The point is that Windows was seen as a competitor back then. Apple thought the only way they were able to survive was by defeating Windows and convincing every Windows user the MacOS was better. These days Apple acknowledges there is no competition, that people with their mind set on Windows are unlikely to change that mind, and instead focus just to show case their OS and computers to new generations that are buying for the first time, no longer trying to steal existing consumers from Microsoft.
The age where AMD offered slower but better performance per dollar chips is long gone. I used to build all my PCs with AMD back in the day, but they stayed behind the day the multi-core chips became the trend, becoming too expensive for the no-longer-just-slight performance lag.
I have to say I am not sure what is the current stance Catholic Church has on Adam and Eve, but I grew up in a Catholic household and always had it presented as a form of fable to me, one that notes how human nature is that our curiosity tends to make us break established laws and rules.
First: comparing the Catholic church of today to the Catholic church that set Galileo to life-long house arrest, is worse than saying Germans are all jewish hating nazis based on their stance during WW2. The crime is not only much more distant but its nowhere near as grave as the one history has passed on to today's Germany. Unless you have contemporary accounts of Catholic church oppressing scientists, your quote is as out of place as me claiming that Germans today are anti-jewish.
That out of the way, here is some reading material (you REALLY should read this unless you are as closed minded as the creationists you likely dislike):
A five-day conference held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[35]
The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. Commentators tend to interpret the Church's position in the way most favorable to their own arguments. The ITC statement includes these paragraphs on evolution, the providence of God, and "intelligent design" (bolded emphasis mine):
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ulti
What mutually exclusive theories? A church that believes in evolution does not believe in humanity actually being created one day out of God's will. Adam and Eve is not history, its a fable.
If you can also believe there is a God, you can believe in artificial evolution taking a part on human evolution, just like we as humans have caused the artificial evolution of chickens, cows and dogs, between many others.
Not me supporting the god+evolution combination, just claiming it can be compatible as long as you are not as narrow minded about the people that believe in the combination as creationists are about evolution.
Even Catholic Church does not take the Bible entirely literally. Although some call it BS, some religious groups (and even the Catholic Church is extremely regionalized so I cant talk for all of it) stories like Adam and Eve's are meant to simply be symbolic, not literal. Heck, with a talking snake I think we can call it a fable.
In the case of Adam and Eve it's a story of how human curiosity usually will make him disobey established law. Religious believers seeking answers to many scientific questions have done the same over the course of history.
As for Jesus, thats a messier story, but he didn't really "die for our sins", he died for the freedom of the people at his time. Not much different from a Hippie version of William Wallace.
I like the take Babylon 5 took on this, and I'm not sure if it was an intentional parallel or not. G'kar writes a book with a lot of inspirational writing and it's found by his people who turn him into a religious icon. He, in life, is forced to try and slap a bit of common sense into his people but too many decide that every single word and line must hold true in isolation, not reading it all as a plain and simple biography. In a similar stance, science cant make the new testament worthless, it can just downgrade it to the glorified biography of an extremely important jewish man.
Again, many wont see it this way, but claiming you can't see the Bible this way, and still believe in a God, is a very narrow minded thing to do.
Although the word "Creationist" as a stand alone can fit many definitions (even the creator of video games, I found evidence Miyamoto is a God!) it is not so for religion. Creationism as a religious concept is rather well defined as the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being in a direct form.
It's not dishonest, its perfectly natural. Humans have a natural predisposition to fill the unknown with the supernatural. What happens to the consciousness after death? Becomes ghosts? Reincarnates in other bodies? Goes to heaven? Same thing that happened to last night's dinner? The first guesses people make naturally are to think of the supernatural.
Education takes years and even if you are not educated in a specific God, you will likely make your own entity or supernatural line of belief that covers the blanks until your curiosity to understand such force leads you to the truth.
Some one's hope that there is a God and life after death does not always overrides any logic that takes historical influence over our lives. Many will accept scientific evidence as proof that either God was not responsible, or at worst reason the evidence shows how God did it. It's like believing a killer is guilty and finding the murder weapon.
Few (on a global scale) are as stubborn as the american non-denominational churches that are stuck in their mindset that all is written and must be taken literally and never accept proven facts.
Now I'm derailing a bit so lets just end back on the point: believing in god and accepting scientific answers to the unknown is not dishonest, its simply the nature of the curious human being that still has many more blanks to fill in.
Although grown as a Catholic, I don't exactly follow it off late, and unlike most religions, Catholic Church changes their stance on many things all the time (They evolve!!!:P)
That being told, evolution can still be scientifically proven if it was not entirely natural. We ourselves have been the cause of artificial evolution for millennia. If you do believe in God as an intelligent being that historically intervened with life at least three times (Noah, Meioses, Jesus) why would he not poke around and selectively encourage mating of select individuals until a recognizable human evolved? It would be supported by science, if science could accept the existence of a god first.
Clarification point: I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is possible believe God intervened with evolution in a way that does not contradict science.
Would not matter. I bet people would still pirate games even if they were 99c. iPhone and Android game piracy is evidence of this. Heck, I bet people would still pirate games even if they were free, if only to "avoid the inconvenience of agreeing with an user agreement or download from the publisher website/service."
No product is entirely secure, browsers are getting patched all the time due to people finding new vulnerabilities. This covers all browsers, Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera and even Chrome.
What @#$@#$^ me off, is being forced to keep watch on two fronts for my security. If i'm using my browser, I'd wish the only thing I was able to blame for an exploit was the browser itself. With stupid plugins that web designers feel they must force visitors to use, they force me to double the potential exploitable entry points. Can we kill Flash already?
Visual Studio development environment is the best IDE on the market.
Just because you've only actively used that one, doesn't make it "the best IDE on the market".
I, for one, have used quite a few in 3 different platforms and I have no patience for visual studio and I cringe every time I have to do anything ".NET".
I am a huge "Apple Fanboi". I started my non-educational development with CodeWarrior back in 1998. I worked with the horrendous IDE apple provided back in the pre-OSX days and also with RealBasic. I have worked with XCode. I have worked with Eclipse, and I have worked with Visual Studio. Visual Studio has, for me, been the best IDE in the world. Fast, responsive, the best auto-complete I have tried, and the debugger is just a bliss to work with.
Your closing comment, though, makes it sound like your grudge is not with the IDE but with.NET. If you can't isolate one from the other then you can't make an objective call on the quality of any IDE, your view will always be biased by the language you are coding in.
Funny... I just blacklisted Experts-Exchange on my very first search... before I read this article/summary. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking it is the main scourge of the internet.:)
They were the first site I thought to block when I read about this somewhere else too!
It's funny how they tend to be so high up in ranking yet seem to be universally hated. I do remember some one telling me once that the service is worth the money, but I just dont trust them.
Like it or not, Apple has 3 percent worldwide desktop marketshare and falling, and is the laughing stock of the computing world with their utterly useless iPad.
Unless you're a sad apologist for an extortionate and evil company (as Tharsman is) then stories like this are of no interest.
14,790,000 units sold in 2010. Assuming they only sold their two cheapest models in equal quantities and not one unit of the most expensive ones, we talking about 8,356,350,000 dollars. 8.36 billion dollars. If thats what how the computer industry rewards the laughing stock of the world, heck, I'll put on the red nose as long as people send in the free money!
Like it or not, Apple is selling these iOS devices in huge quantities. Even if Android total sales douobled iOS, we would still be talking about one companny mass manufacturing 33% of the sold units. As anyone knows, with such high production numbers, you can save a lot of money by buying parts at discount prices.
The funny part is that Samsung is the one selling the LCDs to Apple. If there is one company you may think be able to challenge them in pricing, it would be them.
The SD slot isn't broken, it is just problematic with the fast release of Android 3.0. It will be "fixed" pretty soon, I am sure.
Flash will be available in a few weeks according to pretty reliable sources.
In other words: Android 3 was released in beta state, with at least two important features missing: sd card reading and Flash.
Apple doesn't have Flash anyway, so that is a poor comparison point.
He did not compare Flash, he stated that it's a promoted feature that is missing at launch, making it feel like a Beta.
4G modem only matters on the overpriced non-WiFi-only model, which few people want.
If few want that model, then there is no Xoom for anyone else that cares since the wifi only model has not been released yet.
Not that I am defending Motorola... they pushed the product out a little too quickly. They were desperate to beat Apple's release of the iPad2. And they made it, but so what? Since they didn't release the WiFi-only version, which is what 90% (?) of prospective customers want, it is a hollow "victory". I just wouldn't characterize the Xoom as "crippled" like you did.
My theory, for the little it's worth, is that Motorola found out about the iPad 2 release date and rushed release of an unfinished unit in hopes launching before the iPad 2 was announced would help build momentum.
I would not call the Xoom crippled, but I xure call it a beta release. As for your note on people wanting the wifi mostly, perhaps if true that is likely due to price. As it stands, the 3G iPad outsells the wifi one, despite being 130 dollars more expensive. I'd say a portable tablet with constant connection appears to be in higher demand than a wifi only alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that Windows was seen as a competitor back then. Apple thought the only way they were able to survive was by defeating Windows and convincing every Windows user the MacOS was better. These days Apple acknowledges there is no competition, that people with their mind set on Windows are unlikely to change that mind, and instead focus just to show case their OS and computers to new generations that are buying for the first time, no longer trying to steal existing consumers from Microsoft.
Or just a few home made sex films with various women that were found by your wife and result in divorce.
The age where AMD offered slower but better performance per dollar chips is long gone. I used to build all my PCs with AMD back in the day, but they stayed behind the day the multi-core chips became the trend, becoming too expensive for the no-longer-just-slight performance lag.
Hmmm an open graphic library.... There is an idea!
If you care, and don't just want to pretend Apple is EEEEVILL, you can easily find the reasons.
Here is a link to make it easier.
Short version: Security. Nitro uses JIT and that allows javascript to access memory as a native application.
I have to say I am not sure what is the current stance Catholic Church has on Adam and Eve, but I grew up in a Catholic household and always had it presented as a form of fable to me, one that notes how human nature is that our curiosity tends to make us break established laws and rules.
I call ignorance
First: comparing the Catholic church of today to the Catholic church that set Galileo to life-long house arrest, is worse than saying Germans are all jewish hating nazis based on their stance during WW2. The crime is not only much more distant but its nowhere near as grave as the one history has passed on to today's Germany. Unless you have contemporary accounts of Catholic church oppressing scientists, your quote is as out of place as me claiming that Germans today are anti-jewish.
That out of the way, here is some reading material (you REALLY should read this unless you are as closed minded as the creationists you likely dislike):
A five-day conference held in March 2009 by the Pontifical University in Rome, marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, generally confirmed the lack of conflict between evolutionary theory and Catholic theology, and the rejection of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars.[35] The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
The Church's stance is that any such gradual appearance must have been guided in some way by God, but the Church has thus far declined to define in what way that may be. Commentators tend to interpret the Church's position in the way most favorable to their own arguments. The ITC statement includes these paragraphs on evolution, the providence of God, and "intelligent design" (bolded emphasis mine):
In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ulti
What mutually exclusive theories? A church that believes in evolution does not believe in humanity actually being created one day out of God's will. Adam and Eve is not history, its a fable.
If you can also believe there is a God, you can believe in artificial evolution taking a part on human evolution, just like we as humans have caused the artificial evolution of chickens, cows and dogs, between many others.
Not me supporting the god+evolution combination, just claiming it can be compatible as long as you are not as narrow minded about the people that believe in the combination as creationists are about evolution.
Even Catholic Church does not take the Bible entirely literally. Although some call it BS, some religious groups (and even the Catholic Church is extremely regionalized so I cant talk for all of it) stories like Adam and Eve's are meant to simply be symbolic, not literal. Heck, with a talking snake I think we can call it a fable.
In the case of Adam and Eve it's a story of how human curiosity usually will make him disobey established law. Religious believers seeking answers to many scientific questions have done the same over the course of history.
As for Jesus, thats a messier story, but he didn't really "die for our sins", he died for the freedom of the people at his time. Not much different from a Hippie version of William Wallace.
I like the take Babylon 5 took on this, and I'm not sure if it was an intentional parallel or not. G'kar writes a book with a lot of inspirational writing and it's found by his people who turn him into a religious icon. He, in life, is forced to try and slap a bit of common sense into his people but too many decide that every single word and line must hold true in isolation, not reading it all as a plain and simple biography. In a similar stance, science cant make the new testament worthless, it can just downgrade it to the glorified biography of an extremely important jewish man.
Again, many wont see it this way, but claiming you can't see the Bible this way, and still believe in a God, is a very narrow minded thing to do.
Although the word "Creationist" as a stand alone can fit many definitions (even the creator of video games, I found evidence Miyamoto is a God!) it is not so for religion. Creationism as a religious concept is rather well defined as the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being in a direct form.
It's not dishonest, its perfectly natural. Humans have a natural predisposition to fill the unknown with the supernatural. What happens to the consciousness after death? Becomes ghosts? Reincarnates in other bodies? Goes to heaven? Same thing that happened to last night's dinner? The first guesses people make naturally are to think of the supernatural.
Education takes years and even if you are not educated in a specific God, you will likely make your own entity or supernatural line of belief that covers the blanks until your curiosity to understand such force leads you to the truth.
Some one's hope that there is a God and life after death does not always overrides any logic that takes historical influence over our lives. Many will accept scientific evidence as proof that either God was not responsible, or at worst reason the evidence shows how God did it. It's like believing a killer is guilty and finding the murder weapon.
Few (on a global scale) are as stubborn as the american non-denominational churches that are stuck in their mindset that all is written and must be taken literally and never accept proven facts.
Now I'm derailing a bit so lets just end back on the point: believing in god and accepting scientific answers to the unknown is not dishonest, its simply the nature of the curious human being that still has many more blanks to fill in.
Although grown as a Catholic, I don't exactly follow it off late, and unlike most religions, Catholic Church changes their stance on many things all the time (They evolve!!! :P)
That being told, evolution can still be scientifically proven if it was not entirely natural. We ourselves have been the cause of artificial evolution for millennia. If you do believe in God as an intelligent being that historically intervened with life at least three times (Noah, Meioses, Jesus) why would he not poke around and selectively encourage mating of select individuals until a recognizable human evolved? It would be supported by science, if science could accept the existence of a god first.
Clarification point: I'm not saying this is the case, just that it is possible believe God intervened with evolution in a way that does not contradict science.
Not all atheist scientists believe in the big bang either.
Mind you, its not because of a "god", simply because of pure logic.
Believing in God does not make you a creationist. You can believe in God AND evolution. Catholic church has supported the theory for a long time.
WOOOOOSHHHHHH
Don't tempt the devil!
I don't think he is worrying about it. He is just calling out the absurdity of the article.
Would not matter. I bet people would still pirate games even if they were 99c. iPhone and Android game piracy is evidence of this. Heck, I bet people would still pirate games even if they were free, if only to "avoid the inconvenience of agreeing with an user agreement or download from the publisher website/service."
FACTS?! How dare you!? This is SLASHDOT!!! Take your facts somewhere else, Mr.!!!!
No product is entirely secure, browsers are getting patched all the time due to people finding new vulnerabilities. This covers all browsers, Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera and even Chrome.
What @#$@#$^ me off, is being forced to keep watch on two fronts for my security. If i'm using my browser, I'd wish the only thing I was able to blame for an exploit was the browser itself. With stupid plugins that web designers feel they must force visitors to use, they force me to double the potential exploitable entry points. Can we kill Flash already?
I want an Adobe Free web experience!!!
Visual Studio development environment is the best IDE on the market.
Just because you've only actively used that one, doesn't make it "the best IDE on the market". I, for one, have used quite a few in 3 different platforms and I have no patience for visual studio and I cringe every time I have to do anything ".NET".
I am a huge "Apple Fanboi". I started my non-educational development with CodeWarrior back in 1998. I worked with the horrendous IDE apple provided back in the pre-OSX days and also with RealBasic. I have worked with XCode. I have worked with Eclipse, and I have worked with Visual Studio. Visual Studio has, for me, been the best IDE in the world. Fast, responsive, the best auto-complete I have tried, and the debugger is just a bliss to work with.
Your closing comment, though, makes it sound like your grudge is not with the IDE but with .NET. If you can't isolate one from the other then you can't make an objective call on the quality of any IDE, your view will always be biased by the language you are coding in.
Funny... I just blacklisted Experts-Exchange on my very first search... before I read this article/summary. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking it is the main scourge of the internet. :)
They were the first site I thought to block when I read about this somewhere else too!
It's funny how they tend to be so high up in ranking yet seem to be universally hated. I do remember some one telling me once that the service is worth the money, but I just dont trust them.
Like it or not, Apple has 3 percent worldwide desktop marketshare and falling, and is the laughing stock of the computing world with their utterly useless iPad.
Unless you're a sad apologist for an extortionate and evil company (as Tharsman is) then stories like this are of no interest.
14,790,000 units sold in 2010. Assuming they only sold their two cheapest models in equal quantities and not one unit of the most expensive ones, we talking about 8,356,350,000 dollars. 8.36 billion dollars. If thats what how the computer industry rewards the laughing stock of the world, heck, I'll put on the red nose as long as people send in the free money!
Like it or not, Apple is selling these iOS devices in huge quantities. Even if Android total sales douobled iOS, we would still be talking about one companny mass manufacturing 33% of the sold units. As anyone knows, with such high production numbers, you can save a lot of money by buying parts at discount prices.
The funny part is that Samsung is the one selling the LCDs to Apple. If there is one company you may think be able to challenge them in pricing, it would be them.
The SD slot isn't broken, it is just problematic with the fast release of Android 3.0. It will be "fixed" pretty soon, I am sure.
Flash will be available in a few weeks according to pretty reliable sources.
In other words: Android 3 was released in beta state, with at least two important features missing: sd card reading and Flash.
Apple doesn't have Flash anyway, so that is a poor comparison point.
He did not compare Flash, he stated that it's a promoted feature that is missing at launch, making it feel like a Beta.
4G modem only matters on the overpriced non-WiFi-only model, which few people want.
If few want that model, then there is no Xoom for anyone else that cares since the wifi only model has not been released yet.
Not that I am defending Motorola... they pushed the product out a little too quickly. They were desperate to beat Apple's release of the iPad2. And they made it, but so what? Since they didn't release the WiFi-only version, which is what 90% (?) of prospective customers want, it is a hollow "victory". I just wouldn't characterize the Xoom as "crippled" like you did.
My theory, for the little it's worth, is that Motorola found out about the iPad 2 release date and rushed release of an unfinished unit in hopes launching before the iPad 2 was announced would help build momentum.
I would not call the Xoom crippled, but I xure call it a beta release. As for your note on people wanting the wifi mostly, perhaps if true that is likely due to price. As it stands, the 3G iPad outsells the wifi one, despite being 130 dollars more expensive. I'd say a portable tablet with constant connection appears to be in higher demand than a wifi only alternative.