Remember the original iPod commercials? They were completely devoid of "meaningful content"; it was just people dancing. Consumers went apeshit for it.
That was not the "original iPod commercial" that was an early iTunes-era iPod commercial. The original iPod pitch was "1000 songs in your pocket" which was great copy and got right to the point.
At least there was some convergence with the theme of music and enjoyment. The Microsoft ad is pretty abstract. Reminds me of the Mr. Plow ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTY5EKN6bzM
Yeah, I feel that Microsoft is bastardizing or abandoning everything that Microsoft Surface (the table computer) was supposed to be by repurposing its name into Microsoft Surface (the tablet computer) just to compete with iPad.
It's an already vetted name that is pretty good for a tablet. Might as well reuse it since no one outside the tech community even knows what a Surface is.
Edit: And the old Surface is now "Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft Pixelsense"
Not without signing your boot image, AFAIK. Microsoft had a program for allowing companies to sign UEFI boot images, but I'm not sure that will extend to ARM machines.
But I think there is something to be said for "The less you think about being great, the more likely it is to happen." If you're more focused on "am I great?" than the task at hand, it'll just be a distraction.
I'm excited to see if they can pull this off. For me, the main dealbreaker has been clunkyness of sharing and concurrent editing. I've played with the new iPad and WP7 apps, and they are quite nice.
>No. Santorum screwed up by defaming 10 percent of the people on Earth, who replied in kind. Dan Savage just got them organised.
Disagreeing with a position held by 40% of people != irrational hate speech towards 10% of people.
Obviously, a view isn't made more correct by having more people believe in it, but if one makes entirely baseless attacks on a large demographic, and that demographic responds, I find it hard to be sympathetic.
You have it backwards. I'm not chastising people for disagreeing with pro-lifers. I'm not pro-life. I'm saying that 40% of America hold a militant viewpoint in direct conflict with most of HN'ers. So when you say, "well, that's what happens when you offend 10% of the world's population", I'm saying you should bear in mind that much larger factions are much angrier about beliefs you hold.
I get your argument (Which is "What about that slippery slope!!!")
The issue with the argument is that normal people don't work in real, crazy absolutes. That's a certain type of technical person thing. Normal people don't get to Richard Stallman levels of consistency in action. They stop their environmentalism at perhaps picking up some trash or buying a Prius, maybe even bringing bags to the grocery store, they stop their pro-choice stance at perhaps sending a check to the tax deductible (aka, non-political) branch of Planned Parenthood
Google WILL eventually stop this sort of thing if it becomes pervasive. When it's isolated, and arguable that it shouldn't be fixed, they likely will not fix it.
It isn't like Google lets the billions of spam blogs effect search results when they can detect it's going on. They did at first, but once it became a problem distorting results, they stopped.
I get that you're trying to loudly assert "BUT THAT LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED", and the rest of us are pointing out that "that's debatable; Google surely will figure something out when it's and issue that's very clean cut".
Would you likely see action faster if were say, a conservative renaming of the liquid made after an abortion? Perhaps, due to those political leanings you ascribe to googlers. But will it stop for "left wing" terms eventually as well? Surely.
I agree that such tactics are not helpful for a rational, adult conversation. However, if someone is spreading hate-speech about gays on religious grounds, he is far beyond the reach of logic and rationality.
