On my computers, OS X takes up a lot more space than XP
Not the best compariosn, as OS X has a lot of stuff in the Library folder for installed applications; iDVD and Garagband use a ton of space, for example. You can whittle it down considerably when you reinstall. By "more to patch" I mean Microsoft "has a full assload of bugs and flaws to fix for each and every Microsoft employee".
Uh huh. Zero viruses since OS X was released. Zero worms. No lowspread reports of Macs being compromized, much less widespread. The exploits that are out there depend on 1) having local access, in which case you are screwed anyway 2) have access to an account for privledge escallation attacks or 3) be running a service. They release bug fixes on a regular basis, and real problems are addressed in days. There's good priveldge separation, and a good GUI method for privelede escalation, as opposed to the craptacular "run as" command. You can take a Mac running a default install of OS X 10.0.0 and be exploit free, as opposed to some other OS's available.
Actually being secure would be one way to accomplish that. Looking like they're working hard to protect you is another way.
Actually providing some reasoning or evidence would be one way to back up your argument. Speaking out of your ass with unsubstantiated statements is another, far less effective way.:)
the difference between Microsoft's way and Apple's way in this case is that Microsoft actually gives you more information about vulnerabilities and is actually less afraid to make themselves look bad than Apple.
Hardly. If that's all they cared about, they wouldn't give a shit about security, just like Microsoft when their only concern was making a longer billeted list of "features" to convince people to "upgrade".
The GOP is for states rights when it suits their interests, and against them when it suits their interests. Just as they aren't really against "big government", they're against social spending - bring on the military spending and the corporate pork projects. Or how they talk about keeping government out of people's lives, and then turn around and ban gay marriage. Democrats are the same way, of course - but they haven't spent the last few decades being two faced hypocrites about it.
Senators are elected by residents of the state they serve. There are every bit as devoted to their states after the 17th Amendment as before.
What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life.
What has changed? Nothing. Opponents can savage them in the next election, the same as Republican Senators got saved in the last election for voting against better body armor for the troops.
But the real reason going back to the old system is a horrible idea: gerrymandering. The House was supposed to be the chamber most responsive to the moods of the citizenry, with the Senate keeping more of the status quo. Instead, thanks the gerrymandering, it's the other way around - and it's only gotten worse with computer software that can optimize your party's seats. Take the Texas debacle: Republicans, who got 56% of the vote, redrew the districts so they got 76% of the seats.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is like term limits: might seem like a good idea on the face, but not only does it not fix any of the problems it was meant to solve, it creates new ones.
Your analogy sucks. Let me fix it for you: your neighbor has a sign from Century 21 on his lawn saying "house for sale". Below that it says "Open House today from 9 am to 4 pm." Then your neighbor gets pissed at you for walking inside at 2 o'clock and charges you with trespassing.
They're the kind of people to constantly criticize Microsoft just because it's trendy but then happily bend over for Adobe and Apple.
Yeah, it's so trendy to think that. Microsoft gets criticized because 1) they make crappy, pricey software that is always delayed 2) they make horribly insecure software 3) they are a convicted monopolist and 4) their hyperaggressive business tactics.
As for "happily bending over", I'm skeptical. If you are in certain professions, you really don't have a choice about using Adobe's products. Look at the love/hate relationship between Quark and the customers that use their products.
Unfortunately, designers by and large aren't particularly savvy.
They might not be savvy about computers in general, but I would think that spending several tens of thousands of dollars on hardware and software will either make you pretty savvy about your area pretty fast, or else you will be out of business *very* fast.
You aren't following the same logic, you are comparing Apples to oranges. 2000, XP and Vista are marketing names. 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, XP was Windows NT 5.1. Windows service packs are point releases.
Sorry, I'd say it's more than Apple's point releases.
Sure, there might be more changes in a service pack than one of Apple's point releases, but Apple has a lot more of them. And each 10.x release has *far* more features than moving from Win95 to Win98 or 2000 to XP.
Hardly. Apple is competitive when you compare similar systems from other OEMs. But if you want a complete system for as little money as possible, you can run out and buy a nice Dell POS for $400. You can't do that with Apple.
The rush for Leopard is based primarily upon the fact that it will make Apple far more money than the iPhone can ever hope to bring in.
Sure about that? Why don't you compare iPod sales to Mac OS X sales and get back to us.
He announced a new product well in advance of actually shipping it.
He didn't have a choice. The phone needs FCC approval, which takes time. There was no way to keep it secret until the phone could be shipped. And this way, thousands of people who would have signed two year contracts with other providers are now waiting for the iPhone's release.
Apple is entering a market place that is extremely competitive with a product which is a multiple of the cost of the competition. Which isn't even technologically competitive.
Hardly. Plenty of smartphones have debuted at $500. Hell, the Motorola Razor came out at $400, and it wasn't even a smartphone. As for not being technologically competitive, how much have you actually read up on this? The visual voicemail alone will be worth the cost of the phone to many people. It's also the first widescreen iPod. It also has superior web browsing and Google integration. The closest competitor with a similarly sized touchscreen that I've seen is larger, heavier, has no camera, and it's memory is limited to a MicroSD expansion slot.
Nearly all of the technology is focused on being cute and pretty.
Like what, exactly.
The phone as announced lacks a good number of the features that the majority of phone users use.
Like what, exactly.
With the price tag the way it is and Apple not already being a major player in the Cellphone market, the likelihood of them actually selling enough phones to make this more than an extravagant affront to their shareholders is practically nill.
Hm, since 2000, Microsoft's equilivant "intermediate releases" were:
No, they weren't. Here's your list, minus point releases: 2k, XP, and Vista. And that's being generous to XP. You want to include service packs, then we also need to include every 10.x.x release from Apple. Not only is Microsoft not in the same boat when it comes to OS development, they aren't even in the same ocean.
The Newton was spun off into a profitable subsidiary. It wasn't killed by the market, it was killed by Jobs when he came back to the company. That the Newton was Scully's baby might have had something to do with that....
hahaha... so that's the game you want to play... try and attack the source and try to discredit it, try to discredit it using a topic that isn't in play using a strawman argument. Nice try, but I'm not a dumbass... but apparently you are.
You quoted a source, factcheck.org, and I quoted a source showing they can be quite weak on the facts. That's not a strawman, that's showing your source is crap. Just how stupid are you, really?
Again what is the obvious conflict of interest, there is no possible way he can profit from it period.
Because he is steering the money to interests of his, you dumb bastard. That he's giving money to charity is a variable in how bad that conflict is, like oh say Denny Hastert earmarking a $200 million highway project over land he just purchased, not in whether or not it's a conflict of interest in the first place.
He's only a RINO if your definition of Republican is "whatever the hell Bush wants to do". Aside from campaign finance reform and a few environmental issues, McCain has solid gold conservative credentials on everything from taxes to voting against the Brady Bill to abortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't running a red in California $270 right off the bat? Throw in a similar fine for the cell phone and you're looking at a $500 ticket....
Doesn't look that way.
On my computers, OS X takes up a lot more space than XP
Not the best compariosn, as OS X has a lot of stuff in the Library folder for installed applications; iDVD and Garagband use a ton of space, for example. You can whittle it down considerably when you reinstall. By "more to patch" I mean Microsoft "has a full assload of bugs and flaws to fix for each and every Microsoft employee".
and they don't.
:)
Uh huh. Zero viruses since OS X was released. Zero worms. No lowspread reports of Macs being compromized, much less widespread. The exploits that are out there depend on 1) having local access, in which case you are screwed anyway 2) have access to an account for privledge escallation attacks or 3) be running a service. They release bug fixes on a regular basis, and real problems are addressed in days. There's good priveldge separation, and a good GUI method for privelede escalation, as opposed to the craptacular "run as" command. You can take a Mac running a default install of OS X 10.0.0 and be exploit free, as opposed to some other OS's available.
Actually being secure would be one way to accomplish that. Looking like they're working hard to protect you is another way.
Actually providing some reasoning or evidence would be one way to back up your argument. Speaking out of your ass with unsubstantiated statements is another, far less effective way.
the difference between Microsoft's way and Apple's way in this case is that Microsoft actually gives you more information about vulnerabilities and is actually less afraid to make themselves look bad than Apple.
As this guy notes, not really.
Maybe that's because Apple operates on looks
Hardly. If that's all they cared about, they wouldn't give a shit about security, just like Microsoft when their only concern was making a longer billeted list of "features" to convince people to "upgrade".
Did you really mean to say that Apple releases patches more often than Microsoft? Because that is just plain wrong.
Because Microsoft has a lot more to patch.
Incumbency is another red herring. Incumbency isn't the problem, its the lack of adequate campaign financing and enforcement of ethics.
The GOP is for states rights when it suits their interests, and against them when it suits their interests. Just as they aren't really against "big government", they're against social spending - bring on the military spending and the corporate pork projects. Or how they talk about keeping government out of people's lives, and then turn around and ban gay marriage. Democrats are the same way, of course - but they haven't spent the last few decades being two faced hypocrites about it.
Senators are elected by residents of the state they serve. There are every bit as devoted to their states after the 17th Amendment as before.
What this meant was that Senators who acted against the perceived interests of their state would have a short service life.
What has changed? Nothing. Opponents can savage them in the next election, the same as Republican Senators got saved in the last election for voting against better body armor for the troops.
But the real reason going back to the old system is a horrible idea: gerrymandering. The House was supposed to be the chamber most responsive to the moods of the citizenry, with the Senate keeping more of the status quo. Instead, thanks the gerrymandering, it's the other way around - and it's only gotten worse with computer software that can optimize your party's seats. Take the Texas debacle: Republicans, who got 56% of the vote, redrew the districts so they got 76% of the seats.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is like term limits: might seem like a good idea on the face, but not only does it not fix any of the problems it was meant to solve, it creates new ones.
Should have announced the Bridge to Nowhere after the Russians came out with this plan, and it would have sounded cheap by comparison.
Or you're a high maintenance bitch.
Your analogy sucks. Let me fix it for you: your neighbor has a sign from Century 21 on his lawn saying "house for sale". Below that it says "Open House today from 9 am to 4 pm." Then your neighbor gets pissed at you for walking inside at 2 o'clock and charges you with trespassing.
They don't have a POS to sell you at any price.
And the point is that forced advertising sucks, as does any technology that fosters it.
They're the kind of people to constantly criticize Microsoft just because it's trendy but then happily bend over for Adobe and Apple.
Yeah, it's so trendy to think that. Microsoft gets criticized because 1) they make crappy, pricey software that is always delayed 2) they make horribly insecure software 3) they are a convicted monopolist and 4) their hyperaggressive business tactics.
As for "happily bending over", I'm skeptical. If you are in certain professions, you really don't have a choice about using Adobe's products. Look at the love/hate relationship between Quark and the customers that use their products.
Unfortunately, designers by and large aren't particularly savvy.
They might not be savvy about computers in general, but I would think that spending several tens of thousands of dollars on hardware and software will either make you pretty savvy about your area pretty fast, or else you will be out of business *very* fast.
Following the same logic
You aren't following the same logic, you are comparing Apples to oranges. 2000, XP and Vista are marketing names. 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, XP was Windows NT 5.1. Windows service packs are point releases.
Sorry, I'd say it's more than Apple's point releases.
Sure, there might be more changes in a service pack than one of Apple's point releases, but Apple has a lot more of them. And each 10.x release has *far* more features than moving from Win95 to Win98 or 2000 to XP.
Hardly. Apple is competitive when you compare similar systems from other OEMs. But if you want a complete system for as little money as possible, you can run out and buy a nice Dell POS for $400. You can't do that with Apple.
The rush for Leopard is based primarily upon the fact that it will make Apple far more money than the iPhone can ever hope to bring in.
Sure about that? Why don't you compare iPod sales to Mac OS X sales and get back to us.
He announced a new product well in advance of actually shipping it.
He didn't have a choice. The phone needs FCC approval, which takes time. There was no way to keep it secret until the phone could be shipped. And this way, thousands of people who would have signed two year contracts with other providers are now waiting for the iPhone's release.
Apple is entering a market place that is extremely competitive with a product which is a multiple of the cost of the competition. Which isn't even technologically competitive.
Hardly. Plenty of smartphones have debuted at $500. Hell, the Motorola Razor came out at $400, and it wasn't even a smartphone. As for not being technologically competitive, how much have you actually read up on this? The visual voicemail alone will be worth the cost of the phone to many people. It's also the first widescreen iPod. It also has superior web browsing and Google integration. The closest competitor with a similarly sized touchscreen that I've seen is larger, heavier, has no camera, and it's memory is limited to a MicroSD expansion slot.
Nearly all of the technology is focused on being cute and pretty.
Like what, exactly.
The phone as announced lacks a good number of the features that the majority of phone users use.
Like what, exactly.
With the price tag the way it is and Apple not already being a major player in the Cellphone market, the likelihood of them actually selling enough phones to make this more than an extravagant affront to their shareholders is practically nill.
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Taco? Is that you? How much space do you have left on that Nomad these days?
The greed of the industry. They squeeze retailers and keep prices high, dropping interest in their product.
License, eh? That means they're happy to replace lost or damaged media at cost, right? /retorical
Hm, since 2000, Microsoft's equilivant "intermediate releases" were:
No, they weren't. Here's your list, minus point releases: 2k, XP, and Vista. And that's being generous to XP. You want to include service packs, then we also need to include every 10.x.x release from Apple. Not only is Microsoft not in the same boat when it comes to OS development, they aren't even in the same ocean.
The Newton was spun off into a profitable subsidiary. It wasn't killed by the market, it was killed by Jobs when he came back to the company. That the Newton was Scully's baby might have had something to do with that....
hahaha... so that's the game you want to play... try and attack the source and try to discredit it, try to discredit it using a topic that isn't in play using a strawman argument. Nice try, but I'm not a dumbass... but apparently you are.
You quoted a source, factcheck.org, and I quoted a source showing they can be quite weak on the facts. That's not a strawman, that's showing your source is crap. Just how stupid are you, really?
Again what is the obvious conflict of interest, there is no possible way he can profit from it period.
Because he is steering the money to interests of his, you dumb bastard. That he's giving money to charity is a variable in how bad that conflict is, like oh say Denny Hastert earmarking a $200 million highway project over land he just purchased, not in whether or not it's a conflict of interest in the first place.
At the federal level it's McCain
He's only a RINO if your definition of Republican is "whatever the hell Bush wants to do". Aside from campaign finance reform and a few environmental issues, McCain has solid gold conservative credentials on everything from taxes to voting against the Brady Bill to abortion.