Not coincidence? So you're saying the stock market is causing global warming? I knew somehow Goldman Sachs was to blame!!! It all makes sense now.
Sarcasm as edgy as a rotted wooden spoon.
But if there's a way to make a dollar from misery, you can be sure all of Wall St has people looking into it. To get you started, here's a helpful article from 2003 about what defense stocks to buy, now that investors are bullish on a long war in Iraq.
And though the Journal has been bearish on climate change so far, as soon as they find a way to profit from it, I expect them to change their tune as quickly as they discard their values for a new, more profitable set of values in the future.
If you pick 1998 as the year to start, then yes, temperatures have declined from that extraordinary El Nino weather pattern.
Similarly, I can say that the economy has been roaring since late 2008 - the stock market is up over 30%! Or I can say the economy has been suffering since early 2008 - the market is down over 40%! Both cases are a little misleading, and not only because the Dow Jones has little to do with the real economy.
Global air and sea temperatures are on average going up, and have been doing so for decades. The US military is planning for the defense of the northwest passage. The USA, Russia, and Canada have already started bickering over the ownership of resources under the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean.
Something tells me that all of these things are not just coincidence.
Asking whether McChrystal was an ineffective military leader in Afghanistan is no different than judging Marshall Sergei Sokolov when he commanded Russian forces there in the 80s. It completely misses the real question: why does anyone think military aggression in the middle east will reduce terrorism?
Michael's site perfectly encapsulates the sheer irony of the war. One needs only a little imagination to extract the following sentiment: "God bless you and our troops in the war against those islamic fascists!" As if a few billion dollars a month worth of destruction in order to force our way of life on the Afghan people isn't fascism...
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive. What incentive does any major energy company have to abandoning the oil resources they have already invested billions in? Imagine it's any other company. Hell, imagine if Microsoft decided to invest all of their money in clean, reusable, open source code and make windows apps perfectly compatible with the Linux kernel. Would their windows sales go up or down?
Now imagine BP knowing that any breakthrough in clean energy technology enormously devalues their leased rights to oil fields and capital investments in equipment. In fact, if the breakthrough was big enough, BP would then be sitting on a pile of lawsuits waiting to happen. Are you, as BP, going to gently hold the hands of companies plotting your demise, or buy up clean energy companies, bury the technology, and spread FUD about climate change?
Yeah. Now you're thinking like a real CEO. Fuck the world: I want money.
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency. Let's follow them down the path to ruin. Yay!
Spain has a debt to GDP ratio of 50% as of 2009 - that's about what ours was. They just suffered a massive real estate bubble and suffered badly from the oil shock of 2008 since they have no fossil fuel resources. Do you really think even twenty billion euros is a drop in the bucket to the increased cost to their economy if oil prices skyrocket again?
You're penny wise and pound foolish. If your livelihood depends on a resource that can easily bankrupt you, then you should probably borrow every dime you can to get off of it. At lease they have the sense to invest in something that will actually reduce their dependency on the oil addiction instead of prolonging it with two intractable wars.
This conservative rhetoric has reached the point where investment in America is considered unpatriotic. Employment for Americans is somehow irresponsible. I guess when everyone is living in a trailer on a diet of beans and processed corn you'll be happy?
That should make for an excellent pitch for investors. Come build a business in America! We're all illiterate and we have no infrastructure!
Especially when you provide citations that avoid the period that the grandparent specifically identified. Did you hope no one would notice?
No, I didn't notice myself. I knew the employment rate stayed around or below 6% after WWII ended, which is supported by the link you provided. Keep in mind the current employment rate is much higher than the quoted 10%. They do not count the underemployed or the people who have given up looking for work anymore.
However, it does directly refuse your contention that GDP didn't drop: from 1945 to 1946, GDP dropped from 2.0 trillion to 1.7 trillion (in 2005 dollars). It didn't recover to to 2.0 trillion (in 2005 dollars) until 1950.
This is a fair point, but I think pretty meaningless in context.
Are you trying to state that WWII did not reduce employment or increase GDP, or that the Depression returned after the war was ended? If the answer is no, my point still stands, despite my haphazard data collection.
Nicely cherry picked data. I like how you conveniently left out that the top 10% have seen their income rise from $172,000 in 1980 to $339,000 in 2005 - that's a nice doubling of their income. The top 1% did even better - from $517,000 in 1980 to $1,558,000 in 2005. That seems like pretty good economic progress.
And how did the middle class do? From $51,000 to $58,000. Lower Class? $34,000 to $37,000. Lowest Class? $15,700 to $15,900.
So we know why the top 10% are paying all the taxes: they make all the money. And they pay lower tax rates! From 37% for the Top 1% to 31%, the top 5% from 31.8% to 28.9%.
Also there's nothing productive about a war, which is basically equivalent to building a bunch of products and then blowing them up. A war is *destructive* not productive. It wastes resources and money and labor hours. It's the Glazier Paradox - smashing windows just to make work. It would be wiser not to smash the windows in the first place.
War is enormously profitable for the winning country, especially when you get to control precious resources as a result. The Glazier Paradox does not apply - we were smashing millions of dollars of weapons into things we didn't repair with our own money. WWII involved a lot of nation building, and our workers provided the manufacturing for most of the planet since Europe and Japan were in pieces. (Not that I agree this is the way to come out of the recession, but it is important to remember history amid your vague rhetoric involving paradoxes.)
Similarly throwing a bunch of money at fiber installs, without considering whether the market will use them, or whether they will just sit unused (dark fiber) is about the same as building a bunch of bridges that lead to nowhere (don't connect to roads). That too is a waste.
Mass transit and communications infrastructure are investments in the future. Even if it there's a bit of waste here and there, it beats giving it to the financial industry, who do nothing useful for the economy at large.
This is the purpose of government. Keep the economic machine running by ignoring the rules when they stop working. Keep income equality high so there's meritocracy instead of aristocracy. Enforce policies to make sure that the economy is well educated and capable of performing complex functions to yield good results for investment.
The relative power of federal, state, and local governments is something that can be argued, but the larger point still remains.
Well, they cost far less than 60 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. And they'll have internet access for the rest of their lives instead of just a year.
Assuming you're not just full of shit, which you probably are.
And if the chorus of idiots will realize that this is the best and quickest way of creating jobs, maybe the American economy would have a chance if they could just shut up for 10 minutes.
Our WWII spending brought us to 120% of GDP for our national debt, but it only worked out in the end because it gave all sectors of the economy a living wage, practically creating the middle class. (That and Patriotism back in those days included paying taxes and buying War Bonds.) Double points if those jobs improve American infrastructure and make our economy more efficient at using resources.
Coincidentally, this is the way every successful business operates. You borrow money to invest in capital, and pay it back with the benefits that capital brings you.
If the continued destruction of the middle class isn't ended, and progressive taxes are never brought back, we're going to end up with an income distribution that looks like a third world country. It's going to be tough to sell products a bunch of people who are barely making ends meet, but I guess if you've already got money, at least that second gardner came at half the price.
Christians today are less violent than those that came before them
Because they are less Christian. They don't follow the instructions in the Bible, because they don't bother to read it. Christianity in America is a Tony Robbins rock concert, where you park your ass for an hour and clap your friends on the back for being such good people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad no one reads the Bible. It's been misused too many times to be worth the good parts sticking around. But the idea that there is some scary number or mark that will make the invisible Sky conscience angry at you for being the person that he created is. Fucking. Stupid. Full stop.
You know, just say a bunch of shit without any testable theories, and as long as you reach the conclusion that government is bad, congratulations! You're an economist in the eyes the Austrian school.
Yeah, while the Catholic church - both inside and outside Germany - stood by and did nothing about the Holocaust, that's so last century. Not that it's any different from churches today advocating, as Jerry Falwell did, to "blow them all away in the name of the Lord."
I've scraped more integrity off of my shoe in a dog park.
Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.
I know you don't much about the law but Apple really doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhone/iPad. I've talked to Apple guys in the company. *They don't care*.
That's why they paid a lawyer to file this which states in part:
In sum, the value of the iPhone, and hence the software embedded in it, is substantially diminished when the integrity and functionality of that software is compromised by jailbreaking, when Apple is left to deal with the problems that ensue, and when the positive feedback loops enabled by the App Store and the iPhone Developer Program are compromised.
This means they may not sue right now for PR reasons, but the door is wide open if they feel threatened. If you prefer to buy hardware that opens you up to lawsuits if you decide to install your own software, that's fine.
And trust me, it will be a cold day in hell before I need help from a "Genius". Just pull up a terminal in front of one of those haircuts. Their eyes will glaze over and ask of you're a "hacker."
And, BTW, iAd hasn't even gone live yet; so it's not being shoved down anybody's throat. And when it does go live, it certainly won't be any more offensive that those Google ads I have to see every time I run a search.
It's July 1st. iAd is live, or is supposed to be anyway.
Criticizing "anyone for anything" doesn't make you smart. It just makes you a jerk.
Aww boo.
You're now trying to change the topic...
No, you lost the argument, so you're trying to change the topic.
Skipping the distasteful amount of brand apology...
Which just goes to show that you don't understand Apple's approach....
I'm fully aware of Apple's totalitarian business model.
And how the heck do you not "chain your software to your operating system."
There are many programs available for more than one operating system. Apple is unique in chaining their operating system to their hardware, and they have a history of picking up small software companies, and ending Windows development if they can. If Microsoft did that to a popular apple product, you'd cry about anti-competitive business practices.
But I get it. Really. Whatever Apple does, you're on board. The brand is all that matters to you. That was my point in the first place.
I think Slashdotters aren't in any position to know what Steve really wants. But given that Apple has never come out with any kind of public statement even remotely resembling what you just said, then I suspect that Steve doesn't care what you do with the hardware once you buy it.
As for the DMCA violation, Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn't been approved in advance. Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software.
In the interest of combating piracy - and taking a 30% cut of software sales - Apple will continue to close it's ecosystem, and shove iAd further and further down your throat.
Owning a Mac that was apparently forced on you because you "need it for work" hardly gives you a pass to criticize people who bought Macs because they actually like them.
Sure it does. I can criticize anyone for anything. Just like someone who needs a car to work can recognize that our transportation infrastructure is unsustainable. Thinking critically is totally awesome. You should try it sometime.
3-D performance has been a distinctly secondary concern--why worry about 3D performance when there are no real games that even stress the graphics cards?
Some people use computers for architecture, 3d modeling, and things besides games. Like anyone who wants to use Revit, AutoCAD, Inventor, CATIA...
And for that criticism to be valid, you'd have to go after every other company that has an app with a closed file format.
Yes, everyone sucks for doing it. Again, Apple isn't inherently evil. They are just exactly the same as Microsoft. You just don't think so because you have been glazed over with too much marketing.
What Apple has done with those programs is hardly unique
Actually, it is. Does HP release programs that require an HP computer? How about Microsoft, do they require anything besides compatible software? Apple is alone in legally chaining their operating system to their hardware, and their software to their operating system.
As far as fully open file formats, no one offers that except for the ODF in OpenOffice. It's not an option for export with any Apple program.
See, when I predicted the iPhone I was hopeful it would be a really cool product. And it was - I bought a 3G when my old phone died. But Apple has locked it down more and more with each update. They're getting ready to transition iOS to all of their hardware. (Here's a rumor right here. I sort of doubt it will happen that quickly, but it's going to over the next year.) And since I need a phone for phone calls, iPhone 4 is off the table. Apple will again learn the lesson that they did in the 90s: closed ecosystems don't work for computers (appliances may be another story). But you're going to have to suffer with iOS on your desktop before they relearn that lesson.
Don't sweat it, though. Things will be exactly as you like them. Steve will tell you what you're allowed to do with your computer, you'll consider it revolutionary, and you will line up to pay a 30% premium for your lifestyle computing product. You can then sit proudly in your local coffeeshop, smiling quietly to yourself as you read/. with the correct logo on the backside of your screen.
Only a/. geek would sneer at "the masses" buying a "lifestyle brand" instead of something that "OMG! Can be rooted, overclocked, and turned into a Beowulf cluster" for the sheer geekiness of it.
Steve thinks it's a crime for you do to that to his hardware. You should probably reconsider breaking the law - you are under the misapprehension that you own your hardware. Your hardware owns you.
I'd bet money that you have more than one lifestyle brand product in your house. You just don't like this particular one.
You're wrong on both counts. I own a MacBook Pro (triple booting), since it's the only legal way I can run Snow Leopard, which I need for work. Otherwise, I rent a small room in a house, so I don't have that much stuff. Property ownership is an unimpressive way to spend money, in my opinion.
Ironic, given that most anti-Mac critics often cited the lack of games as a reason why not to buy one.
No, they cite the horrific performance of 3D applications. Which is still a problem, even made worse by the 10.6.4 update. The same type of people complain about the antenna design flaws in their flagship phone, or the comic number of dropped phone calls on their network. I don't care if you're playing Fruit Ninja or the birds game. It's no worse use of your time than Solitaire.
Clearly, they're a bunch of idiots who can't find a power button without RFTM. Way to overgeneralize there, buddy.
You may wish to re-read that statement and apply it to your own rhetoric.
And that's why Apple integrated over a hundred open source projects into the OS.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. But, this time the commercials are bad ass!
And Apple does what to stop people from creating art using something other than Macs and iPads? Burns down paintbrush factories? Congratulations, you've officially crossed the line into non-sensical ranting.
There is nothing wrong with Apple wanting people to use their products for creative purposes as long as they don't actively prevent people from using other tools for creative purposes, which they don't. If you care enough to be educated a bit on Apple's views on creativity, check this out:
Does Final Cut Pro use an open format? Does iWork? Does Logic? I understand your loyalty to the brand can cloud your vision, but think about that for a second. Apple purposefully shut down development of Logic for Windows so it's users would buy Macs.
It's not that Apple is particularly evil, but they have blind followers touting their exceptionalism when they are no different from any other corporation.
It's something you won't understand until Steve announces that iOS 5 will run on all Mac hardware. The specs will be open, but none of the file formats will be. Once you have your data in an iApp, it's going to stay there. You'll have to apply for a special license to compile your own apps, because Steve wants to protect you from yourself.
He's going to tell you that since this is an appliance and not a computer, you have no right to user upgradeable parts. Steve doesn't want you messing up your appliance with second rate, third party hardware upgrades. And you don't want to void your warranty. (Trust me on this... "logic board" replacements are $600 for Mac Pros.)
But won't worry. The user experience will be incredible. Journalists will fall over themselves talking about how their life has changed, now that Farmville has 6 axis motion control, and there's now a way to get food recipes electronically!
And what particular non-corporation made device are you surfing the internet with today? CPU was hand-crafted by an artisan was it?
Yeah... who's more important to the computer industry? Apple or Intel? Apple or ARM? And which of these companies is more self-righteous about their existence?
You have to face it sooner or later... Apple makes its money by being a lifestyle brand, like Levi or American Apparel or Gucci. That's why it has pathetic enterprise support and tries to lock out competition for it's platform. That's why it's a walled garden filled mostly with petty video games. It's an appliance for people who don't like the open endedness of computers. Just like a Starbucks customer that loves lattes but would never take the ten minutes to learn how to make one for themselves, Apple users skim on the surface of computing. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is that Apple does not want standards, it wants control. It does not want everyone to create art, it wants everyone to buy Final Cut and use it on a Mac Pro to create art. Inherent in it's culture is a fundamental undermining of it's own principles. There is nothing magical or revolutionary about selling vendor lock-in, but I'll give them that their marketing department does a much better job of disguising that than Microsoft did.
Free content with ads is a model that people have been conditioned to expect since before your grandparents were born.
And still, Hulu in this sense could not feel entitled to anyone's money. There is no colloquial or literal definition of entitlement that fits this purpose.
In fact, you are supporting the opposite argument: that consumers feel entitled to free content with ads.
You don't seem to understand what entitlement means. People can choose to pay Hulu in exchange for their services. If Hulu sued to require people by law to pay for the Hulu service, that would be an entitlement for them.
The RIAA and related mobsters have an entitlement complex. Hulu is out there providing a service in exchange for money.
Slashdot Mirror
Not coincidence? So you're saying the stock market is causing global warming? I knew somehow Goldman Sachs was to blame!!! It all makes sense now.
Sarcasm as edgy as a rotted wooden spoon.
But if there's a way to make a dollar from misery, you can be sure all of Wall St has people looking into it. To get you started, here's a helpful article from 2003 about what defense stocks to buy, now that investors are bullish on a long war in Iraq.
And though the Journal has been bearish on climate change so far, as soon as they find a way to profit from it, I expect them to change their tune as quickly as they discard their values for a new, more profitable set of values in the future.
If you pick 1998 as the year to start, then yes, temperatures have declined from that extraordinary El Nino weather pattern.
Similarly, I can say that the economy has been roaring since late 2008 - the stock market is up over 30%! Or I can say the economy has been suffering since early 2008 - the market is down over 40%! Both cases are a little misleading, and not only because the Dow Jones has little to do with the real economy.
Global air and sea temperatures are on average going up, and have been doing so for decades. The US military is planning for the defense of the northwest passage. The USA, Russia, and Canada have already started bickering over the ownership of resources under the ice pack in the Arctic Ocean.
Something tells me that all of these things are not just coincidence.
Asking whether McChrystal was an ineffective military leader in Afghanistan is no different than judging Marshall Sergei Sokolov when he commanded Russian forces there in the 80s. It completely misses the real question: why does anyone think military aggression in the middle east will reduce terrorism?
Michael's site perfectly encapsulates the sheer irony of the war. One needs only a little imagination to extract the following sentiment: "God bless you and our troops in the war against those islamic fascists!" As if a few billion dollars a month worth of destruction in order to force our way of life on the Afghan people isn't fascism...
If it were the answer, it would already be happening. That 2 billion just created a solar energy bubble.
You are naive. What incentive does any major energy company have to abandoning the oil resources they have already invested billions in? Imagine it's any other company. Hell, imagine if Microsoft decided to invest all of their money in clean, reusable, open source code and make windows apps perfectly compatible with the Linux kernel. Would their windows sales go up or down?
Now imagine BP knowing that any breakthrough in clean energy technology enormously devalues their leased rights to oil fields and capital investments in equipment. In fact, if the breakthrough was big enough, BP would then be sitting on a pile of lawsuits waiting to happen. Are you, as BP, going to gently hold the hands of companies plotting your demise, or buy up clean energy companies, bury the technology, and spread FUD about climate change?
Yeah. Now you're thinking like a real CEO. Fuck the world: I want money.
Nevermind that Spain's experiment with subsidizing solar power is one of the causes of their looming fiscal insolvency. Let's follow them down the path to ruin. Yay!
Spain has a debt to GDP ratio of 50% as of 2009 - that's about what ours was. They just suffered a massive real estate bubble and suffered badly from the oil shock of 2008 since they have no fossil fuel resources. Do you really think even twenty billion euros is a drop in the bucket to the increased cost to their economy if oil prices skyrocket again?
You're penny wise and pound foolish. If your livelihood depends on a resource that can easily bankrupt you, then you should probably borrow every dime you can to get off of it. At lease they have the sense to invest in something that will actually reduce their dependency on the oil addiction instead of prolonging it with two intractable wars.
This conservative rhetoric has reached the point where investment in America is considered unpatriotic. Employment for Americans is somehow irresponsible. I guess when everyone is living in a trailer on a diet of beans and processed corn you'll be happy?
That should make for an excellent pitch for investors. Come build a business in America! We're all illiterate and we have no infrastructure!
Especially when you provide citations that avoid the period that the grandparent specifically identified. Did you hope no one would notice?
No, I didn't notice myself. I knew the employment rate stayed around or below 6% after WWII ended, which is supported by the link you provided. Keep in mind the current employment rate is much higher than the quoted 10%. They do not count the underemployed or the people who have given up looking for work anymore.
However, it does directly refuse your contention that GDP didn't drop: from 1945 to 1946, GDP dropped from 2.0 trillion to 1.7 trillion (in 2005 dollars). It didn't recover to to 2.0 trillion (in 2005 dollars) until 1950.
This is a fair point, but I think pretty meaningless in context.
Are you trying to state that WWII did not reduce employment or increase GDP, or that the Depression returned after the war was ended? If the answer is no, my point still stands, despite my haphazard data collection.
Nicely cherry picked data. I like how you conveniently left out that the top 10% have seen their income rise from $172,000 in 1980 to $339,000 in 2005 - that's a nice doubling of their income. The top 1% did even better - from $517,000 in 1980 to $1,558,000 in 2005. That seems like pretty good economic progress.
And how did the middle class do? From $51,000 to $58,000. Lower Class? $34,000 to $37,000. Lowest Class? $15,700 to $15,900.
So we know why the top 10% are paying all the taxes: they make all the money. And they pay lower tax rates! From 37% for the Top 1% to 31%, the top 5% from 31.8% to 28.9%.
http://www.econdataus.com/efftax05.html
The point being you have to focus on beating your crack addiction before you think about paying down your credit cards.
Honestly, assertions are my favorite. It makes arguments so easy to win.
Yes and when WW2 was over (1945), the Depression snapped right back and people were jobless again.
No, unemployment rates stayed low and and GDP did not drop. So the real question is, are you purposefully ignorant or just being a troll?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
Also there's nothing productive about a war, which is basically equivalent to building a bunch of products and then blowing them up. A war is *destructive* not productive. It wastes resources and money and labor hours. It's the Glazier Paradox - smashing windows just to make work. It would be wiser not to smash the windows in the first place.
War is enormously profitable for the winning country, especially when you get to control precious resources as a result. The Glazier Paradox does not apply - we were smashing millions of dollars of weapons into things we didn't repair with our own money. WWII involved a lot of nation building, and our workers provided the manufacturing for most of the planet since Europe and Japan were in pieces. (Not that I agree this is the way to come out of the recession, but it is important to remember history amid your vague rhetoric involving paradoxes.)
Similarly throwing a bunch of money at fiber installs, without considering whether the market will use them, or whether they will just sit unused (dark fiber) is about the same as building a bunch of bridges that lead to nowhere (don't connect to roads). That too is a waste.
Mass transit and communications infrastructure are investments in the future. Even if it there's a bit of waste here and there, it beats giving it to the financial industry, who do nothing useful for the economy at large.
This is the purpose of government. Keep the economic machine running by ignoring the rules when they stop working. Keep income equality high so there's meritocracy instead of aristocracy. Enforce policies to make sure that the economy is well educated and capable of performing complex functions to yield good results for investment.
The relative power of federal, state, and local governments is something that can be argued, but the larger point still remains.
Well, they cost far less than 60 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. And they'll have internet access for the rest of their lives instead of just a year.
Assuming you're not just full of shit, which you probably are.
There's nothing I love more than "independents" using quotes to pretend they are "thinking" instead of spouting partisan bullshit.
And if the chorus of idiots will realize that this is the best and quickest way of creating jobs, maybe the American economy would have a chance if they could just shut up for 10 minutes.
Our WWII spending brought us to 120% of GDP for our national debt, but it only worked out in the end because it gave all sectors of the economy a living wage, practically creating the middle class. (That and Patriotism back in those days included paying taxes and buying War Bonds.) Double points if those jobs improve American infrastructure and make our economy more efficient at using resources.
Coincidentally, this is the way every successful business operates. You borrow money to invest in capital, and pay it back with the benefits that capital brings you.
If the continued destruction of the middle class isn't ended, and progressive taxes are never brought back, we're going to end up with an income distribution that looks like a third world country. It's going to be tough to sell products a bunch of people who are barely making ends meet, but I guess if you've already got money, at least that second gardner came at half the price.
Christians today are less violent than those that came before them
Because they are less Christian. They don't follow the instructions in the Bible, because they don't bother to read it. Christianity in America is a Tony Robbins rock concert, where you park your ass for an hour and clap your friends on the back for being such good people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad no one reads the Bible. It's been misused too many times to be worth the good parts sticking around. But the idea that there is some scary number or mark that will make the invisible Sky conscience angry at you for being the person that he created is. Fucking. Stupid. Full stop.
You know, just say a bunch of shit without any testable theories, and as long as you reach the conclusion that government is bad, congratulations! You're an economist in the eyes the Austrian school.
Yeah, while the Catholic church - both inside and outside Germany - stood by and did nothing about the Holocaust, that's so last century. Not that it's any different from churches today advocating, as Jerry Falwell did, to "blow them all away in the name of the Lord."
I've scraped more integrity off of my shoe in a dog park.
Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.
History class: apparently you never showed up. Ever.
That's what she said.
Actually, I'll only feel smug when I mock someone who wasn't a sheep for being afraid of being a sheep.
I know you don't much about the law but Apple really doesn't care if you jailbreak your iPhone/iPad. I've talked to Apple guys in the company. *They don't care*.
That's why they paid a lawyer to file this which states in part:
In sum, the value of the iPhone, and hence the software embedded in it, is substantially diminished when the integrity and functionality of that software is compromised by jailbreaking, when Apple is left to deal with the problems that ensue, and when the positive feedback loops enabled by the App Store and the iPhone Developer Program are compromised.
This means they may not sue right now for PR reasons, but the door is wide open if they feel threatened. If you prefer to buy hardware that opens you up to lawsuits if you decide to install your own software, that's fine.
And trust me, it will be a cold day in hell before I need help from a "Genius". Just pull up a terminal in front of one of those haircuts. Their eyes will glaze over and ask of you're a "hacker."
And, BTW, iAd hasn't even gone live yet; so it's not being shoved down anybody's throat. And when it does go live, it certainly won't be any more offensive that those Google ads I have to see every time I run a search.
It's July 1st. iAd is live, or is supposed to be anyway.
Criticizing "anyone for anything" doesn't make you smart. It just makes you a jerk.
Aww boo.
You're now trying to change the topic...
No, you lost the argument, so you're trying to change the topic.
Skipping the distasteful amount of brand apology...
Which just goes to show that you don't understand Apple's approach....
I'm fully aware of Apple's totalitarian business model.
And how the heck do you not "chain your software to your operating system."
There are many programs available for more than one operating system. Apple is unique in chaining their operating system to their hardware, and they have a history of picking up small software companies, and ending Windows development if they can. If Microsoft did that to a popular apple product, you'd cry about anti-competitive business practices.
But I get it. Really. Whatever Apple does, you're on board. The brand is all that matters to you. That was my point in the first place.
I think Slashdotters aren't in any position to know what Steve really wants. But given that Apple has never come out with any kind of public statement even remotely resembling what you just said, then I suspect that Steve doesn't care what you do with the hardware once you buy it.
I know you don't read much, but really...
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/apple-says-jailbreaking-illegal
As for the DMCA violation, Apple casts its lot with the likes of laser printer makers and garage door opener companies who argue that the DMCA entitles them to block interoperability with anything that hasn't been approved in advance. Apple justifies this by claiming that opening the iPhone to independently created applications will compromise safety, security, reliability, and swing the doors wide for those who want to run pirated software.
In the interest of combating piracy - and taking a 30% cut of software sales - Apple will continue to close it's ecosystem, and shove iAd further and further down your throat.
Owning a Mac that was apparently forced on you because you "need it for work" hardly gives you a pass to criticize people who bought Macs because they actually like them.
Sure it does. I can criticize anyone for anything. Just like someone who needs a car to work can recognize that our transportation infrastructure is unsustainable. Thinking critically is totally awesome. You should try it sometime.
3-D performance has been a distinctly secondary concern--why worry about 3D performance when there are no real games that even stress the graphics cards?
Some people use computers for architecture, 3d modeling, and things besides games. Like anyone who wants to use Revit, AutoCAD, Inventor, CATIA...
And for that criticism to be valid, you'd have to go after every other company that has an app with a closed file format.
Yes, everyone sucks for doing it. Again, Apple isn't inherently evil. They are just exactly the same as Microsoft. You just don't think so because you have been glazed over with too much marketing.
What Apple has done with those programs is hardly unique
Actually, it is. Does HP release programs that require an HP computer? How about Microsoft, do they require anything besides compatible software? Apple is alone in legally chaining their operating system to their hardware, and their software to their operating system.
As far as fully open file formats, no one offers that except for the ODF in OpenOffice. It's not an option for export with any Apple program.
See, when I predicted the iPhone I was hopeful it would be a really cool product. And it was - I bought a 3G when my old phone died. But Apple has locked it down more and more with each update. They're getting ready to transition iOS to all of their hardware. (Here's a rumor right here. I sort of doubt it will happen that quickly, but it's going to over the next year.) And since I need a phone for phone calls, iPhone 4 is off the table. Apple will again learn the lesson that they did in the 90s: closed ecosystems don't work for computers (appliances may be another story). But you're going to have to suffer with iOS on your desktop before they relearn that lesson.
Don't sweat it, though. Things will be exactly as you like them. Steve will tell you what you're allowed to do with your computer, you'll consider it revolutionary, and you will line up to pay a 30% premium for your lifestyle computing product. You can then sit proudly in your local coffeeshop, smiling quietly to yourself as you read /. with the correct logo on the backside of your screen.
Only a /. geek would sneer at "the masses" buying a "lifestyle brand" instead of something that "OMG! Can be rooted, overclocked, and turned into a Beowulf cluster" for the sheer geekiness of it.
Steve thinks it's a crime for you do to that to his hardware. You should probably reconsider breaking the law - you are under the misapprehension that you own your hardware. Your hardware owns you.
I'd bet money that you have more than one lifestyle brand product in your house. You just don't like this particular one.
You're wrong on both counts. I own a MacBook Pro (triple booting), since it's the only legal way I can run Snow Leopard, which I need for work. Otherwise, I rent a small room in a house, so I don't have that much stuff. Property ownership is an unimpressive way to spend money, in my opinion.
Ironic, given that most anti-Mac critics often cited the lack of games as a reason why not to buy one.
No, they cite the horrific performance of 3D applications. Which is still a problem, even made worse by the 10.6.4 update. The same type of people complain about the antenna design flaws in their flagship phone, or the comic number of dropped phone calls on their network. I don't care if you're playing Fruit Ninja or the birds game. It's no worse use of your time than Solitaire.
Clearly, they're a bunch of idiots who can't find a power button without RFTM. Way to overgeneralize there, buddy.
You may wish to re-read that statement and apply it to your own rhetoric.
And that's why Apple integrated over a hundred open source projects into the OS.
Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. But, this time the commercials are bad ass!
And Apple does what to stop people from creating art using something other than Macs and iPads? Burns down paintbrush factories? Congratulations, you've officially crossed the line into non-sensical ranting.
There is nothing wrong with Apple wanting people to use their products for creative purposes as long as they don't actively prevent people from using other tools for creative purposes, which they don't. If you care enough to be educated a bit on Apple's views on creativity, check this out:
Does Final Cut Pro use an open format? Does iWork? Does Logic? I understand your loyalty to the brand can cloud your vision, but think about that for a second. Apple purposefully shut down development of Logic for Windows so it's users would buy Macs.
It's not that Apple is particularly evil, but they have blind followers touting their exceptionalism when they are no different from any other corporation.
It's something you won't understand until Steve announces that iOS 5 will run on all Mac hardware. The specs will be open, but none of the file formats will be. Once you have your data in an iApp, it's going to stay there. You'll have to apply for a special license to compile your own apps, because Steve wants to protect you from yourself.
He's going to tell you that since this is an appliance and not a computer, you have no right to user upgradeable parts. Steve doesn't want you messing up your appliance with second rate, third party hardware upgrades. And you don't want to void your warranty. (Trust me on this... "logic board" replacements are $600 for Mac Pros.)
But won't worry. The user experience will be incredible. Journalists will fall over themselves talking about how their life has changed, now that Farmville has 6 axis motion control, and there's now a way to get food recipes electronically!
It's a serious and brave new world.
And what particular non-corporation made device are you surfing the internet with today? CPU was hand-crafted by an artisan was it?
Yeah... who's more important to the computer industry? Apple or Intel? Apple or ARM? And which of these companies is more self-righteous about their existence?
You have to face it sooner or later... Apple makes its money by being a lifestyle brand, like Levi or American Apparel or Gucci. That's why it has pathetic enterprise support and tries to lock out competition for it's platform. That's why it's a walled garden filled mostly with petty video games. It's an appliance for people who don't like the open endedness of computers. Just like a Starbucks customer that loves lattes but would never take the ten minutes to learn how to make one for themselves, Apple users skim on the surface of computing. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
The problem is that Apple does not want standards, it wants control. It does not want everyone to create art, it wants everyone to buy Final Cut and use it on a Mac Pro to create art. Inherent in it's culture is a fundamental undermining of it's own principles. There is nothing magical or revolutionary about selling vendor lock-in, but I'll give them that their marketing department does a much better job of disguising that than Microsoft did.
Not scientific, not normalized, not statistically meaningful.
Don't you dare make fun of the Austrian School. Ze dollar vill crumble!
Free content with ads is a model that people have been conditioned to expect since before your grandparents were born.
And still, Hulu in this sense could not feel entitled to anyone's money. There is no colloquial or literal definition of entitlement that fits this purpose.
In fact, you are supporting the opposite argument: that consumers feel entitled to free content with ads.
You don't seem to understand what entitlement means. People can choose to pay Hulu in exchange for their services. If Hulu sued to require people by law to pay for the Hulu service, that would be an entitlement for them.
The RIAA and related mobsters have an entitlement complex. Hulu is out there providing a service in exchange for money.