I get what you're saying. But for every Mac user who is biased against Windows, there is a Windows user who is afraid to look at a Mac because they afraid it won't do everything a PC can do.
I will say that having a faster & less buggy PDF support built into the OS made things that much easier, and the color management in OS X is better, at least compared to what your usual graphics card's Windows driver provides. And there's support for many RAW formats out of the box (I think with Vista it's an add-on but I use XP so I could be wrong). So there are some slight advantages but it's not like I didn't get by on Windows, and Microsoft is definitely trying to expand what they offer photographers and graphic arts people.
I should clarify: when I say makes I don't mean in the sense of creation or being, I mean it in the sense of being labeled as something. I can see why people got pissed off now. It was a bad choice of words.
I think that was his point...if you start criticizing Barok Obama (I don't know who he is but he must be pretty rockin') you immediately get down-modded.
Because I'd say most of the comments about the president resemble the one above..."you can't criticize Obama without a downmod", which immediately get modded +5. I believe they call that "facepalm" in other places.
I'm sure copyright did that. I don't like it anymore than you, but part of having that right is being able to transfer it, and nobody's going to outlaw a will.
But I still think you're falsely associating the product with who it's marketed to.
I have a MacBook Pro and I have Logic Pro and Adobe Creative Suite. The Adobe stuff I use in my job. But before I had a Mac I was using Cool Edit Pro for my music needs and the same Adobe products on Windows.
Adobe and Apple do have a sort of back-and-forth relationship AFAIK but CS is released on similar schedules for Windows and Mac platforms. I'm sure Premiere makes them some money but I have to believe that Photoshop and Illustrator are their bread and butter.
Also I used to go to college and I was always pretty normal. And at the time I had an AMD with Windows & Linux. I have been around a lot of computer platforms met a lot of people and I can't say I've discovered any correlation between the system and the type of person who uses it.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones, but it is a product that they developed, and that is how IP works. They do not have a monopoly on the cell phone market or the MID market, which are two of the most saturated spaces in the history of consumer electronics history.
The iPhone developers are generally crying out for more DRM, not less. They have plenty of platforms to choose from, but the iPhone user base is too large and tuned-in to pass up. And the closed nature of the platform is seen as a plus to many developers. They don't need your sympathy.
I like my devices and platforms open as well, and I'm happy to vote with my wallet. But I don't think Apple is any more wrong to close off their platform than, say, Nintendo. That is to say, maybe a little wrong, but it's their prerogative since they aren't breaking any laws and consumers are happy with it and know what they're getting.
For evidence of what I posted, look no further than the comment I replied to. He very clearly equated avoiding racial slurs with liberalism. You can't have it both ways. If people are going to turn everything into a political debate, then they need to be ok with the effects of that false dichotomy.
I wasn't equating conservatism with racism or anything as outlandish as that. I was saying that there is unfortunate connection in people's minds with empathy and liberalism, probably as a result of this need to draw party lines across every issue, combined with the conservative talk radio tradition of insulting anyone and everyone under the veneer of "telling it like it is."
You've really never heard the term "PC left?" How about "bleeding heart liberal?" Well, just so you know, they exist and are commonly used as insults here. Just like "feminazi" and "welfare queen." It's a non sequitur, sure. But are you really going to accuse little old me of being the originator? I'm just telling it like it is!
My viewpoint, FWIW, is that censorship is wrong in all cases. Also, that it is up to a store to decide what they want to sell, just as it is up to the individual to decide where to shop. It's only censorship when the government does it, or if the company in question is a monopoly. Apple is not.
What sort of language is foul depends on who's listening, and ear plugs are cheap, so this is a non-issue to me. But I'm happy to experience life unfiltered, so to speak.
Artist friendly because originally the best software for art & music ran on Macs first. Or Amigas, for that matter. Obviously that stopped being the case by the time XP came out, since PCs had caught up in terms of hardware and the Windows audience was over 90% and certainly not worth ignoring.
But you know that Pro Tools is released for PC as well, right? And that Adobe, as well as everyone else, treats the platforms more or less equally these days?
These are platforms that people get actual work on, this isn't XBox vs. Wii vs. PS3. You're not on SomeRandomGameNewsForum. And your only experience of Macs seems to be their TV ads. Seriously, get that teenage pissing contest shit out of here.
Yes but can't you install software without going to through the store? I'm not really sure since I've never had a WinMo device but I was under the impression that the store was a brand new thing designed to compete with Apple's setup.
So in order to protect ourselves from monopolies, we need to support a really, really big monopoly?
Ah, but there is a difference between a democracy and a stock corporation.
Plus, how does the power to regulate make the government a monopoly? It's derived in law, not in bank account. If the government took on the project itself and refused to allow competition, you might have a point. But we have the opposite situation here: monopoly status is indirectly or directly conferred upon otherwise normal companies, as is done with the USPS, and people are saying, why bother "regulating" if it just results in special treatment and handouts? Why not actually regulate, so that there is some semblance of competition, which is supposed to be a main benefit of privatization?
When a market has low or no barriers to entry, it is not called free but "perfectly competitive."
There are natural economies of scale that will always appear, even in a free market. It might be cheaper for one company to make one million widgets than for one thousand companies to make a thousand each.
A free market is one where prices are based on the intersection of supply and demand (as opposed to S&D combined with threat of force or regulation). Ideally everyone is rational and acts voluntarily.
If the barrier to entry is created by threat of force, or through market regulation, then we can say it doesn't belong in the free market, because there is an outside force controlling the market.
I agree with your larger point. We cannot have a free market when it comes to telecom infrastructure, or we wouldn't have finished roads. Which makes me wonder why these aren't all municipal projects to begin with. What makes a barely-regulated monopoly more economically useful than public works? It's not competition; they're even there. It's not citizen oversight, since only the latter has that one. I'd really like someone to explain to me how privatization in this area has a reason other than "the government and telcos got together to screw you." My cable company hasn't posted a profit since it went public 10 years ago. What's going to happen when they decide they can't run their infrastructure anymore? Another company, one we didn't sign these agreements with, swoops in and takes their place? That's ok?
I suppose the problem is that these things are not seen as necessary yet. Cable TV probably isn't, but I'd argue that the internet is, at least to a greater degree than whatever else is going over those lines.
Mod parent up. There is a very clear conspiracy among marine life to make Sonar look bad, for no other reason than to chip away at American military dominance.
Personally, I never met a dolphin I could trust. Slimy as all hell, and that should tell you something. You live in the ocean but you breathe water? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Why don't you go live on the moon, at the Apollo 11 "landing site."
The only citation I've seen of that point is from a CA radio show in the 80s. Not quite damning evidence.
The citation appears in an article called (get this) "The Swirl and the Swastika: NutraSweet & the Military-Medical-Industrial Complex" in a book of essays called Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, both by a guy named Alex Constantine.
Not too long ago there was a news story about a robber running into an NYC public school to evade police. He was carrying a gun, but the police were right behind him and eventually grabbed him.
Most of the man on the street interviews were people saying the kids should be locked in, but one innovative woman declared that there should be a gun stored in every teachers' desk in case of emergency.
There is no moral to this story, it's just that the idea of putting parachutes in skyscrapers in response to 9/11 sort of reminded me of that. I'm still waiting for the day when someone at TSA realizes that you can hide bombs under clothing and so everyone who travels by air is forced to do so naked. As long as you're not flying to Boca Raton it shouldn't be too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
I get what you're saying. But for every Mac user who is biased against Windows, there is a Windows user who is afraid to look at a Mac because they afraid it won't do everything a PC can do.
I will say that having a faster & less buggy PDF support built into the OS made things that much easier, and the color management in OS X is better, at least compared to what your usual graphics card's Windows driver provides. And there's support for many RAW formats out of the box (I think with Vista it's an add-on but I use XP so I could be wrong). So there are some slight advantages but it's not like I didn't get by on Windows, and Microsoft is definitely trying to expand what they offer photographers and graphic arts people.
I should clarify: when I say makes I don't mean in the sense of creation or being, I mean it in the sense of being labeled as something. I can see why people got pissed off now. It was a bad choice of words.
I think that was his point...if you start criticizing Barok Obama (I don't know who he is but he must be pretty rockin') you immediately get down-modded.
Because I'd say most of the comments about the president resemble the one above..."you can't criticize Obama without a downmod", which immediately get modded +5. I believe they call that "facepalm" in other places.
BTW: It's Barack.
I'm sure copyright did that. I don't like it anymore than you, but part of having that right is being able to transfer it, and nobody's going to outlaw a will.
everything
I disagree.
Man, I know people in the Navy, and they're really just a bunch of stoners. Quit trying to act like it was a set-up.
I was a bit too hard on you and I apologize.
But I still think you're falsely associating the product with who it's marketed to.
I have a MacBook Pro and I have Logic Pro and Adobe Creative Suite. The Adobe stuff I use in my job. But before I had a Mac I was using Cool Edit Pro for my music needs and the same Adobe products on Windows.
Adobe and Apple do have a sort of back-and-forth relationship AFAIK but CS is released on similar schedules for Windows and Mac platforms. I'm sure Premiere makes them some money but I have to believe that Photoshop and Illustrator are their bread and butter.
Also I used to go to college and I was always pretty normal. And at the time I had an AMD with Windows & Linux. I have been around a lot of computer platforms met a lot of people and I can't say I've discovered any correlation between the system and the type of person who uses it.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones, but it is a product that they developed, and that is how IP works. They do not have a monopoly on the cell phone market or the MID market, which are two of the most saturated spaces in the history of consumer electronics history.
The iPhone developers are generally crying out for more DRM, not less. They have plenty of platforms to choose from, but the iPhone user base is too large and tuned-in to pass up. And the closed nature of the platform is seen as a plus to many developers. They don't need your sympathy.
I like my devices and platforms open as well, and I'm happy to vote with my wallet. But I don't think Apple is any more wrong to close off their platform than, say, Nintendo. That is to say, maybe a little wrong, but it's their prerogative since they aren't breaking any laws and consumers are happy with it and know what they're getting.
For evidence of what I posted, look no further than the comment I replied to. He very clearly equated avoiding racial slurs with liberalism. You can't have it both ways. If people are going to turn everything into a political debate, then they need to be ok with the effects of that false dichotomy.
I wasn't equating conservatism with racism or anything as outlandish as that. I was saying that there is unfortunate connection in people's minds with empathy and liberalism, probably as a result of this need to draw party lines across every issue, combined with the conservative talk radio tradition of insulting anyone and everyone under the veneer of "telling it like it is."
You've really never heard the term "PC left?" How about "bleeding heart liberal?" Well, just so you know, they exist and are commonly used as insults here. Just like "feminazi" and "welfare queen." It's a non sequitur, sure. But are you really going to accuse little old me of being the originator? I'm just telling it like it is!
My viewpoint, FWIW, is that censorship is wrong in all cases. Also, that it is up to a store to decide what they want to sell, just as it is up to the individual to decide where to shop. It's only censorship when the government does it, or if the company in question is a monopoly. Apple is not.
What sort of language is foul depends on who's listening, and ear plugs are cheap, so this is a non-issue to me. But I'm happy to experience life unfiltered, so to speak.
Artist friendly because originally the best software for art & music ran on Macs first. Or Amigas, for that matter. Obviously that stopped being the case by the time XP came out, since PCs had caught up in terms of hardware and the Windows audience was over 90% and certainly not worth ignoring.
But you know that Pro Tools is released for PC as well, right? And that Adobe, as well as everyone else, treats the platforms more or less equally these days?
These are platforms that people get actual work on, this isn't XBox vs. Wii vs. PS3. You're not on SomeRandomGameNewsForum. And your only experience of Macs seems to be their TV ads. Seriously, get that teenage pissing contest shit out of here.
Yes but can't you install software without going to through the store? I'm not really sure since I've never had a WinMo device but I was under the impression that the store was a brand new thing designed to compete with Apple's setup.
On the other hand, I don't know of any Apple analogues to the Halloween documents. Everyone's evil in their own special way, I guess.
Wait, Steve Jobs personally rejected the NIN app? Do you have evidence for that?
It's really, really sad that in this country refraining from calling people niggers is a thing that automatically makes you a liberal.
How do you think they had time to learn all of those things? Not having sex sounds about right.
This is why I love Slashdot: lazy Saturday, talking about video cards, not even 100 posts up yet...
BAM! Godwin!
So in order to protect ourselves from monopolies, we need to support a really, really big monopoly?
Ah, but there is a difference between a democracy and a stock corporation.
Plus, how does the power to regulate make the government a monopoly? It's derived in law, not in bank account. If the government took on the project itself and refused to allow competition, you might have a point. But we have the opposite situation here: monopoly status is indirectly or directly conferred upon otherwise normal companies, as is done with the USPS, and people are saying, why bother "regulating" if it just results in special treatment and handouts? Why not actually regulate, so that there is some semblance of competition, which is supposed to be a main benefit of privatization?
Sorry, disregard my last statement, I misread what you said.
I agree, the free market does not have to be an ideal market. Just like how a manhole cover still works even if it's not a "perfect" circle.
When a market has low or no barriers to entry, it is not called free but "perfectly competitive."
There are natural economies of scale that will always appear, even in a free market. It might be cheaper for one company to make one million widgets than for one thousand companies to make a thousand each.
A free market is one where prices are based on the intersection of supply and demand (as opposed to S&D combined with threat of force or regulation). Ideally everyone is rational and acts voluntarily.
If the barrier to entry is created by threat of force, or through market regulation, then we can say it doesn't belong in the free market, because there is an outside force controlling the market.
I agree with your larger point. We cannot have a free market when it comes to telecom infrastructure, or we wouldn't have finished roads. Which makes me wonder why these aren't all municipal projects to begin with. What makes a barely-regulated monopoly more economically useful than public works? It's not competition; they're even there. It's not citizen oversight, since only the latter has that one. I'd really like someone to explain to me how privatization in this area has a reason other than "the government and telcos got together to screw you." My cable company hasn't posted a profit since it went public 10 years ago. What's going to happen when they decide they can't run their infrastructure anymore? Another company, one we didn't sign these agreements with, swoops in and takes their place? That's ok?
I suppose the problem is that these things are not seen as necessary yet. Cable TV probably isn't, but I'd argue that the internet is, at least to a greater degree than whatever else is going over those lines.
Prices are supposed to be set based on supply and demand, and the market needs to know both, accurately and instantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information
Yes.
Mod parent up. There is a very clear conspiracy among marine life to make Sonar look bad, for no other reason than to chip away at American military dominance.
Personally, I never met a dolphin I could trust. Slimy as all hell, and that should tell you something. You live in the ocean but you breathe water? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Why don't you go live on the moon, at the Apollo 11 "landing site."
The only citation I've seen of that point is from a CA radio show in the 80s. Not quite damning evidence.
The citation appears in an article called (get this) "The Swirl and the Swastika: NutraSweet & the Military-Medical-Industrial Complex" in a book of essays called Psychic Dictatorship in the USA, both by a guy named Alex Constantine.
It's good for a laugh, anyway.
Not too long ago there was a news story about a robber running into an NYC public school to evade police. He was carrying a gun, but the police were right behind him and eventually grabbed him.
Most of the man on the street interviews were people saying the kids should be locked in, but one innovative woman declared that there should be a gun stored in every teachers' desk in case of emergency.
There is no moral to this story, it's just that the idea of putting parachutes in skyscrapers in response to 9/11 sort of reminded me of that. I'm still waiting for the day when someone at TSA realizes that you can hide bombs under clothing and so everyone who travels by air is forced to do so naked. As long as you're not flying to Boca Raton it shouldn't be too bad.
There is but one course of action, and every day, every hour makes that much more clear.
Stop fighting over imaginary friends?