And I don't really like how you imply that I am displaying some "fanboy" characteristics.
I didn't intend to. The point was that most people who are outspoken in their praise for Apples are fanboys -- who really just aren't grounded or credible...and it's easy to get into that mentality. I'm sorry that you interpreted from my...rant...any implication of personal characteristic. I don't know anything about you and this was not my intention.
As far as the virus/malware issues, I belong to the camp who believes that the dominant platform will always get those. Most malware, even viruses are set up and run in userland -- all it needs to do is to trick the user. Very few malware applications (even viruses) are installed via a (for example) IE exploit (this does not, however, excuse the exploit's existance). Typically, users are duped into installing and running these at will. To have a true malware-free experience, one will have to simply avoid the dominant platform.
Yah -- I don't know how I let this get so out of hand rantish. It must have been the long weekend and my adversion to getting back into working. I'll kill it now.
You must live in a highly populated state. Those of us in less populous areas appreciate the two baseline electoral votes we get -- just like the big states!
In a smaller state with 3 electoral votes, there actually is more representation per person than in a larger state. However, wouldn't voting count for more if it weren't an all-or-nothing proposition? If I vote in Whateveria (a made-up, hyopthetical US State) for a candidate who doesn't win the state electorate, my vote doesn't count at all. In a popular vote, my vote would count just as much, no matter what state, no matter what else my state does. In fact, the electoral college only grants more representation for the majority population of voters in a state. The rest get no representation at all.
This doesn't mean that they're better in any way. It just says something about the owners. I don't love Macs, and I don't love Wintel...in fact, I hate PC's (and Macs are, by definiton, PC's).
What I can say about running x86-class hardware is this: You've got better choice of OS'es -- more choice than just about any other platform. You've also got the best choice of hardware, at the best prices. If you happen to be running Windows, you've also got the best driver support available. As far as support goes, you've got the widest possible range. Finally, (again, if you run Windows), you've got the best choice of software. Because of the latter, 99% of small-medium businesses have to run Wintel, because unless they can afford a dev team, Windows is required for just about all shrinkwrapped core business apps (HRIS, Payroll, etc). If a company can't afford a development team (or custom core business apps), they likely can't afford to support 2 different OS'es running on two different hardware platforms, running two different software suites.
I use Apples, Wintels, and Linux/Intel pretty regularly, and to say that Apple is not really easier to use than anything else (on a day-to-day basis, for anything above the most basic of tasks). Most of the folks who claim otherwise are just buying into unsubstianted marketing hype (and fanboy crap)...but that's another discussion for another day. But as we compare platforms like this in an unfair way, if it's not one thing, it's another. If it's easier to set up new hardware, it's harder to get equivalent driver support. If I can get decent driver support, I can't configure the device with the same amount of granularity.
Personally, however, when it comes down to my dollars -- I know how to deal with all of the crap associated with the commodity hardware. Why spend the extra money if I don't have to? It's not like the choice will take years (or even days) away from me. Also remember that we're not just talking about up-front costs. Everything that I add to the system is gonna cost less down the line than it would on the low-production Apple.
I'm pretty adverse to fanboydom in general though. Each platform seems to have its strengths and weaknesses. What is amazing is the crap so many people will put up with so they can beleive that they bought the best system in the world for everything, hands-down. Just know what the strengths and weaknesses are -- and avoid being a rabid fanboy...those people are dumb.
It seems to be a matter of a single company controlling the hardware and the OS.
Yes, but don't forget that this has its drawbacks too. While OpenFirmware is cool and all -- as are many of the Apple's fatures, you're still stuck with a propritary CPU (maybe not completely propritary, but seriously, who else uses those?). Furthermore, even though it uses open standards, like PCI and AGP, there is still a huge premium for Apple peripherals (like AGP video cards). In most cases, these cards are identical, but come bundeled with different software and an Apple hardware certificaiton. If I understand this correctly, the cards are sometimes flashed with a different firmware but are otherwise identical.
While the OpenFirmware design is pretty cool, there is something to be said for commodity hardware.
The floppy is still a very common method of transfering documentation between the home PC and a school PC.
This is an unfortunate situation. I used to work in a college lab, and I would see kids lose all kinds of papers all the time due to the frailty of floppy disks (from final papers to thesis papers). I mean -- if you breathe on a floppy wrong, you'll lose your data. It's not just that it's a low-density media. It's very slow, and very unreliable. Maybe the school's administrators will get the point when enough students lose data.
In any case, the death of the floppy has been long and slow. Let's hope it finally dies soon. They're no longer necessary in current computers except perhaps for legacy support.
Here's the thing: Floppies suck.
Don't agree? Too bad, they still suck
From a guy who spent the middle part of the 90's working in a college computer lab, I can't tell you how many kids would come in with a floppy telling me that they couldn't get the only copy of their final paper (or worse, their thesis) off of their floppy disk. I had to tell them "tough tacos", that their data was lost, and they should have backed it up to something. The Zip drives, also floppy magnetic media, were just as bad (if not worse...with the click of death and all). The fact is that floppy disks are a horribly unreliable storage medium...combined with their low transfer rate and incredibly low storage density, they downright suck ass. Some people whine about the longetivity of CD's -- however, due to the frailty of floppy disks, I believe this is a moot argument. (You lose your data if you breathe on floppies wrong!) The people who support floppies because they're "convenient" and it's the only thing they know how to use...I hate to say it, but they sorta deserve to lose their data. Why should we have to suffer (and/or buy crappy technology) because floppies are convenient for some folks?
As far as needing bootable floppies for things like BIOS updates -- floppy advocates may have a point here. I still keep one floppy drive around for this purpose. However, under most circumstances, I'll make a boot floppy on the one system that has a floppy, then burn it to a bootable CD. This way, I won't have to shuffle that drive around. Some will complain that burning a CD is a waste of space and money. I reject that argument because unless you're still using your free AOL floppies from the mid 90's, CDR/RW's are just as cheap as floppies (if not cheaper). Outside of the per-disk cost, on a cost-per-MB basis, it's an absolute no-brainer. Even if you waste 96% of the space on a CD, you're still making off better than you would with a floppy.
Anyway, the end is near for this technology. It's not quite here yet, because manufacturers are still updating bios' with floppies. There are ways around them, but until manufacturers start shipping CD ISO's, these are still hacks. I welcome the demise of floppy technology with open arms. Now, when will analog modems go this way too?
OK, this is getting pretty OT, but who cares of Apple was the first to do anything? It doesn't matter what came first -- what matters is what is best, what is best supported, and what will be the longest lived. Perfect example: the Tivo. The Tivo was first, and is still a great product...however, it's pretty widely held by analysts that they will eventually go away. Every cable and satellite provider in the country will offer a similar product bundled with their service -- Tivo won't be able to compete with the bundled service. Vonage is the same way -- first to market, but the big guys will bundle it and crush them.
So -- like I said, first-to-market in this case sounds like no more than a hook for fanboys. I don't buy computer products for their "innovation". I buy the best product available on the market. In this market, innovation tends to imply "bleeding edge". No thanks. I'll wait for a technology to mature...or even for dev shops to find a use for it first. This way, I'll be able to spend 1/3 of the money and use the bleeding edge technology (and by bleeding edge, I'm not talking about systems sans-floppy drives)...think firewire, or even GigE. How much did you spend on that when it first came out? (I know, you don't know because it was bundled with your system...it doesn't matter, you still paid for it) How much did compatible devices cost for your bleeding edge hardware (think DV cams and GigE switches)? Those took about 3 years to become commoditized, about the lifetime of the bleeding-edge PC's...and these things were standard on those PC's -- you had to pay for technology that you weren't able to use until your machine was obselete and you got your next personal computer. Sure, there'll be exceptions...I'm sure that some fanboy used these devices right away...but these early-adopters had to buy overly expensive early-market perhiperals. Most technical buyers don't use this stuff, and your average consumer definitely won't care.
Anyway, don't let me stop you from patting yourself on the back for buying an Apple.
Well, I don't necessarily agree that people should be FORCED to protect themselves. I was using the seatbelt example more as in "we didn't know how important they are" and hence didn't wear them.
Right on, I'm with you. My post was pretty far off topic and in hindsight...I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
Airplanes used to have very little security, and people would even smoke on them. Cars originally had no seat belts, and even when they did, wearing them was not mandatory for the longest time. Moterbike riders didn't used to wear, or have to wear, helments. These are all absurd things *now*, but at the time people did not realize it.
I know that this is completely offtopic...but I find our seatbelt and helmet laws patently absurd. Your example here is poor, since your view is not universally accepted. It comes down to the argument of who owns your body -- you or the goverment. I choose to wear seatbelts and helmets. I believe that not using them is just plain dumb...but I neither want this forced on me, nor do I believe it should be forced on anyone else.
The AG's people apparently believe that these UCE perpetrators are violating the law, and have acted accordingly. That this pleases the OP is entirely unconnected to that. They may believe that the accused are actually very nice people whom they would like to meet socially, except that the accused seem to have broken some laws. The very same people may turn around next week and do something that displeases the OP, again due (we hope) solely to their belief that someone broke the law.
This seems to essentially be a discussion about semantics. Whether or not an appointed public servant is my friend or enemy is essentially irrelevant...I totally agree with you on that. But DoJ's performance suggests that they're selectively enforcing the law...taking on issues that either further the president's cause, or pushing their own agenda (moral or otherwise). I believe that this is the heart of the friend/enemy issue.
[Begin HUGE OT digression] A few of the issues include backing off of the Microsoft antutrust suit, backing off of Clinton's push for criminal prosecutions of egregious environmental law violators, and generally limiting corporate accountability (and I'm anti-corporate bashing). Further examples are things like wasting taxpayer dollars to investigate and prosecute Internet cannabis paraphernalia sale. It's convenient to say that they're just enforcing the law (and I don't believe it)...but this type of law enforcement is clearly prioritized, and many other important (critical) things have taken a back seat to things like throwing Tommy Chong in jail.
Furthermore, DoJ has taken its part in pushing the Patriot Act through Congress and attempting to further extend the limitations thereof...as well as a very liberal interpretation of its rights under the Patriot Act (and by liberal, I mean they're taking liberties at our expense). We've gotta hold someone responsible...and sure, our president played his part for appointing this guy -- but when all is said and done (and to get back to our discussion), he's at the helm of DoJ. I think he's doing a deplorable job. I don't know him personally, and I probably wouldn't want to know him on that level. IMO, regardless of his personal life and beliefs, these considerations may qualify him as an enemy. [End HUGE OT digression]
I really want to avoid the Nazi cliche, mainly because it's far too extreme for this discussion...but at one point does an officialy become an "enemy"? At what point does "just doing my job" make someone a total bastard for taking the job on? Can someone be a total bastard (umm...enemy) for using their office to do horrible things that affect us all?
You may agree or disagree with the way that he does it, but it shouldn't be anything personal, on his part or yours.
I can't say that I agree with this assessment. Mr. Ashcroft was appointed to his position -- similar to Michael Powell in the FCC. Why can't an appointed official be a friend or enemy? They certainly make friends and enemies, and Ashcroft has certainly done that.
Your parent poster didn't make any quips about Ashcroft's persoanal life, but I'm inferring that his comment was with regard to the justice arm of the Bush admnistration's social and fiscal policies. And the Bush administration has (and will) used Ashcroft's DoJ to push these agenda. John Ashcroft is an excellent lightning rod in this sense. However, he was appointed and is given enough leeway/power to take it upon himself to go after certain folks for certain actions in accordance with his beliefs and interpretation of the law. Why can't we hold him responsible for this?
When you start getting upwards of 20k then you start having a real issue with explosive decompression. Most transcontinental and international flights are moving along at better than 32k. THIS is a problem if the hull is punctured. There will be a blowout.
Where did you get this information? I guess that it's common knowledge for my and my fellow moviegoers...but I have recently learned that explosive decompression due to a bullet is a myth. See my previous post in this thread.
Now can you moron explain me at least, what happens @ 10k feet height if you shoot through the hull?
You must mean 30,000 feet...and by hull, you mean fuselage, right?...and why are you calling people morons for having an opinion that's different from yours?
As far as what an airplane does when a bullet penetrates the fuselage -- nothing. The idea that a bullet passing through an airplane's fuselage (or even through a window) will cause explosive decompression is a myth (see episode 10). You won't be sucked through a bullet hole in a window or the fuselage. If a passenger or member of the flight crew gets hit by a stray bullet (or even multiple), in the case of a 9/11-style attack we're clearly talking about acceptable losses (assuming that a gun in the cockpit will prevent such a catastrophe). Consider that VP Cheeney gave the order to shoot down the flight over PA on 9/11/2001 -- in relation to the damage that an airplane can cause, killing a few people on board in order to save thousands (not having to shoot the plane out of the sky is a pretty nice bonus too)...not so much of a problem by me.
LOL, yes 4 sure, all we need are just bigger weapons, than any terrorist could have
I don't know a whole lot about guns, but a 9mm is a pretty small caliber bullet. This isn't a case of bigger weapons, it's just a case of effective lethal weaponry.
3) The presense of US troops on Muslim holy places.
That's all. Nothing myterious or religious.
I was with you right up until that point. The presence of US troops on "Muslim holy places" is mysterious and/or religous. It's not like US troops have occupied Mecca and are hiding out in mosques as we speak.
We're in Saudi Arabia for a reason...and their soverign government has recgonized it and allowed our presence. We were (at one point) in Iraq for a reason (GW 1). Now I'm with you that it's not the US's job to be the police all over the world, but our actions aren't necessarily illegal or nefarious. These people (terrorists) are freaky religous zealots who (IMO) cannot be appeased.
Now while I agree that our foreign policy should probably be changed to a more Roosevelt-centric "Walk softly" kind of policy (or even a Nixon-centric "diplomacy first" policy)...I'm not sure that we should ever allow terrorists to believe that they can make us change our policy in their favor. (I'm trying really hard here to avoid using the term "send a message"). The only thing this will do is make these zealots believe that terrorism just plain works. They will indoctrinate more young, naive people into their organization who will blow themselves up for the holy cause and only hand more power to the ruthlessly corrupt who will continue to use terrorists tactics to extort from us whatever they want.
My fear is that we've (we being the western world...not just the USA) already done this. In Spain's latest anti-US election, the reason for the results can be argued one way or another...but because of the timing of the terrorist attacks, terrorist organizations can claim that they alone swayed the vote (whether or not they're right...there is actually a shred of credibility to it -- which is more than I can say for the 72 virgin servants in paradise. Young, radical Muslims will be duped into seeing it as a hands-down victory.). Furthermore, in the United States, Americans are more divided than ever (united we stand...what a bunch of bullshit, I've never seen the country more polarized). We have sacrificed our freedoms for the placebo of "security" that you speak of. In Athens, there is a $312 million dollar security effort, using Orwellian tactics to secure us. Will it help? I don't know, but it's certainly a sad commentary on what they've pushed us to do to ourselves.
It's funny, when the threat of global nuclear war mutually assured us all destruction, people didn't seem as worried as they are now. Individuals certainly aren't more at-risk now. What's the rationale? Before anyone says "these guys are completely irrational and have no regard for their own, or any other lives" -- we didn't think the Soviets were a rational enemy either (at least, that's what our propaganda had us believe).
Yes, making the bullets nonlethal would decrease their sporting effectiveness. None of the nonlethal forms of shotgun ammunition would be appropriate for skeet shooting (watching someone try to skeet shoot with those bean bags might be funny though). Also rubber bullets are by design less able to penetrate targets, so this makes them ineffective for target shooting.
Alright -- I'm getting seriously into an OT rant...so I'll STFU soon. But AFAIK, the load/bullet is designed for the task. If the task is taking out a paper target, I'm sure that a bullet can be designed to penetrate a target but not be as lethal as something specifically designed to maim someone...even if such a bullet doesn't exist yet. However, how much target does one need to penetrate for sporting? Does it have to be able to penetrate flesh and bone, or just a paper/fabric/glass/plastic target? I'd bet that a rubber bullet still has enough velocity to puncture any of the above. Furthermore, the type of target can be changed to accept a nonlethal bullet without ruining the sport, no?
...and I wasn't suggesting firing beanbag loads at trap (LOL).
personally i don't see anything wrong with someone who collects rocket propelled grenades or paper or anything else as long as it doesn't step on the rights of their neighbors. (nukes might be problematic that way because of radiation). if you don't shoot your neighbor or threaten them with paper cuts, whats the big deal? murder and threatening people is already illegal, so what use is make guns illegal? how does that make things safer or better?
Awww...you hit me right on my Libertarian soft spot. Damnit! I knew someone would eventually fo that:)
I tend to agree with you on principle here. You're right that that stuff (like threatening, killing, hurting) is already illegal, and making guns illegal is just redundant anyway. I also believe that I shuld be able to swing my fist as much as I want...until it touches your nose. However, there is a fine line between swinging my fist and firing a rocket-propelled grenade. Maybe I'm not a very good Libertarian (I don't really fit in well with any of the party creedos), but perhaps the government should find a reasonable way to limit the amount of damage an individual can do. Whether it's a waiting period, background check, or whatever (like I said, I don't have all the answers). I'm not saying that it's the government's job to babysit us and ensure that we don't have any dangerous toys...but at some point, a line has to be drawn. Yours is with nuclear weapons. You've gotta admit that everyone's got a different comfort zone somewhere between fists and nukes.
I'll be honest with you, I don't have a solution. I don't think that outlawing guns is a solution, and as far as I can tell -- I haven't supported it thus far (although I understand those who want to do this).
really? more people murder people than do target practice or go hunting?
I think you're stretching the point out a little here. First of all, I never used the term "murder". Hunting with a firearm usually entails killing or maiming. Furthermore, I believe that among other intentions, protection is at the top of the list for most gun owners. To protect with a gun -- the "gunman" had better be prepared to seriously maim or kill whoever they point their gun at. I am just unable to believe that most gun owners don't factor protection somewhere into their purchase.
I can understand where you misconceptions are coming from. For most people, the only exposure to guns comes from TV or movies. I don't think that I have ever seen a gun being handled in a safe and responsible manner in the media. If your only exposure to cars was in the same manner, you would probably think that they only had three modes: stopped, speeding and exploding.
LOL. A very good point. I've learned how to fire guns in a safe environemnt...and I'm still not convinced that they're not meant to kill. Although there are sporting uses for guns, they're still lethal -- and are historically designed to be. Sure, in a biathlon (or insert your favorite sporting event), you're shooting paper targets -- but why not use rubber/nonlethal bullets? (which goes back to my tongue-in-cheek point before...but a little more seriously) -- if guns are such great sporting tools, why not regulate the bullets? Why not make sporting bullets nonlethal? Will it decrease their sporting effectiveness?
I guess what this is going to come out to (and I really want to cut this as short as possible...because it totally is a can of worms), I'm suspicous of many of the motives of gun advocates. It's not because I don't like guns. It's really because I don't believe the rationale that gun advocates give -- and I don't think that many gun advocates believe their own rationale either. (Such as saying that a gun is a great tool that's not designed to kill). There are a few sporting reasons to use guns -- but as far as I can tell, these are exceptions...not the rule.
There are many reasons to own a gun, other than to kill or maim. There are many different forms of target shooting, collecting, a fascination with their mechanisms or with things that make loud noises. Compare the number of bullets sold in a year to the number that end up headed towards a human being. When it comes down to actual use, non-violent use of firearms absolutely dwarfs the violent useage.
Whaddabout nuclear weapons? The number of nuclear weapons detonated in a non-aggressive manner has completely dwarfed the two that were dropped on Japan for agressive purposes. However, I'd never argue that they aren't meant to kill. In fact, I'd even argue that any nuclear proliferation must be heavily controlled and ultimately halted. Admittedly, the nukes/guns argument is a total stretch, but I think that it can stand up to a little bit of scrutiny. What if Joe Blow likes hitting targets with nukes? What if he likes collecting nukes? What if he's got a fascination with nuclear weapons for some reason? Does that give him a right to? If using nuclear weapons as an example is too extreme, what if we used rocket propelled grenades for sport? Should those be ok too? I guess my point is -- where do we draw the line? Should it be drawn at all?
You make some very valid points about guns and associated misconceptions...and maybe I worded my previous post incorrectly. However, I'm just not convinced that the primary use/intent of most guns isn't killing or maiming -- and remember, I'm not arguing that guns should be outlawed/banned/more regulated because of this.
More anti gun bullshit. Guns are not designed to kill. People use guns to kill, just like they use knives, bats, cars, bricks and a million other things to kill. Gun manufacturers do not profit from death any more than Gerber does from selling knives.
(Obliigatory tongue-in-cheek reposnse) You're right -- guns are not designed to kill. They're designed to fire bullets...which, in turn are designed to kill or mame. Does this mean that instead of gun control laws, we should pass bullet control laws?;)
Seriously though, I'm all about freedom in all sorts of ways, but you need to get your argument straight. Guns are a tool...for killing and/or maming stuff. What else are you gonna use your gun for? A hammer? Maybe you'll brandish it to help someone understand your position of power -- but it doesn't change the fact that it's designed for, and meant to kill or severely mame someone else. Bats, knives, bricks, etc -- these things have an intended purpose that they were designed for that isn't necessarily killing/maming. Bats were designed to hit baseballs. Knives were designed to cut stuff (yes, including flesh). Bricks were designed to be used in a masonry foundation. These can all be used to kill people...but killing stuff was not what these tools are intended for. Guns were designed to kill or mame -- why else would you have one?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a gun -- I'm not even arguing for or against gun control...but you're kidding yourself if you think that a gun (we're talking handgun, rifle, shotgun, assault rifle, gatling cannon, etc here -- not a caulk gun) is not designed to kill (or severely mame).
I do, however, agree with you that gun manufacturers do not "profit from death". That is a bunch of propaganda.
I hate Apple the company, the shinyness or technical merits of their products notwithstanding. I hate their obsolete closed view of computers. I hate that the same business model killed Commodore, yet Apple survives. Obviously, there's no justice in the world.
I'm curious, can you explain a little to me about that business model and the similarities between them? Is this common knowledge -- I mean, is there a URL that documents this? I'm not being critical, this is just something that I've never thought much about.
They said "Can you make the iPod run.rm files? Pretty please with sugar on top?"
Apple kindly replied "No. Stop asking us."
So Real Networks said, "Ok, go to hell. One way or another you're iPod WILL run.rm files."
Then Real Networks hacked the iPod to run it.
"A HA!" yelled Real Networks. "Now, we can claim that.rm files can run on iPods, one of the most popular handheld devices ever! More people will want to use our proprietary format and people will license our tech for music stores. Our stock will go through the roof!"
Apple, realizing they'd been raped, claimed "What a bunch of a$$holes! Expect to hear from our attornies!"
Nope -- wrong.
First of all, from what I understand, the DMCA does have a clause that permits reverse-engineering to extend functionality.
Now secondly, even if I'm wrong about the reverse-engineering clause, I still think you're just wrong. Apple is not getting raped here. Real didn't break into their CVS repisitory and put their hack into it. They're not forcing Apple to provide functionality. They're not reverse engineering in order to bypass their DRM. All they're doing is allowing for a stand-alone piece of code that allows for the extension of Apple's iPod functionality. Apple won't even offer it for download. Real will offer the extension for free. By your logic, if anyone figures out how to make money off of the Linux for iPod, that'd be illegal too...and it isn't.
That being said, how exactly is this raping Apple? Because someone else found a way to profit from their technology? I don't buy it. It wouldn't be OK if any other company did this...why is it OK for Apple?
People KNOW that it is not supposed to work with the Real store. End of story. If Apple wanted it to work with other stores, they'd license it. They haven't.
So because Apple didn't intend for it, it just shouldn't be? You're saying that if I use Apple's hardware (the iPod) -- first, they have a right to the iTunes revenue stream and second, I am not allowed to alter the device in any way or install any third-party software?
What if Microsoft did the same thing? What if Windows came with a music store and Microsoft sued anyone who wrote a music store application for Windows? What if Microsoft sued you for putting Linux on an OEM Windows machine? Apple is doing just that. If consumers want the other software, they'll put it on. Apple doesn't get to make the choice of what you do with the device after you buy it...and there's nothing saying that you can't write your own software for it.
Apple is just pissed because the Real hack has a chance of cutting into their revenue stream, and Apple feels that they deserve it. They don't deserve squat...they only deserve what they gain from legimate sales in the free market. Consumers can and will choose what they want, who they get it from, and how it is delivered.
It sounds to me like you're an Apple fanboy. Well, if that's the case, you're going to have a hard time with my next statement -- Apple is wrong, plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't intend to. The point was that most people who are outspoken in their praise for Apples are fanboys -- who really just aren't grounded or credible...and it's easy to get into that mentality. I'm sorry that you interpreted from my...rant...any implication of personal characteristic. I don't know anything about you and this was not my intention.
As far as the virus/malware issues, I belong to the camp who believes that the dominant platform will always get those. Most malware, even viruses are set up and run in userland -- all it needs to do is to trick the user. Very few malware applications (even viruses) are installed via a (for example) IE exploit (this does not, however, excuse the exploit's existance). Typically, users are duped into installing and running these at will. To have a true malware-free experience, one will have to simply avoid the dominant platform.
Yah -- I don't know how I let this get so out of hand rantish. It must have been the long weekend and my adversion to getting back into working. I'll kill it now.
In a smaller state with 3 electoral votes, there actually is more representation per person than in a larger state. However, wouldn't voting count for more if it weren't an all-or-nothing proposition? If I vote in Whateveria (a made-up, hyopthetical US State) for a candidate who doesn't win the state electorate, my vote doesn't count at all. In a popular vote, my vote would count just as much, no matter what state, no matter what else my state does. In fact, the electoral college only grants more representation for the majority population of voters in a state. The rest get no representation at all.
This doesn't mean that they're better in any way. It just says something about the owners. I don't love Macs, and I don't love Wintel...in fact, I hate PC's (and Macs are, by definiton, PC's).
What I can say about running x86-class hardware is this: You've got better choice of OS'es -- more choice than just about any other platform. You've also got the best choice of hardware, at the best prices. If you happen to be running Windows, you've also got the best driver support available. As far as support goes, you've got the widest possible range. Finally, (again, if you run Windows), you've got the best choice of software. Because of the latter, 99% of small-medium businesses have to run Wintel, because unless they can afford a dev team, Windows is required for just about all shrinkwrapped core business apps (HRIS, Payroll, etc). If a company can't afford a development team (or custom core business apps), they likely can't afford to support 2 different OS'es running on two different hardware platforms, running two different software suites.
I use Apples, Wintels, and Linux/Intel pretty regularly, and to say that Apple is not really easier to use than anything else (on a day-to-day basis, for anything above the most basic of tasks). Most of the folks who claim otherwise are just buying into unsubstianted marketing hype (and fanboy crap)...but that's another discussion for another day. But as we compare platforms like this in an unfair way, if it's not one thing, it's another. If it's easier to set up new hardware, it's harder to get equivalent driver support. If I can get decent driver support, I can't configure the device with the same amount of granularity.
Personally, however, when it comes down to my dollars -- I know how to deal with all of the crap associated with the commodity hardware. Why spend the extra money if I don't have to? It's not like the choice will take years (or even days) away from me. Also remember that we're not just talking about up-front costs. Everything that I add to the system is gonna cost less down the line than it would on the low-production Apple.
I'm pretty adverse to fanboydom in general though. Each platform seems to have its strengths and weaknesses. What is amazing is the crap so many people will put up with so they can beleive that they bought the best system in the world for everything, hands-down. Just know what the strengths and weaknesses are -- and avoid being a rabid fanboy...those people are dumb.
Yes, but don't forget that this has its drawbacks too. While OpenFirmware is cool and all -- as are many of the Apple's fatures, you're still stuck with a propritary CPU (maybe not completely propritary, but seriously, who else uses those?). Furthermore, even though it uses open standards, like PCI and AGP, there is still a huge premium for Apple peripherals (like AGP video cards). In most cases, these cards are identical, but come bundeled with different software and an Apple hardware certificaiton. If I understand this correctly, the cards are sometimes flashed with a different firmware but are otherwise identical.
While the OpenFirmware design is pretty cool, there is something to be said for commodity hardware.
This is an unfortunate situation. I used to work in a college lab, and I would see kids lose all kinds of papers all the time due to the frailty of floppy disks (from final papers to thesis papers). I mean -- if you breathe on a floppy wrong, you'll lose your data. It's not just that it's a low-density media. It's very slow, and very unreliable. Maybe the school's administrators will get the point when enough students lose data.
In any case, the death of the floppy has been long and slow. Let's hope it finally dies soon. They're no longer necessary in current computers except perhaps for legacy support.
Here's the thing: Floppies suck.
Don't agree? Too bad, they still suck
From a guy who spent the middle part of the 90's working in a college computer lab, I can't tell you how many kids would come in with a floppy telling me that they couldn't get the only copy of their final paper (or worse, their thesis) off of their floppy disk. I had to tell them "tough tacos", that their data was lost, and they should have backed it up to something. The Zip drives, also floppy magnetic media, were just as bad (if not worse...with the click of death and all). The fact is that floppy disks are a horribly unreliable storage medium...combined with their low transfer rate and incredibly low storage density, they downright suck ass. Some people whine about the longetivity of CD's -- however, due to the frailty of floppy disks, I believe this is a moot argument. (You lose your data if you breathe on floppies wrong!) The people who support floppies because they're "convenient" and it's the only thing they know how to use...I hate to say it, but they sorta deserve to lose their data. Why should we have to suffer (and/or buy crappy technology) because floppies are convenient for some folks?
As far as needing bootable floppies for things like BIOS updates -- floppy advocates may have a point here. I still keep one floppy drive around for this purpose. However, under most circumstances, I'll make a boot floppy on the one system that has a floppy, then burn it to a bootable CD. This way, I won't have to shuffle that drive around. Some will complain that burning a CD is a waste of space and money. I reject that argument because unless you're still using your free AOL floppies from the mid 90's, CDR/RW's are just as cheap as floppies (if not cheaper). Outside of the per-disk cost, on a cost-per-MB basis, it's an absolute no-brainer. Even if you waste 96% of the space on a CD, you're still making off better than you would with a floppy.
Anyway, the end is near for this technology. It's not quite here yet, because manufacturers are still updating bios' with floppies. There are ways around them, but until manufacturers start shipping CD ISO's, these are still hacks. I welcome the demise of floppy technology with open arms. Now, when will analog modems go this way too?
OK, this is getting pretty OT, but who cares of Apple was the first to do anything? It doesn't matter what came first -- what matters is what is best, what is best supported, and what will be the longest lived. Perfect example: the Tivo. The Tivo was first, and is still a great product...however, it's pretty widely held by analysts that they will eventually go away. Every cable and satellite provider in the country will offer a similar product bundled with their service -- Tivo won't be able to compete with the bundled service. Vonage is the same way -- first to market, but the big guys will bundle it and crush them.
So -- like I said, first-to-market in this case sounds like no more than a hook for fanboys. I don't buy computer products for their "innovation". I buy the best product available on the market. In this market, innovation tends to imply "bleeding edge". No thanks. I'll wait for a technology to mature...or even for dev shops to find a use for it first. This way, I'll be able to spend 1/3 of the money and use the bleeding edge technology (and by bleeding edge, I'm not talking about systems sans-floppy drives)...think firewire, or even GigE. How much did you spend on that when it first came out? (I know, you don't know because it was bundled with your system...it doesn't matter, you still paid for it) How much did compatible devices cost for your bleeding edge hardware (think DV cams and GigE switches)? Those took about 3 years to become commoditized, about the lifetime of the bleeding-edge PC's...and these things were standard on those PC's -- you had to pay for technology that you weren't able to use until your machine was obselete and you got your next personal computer. Sure, there'll be exceptions...I'm sure that some fanboy used these devices right away...but these early-adopters had to buy overly expensive early-market perhiperals. Most technical buyers don't use this stuff, and your average consumer definitely won't care.
Anyway, don't let me stop you from patting yourself on the back for buying an Apple.
Burn a bootable CD. As for your legacy computer(s) (Mac 512KE, etc) which don't have CD drives or can't boot from them -- just burn them.
Right on, I'm with you. My post was pretty far off topic and in hindsight...I probably should have kept my mouth shut.
Cheers!
I know that this is completely offtopic...but I find our seatbelt and helmet laws patently absurd. Your example here is poor, since your view is not universally accepted. It comes down to the argument of who owns your body -- you or the goverment. I choose to wear seatbelts and helmets. I believe that not using them is just plain dumb...but I neither want this forced on me, nor do I believe it should be forced on anyone else.
It ain't theft. Duh.
This seems to essentially be a discussion about semantics. Whether or not an appointed public servant is my friend or enemy is essentially irrelevant...I totally agree with you on that. But DoJ's performance suggests that they're selectively enforcing the law...taking on issues that either further the president's cause, or pushing their own agenda (moral or otherwise). I believe that this is the heart of the friend/enemy issue.
[Begin HUGE OT digression] A few of the issues include backing off of the Microsoft antutrust suit, backing off of Clinton's push for criminal prosecutions of egregious environmental law violators, and generally limiting corporate accountability (and I'm anti-corporate bashing). Further examples are things like wasting taxpayer dollars to investigate and prosecute Internet cannabis paraphernalia sale. It's convenient to say that they're just enforcing the law (and I don't believe it)...but this type of law enforcement is clearly prioritized, and many other important (critical) things have taken a back seat to things like throwing Tommy Chong in jail.
Furthermore, DoJ has taken its part in pushing the Patriot Act through Congress and attempting to further extend the limitations thereof...as well as a very liberal interpretation of its rights under the Patriot Act (and by liberal, I mean they're taking liberties at our expense). We've gotta hold someone responsible...and sure, our president played his part for appointing this guy -- but when all is said and done (and to get back to our discussion), he's at the helm of DoJ. I think he's doing a deplorable job. I don't know him personally, and I probably wouldn't want to know him on that level. IMO, regardless of his personal life and beliefs, these considerations may qualify him as an enemy. [End HUGE OT digression]
I really want to avoid the Nazi cliche, mainly because it's far too extreme for this discussion...but at one point does an officialy become an "enemy"? At what point does "just doing my job" make someone a total bastard for taking the job on? Can someone be a total bastard (umm...enemy) for using their office to do horrible things that affect us all?
I can't say that I agree with this assessment. Mr. Ashcroft was appointed to his position -- similar to Michael Powell in the FCC. Why can't an appointed official be a friend or enemy? They certainly make friends and enemies, and Ashcroft has certainly done that.
Your parent poster didn't make any quips about Ashcroft's persoanal life, but I'm inferring that his comment was with regard to the justice arm of the Bush admnistration's social and fiscal policies. And the Bush administration has (and will) used Ashcroft's DoJ to push these agenda. John Ashcroft is an excellent lightning rod in this sense. However, he was appointed and is given enough leeway/power to take it upon himself to go after certain folks for certain actions in accordance with his beliefs and interpretation of the law. Why can't we hold him responsible for this?
Here's a better link discussing the myth of explosion decompression in a 9mm bullet hole at 25K feet.
Where did you get this information? I guess that it's common knowledge for my and my fellow moviegoers...but I have recently learned that explosive decompression due to a bullet is a myth. See my previous post in this thread.
You must mean 30,000 feet...and by hull, you mean fuselage, right? ...and why are you calling people morons for having an opinion that's different from yours?
As far as what an airplane does when a bullet penetrates the fuselage -- nothing. The idea that a bullet passing through an airplane's fuselage (or even through a window) will cause explosive decompression is a myth (see episode 10). You won't be sucked through a bullet hole in a window or the fuselage. If a passenger or member of the flight crew gets hit by a stray bullet (or even multiple), in the case of a 9/11-style attack we're clearly talking about acceptable losses (assuming that a gun in the cockpit will prevent such a catastrophe). Consider that VP Cheeney gave the order to shoot down the flight over PA on 9/11/2001 -- in relation to the damage that an airplane can cause, killing a few people on board in order to save thousands (not having to shoot the plane out of the sky is a pretty nice bonus too)...not so much of a problem by me.
I don't know a whole lot about guns, but a 9mm is a pretty small caliber bullet. This isn't a case of bigger weapons, it's just a case of effective lethal weaponry.
I was with you right up until that point. The presence of US troops on "Muslim holy places" is mysterious and/or religous. It's not like US troops have occupied Mecca and are hiding out in mosques as we speak.
We're in Saudi Arabia for a reason...and their soverign government has recgonized it and allowed our presence. We were (at one point) in Iraq for a reason (GW 1). Now I'm with you that it's not the US's job to be the police all over the world, but our actions aren't necessarily illegal or nefarious. These people (terrorists) are freaky religous zealots who (IMO) cannot be appeased.
Now while I agree that our foreign policy should probably be changed to a more Roosevelt-centric "Walk softly" kind of policy (or even a Nixon-centric "diplomacy first" policy)...I'm not sure that we should ever allow terrorists to believe that they can make us change our policy in their favor. (I'm trying really hard here to avoid using the term "send a message"). The only thing this will do is make these zealots believe that terrorism just plain works. They will indoctrinate more young, naive people into their organization who will blow themselves up for the holy cause and only hand more power to the ruthlessly corrupt who will continue to use terrorists tactics to extort from us whatever they want.
My fear is that we've (we being the western world...not just the USA) already done this. In Spain's latest anti-US election, the reason for the results can be argued one way or another...but because of the timing of the terrorist attacks, terrorist organizations can claim that they alone swayed the vote (whether or not they're right...there is actually a shred of credibility to it -- which is more than I can say for the 72 virgin servants in paradise. Young, radical Muslims will be duped into seeing it as a hands-down victory.). Furthermore, in the United States, Americans are more divided than ever (united we stand...what a bunch of bullshit, I've never seen the country more polarized). We have sacrificed our freedoms for the placebo of "security" that you speak of. In Athens, there is a $312 million dollar security effort, using Orwellian tactics to secure us. Will it help? I don't know, but it's certainly a sad commentary on what they've pushed us to do to ourselves.
It's funny, when the threat of global nuclear war mutually assured us all destruction, people didn't seem as worried as they are now. Individuals certainly aren't more at-risk now. What's the rationale? Before anyone says "these guys are completely irrational and have no regard for their own, or any other lives" -- we didn't think the Soviets were a rational enemy either (at least, that's what our propaganda had us believe).
Alright -- I'm getting seriously into an OT rant...so I'll STFU soon. But AFAIK, the load/bullet is designed for the task. If the task is taking out a paper target, I'm sure that a bullet can be designed to penetrate a target but not be as lethal as something specifically designed to maim someone...even if such a bullet doesn't exist yet. However, how much target does one need to penetrate for sporting? Does it have to be able to penetrate flesh and bone, or just a paper/fabric/glass/plastic target? I'd bet that a rubber bullet still has enough velocity to puncture any of the above. Furthermore, the type of target can be changed to accept a nonlethal bullet without ruining the sport, no?
Awww...you hit me right on my Libertarian soft spot. Damnit! I knew someone would eventually fo that :)
I tend to agree with you on principle here. You're right that that stuff (like threatening, killing, hurting) is already illegal, and making guns illegal is just redundant anyway. I also believe that I shuld be able to swing my fist as much as I want...until it touches your nose. However, there is a fine line between swinging my fist and firing a rocket-propelled grenade. Maybe I'm not a very good Libertarian (I don't really fit in well with any of the party creedos), but perhaps the government should find a reasonable way to limit the amount of damage an individual can do. Whether it's a waiting period, background check, or whatever (like I said, I don't have all the answers). I'm not saying that it's the government's job to babysit us and ensure that we don't have any dangerous toys...but at some point, a line has to be drawn. Yours is with nuclear weapons. You've gotta admit that everyone's got a different comfort zone somewhere between fists and nukes.
I'll be honest with you, I don't have a solution. I don't think that outlawing guns is a solution, and as far as I can tell -- I haven't supported it thus far (although I understand those who want to do this).
I think you're stretching the point out a little here. First of all, I never used the term "murder". Hunting with a firearm usually entails killing or maiming. Furthermore, I believe that among other intentions, protection is at the top of the list for most gun owners. To protect with a gun -- the "gunman" had better be prepared to seriously maim or kill whoever they point their gun at. I am just unable to believe that most gun owners don't factor protection somewhere into their purchase.
Yah, I caught that after I mistyped it like 5 times.
PS -- grammar nazi
LOL. A very good point. I've learned how to fire guns in a safe environemnt...and I'm still not convinced that they're not meant to kill. Although there are sporting uses for guns, they're still lethal -- and are historically designed to be. Sure, in a biathlon (or insert your favorite sporting event), you're shooting paper targets -- but why not use rubber/nonlethal bullets? (which goes back to my tongue-in-cheek point before...but a little more seriously) -- if guns are such great sporting tools, why not regulate the bullets? Why not make sporting bullets nonlethal? Will it decrease their sporting effectiveness?
I guess what this is going to come out to (and I really want to cut this as short as possible...because it totally is a can of worms), I'm suspicous of many of the motives of gun advocates. It's not because I don't like guns. It's really because I don't believe the rationale that gun advocates give -- and I don't think that many gun advocates believe their own rationale either. (Such as saying that a gun is a great tool that's not designed to kill). There are a few sporting reasons to use guns -- but as far as I can tell, these are exceptions...not the rule.
Whaddabout nuclear weapons? The number of nuclear weapons detonated in a non-aggressive manner has completely dwarfed the two that were dropped on Japan for agressive purposes. However, I'd never argue that they aren't meant to kill. In fact, I'd even argue that any nuclear proliferation must be heavily controlled and ultimately halted. Admittedly, the nukes/guns argument is a total stretch, but I think that it can stand up to a little bit of scrutiny. What if Joe Blow likes hitting targets with nukes? What if he likes collecting nukes? What if he's got a fascination with nuclear weapons for some reason? Does that give him a right to? If using nuclear weapons as an example is too extreme, what if we used rocket propelled grenades for sport? Should those be ok too? I guess my point is -- where do we draw the line? Should it be drawn at all?
You make some very valid points about guns and associated misconceptions...and maybe I worded my previous post incorrectly. However, I'm just not convinced that the primary use/intent of most guns isn't killing or maiming -- and remember, I'm not arguing that guns should be outlawed/banned/more regulated because of this.
(Obliigatory tongue-in-cheek reposnse) You're right -- guns are not designed to kill. They're designed to fire bullets...which, in turn are designed to kill or mame. Does this mean that instead of gun control laws, we should pass bullet control laws? ;)
Seriously though, I'm all about freedom in all sorts of ways, but you need to get your argument straight. Guns are a tool...for killing and/or maming stuff. What else are you gonna use your gun for? A hammer? Maybe you'll brandish it to help someone understand your position of power -- but it doesn't change the fact that it's designed for, and meant to kill or severely mame someone else. Bats, knives, bricks, etc -- these things have an intended purpose that they were designed for that isn't necessarily killing/maming. Bats were designed to hit baseballs. Knives were designed to cut stuff (yes, including flesh). Bricks were designed to be used in a masonry foundation. These can all be used to kill people...but killing stuff was not what these tools are intended for. Guns were designed to kill or mame -- why else would you have one?
I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a gun -- I'm not even arguing for or against gun control...but you're kidding yourself if you think that a gun (we're talking handgun, rifle, shotgun, assault rifle, gatling cannon, etc here -- not a caulk gun) is not designed to kill (or severely mame).
I do, however, agree with you that gun manufacturers do not "profit from death". That is a bunch of propaganda.
I'm curious, can you explain a little to me about that business model and the similarities between them? Is this common knowledge -- I mean, is there a URL that documents this? I'm not being critical, this is just something that I've never thought much about.
Nope -- wrong.
First of all, from what I understand, the DMCA does have a clause that permits reverse-engineering to extend functionality.
Now secondly, even if I'm wrong about the reverse-engineering clause, I still think you're just wrong. Apple is not getting raped here. Real didn't break into their CVS repisitory and put their hack into it. They're not forcing Apple to provide functionality. They're not reverse engineering in order to bypass their DRM. All they're doing is allowing for a stand-alone piece of code that allows for the extension of Apple's iPod functionality. Apple won't even offer it for download. Real will offer the extension for free. By your logic, if anyone figures out how to make money off of the Linux for iPod, that'd be illegal too...and it isn't.
That being said, how exactly is this raping Apple? Because someone else found a way to profit from their technology? I don't buy it. It wouldn't be OK if any other company did this...why is it OK for Apple?
So because Apple didn't intend for it, it just shouldn't be? You're saying that if I use Apple's hardware (the iPod) -- first, they have a right to the iTunes revenue stream and second, I am not allowed to alter the device in any way or install any third-party software?
What if Microsoft did the same thing? What if Windows came with a music store and Microsoft sued anyone who wrote a music store application for Windows? What if Microsoft sued you for putting Linux on an OEM Windows machine? Apple is doing just that. If consumers want the other software, they'll put it on. Apple doesn't get to make the choice of what you do with the device after you buy it...and there's nothing saying that you can't write your own software for it.
Apple is just pissed because the Real hack has a chance of cutting into their revenue stream, and Apple feels that they deserve it. They don't deserve squat...they only deserve what they gain from legimate sales in the free market. Consumers can and will choose what they want, who they get it from, and how it is delivered.
It sounds to me like you're an Apple fanboy. Well, if that's the case, you're going to have a hard time with my next statement -- Apple is wrong, plain and simple.