I disagree - I think DMCA takedowns have been a disaster. When the WB music group issues takedowns on things it doesn't even own - and YouTube meekly complies without even bothering to do a trivial search at copyright.gov for ownership - something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
When TI issues DMCA takedown notices for something that isn't even covered by the DMCA - and they don't get fined as a result - something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
When MTV can play on television a youtube clip copyrighted by a man without permission, but turn around and issue a DMCA takedown notice for that man's later youtube clip of that MTV segment showing his youtube clip, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Sure, you could probably point to instances of legitimate uses of DMCA takedowns. But that doesn't mean its harmful effects are irrelevant.
It's a lot like the RIAA's lawsuits. Sure, they've probably caught lots of active music pirates, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to continue harassing people like they're doing now (especially when their investigative methods may be illegal).
In other words, the ends do not justify the means; the DMCA and the RIAA's lawsuits both work under the opposite assumption.
Why is your definition of "runs fine" more important than mine, or my wife's, or Grandma Smith's, or Microsoft's?
Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by "runs fine"? Do you mean "it boots"? Do you mean "notepad can start up"? Or do you mean "runs Photoshop CS4 without issues"? Are you referring to stock 12-year-old refurbished Toshibas, or are you referring to machines that were custom-built using expensive top-of-the-line parts?
I'm calling you out on this - the average machine from 1997 would not be called "usable" by any sane person if it were running XP.
My Thinkpad (from 1994) was just barely usable running Windows 2000, and that was after I upgraded from 32MB to 64MB of RAM. XP requires a minimum of 512MB RAM; in 1997, 128MB was standard, 256MB was high-end, and 512MB was "top of the line" for consumer hardware.
You can't seriously be claiming a machine with 128MB or even 256MB of RAM will run XP usably, without issues?
XP runs all modern Windows software just fine.
Sure - but not on 12-year-old hardware.
But, go ahead... try running XP and Crysis on a stock 12 year old computer. I'll even let you disable services to your heart's content in XP, and you can run Crysis on minimum settings. If it's playable, I'll buy you a new computer. (Crysis certainly falls under the umbrella of "all modern Windows software", doesn't it?)
"Runs fine" for your particular needs does not mean it "runs fine" for the majority of people. Microsoft and Apple (and Adobe and Crytek and...) are not interested in supporting the fringe of the crowd that's too stubborn to upgrade their five year old hardware to run the newest eye candy; they're interested in supporting the majority. It's good business sense.
A Mac has a shorter lifespan than a PC, and it's intended to be that way.
With the notable exception of an IBM Thinkpad that survived 1994 through 2002, I have never known anyone that owned a (non-custom-built) Windows computer that survived general everyday use longer than five years.
On the other hand, I know several people that are happily running five-year-old (or older) Macs.
So you tell me which are more durable.
Sure, it's just anecdotal evidence, but it's better than your unsupported assertions.
I reiterate - I am not an Apple fanboy. I do not intend to buy a Mac; I prefer custom-built PCs running Linux, where possible.
3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
I referred a friend of mine to this thread. He uses Macs in a professional environment on a daily basis. He also worked for a long time as a repair technician at an Apple computer vendor. He made the following points:
- yes, you can force installs on the systems [MrHanky] listed - but running 10.4 on my second revision iBook G3 (EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL) is a very painful process - the G3 chip has limitations on it that just are facts of life; outdated chipsets causing problems, etc. - my iBook G3 couldn't play youtube movies in 10.3, nor in 10.4. ESPECIALLY not in 10.4 - xpostfacto and leopardassist are for the people that want the latest and greatest but have no money. the actual features of the operating system hardly work at all, depending on where your machine lies on the specturm of just barely out of date or years out of date - sounds like [MrHanky] doesn't even use macs.
(quoted with permission)... So, that's from the mouth of a professional Mac-user with years of experience working with both Mac software and Mac hardware.
10.4 may work fine for you on your old iBook, but keep in mind that your personal experience does not necessarily reflect the experience of the majority, and you can't use your own limited use to claim that everything works fine (especially when that is demonstrably untrue).
However, if they just let the installer run on an older, slower machine, they become responsible for all advertised features of the OS working in an acceptable manner.
Exactly. Because Apple produced the older hardware, if they allow a new version of OSX to install on the older hardware, then they are implicitly agreeing to support the new version of the OS on the old hardware. That may be undesirable both for Apple and for (the majority of) their customers.
1) Your example is pointless: there is no software that demands Windows ME, and therefore no "forced upgrade" for anyone. Use Windows 98 if you need it. Common sense?
Fine, I'll appease your pickiness. Re-do the example, but with XP instead of Me. Magically, my example works again. Wow, that took a lot of thought. Common sense?
Besides, at the time in question (1999-2000) the only Windows CD I had was a WinMe cd. How, exactly, was I supposed to use Windows 98 instead? Under those circumstances, the artificial limitations imposed by the WinMe installer could (would, by your own logic) be called nothing more than a decision to force purchases of Microsoft's other software.
Did you even bother to think about how my example might be applicable, or did you just jump into trolling mode instantly?
2) There is no "cost cutting" in implementing checks and restrictions against unsupported hardware. Your imaginary phone calls are imaginary. Your common sense fails it again.
So... you're saying if Microsoft allowed people to install Windows 7 on a 333MHz Pentium II, they'd get exactly zero support calls as a result?
Your imaginary points are imaginary.
3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
As I mentioned before, I don't own any Macs, nor do I intend to, so I can't speak for the relative performance of the various versions. However, it seems obvious to me that performance is not the only factor involved in whether a company wants to officially support some set of hardware.
I suppose according to the technical definition of the word "apologist", you could call me an Apple "apologist", based on the fact that I'm defending one particular business practice that they happen to engage in; however, given that my comments are not specific to Apple but are general comments regarding older hardware support as it applies to all businesses, I'm more of a "Company X doesn't want to support old hardware" apologist than an apologist for any particular company.
More to the point, defending $IDEA and then using $COMPANY as an example of that idea does not mean I'm a $COMPANY apologist; it merely means I'm an $IDEA apologist.
"We don't want to support several year old hardware" seems like a fairly common-sense idea to defend, whether you sell operating systems, games, or accounting software.
When I tried to install WinMe on a 133MHz IBM Thinkpad a decade ago, it told me it required a 150MHz processor and refused to install.
Some might call that a "forced upgrade". Know what I call it? A cost-cutting measure. You know why? Because if they let people install it on any machine, then MS is going to get support calls from people wondering why Windows 7 takes half an hour to boot on their old 333MHz Pentium II.
Sure, OSX 10.4 might "work fine" on the original iBook. But why should your personal definition of "work fine" outweigh Apple's attempt to reduce the number of support calls they receive? I'm sure you'll agree that the original iBook wasn't as powerful as the later hardware that 10.4 was intended for.
To further clarify my point, my wife's definition of "work fine" is not the same as my definition. Why is hers any more valid than mine? Similarly, mine is no more valid than Microsoft's or Apple's, and since they're the ones who have to field support calls, they're the ones who get to decide to impose limitations on their software.
I'm neither an Apple apologist (I don't intend to ever own a Mac) nor a Microsoft fanboy (I haven't ever paid for a Microsoft OS intentionally). I just have the ability to use this thing called "common sense" and apply it to businesses and the (at first glance) arbitrary things businesses do.
Psystar is cutting into Apple's profits in an illegal manner.
Only if by "cutting into Apple's profits" you mean "allowing people to pay for OSX and use it on a non-Apple-manufactured machine". These are people who aren't going to buy Apple hardware anyway, but the do want to buy Apple's OS; most of the people would probably stick to Linux or Windows if they don't get their Hackintosh.
In other words, they're not cutting into Apple's profits; they're actually allowing Apple to sell more copies of OSX.
I'm not going to go into whether such a thing should be or is legal, but I just wanted to clarify that you'd be hard-pressed to show Apple actually losing profits over this. (Unless you count their lawyer fees, of course.)
You may as well complain that MS isn't patching Win9x or Win2k anymore, and that they are therefore forcing their customers to upgrade their software.
You can't expect companies to support old products indefinitely (barring a contract stating otherwise), and that applies to Apple and Microsoft as much as it applies to any other software company.
I'm pretty sure everything you listed wont get you anything more than a ticket and a fine.
That wasn't quite my point. My point was that even if all you actually did was jaywalk, the cops could use virtually any excuse at all (if you happen to touch the cop by accident, you've technically "assaulted" the cop) to throw you in a holding cell overnight.
More to the point, if the cops want something from you, they don't even have to charge you with anything - they just have to threaten to charge you with things.
Yea, but you don't even know what you are or aren't missing.
So you have to do something before you can know it's stupid? Here, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
All of your examples are horrible because none of them are serious enough to be of any value in pressuring people in to silence and obedience.
The mere threat of a single night in a holding cell - which could happen for virtually any violation - is enough to make some people do whatever the police want.
Didn't you go to college? If so how did you get through it without at least trying a joint or a bong? Clinton and Obama both did.
Yes, I went to college. You think the fact that Clinton and Obama both indulged in idiotic behavior means I necessarily must have?
One does not need to do drugs or even drink alcohol to have a good time (whether or not you're in college). One merely needs friends. As I have friends, I see no reason to indulge in such idiotic substances as drugs or alcohol.
As for the rest, you appear to be a rather cynical person. You've decided that if a person is affluent, he must have obtained it by breaking some number of laws. I don't share that opinion. (Politicians, on the other hand, are in general a different story.)
Perhaps Joe Nacchio was breaking insider trading rules. That doesn't prove that "most" Americans would do so in the same situation; there are millions of Americans who could do so but do not. How is it that in your mind a few high-profile lawbreakers determine what the majority of Americans must be doing?
I sincerely hope you don't watch America's Most Wanted - you'll decide that most Americans are rapists or murderers (or both).
There are reported to be some tens of thousands of rich Americans implicated in hiding millions of dollars from the IRS
"Some tens of thousands" - even if it were true - is a far cry from being "most Americans". Have you done that math recently? (Hint: 30000/300000000 = 1/10000...)
Yes, some Americans break laws. Yes, the majority of Americans have broken some law or other, if you include jaywalking and such. No, the majority do not break the more interesting laws that we're talking about here.
The beauty of American law is just about everyone has cheated on their taxes, traded on an insider stock tip, used illegal drugs, or done something else the government can use against you to force compliance and obedience.
You know, if you were really trying to give examples of laws most people have broken, you chose three very poor examples. I've never done any of those three things.
No, good examples would be: speeding, jaywalking, briefly parking in a no-park zone, blocking a fire hydrant...
Or if you wanted to pick examples of things the police could use with very little need for proof, you've got "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and so on.
But anyway, even if the NSA can feasibly store a yottabyte of data, they'd run out of storage space before they'd have time to build another data center... just think how much data passes through (e.g.) Comcast every single hour. And you're proposing that the NSA not only store everything every ISP in multiple countries can see, but you want the NSA to store recordings of every land line and cellular phone call?
But for the sake of argument let's pretend they manage to store all that data. Do you really think they'll be able to go through all that data to find anything meaningful? It's like trying to find one particular drop of water while getting sprayed by an infinitely-supplied firehose.
I'm using squirrelmail... it's ok, but there are some really annoying things about it. For one, I can't find a way to enable HTML display mode for e-mails. It's good because it's easy to tell spams from non-spams, but it's bad because just about every e-mail from every legit site is hard to read in plaintext mode.
"Separate delivery from production" doesn't solve anything.
Say we do that, and three water companies provide water to some common pool, and one water distribution company sends that water around.
What have you solved? You still have a one-company bottleneck - the distribution company - that can charge whatever it wants to deliver the utility, because the one thing you definitely don't want to do is install two identical delivery systems.
So let's look at it from a customer's perspective: Jim wants water, so he contacts the distribution company (which actually pipes the water to his house). So we can already see that Jim doesn't get to pick his distributor - only one company has pipes run to his house. Does Jim get to pick which water supplier to use? Of course not - the water comes from a common pool! Jim still has one and only one choice - the distributor. He has to take whatever price the distributor sets.
Sure, you could set up some scheme where each water company pumps whatever it wants into the pool, and Jim's usage is metered and he pays his chosen supplier based on that - but now he has to pay two bills: one to the supplier and one to the distributor, each with their own taxes, administrative fees, and so on. Furthermore, you now have possible problems where a supplier puts X gallons into the pool one day, but its customers use X+10 gallons - and this can be true for every supplier. That kind of situation is very difficult to deal with fairly (fairly to all the suppliers, that is) when multiple suppliers have to go through a single distributor. It's kind of like ISPs' attempts to charge different rates based on content, actually - and please don't tell me you think that scheme is workable.
In other words, you've made the system a lot more complicated for zero gain. "More complicated" is of course equivalent to "more expensive" in the long run, I'm sure you'll agree.
Also, its foolish to think that having competition is going to increase costs in any way. If that were the case, then there would be no need for governments to grant monopolies to companies. They would be "natural"
I don't think you understand why the government grants monopolies to utilities. It's basically a paper saying "we'll let you run the monopoly on utility X as long as you don't screw over your customers by charging too much." It's not about the monopoly itself, per se, it's about protecting the customers - they do it precisely by acknowledging that it's a natural monopoly.
Besides, as I've pointed out, your competing "water suppliers" could not possibly reduce costs, and even if they could reduce the cost of water production you have given no guarantee that the customers would see the price lowered, because the distributor would be the one charging them.
You're assuming an odd sort of circumstance, where two companies come in and plant pipes to every house in a town even if they aren't a customer.
Exactly - and that's because the only way two water utilities could truly compete is if each company has control over the whole process, from production to distribution. I've already described why, above.
[Flying cars] worked startlingly well, and were capable of full autopilot for both takeoff and landing, meaning that there wouldn't be any problems with human error as you put it.
I'm not worried about takeoff and landing. I'm worried about what's in between. There would be TONS of problems with human error. OH no, Jim forgot to refuel his car, and now he's plummeting 2000 feet onto a school. Yeah, that sounds like a real good idea - let's implement that Real Soon Now.
I should also point out that I'm calling your bluff - your statements regarding existing viable flying cars are only valid if you're referring to small passenger aircraft (complete with wings and a propeller), rather than what the words "flying car" imply (that is, some
I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt)
Postal monopoly? When did the USPS buy out FedEx, UPS, etc? Last I checked, there's some healthy competition in the postal system.
No, the reason the USPS is having trouble is that a) it doesn't charge enough for postage to cover its costs, b) nobody wants them to raise postage, and c) the people who actually use the USPS a lot get bulk discounts (e.g. Netflix).
I think the USPS could significantly reduce its costs if it let people pay a nominal fee to web-submit a PDF or other document along with a delivery address, which would be automatically printed, enveloped, and sorted for delivery (it would of course be printed right in the postal center corresponding to the delivery address).
If done properly, it would speed up delivery times (since your letter is printed and sorted immediately, to be delivered the following delivery day) and reduce costs (since they're no longer shipping a metric ton of advertising mail across the country, and they would be able to stop operating most of their interstate sorting centers). Remaining physical mail that people send end-to-end would be charged a higher rate that more accurately reflects its cost of delivery.
(Of course, this would probably require that most every company start accepting online payments or at least over-the-phone credit card or EFT payments, because otherwise people would find themselves paying $1.25 in postage to pay their $25 bill.)
I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it."
... to which they might respond, "I'm sorry, sir, but your city does not exist in our computer system. Better luck next time!"
(Yes, I called Verizon to ask when FiOS would be available in my area, and yes, their computer system really is that stupid; no address in my apartment complex is in their system, so they can't even record the fact that I'm interested in their service.)
The problem with the welfare system is that there isn't enough oversight taking place (on either the welfare workers or the welfare recipients). The reason for that is that oversight costs money, and nobody wants to spend more money on welfare, even if spending more money now would make the system more efficient (and therefore less costly) in the long run...
Some of the people making the budgets are only interested in looking good on the next fiscal quarter's report. They don't care whether that means next year's report will be twice as bad.
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
I'd like to see you set up competing companies for some of the monopolies you're complaining about - specifically, power, water, and sewer service.
Some things are called natural monopolies because they can only be effectively serviced by one entity. I, for one, do not want another independent set of water and sewage pipes installed in my city, nor do I want another independent set of power lines installed, and I think you'll find it a monumental task to have two separate companies provide electricity (or water or sewage service) on the same lines in the same areas.
In some cases, granting a company a monopoly in an area is far better than the alternative. For example, say you have two companies who, through some deft maneuvering, manage to each have their own set of water pipe infrastructure installed to every house in some area. They'll both have the same operating costs, but they'll each end up with approximately half of the customers; meaning that they'll have to charge twice as much to stay afloat. (Utility companies like this have virtually negligible profit margins, remember.)
So go ahead - set up a set of competing utilities. Don't complain when all your utility bills double, though.
Oh, and, I'd like to see exactly what government regulations have prevented us from developing flying cars. Personally, I think people have a hard enough time grasping driving in two dimensions - I shudder to think how bad things would get in three dimensions. Flying cars haven't been developed because there's no demand for them, not because of government regulation. (Nuclear power, though, you might be right about... but look at the public's response when McCain suggested a nuclear power plan. The citizens are scared of nuclear power, unjustified as those fears may be; do you really expect them to support a government initiative to get a decent nuclear power infrastructure set up?)
I disagree. I don't want to have to decide whether to go hang out with Jim today based on whether or not I want to pay the $1 toll each way to use the local state highway for five minutes.
I didn't say the Church doesn't own any for-profit businesses. I said the Church's tithing funds are not used for profit. Similarly, money made through its for-profit ventures is generally not used for non-profit things. An exception would be, for example, if there were a natural disaster that disrupted food supplies, the Church would use the product of its for-profit farms to assist those areas.
Furthermore, the responses listed on that page (presumably from readers) are clearly not people who know anything about how things work. As I've mentioned before: Any commerical entity owned by the LDS Church does in fact pay taxes. Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation.
Just a side note: not everything on that list you link to is a for-profit institution. For example, several of the "Corporations" listed there are merely legal entities created for purposes of Intellectual Property management. None of the universities generate profit, as far as I'm aware. LDS Family Services is a non-profit group that does things like placement of babies from teen pregnancies, counseling for troubled teens, etc.
So the link doesn't really refute my claims... it actually misrepresents what those entities are. Not surprising, really, from a website dedicated to gathering a community of bitter ex-Mormons. (I would expect the same from any group that proudly calls itself "ex-Whoever"s.)
As far as the Senate transcript goes, the Prophet may be President of those entities, but he is not involved in the day-to-day management of the vast majority of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree - I think DMCA takedowns have been a disaster. When the WB music group issues takedowns on things it doesn't even own - and YouTube meekly complies without even bothering to do a trivial search at copyright.gov for ownership - something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
When TI issues DMCA takedown notices for something that isn't even covered by the DMCA - and they don't get fined as a result - something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
When MTV can play on television a youtube clip copyrighted by a man without permission, but turn around and issue a DMCA takedown notice for that man's later youtube clip of that MTV segment showing his youtube clip, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
Sure, you could probably point to instances of legitimate uses of DMCA takedowns. But that doesn't mean its harmful effects are irrelevant.
It's a lot like the RIAA's lawsuits. Sure, they've probably caught lots of active music pirates, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to continue harassing people like they're doing now (especially when their investigative methods may be illegal).
In other words, the ends do not justify the means; the DMCA and the RIAA's lawsuits both work under the opposite assumption.
Windows XP runs fine on 12 years old hardware
Why is your definition of "runs fine" more important than mine, or my wife's, or Grandma Smith's, or Microsoft's?
Furthermore, what exactly do you mean by "runs fine"? Do you mean "it boots"? Do you mean "notepad can start up"? Or do you mean "runs Photoshop CS4 without issues"? Are you referring to stock 12-year-old refurbished Toshibas, or are you referring to machines that were custom-built using expensive top-of-the-line parts?
I'm calling you out on this - the average machine from 1997 would not be called "usable" by any sane person if it were running XP.
My Thinkpad (from 1994) was just barely usable running Windows 2000, and that was after I upgraded from 32MB to 64MB of RAM. XP requires a minimum of 512MB RAM; in 1997, 128MB was standard, 256MB was high-end, and 512MB was "top of the line" for consumer hardware.
You can't seriously be claiming a machine with 128MB or even 256MB of RAM will run XP usably, without issues?
XP runs all modern Windows software just fine.
Sure - but not on 12-year-old hardware.
But, go ahead... try running XP and Crysis on a stock 12 year old computer. I'll even let you disable services to your heart's content in XP, and you can run Crysis on minimum settings. If it's playable, I'll buy you a new computer. (Crysis certainly falls under the umbrella of "all modern Windows software", doesn't it?)
"Runs fine" for your particular needs does not mean it "runs fine" for the majority of people. Microsoft and Apple (and Adobe and Crytek and...) are not interested in supporting the fringe of the crowd that's too stubborn to upgrade their five year old hardware to run the newest eye candy; they're interested in supporting the majority. It's good business sense.
A Mac has a shorter lifespan than a PC, and it's intended to be that way.
With the notable exception of an IBM Thinkpad that survived 1994 through 2002, I have never known anyone that owned a (non-custom-built) Windows computer that survived general everyday use longer than five years.
On the other hand, I know several people that are happily running five-year-old (or older) Macs.
So you tell me which are more durable.
Sure, it's just anecdotal evidence, but it's better than your unsupported assertions.
I reiterate - I am not an Apple fanboy. I do not intend to buy a Mac; I prefer custom-built PCs running Linux, where possible.
3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
I referred a friend of mine to this thread. He uses Macs in a professional environment on a daily basis. He also worked for a long time as a repair technician at an Apple computer vendor. He made the following points:
- yes, you can force installs on the systems [MrHanky] listed
- but running 10.4 on my second revision iBook G3 (EVEN BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL) is a very painful process
- the G3 chip has limitations on it that just are facts of life; outdated chipsets causing problems, etc.
- my iBook G3 couldn't play youtube movies in 10.3, nor in 10.4. ESPECIALLY not in 10.4
- xpostfacto and leopardassist are for the people that want the latest and greatest but have no money. the actual features of the operating system hardly work at all, depending on where your machine lies on the specturm of just barely out of date or years out of date
- sounds like [MrHanky] doesn't even use macs.
(quoted with permission) ... So, that's from the mouth of a professional Mac-user with years of experience working with both Mac software and Mac hardware.
10.4 may work fine for you on your old iBook, but keep in mind that your personal experience does not necessarily reflect the experience of the majority, and you can't use your own limited use to claim that everything works fine (especially when that is demonstrably untrue).
However, if they just let the installer run on an older, slower machine, they become responsible for all advertised features of the OS working in an acceptable manner.
Exactly. Because Apple produced the older hardware, if they allow a new version of OSX to install on the older hardware, then they are implicitly agreeing to support the new version of the OS on the old hardware. That may be undesirable both for Apple and for (the majority of) their customers.
1) Your example is pointless: there is no software that demands Windows ME, and therefore no "forced upgrade" for anyone. Use Windows 98 if you need it. Common sense?
Fine, I'll appease your pickiness. Re-do the example, but with XP instead of Me. Magically, my example works again. Wow, that took a lot of thought. Common sense?
Besides, at the time in question (1999-2000) the only Windows CD I had was a WinMe cd. How, exactly, was I supposed to use Windows 98 instead? Under those circumstances, the artificial limitations imposed by the WinMe installer could (would, by your own logic) be called nothing more than a decision to force purchases of Microsoft's other software.
Did you even bother to think about how my example might be applicable, or did you just jump into trolling mode instantly?
2) There is no "cost cutting" in implementing checks and restrictions against unsupported hardware. Your imaginary phone calls are imaginary. Your common sense fails it again.
So... you're saying if Microsoft allowed people to install Windows 7 on a 333MHz Pentium II, they'd get exactly zero support calls as a result?
Your imaginary points are imaginary.
3) OS X was ridiculously slow in the beginning, and new releases have been better optimised. Any computer that could run 10.2 was better with 10.3, including unsupported ones. Your silly assumptions show that you are, indeed, an Apple apologist.
As I mentioned before, I don't own any Macs, nor do I intend to, so I can't speak for the relative performance of the various versions. However, it seems obvious to me that performance is not the only factor involved in whether a company wants to officially support some set of hardware.
I suppose according to the technical definition of the word "apologist", you could call me an Apple "apologist", based on the fact that I'm defending one particular business practice that they happen to engage in; however, given that my comments are not specific to Apple but are general comments regarding older hardware support as it applies to all businesses, I'm more of a "Company X doesn't want to support old hardware" apologist than an apologist for any particular company.
More to the point, defending $IDEA and then using $COMPANY as an example of that idea does not mean I'm a $COMPANY apologist; it merely means I'm an $IDEA apologist.
"We don't want to support several year old hardware" seems like a fairly common-sense idea to defend, whether you sell operating systems, games, or accounting software.
When I tried to install WinMe on a 133MHz IBM Thinkpad a decade ago, it told me it required a 150MHz processor and refused to install.
Some might call that a "forced upgrade". Know what I call it? A cost-cutting measure. You know why? Because if they let people install it on any machine, then MS is going to get support calls from people wondering why Windows 7 takes half an hour to boot on their old 333MHz Pentium II.
Sure, OSX 10.4 might "work fine" on the original iBook. But why should your personal definition of "work fine" outweigh Apple's attempt to reduce the number of support calls they receive? I'm sure you'll agree that the original iBook wasn't as powerful as the later hardware that 10.4 was intended for.
To further clarify my point, my wife's definition of "work fine" is not the same as my definition. Why is hers any more valid than mine? Similarly, mine is no more valid than Microsoft's or Apple's, and since they're the ones who have to field support calls, they're the ones who get to decide to impose limitations on their software.
I'm neither an Apple apologist (I don't intend to ever own a Mac) nor a Microsoft fanboy (I haven't ever paid for a Microsoft OS intentionally). I just have the ability to use this thing called "common sense" and apply it to businesses and the (at first glance) arbitrary things businesses do.
Psystar is cutting into Apple's profits in an illegal manner.
Only if by "cutting into Apple's profits" you mean "allowing people to pay for OSX and use it on a non-Apple-manufactured machine". These are people who aren't going to buy Apple hardware anyway, but the do want to buy Apple's OS; most of the people would probably stick to Linux or Windows if they don't get their Hackintosh.
In other words, they're not cutting into Apple's profits; they're actually allowing Apple to sell more copies of OSX.
I'm not going to go into whether such a thing should be or is legal, but I just wanted to clarify that you'd be hard-pressed to show Apple actually losing profits over this. (Unless you count their lawyer fees, of course.)
You may as well complain that MS isn't patching Win9x or Win2k anymore, and that they are therefore forcing their customers to upgrade their software.
You can't expect companies to support old products indefinitely (barring a contract stating otherwise), and that applies to Apple and Microsoft as much as it applies to any other software company.
I'm pretty sure everything you listed wont get you anything more than a ticket and a fine.
That wasn't quite my point. My point was that even if all you actually did was jaywalk, the cops could use virtually any excuse at all (if you happen to touch the cop by accident, you've technically "assaulted" the cop) to throw you in a holding cell overnight.
More to the point, if the cops want something from you, they don't even have to charge you with anything - they just have to threaten to charge you with things.
Yea, but you don't even know what you are or aren't missing.
So you have to do something before you can know it's stupid? Here, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
All of your examples are horrible because none of them are serious enough to be of any value in pressuring people in to silence and obedience.
The mere threat of a single night in a holding cell - which could happen for virtually any violation - is enough to make some people do whatever the police want.
Didn't you go to college? If so how did you get through it without at least trying a joint or a bong? Clinton and Obama both did.
Yes, I went to college. You think the fact that Clinton and Obama both indulged in idiotic behavior means I necessarily must have?
One does not need to do drugs or even drink alcohol to have a good time (whether or not you're in college). One merely needs friends. As I have friends, I see no reason to indulge in such idiotic substances as drugs or alcohol.
As for the rest, you appear to be a rather cynical person. You've decided that if a person is affluent, he must have obtained it by breaking some number of laws. I don't share that opinion. (Politicians, on the other hand, are in general a different story.)
Perhaps Joe Nacchio was breaking insider trading rules. That doesn't prove that "most" Americans would do so in the same situation; there are millions of Americans who could do so but do not. How is it that in your mind a few high-profile lawbreakers determine what the majority of Americans must be doing?
I sincerely hope you don't watch America's Most Wanted - you'll decide that most Americans are rapists or murderers (or both).
There are reported to be some tens of thousands of rich Americans implicated in hiding millions of dollars from the IRS
"Some tens of thousands" - even if it were true - is a far cry from being "most Americans". Have you done that math recently? (Hint: 30000/300000000 = 1/10000...)
Yes, some Americans break laws. Yes, the majority of Americans have broken some law or other, if you include jaywalking and such. No, the majority do not break the more interesting laws that we're talking about here.
The beauty of American law is just about everyone has cheated on their taxes, traded on an insider stock tip, used illegal drugs, or done something else the government can use against you to force compliance and obedience.
You know, if you were really trying to give examples of laws most people have broken, you chose three very poor examples. I've never done any of those three things.
No, good examples would be: speeding, jaywalking, briefly parking in a no-park zone, blocking a fire hydrant...
Or if you wanted to pick examples of things the police could use with very little need for proof, you've got "resisting arrest", "assaulting an officer", and so on.
But anyway, even if the NSA can feasibly store a yottabyte of data, they'd run out of storage space before they'd have time to build another data center... just think how much data passes through (e.g.) Comcast every single hour. And you're proposing that the NSA not only store everything every ISP in multiple countries can see, but you want the NSA to store recordings of every land line and cellular phone call?
But for the sake of argument let's pretend they manage to store all that data. Do you really think they'll be able to go through all that data to find anything meaningful? It's like trying to find one particular drop of water while getting sprayed by an infinitely-supplied firehose.
Yeah, but you'll know about it.
I'm using squirrelmail... it's ok, but there are some really annoying things about it. For one, I can't find a way to enable HTML display mode for e-mails. It's good because it's easy to tell spams from non-spams, but it's bad because just about every e-mail from every legit site is hard to read in plaintext mode.
Effective oversight would include making sure people on welfare are actively working to get themselves off of welfare.
"Separate delivery from production" doesn't solve anything.
Say we do that, and three water companies provide water to some common pool, and one water distribution company sends that water around.
What have you solved? You still have a one-company bottleneck - the distribution company - that can charge whatever it wants to deliver the utility, because the one thing you definitely don't want to do is install two identical delivery systems.
So let's look at it from a customer's perspective: Jim wants water, so he contacts the distribution company (which actually pipes the water to his house). So we can already see that Jim doesn't get to pick his distributor - only one company has pipes run to his house. Does Jim get to pick which water supplier to use? Of course not - the water comes from a common pool! Jim still has one and only one choice - the distributor. He has to take whatever price the distributor sets.
Sure, you could set up some scheme where each water company pumps whatever it wants into the pool, and Jim's usage is metered and he pays his chosen supplier based on that - but now he has to pay two bills: one to the supplier and one to the distributor, each with their own taxes, administrative fees, and so on. Furthermore, you now have possible problems where a supplier puts X gallons into the pool one day, but its customers use X+10 gallons - and this can be true for every supplier. That kind of situation is very difficult to deal with fairly (fairly to all the suppliers, that is) when multiple suppliers have to go through a single distributor. It's kind of like ISPs' attempts to charge different rates based on content, actually - and please don't tell me you think that scheme is workable.
In other words, you've made the system a lot more complicated for zero gain. "More complicated" is of course equivalent to "more expensive" in the long run, I'm sure you'll agree.
Also, its foolish to think that having competition is going to increase costs in any way. If that were the case, then there would be no need for governments to grant monopolies to companies. They would be "natural"
I don't think you understand why the government grants monopolies to utilities. It's basically a paper saying "we'll let you run the monopoly on utility X as long as you don't screw over your customers by charging too much." It's not about the monopoly itself, per se, it's about protecting the customers - they do it precisely by acknowledging that it's a natural monopoly.
Besides, as I've pointed out, your competing "water suppliers" could not possibly reduce costs, and even if they could reduce the cost of water production you have given no guarantee that the customers would see the price lowered, because the distributor would be the one charging them.
You're assuming an odd sort of circumstance, where two companies come in and plant pipes to every house in a town even if they aren't a customer.
Exactly - and that's because the only way two water utilities could truly compete is if each company has control over the whole process, from production to distribution. I've already described why, above.
[Flying cars] worked startlingly well, and were capable of full autopilot for both takeoff and landing, meaning that there wouldn't be any problems with human error as you put it.
I'm not worried about takeoff and landing. I'm worried about what's in between. There would be TONS of problems with human error. OH no, Jim forgot to refuel his car, and now he's plummeting 2000 feet onto a school. Yeah, that sounds like a real good idea - let's implement that Real Soon Now.
I should also point out that I'm calling your bluff - your statements regarding existing viable flying cars are only valid if you're referring to small passenger aircraft (complete with wings and a propeller), rather than what the words "flying car" imply (that is, some
I disagree with having a postal monopoly (which is deep in debt)
Postal monopoly? When did the USPS buy out FedEx, UPS, etc? Last I checked, there's some healthy competition in the postal system.
No, the reason the USPS is having trouble is that a) it doesn't charge enough for postage to cover its costs, b) nobody wants them to raise postage, and c) the people who actually use the USPS a lot get bulk discounts (e.g. Netflix).
I think the USPS could significantly reduce its costs if it let people pay a nominal fee to web-submit a PDF or other document along with a delivery address, which would be automatically printed, enveloped, and sorted for delivery (it would of course be printed right in the postal center corresponding to the delivery address).
If done properly, it would speed up delivery times (since your letter is printed and sorted immediately, to be delivered the following delivery day) and reduce costs (since they're no longer shipping a metric ton of advertising mail across the country, and they would be able to stop operating most of their interstate sorting centers). Remaining physical mail that people send end-to-end would be charged a higher rate that more accurately reflects its cost of delivery.
(Of course, this would probably require that most every company start accepting online payments or at least over-the-phone credit card or EFT payments, because otherwise people would find themselves paying $1.25 in postage to pay their $25 bill.)
I think I would simply called Verizon on the phone and said, "We want FiOS and and have the 70% of the population willing to buy it."
... to which they might respond, "I'm sorry, sir, but your city does not exist in our computer system. Better luck next time!"
(Yes, I called Verizon to ask when FiOS would be available in my area, and yes, their computer system really is that stupid; no address in my apartment complex is in their system, so they can't even record the fact that I'm interested in their service.)
pork barrel boondoggles
If it's salted pork, couldn't we use it to feed the homeless or something?
The problem with the welfare system is that there isn't enough oversight taking place (on either the welfare workers or the welfare recipients). The reason for that is that oversight costs money, and nobody wants to spend more money on welfare, even if spending more money now would make the system more efficient (and therefore less costly) in the long run...
Some of the people making the budgets are only interested in looking good on the next fiscal quarter's report. They don't care whether that means next year's report will be twice as bad.
Not to mention that *bikers* use roads all the time, and I'm sure the four or five of you out there who are bicycle riders will agree that better roads make for better biking.
For example, with modern technology, it's quite possible to make toll roads work even at the local level.
I, for one, don't want to pay a toll just to run to the grocery store.
I'd like to see you set up competing companies for some of the monopolies you're complaining about - specifically, power, water, and sewer service.
Some things are called natural monopolies because they can only be effectively serviced by one entity. I, for one, do not want another independent set of water and sewage pipes installed in my city, nor do I want another independent set of power lines installed, and I think you'll find it a monumental task to have two separate companies provide electricity (or water or sewage service) on the same lines in the same areas.
In some cases, granting a company a monopoly in an area is far better than the alternative. For example, say you have two companies who, through some deft maneuvering, manage to each have their own set of water pipe infrastructure installed to every house in some area. They'll both have the same operating costs, but they'll each end up with approximately half of the customers; meaning that they'll have to charge twice as much to stay afloat. (Utility companies like this have virtually negligible profit margins, remember.)
So go ahead - set up a set of competing utilities. Don't complain when all your utility bills double, though.
Oh, and, I'd like to see exactly what government regulations have prevented us from developing flying cars. Personally, I think people have a hard enough time grasping driving in two dimensions - I shudder to think how bad things would get in three dimensions. Flying cars haven't been developed because there's no demand for them, not because of government regulation. (Nuclear power, though, you might be right about... but look at the public's response when McCain suggested a nuclear power plan. The citizens are scared of nuclear power, unjustified as those fears may be; do you really expect them to support a government initiative to get a decent nuclear power infrastructure set up?)
I disagree. I don't want to have to decide whether to go hang out with Jim today based on whether or not I want to pay the $1 toll each way to use the local state highway for five minutes.
And believe me, the telco will charge even more than they would have, out of spite and monopoly.
Maybe eventually, but if you had RTFA you'd know that all current subscribers got their speeds doubled without an increase in cost...
But there is no "would have", because until the city decided to serve itself, the ISP had zero interest in rolling out fiber in that city.
I didn't say the Church doesn't own any for-profit businesses. I said the Church's tithing funds are not used for profit. Similarly, money made through its for-profit ventures is generally not used for non-profit things. An exception would be, for example, if there were a natural disaster that disrupted food supplies, the Church would use the product of its for-profit farms to assist those areas.
Furthermore, the responses listed on that page (presumably from readers) are clearly not people who know anything about how things work. As I've mentioned before: Any commerical entity owned by the LDS Church does in fact pay taxes. Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation.
Just a side note: not everything on that list you link to is a for-profit institution. For example, several of the "Corporations" listed there are merely legal entities created for purposes of Intellectual Property management. None of the universities generate profit, as far as I'm aware. LDS Family Services is a non-profit group that does things like placement of babies from teen pregnancies, counseling for troubled teens, etc.
So the link doesn't really refute my claims... it actually misrepresents what those entities are. Not surprising, really, from a website dedicated to gathering a community of bitter ex-Mormons. (I would expect the same from any group that proudly calls itself "ex-Whoever"s.)
As far as the Senate transcript goes, the Prophet may be President of those entities, but he is not involved in the day-to-day management of the vast majority of them.