You'll always need a phone though. There will always be those *few* times you won't be in WiFi and need to make a phone call. Until WiFi is ubiquitous, VoIP portable phones won't take over more than a niche market.
Its not a pain in the ass to get a high-performance machine. It *can* be a pain to remove bloatware, though some places now offer a 50-100 dollar service for it. In any case, your third 'requirement' of driver-related crashes is virtually non-existent nowadays that its rarely a problem in new machines. I won't say it never happens, but its rare. And normally, the driver-related crashes are due to products that would never *EVER* work on a Mac.
You can get something "equivalent"... actually *extremely* better, at least in terms of power and performance by building it yourself for less money. And if you can't spare one afternoon/evening, then maybe you're overworking yourself and I can understand why you'd have to make the sacrifice and go buy a Mac.
As this is obviously the launching point of a series of commercials, I'm actually curious as to what Gates and Seinfeld are going to do together. It had about as much useful and/or factual information as a mac ad does... which, is near to none. Its all about just being entertaining and then putting your name on it. Commercials don't have to give tech specs or reasons to buy it. Sprite had a commercial with a friggin' talking bottle of a fake sunny d bottle that scared a family to death. It had no factual information about Sprite, but to this day, I remember that commercial and it puts Sprite in a good light for me. I don't drink Sprite, but they at least put a good step forward. Thats all a commercial is. It's not supposed to MAKE you buy the product, its supposed to make you THINK about buying the product and put you in a positive mood while doing so. The only reason people don't like this commercial is because its Microsoft. If this were any other product that did this, it probably wouldn't even been a story... just another commercial on TV.
I wouldn't say that its war that results in breakthroughs. I'd say its adversity that results in breakthroughs. Once we're left without adversity, society will stagnate and fade away. Its through overcoming challenges that pushes us forward.
Why the hell do they always have to be lit up all the time? My bedroom looks like its Christmas every time I turn the lights off. I've made a habit of facing my wall simply because if I face the inside of my room, I'm blinded by friggin' LED lights all over. I tell you, there should *not* be an off-light! Who invented such a thing? Maybe its a big conspiracy from the LED makers. They weren't satisfied with ON lights so they made OFF lights too. Then, there's a light saying something is fully charged and another light saying its charging. Then there's a light on chargers that just say "yes, we're plugged in, but you already know this because the charging light is turned on as well" I'd think having a light for "charging" and another for "charged" would be enough.
Someone needs to release an ethics guideline for goddamn LED use.
Apple & Infineon are rumored to be working on an update already. Not sure if its been confirmed, but there's definitely strong rumors going around that a fix is being developed. Apple is known to fix issues. Maybe not timely, but they do fix them.
If its so poorly designed... why'd you get the new one after already owning the original one? I can understand someone thinking its poorly designed and not buying one and I can understand someone who likes it AND buying one... or even someone who likes it but still doesn't buy one. But why would someone buy something they don't like AND even buy the next version of said phone?
I have a linksys n/b/g router and have absolutely no problems whatsoever. So, if there *is* a problem, it doesn't effect every phone OR its only effecting your phone. It may be the router's b/g signal sucks, though the n-signal is fine, therefore you have no issues with the laptop, but would with the phone. I say try finding another wifi hotspot to see if the problem continues. If it does, bring it into an Apple store and see if they'll replace it, because it should be performing pretty well.
There's a horrible lag on the keyboards. I know I have a lag on mine. I could type an entire word and still wait a second before it pops up. At that point you gotta hope you didn't have a typo, or at least not a typo that autocorrection won't fix.
On a different note, how do you get it to learn new words? I have it autocorrecting the same words all the time no matter how often I tell it not to.
I think I figured out why you're so confused as I reread past posts because I couldn't possibly believe that you're still arguing. We're arguing completely different points. The original post was saying why Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the usage of its OS to certain software. It didn't have to do with the legality of Psystar. So when you said "this isn't what the debate is about" etc, etc, you still didn't know what the debate was about. I think you just never read the beginning of the thread. This only has to do with the legality of Apple forcing its OS to only be installed on Apple hardware. I got sidetracked as well as I started trying to argue against your points but I just realized your points weren't even about the original debate and therefore I got lost off of the actual debate as well. We were never arguing the same debate. That's a consequence of not reading an entire thread and joining halfway through (I didn't even realize at first that I was arguing against a different person than at the beginning).
Umm... the "incompatibilities" you speak of aren't incompatibilities. Its a handshake to prove its Apple hardware... which, by definition is DRM. Thats all this "incompatibility" you speak of does. Simply put, it asks the hardware if its Apple and if it says yes, it works. How are you saying thats *not* DRM??
Apple is doing the *exact* same thing Lexmark did with their printers and printer ink cartridges. They setup the hardware so it'd only accept ink cartridges that they make. When someone else made ink cartridges that were compatible, Lexmark sued and *lost*
I adequately attacked the car firmware analogy. The software is completely incompatible and is set up to utilize hardware thats specific to the car. Embedded OSes are specific to the device for the most part. If they aren't, usually you *will* find them in multiple devices (Windows Mobile, etc.). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are multiple car companies that run at least the same foundation on some of their software (that isn't specific to the car). The point of the matter is that its only DRM that stops Mac OSX from working on another computer. Its not cutting out incompatibilities as you point out. Its, by definition, DRM. Its there for the sole purpose of DRM. It *is* DRM. The rest of your argument is so pointless in this debate that I refuse to acknowledge it. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about and its ad hominem. You obviously don't know how to argue a point so you're giving up and attacking me instead. Your car analogy was destroyed a long time ago (though you refused to acknowledge it). You're attack on my DRM point is... well... befuddling. I don't get what you're trying to say. You're not staying on point and you're losing your way. In case you forgot, I'm talking about why it shouldn't be allowed for Apple to only allow Mac OSX to run on a system of their choice even after you buy it and its completely capable of running on other systems as long as there's a layer of EFI emulation running. So, its not even modifying the software itself.
The difference is that in my example (microwave & refrigerator) is that the code just isn't compatible. In your example, Mac OSX is based on code that is compatible with PCs. The only reason it doesn't run on PCs is due to DRM. So, with buying the software, they're telling me what I can and can't use it on. Remember DRM-ladden music and how people were upset they couldn't put it on whatever device of their choice? It's the same thing. There should be the same uproar (and there is). I've never seen so many supposed "technical" people support DRM before.
That's like saying the code that operates my microwave can't operate my refrigerator, what gives? I hope if you ever get in a serious discussion, you don't actually compare an embedded OS in a car to desktop OS.
A couple things not covered in a comparison like this is room for expansion and ability to upgrade. In a few years, while usually both the PC and mac are running, you may want something a bit faster or better. The guy with the mac? probably has to buy an entirely new computer. The guy with the pc? maybe buy a new video card, possibly upgrade the cpu or just put in a bit more ram... all of it *completely* cheaper than a new computer.
He paid for the membership to buy the computer. If he didn't buy the computer or returned the computer, that means he just wasted money on the membership. Its sorta like he put a down payment that he couldn't get back. At least thats what it sounds like he's saying.
Your defenses are still weak in general. If I give someone a key to my house, it doesn't mean I give them the right to come in whenever they want. If I have a key lock on my door that is easily cracked, it also doesn't mean my expectation of people not coming in is waived.
It wasn't the journalist who made the analogy, it was a quote from a former federal prosecutor who headed up the computer hacking section of the US Attorney's office. Before attacking something, read it more carefully first to ensure your attack is actually justified.
So, if something isn't guaranteed (privacy), then it should be perfectly legal to do so? Confidentiality is guaranteed at times. Third-party services such as virus scanners and junk mail filters usually have privacy policies that guarantee you a certain level of privacy. US snail mail doesn't guarantee 100% privacy. Mail can and does get opened up on occasion if certain conditions are met (jail, military, etc.). So, even US snail mail has conditions on the privacy, as does email. Why are they fundamentally different? It's a breach of privacy and should be treated as such.
I don't recall saying Apple would think I would want to. I was responding to someone who said that Apple wouldn't lose out because everyone who got shafted would go out and buy one from Apple instead. Thanks for agreeing with me though. I, too, don't know why anyone would think one would buy from Apple after that either.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll always need a phone though. There will always be those *few* times you won't be in WiFi and need to make a phone call. Until WiFi is ubiquitous, VoIP portable phones won't take over more than a niche market.
Its not a pain in the ass to get a high-performance machine. It *can* be a pain to remove bloatware, though some places now offer a 50-100 dollar service for it. In any case, your third 'requirement' of driver-related crashes is virtually non-existent nowadays that its rarely a problem in new machines. I won't say it never happens, but its rare. And normally, the driver-related crashes are due to products that would never *EVER* work on a Mac.
You can get something "equivalent"... actually *extremely* better, at least in terms of power and performance by building it yourself for less money. And if you can't spare one afternoon/evening, then maybe you're overworking yourself and I can understand why you'd have to make the sacrifice and go buy a Mac.
As this is obviously the launching point of a series of commercials, I'm actually curious as to what Gates and Seinfeld are going to do together. It had about as much useful and/or factual information as a mac ad does... which, is near to none. Its all about just being entertaining and then putting your name on it. Commercials don't have to give tech specs or reasons to buy it. Sprite had a commercial with a friggin' talking bottle of a fake sunny d bottle that scared a family to death. It had no factual information about Sprite, but to this day, I remember that commercial and it puts Sprite in a good light for me. I don't drink Sprite, but they at least put a good step forward. Thats all a commercial is. It's not supposed to MAKE you buy the product, its supposed to make you THINK about buying the product and put you in a positive mood while doing so. The only reason people don't like this commercial is because its Microsoft. If this were any other product that did this, it probably wouldn't even been a story... just another commercial on TV.
I wouldn't say that its war that results in breakthroughs. I'd say its adversity that results in breakthroughs. Once we're left without adversity, society will stagnate and fade away. Its through overcoming challenges that pushes us forward.
Why the hell do they always have to be lit up all the time? My bedroom looks like its Christmas every time I turn the lights off. I've made a habit of facing my wall simply because if I face the inside of my room, I'm blinded by friggin' LED lights all over. I tell you, there should *not* be an off-light! Who invented such a thing? Maybe its a big conspiracy from the LED makers. They weren't satisfied with ON lights so they made OFF lights too. Then, there's a light saying something is fully charged and another light saying its charging. Then there's a light on chargers that just say "yes, we're plugged in, but you already know this because the charging light is turned on as well" I'd think having a light for "charging" and another for "charged" would be enough.
Someone needs to release an ethics guideline for goddamn LED use.
Delicious ironing? That sounds... painful.
Apple & Infineon are rumored to be working on an update already. Not sure if its been confirmed, but there's definitely strong rumors going around that a fix is being developed. Apple is known to fix issues. Maybe not timely, but they do fix them.
If its so poorly designed... why'd you get the new one after already owning the original one? I can understand someone thinking its poorly designed and not buying one and I can understand someone who likes it AND buying one... or even someone who likes it but still doesn't buy one. But why would someone buy something they don't like AND even buy the next version of said phone?
I have a linksys n/b/g router and have absolutely no problems whatsoever. So, if there *is* a problem, it doesn't effect every phone OR its only effecting your phone. It may be the router's b/g signal sucks, though the n-signal is fine, therefore you have no issues with the laptop, but would with the phone. I say try finding another wifi hotspot to see if the problem continues. If it does, bring it into an Apple store and see if they'll replace it, because it should be performing pretty well.
There's a horrible lag on the keyboards. I know I have a lag on mine. I could type an entire word and still wait a second before it pops up. At that point you gotta hope you didn't have a typo, or at least not a typo that autocorrection won't fix.
On a different note, how do you get it to learn new words? I have it autocorrecting the same words all the time no matter how often I tell it not to.
I think I figured out why you're so confused as I reread past posts because I couldn't possibly believe that you're still arguing. We're arguing completely different points. The original post was saying why Apple shouldn't be allowed to restrict the usage of its OS to certain software. It didn't have to do with the legality of Psystar. So when you said "this isn't what the debate is about" etc, etc, you still didn't know what the debate was about. I think you just never read the beginning of the thread. This only has to do with the legality of Apple forcing its OS to only be installed on Apple hardware. I got sidetracked as well as I started trying to argue against your points but I just realized your points weren't even about the original debate and therefore I got lost off of the actual debate as well. We were never arguing the same debate. That's a consequence of not reading an entire thread and joining halfway through (I didn't even realize at first that I was arguing against a different person than at the beginning).
Apple is Lexmark in this case. Psystar is Static Control. Now do you see my point?
Umm... the "incompatibilities" you speak of aren't incompatibilities. Its a handshake to prove its Apple hardware... which, by definition is DRM. Thats all this "incompatibility" you speak of does. Simply put, it asks the hardware if its Apple and if it says yes, it works. How are you saying thats *not* DRM??
Apple is doing the *exact* same thing Lexmark did with their printers and printer ink cartridges. They setup the hardware so it'd only accept ink cartridges that they make. When someone else made ink cartridges that were compatible, Lexmark sued and *lost*
I adequately attacked the car firmware analogy. The software is completely incompatible and is set up to utilize hardware thats specific to the car. Embedded OSes are specific to the device for the most part. If they aren't, usually you *will* find them in multiple devices (Windows Mobile, etc.). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are multiple car companies that run at least the same foundation on some of their software (that isn't specific to the car). The point of the matter is that its only DRM that stops Mac OSX from working on another computer. Its not cutting out incompatibilities as you point out. Its, by definition, DRM. Its there for the sole purpose of DRM. It *is* DRM. The rest of your argument is so pointless in this debate that I refuse to acknowledge it. It has nothing to do with what we're talking about and its ad hominem. You obviously don't know how to argue a point so you're giving up and attacking me instead. Your car analogy was destroyed a long time ago (though you refused to acknowledge it). You're attack on my DRM point is... well... befuddling. I don't get what you're trying to say. You're not staying on point and you're losing your way. In case you forgot, I'm talking about why it shouldn't be allowed for Apple to only allow Mac OSX to run on a system of their choice even after you buy it and its completely capable of running on other systems as long as there's a layer of EFI emulation running. So, its not even modifying the software itself.
The difference is that in my example (microwave & refrigerator) is that the code just isn't compatible. In your example, Mac OSX is based on code that is compatible with PCs. The only reason it doesn't run on PCs is due to DRM. So, with buying the software, they're telling me what I can and can't use it on. Remember DRM-ladden music and how people were upset they couldn't put it on whatever device of their choice? It's the same thing. There should be the same uproar (and there is). I've never seen so many supposed "technical" people support DRM before.
That's like saying the code that operates my microwave can't operate my refrigerator, what gives? I hope if you ever get in a serious discussion, you don't actually compare an embedded OS in a car to desktop OS.
A couple things not covered in a comparison like this is room for expansion and ability to upgrade. In a few years, while usually both the PC and mac are running, you may want something a bit faster or better. The guy with the mac? probably has to buy an entirely new computer. The guy with the pc? maybe buy a new video card, possibly upgrade the cpu or just put in a bit more ram... all of it *completely* cheaper than a new computer.
He paid for the membership to buy the computer. If he didn't buy the computer or returned the computer, that means he just wasted money on the membership. Its sorta like he put a down payment that he couldn't get back. At least thats what it sounds like he's saying.
read the short story "2BR02B" (pronounced "2 B R naught 2 B" by Vonnegut.
Your defenses are still weak in general. If I give someone a key to my house, it doesn't mean I give them the right to come in whenever they want. If I have a key lock on my door that is easily cracked, it also doesn't mean my expectation of people not coming in is waived.
It wasn't the journalist who made the analogy, it was a quote from a former federal prosecutor who headed up the computer hacking section of the US Attorney's office. Before attacking something, read it more carefully first to ensure your attack is actually justified.
So, if something isn't guaranteed (privacy), then it should be perfectly legal to do so? Confidentiality is guaranteed at times. Third-party services such as virus scanners and junk mail filters usually have privacy policies that guarantee you a certain level of privacy. US snail mail doesn't guarantee 100% privacy. Mail can and does get opened up on occasion if certain conditions are met (jail, military, etc.). So, even US snail mail has conditions on the privacy, as does email. Why are they fundamentally different? It's a breach of privacy and should be treated as such.
As displayed here: http://xkcd.com/385/
I don't recall saying Apple would think I would want to. I was responding to someone who said that Apple wouldn't lose out because everyone who got shafted would go out and buy one from Apple instead. Thanks for agreeing with me though. I, too, don't know why anyone would think one would buy from Apple after that either.
If I bought one of these and Apple caused it to become a huge paperweight, why would I then go buy a computer from them?