You've just defined "beat" into a meaningless term.
When people say that music has a "beat", they are referring to a subjective feeling, not "every time you introduce a new tone". At some point, while there's still technically some sort of rhythm, even if a non-repeating random "rhythm", it's absurd to call it a beat or a rhythm, except to show how the term isn't really an objective one, but really subjective, which is what music is in the first place.
Once you start treating subjective musical terms as objective, or take them literally, you end up with the absurdity of calling everything music. Music is often defined as rhythm and melody. You've just stated that everything with any sounds is rhythm, and melody can just be defined as a "series of different tones, even a series of one", ergo, any sound at all is music...
But that's not really true, is it? Unfortunately, for some, you can't objectively state that that's not true, only subjectively state it, which seems to throw them into a philosophical tailspin.
You are proving my point. There are other Macs with FireWire.
As for hanging a bunch of FireWire peripherals off of your Mac, you must admit that you are in the extreme minority. I would wager that less than 50% of FireWire ports shipped by Apple have ever been used.
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop.
Windows 7 is a response to Linux the same way Coke Zero is a response to Tab.
Windows 7 is a response to Vista. People turned down the bloated system that is Vista, so Microsoft has made promises to fix all the issues and release a new system in two years' time. But as is always the case, the promises will be forgotten and the release date will slip again and again. But Windows 8, now that's going to really rock...
Just wait until the PS3 is no longer popular and Sony shuts down the netplay servers. Wow... nobody'll then be able to play along or against each other. DRM at its finest.
This is not going to happen any time soon. But, let's say the day comes when PSN is shut down due to lack of popularity...
Who is going to care? It's no longer popular. Presumably that means everyone has moved on to whatever the new, popular gaming network is.
PSN works just fine. The DRM employed by Sony on the PS3 (as well as that on the Xbox 360 and the Wii) is not onerous.
This is not just an outdated, or soon to be outdated port. This is used, and it is replaced by nothing, and what remains is worse.
When FireWire came out, it was significantly better than SCSI, and for the longest time, USB was much, much worse than FireWire.
Now, USB2 is more than sufficient for most people's needs. The advantage of FireWire 400 over USB is extremely minimal, except for a few pro-type uses.
There are more USB cameras in use now than there are FireWire cameras. They're called digital cameras. Everyone has them and they virtually all take video.
Additionally, the vast majority of new video camera sales these days use USB. For the consumer, FireWire is a legacy interface.
While new devices that use firewire might be rare, I have no intention of replacing my camcorder just because Apple says I should.
Apple is saying no such thing. It's so silly that people get worked up about a product that doesn't support their particular need, especially when there's an alternative product that does.
FireWire is only required for older DV cameras, some high-end video production equipment, certain musical equipment, target disk mode, and certain aerospace applications which really have nothing to do with personal computers.
1. Older DV cameras (dwindling market) - Get a new one, or don't get a new MacBook. If you still want a Mac, there are both cheaper and more expensive Macs that will do what you need. However, if you are thinking of buying a MacBook Pro just for FireWire, and would actually prefer a smaller screen, you can buy a MacBook and a new video camera for the same or less than a MacBook Pro.
2. High-end video equipment (niche market) - tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in video equipment, with the level of income that goes with it, and you can't afford a MacBook Pro?
3. Musical equipment (niche, but potentially low-end market) - This is really the best case for FireWire on the non-high end MacBooks, and it's still pretty lame. It's an extremely niche market, and it's silly to cater to them at the expense of the average person on the specific model targeted directly at mass consumer.
4. TDM (not niche, but relatively geeky) - The hard drives are insanely easy to get to. A $20 enclosure and an extra 10 minutes tops.
5. Aerospace - Added for completeness.
The mass market has moved to USB. The MacBook is the mass market Mac notebook. You can still buy a higher end, and even a lower end Mac notebook with FireWire.
This does not signal the end of FireWire on Macs. It just signals the end of FireWire as standard on all Macs. If you want both a Mac and FireWire, there are still, and will be for some time to come, plenty of options.
That may have been true on CRT screens, but a TFT/LCD screen's "native" state is matte.
You're wrong. LCDs have no 'native' state. It's the outer surface material that determines whether the display is matte or glossy. Glossy surfaces can transmit the light from an LCD with extremely minimal quality reduction. Matte surfaces, by their very definition degrade the fidelity of the light coming through. This is absolutely no different than placing a roughened plastic sheet atop a glossy LCD, because that's exactly what makes a matte LCD a matte LCD.
That's what makes all these so-called "pro" photographers who are bitching about glossy displays so abysmally misguided.
I addressed this. Specifically, you're just hiding complexity behind a simple statement, and pretending the complexity no longer exists.
To quote you again:
Again all you care about is the results and the cost.
"The results", in this context, is meant to covey simplicity. You were refuting someone who was saying that the process might be interesting to someone. But just now you are rolling that back into "the results".
So, either it's just the end product, and the cost, or it's "the end product, including all related effects, such as environmental waste, aesthetics, neat-o processes, etc, and so on", which is the exact opposite of your initial statement.
There have been proof of concept viruses made for OS X, and real actual viruses. Do a google search, I found plenty.
There are zero viruses for the Mac.
The "proofs of concept" are either for holes that have been patched, or are trojans which require the user to actually run them (and enter their admin password). There have been a couple of trojans in the wild, but absolutely *ZERO* viruses.
I'm going to be waiting a good long time until apple starts introducing stiffening trusses. I'm pretty sure aluminum won't be as forgiving of that kind of structural distortion.
Go check out a MacBook Air. They are very rigid and non-bendy. Apple has solved any rigidity issues with their aluminum cases, and it looks like they are going to roll the new casing to all of their notebooks tomorrow.
The clue is the top part of the bottom case isn't a flat 'lid' that covers a 5-sided box, but is instead an upside-down 5-sided box, with the 'lid' attached to the bottom. And the way the 'lid' is attached is more rigid (at least, on the Air).
Again all you care about is the results and the cost. Which is the way things should be.
Neither statement is true. Many people are interested in the process (otherwise, there would be no rumors about it). Many people are concerned about secondary effects of the process (otherwise Greenpeace would have no support).
As for if that's how things should be, my opinion is the exact opposite. Caring solely about the end results, and the cost, is too limiting a mode of human existence. Or if you mean "end results" in a way that I'd agree with (such as, "the environmental impacts, the aesthetics, the neat-o factor of the process," etc.) it becomes so nebulous as to lose the tight meaning and focus the phrase has when used the way you have.
And cost. I'm not alone in being willing to pay more for things I value above those I value less, even for non-critical or non-primary reasons. Life's too precious and the possibilities are too wondrous to limit oneself to the cheapest solution which meets the primary requirements.
If, overnight OS X jumped to 90% market share, it would be torn to pieces. Security on OS X is nothing more than a facade.
By that logic, Linux is even worse. And don't even bring up BSD!
I've never understood this argument. If OS X was so insecure, why would hackers go after the paragon of security that is Windows (/sarcasm) and instead go after that 5% of computers whose security is "nothing more than a facade"?
Even if OS X was just *barely* secure enough to keep hackers going after the much more difficult, but more numerous, Windows user base, there would still be at least some actual Mac attacks.
The more likely explanation, though, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is a website primarily for free software and GNU/Linux news though.
Citation needed.
That's one part of what slashdot is for, and it seems likely that that's primarily why *you* are here, but that's not a universal. Besides, even if it *is* the primary reason for slashdot (it's not, but let's just pretend), then if there is a primary purpose, there would reasonably be articles with secondary purposes, like this one.
Some additional purposes of slashdot are:
1. Gaming 2. Sony bashing (this has waned significantly) 3. Fawning over Apple (what this article is about) 4. Security scaremongering 5. Predicting the death of various technologies 6. Tech politics etc.
I know in recent years that has weakened slightly, but I think the release of a bunch of software that everyone is encouraged to download, share, study, modify, run and distribute is somewhat different to 'proprietary software company release new model of their $2000 operating system dongle' in terms of its usefulness to society.
I agree. At least with OS X, society can actually use the system.
I submit that more people listen to music, share photos and videos, video chat, etc, because of Apple's hardware and software and than because of Linux. Maybe some day (a day which perpetually seems to be perpetually just ahead, like a horizon that can never be reached) Linux will catch up or surpass Apple's products, but until then, Apple is quite important to society.
On the other hand, more web sites function because of Linux than because of Apple's servers (although in this case, OS X is more able to replace Linux as a web server than Linux is able to replace OS X as a desktop OS).
In other words, each has its place here on slashdot.
What do you think happens in a recession, or even a depression? Do you think people walk around in sacks and barrels, barefoot? Do you think industry grinds to a halt and retools for discount potato peelers and barrel repair kits?
How many $500+ tech items did you buy last year? You don't go from that to barefoot, even in a depression. You go from that to half that.
From that to barefoot isn't a depression, that's a full economic collapse. It's riots in the streets.
Some people seem to be shocked that Apple would release new notebooks during this financial crisis. As if they think the best thing to do is just sell the same old notebooks instead. Same with this. Who knows is Apple is really going to release something like this or not, but if it's something they're planning, it's still something worth selling. It's not like Sony and Samsung, etc, are all going to just shut down their HDTV production.
So restricting your ability to close the software is not a restriction?
I never said it wasn't. I'm just pointing out that it's not the type of "restriction" that gets most people worked up.
But a license, by its very use and definition, creates restrictions.
No, it doesn't. Most do, but it's not a requirement.
There would be absolutely no purpose to a license that did not.
You don't understand how copyright works. If you create something, like a computer program, you have a copyright on it (in the US). In order for other people to be able to legally copy it or even use it, they need permission from you. They need a license.
i'm running a 4-year old Dell 2.8 GHz with 1 GB of RAM. it was a top of the line desktop when i first got it, but it can't hold a match against today's PCs, and i've rarely had any slowdowns due JavaScript alone. sure, if there's a digg discussion with 900+ comments, it'll take Firefox a few seconds to load it all, but those are extreme circumstances (though a little pagination would easily solve the problem) and not due to inherent complexity of the JavaScript implementation.
Turn JavaScript off, then re-open digg, and you'll notice the difference. It might not be enough to bother you, but it's very obvious on a side-by-side comparison.
This is sort of like comparing these netbooks to that Apple sub-notebook that has only one USB port and a power port, no other externally accessible I/O devices. Except that these netbooks are affordable and that Apple thing is, well, for yuppies to show off at the cafe.
No other I/O, except for audio, video, WiFi bluetooth, camera, microphone. Oh, and the "Apple thing" runs a full Core2Duo, not an Atom or C7.
The MacBook Air is like a "netbook pro". Very much like the Lenovo U110 (which is priced similarly to the Air).
Slashdot Mirror
You've just defined "beat" into a meaningless term.
When people say that music has a "beat", they are referring to a subjective feeling, not "every time you introduce a new tone". At some point, while there's still technically some sort of rhythm, even if a non-repeating random "rhythm", it's absurd to call it a beat or a rhythm, except to show how the term isn't really an objective one, but really subjective, which is what music is in the first place.
Once you start treating subjective musical terms as objective, or take them literally, you end up with the absurdity of calling everything music. Music is often defined as rhythm and melody. You've just stated that everything with any sounds is rhythm, and melody can just be defined as a "series of different tones, even a series of one", ergo, any sound at all is music...
But that's not really true, is it? Unfortunately, for some, you can't objectively state that that's not true, only subjectively state it, which seems to throw them into a philosophical tailspin.
You are proving my point. There are other Macs with FireWire.
As for hanging a bunch of FireWire peripherals off of your Mac, you must admit that you are in the extreme minority. I would wager that less than 50% of FireWire ports shipped by Apple have ever been used.
Consumers just aren't buying FireWire products.
Music, video, and hard drives are a niche market place on the mac.
No. Music production and video production are niche markets.
Hard drives work just fine via USB, and DV cameras are a dead-end technology, and very few people buy them anymore.
If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop.
Windows 7 is a response to Linux the same way Coke Zero is a response to Tab.
Windows 7 is a response to Vista. People turned down the bloated system that is Vista, so Microsoft has made promises to fix all the issues and release a new system in two years' time. But as is always the case, the promises will be forgotten and the release date will slip again and again. But Windows 8, now that's going to really rock...
Just wait until the PS3 is no longer popular and Sony shuts down the netplay servers. Wow... nobody'll then be able to play along or against each other. DRM at its finest.
This is not going to happen any time soon. But, let's say the day comes when PSN is shut down due to lack of popularity...
Who is going to care? It's no longer popular. Presumably that means everyone has moved on to whatever the new, popular gaming network is.
PSN works just fine. The DRM employed by Sony on the PS3 (as well as that on the Xbox 360 and the Wii) is not onerous.
This is not just an outdated, or soon to be outdated port. This is used, and it is replaced by nothing, and what remains is worse.
When FireWire came out, it was significantly better than SCSI, and for the longest time, USB was much, much worse than FireWire.
Now, USB2 is more than sufficient for most people's needs. The advantage of FireWire 400 over USB is extremely minimal, except for a few pro-type uses.
They did. All their most recent mice, including the trackpad, are "no-button" mice.
Or, you know, a whole six other models of computers which have FireWire, including a 13.3" MacBook.
Not to mention, Apple hasn't "killed" FireWire. They've just removed it from one of their products.
There are more USB cameras in use now than there are FireWire cameras. They're called digital cameras. Everyone has them and they virtually all take video.
Additionally, the vast majority of new video camera sales these days use USB. For the consumer, FireWire is a legacy interface.
No, I'm saying that it's OK for Apple to make a product or two that doesn't cater to their niche users.
It's not like Apple said, "we're dropping FireWire, so suck it!" They've just dropped FireWire from one of their models.
What's more, they even still sell a 13" MacBook that has FireWire.
While new devices that use firewire might be rare, I have no intention of replacing my camcorder just because Apple says I should.
Apple is saying no such thing. It's so silly that people get worked up about a product that doesn't support their particular need, especially when there's an alternative product that does.
FireWire is only required for older DV cameras, some high-end video production equipment, certain musical equipment, target disk mode, and certain aerospace applications which really have nothing to do with personal computers.
1. Older DV cameras (dwindling market) - Get a new one, or don't get a new MacBook. If you still want a Mac, there are both cheaper and more expensive Macs that will do what you need. However, if you are thinking of buying a MacBook Pro just for FireWire, and would actually prefer a smaller screen, you can buy a MacBook and a new video camera for the same or less than a MacBook Pro.
2. High-end video equipment (niche market) - tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in video equipment, with the level of income that goes with it, and you can't afford a MacBook Pro?
3. Musical equipment (niche, but potentially low-end market) - This is really the best case for FireWire on the non-high end MacBooks, and it's still pretty lame. It's an extremely niche market, and it's silly to cater to them at the expense of the average person on the specific model targeted directly at mass consumer.
4. TDM (not niche, but relatively geeky) - The hard drives are insanely easy to get to. A $20 enclosure and an extra 10 minutes tops.
5. Aerospace - Added for completeness.
The mass market has moved to USB. The MacBook is the mass market Mac notebook. You can still buy a higher end, and even a lower end Mac notebook with FireWire.
This does not signal the end of FireWire on Macs. It just signals the end of FireWire as standard on all Macs. If you want both a Mac and FireWire, there are still, and will be for some time to come, plenty of options.
That may have been true on CRT screens, but a TFT/LCD screen's "native" state is matte.
You're wrong. LCDs have no 'native' state. It's the outer surface material that determines whether the display is matte or glossy. Glossy surfaces can transmit the light from an LCD with extremely minimal quality reduction. Matte surfaces, by their very definition degrade the fidelity of the light coming through. This is absolutely no different than placing a roughened plastic sheet atop a glossy LCD, because that's exactly what makes a matte LCD a matte LCD.
That's what makes all these so-called "pro" photographers who are bitching about glossy displays so abysmally misguided.
One should just be careful with the requirements.
I addressed this. Specifically, you're just hiding complexity behind a simple statement, and pretending the complexity no longer exists.
To quote you again:
Again all you care about is the results and the cost.
"The results", in this context, is meant to covey simplicity. You were refuting someone who was saying that the process might be interesting to someone. But just now you are rolling that back into "the results".
So, either it's just the end product, and the cost, or it's "the end product, including all related effects, such as environmental waste, aesthetics, neat-o processes, etc, and so on", which is the exact opposite of your initial statement.
There have been proof of concept viruses made for OS X, and real actual viruses. Do a google search, I found plenty.
There are zero viruses for the Mac.
The "proofs of concept" are either for holes that have been patched, or are trojans which require the user to actually run them (and enter their admin password). There have been a couple of trojans in the wild, but absolutely *ZERO* viruses.
I'm going to be waiting a good long time until apple starts introducing stiffening trusses. I'm pretty sure aluminum won't be as forgiving of that kind of structural distortion.
Go check out a MacBook Air. They are very rigid and non-bendy. Apple has solved any rigidity issues with their aluminum cases, and it looks like they are going to roll the new casing to all of their notebooks tomorrow.
The clue is the top part of the bottom case isn't a flat 'lid' that covers a 5-sided box, but is instead an upside-down 5-sided box, with the 'lid' attached to the bottom. And the way the 'lid' is attached is more rigid (at least, on the Air).
Again all you care about is the results and the cost. Which is the way things should be.
Neither statement is true. Many people are interested in the process (otherwise, there would be no rumors about it). Many people are concerned about secondary effects of the process (otherwise Greenpeace would have no support).
As for if that's how things should be, my opinion is the exact opposite. Caring solely about the end results, and the cost, is too limiting a mode of human existence. Or if you mean "end results" in a way that I'd agree with (such as, "the environmental impacts, the aesthetics, the neat-o factor of the process," etc.) it becomes so nebulous as to lose the tight meaning and focus the phrase has when used the way you have.
And cost. I'm not alone in being willing to pay more for things I value above those I value less, even for non-critical or non-primary reasons. Life's too precious and the possibilities are too wondrous to limit oneself to the cheapest solution which meets the primary requirements.
If, overnight OS X jumped to 90% market share, it would be torn to pieces. Security on OS X is nothing more than a facade.
By that logic, Linux is even worse. And don't even bring up BSD!
I've never understood this argument. If OS X was so insecure, why would hackers go after the paragon of security that is Windows (/sarcasm) and instead go after that 5% of computers whose security is "nothing more than a facade"?
Even if OS X was just *barely* secure enough to keep hackers going after the much more difficult, but more numerous, Windows user base, there would still be at least some actual Mac attacks.
The more likely explanation, though, is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is a website primarily for free software and GNU/Linux news though.
Citation needed.
That's one part of what slashdot is for, and it seems likely that that's primarily why *you* are here, but that's not a universal. Besides, even if it *is* the primary reason for slashdot (it's not, but let's just pretend), then if there is a primary purpose, there would reasonably be articles with secondary purposes, like this one.
Some additional purposes of slashdot are:
1. Gaming
2. Sony bashing (this has waned significantly)
3. Fawning over Apple (what this article is about)
4. Security scaremongering
5. Predicting the death of various technologies
6. Tech politics
etc.
I know in recent years that has weakened slightly, but I think the release of a bunch of software that everyone is encouraged to download, share, study, modify, run and distribute is somewhat different to 'proprietary software company release new model of their $2000 operating system dongle' in terms of its usefulness to society.
I agree. At least with OS X, society can actually use the system.
I submit that more people listen to music, share photos and videos, video chat, etc, because of Apple's hardware and software and than because of Linux. Maybe some day (a day which perpetually seems to be perpetually just ahead, like a horizon that can never be reached) Linux will catch up or surpass Apple's products, but until then, Apple is quite important to society.
On the other hand, more web sites function because of Linux than because of Apple's servers (although in this case, OS X is more able to replace Linux as a web server than Linux is able to replace OS X as a desktop OS).
In other words, each has its place here on slashdot.
You're right. His number 8 really should be at number 3.5. In fact, had you done that, it would have been rather clever. Maybe next time.
Why not just wait until the actual news itself?
Because people read/click on the rumors? You certainly did.
What do you think happens in a recession, or even a depression? Do you think people walk around in sacks and barrels, barefoot? Do you think industry grinds to a halt and retools for discount potato peelers and barrel repair kits?
How many $500+ tech items did you buy last year? You don't go from that to barefoot, even in a depression. You go from that to half that.
From that to barefoot isn't a depression, that's a full economic collapse. It's riots in the streets.
Some people seem to be shocked that Apple would release new notebooks during this financial crisis. As if they think the best thing to do is just sell the same old notebooks instead. Same with this. Who knows is Apple is really going to release something like this or not, but if it's something they're planning, it's still something worth selling. It's not like Sony and Samsung, etc, are all going to just shut down their HDTV production.
So restricting your ability to close the software is not a restriction?
I never said it wasn't. I'm just pointing out that it's not the type of "restriction" that gets most people worked up.
But a license, by its very use and definition, creates restrictions.
No, it doesn't. Most do, but it's not a requirement.
There would be absolutely no purpose to a license that did not.
You don't understand how copyright works. If you create something, like a computer program, you have a copyright on it (in the US). In order for other people to be able to legally copy it or even use it, they need permission from you. They need a license.
i'm running a 4-year old Dell 2.8 GHz with 1 GB of RAM. it was a top of the line desktop when i first got it, but it can't hold a match against today's PCs, and i've rarely had any slowdowns due JavaScript alone. sure, if there's a digg discussion with 900+ comments, it'll take Firefox a few seconds to load it all, but those are extreme circumstances (though a little pagination would easily solve the problem) and not due to inherent complexity of the JavaScript implementation.
Turn JavaScript off, then re-open digg, and you'll notice the difference. It might not be enough to bother you, but it's very obvious on a side-by-side comparison.
This is sort of like comparing these netbooks to that Apple sub-notebook that has only one USB port and a power port, no other externally accessible I/O devices. Except that these netbooks are affordable and that Apple thing is, well, for yuppies to show off at the cafe.
No other I/O, except for audio, video, WiFi bluetooth, camera, microphone. Oh, and the "Apple thing" runs a full Core2Duo, not an Atom or C7.
The MacBook Air is like a "netbook pro". Very much like the Lenovo U110 (which is priced similarly to the Air).