Collective tolerance is why we need enforcement. Write a law, enforce it. If the penalty is not deterring the infraction, increase the penalty until those idiots who think all the other people are the problem finally realize that they are the problem.
The sad thing is that nearly every municipality already has rules on the books that cell phone users violate every 100 meters or so. Illegal lane changes, failure to yield, improper following distances, impeding traffic, etc. etc.
This makes no sense at all. In fact, I think you mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. That, or you are way up on the Autism scale and don't understand that the phrases "using your real name" and "makes you insecure" make no sense when run together.
Less speed traps, more bad driving enforcement. I know I could meet my monthly quota (that doesn't exist, wink wink) in traffic violations just by watching the drivers around me in my morning commute. Seriously, why can't a cop just drive around and ticket the same people I see? In many cases, the improper lane changer, and the distracted texter are doing so right in front of the cop who is next to me. I guess cops only know how to give tickets when they are setup in a speed trap. Why not make texting traps?
Forget the ethical aspect, working in defense is the worst thing an ambitious person can do. You think postal workers are bad? You should try working in an industry where 95% of the people used to be in the military and they can't let go of military structure. Nothing is worse than "taking commands" from the idiot civilian you work with, who has cobbled together enough credits from his time in the military (yes, I said "his" because women are completely shunned...see "can't let go of military structure" comment above) to get a fake ass degree from some diploma mill.
I've met more talented people at my new job in 1 year than I met in 17 working in defense.
That's a lame argument and I feel trolled to have clicked the USA today link. So if a 12 year-old kid dies of lukemia and has been a cancer patient for 10 years, as long as that kid doesn't live a full life, the millions of dollars in medical bills that kid racked up is "cheaper to treat", because, well, he's dead. Isn't this like saying imaginary food is cheaper to buy because it doesn't exist?
From that stupid piece of crap article, they state the average smoker dies at 77 and the average non-smoker who dies at 84. I GUARANFUCKINGTEE you that the smoker's medical costs from the time they started smoking to age 77 will dwarf the average medical costs the healthy guy racks up in his last 7 years of life. But hey, if they never go to the doctor and then suddenly up in die, they were "cheaper to treat". God you hyper-logical people peeve me to no end.
This is stupid. This is like saying "the guy who never went to the doctor, weighed 900 pounds, and his heart exploded", was "cheaper to treat" than the housewife with three children born via c-section....well no shit sherlock. Going to the doctor costs money. When you are dead, you no long have medical costs. Stupid stupid stupid.
The guy at 60 who dies just cut the government off from a good five or six years of income tax. It's not as cheap as you think when a working age person dies, when you look at that way.
It's pretty easy to show empirically that large quantities of Mountain Dew are bad for you, and is it is quackery to believe something like using deodorant will give you cancer. Science is a bitch like that.
First world problem indeed. I live in Austin, which is only in infancy when it comes to ridiculous urban planning and management and housing inflation. I make 6 figures as does my wife, yet we can't justify (we can afford, but can't justify) living anywhere within a 10 mile radius of downtown. Schools are bad, crime is high relatively speaking) bums are everywhere, it's loud and dirty, and overrun with drunk college kids nine months a year. Therefore, we have literally twice as much house for 1/3rd the price in the suburbs, and most of the tech companies are close to the suburbs, and not downtown. Works fine for us. Downtown is over-rated.
Like my wife and I, most of our friends and coworkers come from somewhere else. We do so, because somewhere else (like California) doesn't have 3,000 sq. ft. houses for $200,000. A beat up rundown 40 year old house in LA costs half-a-million bucks. Who can afford that on blue collar wages? SF is only worse.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anyone telling anyone else what to watch or how, even though I'm pretty anti-libertarian AND I agree that 99% of stuff on TV is crap.
You have a flaw in your sports solution. Most the sports I watch (international soccer, racing, college football) are broadcast more on cable channels than local networks, so OTA doesn't work. Unless you like watching Notre Dame football and not the small-but-good school you went to on Fox Sports, that is.
Until iTunes or some other business model lets me pay up a la carte for sporting events, I'll have to keep paying for cable subscription. And before you say "torrent", just try to find me a good torrent of say, Oregon vs. USC football that I can download and watch before the score is spoiled.
I'm not a braggart, but it seems in these hyper-logical circles, having a computing environment that mostly gets out of the way (OS X) and a computing environment that most of the world uses, but is a pain to maintain and use, is a win.
Running both OS X apps AND Windows apps is better, especially if you are a geek. It's not the Windows apps making the Mac awesome, it's the ABILITY to run Windows apps that does. Yes, it has a slight price hike to be able to do so, but for a lot of people, it's worth it. For people like me who never have any intention of running Windows stuff on my Mac, I'm not paying any price penalty to do so. Sure I could spend less money on a lesser caliber laptop, but then again it wouldn't run OS X, which is my #1 requirement.
In fact, I would say more switchers switched because of their insecurity of leaving windows being removed by the ability to install Windows in Bootcamp. Most of them fire up Windows a few times in Bootcamp, then realize just how much they really didn't need Windows all these years, flying in the face of everything everyone has been told their entire computing lives. It really is pretty easy to be Microsoft-free (if you want to be, if you don't, that's fine too). I've read articles where most switchers stop using Windows altogether on their second Mac purchase.
My old company started buying Macbook Pros exclusively for the devs (under the guise of "we're gonna start making iOS apps"). They never made any iOS apps, but most people booted into OS X once the scary newness wore off.
I have DirecTV and it is far better than any of the past three cable service providers I have had in price, content, and DVR quality. It is obvious that their people are interested in technology, given it is the only provider I've ever seen that has is fairly up to date with features and interface design.
I've learned to take whatever Apple detractors say, and do the exact opposite.
If Apple can find a way to provide a la carte service for channels that broadcast live sports and live music/entertainment, then I'd ditch DirectTV in a minute. Until then, no amount of iTunes + Netflix + Roku + Hulu + whatever can replace the primary reason I have cable (or DirecTV in this case).
Buying all the Game of Thrones episodes on iTunes is still cheaper than a month of premium channel subscriptions.
10 years ago...hmmm, that would have been G5 era, which makes your assertion pretty accurate, given the problems with that CPU. The G3/G4 era, however, smoked the living daylights out of equivalent Intel processors of the same era. Before the PowerPC chips, things were pretty equal, but Apple put all the insane graphics horsepower into their machines, setting them apart. I was designing full 32 bit color dual screen posters and advertisements in 1990, when PCs would go "beep" and give you an amber or green screen.
I would say in 1997 (?) (Wall Street era Power Books), you could edit video with a portable computer for $1600, but only in the Mac arena. That's not a status symbol for people who needed to be able to do that. People who didn't need that, and just wanted to play Diablo, well, they were just dumb and were possibly just buying a status symbol.
That's a nice book definition, but the snarky a-holes that hang out on slashdot refer to "security through obscurity" when they want to mock Macs. As in, nobody would ever write a virus for a Mac because there's not enough Macs to be worth their time.
This article, if anything, proves that logic to be patently faulty.
Because Apple GIVES equipment away to schools where kids are.
I used to think "Mac OS doesn't right click" argument was the most untrue argument against Macs, but then I forgot about this gem. No, apple doesn't give away equipment to schools. In the past (waaaaay past, late 80s early 90s), they used to have aggressive campaigns on college campuses and for education outlets. Now you get a whopping $100 off a $1600 computer for being a student.
Mac power user here...no offense taken. Most consumers are exactly that...consumers. Don't confuse "stupid" with "don't care because I have more important things in life to do than obsess about tech".
I'd point to the obligatory "Mac users are smarter than Windows users" studies here, but I don't want to be labelled a fanboy (too late already, somebody is already responding calling me a fanboy and they haven't even read this far).
I think --and I know this is shocking for somebody on slashdot-- that you are being overly critical. It's not that deep. "Macs don't get viruses" is akin to saying "Hondas don't break down". In that, I mean 'generally speaking' Hondas break down far less frequently than Chryslers. It doesn't mean they never break down. It's hyperbolic and semantic at the same time.
Meh. I don't use AV software on my Windows 7 pc and have pretty decent results. If I can get away with that, there's no way in hell I can convince myself AV is needed on my Macs.
The iPhone 3G, 4 and 4s can all be had for under $200. But that's not the point. I said the MOST POPULAR phones are not available in pink, as AC posits is the number 1 desired feature, which obviously isn't since the two most popular selling phones don't come in pink. Maybe people want pink phones and they go buy a pink case. Cool for them. But they bought an iPhone or a Galaxy S for some other feature, which I'm just going to go out on a limb a say the feature is "they are the two best phones on the market and they cost only marginally more than all the other crappy phones".
Slashdot Mirror
Collective tolerance is why we need enforcement. Write a law, enforce it. If the penalty is not deterring the infraction, increase the penalty until those idiots who think all the other people are the problem finally realize that they are the problem.
The sad thing is that nearly every municipality already has rules on the books that cell phone users violate every 100 meters or so. Illegal lane changes, failure to yield, improper following distances, impeding traffic, etc. etc.
This makes no sense at all. In fact, I think you mean the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. That, or you are way up on the Autism scale and don't understand that the phrases "using your real name" and "makes you insecure" make no sense when run together.
Less speed traps, more bad driving enforcement. I know I could meet my monthly quota (that doesn't exist, wink wink) in traffic violations just by watching the drivers around me in my morning commute. Seriously, why can't a cop just drive around and ticket the same people I see? In many cases, the improper lane changer, and the distracted texter are doing so right in front of the cop who is next to me. I guess cops only know how to give tickets when they are setup in a speed trap. Why not make texting traps?
Forget the ethical aspect, working in defense is the worst thing an ambitious person can do. You think postal workers are bad? You should try working in an industry where 95% of the people used to be in the military and they can't let go of military structure. Nothing is worse than "taking commands" from the idiot civilian you work with, who has cobbled together enough credits from his time in the military (yes, I said "his" because women are completely shunned...see "can't let go of military structure" comment above) to get a fake ass degree from some diploma mill.
I've met more talented people at my new job in 1 year than I met in 17 working in defense.
That's a lame argument and I feel trolled to have clicked the USA today link. So if a 12 year-old kid dies of lukemia and has been a cancer patient for 10 years, as long as that kid doesn't live a full life, the millions of dollars in medical bills that kid racked up is "cheaper to treat", because, well, he's dead. Isn't this like saying imaginary food is cheaper to buy because it doesn't exist?
From that stupid piece of crap article, they state the average smoker dies at 77 and the average non-smoker who dies at 84. I GUARANFUCKINGTEE you that the smoker's medical costs from the time they started smoking to age 77 will dwarf the average medical costs the healthy guy racks up in his last 7 years of life. But hey, if they never go to the doctor and then suddenly up in die, they were "cheaper to treat". God you hyper-logical people peeve me to no end.
This is stupid. This is like saying "the guy who never went to the doctor, weighed 900 pounds, and his heart exploded", was "cheaper to treat" than the housewife with three children born via c-section....well no shit sherlock. Going to the doctor costs money. When you are dead, you no long have medical costs. Stupid stupid stupid.
Dumbest. Article. Ever.
Did I mention this is a stupid article?
The guy at 60 who dies just cut the government off from a good five or six years of income tax. It's not as cheap as you think when a working age person dies, when you look at that way.
My wife is an actuary and she just told me you don't understand dick about how insurance works.
It's pretty easy to show empirically that large quantities of Mountain Dew are bad for you, and is it is quackery to believe something like using deodorant will give you cancer. Science is a bitch like that.
How many people really choose to be fat? Or choose to be unhealthy...
Oooh ooh, I know!!! All of them?
When you die of cancer that costs more than you can afford to treat, can I have your stuff?
Why would you want a bunch of overflowing cigarette ash trays and a giant pyramid of empty Mountain Dew cans?
This would be logical if you could show that, for example, a software engineer in SF moving to Boise, ID takes a 50% pay cut.
First world problem indeed. I live in Austin, which is only in infancy when it comes to ridiculous urban planning and management and housing inflation. I make 6 figures as does my wife, yet we can't justify (we can afford, but can't justify) living anywhere within a 10 mile radius of downtown. Schools are bad, crime is high relatively speaking) bums are everywhere, it's loud and dirty, and overrun with drunk college kids nine months a year. Therefore, we have literally twice as much house for 1/3rd the price in the suburbs, and most of the tech companies are close to the suburbs, and not downtown. Works fine for us. Downtown is over-rated.
Like my wife and I, most of our friends and coworkers come from somewhere else. We do so, because somewhere else (like California) doesn't have 3,000 sq. ft. houses for $200,000. A beat up rundown 40 year old house in LA costs half-a-million bucks. Who can afford that on blue collar wages? SF is only worse.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anyone telling anyone else what to watch or how, even though I'm pretty anti-libertarian AND I agree that 99% of stuff on TV is crap.
You have a flaw in your sports solution. Most the sports I watch (international soccer, racing, college football) are broadcast more on cable channels than local networks, so OTA doesn't work. Unless you like watching Notre Dame football and not the small-but-good school you went to on Fox Sports, that is.
Until iTunes or some other business model lets me pay up a la carte for sporting events, I'll have to keep paying for cable subscription. And before you say "torrent", just try to find me a good torrent of say, Oregon vs. USC football that I can download and watch before the score is spoiled.
I'm not a braggart, but it seems in these hyper-logical circles, having a computing environment that mostly gets out of the way (OS X) and a computing environment that most of the world uses, but is a pain to maintain and use, is a win.
Running both OS X apps AND Windows apps is better, especially if you are a geek. It's not the Windows apps making the Mac awesome, it's the ABILITY to run Windows apps that does. Yes, it has a slight price hike to be able to do so, but for a lot of people, it's worth it. For people like me who never have any intention of running Windows stuff on my Mac, I'm not paying any price penalty to do so. Sure I could spend less money on a lesser caliber laptop, but then again it wouldn't run OS X, which is my #1 requirement.
In fact, I would say more switchers switched because of their insecurity of leaving windows being removed by the ability to install Windows in Bootcamp. Most of them fire up Windows a few times in Bootcamp, then realize just how much they really didn't need Windows all these years, flying in the face of everything everyone has been told their entire computing lives. It really is pretty easy to be Microsoft-free (if you want to be, if you don't, that's fine too). I've read articles where most switchers stop using Windows altogether on their second Mac purchase.
My old company started buying Macbook Pros exclusively for the devs (under the guise of "we're gonna start making iOS apps"). They never made any iOS apps, but most people booted into OS X once the scary newness wore off.
I have DirecTV and it is far better than any of the past three cable service providers I have had in price, content, and DVR quality. It is obvious that their people are interested in technology, given it is the only provider I've ever seen that has is fairly up to date with features and interface design.
I've learned to take whatever Apple detractors say, and do the exact opposite.
If Apple can find a way to provide a la carte service for channels that broadcast live sports and live music/entertainment, then I'd ditch DirectTV in a minute. Until then, no amount of iTunes + Netflix + Roku + Hulu + whatever can replace the primary reason I have cable (or DirecTV in this case).
Buying all the Game of Thrones episodes on iTunes is still cheaper than a month of premium channel subscriptions.
10 years ago...hmmm, that would have been G5 era, which makes your assertion pretty accurate, given the problems with that CPU. The G3/G4 era, however, smoked the living daylights out of equivalent Intel processors of the same era. Before the PowerPC chips, things were pretty equal, but Apple put all the insane graphics horsepower into their machines, setting them apart. I was designing full 32 bit color dual screen posters and advertisements in 1990, when PCs would go "beep" and give you an amber or green screen.
I would say in 1997 (?) (Wall Street era Power Books), you could edit video with a portable computer for $1600, but only in the Mac arena. That's not a status symbol for people who needed to be able to do that. People who didn't need that, and just wanted to play Diablo, well, they were just dumb and were possibly just buying a status symbol.
That's a nice book definition, but the snarky a-holes that hang out on slashdot refer to "security through obscurity" when they want to mock Macs. As in, nobody would ever write a virus for a Mac because there's not enough Macs to be worth their time.
This article, if anything, proves that logic to be patently faulty.
Because Apple GIVES equipment away to schools where kids are.
I used to think "Mac OS doesn't right click" argument was the most untrue argument against Macs, but then I forgot about this gem. No, apple doesn't give away equipment to schools. In the past (waaaaay past, late 80s early 90s), they used to have aggressive campaigns on college campuses and for education outlets. Now you get a whopping $100 off a $1600 computer for being a student.
Mac power user here...no offense taken. Most consumers are exactly that...consumers. Don't confuse "stupid" with "don't care because I have more important things in life to do than obsess about tech".
I'd point to the obligatory "Mac users are smarter than Windows users" studies here, but I don't want to be labelled a fanboy (too late already, somebody is already responding calling me a fanboy and they haven't even read this far).
I think --and I know this is shocking for somebody on slashdot-- that you are being overly critical. It's not that deep. "Macs don't get viruses" is akin to saying "Hondas don't break down". In that, I mean 'generally speaking' Hondas break down far less frequently than Chryslers. It doesn't mean they never break down. It's hyperbolic and semantic at the same time.
Meh. I don't use AV software on my Windows 7 pc and have pretty decent results. If I can get away with that, there's no way in hell I can convince myself AV is needed on my Macs.
From fellow Mac users everywhere, your friends in the the MacIT world are:
(1) Stupid.
(2) Stupid.
If anything, doesn't this disprove the whole concept of security through obscurity?
The iPhone 3G, 4 and 4s can all be had for under $200. But that's not the point. I said the MOST POPULAR phones are not available in pink, as AC posits is the number 1 desired feature, which obviously isn't since the two most popular selling phones don't come in pink. Maybe people want pink phones and they go buy a pink case. Cool for them. But they bought an iPhone or a Galaxy S for some other feature, which I'm just going to go out on a limb a say the feature is "they are the two best phones on the market and they cost only marginally more than all the other crappy phones".
Nice response. Too bad I can't moderate a response to my comment that is well stated like yours was.