years prior to Nirvana.
Nirvana got chosen and anointed by the media and pop culture as the creators of something they didn't create, and in the process became what they claimed to despise: corporate sellouts and mainstream.
Cobain's worst nightmare became his reality: every frat boy and redneck in America started wearing his band's t-shirts and shouting along to his songs at sporting events and school dances as they high-fived and swilled beer from a keg. Mission aborted. Fail Fail Fail.
From an artistic integrity standpoint if you start seeing merchandise with your band's logo/pics on it in Hot Topic then something has gone terribly wrong...
Ther term 'grunge' was coined well before Nirvana had 'overground' commercial success, IIRC. I think it comes either from Mark Arm (from Mudhoney), or from a seattle fanzine. I can't remember which, and I can't be arsed googling it.
Albatross wrote:Ther term 'grunge' was coined well before Nirvana had 'overground' commercial success, IIRC. I think it comes either from Mark Arm (from Mudhoney), or from a seattle fanzine. I can't remember which, and I can't be arsed googling it.
I believe it was the guy from Mud Honey as well who coined the term, but as a commercial classification used by the music/entertainment industry and pop culture it came into popular use in conjunction with the rise of Nirvana and the two will forever be joined at the hip.
Samus_aran115 wrote:That's a good post CT Gamer...I agree
And yes, the more I think about it, the "grunge Scene" in seattle was coined a couple years earlier to nirvana.
IMO,the "roots' of "grunge" actually started in 1981,with Sonic Youth.
Nirvana may have been credited with "putting grunge on the map",but when compared to Sonic Youth,Soundgarden,Mudhoney,Guntrukk and such,Nirvana falls a bit short in terms of originality.
FITZZ wrote:
Nirvana may have been credited with "putting grunge on the map",but when compared to Sonic Youth,Soundgarden,Mudhoney,Guntrukk and such,Nirvana falls a bit short in terms of originality.
Albatross wrote:The term 'grunge' was coined well before Nirvana had 'overground' commercial success, IIRC. I think it comes either from Mark Arm (from Mudhoney), or from a seattle fanzine. I can't remember which, and I can't be arsed googling it.
I believe it was the guy from Mud Honey as well who coined the term, but as a commercial classification used by the music/entertainment industry and pop culture it came into popular use in conjunction with the rise of Nirvana and the two will forever be joined at the hip.
NONONONONOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I refuse to deal with DOS any more!!! I would rather put up with the minor quirks of Win Vista, that's how bad DOS was. I'm off to check my DVR now, so suck it, 90's!!!!!
Albatross wrote:The term 'grunge' was coined well before Nirvana had 'overground' commercial success, IIRC. I think it comes either from Mark Arm (from Mudhoney), or from a seattle fanzine. I can't remember which, and I can't be arsed googling it.
I believe it was the guy from Mud Honey as well who coined the term, but as a commercial classification used by the music/entertainment industry and pop culture it came into popular use in conjunction with the rise of Nirvana and the two will forever be joined at the hip.
A hit in the UK but she was American Was also a bigger hit in the States afaik My point being that if you don't recall it then you are still a spring chicken
Cheesecat wrote:There was some good music in the 90's (and a lot of crap too) although I prefer 60's-80's musically, the 90's is a step up from today's music however.
Okay, I think we've determined that music was better, but I'm surprised that no one has really gone off on the TV aspect yet.
90s TV, although lame at times (Arseino Hall, Mia Peebles Dance Machine to name the two that stand out in my mind), was way better than the gak pumped into living rooms now. X files, Star Trek TNG, the best years of the Simpsons, SG-1 to name but a few. What will we remember from this era? So you think you can fart? American Idol? Survivor? Reality shows?
It must be all the fluoride in the water and prozac that has made everyone into gak loving zombies. My wife still watches TV, but I haven't watched anything on TV in over 3 years. (Gasp!) Aw, Gawd! I'm turning into my father! lol
Cheesecat wrote:There was some good music in the 90's (and a lot of crap too) although I prefer 60's-80's musically, the 90's is a step up from today's music however.
You win this thread. The 90's proved that metal will never die, no matter how badly it is tortured by lameness.
Yay, A thread win!!! And yeah about the metal part, so true. I just realized how many awesome metal releases there were in 90's and there still some good stuff even to this day it's just modern metal attempts are overshadowed by other
I like the TV subject that was brought up. The TV may have had some gak shows like the birth of reality-TV and Jerry Springer style gak. It also gave us the OJ controversy, Bill Clinton's Dick scandal, and most of the bands were whiney pussies trying to look 'sensitive'
("And I said... what about... breakfasat at tiffinys..."), ("Its closing time... waah wwah wwaah"), ("...don't let the days go bye..")
But there was a lot of innovation in comedy, animation became popular, and vastly improved over the toy manufacturer cartooms, beacause of the Simpsons, Beavis&Butthead, the origional south park, space ghost coast to coast and so on.
Windows computers and internet became accessible even to stupid kids and senile old ladies (not that this is a good thing, but at least its there for anyone who wants it). For that reason alone I must condemn the decade. The TV and comedy kind of balance out the wimpy pop-alternative music, but making computer and interwebz usage accessible to anyone who can figure out point-and-click is what led us to the TWIT generation.
I liked my DOS. I had no problem dialing my friend's house on a bulletin board to bounce off his phone line. Kids these days will never be able to comprehend a command prompt. Just click on the big blue E and go find your porn kiddo, you don't have to know HOW it works. That's what I cannot forgive the 90's for.
Guitardian wrote:I like the TV subject that was brought up. The TV may have had some gak shows like the birth of reality-TV and Jerry Springer style gak. It also gave us the OJ controversy, Bill Clinton's Dick scandal, and most of the bands were whiney pussies trying to look 'sensitive'
("And I said... what about... breakfasat at tiffinys..."), ("Its closing time... waah wwah wwaah"), ("...don't let the days go bye..")
But there was a lot of innovation in comedy, animation became popular, and vastly improved over the toy manufacturer cartooms, beacause of the Simpsons, Beavis&Butthead, the origional south park, space ghost coast to coast and so on.
Windows computers and internet became accessible even to stupid kids and senile old ladies (not that this is a good thing, but at least its there for anyone who wants it). For that reason alone I must condemn the decade. The TV and comedy kind of balance out the wimpy pop-alternative music, but making computer and interwebz usage accessible to anyone who can figure out point-and-click is what led us to the TWIT generation.
I liked my DOS. I had no problem dialing my friend's house on a bulletin board to bounce off his phone line. Kids these days will never be able to comprehend a command prompt. Just click on the big blue E and go find your porn kiddo, you don't have to know HOW it works. That's what I cannot forgive the 90's for.
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN DOS RUN
your actually complaining we now have to spend less time finding porn
No I just wish people who were slightly more literate and intelligent enough to know how their computer actually works before they get going with the twits, blogs, spams, and so on. There would be far less of that gak to sift through if there was actually an intelligence/education standard in order to even know how to get online.
Someone once said that if you get enough monkeys banging away on enough typewriters, eventually one will randomly come up with something interesting, and Windows and the internet has shown us that this is clearly not the case.
well at the same time by giving these "idiots" the chance to use the internet also means more great things on the internet as eventually one of them will type something interesting by default
o and i think it was shakespear they would eventually write - not sure though - can someone confirm please
"It was best of times, it was the BLURST of times?!", stupid monkey!
Even though the above is Dickens, the actual platitude did involve Sir Francis Baco...I mean Shakespeare.
And quite right Guitardian, although I said 90s TV was better than the steaming turds they pump into living rooms now, Springer, and the OJ and Clinton hype was the genesis of the previously mentioned steaming ones. The shows I loathed that were on every day to program the youth how to behave were Saved by the Bell (A four word magic spell to make one want to tear their eyes out) and Fresh Prince. But, they are better than Zack and Cody (A three word magic spell to make one want to take a flame thrower to the place).
Guitardian wrote:I like the TV subject that was brought up. The TV may have had some gak shows like the birth of reality-TV and Jerry Springer style gak. It also gave us the OJ controversy, Bill Clinton's Dick scandal, and most of the bands were whiney pussies trying to look 'sensitive'
("And I said... what about... breakfasat at tiffinys..."), ("Its closing time... waah wwah wwaah"), ("...don't let the days go bye..")
But there was a lot of innovation in comedy, animation became popular, and vastly improved over the toy manufacturer cartooms, beacause of the Simpsons, Beavis&Butthead, the origional south park, space ghost coast to coast and so on.
Windows computers and internet became accessible even to stupid kids and senile old ladies (not that this is a good thing, but at least its there for anyone who wants it). For that reason alone I must condemn the decade. The TV and comedy kind of balance out the wimpy pop-alternative music, but making computer and interwebz usage accessible to anyone who can figure out point-and-click is what led us to the TWIT generation.
I liked my DOS. I had no problem dialing my friend's house on a bulletin board to bounce off his phone line. Kids these days will never be able to comprehend a command prompt. Just click on the big blue E and go find your porn kiddo, you don't have to know HOW it works. That's what I cannot forgive the 90's for.
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN DOS RUN
your actually complaining we now have to spend less time finding porn
The more time you spend looking for the porn the more rewarding it was at the end.
), theres a coupla bands/songs I don't hate, but overall most of my favorite stuff is from before I was born anyway
