Nope. It's the liberals that keep making things up that conservatives say.
No, that's the figurehead of your party says and continues to say.
Still, it's pretty sad that liberals would turn their back on any oppressed people purely because they have hold a vicious hatred for the party that's trying to do something about it. Really shows their colors.
No liberal thinks we should turn our backs on those in Iraq; we're commited at this point because of Bush. We would not be commited if he had listened to the UN's weapons inspectors and our intelligence agencies when they said there's no real reason to go over there. We shouldn't turn our backs on the Iraqis, but their situation is worse now than it was previously because Bush and friends could only BS Americans instead of the rest of the world. Had we actually gotten support to remove Saddam in the name of human rights instead of supposed 9/11-related terrorism and not non-existant WMDs, the story would be different because we'd actually have a force over there large enough to handle the situation, the story would be much, much different.
The icing on the cake is that Bush's republicans (I know many who laugh at Rove and friends) still stand by the whole thing.
This computer is likely going to bring a ridiculous number of people over to Apple. Apple is in PERFECT position right now to eat some of the PC's marketshare, especially when looking at the iPod popularity.
Second coming? No, but this simple little computer looks like it's going to be a major blow to Windows-based machines. At the very least, it's going to be exciting to see how much damage a well built OS in an affordable computer can do to the marketshare of the PC behemoths. If enough of these suckers sell, we're going to see some real innovation between all of the competitors. That's good for everyone.
Whenever you are so blinded by emotion, you fail to see the truth.
This little computer could potentially cause quite a stir, especially riding on the iPod's coattails. It doesn't require zeal or emotion to understand that an increased marketshare for Apple will probably result in increased innovation/lower prices if a full-scale OS war happens.
That's why this is so cool, whether you like Apple or not.
Sunbane, you might want to call your Apple store (if you have one around) and ask them if you can get hooked up with a discount on the new software packages since you just recently got your computer. It's worth looking into... they hooked me up with iLife last time around with my Powerbook about a week or two after I initially bought it, for free.
1. Because you need to have a browser installed with a new OS, otherwise it would be like getting a new car without a radio.
2. With that many users, you can't simply back out of IE support; it would be terrible business.
3. It would be giving open source a foothold and showing an incredible amount of users what open source can do... sort of like how iPods are converting folks over to Macs.
4. They lose control over things like internet integration in their applications.
5. They lose control over a lot of potential APIs/protocols since they wouldn't have their browers' users to use as a user base.
6. It admits a crushing defeat to open source. Shareholders probably wouldn't be too cool with that.
What you said makes total sense, but you have to look at it from a business perspective... Ditching IE would only confuse users, point them towards open source, and lock Microsoft out of potential future revenues related to internet browsers.
It's also important to keep in mind that from a non-techy's perspective, IE is not bug-ridden filth and that any viruses or nastiness that are caught at this point are just functions of the internets and not Microsoft's fault. Microsoft knows this.
Same thing can be said about Apple's OS-X operating systems or linux distributions.
The same thing IS said about OS X and Linux, and although parent poster's opinion may be totally wrong, it's assinine to simply dismiss it (which you didn't seem to do, I just hate the raw ignorance of that stance). It's quite logical; the kiddies want to do a lot of damage, so they're going to code for the most popular platform out there so they can do the most damage. The whole theory really hasn't been tested too hard because there aren't many products MS competes against where it doesn't have a much larger market share. Apache is an excellent example, though. Personally, I think the whole reason MS/IE gets hit so much harder than anyone else is a combination of the two ideas; firstly, that IE was designed insecurely and this has plagued it, and secondly (but more importantly, IMO) that the kids are targetting IE users since they represent the vast majority and are probably not going to be technically inclined.
so why not change the plans of the devs working on IE?
I would imagine it's a combination of the numerous hacks they have to keep up with due to the obviously flawed security on IE.
with the many years that M$ "could" of worked on IE after its competition with Netscape, one wonders if its M$ that just don't give a shit anymore
I think it's extremely easy for/.ers and techheads to forget that while MS is probably (cough definitely cough) not ethical, they are an extremely successful business. With this in mind, it seems silly that they would simply let Firefox run over IE. This browser war will be interesting, because it's no longer a matter of out-funding a company, since they're now against an open source model which doesn't really need money. I'd guess the IE developers are starting clean slate with the browser instead of trying to patch swiss cheese in an effort to hit FF hard when Longhorn debuts. What I find highly unlikely is that MS hasn't learned its lesson and are well aware of what they need to do with IE to get it up to snuff.
...or if its because FF isn't popular enough to get the attention from crackers/exploiters.
That's probably the case. Also keep in mind that the majority of FF users are probably more technically proficient than IE users, so clearly the softer target, for now, is IE.
Do you know how many users believe their web browser is basically their operating system? There are a lot of folks who have computer for the sole purpose of email, internet, and instant messaging. For all intents and purposes for this group, the browser IS as important as the OS, if not more so.
For 500 dollars, without a monitor, you can do a lot of damage. I highly doubt Apple would put out a POS if it's being aimed squarely at those customers who are Apple-curious but haven't made the switch yet. That's probably the last crowd they'd want to turn off, and it's conceivable that Apple is willing to make a low profit margin on this one to penetrate the market. Their position is excellent... iPod popularity and Apple-awareness are pretty outstanding right now, this cheap Mac could probably be the key to moving these people over to Macs. I doubt Apple will make this computer junk (which wouldn't be conducive to their trackrecord lately anyhow).
500 dollars isn't cheap-o. I'd guess it'll basically be an iBook in a desktop, which can't cost that much.
Don't underestimate how important Apple might view this computer for their business.
You're barely in the new computer market, much less the Apple market, if you can't drop 500 bucks on a computer. As another poster said, it's probably doubtful Apple wants you to be their customer.
Of course, the only difference there is that you get about 6 hours of battery life out of the iPod initially and the battery only craps out quickly if you work only off of battery power A LOT (many have the iPod plugged in more than not, ie in cars, offices, etc). The battery life is complained about heavily with iPods, as it is the only real issue with the iPod.
Then you've got the PSP that only functions at half of that. Optimally. Whether you believe it's an issue or not, battery life is clearly an issue for the market. Using the iPod which generally has superior battery life (and still deservedly has a lot of complaints about the life) as some sort of reason why the terrible battery life of the PSP is justifiable is ridiculous.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
You are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying.
No, I'm not.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
No, it's never enough. That's capitalism, that's what we live in, that's the whole principle of the thing.
If our capitalist structure gives us enough wealth to give more per capita than any other country on Earth, why are so so against it?
Because the core principle of capitalism itself is to make money, to get it, not to give it away.
There are lots of problems with the US. Generosity is not one of them.
I don't believe so either.
You're totally ignoring that it's not a wealth problem: It's a government problem. It's a tyranny problem. It's a one person subjugating another person problem.
That's interesting - last time I checked, the people were controlling whether they should be giving their money to other countries, NOT the government.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
I'm talking about the ability for the US to put an ENORMOUS dent in world hunger (if not eliminate it altogether). I believe that was what you were originally talking about.
The American public does more charitable giving, per capita, than any country in the world.
I'm not sure about that, but it is still far from what the US could potentially REALLY do, and it's obviously not really doing that much in The Big Picture. That will never happen (at least if American society remains on the track we are on) because of our capitalist heritage - IE, get money so you can live well, excel over others, as opposed to giving all of your money away.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
I didn't say the US is selfish, I said that we don't want to give our money away to other countries. There's quite a difference - welcome to capitalism.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
Right, but that's an issue of the US not wanting to do that for the world (capitalistic), not buying expensive kittens.
I don't see the need for that, especially in large corporations, going away any time soon.
I definitely do. A job like that is more for a computer engineer/systems administrator who takes care of things like that between his other skills, IE maintaining the network, analyzing security, and other things that are generally outside the scope of a computer repair dude. I can't really see companies hiring full time guys who only do computer-repair. Also keep in mind the speed of computers and their prices; most companies aren't going to be doing a lot of frantic upgrading for running MS Office. I can't see too many needs to upgrade hardware given what most users will be doing.
And there are still people who troubleshoot specialized computers down to the component level, because it's still more cost effective to spend 16 hours hunting down a faulty capacitor than replacing a $10,000 board.
Yes, but those people are going to be computer engineers or admins, not people who ONLY do computer repair.
True, a larger skillset is almost always beneficial in the long term, and may make it easier to find a job; however some people may give a higher priority to finding satisfaction from their work than the possible monetary benefits.
Yeah, absolutely. I was looking at it from a monetary/job availability view.
Absolutely, it sucks that market is disappearing from a monetary perspective, but it's cool to see the technology/society (in the form of computer literacy) evolving with it.
I got the impression from your original post that you want to get into repair as a career, sorry for the mis-interpretation.
With all due respect, it sounds like you had a knee-jerk reaction. Keep in mind we're talking about a computer-repair career. Are you denying that computers are becoming more and more reliable? That software is generally being made easier to use for an end user and more stable? Are you denying that as years pass, more and more households will either be computer literate enough to fix their own computers or know someone else who can? That computers are becoming ridiculously cheap (read: disposable)?
Do you believe these trends will reverse themselves in the future?
Do you honestly believe that getting into a career just fixing computers (I used the term "merely" to emphasize that, NOT to belittle the ability to repair a computer) is a good idea? If one chooses to be ignorant of these facts and dive in anyhow that's one thing, but it's another thing to blame the market one might have wanted to get into because he couldn't see it happening right in front of himself.
If people weren't teaching your children, paving your roads, constructing your buildings, fixing your car, or whatever other occupation you consider to lead to a "bad future," you'd be doing these things yourself or going without.
Of course, absolutely. We need roads, we need teachers, we need construction workers, we need mechanics. Believeing that you can start a career in this day and age in computer repair when computers are nearly disposable and will only run more and more stable over time is naive. If you didn't get the jist of it, substitute "bad future" with "unlikely successful longer-term career."
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. It's the liberals that keep making things up that conservatives say.
No, that's the figurehead of your party says and continues to say.
Still, it's pretty sad that liberals would turn their back on any oppressed people purely because they have hold a vicious hatred for the party that's trying to do something about it. Really shows their colors.
No liberal thinks we should turn our backs on those in Iraq; we're commited at this point because of Bush. We would not be commited if he had listened to the UN's weapons inspectors and our intelligence agencies when they said there's no real reason to go over there. We shouldn't turn our backs on the Iraqis, but their situation is worse now than it was previously because Bush and friends could only BS Americans instead of the rest of the world. Had we actually gotten support to remove Saddam in the name of human rights instead of supposed 9/11-related terrorism and not non-existant WMDs, the story would be different because we'd actually have a force over there large enough to handle the situation, the story would be much, much different.
The icing on the cake is that Bush's republicans (I know many who laugh at Rove and friends) still stand by the whole thing.
Then again, none of those that you mentioned have anything to do with why there are Americans dying overseas, now do they? Please.
this isn't the second coming or something
This computer is likely going to bring a ridiculous number of people over to Apple. Apple is in PERFECT position right now to eat some of the PC's marketshare, especially when looking at the iPod popularity.
Second coming? No, but this simple little computer looks like it's going to be a major blow to Windows-based machines. At the very least, it's going to be exciting to see how much damage a well built OS in an affordable computer can do to the marketshare of the PC behemoths. If enough of these suckers sell, we're going to see some real innovation between all of the competitors. That's good for everyone.
Whenever you are so blinded by emotion, you fail to see the truth.
This little computer could potentially cause quite a stir, especially riding on the iPod's coattails. It doesn't require zeal or emotion to understand that an increased marketshare for Apple will probably result in increased innovation/lower prices if a full-scale OS war happens.
That's why this is so cool, whether you like Apple or not.
Sunbane, you might want to call your Apple store (if you have one around) and ask them if you can get hooked up with a discount on the new software packages since you just recently got your computer. It's worth looking into... they hooked me up with iLife last time around with my Powerbook about a week or two after I initially bought it, for free.
The Mac Mini is aimed clearly at PC users looking to switch, but featurewise it is a disappointment.
It has OS X and is an affordable Apple computer. That is all it needs to succeed in the market Apple is shooting for.
Hmmm, why don't you just save the time and say that you believe any and every large-ish corporation is evil?
Well most 17" crt monitors can only display well up to 1024x768.
Are you serious?
That move right there will cut down at least 90% of all spyware/adware.
That statement might be true if the majority of spyware wasn't installed directly by the user's actions and not the browser's.
Absolutely. The idea is that to a large group of users, the browser and the operating system are basically synonymous.
1. Because you need to have a browser installed with a new OS, otherwise it would be like getting a new car without a radio.
2. With that many users, you can't simply back out of IE support; it would be terrible business.
3. It would be giving open source a foothold and showing an incredible amount of users what open source can do... sort of like how iPods are converting folks over to Macs.
4. They lose control over things like internet integration in their applications.
5. They lose control over a lot of potential APIs/protocols since they wouldn't have their browers' users to use as a user base.
6. It admits a crushing defeat to open source. Shareholders probably wouldn't be too cool with that.
What you said makes total sense, but you have to look at it from a business perspective... Ditching IE would only confuse users, point them towards open source, and lock Microsoft out of potential future revenues related to internet browsers.
It's also important to keep in mind that from a non-techy's perspective, IE is not bug-ridden filth and that any viruses or nastiness that are caught at this point are just functions of the internets and not Microsoft's fault. Microsoft knows this.
Same thing can be said about Apple's OS-X operating systems or linux distributions.
/.ers and techheads to forget that while MS is probably (cough definitely cough) not ethical, they are an extremely successful business. With this in mind, it seems silly that they would simply let Firefox run over IE. This browser war will be interesting, because it's no longer a matter of out-funding a company, since they're now against an open source model which doesn't really need money. I'd guess the IE developers are starting clean slate with the browser instead of trying to patch swiss cheese in an effort to hit FF hard when Longhorn debuts. What I find highly unlikely is that MS hasn't learned its lesson and are well aware of what they need to do with IE to get it up to snuff.
...or if its because FF isn't popular enough to get the attention from crackers/exploiters.
The same thing IS said about OS X and Linux, and although parent poster's opinion may be totally wrong, it's assinine to simply dismiss it (which you didn't seem to do, I just hate the raw ignorance of that stance). It's quite logical; the kiddies want to do a lot of damage, so they're going to code for the most popular platform out there so they can do the most damage. The whole theory really hasn't been tested too hard because there aren't many products MS competes against where it doesn't have a much larger market share. Apache is an excellent example, though. Personally, I think the whole reason MS/IE gets hit so much harder than anyone else is a combination of the two ideas; firstly, that IE was designed insecurely and this has plagued it, and secondly (but more importantly, IMO) that the kids are targetting IE users since they represent the vast majority and are probably not going to be technically inclined.
so why not change the plans of the devs working on IE?
I would imagine it's a combination of the numerous hacks they have to keep up with due to the obviously flawed security on IE.
with the many years that M$ "could" of worked on IE after its competition with Netscape, one wonders if its M$ that just don't give a shit anymore
I think it's extremely easy for
That's probably the case. Also keep in mind that the majority of FF users are probably more technically proficient than IE users, so clearly the softer target, for now, is IE.
PS: Can we please stop doing the "M$" thing?
Do you know how many users believe their web browser is basically their operating system? There are a lot of folks who have computer for the sole purpose of email, internet, and instant messaging. For all intents and purposes for this group, the browser IS as important as the OS, if not more so.
$250 a piece.
When I said "new," I meant modern and non-used. What you described was certainly not it. That's a whole other market.
For 500 dollars, without a monitor, you can do a lot of damage. I highly doubt Apple would put out a POS if it's being aimed squarely at those customers who are Apple-curious but haven't made the switch yet. That's probably the last crowd they'd want to turn off, and it's conceivable that Apple is willing to make a low profit margin on this one to penetrate the market. Their position is excellent... iPod popularity and Apple-awareness are pretty outstanding right now, this cheap Mac could probably be the key to moving these people over to Macs. I doubt Apple will make this computer junk (which wouldn't be conducive to their trackrecord lately anyhow).
500 dollars isn't cheap-o. I'd guess it'll basically be an iBook in a desktop, which can't cost that much.
Don't underestimate how important Apple might view this computer for their business.
You're barely in the new computer market, much less the Apple market, if you can't drop 500 bucks on a computer. As another poster said, it's probably doubtful Apple wants you to be their customer.
Of course, the only difference there is that you get about 6 hours of battery life out of the iPod initially and the battery only craps out quickly if you work only off of battery power A LOT (many have the iPod plugged in more than not, ie in cars, offices, etc). The battery life is complained about heavily with iPods, as it is the only real issue with the iPod.
Then you've got the PSP that only functions at half of that. Optimally. Whether you believe it's an issue or not, battery life is clearly an issue for the market. Using the iPod which generally has superior battery life (and still deservedly has a lot of complaints about the life) as some sort of reason why the terrible battery life of the PSP is justifiable is ridiculous.
You are intentionally misinterpreting what I'm saying.
No, I'm not.
No, it's never enough. That's capitalism, that's what we live in, that's the whole principle of the thing.
If our capitalist structure gives us enough wealth to give more per capita than any other country on Earth, why are so so against it?
Because the core principle of capitalism itself is to make money, to get it, not to give it away.
There are lots of problems with the US. Generosity is not one of them.
I don't believe so either.
You're totally ignoring that it's not a wealth problem: It's a government problem. It's a tyranny problem. It's a one person subjugating another person problem.
That's interesting - last time I checked, the people were controlling whether they should be giving their money to other countries, NOT the government.
I'm talking about the ability for the US to put an ENORMOUS dent in world hunger (if not eliminate it altogether). I believe that was what you were originally talking about.
The American public does more charitable giving, per capita, than any country in the world.
I'm not sure about that, but it is still far from what the US could potentially REALLY do, and it's obviously not really doing that much in The Big Picture. That will never happen (at least if American society remains on the track we are on) because of our capitalist heritage - IE, get money so you can live well, excel over others, as opposed to giving all of your money away.
I didn't say the US is selfish, I said that we don't want to give our money away to other countries. There's quite a difference - welcome to capitalism.
Right, but that's an issue of the US not wanting to do that for the world (capitalistic), not buying expensive kittens.
I don't see the need for that, especially in large corporations, going away any time soon.
I definitely do. A job like that is more for a computer engineer/systems administrator who takes care of things like that between his other skills, IE maintaining the network, analyzing security, and other things that are generally outside the scope of a computer repair dude. I can't really see companies hiring full time guys who only do computer-repair. Also keep in mind the speed of computers and their prices; most companies aren't going to be doing a lot of frantic upgrading for running MS Office. I can't see too many needs to upgrade hardware given what most users will be doing.
And there are still people who troubleshoot specialized computers down to the component level, because it's still more cost effective to spend 16 hours hunting down a faulty capacitor than replacing a $10,000 board.
Yes, but those people are going to be computer engineers or admins, not people who ONLY do computer repair.
True, a larger skillset is almost always beneficial in the long term, and may make it easier to find a job; however some people may give a higher priority to finding satisfaction from their work than the possible monetary benefits.
Yeah, absolutely. I was looking at it from a monetary/job availability view.
Absolutely, it sucks that market is disappearing from a monetary perspective, but it's cool to see the technology/society (in the form of computer literacy) evolving with it.
I got the impression from your original post that you want to get into repair as a career, sorry for the mis-interpretation.
With all due respect, it sounds like you had a knee-jerk reaction. Keep in mind we're talking about a computer-repair career. Are you denying that computers are becoming more and more reliable? That software is generally being made easier to use for an end user and more stable? Are you denying that as years pass, more and more households will either be computer literate enough to fix their own computers or know someone else who can? That computers are becoming ridiculously cheap (read: disposable)?
Do you believe these trends will reverse themselves in the future?
Do you honestly believe that getting into a career just fixing computers (I used the term "merely" to emphasize that, NOT to belittle the ability to repair a computer) is a good idea? If one chooses to be ignorant of these facts and dive in anyhow that's one thing, but it's another thing to blame the market one might have wanted to get into because he couldn't see it happening right in front of himself.
If people weren't teaching your children, paving your roads, constructing your buildings, fixing your car, or whatever other occupation you consider to lead to a "bad future," you'd be doing these things yourself or going without.
Of course, absolutely. We need roads, we need teachers, we need construction workers, we need mechanics. Believeing that you can start a career in this day and age in computer repair when computers are nearly disposable and will only run more and more stable over time is naive. If you didn't get the jist of it, substitute "bad future" with "unlikely successful longer-term career."
If your future depended on merely fixing computers, it was a bad one in the first place.