I never understand people complaining that Apple hardware costs more. It does, but it tends to be very well engineered and built from high quality components.
Buying an Apple machine can be compared to buying a Mercedes or other type of high end automobile. I never hear people say buyers of luxury cars are crazy because they could have bought a car that will get them to their destination just as quickly for half the price. I spend *much* more time using my computer than I do driving my car, and I'm willing to pay extra for reliability and quality. The extra money Apple hardware costs is also offset by the productivity gains I get from using OS X. Apple hardware also lasts much longer than comparable PC hardware, when I used PCs I bought a new machine or drastically upgraded at least every year to 18 months or so, with Apple hardware I'm generally happy with my machine for the entire 3 years my AppleCare warranty lasts.
Why is it that even people in IT are so cost conscious when it comes to their hardware? I spend ten hours a day, at least five days a week, working on my computer. Spending a few hundred dollars extraa year that makes all of that time more productive and more enjoyable is easily money well spent. Money is replaceable, my time is *not*.
And it doesn't run OS X, so your point is what exactly? This article is about switching to OS X from Windows, hardware has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The spammers would eventually figure it out based on their response rate. After all, the reason they spam is because it works, so if they started using your relay and got no responses, they'd figure out pretty quick that you were routing to/dev/null.
Of all the websites on teh intarweb, you'd think people on slashdot could grasp the subtleties inherent in the word "free", what with all the "free as in speech", "free as in beer" discussion that goes on.
Government benefits that are paid for using funds appropriated for the purpose by the government, by force*, are never, ever free. They may be worth the tradeoff to you, but they still shouldn't be considered free. Your definiteion says "without charge", but you pay yearly taxes for all government services so they are patently not free.
*If you don't believe that taxes are collected by force, try not paying them sometime.
We've got corporations that, for example, turn a blind eye to child labor (Nike), unfree labor (Coca-Cola), or mass homicide by industrial accidents (Union Carbide).
All of the above companies are rank amateurs at murder and human misery compared to the kinds of people the "social justice now!" types like to have pictured on their t-shirts. Companies trying to make money can do harm, certainly, but the harm they do is nothing compared to the harm that gets done when the people who want to "help people" are in charge.
C (still) makes it easy to create buffer overrun exploits in your apps, so is this the fault of C or the fault of the incompetent programmer using it? PHP is a tool, like a hammer. You wouldn't blame the hammer if you were careless and whacked yourself in the thumb, would you?
Well, there are quite a few scientists who would dispute the "consensus" view. I'll never understand why this is the one issue where people are simply not allowed to read and filter the available information for themselves and come to their own judgement. You are required to believe in the accepted view and if you don't you are branded a heretic (yet another way in which environmentalism is like a religion) or deemed a tool of the oil companies. Of course, scientists who are funded by Greenpeace and support the"consensus" never have their motives judged in such a way..
So to sum up your argument, Al Gore isn't a radical environmentalist, and environmentalism isn't a religion, because you say so. And Monty Python had a funny but irrelevant skit about logic once.
Wow, I'm really caught in the crushing grip of reason now.;)
Your curt dismissal and lack of any attempt to refute my logic illustrates my point perfectly. You couldn't have answered any differently if you were an evangelical Christian and I was calling the divinity of Jesus into question. Thank YOU for playing.
Al Gore would support using the power of the state to enforce behavior in accordance with his religious beliefs, said religion being radical environmentalism. How exactly is this different from social conservatives who would use the power of the state to enforce behavior in accordance with their christian beliefs? Both of them are authoritarian theocrats in my book.
The Senate voted 95-0 for a resolution that indicated that they would not vote in favor of Kyoto or any treaty like it. Are you suggesting that if Kyoto had been put before the Senate for a vote that it would have passed? If so, I would like a large bag of whatever you have been smoking.
The resolution isn't binding, but a 95-0 vote in favor of it is fairly indicative of the Senate's attitude toward such treaties.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. Later, Bush withdrew the signature, which means nothing since no treaty is binding unless ratified by the Senate, which was and is never going to happen.
On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[37], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
That darn George Bush, he's so evil he has the power to block international treaties from the Texas governor's office.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else thought of just hanging up the phone? No one's forcing you to listen, and I hardly think that occasional unsolicited phone calls touting candidates for office during the couple of weeks prior to national elections is a serious problem threatening our society.
Frankly just READING the above post would suck away more of my time than fifty political phone calls, leaving aside the underlying idea of intentionally wasting hours of my valuable time trying to sue the caller for wasting a minute or so of my time. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis that has one simple answer: Just hang up the phone.
I'm all for suing commercial telemarketers if that's what anyone wants to do, they suck and should be killed. Political calls are different, they're infrequent and banning them would have implications for free speech as a whole.
If you lock them down, they'll work but you'll have a lot of complaints as people are restricted from using the computers for any purpose you haven't specifically allowed. In a business environment, this is fine, you pay the people to work and they aren't using the computer as a toy. In an educational environment though, you want students to be able to experiment.
What I would do is try to create a network disk image that could be quickly and easily reverted to when the machines inevitably get messed up. Let the students play and learn, a large part of learning is in messing things up and trying to fix them.
Actually, when World War III starts, this type of guy will be in high demand to be hired as a remote operator for the battle robots that will be doing all the fighting. The difference between fighting wars and playing vidoe games gets smaller every day.
ObSimpsons Quote: Commandant: The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Do you get that? The Conventions apply only to those who accept and apply the provisions themselves. Please elucidate to me any instances wherein Al-Qaeda and/or Taliban combatants apply the provisions of the Geneva Conventions to their battlefield behavior and conduct towards prisoners. I'll wait, since it may take you quite a while. The restrictions in the Geneva Conventions don't apply to illegal combatants, and despite you trying to cloud the issue, terrorists mixing with and disguising themselves as civilians are by definition illegal combatants. As such, they could be summarily executed on the battlefield upon capture, and those executions would be in full compliance with the GC. I'm not saying the US military should do that, but to say the Geneva Conventions prohibit it is a crock.
> >Please explain to me the incentive for obeying the Conventions if you can reap the benefits without even paying lip service to its requirements?
> Yes, how dare innocent people not get imprisoned and tortured!
Would you care to actually address how it makes sense to apply an international agreement's restrictions to only one side of a conflict, or would you rather spout off a non-sequitur about those poor innocent terrorists? Would you agree that the majority of those detained by the US are indeed illegal combatants? Could you compare their treatment with, oh, say, Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg? Worse or better?
Breaking Geneva isn't some minor thing we can recover from by saying 'Oh, heh, we didn't mean that'. Creating international law took us fifty something years.
Please explain to me which of the following Geneva Convention categories applies to captured terrorists:
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
The Genevea Conventions apply only to those who respect and follow the Conventions' rules regarding war and the treatment of prisoners. Combatants disguising themselves as civilians and violating the rules of war are afforded no protection whatsoever by the Geneva Conventions. I'd argue if anything is undermining international law and threatening to "break" Geneva it's applying it to only one side of the conflict without regard for the blatantly illegal behavior of the other side. Please explain to me the incentive for obeying the Conventions if you can reap the benefits without even paying lip service to its requirements?
And the president doing illegal and unconstitional things and never being challenged isn't something we can recover from, that sets a very very scary precedent. That must be challenged and stopped.
Oh yes, you're SO right, Bush never gets challenged over anything he says or does../me rolls his eyes in disbelief..
And it's the Republicans who are playing the emotional politics. They're the ones painting people as traitors for opposing them, they're the ones with public figures who can call for the execution of Surpreme Court judges, they're the ones ramping up the fear at every election.
True, I mean, no one opposing the Republicans would use fear for political purposes.. unless the fear was of the BushHitler KKKabal and how they're destroying the country. Let me find of an example of that.. Oh yes, how about the post you JUST WROTE. Hypocrisy, thy name is DavidTC.
I don't have Call of Duty, but Oblivion runs great on my Macbook using this. Oblivion runs smoother and at better video quality on the 2.0 Ghz Macbook with the ATI 256MB X1600 than it does on my AMD 64 3000 with Geforce 6600 GT.
Now to try Half Life 2 and Day of Defeat Source... So far this free release from Apple is making me wonder why I still need my Wintendo box at all.
Your examples are way out of the mainstream. Mine aren't.
You must be new here. Radical environmentalism and communism/socialism are far more mainstream religions with the/. crowd than any traditional religion is. Try making some critial comments about each topic and then count which generates more flames, you'll see how "out of the mainstream" they are.
Slashdot Mirror
I never understand people complaining that Apple hardware costs more. It does, but it tends to be very well engineered and built from high quality components.
Buying an Apple machine can be compared to buying a Mercedes or other type of high end automobile. I never hear people say buyers of luxury cars are crazy because they could have bought a car that will get them to their destination just as quickly for half the price. I spend *much* more time using my computer than I do driving my car, and I'm willing to pay extra for reliability and quality. The extra money Apple hardware costs is also offset by the productivity gains I get from using OS X. Apple hardware also lasts much longer than comparable PC hardware, when I used PCs I bought a new machine or drastically upgraded at least every year to 18 months or so, with Apple hardware I'm generally happy with my machine for the entire 3 years my AppleCare warranty lasts.
Why is it that even people in IT are so cost conscious when it comes to their hardware? I spend ten hours a day, at least five days a week, working on my computer. Spending a few hundred dollars extraa year that makes all of that time more productive and more enjoyable is easily money well spent. Money is replaceable, my time is *not*.
And it doesn't run OS X, so your point is what exactly? This article is about switching to OS X from Windows, hardware has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The spammers would eventually figure it out based on their response rate. After all, the reason they spam is because it works, so if they started using your relay and got no responses, they'd figure out pretty quick that you were routing to /dev/null.
Who wouldn't buy a new Guitar Hero II "rock-pack"(or name it something simmilar - doesn't really matter) every year?
:)
Personally, I'd buy one every goddamn *month*. Gimme gimme gimme..
Of all the websites on teh intarweb, you'd think people on slashdot could grasp the subtleties inherent in the word "free", what with all the "free as in speech", "free as in beer" discussion that goes on.
Government benefits that are paid for using funds appropriated for the purpose by the government, by force*, are never, ever free. They may be worth the tradeoff to you, but they still shouldn't be considered free. Your definiteion says "without charge", but you pay yearly taxes for all government services so they are patently not free.
*If you don't believe that taxes are collected by force, try not paying them sometime.
I'm still stuck on dial-up (on the upside, the state does provide that for free to us).
It's not free. Someone is paying for it, possibly not you, but someone is. TANSTAAFL.
We've got corporations that, for example, turn a blind eye to child labor (Nike), unfree labor (Coca-Cola), or mass homicide by industrial accidents (Union Carbide).
All of the above companies are rank amateurs at murder and human misery compared to the kinds of people the "social justice now!" types like to have pictured on their t-shirts. Companies trying to make money can do harm, certainly, but the harm they do is nothing compared to the harm that gets done when the people who want to "help people" are in charge.
C (still) makes it easy to create buffer overrun exploits in your apps, so is this the fault of C or the fault of the incompetent programmer using it? PHP is a tool, like a hammer. You wouldn't blame the hammer if you were careless and whacked yourself in the thumb, would you?
Well, there are quite a few scientists who would dispute the "consensus" view. I'll never understand why this is the one issue where people are simply not allowed to read and filter the available information for themselves and come to their own judgement. You are required to believe in the accepted view and if you don't you are branded a heretic (yet another way in which environmentalism is like a religion) or deemed a tool of the oil companies. Of course, scientists who are funded by Greenpeace and support the"consensus" never have their motives judged in such a way..
So to sum up your argument, Al Gore isn't a radical environmentalist, and environmentalism isn't a religion, because you say so. And Monty Python had a funny but irrelevant skit about logic once.
;)
Wow, I'm really caught in the crushing grip of reason now.
Your curt dismissal and lack of any attempt to refute my logic illustrates my point perfectly. You couldn't have answered any differently if you were an evangelical Christian and I was calling the divinity of Jesus into question. Thank YOU for playing.
Al Gore would support using the power of the state to enforce behavior in accordance with his religious beliefs, said religion being radical environmentalism. How exactly is this different from social conservatives who would use the power of the state to enforce behavior in accordance with their christian beliefs? Both of them are authoritarian theocrats in my book.
Anyone who needed a reason to oppose Newt for President just got it, that is unless you favor an authoritarian theocracy.
As opposed to Al Gore's brand of authoritarian theocracy. It's just a different religion, but somehow on slashdot, that makes all the difference.
The resolution isn't binding, but a 95-0 vote in favor of it is fairly indicative of the Senate's attitude toward such treaties.
That darn George Bush, he's so evil he has the power to block international treaties from the Texas governor's office.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else thought of just hanging up the phone? No one's forcing you to listen, and I hardly think that occasional unsolicited phone calls touting candidates for office during the couple of weeks prior to national elections is a serious problem threatening our society.
Frankly just READING the above post would suck away more of my time than fifty political phone calls, leaving aside the underlying idea of intentionally wasting hours of my valuable time trying to sue the caller for wasting a minute or so of my time. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis that has one simple answer: Just hang up the phone.
I'm all for suing commercial telemarketers if that's what anyone wants to do, they suck and should be killed. Political calls are different, they're infrequent and banning them would have implications for free speech as a whole.
If you lock them down, they'll work but you'll have a lot of complaints as people are restricted from using the computers for any purpose you haven't specifically allowed. In a business environment, this is fine, you pay the people to work and they aren't using the computer as a toy. In an educational environment though, you want students to be able to experiment.
What I would do is try to create a network disk image that could be quickly and easily reverted to when the machines inevitably get messed up. Let the students play and learn, a large part of learning is in messing things up and trying to fix them.
Mercy killings aren't murder.
And this differs from "finished" versions of Windows exactly how?
Actually, when World War III starts, this type of guy will be in high demand to be hired as a remote operator for the battle robots that will be doing all the fighting. The difference between fighting wars and playing vidoe games gets smaller every day.
ObSimpsons Quote:
Commandant: The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
Do you get that? The Conventions apply only to those who accept and apply the provisions themselves. Please elucidate to me any instances wherein Al-Qaeda and/or Taliban combatants apply the provisions of the Geneva Conventions to their battlefield behavior and conduct towards prisoners. I'll wait, since it may take you quite a while. The restrictions in the Geneva Conventions don't apply to illegal combatants, and despite you trying to cloud the issue, terrorists mixing with and disguising themselves as civilians are by definition illegal combatants. As such, they could be summarily executed on the battlefield upon capture, and those executions would be in full compliance with the GC. I'm not saying the US military should do that, but to say the Geneva Conventions prohibit it is a crock.
> >Please explain to me the incentive for obeying the Conventions if you can reap the benefits without even paying lip service to its requirements?
> Yes, how dare innocent people not get imprisoned and tortured!
Would you care to actually address how it makes sense to apply an international agreement's restrictions to only one side of a conflict, or would you rather spout off a non-sequitur about those poor innocent terrorists? Would you agree that the majority of those detained by the US are indeed illegal combatants? Could you compare their treatment with, oh, say, Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg? Worse or better?
Please explain to me which of the following Geneva Convention categories applies to captured terrorists:
The Genevea Conventions apply only to those who respect and follow the Conventions' rules regarding war and the treatment of prisoners. Combatants disguising themselves as civilians and violating the rules of war are afforded no protection whatsoever by the Geneva Conventions. I'd argue if anything is undermining international law and threatening to "break" Geneva it's applying it to only one side of the conflict without regard for the blatantly illegal behavior of the other side. Please explain to me the incentive for obeying the Conventions if you can reap the benefits without even paying lip service to its requirements?
And the president doing illegal and unconstitional things and never being challenged isn't something we can recover from, that sets a very very scary precedent. That must be challenged and stopped.
Oh yes, you're SO right, Bush never gets challenged over anything he says or does.. /me rolls his eyes in disbelief..
And it's the Republicans who are playing the emotional politics. They're the ones painting people as traitors for opposing them, they're the ones with public figures who can call for the execution of Surpreme Court judges, they're the ones ramping up the fear at every election.
True, I mean, no one opposing the Republicans would use fear for political purposes.. unless the fear was of the BushHitler KKKabal and how they're destroying the country. Let me find of an example of that.. Oh yes, how about the post you JUST WROTE. Hypocrisy, thy name is DavidTC.
Not to mention the bugs..
I don't have Call of Duty, but Oblivion runs great on my Macbook using this. Oblivion runs smoother and at better video quality on the 2.0 Ghz Macbook with the ATI 256MB X1600 than it does on my AMD 64 3000 with Geforce 6600 GT.
Now to try Half Life 2 and Day of Defeat Source... So far this free release from Apple is making me wonder why I still need my Wintendo box at all.
You must be new here. Radical environmentalism and communism/socialism are far more mainstream religions with the /. crowd than any traditional religion is. Try making some critial comments about each topic and then count which generates more flames, you'll see how "out of the mainstream" they are.