Experience and ability should be the primary--if not only--criteria in hiring, not race, sex or orientation thereof--or education.
Being credible is another. While I won't the value of experience vs. education, that a CEO would fabricate an important personnel document makes me wonder about if anything else is fabricated eg the financial statements investors use to determine value of a company.
This is not just about merit, but also about credibility and trustworthiness, both of which are also important attributes for a CEO in an era of Tyco and Enron.
I'm sitting in front of an OS X box right now and I don't have any app called "Backup." The program you have sounds nice, and I'd like a link to it so I can try it out, but it's not part of OS X.
Not free, but Backup is part of the ".Mac" service Apple offers. I'm not sure, but I think Backup can be had for free, even if it's required that you are a.Mac subscriber to be able to back up to your iDisk.
You can probably download Backup for free as a free.Mac trial member; I'd have a hard time believing that it stops working if you don't continue your.Mac subscription (although certainly you won't be able to backup to your iDisk).
So now we have our own versions of the Muslim world's "Morality Police"?
Haven't you been paying attention to the GOP demagogues? That's been pretty clear for the last 4 years. The new wrinkle is that they are acting officially, in the open.
The main problem I have with the GOP is this damn puritanism.
Not just you. I think the RNC has some points when it comes to fiscal conservatism, and even foreign affairs. But they totally lose it for me when they want to start dictating social activities--and use both of the former to regulate the latter.
This is the 21st century, dammit! If we force our views (actually their views, not mine. I have TB's of pr0n) on others, how are we better than the damn Islamist's?
Um, good question?
The GOP is liable to take it up the ass big time in November. Hopefully this will clear out some of the ancient old farts so we can later elect younger pols with more of a Libertarian bent.
On the contrary: the young GOP are the worst, eg Santorum. Their righteousness is less mitigated by the wisdom of age.
Seriously, am I the only one who finds it the peak of hypocrisy to see the legislative body of a lone superpower blaming Google for not doing enough to bring about human rights reform in China?
No. No, you are not. I may be giving too much credit here, but I think everyone else gets this that doesn't work in the US Congress.
And what makes you think you would know? The only reassurance that I can have is that, inasmuch as the Gov't takes little official notice of OS X and Apple products, I think they may not realize that OS X offers this feature, and so have failed to get a backdoor from Apple for it. I hardly think that's a guarantee of no backdoor, but it has some comfort.
I've heard rumors of a Watchmen movie almost since the graphic novel came out. I'll believe it when I see it. I think it's probably unfilmable, or if they make the attempt, it'll have all the depth of the Batman movies.
There is just too much going on in those books for even a 3 hour movie. Maybe you could strip it down to bare plot--the good guy is really a villain, but who does evil to save the world--and it would even have some topicality. But no intricacy could possibly be left. You couldn't even do justice to telling the stories of each of the several characters--which means that some would necessarily be shortchanged; and I don't think that would be possible simply because each character represents a different, important, view of the world. Cutting one out would skew the whole perspective to the remaining characters, and that wouldn't be right either.
I've been playing WoW for ahwile, after coming from a background of heaving MUSHing, and I can say that one of the things that I enjoyed about MUSHing was the ability to build my own domicile and business. I probably enjoyed it even more than the game playing itself. Not only was it "intro to coding logic", but once created I could show off the object or the building as a fruit of my own creativity to friends, which lead to a "sense of space." I would feel actually more comfortable talking to someone, either OOC or IC, from my own home than out on the street.
Compared to WoW, where everything down to the colors of the clothes is predetermined. There is no space there to call my own, or to put my own stamp on.
I realize that the technical challenges to providing the players the tools to create their own space would be enormous, as well as finding the virtual space on the map for the thousands of buildings that would pop up. However, for the $60M/month that Blizz makes I sure wish they'd make it worth their time to figure out. In the end, doing so will I think keep a persistent level of interest maintained. Otherwise, once you hit 60, you spend, what? 2 months before giving up. With a space of your own you would invest more time into it that wouldn't require new content by the creators to provide.
I'm willing to concede that I don't have the kind of friends that give away leet loot to my starting characters. I had a hard time conceiving that anyone would; but you give a counter-example.
And btw, I wasn't suggesting necessarily banning those characters, just disallowing the attempt. And in your case, I'm not sure that disallowing "in-person" gifts would be an issue--I think there'd be enough time involved in coordinating a meetup that it would make it too inefficient for pros to do, but still remain possible for cases such as yours. In WoW at least, you can mail things to any one else of the same faction on the same server, so you can be worlds apart but yet transmit rare and expensive items.
And your main point is that I think any such restriction would hit legitimate transactions too, and I can concede that. But I think farmers make more use of such a system than legitimate users; then again, presumably WoW watches that and it could be that legitimate transactions outweigh the farmers, which is why they don't want to stop it on that level.
I believe I could stop gold farming today, right this minute. (I'm only familiar with WoW, however). Here it is: don't allow large sums to be received through the mail from sources that don't receive anything in return. Put it on a timer, so that the farmer doesn't work around it by simply sending many smaller shipments; scale the value to the respective level. I guess lvl 60 characters might be legitimately receiving 100 GP from their guild mates, but if that amount is going to anyone under lvl 30 over the course of less than a month, that character has paid for the transfer with real money.
Wow, simple, huh? I have a hard time seeing what's wrong with this solution. Not hard to think of, either, which means that Blizz must have thought of it themselves already--and dismissed it, because they don't truly want to shut down farmers, for any number of reasons.
The problem is that if you depend on tediousness to increase the play time for the game that you develop, you're going to attract people that want to circumvent that. If you make your game fun to play for it's own sake, nobody will want to circumvent it. My chief gripe with WoW is completing a quest, only to get a later quest that returns me to the same area I just left--now to get another item. If those quests are chained, I can't even do them at the same time. Not only does this break the suspension of disbelief--"didn't I just get done killing all the creeps in this area? where do they come from?" it signals lazy development. Why develop two interesting spots when you can just send the character back to one? Yeah, I'd pay something to someone else to take my PC through that again.
f you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US. Not sure what happens if you kill a local while you're there... So if you go to China and Google is censoring the net while you're using it that's illegal. I'm not sure about censoring the locals, but it still violates our principals.
You're just making that up, really. If you go to this fantasy country that condones murder, you won't be legally accountable when you return home--the US doesn't have any jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries. It beggars the definition of "illegal" to think that the censoring Google is doing is illegal--it surely isn't considered illegal by the only authority that can make that decision.
It may be unprincipled, contrary to our ethical and moral standards, and unwise, but it's not illegal as it's not deemed other than legal by the authorities that have the jurisdiction to make that determination.
Here's a more reasonable example: if you go to Saudi Arabia, and take > 1 wife (and assuming polygamy is legal there, which I think it is), do you think you'll be charged with polygamy if you should return to the US? Only if you engage in polygamy on US soil.
I really don't understand the magnitude of the problem. Could someone please post a link to pictures of some of the most offensive booth babe offenders?
No, for me the "Real" question is "Why?", as in "Why was Apple so asinine and inane as to not just make the new Intel-based iron capable of booting Windows and Linux disros as is?"
I'm a Mac guy too--and I think this is because Apple (and maybe even Intel, for that matter) wanted to start with a clean technology as of Jan 06, and act as if the world started then.
Apple doesn't care, for good or ill, about anything else running on their boxes besides OS X, so they included zero technology to make that happen; and I think Intel saw this as a way to dump all of their legacy stuff, and start from scratch, essentially.
That this makes bad business sense really isn't a surprise--Apple has earned every dollar of their 5% marketshare. Apple still acts in many ways as if they're the only game in town, and the vast evidence to the contrary is ignored. Much to their disadvantage, IMO. They might've made it easier, but that would have taken somebody doing it--and no one at Apple, Jobs especially, is about implementing something that is outside of their vision for how things "should be."
On a further note, some of this migration to Intel will help open that up, as some of the decision making has been taken out of Apple's hands eg support for 802.11a. Think that would have ever happened on Apple's own without Intel making the chipset? But in terms of EFI, it sounds like Intel wanted BIOS dead too, so they conspired to ignore it, or even provide a way to emulate it.
Does this remind anyone else of the Spice of Arrakis? Large animal, poisonous excretion from it's guts, which metamorph into something valuable. Interesting.
But it does appear that Apple is less in control of its destiny than it's been in the past
Please tell me at what point since '95 has Apple been "in control of it's destiny."
I kid, but seriously--they were first jerked around by Moto--Apple was notorious for shipping behind the curve systems because Moto failed to keep up. This seriously hurt Apple. Next, Apple tried again with IBM--who also failed to keep up with the market.
While Apple may not be able to dictate all of the technology that they can ship with, going along with the crowd instead of trying to distinguish itself with features that peripheral makers barely support is probably going to be the smartest long term strategy. I think Apple knows this, and after failing to make much headway by swimming upstream is now willing to swim with the current for awhile--and adding value where they are able.
To put this into perspective, I'd rather be a homeless guy today than a medieval noble.
Well, I wouldn't. Have you spent a month on the streets, turning tricks to buy food? I would suppose that whatever medical institution revived you wouldn't just turn you out on the street, they'd give you some relocation assistance--but we don't do much for our destitute now when they show up at a hospital. I think medieval nobles had it pretty good compared to our destitute.
Or maybe you're re-animated as an indentured servant bound by the laws of the future; to pay off your debt of re-animation and cure, you have to clean up the toxic waste left behind by our generation.
Seems pretty optimistic, really, and conditions a lot on the generosity of strangers of the future, who are likely to hold this period (and it's inhabitants) in pretty low regard. If history tells us anything, it's that populations that can't defend their status tend to be degraded over a period of time--and being a frozen head for an indefinite period seems like it's asking for abuse.
Well, I hope in the future you prove me wrong, and you look back at this post and laugh. But pleasant dreams.
Perhaps rich people are the ones worrying about preserving their assets for the future, but I don't want people to get the impression that you have to be rich to be a cryonicist.
Maybe not, but the OP has a point: if and when you wake up, will it do you much good to wake up a) broke, and b) without a marketable skill? You'll be about as useful to the new society as a buggy driver is to ours. Worse, you'll probably have a huge medical bill--while you've paid for the suspension (although how can they guarantee the rate?) you couldn't have possibly paid for the cure that will bring you back, as they can't at this point know how expensive it'll be to give you the cure, since it doesn't exist.
Really, that sounds great. You might wake up someday, but you'll be broke, jobless, a relative idiot, nowhere to live, no friends or family, and maybe will have a crushing medical bill. Thanks, but I think I might prefer to stay dead.
When the customers you would lose by not supporting a browser don't purchase enough from you to justify the costs in supporting those browsers. Period. (Rep might be worth something, particularly looking forward.)
If you can't associate particular browser usage with specific revenue amounts, and/or quantify the cost to support a given browser, to make those decisions, that's why God gave us MBAs.
Wait, I don't get it. Are we making fun of Apple because now it appears that G4/5 CPUs are actually about the same as Intel?
Isn't this what Mac lovers have been saying for the past 10 years, but were laughed out of the room?
Does Intel automatically start sucking, because Apple moves to the the CPU? Does PPC get magically better?
Maybe those Macs that were "1/2 as fast and twice as expensive" for the last few years weren't really so slow or so expensive after all--meaning who's the fool?
As if people wouldn't take a Krol Blade to their non-mousing arm in payment for a real FSB for 3D
Thanks for paying attention, but the G5 FSB kicks, has kicked, and still kicks the Intel FSB ass. The high end G5 sports a 1.25 Ghz bus per CPU; and even the iMac G5 had a 667 Mhz bus. So the only real advancement in this regard is on the lousy bus of the PowerBook. So big deal.
It is nice that WoW has announced for the IntelliMac, but going to Intel isn't going to change everything overnight because the G5 didn't really suck that bad.
I agree that buying a MacBook, or any other Intel-based Mac, primarily to run Windows would be kind of silly, though.
Only if the new Macs are not cost competitive with similar offerings from elsewhere. I think that they will have to be, and I think Apple must know that. Their days of 30% margins are over; while an Apple may still command a premium vs a Dell, it'll be much more in line with the industry--kinda like the price differences on a Vaio.
When I added all of the features of the MacBook back to a Gateway with the Duo Core chip, the prices were within $100 of each other. Granted, you get more ability to leave stuff off on the Gateway, which reduces the price; but if you are going to use all of the features of the MacBook eg Bluetooth, wireless, DVD-burning, then the prices are comparable. Which means that primarily running Windows on a Apple machine wouldn't be totally out of the question; maybe you just like the kit and are willing to pay another $100 for it.
Will the day come that Windows is a BTO option at the Apple store? You laugh, but I never thought they'd go Unix and then Intel. Stranger things have happened.
t would first be necessary to buy Mac hardware, which isn't cheap.
That may be less true with MacTel machines. In fact, it had better be true or Apple is cooked, much as I love Apple. If the hardware is similarly priced, it makes the proposition more attractive.
And when I went to the Gateway store, when I loaded one of their laptops with everything that I know that comes with a Mac laptop, I found them to be within $100 of each other. So I think that Apple stuff may be right in the ballpark of other Intel Duo machines.
Umm, I do not think that OS X is considered open source.
It is by the FSF. "The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license."
If this were the case, don't you think someone would have dragged OS X to x86 before Apple did.
Indeed, it was. Darwin. It may have sucked, certainly, but it is and was available for x86, and there were several stories on Slashdot on trying to get it to work on intel over the last 4 years.
A better question is to ask: why did the OSS stuff suck on Intel, when Apple was clearly making better progress with the code in house? Was the communication between the "Marklar" in house project and the OSS version of x86 Darwin one way in either direction?
Re:Big Brother and the iTunes Company
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Do you think stop and shop really wants to spy on you?
Absolutely. I stopped shopping at my local Safeway; they were remodeling and neither I nor the help could find anything anymore. I just stopped going, didn't write a letter or anything like that.
Three months later, I get a coupon in the mail: "We're done with our remodel, so we hope you come back! Here's a 10% off enticement!" That was a wake up. Not only did they know that I was no longer going there, but they knew my home address and even knew why I had stopped. I felt like No 6.
Slashdot Mirror
Experience and ability should be the primary--if not only--criteria in hiring, not race, sex or orientation thereof--or education.
Being credible is another. While I won't the value of experience vs. education, that a CEO would fabricate an important personnel document makes me wonder about if anything else is fabricated eg the financial statements investors use to determine value of a company.
This is not just about merit, but also about credibility and trustworthiness, both of which are also important attributes for a CEO in an era of Tyco and Enron.
I'm sitting in front of an OS X box right now and I don't have any app called "Backup." The program you have sounds nice, and I'd like a link to it so I can try it out, but it's not part of OS X.
Not free, but Backup is part of the ".Mac" service Apple offers. I'm not sure, but I think Backup can be had for free, even if it's required that you are a .Mac subscriber to be able to back up to your iDisk.
You can probably download Backup for free as a free .Mac trial member; I'd have a hard time believing that it stops working if you don't continue your .Mac subscription (although certainly you won't be able to backup to your iDisk).
www.mac.com
Haven't you been paying attention to the GOP demagogues? That's been pretty clear for the last 4 years. The new wrinkle is that they are acting officially, in the open.
The main problem I have with the GOP is this damn puritanism.
Not just you. I think the RNC has some points when it comes to fiscal conservatism, and even foreign affairs. But they totally lose it for me when they want to start dictating social activities--and use both of the former to regulate the latter.
This is the 21st century, dammit! If we force our views (actually their views, not mine. I have TB's of pr0n) on others, how are we better than the damn Islamist's?
Um, good question?
The GOP is liable to take it up the ass big time in November. Hopefully this will clear out some of the ancient old farts so we can later elect younger pols with more of a Libertarian bent.
On the contrary: the young GOP are the worst, eg Santorum. Their righteousness is less mitigated by the wisdom of age.
Seriously, am I the only one who finds it the peak of hypocrisy to see the legislative body of a lone superpower blaming Google for not doing enough to bring about human rights reform in China?
No. No, you are not. I may be giving too much credit here, but I think everyone else gets this that doesn't work in the US Congress.
What's this guy's voting record on MFN for China?
We need a new edition, that will also make it illegal for US companies to cooperate with civil rights suppression by foreign regimes.
I would be more convinced of this argument if it was started this way:
We need a new edition, that will also make it illegal for the US government to cooperate with civil rights suppression by foreign regimes.
Thank you. That is all.
(At least not that I know of)
And what makes you think you would know? The only reassurance that I can have is that, inasmuch as the Gov't takes little official notice of OS X and Apple products, I think they may not realize that OS X offers this feature, and so have failed to get a backdoor from Apple for it. I hardly think that's a guarantee of no backdoor, but it has some comfort.
I've heard rumors of a Watchmen movie almost since the graphic novel came out. I'll believe it when I see it. I think it's probably unfilmable, or if they make the attempt, it'll have all the depth of the Batman movies.
There is just too much going on in those books for even a 3 hour movie. Maybe you could strip it down to bare plot--the good guy is really a villain, but who does evil to save the world--and it would even have some topicality. But no intricacy could possibly be left. You couldn't even do justice to telling the stories of each of the several characters--which means that some would necessarily be shortchanged; and I don't think that would be possible simply because each character represents a different, important, view of the world. Cutting one out would skew the whole perspective to the remaining characters, and that wouldn't be right either.
I've been playing WoW for ahwile, after coming from a background of heaving MUSHing, and I can say that one of the things that I enjoyed about MUSHing was the ability to build my own domicile and business. I probably enjoyed it even more than the game playing itself. Not only was it "intro to coding logic", but once created I could show off the object or the building as a fruit of my own creativity to friends, which lead to a "sense of space." I would feel actually more comfortable talking to someone, either OOC or IC, from my own home than out on the street.
Compared to WoW, where everything down to the colors of the clothes is predetermined. There is no space there to call my own, or to put my own stamp on.
I realize that the technical challenges to providing the players the tools to create their own space would be enormous, as well as finding the virtual space on the map for the thousands of buildings that would pop up. However, for the $60M/month that Blizz makes I sure wish they'd make it worth their time to figure out. In the end, doing so will I think keep a persistent level of interest maintained. Otherwise, once you hit 60, you spend, what? 2 months before giving up. With a space of your own you would invest more time into it that wouldn't require new content by the creators to provide.
Last night, because my friend is on dialup
I'm willing to concede that I don't have the kind of friends that give away leet loot to my starting characters. I had a hard time conceiving that anyone would; but you give a counter-example.
And btw, I wasn't suggesting necessarily banning those characters, just disallowing the attempt. And in your case, I'm not sure that disallowing "in-person" gifts would be an issue--I think there'd be enough time involved in coordinating a meetup that it would make it too inefficient for pros to do, but still remain possible for cases such as yours. In WoW at least, you can mail things to any one else of the same faction on the same server, so you can be worlds apart but yet transmit rare and expensive items.
And your main point is that I think any such restriction would hit legitimate transactions too, and I can concede that. But I think farmers make more use of such a system than legitimate users; then again, presumably WoW watches that and it could be that legitimate transactions outweigh the farmers, which is why they don't want to stop it on that level.
I believe I could stop gold farming today, right this minute. (I'm only familiar with WoW, however). Here it is: don't allow large sums to be received through the mail from sources that don't receive anything in return. Put it on a timer, so that the farmer doesn't work around it by simply sending many smaller shipments; scale the value to the respective level. I guess lvl 60 characters might be legitimately receiving 100 GP from their guild mates, but if that amount is going to anyone under lvl 30 over the course of less than a month, that character has paid for the transfer with real money.
Wow, simple, huh? I have a hard time seeing what's wrong with this solution. Not hard to think of, either, which means that Blizz must have thought of it themselves already--and dismissed it, because they don't truly want to shut down farmers, for any number of reasons.
The problem is that if you depend on tediousness to increase the play time for the game that you develop, you're going to attract people that want to circumvent that. If you make your game fun to play for it's own sake, nobody will want to circumvent it. My chief gripe with WoW is completing a quest, only to get a later quest that returns me to the same area I just left--now to get another item. If those quests are chained, I can't even do them at the same time. Not only does this break the suspension of disbelief--"didn't I just get done killing all the creeps in this area? where do they come from?" it signals lazy development. Why develop two interesting spots when you can just send the character back to one? Yeah, I'd pay something to someone else to take my PC through that again.
f you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US. Not sure what happens if you kill a local while you're there... So if you go to China and Google is censoring the net while you're using it that's illegal. I'm not sure about censoring the locals, but it still violates our principals.
You're just making that up, really. If you go to this fantasy country that condones murder, you won't be legally accountable when you return home--the US doesn't have any jurisdiction over what happens in foreign countries. It beggars the definition of "illegal" to think that the censoring Google is doing is illegal--it surely isn't considered illegal by the only authority that can make that decision.
It may be unprincipled, contrary to our ethical and moral standards, and unwise, but it's not illegal as it's not deemed other than legal by the authorities that have the jurisdiction to make that determination.
Here's a more reasonable example: if you go to Saudi Arabia, and take > 1 wife (and assuming polygamy is legal there, which I think it is), do you think you'll be charged with polygamy if you should return to the US? Only if you engage in polygamy on US soil.
I really don't understand the magnitude of the problem. Could someone please post a link to pictures of some of the most offensive booth babe offenders?
I'll review them after my wife's asleep.
No, for me the "Real" question is "Why?", as in "Why was Apple so asinine and inane as to not just make the new Intel-based iron capable of booting Windows and Linux disros as is?"
I'm a Mac guy too--and I think this is because Apple (and maybe even Intel, for that matter) wanted to start with a clean technology as of Jan 06, and act as if the world started then.
Apple doesn't care, for good or ill, about anything else running on their boxes besides OS X, so they included zero technology to make that happen; and I think Intel saw this as a way to dump all of their legacy stuff, and start from scratch, essentially.
That this makes bad business sense really isn't a surprise--Apple has earned every dollar of their 5% marketshare. Apple still acts in many ways as if they're the only game in town, and the vast evidence to the contrary is ignored. Much to their disadvantage, IMO. They might've made it easier, but that would have taken somebody doing it--and no one at Apple, Jobs especially, is about implementing something that is outside of their vision for how things "should be."
On a further note, some of this migration to Intel will help open that up, as some of the decision making has been taken out of Apple's hands eg support for 802.11a. Think that would have ever happened on Apple's own without Intel making the chipset? But in terms of EFI, it sounds like Intel wanted BIOS dead too, so they conspired to ignore it, or even provide a way to emulate it.
Does this remind anyone else of the Spice of Arrakis? Large animal, poisonous excretion from it's guts, which metamorph into something valuable. Interesting.
Can someone tell me if this means that I no longer have to take my business elsewhere when I encounter a "Sorry, this site only loads in Windows?"
I dig that stuff that requires the DRM WMP still may not let me in, but what about other things?
Can I hope that Safari and friends will no longer be a second class citizen on Exchange WebMail, for example?
But it does appear that Apple is less in control of its destiny than it's been in the past
Please tell me at what point since '95 has Apple been "in control of it's destiny."
I kid, but seriously--they were first jerked around by Moto--Apple was notorious for shipping behind the curve systems because Moto failed to keep up. This seriously hurt Apple. Next, Apple tried again with IBM--who also failed to keep up with the market.
While Apple may not be able to dictate all of the technology that they can ship with, going along with the crowd instead of trying to distinguish itself with features that peripheral makers barely support is probably going to be the smartest long term strategy. I think Apple knows this, and after failing to make much headway by swimming upstream is now willing to swim with the current for awhile--and adding value where they are able.
To put this into perspective, I'd rather be a homeless guy today than a medieval noble.
Well, I wouldn't. Have you spent a month on the streets, turning tricks to buy food? I would suppose that whatever medical institution revived you wouldn't just turn you out on the street, they'd give you some relocation assistance--but we don't do much for our destitute now when they show up at a hospital. I think medieval nobles had it pretty good compared to our destitute.
Or maybe you're re-animated as an indentured servant bound by the laws of the future; to pay off your debt of re-animation and cure, you have to clean up the toxic waste left behind by our generation.
Seems pretty optimistic, really, and conditions a lot on the generosity of strangers of the future, who are likely to hold this period (and it's inhabitants) in pretty low regard. If history tells us anything, it's that populations that can't defend their status tend to be degraded over a period of time--and being a frozen head for an indefinite period seems like it's asking for abuse.
Well, I hope in the future you prove me wrong, and you look back at this post and laugh. But pleasant dreams.
Perhaps rich people are the ones worrying about preserving their assets for the future, but I don't want people to get the impression that you have to be rich to be a cryonicist.
Maybe not, but the OP has a point: if and when you wake up, will it do you much good to wake up a) broke, and b) without a marketable skill? You'll be about as useful to the new society as a buggy driver is to ours. Worse, you'll probably have a huge medical bill--while you've paid for the suspension (although how can they guarantee the rate?) you couldn't have possibly paid for the cure that will bring you back, as they can't at this point know how expensive it'll be to give you the cure, since it doesn't exist.
Really, that sounds great. You might wake up someday, but you'll be broke, jobless, a relative idiot, nowhere to live, no friends or family, and maybe will have a crushing medical bill. Thanks, but I think I might prefer to stay dead.
When the customers you would lose by not supporting a browser don't purchase enough from you to justify the costs in supporting those browsers. Period. (Rep might be worth something, particularly looking forward.)
If you can't associate particular browser usage with specific revenue amounts, and/or quantify the cost to support a given browser, to make those decisions, that's why God gave us MBAs.
Wait, I don't get it. Are we making fun of Apple because now it appears that G4/5 CPUs are actually about the same as Intel?
Isn't this what Mac lovers have been saying for the past 10 years, but were laughed out of the room?
Does Intel automatically start sucking, because Apple moves to the the CPU? Does PPC get magically better?
Maybe those Macs that were "1/2 as fast and twice as expensive" for the last few years weren't really so slow or so expensive after all--meaning who's the fool?
As if people wouldn't take a Krol Blade to their non-mousing arm in payment for a real FSB for 3D
Thanks for paying attention, but the G5 FSB kicks, has kicked, and still kicks the Intel FSB ass. The high end G5 sports a 1.25 Ghz bus per CPU; and even the iMac G5 had a 667 Mhz bus. So the only real advancement in this regard is on the lousy bus of the PowerBook. So big deal.
It is nice that WoW has announced for the IntelliMac, but going to Intel isn't going to change everything overnight because the G5 didn't really suck that bad.
I agree that buying a MacBook, or any other Intel-based Mac, primarily to run Windows would be kind of silly, though.
Only if the new Macs are not cost competitive with similar offerings from elsewhere. I think that they will have to be, and I think Apple must know that. Their days of 30% margins are over; while an Apple may still command a premium vs a Dell, it'll be much more in line with the industry--kinda like the price differences on a Vaio.
When I added all of the features of the MacBook back to a Gateway with the Duo Core chip, the prices were within $100 of each other. Granted, you get more ability to leave stuff off on the Gateway, which reduces the price; but if you are going to use all of the features of the MacBook eg Bluetooth, wireless, DVD-burning, then the prices are comparable. Which means that primarily running Windows on a Apple machine wouldn't be totally out of the question; maybe you just like the kit and are willing to pay another $100 for it.
Will the day come that Windows is a BTO option at the Apple store? You laugh, but I never thought they'd go Unix and then Intel. Stranger things have happened.
t would first be necessary to buy Mac hardware, which isn't cheap.
That may be less true with MacTel machines. In fact, it had better be true or Apple is cooked, much as I love Apple. If the hardware is similarly priced, it makes the proposition more attractive.
And when I went to the Gateway store, when I loaded one of their laptops with everything that I know that comes with a Mac laptop, I found them to be within $100 of each other. So I think that Apple stuff may be right in the ballpark of other Intel Duo machines.
Umm, I do not think that OS X is considered open source.
It is by the FSF. "The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license."
If this were the case, don't you think someone would have dragged OS X to x86 before Apple did.
Indeed, it was. Darwin. It may have sucked, certainly, but it is and was available for x86, and there were several stories on Slashdot on trying to get it to work on intel over the last 4 years.
A better question is to ask: why did the OSS stuff suck on Intel, when Apple was clearly making better progress with the code in house? Was the communication between the "Marklar" in house project and the OSS version of x86 Darwin one way in either direction?
Do you think stop and shop really wants to spy on you?
Absolutely. I stopped shopping at my local Safeway; they were remodeling and neither I nor the help could find anything anymore. I just stopped going, didn't write a letter or anything like that.
Three months later, I get a coupon in the mail: "We're done with our remodel, so we hope you come back! Here's a 10% off enticement!" That was a wake up. Not only did they know that I was no longer going there, but they knew my home address and even knew why I had stopped. I felt like No 6.