Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
I think SJ purposely pulled from the presentation because there was nothing that big to present. It would have been more of a let down from the big SJ.
From the point of view of reading a liveblog, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the text generated by the person liveblogging, not the guy on stage they're paraphrasing and commenting on.
After all the reader is reading the liveblogger, not the eggplant on stage.
@novacthall: What that doesn't mention are a few key omissions.
1. You'll never get banned if you have over 30 friends or 100 followers. I have seen starred commenters say some outlandish comments, and nothing. However, I've also seen some minor infractions from run of the mill commenters, and the banhammer was dropped.
2. If you're a woman, you could pretty much recite the verses of Mein Kampf, and expect nothing.
3. In the same breathe as number two...if you disagree with a woman commenter, and you pwn her, you will be banned. I won't call out names, but I pointed out that a female commenter didn't know what she was talking about. She cried to Brian Lam, and bam, I got banned. This is what I like to call the White Knight effect. It is also why I will never respond to female posters, and sadly, never respect what they say. I don't pull the race card, I would expect the same from you.
4. Disagreeing or critiquing of the story posted, yeah, that'll get you banned. This one I'm not picky about. If a story doesn't interest me, I move on, simple as that. Complaining about someone's work is just bad blogging etiquette.
5. High school rules. I've been banned around 5 times, and all of them from Gizmodo. Never from Lifehacker, Gawker, Consumerist, Deadspin, Valleywag, or Jezebel. The blogs where most adults frequent. Sometimes, you'll run into situations where it's a high school politico, and you'll be banned because you offended a certain clique.
I'm sure there's a few more, and I'm sure this will be my sixth banning. So, oh well.
@DeadhousepIants: For someone who is so set on arguing across the comments, it would help if you had your facts straight.
1) Yes they do. Seen it happen on more than one occasion. Seen it happen on Gawker, Deadspin, and at least three times on Gizmodo. In fact, one of the first commenters "enshrined" in the Commenter Hall of Fame (or whatever you want to call it) was banned.
2) Aware of at least two female commenters that have been banned and a third that was nearly run out of dodge by the editorial staff.
3) If you go around trying to "pwn" anyone, that attitude is likely what gets you banned. Banter is kosher. Douchebag "pwn"ing eventually gets you banned.
4) While I agree it's bad blogging etiquette, it usually takes more than just disagreement. It usually takes infantile, out of place, idiotic, pointless, vomitous disagreement. Like "Adam you suck because you wrote this, and you only wrote it because you would clean Art's shoes if he let you" but with more capital letters and typos.
5) Maybe you just behave yourself better on those other sites because you perceive there to be more adults there. Because this "adult" (who also frequents those other blogs) has noticed you, Jon B., and I'm the King go back and forth all day. Never seen any of you before, and wouldn't shed a tear if I never did again.
Chen, I don't know about fanbois but last time I checked, "mouse" over something was sufficient. To add a new word to the lexicon that is less explanatory (but apropo for fanbois) is just unnecessary.
I think we need to change the "Steve LET Phil do the keynote" statements of a couple weeks ago to "Steve MADE Phil do the keynote." Obviously Steve's health isn't so hot, but I doubt he would have been thrilled with this keynote even in the best of health. Phil gets his coming out party, and has to announce some neat though mild software upgrades and a new-but-hardly-revolutionary Macbook update. D'oh.
I was hoping for a price cut on the iPod Touch. I figured this might be in the works, since my wife went to CostCo to look at them yesterday, and they had no inventory at all--I was thinking they might either cut $50 off the price of each, or introduce a new 64GB, drop the 8GB, and restructure the price points. Ah well.
There goes that, I was planning on ordering a new 24" iMac with boosted graphics performance...In all, not too shabby Apple. I'm thinking we might see an Apple only event that is planning on attracting the MacWorld fan base. Something Apple can call their own, so that they have full control. I think this is what they have been aiming for all along. Think about it, how many probable products did not come out that very possibly will be introduced? (Revised iMac and Mac Mini, as well as the Snow Leopard news) I'm thinking they have some big things planned for a show of their own. Possibly an iPhone Nano, or NetMac? Something that would generate a lot of press, much like: "Steven Jobs introduced the new iPhone Nano today in a new type of Apple event he says will be around for awhile, he calls it AppleWorld (some sort of equivalent)."
@Auzburner: Yeah, if they have something super cool to release, they may try to wait until Steve returns to fighting form, and then have him pop out and talk about it. It would be double the normal press since the product would be linked to Steve looking super healthy again, etc.
I'm quite happy that there are no new iMacs. I love thinking that my 24 inch is the latest and greatest. Plus, it suits me perfectly, I don't need better graphics or power, etc, etc.
@Vivara: I just don't get it. Are people afraid that the new stuff will suddenly make the computers you purchased prior suddenly go kaput? The previous generation's been out for a while, so if there was an update to the hardware, perhaps it's best to not get a new system just a month or so away from Macworld :P
I was hoping for either a significant update, or a significant price drop. I wouldn't mind having the tech stagnate if I could get it much cheaper, as it would still make a great little tinker box.
Remind me again why I should acknowledge your existence. Now if you don't mind, I've got to come up with new ways to make Jenn cry. And by that, I mean I have to bang a few more supermodels.
01/06/09
From the point of view of reading a liveblog, it doesn't really matter. What matters is the text generated by the person liveblogging, not the guy on stage they're paraphrasing and commenting on.
After all the reader is reading the liveblogger, not the eggplant on stage.
01/06/09
Shame on you, Windows boy! :-) :-) :-)
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
Whr th fck s th 9" MC TBLT BTCH?
01/06/09
01/06/09
Oh and I'll have two grilled chicken pita with diet coke.
01/06/09
01/06/09
1. You'll never get banned if you have over 30 friends or 100 followers. I have seen starred commenters say some outlandish comments, and nothing. However, I've also seen some minor infractions from run of the mill commenters, and the banhammer was dropped.
2. If you're a woman, you could pretty much recite the verses of Mein Kampf, and expect nothing.
3. In the same breathe as number two...if you disagree with a woman commenter, and you pwn her, you will be banned. I won't call out names, but I pointed out that a female commenter didn't know what she was talking about. She cried to Brian Lam, and bam, I got banned. This is what I like to call the White Knight effect. It is also why I will never respond to female posters, and sadly, never respect what they say. I don't pull the race card, I would expect the same from you.
4. Disagreeing or critiquing of the story posted, yeah, that'll get you banned. This one I'm not picky about. If a story doesn't interest me, I move on, simple as that. Complaining about someone's work is just bad blogging etiquette.
5. High school rules. I've been banned around 5 times, and all of them from Gizmodo. Never from Lifehacker, Gawker, Consumerist, Deadspin, Valleywag, or Jezebel. The blogs where most adults frequent. Sometimes, you'll run into situations where it's a high school politico, and you'll be banned because you offended a certain clique.
I'm sure there's a few more, and I'm sure this will be my sixth banning. So, oh well.
01/06/09
1) Yes they do. Seen it happen on more than one occasion. Seen it happen on Gawker, Deadspin, and at least three times on Gizmodo. In fact, one of the first commenters "enshrined" in the Commenter Hall of Fame (or whatever you want to call it) was banned.
2) Aware of at least two female commenters that have been banned and a third that was nearly run out of dodge by the editorial staff.
3) If you go around trying to "pwn" anyone, that attitude is likely what gets you banned. Banter is kosher. Douchebag "pwn"ing eventually gets you banned.
4) While I agree it's bad blogging etiquette, it usually takes more than just disagreement. It usually takes infantile, out of place, idiotic, pointless, vomitous disagreement. Like "Adam you suck because you wrote this, and you only wrote it because you would clean Art's shoes if he let you" but with more capital letters and typos.
5) Maybe you just behave yourself better on those other sites because you perceive there to be more adults there. Because this "adult" (who also frequents those other blogs) has noticed you, Jon B., and I'm the King go back and forth all day. Never seen any of you before, and wouldn't shed a tear if I never did again.
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
...
...
Pretty please!
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
Wait.... your happy that new ones didn't come out so you can feel elite... jesud fuckin christ you people are superficial as shit.
Insecure much?
materialism ftl
01/06/09
01/06/09
01/06/09
I was hoping for either a significant update, or a significant price drop. I wouldn't mind having the tech stagnate if I could get it much cheaper, as it would still make a great little tinker box.
01/06/09
01/06/09
Are you a bangable supermodel? No.
Remind me again why I should acknowledge your existence. Now if you don't mind, I've got to come up with new ways to make Jenn cry. And by that, I mean I have to bang a few more supermodels.
keep it real
jm