Apple consistently scores at or near the top in both customer satisfaction (very high) and device failures/returns (very low)
i dunno whether i would call that objective
both statistics are from apple itself, and a company assessing its own performance is never objective
also, customer satisfaction is subjective, and is part of the point i was trying to make originally about fanboi extremism
for example, do you think a die hard democrat would ever openly criticize a statement made by president obama, regardless of what they really thought of it deep down?
can you tell me why you believe the usage share of Linux on the desktop is so low?
that's easy...
availability
how many people do you think actually buy and install windows separately from their computer? not many
if desktop linux was available to the masses preinstalled on pc's, it would be much more popular... just look at the latest chromebook, which has been very successful (although not really a 'desktop')
android is only popular because of its availability, being preinstalled on a large number of phones
same with mac os and ios... there are a large number of apple stores
success and marketing go hand in hand... if a product isn't easily accessible, it will ultimately do poorly in the market
when linux becomes more available preinstalled on oem pc's (microsoft's recent investment in dell may spur its competitors) more people will buy pcs with desktop linux
desktop linux isn't as popular as windows (or mac os for that matter) because at the moment for someone to use it, they either have to buy a windows pc, download a linux image and install it over windows, or they build a pc from components, and then install
microsoft's success with windows has less to do with the software itself and more to do with marketing and the availability of its flagship os preinstalled en mass on cheap readily available oem bundles
microsoft has contributed... linux doesn't have clout when dealing with oems, regardless of how well they might do from selling linux pcs
the desktop share of linux only really started with corporate marketing from canonical and redhat... without marketing and availability of preinstalls, linux will continue its ever so slow gradual ascension (its usage will always increase because it isn't tied to the success of any one company) but if (when) desktop linux eventually gets a serious (fair) bite of the oem pie, i wouldn't recommend holding onto microsoft stocks.
it happens every day... go to a walmart and pick up a widget that has some novel feature that you've never seen before or turn your tv to a telemarketing channel. there are lots of little innovative things happening around the world, such as new types of potato peelers. someone comes up with these ideas and then big companies exploit them. i'm not talking about a single guy coming up with a car that runs on water and big oil knocking him off. i'm talking about big companies ripping off lots of little ideas that aren't really worth defending in court. no i don't have proof; i don't care if you don't believe me. i don't care for tin foil hats either.
the only reason why apple even bothers to take companies like samsung to court is that their patents are their livelihood and their whole business is centered around a limited suite of successful products (their risk is high if they do nothing). samsung has no doubt ripped off apple (and probably vise versa), but behemoth companies like samsung rip off lots of other companies so apple is no robinson crusoe. microsoft and google are in similar leaky boats, although they have also no doubt ripped off ideas. the companies that do much of the ripping off dwarf the likes of apple and google (stockmarket capitalization means little when you don't need to sell stocks to capitalize). samsung doesn't care if apple ultimately wins the mobile war; they will use a combination of innovation, licensing and plagiarization to market the next big thing (such as ultra high def tvs).
not all science has blind faith in the atom model. there are many scientists that do, just as there are many that are insistent that nothing could ever possibly travel faster than the speed of light.
there are scientists that push the envelope, but nowadays its more an issue of funding. companies only invest in r&d that is low risk and has high profit potential, and governments are often very stingy with grants for non-mainstream research areas.
i think cern is probably the best chance for scientists to figure out the nitty gritty details of what goes on with atoms (or whatever you want to call them). i also think that you possibly don't really understand the atomic model well enough to discount it altogether. many of the questions you pose have answers that even i can think of (i'm just an engineer). for example, ferritic materials are required for magnetism (ferritic meaning they contain iron), with ability to conduct electricity being irrelevent (you can get magnetic materials that don't conduct electricity, used in toroids for example).
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." - George Bernard Shaw
generally those that make the most noise regarding science (such as those that blather on about how perpetual motion is impossible) are the ones that make the least amount of progress. you can be sure about one thing;
if you convince yourself that something is impossible, the only thing that is for certain is that you will not be the one to prove otherwise.
north attracts north south attracts south north/south repel magnets are made from ferritic materials (ie contain iron) they are fun...anything else is just a technicality
the OS is very slick and it's kind of nice having UNIX running underneath it
fair point. i build my own machines on the cheap to run linux, but if linux didn't exist i would probably pay a little more for a better os than windows
i dunno whether i agree with the "damn good hardware" argument. i'm sure its no worse than any other, but i know people with new macbooks that get uncomfortably hot. when it comes to laptops at least i won't buy anything other than toshiba (although someone almost convinced me to get an asus).
desktop hardware is a bit different, because apple makes their imacs look so much different to conventional 'box' pcs. personally i don't care about looks and i will buy components as cheap as possible as long as they meet my spec requirements, and i rarely have problems. the only thing i like to make sure i don't go too cheap on are psu and hard disks.
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
i mean 0.11% of that 90% (forgot to divide by 100)
richard feynman may not be able to explain what magnetism is, but that doesn't mean nobody can. he's a theoretical physicist, which means that even if he could explain it, by the time he got to the point his audience would be asleep anyway. at least cox adds a bit of flair to his presentation.
as a side note, cox used a sand castle in one of his "wonders of the universe" docos in what i think is the best explanation of entropy that i've ever heard
linux is free... what market blip can something given away possibly make?
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
many businesses buy from dell as a matter of policy. that's not to say they should, but they do. many businesses are also fairly trapped in the microsoft ecosystem by dependence on legacy data such as access applications. you can use microsoft access tables from a non-microsoft front end, but i'm yet to see any non-microsoft product run a complete mdb(x) file as seemlessly as access.
people don't buy linux computers because its easier to buy windows computers regardless of any differences in cost or software usability. to get a computer with linux preinstalled (let alone having to build it yourself) is hard. you can't get it from conventional local stores. if something isn't available, people won't buy it.
people are lazy, and microsoft brings computing to the lazy masses. that's what the lazy masses want, and that's great for microsoft and the lazy masses. eventually linux will creep into the oem space and become more available to the lazy masses, and they will adopt it because its just as easy to use as windows and they likely won't know the difference anyway. its already happening with the extremely successful chromebook.
despite the lag in the desktop oem market, lots of people (even the lazy masses) use linux every day though. it may not come with a big "linux" splash screen, but if you have a modem/router, a set top box, a gps, an android phone/tablet, etc there is a good chance you interact with linux, and if you browse the web there is also a good chance that the back end serving the web pages is running some flavor of linux (even google).
shills and fanbois have been degrading linux since its inception, and yet its gradually increasing its user base without the marketing and money that microsoft and apple throw behind their products
apple and google success has less to do with the use cases of the software and more to do with the respective hardware platforms and marketing
you're right about linux priorities though... however not caring about what the mob wants means you don't get continually harassed by the mob. seems like a pretty smart move to me.
your wrong about linux developers "just [wanting] to run Emacs and Perl scripts in their XTerms", and most linux users do more with their machines than a windows user could ever hope to
i can only imagine if microsoft and apple both tanked it would be a nightmare for linux developers as the mob would direct its bitching at them expecting linux to take up the slack (even if there is no real 'slack', except for the old "why isn't linux like windows").
linux developers (and many linux users) don't hate microsoft... i use linux because windows is a crappy operating system regardless of who made it
apple does go against normal consumer mentality though...
q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000? a: because the $2000 one is shiny with a big glowing apple on the back of the screen
there are fanbois of all sorts, but most fanbois outside the apple camp don't take it quite to the extreme of emptying their wallets to make their point
hahaha another "marketshare" moron... you do realize most people get linux for free?...and even if linux did hypothetically suck on the desktop (it doesn't) i guess its domination of the mobile, server, embedded and supercomputer markets kinda makes up for it.
its not just a problem with software patents... there is huge risk in inventing anything nowadays because of big companies having no qualms about taking a new idea that isn't theirs and putting their name on it (and patenting it as their own). western countries like the united states and australia may be fairer to inventors compared to developing countries, but compared to 100 years ago today's economic and legal landscape makes innovation an extremely risky venture.
you need to watch brian cox. contrary to your belief we have explanations for many things... what we lack is proof, and that's where science is continuing to play a role.
it's easy to explain things; what's hard is to prove an explanation.
i'm not fully into the whole "science is right" and "religion is wrong", but there are plenty of religious kooks that can explain anything and everything, but when asked for proof they only ever come up empty (or they simply claim you're an idiot and can never understand).
the difference between science and religion is that science pursues the proof of its explanation, whereas religion relies on faith in its explanation.
models that predict behavior and phenomena are in many cases essential for improving understanding.
magnets are a nice example... electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces, and even though we don't understand it fully, being able to experiment with magnets is important to furthering our understanding
you are right that we don't know everything, and in the future the things we take as gospel now (such as faster than light travel and perpetual motion being impossible) may well be proven wrong. anyone who says something is impossible without completely understanding it is a fool. in reality the supposed limits imposed by science (physics in particular) are touted by many merely because they read it in a book.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple consistently scores at or near the top in both customer satisfaction (very high) and device failures/returns (very low)
i dunno whether i would call that objective
both statistics are from apple itself, and a company assessing its own performance is never objective
also, customer satisfaction is subjective, and is part of the point i was trying to make originally about fanboi extremism
for example, do you think a die hard democrat would ever openly criticize a statement made by president obama, regardless of what they really thought of it deep down?
loyalty will always cloud objectivity
can you tell me why you believe the usage share of Linux on the desktop is so low?
that's easy...
availability
how many people do you think actually buy and install windows separately from their computer? not many
if desktop linux was available to the masses preinstalled on pc's, it would be much more popular... just look at the latest chromebook, which has been very successful (although not really a 'desktop')
android is only popular because of its availability, being preinstalled on a large number of phones
same with mac os and ios... there are a large number of apple stores
success and marketing go hand in hand... if a product isn't easily accessible, it will ultimately do poorly in the market
when linux becomes more available preinstalled on oem pc's (microsoft's recent investment in dell may spur its competitors) more people will buy pcs with desktop linux
desktop linux isn't as popular as windows (or mac os for that matter) because at the moment for someone to use it, they either have to buy a windows pc, download a linux image and install it over windows, or they build a pc from components, and then install
microsoft's success with windows has less to do with the software itself and more to do with marketing and the availability of its flagship os preinstalled en mass on cheap readily available oem bundles
microsoft has contributed... linux doesn't have clout when dealing with oems, regardless of how well they might do from selling linux pcs
the desktop share of linux only really started with corporate marketing from canonical and redhat... without marketing and availability of preinstalls, linux will continue its ever so slow gradual ascension (its usage will always increase because it isn't tied to the success of any one company) but if (when) desktop linux eventually gets a serious (fair) bite of the oem pie, i wouldn't recommend holding onto microsoft stocks.
it happens every day... go to a walmart and pick up a widget that has some novel feature that you've never seen before or turn your tv to a telemarketing channel. there are lots of little innovative things happening around the world, such as new types of potato peelers. someone comes up with these ideas and then big companies exploit them. i'm not talking about a single guy coming up with a car that runs on water and big oil knocking him off. i'm talking about big companies ripping off lots of little ideas that aren't really worth defending in court. no i don't have proof; i don't care if you don't believe me. i don't care for tin foil hats either.
the only reason why apple even bothers to take companies like samsung to court is that their patents are their livelihood and their whole business is centered around a limited suite of successful products (their risk is high if they do nothing). samsung has no doubt ripped off apple (and probably vise versa), but behemoth companies like samsung rip off lots of other companies so apple is no robinson crusoe. microsoft and google are in similar leaky boats, although they have also no doubt ripped off ideas. the companies that do much of the ripping off dwarf the likes of apple and google (stockmarket capitalization means little when you don't need to sell stocks to capitalize). samsung doesn't care if apple ultimately wins the mobile war; they will use a combination of innovation, licensing and plagiarization to market the next big thing (such as ultra high def tvs).
not all science has blind faith in the atom model. there are many scientists that do, just as there are many that are insistent that nothing could ever possibly travel faster than the speed of light.
there are scientists that push the envelope, but nowadays its more an issue of funding. companies only invest in r&d that is low risk and has high profit potential, and governments are often very stingy with grants for non-mainstream research areas.
i think cern is probably the best chance for scientists to figure out the nitty gritty details of what goes on with atoms (or whatever you want to call them). i also think that you possibly don't really understand the atomic model well enough to discount it altogether. many of the questions you pose have answers that even i can think of (i'm just an engineer). for example, ferritic materials are required for magnetism (ferritic meaning they contain iron), with ability to conduct electricity being irrelevent (you can get magnetic materials that don't conduct electricity, used in toroids for example).
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." - George Bernard Shaw
generally those that make the most noise regarding science (such as those that blather on about how perpetual motion is impossible) are the ones that make the least amount of progress. you can be sure about one thing;
if you convince yourself that something is impossible, the only thing that is for certain is that you will not be the one to prove otherwise.
north attracts north ...anything else is just a technicality
south attracts south
north/south repel
magnets are made from ferritic materials (ie contain iron)
they are fun
the OS is very slick and it's kind of nice having UNIX running underneath it
fair point. i build my own machines on the cheap to run linux, but if linux didn't exist i would probably pay a little more for a better os than windows
i dunno whether i agree with the "damn good hardware" argument. i'm sure its no worse than any other, but i know people with new macbooks that get uncomfortably hot. when it comes to laptops at least i won't buy anything other than toshiba (although someone almost convinced me to get an asus).
desktop hardware is a bit different, because apple makes their imacs look so much different to conventional 'box' pcs. personally i don't care about looks and i will buy components as cheap as possible as long as they meet my spec requirements, and i rarely have problems. the only thing i like to make sure i don't go too cheap on are psu and hard disks.
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
i mean 0.11% of that 90% (forgot to divide by 100)
richard feynman may not be able to explain what magnetism is, but that doesn't mean nobody can. he's a theoretical physicist, which means that even if he could explain it, by the time he got to the point his audience would be asleep anyway. at least cox adds a bit of flair to his presentation.
as a side note, cox used a sand castle in one of his "wonders of the universe" docos in what i think is the best explanation of entropy that i've ever heard
explaining where something comes from is different from explaining what it is
also, the concept of "explaining" something can be a bit subjective in itself...
for example, if i were to explain how a light bulb works, would you expect me to detail the origin of the electron as part of that explanation?
We know it's barely a blip in the market though
linux is free... what market blip can something given away possibly make?
if all PCs were purchased without an operating system (hypothetically) and 90% had linux installed on them, if only 11% of that 90% actually paid for their copy of linux, then linux would still only have a 0.1% market share.
many businesses buy from dell as a matter of policy. that's not to say they should, but they do. many businesses are also fairly trapped in the microsoft ecosystem by dependence on legacy data such as access applications. you can use microsoft access tables from a non-microsoft front end, but i'm yet to see any non-microsoft product run a complete mdb(x) file as seemlessly as access.
people don't buy linux computers because its easier to buy windows computers regardless of any differences in cost or software usability. to get a computer with linux preinstalled (let alone having to build it yourself) is hard. you can't get it from conventional local stores. if something isn't available, people won't buy it.
people are lazy, and microsoft brings computing to the lazy masses. that's what the lazy masses want, and that's great for microsoft and the lazy masses. eventually linux will creep into the oem space and become more available to the lazy masses, and they will adopt it because its just as easy to use as windows and they likely won't know the difference anyway. its already happening with the extremely successful chromebook.
despite the lag in the desktop oem market, lots of people (even the lazy masses) use linux every day though. it may not come with a big "linux" splash screen, but if you have a modem/router, a set top box, a gps, an android phone/tablet, etc there is a good chance you interact with linux, and if you browse the web there is also a good chance that the back end serving the web pages is running some flavor of linux (even google).
shills and fanbois have been degrading linux since its inception, and yet its gradually increasing its user base without the marketing and money that microsoft and apple throw behind their products
apple and google success has less to do with the use cases of the software and more to do with the respective hardware platforms and marketing
you're right about linux priorities though... however not caring about what the mob wants means you don't get continually harassed by the mob. seems like a pretty smart move to me.
your wrong about linux developers "just [wanting] to run Emacs and Perl scripts in their XTerms", and most linux users do more with their machines than a windows user could ever hope to
i can only imagine if microsoft and apple both tanked it would be a nightmare for linux developers as the mob would direct its bitching at them expecting linux to take up the slack (even if there is no real 'slack', except for the old "why isn't linux like windows").
linux developers (and many linux users) don't hate microsoft... i use linux because windows is a crappy operating system regardless of who made it
apple does go against normal consumer mentality though...
q: why spend $2000 on a laptop when you can get a different laptop with the same specs for $1000?
a: because the $2000 one is shiny with a big glowing apple on the back of the screen
there are fanbois of all sorts, but most fanbois outside the apple camp don't take it quite to the extreme of emptying their wallets to make their point
hahaha another "marketshare" moron... you do realize most people get linux for free? ...and even if linux did hypothetically suck on the desktop (it doesn't) i guess its domination of the mobile, server, embedded and supercomputer markets kinda makes up for it.
its not just a problem with software patents... there is huge risk in inventing anything nowadays because of big companies having no qualms about taking a new idea that isn't theirs and putting their name on it (and patenting it as their own). western countries like the united states and australia may be fairer to inventors compared to developing countries, but compared to 100 years ago today's economic and legal landscape makes innovation an extremely risky venture.
omfg a philosopher... just don't ask him how a light bulb works or you'll have him pondering the origins of the electron for years
scientists create problems... engineers invent solutions to those problems
it's hard to differentiate between 1890 and 1990
maybe you need to go back to school
go back to your spice bus
you need to watch brian cox. contrary to your belief we have explanations for many things... what we lack is proof, and that's where science is continuing to play a role.
it's easy to explain things; what's hard is to prove an explanation.
i'm not fully into the whole "science is right" and "religion is wrong", but there are plenty of religious kooks that can explain anything and everything, but when asked for proof they only ever come up empty (or they simply claim you're an idiot and can never understand).
the difference between science and religion is that science pursues the proof of its explanation, whereas religion relies on faith in its explanation.
models that predict behavior and phenomena are in many cases essential for improving understanding.
magnets are a nice example... electromagnetism is one of the fundamental forces, and even though we don't understand it fully, being able to experiment with magnets is important to furthering our understanding
you are right that we don't know everything, and in the future the things we take as gospel now (such as faster than light travel and perpetual motion being impossible) may well be proven wrong. anyone who says something is impossible without completely understanding it is a fool. in reality the supposed limits imposed by science (physics in particular) are touted by many merely because they read it in a book.
funny... i wasn't aware 'it' could be passed, let alone failed, whatever 'it' is
ah hang on... this is slashdot... everything is clear now
i agree... iptables is pretty awesome
the protoss wiped out all life on mars and planted life on earth... pretty soon the zerg will come along and infest us all
i bags infested kerrigan...woof!
yeah cos there's a proven correlation between the probability of life on mars and our understanding of mars
i wish it were the case that if i understood my microwave oven well enough, i could use it to turn mushrooms into gold
even god has to take a leak sometimes
space nerds are such dipshits... there's no fucking river... it's just a fucking planet wrinkle, you know cos mars is getting older
fuck it's hard work being a genius