And gaming! I predict 2010 will be the year Apple becomes the gaming platform of choice for trust-fund babies, unpublished writers who hang at Intelligentsia and men who tweeze their eyebrows.
Game availability for Mac OS X isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. While the breadth of games for Windows is vastly greater, in terms of games that make me want to install Boot Camp, or build a gaming PC, the majority have Mac versions already, or in production (Blizzard, ID, EA, BioWare). Even indy games (like World of Goo, Braid, and pending, Torchlight), as well as "niche" games, like EVE and Warhammer Online.
Anyway, my point is simply that on the Mac, you give up being a hardcore gamer, but you don't give up games nearly so strongly as hardcore gamers tend to imply.
Additionally, there's Boot Camp and CrossOver (and even VMware which has surprisingly good DirectX support) which makes pretty much any game playable on the Mac itself (although not necessarily Mac OS X).
That's not to say the Mac gaming realm is nearly as broad and deep as on Windows, but your view is more than a bit askew.
It will be the year of Mac on the Desktop. And about time, too!
Um, it's always been the "year of Mac on the desktop" since 1984 (although with an arguable absence during the mid to late '90s).
The "year of Linux on the desktop" *doesn't* mean it beats Windows, it just means it's a reasonable choice. As good as Linux is, and as much as there *are* people who quite happily run Linux as their primary desktop OS, it's not something that could really be called a broadly acceptable reasonable choice for the desktop.
The Mac, on the other hand, has *always* been a reasonable choice even throughout the '90s.
Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)
Wow, what are you smoking?
Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.
Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime
Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?
You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...
If he means QuickTime, then he's correct. Odds are any movie you see and song you hear made its way through QuickTime.
If instead he means the QuickTime Player, then his point really depends on the point of view. From the point of a view of a video player that has a "swiss army knife" utility to it, VLC tramples QuickTime Player, but in terms of both UI, and quality of the codecs it does support, QuickTime Player handily beats VLC. This is on the Mac, of course. On Windows, I suspect the UI aspect isn't as starkly contrasted, and while QuickTime Player may be more polished than VLC, VLC is more Windows-ish.
Pardon, but being "*rarely* killed" is still being 'killed' nonetheless.
That's a meaningless statement. *Everyone* "rarely" gets killed on the job, unless it's more often than that. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Garbage men and taxi drivers are both more dangerous professions.
Don't fuck with cops when things get stressful. It ain't smart. Wait 'til later, out of the stressful and high-strung situation, and you can be much more effective at whatever your intended purpose is.
In other words, when the adrenalin is flowing, it's *not* OK to ask a cop a question, but it *is* OK for a cop to beat you? Why is it the innocent citizen's obligation to be subservient to the cop?
Ask Mandela if he was able to do more from inside his jail cell, than from without.
Mandela was a political prisoner. Watt was beaten. Mandela was the head/figurehead of a movement. Watt was just one of countless people beaten by the police today.
Why is that relevant? Statistically speaking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "rarely" killed in the line of duty. So I guess they don't have any reason to fear death when they go out on patrol?
This is apples and oranges. They are in locations where they are shot at every day. They aren't surviving for lack of attempts on their life. In the case of the border guard, how many times do you think he's been shot at? Yeah, I don't know either, but I'll bet it's extremely low. I'll be even further that the times he's been shot at by someone simply asking him a question is even lower, and even lower still, from people who he's beating and then throwing into a cell.
A police officer has to worry about taking a bullet every single time he has an interaction with someone.
Bull. Shit. He has as much to worry about taking a bullet "every single time he has an interaction with someone" as I do. There are *some* interactions that are riskier than others, but it's absurd to state he has to fear every encounter.
Have you ever known that kind of fear?
Yes. And no, I won't elaborate, except that it's none of your business.
Suck it up and do what they tell you. If the abuse was particularly egregious then do the American thing and sue the hell out of them at a later date.
Fuck that. It shouldn't get to that point in the first place. While there are definitely some insane people who provoke cops for no apparent reason, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who asked a boarder guard what's going on, then got a beating for it. Even if he was confrontational, the cop's response *was* atrocious.
We've got to quit treating the police like gods. They're men. Bad things happen when you treat classes of men as gods.
Don't be a douche bag, know something about what you are talking about.
This year, 115 police officers have died in the line of duty. Half of those deaths were accidental or medical.
In terms of deaths on the job, police officer doesn't even make the top ten.
I stand by my statement. Police officers *are* rarely killed on the job. 50 people died as a result of tazering this year, and that's just *tazering*. Police kill more people that don't need killing than they themselves are killed. From a strictly numerical point of view, an innocent citizen being confronted by the police is more likely to be killed than a police officer is to be deliberately killed by an assailant.
Yet, in spite of this, we are supposed to bow down to the police who have chosen such a "dangerous" occupation, but when they attack an innocent citizen, no big whoop, they probably had it coming because they asked a question or something.
PS - Government police forces are supported by taxes. Quit voting for the guys who want to raise your taxes if you don't want government thugs to beat you up.
In a two-party system, what are you supposed to do when both parties support shit like this?
If you talk back, disobey orders and give them a hard time, crap like this will most likely happen to you because you escalate the situation and make the lives of people who already have miserable jobs more miserable. That's not an excuse, but don't be surprised when stuff like this happens.
But saying, "don't be surprised when stuff like this happens" *IS* an excuse.
He wouldn't have, say, raised his voice and shoved an officer, and gotten belligerent when they tried to restrain him, right?
Hell, maybe he pulled a knife, or reached for the officer's gun? Who knows, right?
Or maybe, he did what countless people find to be a big mistake day after day, and dared to ask an armed man who's above the law a question he doesn't want to answer. You know how sometimes you encounter someone in retail (or other similar customer-facing professions) who doesn't want to alter from the standard way of doing something? Either due to lack of imagination, boredom, incompetency, or merely not wanting to put up with this shit right now? Imagine if that person was armed and allowed to not only beat and imprison you, but then file charges on you after it's all over? Are you *sure* you want to calmly, but confidently suggest that why can't you order the taco supreme combo, but have one of the tacos be a regular one since the only difference is no sour cream?
Of course he didn't resist arrest, did he?
Arrest for what? He was at the border, he wasn't leaving.
Getting out of the car uninvited is an aggressive act. How were the officers to know whether or not he was a threat.
So beating him, imprisoning him, then threatening to charge him for assault (an almost inevitable side-effect of being beaten), is a measured response for people with guns, when confronted by a man with the audacity to make the terrifyingly aggressive action of exiting his car?
Now, when a police officer is in a situation like that, he usually likes to have complete control of the situation (understandable, since sometimes they end up dead when things get out of control).
This is a common myth. Police officers are *rarely* killed on the job. And border guards? I'm sure it must happen, but it seems it must be exceptionally rare in their case. But somehow that's given as an excuse when they beat the shit out of someone for *daring* to ask a question.
If he feels like you are trying to take control, things can escalate quickly.
"Take control"? The border guards have fucking guns. More to the point, they beat and imprisoned the guy. Even further, they can press charges against him. What did he do? Asked a question? HOW DARE HE!
It would have been better for our author friend to instead get back in the car.
No, it would have been much, much worse. The worst thing one can do in the face of fascism is to acquiesce. Worst thing for society, specifically. Whether backing down or not was something he should do personally depends on how much he cares about personal liberty and what exactly he did. If all he did was ask a question, I can't see any way in which he should have known better.
Also it's worth noting that in some jurisdictions, assault doesn't have to be physical, it can be verbal. So if you do end up in a similar situation, the best thing is to be calm and acquiescent in the moment, and then sue the hell out of them later.
Shit, in some cases, assault can be a dirty look. But you're right, the best thing to do is be a good little slave and bow to your masters...
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up?
Most of what is responsible for the success of the iPhone--Mach, Objective-C, the GUI, MP3 players, multitouch, the app store, song recommendations, phone cameras--was invented elsewhere and simply copied ("stolen") by Apple. So, yes, maybe Apple should just lose the patent case and pay up; there's a good chance that they really do owe the money.
Do please elaborate on the *actual* parties from whom Apple stole these technologies, and what grounds they'd have for a suit against Apple.
Apple is not doing this "because someone sued them". Apple made it clear that they were out to block Nokia from touch screen phones:
Nonsense. Nokia *has* touch screen phones. Apple did not sue them.
Apple has been building up for a patent war
Defensively, as evidenced by the fact that they did not sue first.
Nokia has no choice other than to strike before their N900 phones make them vulnerable.
That doesn't make any sense. How does initiating a suit about completely different technologies change anything with regards to touch screen patents? Nokia did not stave off a suit by their preemptive strike. In fact, they *brought it about*.
Remember Apple's lawsuit happy history was what caused the League for Programming Freedom.
Uh, that's a suit from twenty years ago, and one in which their partner (Microsoft) took proprietary knowledge from Apple to create a copy of their prized OS. This wasn't some sort of patent-troll style suit.
I guess the fact that so many seem to believe that Nokia is the agressor here
Because *they are*. They struck first. How is that so difficult?
(remember, they've been trying to Negotiate for years before this suit came out)
So, again, Nokia went after Apple first?
really does show that Apple can distort reality.
Those clever Apple folks! They can distort reality so completely that it wraps completely around on itself to where it started. Nokia struck first. Apple has been able to twist things so thoroughly that it even *looks* like Nokia struck first. Astounding!
I think you're kind of missing the point. We shouldn't be behaving like cave-men in the first place.
No, I see the point very clearly. The fact is, we *ARE* cavemen. You're right that we shouldn't act like them (in general), but when someone takes that first caveman act against you, often your only response is to sink to their level. To remain "above the fray" and not revert to cavemanism yourself just lets them have their way with you, which is exceptionally stupid.
But the nature of this corporate environment is hurting everyone (except the lawyers), so how long will it be before we can all evolve and pursue better things?
This isn't about nurturing the caveman-prone corporate environment, it's about what you do *within* the caveman-prone corporate environment.
Again, if someone punches you, you punch them right back, harder, until they stop. This is *not* the same as promoting the first punch.
Somehow, mankind as a whole needs to make a similar observation [cooperation benefits everyone].
Sort of. Competition benefits everyone as well. What doesn't benefit everyone (and in fact, often leads to a net benefit to no one), is cut-throught capitalism/corporatism. I'm with you on that, but do you expect Apple and Nokia to instead cooperate? That really makes no sense. Nokia's suit is a reactive, caveman-esque resort of a company in fear. I don't really blame them too much, other than that they should know that it's not a winning move. But again, given that Nokia did what they did, and that the world works the way it does, Apple's response is really just about the only rational one.
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up? The MAD patent defense is considered one of the "necessary evils" of the tech world.
When someone punches you, you punch back. Even if your principal is one of those idiots who, instead of trying to find out who thew the first punch, or who provoked who, just suspends both students.
Before I even begin, I'm going to point out that your use of the term "zealot" is childish and detracts from your argument before any actual facts and logic enter the equation. This is called "ad hominem" and is both a logical fallacy, and a dishonest argument tactic which adds *nothing* to the validity of your claim. I could just as easily say something like "Windows idiots think that...", which would be just as detrimental to may case.
It's been told to all the linux zealots so many times that Linux itself isn't really more secure against malware than Windows.
Correct that it's been told many times, but the thing being told is wrong. Linux itself *is* more secure against malware than Windows.
It's only so because it's marketshare is like 0.5%, if even that, and it makes much more sense to make malware where the (non-geeky) users are.
Wrong. If you s/only/partly/, then correct.
This just shows that if ever linux did gain marketshare with casual people enough, the malware problem will be there too. Repositories won't help with that, because people want 3rd party programs and games.
Yes, repositories will help. The reason is that repositories *overwhelmingly* provide the software that users will want. There will still be a demand for third-party software, just as there is now, but the demand will be *significantly* less than is currently the case for Windows.
In other words, Linux users have less desire to install software from outside of their distro's repository, and thus even if malware in third party software were to reach parity with the ratio in Windows software, Linux users will *still* be less likely to download and install spyware.
The funny thing about this is the same that as with Mac OS X users. All of the zealots yelling that Linux/Mac OSX are secure about malware, which results in normal people thinking they can run whatever downloaded "because my OS is secure!".
But their OS *IS* secure.
Experiment:
Subject A is a Linux User. Subject B is a Mac User. Subject C is a Windows User.
Give all three subjects a new PC with their respective OS. Send them out on the internet with the mandate to freely download and install any software they wish. At the end of the experiment, which user do you think will have more malware?
So yes, Mac and Linux are more secure. And yes, they *can* download whatever they want. The Linux and Mac users' risks are not *ZERO*, but they are practically zero. While the Windows user's risk is *significantly* higher than zero.
Well, now you almost certainly point back to your original statement that this isn't due to any sort of inherent security, but merely due to market share. While I've refuted this already, in this particular instance it doesn't even matter. Linux and Mac OS X can actually be *less* inherently secure, but still be more secure, especially in the manner you've stated, in being able to "run whatever they download".
And before everyone jumps on the "but you can't get infected by just browsing on porn sites on linux!", why not? What was the last time you got infected by Windows vulnerability? Those attacks are usually against 3rd party programs like PDF or Flash. And guess what, those apps are on Linux too and are just as well exploitable.
No, they are not.
First off, many Windows exploits require no privilege escalation. Second, Windows is more homogenous, making it easier to write an exploit that will work across more installations. Linux varies quite a bit.
Third, and most importantly when it comes to malware, is the double-whammy of the Windows registry and insane systems and settings folder structures. Malware can actually *hide* in Windows quite easily. On Linux (and OS X), the system/settings folders are quite transparent and readily accessible. For a somewhat oversimplified comparison, if add/remove programs worked
Read 1984. Not just to get my joke, but it's also a great book. Plus you'll understand what people mean by Big Brother (it's *much* more sinister than just someone else taking care of you).
But the thief gets the benefits immediately, while the victim has to invoke the ponderous mechanisms of the state to benefit... which can be like being victimized again.
How is that any different than things are now, except without the ability to "invoke the ponderous mechanisms of the state"? (whatever that's supposed to mean)
Having some form of recourse is better than no form. As it stands right now, the ability to catch the criminal, or even *know* a crime has been committed, is very limited. With the proposal you are dismissing due to being either "ponderous", or of the "state" (it's hard to tell which bothers you most, perhaps you think the two always go together?), at least you can catch fraudulent activity pretty much *instantly* (the first purchase will initiate an email) which you can then use to prevent further damages, and with the CCTV footage, *possibly* catch the person (although admittedly, probably not).
Doesn't matter. The post clearly shows (if accurate) that Arrington owns a piece of the intellectual property that make up the CrunchPad.
So, patents are *good* today? It's tough to keep track...
Seriously, Arrington clearly bit off *far* more than he could chew. Any jackass can "invent" a tablet. "10 inch screen, wireless, touch input, long battery life, less than $300!" How hard is that? The hard part is actually designing, manufacturing, and bringing the product to market. Those things are *very* difficult. That's why all those great ideas everyone comes up with never happen.
Arrington's posts about the CrunchPad were *always* exaggerated and idealistic in tone. These are good signs that he was deluded and had a fantasy of grandeur. This was compounded by the slashdot-types who would *love* a CrunchPad.
Arrington clearly had the desire, the drive and the imagination, and even that's a lot. After all, he got a lot further than any of us would have. But he clearly didn't have what it takes to make the product real. If the product *really* was just "days away" from production, and if he *really* has done all the work people are attributing to him, he could just take his project to someone else. But he can't, because he really *didn't* do as much as he thought, and he really *wasn't* just days away from production.
Too bad, too. Because the CrunchPad sure did *sound* like a great *idea*.
In a third world country it costs something like $10,000 per year for the broadband connection needed to make such a netbook work, so it isn't viable from the customer's point of view.
The real question is, how much does it cost to make up numbers about costs in a third world country?
Slashdot Mirror
And gaming! I predict 2010 will be the year Apple becomes the gaming platform of choice for trust-fund babies, unpublished writers who hang at Intelligentsia and men who tweeze their eyebrows.
Game availability for Mac OS X isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be. While the breadth of games for Windows is vastly greater, in terms of games that make me want to install Boot Camp, or build a gaming PC, the majority have Mac versions already, or in production (Blizzard, ID, EA, BioWare). Even indy games (like World of Goo, Braid, and pending, Torchlight), as well as "niche" games, like EVE and Warhammer Online.
Anyway, my point is simply that on the Mac, you give up being a hardcore gamer, but you don't give up games nearly so strongly as hardcore gamers tend to imply.
Additionally, there's Boot Camp and CrossOver (and even VMware which has surprisingly good DirectX support) which makes pretty much any game playable on the Mac itself (although not necessarily Mac OS X).
That's not to say the Mac gaming realm is nearly as broad and deep as on Windows, but your view is more than a bit askew.
On the desktop!
It will be the year of Mac on the Desktop. And about time, too!
Um, it's always been the "year of Mac on the desktop" since 1984 (although with an arguable absence during the mid to late '90s).
The "year of Linux on the desktop" *doesn't* mean it beats Windows, it just means it's a reasonable choice. As good as Linux is, and as much as there *are* people who quite happily run Linux as their primary desktop OS, it's not something that could really be called a broadly acceptable reasonable choice for the desktop.
The Mac, on the other hand, has *always* been a reasonable choice even throughout the '90s.
Apple already owns the online music distribution and playing industry and the high end professional computing industry (programming, design, scientific computing, high performance computing, etc.. basically anyone who needs a computer for serious work)
Wow, what are you smoking?
Depends on what he means by "owns", and ignoring the hyperbole (the "serious work" part is especially egregious, just like when "business" or gamers make the same claim in reverse), he's got a point. The programming one is a bit confusing, but the others are pretty accurate.
Open Source toys like VLC really cannot compete at a professional level with stuff like Quicktime
Wait, Quicktime is your example of a successful "professional" Apple tool?
You're being sarcastic, right? C'mon, stop playing...
If he means QuickTime, then he's correct. Odds are any movie you see and song you hear made its way through QuickTime.
If instead he means the QuickTime Player, then his point really depends on the point of view. From the point of a view of a video player that has a "swiss army knife" utility to it, VLC tramples QuickTime Player, but in terms of both UI, and quality of the codecs it does support, QuickTime Player handily beats VLC. This is on the Mac, of course. On Windows, I suspect the UI aspect isn't as starkly contrasted, and while QuickTime Player may be more polished than VLC, VLC is more Windows-ish.
Pardon, but being "*rarely* killed" is still being 'killed' nonetheless.
That's a meaningless statement. *Everyone* "rarely" gets killed on the job, unless it's more often than that. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Garbage men and taxi drivers are both more dangerous professions.
Don't fuck with cops when things get stressful. It ain't smart. Wait 'til later, out of the stressful and high-strung situation, and you can be much more effective at whatever your intended purpose is.
In other words, when the adrenalin is flowing, it's *not* OK to ask a cop a question, but it *is* OK for a cop to beat you? Why is it the innocent citizen's obligation to be subservient to the cop?
Ask Mandela if he was able to do more from inside his jail cell, than from without.
Mandela was a political prisoner. Watt was beaten. Mandela was the head/figurehead of a movement. Watt was just one of countless people beaten by the police today.
Why is that relevant? Statistically speaking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "rarely" killed in the line of duty. So I guess they don't have any reason to fear death when they go out on patrol?
This is apples and oranges. They are in locations where they are shot at every day. They aren't surviving for lack of attempts on their life. In the case of the border guard, how many times do you think he's been shot at? Yeah, I don't know either, but I'll bet it's extremely low. I'll be even further that the times he's been shot at by someone simply asking him a question is even lower, and even lower still, from people who he's beating and then throwing into a cell.
A police officer has to worry about taking a bullet every single time he has an interaction with someone.
Bull. Shit. He has as much to worry about taking a bullet "every single time he has an interaction with someone" as I do. There are *some* interactions that are riskier than others, but it's absurd to state he has to fear every encounter.
Have you ever known that kind of fear?
Yes. And no, I won't elaborate, except that it's none of your business.
Suck it up and do what they tell you. If the abuse was particularly egregious then do the American thing and sue the hell out of them at a later date.
Fuck that. It shouldn't get to that point in the first place. While there are definitely some insane people who provoke cops for no apparent reason, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who asked a boarder guard what's going on, then got a beating for it. Even if he was confrontational, the cop's response *was* atrocious.
We've got to quit treating the police like gods. They're men. Bad things happen when you treat classes of men as gods.
Don't be a douche bag, know something about what you are talking about.
This year, 115 police officers have died in the line of duty. Half of those deaths were accidental or medical.
In terms of deaths on the job, police officer doesn't even make the top ten.
I stand by my statement. Police officers *are* rarely killed on the job. 50 people died as a result of tazering this year, and that's just *tazering*. Police kill more people that don't need killing than they themselves are killed. From a strictly numerical point of view, an innocent citizen being confronted by the police is more likely to be killed than a police officer is to be deliberately killed by an assailant.
Yet, in spite of this, we are supposed to bow down to the police who have chosen such a "dangerous" occupation, but when they attack an innocent citizen, no big whoop, they probably had it coming because they asked a question or something.
PS - Government police forces are supported by taxes. Quit voting for the guys who want to raise your taxes if you don't want government thugs to beat you up.
In a two-party system, what are you supposed to do when both parties support shit like this?
If you talk back, disobey orders and give them a hard time, crap like this will most likely happen to you because you escalate the situation and make the lives of people who already have miserable jobs more miserable. That's not an excuse, but don't be surprised when stuff like this happens.
But saying, "don't be surprised when stuff like this happens" *IS* an excuse.
He wouldn't have, say, raised his voice and shoved an officer, and gotten belligerent when they tried to restrain him, right?
Hell, maybe he pulled a knife, or reached for the officer's gun? Who knows, right?
Or maybe, he did what countless people find to be a big mistake day after day, and dared to ask an armed man who's above the law a question he doesn't want to answer. You know how sometimes you encounter someone in retail (or other similar customer-facing professions) who doesn't want to alter from the standard way of doing something? Either due to lack of imagination, boredom, incompetency, or merely not wanting to put up with this shit right now? Imagine if that person was armed and allowed to not only beat and imprison you, but then file charges on you after it's all over? Are you *sure* you want to calmly, but confidently suggest that why can't you order the taco supreme combo, but have one of the tacos be a regular one since the only difference is no sour cream?
Of course he didn't resist arrest, did he?
Arrest for what? He was at the border, he wasn't leaving.
Getting out of the car uninvited is an aggressive act. How were the officers to know whether or not he was a threat.
So beating him, imprisoning him, then threatening to charge him for assault (an almost inevitable side-effect of being beaten), is a measured response for people with guns, when confronted by a man with the audacity to make the terrifyingly aggressive action of exiting his car?
Is your sig meant to be ironic?
[post in favor of beating someone for getting out of his car, asking a question, then not getting back into his car]
--
Revive the Constitution
Now, when a police officer is in a situation like that, he usually likes to have complete control of the situation (understandable, since sometimes they end up dead when things get out of control).
This is a common myth. Police officers are *rarely* killed on the job. And border guards? I'm sure it must happen, but it seems it must be exceptionally rare in their case. But somehow that's given as an excuse when they beat the shit out of someone for *daring* to ask a question.
If he feels like you are trying to take control, things can escalate quickly.
"Take control"? The border guards have fucking guns. More to the point, they beat and imprisoned the guy. Even further, they can press charges against him. What did he do? Asked a question? HOW DARE HE!
It would have been better for our author friend to instead get back in the car.
No, it would have been much, much worse. The worst thing one can do in the face of fascism is to acquiesce. Worst thing for society, specifically. Whether backing down or not was something he should do personally depends on how much he cares about personal liberty and what exactly he did. If all he did was ask a question, I can't see any way in which he should have known better.
Also it's worth noting that in some jurisdictions, assault doesn't have to be physical, it can be verbal. So if you do end up in a similar situation, the best thing is to be calm and acquiescent in the moment, and then sue the hell out of them later.
Shit, in some cases, assault can be a dirty look. But you're right, the best thing to do is be a good little slave and bow to your masters...
prevented the millennial bomber. No small thing.
So, you're saying Watts was going to bomb the US? Because that's what your logic implies.
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up?
Most of what is responsible for the success of the iPhone--Mach, Objective-C, the GUI, MP3 players, multitouch, the app store, song recommendations, phone cameras--was invented elsewhere and simply copied ("stolen") by Apple. So, yes, maybe Apple should just lose the patent case and pay up; there's a good chance that they really do owe the money.
Do please elaborate on the *actual* parties from whom Apple stole these technologies, and what grounds they'd have for a suit against Apple.
Apple is not doing this "because someone sued them". Apple made it clear that they were out to block Nokia from touch screen phones:
Nonsense. Nokia *has* touch screen phones. Apple did not sue them.
Apple has been building up for a patent war
Defensively, as evidenced by the fact that they did not sue first.
Nokia has no choice other than to strike before their N900 phones make them vulnerable.
That doesn't make any sense. How does initiating a suit about completely different technologies change anything with regards to touch screen patents? Nokia did not stave off a suit by their preemptive strike. In fact, they *brought it about*.
Remember Apple's lawsuit happy history was what caused the League for Programming Freedom.
Uh, that's a suit from twenty years ago, and one in which their partner (Microsoft) took proprietary knowledge from Apple to create a copy of their prized OS. This wasn't some sort of patent-troll style suit.
I guess the fact that so many seem to believe that Nokia is the agressor here
Because *they are*. They struck first. How is that so difficult?
(remember, they've been trying to Negotiate for years before this suit came out)
So, again, Nokia went after Apple first?
really does show that Apple can distort reality.
Those clever Apple folks! They can distort reality so completely that it wraps completely around on itself to where it started. Nokia struck first. Apple has been able to twist things so thoroughly that it even *looks* like Nokia struck first. Astounding!
I think you're kind of missing the point. We shouldn't be behaving like cave-men in the first place.
No, I see the point very clearly. The fact is, we *ARE* cavemen. You're right that we shouldn't act like them (in general), but when someone takes that first caveman act against you, often your only response is to sink to their level. To remain "above the fray" and not revert to cavemanism yourself just lets them have their way with you, which is exceptionally stupid.
But the nature of this corporate environment is hurting everyone (except the lawyers), so how long will it be before we can all evolve and pursue better things?
This isn't about nurturing the caveman-prone corporate environment, it's about what you do *within* the caveman-prone corporate environment.
Again, if someone punches you, you punch them right back, harder, until they stop. This is *not* the same as promoting the first punch.
Somehow, mankind as a whole needs to make a similar observation [cooperation benefits everyone].
Sort of. Competition benefits everyone as well. What doesn't benefit everyone (and in fact, often leads to a net benefit to no one), is cut-throught capitalism/corporatism. I'm with you on that, but do you expect Apple and Nokia to instead cooperate? That really makes no sense. Nokia's suit is a reactive, caveman-esque resort of a company in fear. I don't really blame them too much, other than that they should know that it's not a winning move. But again, given that Nokia did what they did, and that the world works the way it does, Apple's response is really just about the only rational one.
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up? The MAD patent defense is considered one of the "necessary evils" of the tech world.
When someone punches you, you punch back. Even if your principal is one of those idiots who, instead of trying to find out who thew the first punch, or who provoked who, just suspends both students.
They're not talking sense - they're promoting theft.
By definition, he isn't.
And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures
Fixed that for you.
Actually, your value is just an approximation (ignoring the rotation issue others have already brought up).
In terms of even an exceptionally long-lived human's lifetime, your value is equivalent to infinite.
Before I even begin, I'm going to point out that your use of the term "zealot" is childish and detracts from your argument before any actual facts and logic enter the equation. This is called "ad hominem" and is both a logical fallacy, and a dishonest argument tactic which adds *nothing* to the validity of your claim. I could just as easily say something like "Windows idiots think that...", which would be just as detrimental to may case.
It's been told to all the linux zealots so many times that Linux itself isn't really more secure against malware than Windows.
Correct that it's been told many times, but the thing being told is wrong. Linux itself *is* more secure against malware than Windows.
It's only so because it's marketshare is like 0.5%, if even that, and it makes much more sense to make malware where the (non-geeky) users are.
Wrong. If you s/only/partly/, then correct.
This just shows that if ever linux did gain marketshare with casual people enough, the malware problem will be there too. Repositories won't help with that, because people want 3rd party programs and games.
Yes, repositories will help. The reason is that repositories *overwhelmingly* provide the software that users will want. There will still be a demand for third-party software, just as there is now, but the demand will be *significantly* less than is currently the case for Windows.
In other words, Linux users have less desire to install software from outside of their distro's repository, and thus even if malware in third party software were to reach parity with the ratio in Windows software, Linux users will *still* be less likely to download and install spyware.
The funny thing about this is the same that as with Mac OS X users. All of the zealots yelling that Linux/Mac OSX are secure about malware, which results in normal people thinking they can run whatever downloaded "because my OS is secure!".
But their OS *IS* secure.
Experiment:
Subject A is a Linux User.
Subject B is a Mac User.
Subject C is a Windows User.
Give all three subjects a new PC with their respective OS. Send them out on the internet with the mandate to freely download and install any software they wish. At the end of the experiment, which user do you think will have more malware?
So yes, Mac and Linux are more secure. And yes, they *can* download whatever they want. The Linux and Mac users' risks are not *ZERO*, but they are practically zero. While the Windows user's risk is *significantly* higher than zero.
Well, now you almost certainly point back to your original statement that this isn't due to any sort of inherent security, but merely due to market share. While I've refuted this already, in this particular instance it doesn't even matter. Linux and Mac OS X can actually be *less* inherently secure, but still be more secure, especially in the manner you've stated, in being able to "run whatever they download".
And before everyone jumps on the "but you can't get infected by just browsing on porn sites on linux!", why not? What was the last time you got infected by Windows vulnerability? Those attacks are usually against 3rd party programs like PDF or Flash. And guess what, those apps are on Linux too and are just as well exploitable.
No, they are not.
First off, many Windows exploits require no privilege escalation. Second, Windows is more homogenous, making it easier to write an exploit that will work across more installations. Linux varies quite a bit.
Third, and most importantly when it comes to malware, is the double-whammy of the Windows registry and insane systems and settings folder structures. Malware can actually *hide* in Windows quite easily. On Linux (and OS X), the system/settings folders are quite transparent and readily accessible. For a somewhat oversimplified comparison, if add/remove programs worked
Read 1984. Not just to get my joke, but it's also a great book. Plus you'll understand what people mean by Big Brother (it's *much* more sinister than just someone else taking care of you).
This is a good think
It's also double plus ironic.
But the thief gets the benefits immediately, while the victim has to invoke the ponderous mechanisms of the state to benefit... which can be like being victimized again.
How is that any different than things are now, except without the ability to "invoke the ponderous mechanisms of the state"? (whatever that's supposed to mean)
Having some form of recourse is better than no form. As it stands right now, the ability to catch the criminal, or even *know* a crime has been committed, is very limited. With the proposal you are dismissing due to being either "ponderous", or of the "state" (it's hard to tell which bothers you most, perhaps you think the two always go together?), at least you can catch fraudulent activity pretty much *instantly* (the first purchase will initiate an email) which you can then use to prevent further damages, and with the CCTV footage, *possibly* catch the person (although admittedly, probably not).
Doesn't matter. The post clearly shows (if accurate) that Arrington owns a piece of the intellectual property that make up the CrunchPad.
So, patents are *good* today? It's tough to keep track...
Seriously, Arrington clearly bit off *far* more than he could chew. Any jackass can "invent" a tablet. "10 inch screen, wireless, touch input, long battery life, less than $300!" How hard is that? The hard part is actually designing, manufacturing, and bringing the product to market. Those things are *very* difficult. That's why all those great ideas everyone comes up with never happen.
Arrington's posts about the CrunchPad were *always* exaggerated and idealistic in tone. These are good signs that he was deluded and had a fantasy of grandeur. This was compounded by the slashdot-types who would *love* a CrunchPad.
Arrington clearly had the desire, the drive and the imagination, and even that's a lot. After all, he got a lot further than any of us would have. But he clearly didn't have what it takes to make the product real. If the product *really* was just "days away" from production, and if he *really* has done all the work people are attributing to him, he could just take his project to someone else. But he can't, because he really *didn't* do as much as he thought, and he really *wasn't* just days away from production.
Too bad, too. Because the CrunchPad sure did *sound* like a great *idea*.
In a third world country it costs something like $10,000 per year for the broadband connection needed to make such a netbook work, so it isn't viable from the customer's point of view.
The real question is, how much does it cost to make up numbers about costs in a third world country?