Heh, yeah, I hate Apple articles. Never news, just a fire-pit.
To be honest, I find most macs are just overpowered in many areas, where some (often graphics and audio) just aren't up to snuff. It makes it so with the same parts they're even costed, but have too much in areas you don't need it.
Whatever, though. My G4 iBook is more than enough for most things I do.
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the 99.8% figure was correct. Most people won't notice, and most that do won't care. It's only an issue if it hinders gameplay (which it doesn't for the vast majority) or if you're against DRM on principle, which most Spore players are not.
I do 98% of my surfing on a Mac, and the other 2% using linux. Since there's not a Google-released version of either, I'm just not that excited about it.
Basically, I'm satisfied with both Safari and Firefox, so meh.
It's been proven multiple times that if you look at actual downloads versus purchases, the loss is indistinguishable from 0. I see the value in having multiple studies for the same claim, but it does make it less interesting for the informed.
Also it's important to note that any figures from anti-piracy groups will have two assinine assumptions:
1) Every downloaded song WOULD have equaled one purchased CD. No one ever buys individual songs from the outlets available to them, and no one EVER EVER buys a CD and listens to more than one song. (I suppose there's some truth that most albums have at most one song worth listening to.)
2) Every single person that downloads songs WOULD have bought every song if it wasn't available for free. (Once again, greatly overestimating what their albums are worth.)
We don't have to anymore. We simply adapt our environment to our own needs, meaning we end up with a more diverse gene pool, but no survival of the fittest. It's survival of everyone.
Ford's CEO... Mr Ford or whatever google says his name is, said 40 miles on the Colbert Report. Plenty for an average commute to work and back, with a stop for groceries.
Slashdot Mirror
I like this outlook. Also, I love Safari's RSS reader; that's what keeps me from Chrome.
I believe he continued to say "LOL knowledge is dumb!"
Heh, yeah, I hate Apple articles. Never news, just a fire-pit.
To be honest, I find most macs are just overpowered in many areas, where some (often graphics and audio) just aren't up to snuff. It makes it so with the same parts they're even costed, but have too much in areas you don't need it.
Whatever, though. My G4 iBook is more than enough for most things I do.
Did anyone still believe that? It's easy to do this comparison, and Macs have almost always been similarly priced to comparable alternatives.
Of course some of their items are still overpriced, such as the monitors.
1) People use firewire?
2) People use the base MacBook for video editing?
3) People use firewire?!?
I guess they've never read Revelations.
Is it just the site? I'm still getting gmail through POP access...
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!
I suppose that's fair; there's no way to know what they *would* think. They're in Schroedinger's pie-chart.
Cars all seat just one in Canada.
Duh!
You think gamers download games out of protest?
To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the 99.8% figure was correct. Most people won't notice, and most that do won't care. It's only an issue if it hinders gameplay (which it doesn't for the vast majority) or if you're against DRM on principle, which most Spore players are not.
I think /. is overestimating the vocal minority.
I'm waiting for Windows 42
I do 98% of my surfing on a Mac, and the other 2% using linux. Since there's not a Google-released version of either, I'm just not that excited about it.
Basically, I'm satisfied with both Safari and Firefox, so meh.
Less flaming and more curiosity: Why would anyone need to talk on a cell phone so much?
Also, would people be willing to give up some size and battery life just to have them easily exchangeable? If I had a cell phone, i'd probably say no.
It's been proven multiple times that if you look at actual downloads versus purchases, the loss is indistinguishable from 0. I see the value in having multiple studies for the same claim, but it does make it less interesting for the informed.
Also it's important to note that any figures from anti-piracy groups will have two assinine assumptions:
1) Every downloaded song WOULD have equaled one purchased CD. No one ever buys individual songs from the outlets available to them, and no one EVER EVER buys a CD and listens to more than one song. (I suppose there's some truth that most albums have at most one song worth listening to.)
2) Every single person that downloads songs WOULD have bought every song if it wasn't available for free. (Once again, greatly overestimating what their albums are worth.)
We don't have to anymore. We simply adapt our environment to our own needs, meaning we end up with a more diverse gene pool, but no survival of the fittest. It's survival of everyone.
Oil companies are spending the most on alternative energies, really. They're just not really interested in selling them until the oil's all gone.
So it's not really going to happen "today," now is it?
Right, it's a tax horizon!
I'm pretty broke, I could use a bailout!
Did I lose my money in shady borderline-illegal definitely-stupid ways? Not really...
What do you mean 'then I'll never be able to pay you back'?!
Ford's CEO... Mr Ford or whatever google says his name is, said 40 miles on the Colbert Report. Plenty for an average commute to work and back, with a stop for groceries.
Stop smoking your computers!
I wasn't around when they passed this second "law" of thermodynamics, I don't see why I should follow it!
That part's important. They're basically saying you can't compete with them in their own arena.
Yes, pun intended.
Even I know it in English.
Of course now it's with snowing hearts or something.