Yeah, its really insightful to pretend that without government intrusive regulation and oppression there would be no government.
When I said "We don't need the governmetn" it was obvious (to anyone not quoting me out of context) that I was saying they don't need to interfere. Sheesh.
And furthermore, anyone who invests does so freely and with full knowledge of the risks.
Your desire to oppress me with tyranny (By getting the "Rich" ) is not justified with your claim that people were victims of fraud. When they are, they have the courts to turn to-- fraud is illegal, don't you know.
Like I said, I have examined here philosophy closely (but not perfectly) and have found no faults.
I have read many, MANY critiques of her. Most of them are false on the face of them-- they make a blanked assumption about the world, don't attempt to prove it, and then claim she's wrong because her philosophy doesn't agree with this assumption.
They amount to saying "Jesus told me Ayn Rand was wrong, so that proves it."
Unfortunately, your critique falls into this same category. I suspect most people go this route because they want to cling to what they believe without examining it. (Not accusing you of this, just speculating as to its popularity.) Specifically, your reasons are 1) Don't trust dogmatic philosophies. 2) She makes "a priori assumptions". 3) She wants to shape all of humanity into a particular mold.
(This is the best I could get out of your response, as you didn't try to boil it down to a logical fallacy. I was not asking for your opinion of Objectivism-- but for the logical fallacy you found in it. Nothing else would change my mind-- and yes, my mind IS open to change. Its only been in recent years that I've switched to objectivism, and I'm wary of the possibility of being hoodwinked-- so I'm actively open to, and seeking (as objectivism requires) the possibility that there's a logical error with objectivism and that I should thus reject it. Unfortunately, most "criticism" of objectivism is crap.)
Anyway, back to your points. None of these three are logical fallacies. Any belief is "dogmatic" in that it is a belief. It believes what it believes. To say objectivism is "dogmatic" is kinda silly-- followers may be, rand may be, but the *ONLY* thing to my mind that could make objectivism dogmatic is its logical correctness. If its proof is so finely crafted as to leave little flexibility, well, that's proof of its correctness, not proof that you should run.
Your second point about apriori assumptions is an apriori assumption, or you misread Atlas Shrugged. She started from the most basic possible assumptions you can make, and *defended them*, then built the philosophy from there. (You did read Galts speech, someone in this thread said they hadn't.) In that speech she builds from the ground up. Its better to be alive than dead. IS the only assumption necessary, and she even defends that. I don't see what you're arguing with.
Finally, to your last point, philosophies want to shape all humanity into a specific mold-- this is certainly not true of objectivism. Objectivism is an individualist philosophy-- it explicitly calls for people to follow their differences and follow their own strengths. It is a moral philosophy in that it says that immorality is the disrespect of individuality.
This is whats so perplexing-- there certainly are a lot of people who hate objectivism. But their criticisms seem to always amount to "Jesus told me" or statements that objectivism says things it doesnt--- often quite opposite things, such as "Objectivism is opposed to compassion". I can see a christian saying that "I think we should care for each other, objectivism is opposed to compassion, Jesus told me."
And then they try to coerce you into being "compassionate" for people who are wealthier than you to begin with.
I can understand people who disagree with some of the logic, finding people who do so is hard, and unfortunately, most of thier disagreement isn't logical. Rarely is it a disagreement on an assumption-- its hard to argue with "its better to live than to die".
Talk about living death. What a pathetic life that must be.
But the economics of it don't work. Not to mention the morality.
Who ever said you have the right to survive? Especially at my expense (eg, welfare from my taxes).
If you want to survive, work. If you can't work, *THEN* we can talk about charity. Nothing wrong with charity (when its voluntary). But when thugs with guns show up to take my money to pay someone who simply doesn't want to work for "mere survival" then there's a serious moral problem with society.
Marx said the same thing at the dawn of the industrial age.
Imagin making cars using forges to make the steel, rather than doing it by hand? Thousands of people were "put out of work" by steel forges and metal forming machines.
We saw the suspension of unreality that this resulted in-- communism, centrally planned governments and misery for those who tried to "fight the rich" rather than "become rich themselves".
Whereas the US which mostly was "become rich ourselves" (despite oppressive unions - friend recently got fired from his job because he wasn't a union member) has done much better.
In fact, the computer ate has greately increased productivity-- and debt has not gone up-- debt has gone down. Sure there are companies that went way into debt, but taking a few high profile companies and claiming they are the norm is typical for marxists-- cause reality just don't fit the theory.
AS with the industrial age, people have benefited greatly from the computer age--individual productivity has gone up, individual power has gone up with the increased access to information, etc. etc. And individual standards of living have gone up, not down.
Jobs change. Some jobs will be obsolete in a few years-- just as the guy who was an expert at making pet rocks can no longer market his proficiency in it. That's life, and more often than not, this is a GOOD thing. These increased in productivity create more jobs by providing economic opportunities that weren't feasible before... and you need people to staff those economic opportunities.
Marxism (and liberalism et al.) tries to talk people into being slaves with the idea that "life isn't fair- eat the rich". But life isn't fair-- the only thing you can do about it is give everyone equality of rights, not equality of position. Because if you go down the road of making everyone equal in stature, they are all poor. But if you insure everyone equality of rights, some will be rich, some will be poorer. Some will prefer to collect money, others will prefer to spend time with their children. NEITHER of these activities is wrong.
The "equality of position" people say that everyone should be forced to live as they do-- as slaves of the state, equally poor.
I say, if children are important to you, then play with them. If you don't want to have them, fine. If you want to invest your money and become rich, great. If you'd rather buy new cars and replace them every five years, then, hell, thats' your right.
Just don't tell me that you want to "protect my job" when we all know the score.
When exactly was it that cops stopped being responsible for public safety and became agents of the state?
Have you noticed that people don't even expect cops to do things relating to public safety anymore? ITs just a foregone conclusion that they are the state's bullies-- there to harass drivers, or bust drugs (which has nothing to do with public safety) or provide protection, or run interference for politicos and corporations (such as blocking traffic, or providing "security" which is really just armed enforcement, without the checks or balances of the law.)
When was the last time a cop shot an innocent person and went to jail for it? I can't think of any... seems they do that once a month here in Seattle and are never brought up on charges, let alone serve time.
Hell on TV they don't even try to portray cops as working for any kind of objectivity-- they are always working for the prosecution. Notice that? It wouldn't be so bad if they were genreally trustworthy, but its been widely reported the hundreds of cases where the state forensice expert cooked the evidence (Where was that? Missouri? Maryland?) For decade he was doing this.
Its time to get rid of the police part of the police state-- let private security agencies represent us and defend us-- and make everyone equal under the law. (And no more agents of the state getting first crack at the evidence so they can tamper with it. Completely lacks objectivity that.)
Thanks for listening to my rant. while I was born in the south, I left after I realized just how corrupt the states are.. Florida, LA, Miss, Texas-- hell cops were drowning people in Brayes Bayou and shooting them, while drunk, on the freeway when I left Texas (and of course, no charges are filed.)
I agree, and I'm right behind you. Paying cash more and more.
We use the grocery store cards because we filled out bogus info on them (or in one case never turned in the form, just got the card.)
But it occurs to me that they may correlate this with using the banks card to track us. I trust the bank though-- its not a bank, but an association that has a credit union. No shareholders to keep happy- just depositors. I'm all for market and capitalism, but my exercise of the free market choice I have is choosing a non-commercial bank. Plus I got screwed over by commercial banks too many times.
The problem is, the feds are starting to crack down. Any time you spend $5,000 they have a form you have to fill out. Pretty soon this will be $1,000. So they are starting to track significant transactions directly. (Say buying a car. Another thing I don't use is the credit system- fraudulent from the get go, and the feds have made it impossible to protect your rights in that area- they can say whatever they want about you and as long as they respond to your correspondence within 30 days you can't do squat.) The car dealership is gonna want you to fill out the federal form when you plunk down $15k for a new car... but then, why spend that much when you can get 7 perfectly good toyota carollas for that kind of money?
But I digress... there always is private car sellers who are happy to take travellers checks or money orders... and you can get these without showing ID, IIRC.
When money is outlawed, only outlaws will have cash.
It was in 1985 and 1988, when Apple first introduced them. What only 5 years before Windows support? 7? 10?
Not to mention the 3.5 inch floppy drive, the laserprinter, both co-developed by apple, not having a floppy drive (Which is funny, especially since so many people don't get it. You realize just how stupid it is to have a rackmounted server with a dinky 3.5 inch floppy drive on it?)
etc etc. etc. Yeah, Apple's been copied and these things aren't as special anymore... but the copies always seem to be lower fidelity anyway.
The error you're arguing against is that these people don't understand what OWNERSHIP is. They have trouble grasping why communism won't work-- remember many of them are following the Stallman pied piper.
They fundamentally don't understand that their expectations of a handout from companies, is only going to come by eliminating the concept of ownership-- making them all slaves as well in the process.
And of course, to maintain this illusion, they ignore the fact that the market is quite good at rectifying and eliminating companies that aren't wise-- SonicBlue is at what, $0.44 right now?
We don't need the government-- the market does a much better job and we don't have to give up the bill of rights in the process.
BZZT you're wrong. Companies exist to serve their owners. Employees are necessary, and so companies must serve them as well, to keep them happy and productive. But the employee is not bound to the company by indentured servitude, nor is the company bound to keep the employee around. ITs a fair deal, you find a better job, great.
That a bunch of people have been laid off due to the dotcom bust is not the destruction of careers-- its the destruction of companies! Companies don't come back. Employees get hired again.
And I didn't hear a lot of complaining when those employees (myself included) were hopping jobs.
All the whining that a company doesn't exist to serve you is asking for something that is not your right..... unless you agree to be an indentured servant as well, how can you expect them to be indentured to you?
While we're at it, its worth pointing out that the creator of these frauds is more often than not the government.
Enron profited from the California energy crisis because the government of California CREATED the crisis-- by not allowing Electricity sellers to also create the electricity-- forcing them to buy it on the market, and at a disadvantage.
And lying hipocrites such as yourself call that "deregulation". The hell it is. Preventing someone from making what they are required (By law again!) to sell, is not deregulation-- its absurd regulation.
I find it funny that those who would make us all slaves to the state in this communist anti-capitalist ideal, are constantly using examples of fraud as the reason to do implement their fraud.
Enron, Global Crossing, et al. broke the law. That doesn't justify making us all slaves to the state, as you advocate. (For that is the ONLY alternative to capitalism. slaves to the state, slaves to a dictator, or slaves to some tyrannical government.)
If you'd actually read of Ayn Rand, you'd know she predicted this. Ever heard of Anaconda Copper? She's already disproven the argument you make... but we both know your audience of hate mongers is going to just shout "yeah! eat the rich!" while they toodle around in SUVs and vote for higher cigarette taxes and the elimination of human rights.
Furthermore, if you ever get your way and eliminate freedom, you will have an armed uprising on your hands, and will, of course loose becuase those you count on for defense (drafted against their will, of course) will not be very motivated.
GREED is a natural force. The only motivation in nature for any organism is survival and to thrive. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed works. IT clarifies the mind, and focuses the spririt.
This idea that greed = fraud is the lie propagated by those who want to eliminate human rights. FRAUD = FRAUD.
There's no shame in being human and exercising human rights-- and there's nothing inherently unethical about it.
You might as well be complaining that birds are out there eating worms rather than cooperating on farming.
How is a comment about windows mice working with Unix computers "offtopic" when the topic is a trackpad on a mac as compared to dell, and its alternatives?
We got a moderation problem here. Hope someone catches it in metamod.
True. However, the article is talking about USB 2.0, which moves data at 480 Mb/s, vs. the current (?) firewire speed of 400.
Well that's just wrong. 480Mb/s is a *theoretical* speed for USB 2.0. As I understand it, you'll never see that actually on a USB 2 bus because of the poor implementation (though it should be faster than drinking thru a 12Mb/s straw.)
On the other hand, I regularly-- in fact daily-- get 400Mb/s over my firewire bus (Which is 12 feet long, by the way... quite a long run for a high speed serial protocol.)
Furthermore, that's standard firewire. The current top of the line (demonstrated regularly but not yet shipping) version of firewire can do up to 3.2GB/second. (I may be wrong and its 3.2Gb/s)
It's too bad firewire didn't catch on more. Had Apple not been greedy with the name,
Apple was "greedy" with the name? This is your standard issue silliness. You think the MAc would have caught on better if apple had let PC manufacturers call their computers Macs? Yeah, Windows Mac would be the number one OS and apple wouldn't exist--- but the Macintosh would not have won. (Actually it did, everyone runs the Mac UI now.)
Anyway, ANYONE who wants to use the FireWire brand name can use it for 1394 ports. That was another good step towards encouraging Firewire.
Firewire is dominant, and it is winning. I know of some still cameras with USB ports, but of know video cameras with USB 2 ports.
This is funny. A company that doesn't even know what the job title of "Designer" means... and even has managed to make EVERY gui they've released totoally butt ugly is "better" than the products from the one computer company who's influenced global fashions with its computer designs, and consistently beat every other manufacturer on quality comparisons?
Microsoft doesn't make bad hardware-- its one of the few divisions that does good work. The natural keyboard was an excellent product. But its just stupid to claim that Apples hardware is shit-- everyone knows otherwise, even those who hate macs.
I may be wrong but the "scroll area" on the side of the dell is a hardware feature, rather than just software. As such, I doubt it will make it to the powerbook, as it breaks the metaphor, and apple does not like to break metaphors.
However, I do suggest you rent a powerbook for a month. Should cost you a hundred dollars or so. This is a good investment because if you spend $2,000 on your next computer you don't want to get the wrong one (where wrong may be the powerbook or may be another dell.)
I think you'll find after a period of adjustment that the advantages in usability (much of which is from not breaking the metaphor) and other nice things about OS X will far outweight the lack of the "scroll touch pad".
For what its worth, I use an external 3 button mouse (Even though it breaks the metaphor-- I like it for games that don't have the metaphor to be broken) and the scroll wheel works fine.
In Jaguar there's even a new UI for setting the sensitivity of the scroll wheel. Apple totally supports three button and complex mice, but won't ship them for good reasons.
If there isn't a hardware component to the scroll-trackpad, then you could, theoretically, write a kernel extention to add this functionality.
I think,though, you'll find other things compensate for lack of this feature while mobile. (While not mobile, an external trackpad or trackball can be plugged in.)
I was into Rand once, just like most libertarian freedom-lovers were probably hooked on her vibe at one time or another... but then I grew up.
You say that right after attributing to Galt something said by Toohey, in a whole OTHER BOOK. Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged?
You imply I should grow up, right after telling me to stick to rational arguments.
The catholic church is quite wealthy, and exerts great control over much of the world. The guy who speaks to you of sacrifice is taking a cut. But worse than the catholic church-- which you can leave-- is this sacrificial taxation that takes half of my income, I don't have a choice, and there's a gun to my head if I don't pay it.
When they talk about fixing healthcare, solving poverty, they are talking about sacrifice for others, and they mean to-- and repeatedly have (example: Social security)-- take off with the money for their own self interests, rather than give it to the people they collected it for.
As if they had a right to collect "charity" at gunpoint to begin with.
If there's some sophomoric mistake in Rand's philosophy, I-- yet again-- invite you to point it out. But so far, all I've gotten from you are personal attacks.
Its not defensive to point out the silliness of someone who claims the exact opposite of what is true.
Facts are Facts. Its not up for debate--- course, many people want to believe there is no such thing as reality, whatever you *feel* about something is more important than what it is, etc, etc.
I've been running it a couple days and Jaguar is quite a delight.
I don't think people realize how much has changed- the new finder looks the same, but from the pointer and beachball replacements, to every button in the UI, Aqua is different... generally its quite a wonderful OS.
but part of the problem is many if not most, mac browsers out there pretend to be IE because for awhile there many websites wouldn't load if the browser didn't indicate it was IE on a PC. (Even though the pages would render fine on a Mac.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, its really insightful to pretend that without government intrusive regulation and oppression there would be no government.
When I said "We don't need the governmetn" it was obvious (to anyone not quoting me out of context) that I was saying they don't need to interfere. Sheesh.
And furthermore, anyone who invests does so freely and with full knowledge of the risks.
Your desire to oppress me with tyranny (By getting the "Rich" ) is not justified with your claim that people were victims of fraud. When they are, they have the courts to turn to-- fraud is illegal, don't you know.
Like I said, I have examined here philosophy closely (but not perfectly) and have found no faults.
I have read many, MANY critiques of her. Most of them are false on the face of them-- they make a blanked assumption about the world, don't attempt to prove it, and then claim she's wrong because her philosophy doesn't agree with this assumption.
They amount to saying "Jesus told me Ayn Rand was wrong, so that proves it."
Unfortunately, your critique falls into this same category. I suspect most people go this route because they want to cling to what they believe without examining it. (Not accusing you of this, just speculating as to its popularity.) Specifically, your reasons are
1) Don't trust dogmatic philosophies.
2) She makes "a priori assumptions".
3) She wants to shape all of humanity into a particular mold.
(This is the best I could get out of your response, as you didn't try to boil it down to a logical fallacy. I was not asking for your opinion of Objectivism-- but for the logical fallacy you found in it. Nothing else would change my mind-- and yes, my mind IS open to change. Its only been in recent years that I've switched to objectivism, and I'm wary of the possibility of being hoodwinked-- so I'm actively open to, and seeking (as objectivism requires) the possibility that there's a logical error with objectivism and that I should thus reject it. Unfortunately, most "criticism" of objectivism is crap.)
Anyway, back to your points. None of these three are logical fallacies. Any belief is "dogmatic" in that it is a belief. It believes what it believes. To say objectivism is "dogmatic" is kinda silly-- followers may be, rand may be, but the *ONLY* thing to my mind that could make objectivism dogmatic is its logical correctness. If its proof is so finely crafted as to leave little flexibility, well, that's proof of its correctness, not proof that you should run.
Your second point about apriori assumptions is an apriori assumption, or you misread Atlas Shrugged. She started from the most basic possible assumptions you can make, and *defended them*, then built the philosophy from there. (You did read Galts speech, someone in this thread said they hadn't.) In that speech she builds from the ground up. Its better to be alive than dead. IS the only assumption necessary, and she even defends that. I don't see what you're arguing with.
Finally, to your last point, philosophies want to shape all humanity into a specific mold-- this is certainly not true of objectivism. Objectivism is an individualist philosophy-- it explicitly calls for people to follow their differences and follow their own strengths. It is a moral philosophy in that it says that immorality is the disrespect of individuality.
This is whats so perplexing-- there certainly are a lot of people who hate objectivism. But their criticisms seem to always amount to "Jesus told me" or statements that objectivism says things it doesnt--- often quite opposite things, such as "Objectivism is opposed to compassion". I can see a christian saying that "I think we should care for each other, objectivism is opposed to compassion, Jesus told me."
And then they try to coerce you into being "compassionate" for people who are wealthier than you to begin with.
I can understand people who disagree with some of the logic, finding people who do so is hard, and unfortunately, most of thier disagreement isn't logical. Rarely is it a disagreement on an assumption-- its hard to argue with "its better to live than to die".
Talk about living death. What a pathetic life that must be.
But the economics of it don't work. Not to mention the morality.
Who ever said you have the right to survive? Especially at my expense (eg, welfare from my taxes).
If you want to survive, work. If you can't work, *THEN* we can talk about charity. Nothing wrong with charity (when its voluntary). But when thugs with guns show up to take my money to pay someone who simply doesn't want to work for "mere survival" then there's a serious moral problem with society.
Marx said the same thing at the dawn of the industrial age.
Imagin making cars using forges to make the steel, rather than doing it by hand? Thousands of people were "put out of work" by steel forges and metal forming machines.
We saw the suspension of unreality that this resulted in-- communism, centrally planned governments and misery for those who tried to "fight the rich" rather than "become rich themselves".
Whereas the US which mostly was "become rich ourselves" (despite oppressive unions - friend recently got fired from his job because he wasn't a union member) has done much better.
In fact, the computer ate has greately increased productivity-- and debt has not gone up-- debt has gone down. Sure there are companies that went way into debt, but taking a few high profile companies and claiming they are the norm is typical for marxists-- cause reality just don't fit the theory.
AS with the industrial age, people have benefited greatly from the computer age--individual productivity has gone up, individual power has gone up with the increased access to information, etc. etc. And individual standards of living have gone up, not down.
Jobs change. Some jobs will be obsolete in a few years-- just as the guy who was an expert at making pet rocks can no longer market his proficiency in it. That's life, and more often than not, this is a GOOD thing. These increased in productivity create more jobs by providing economic opportunities that weren't feasible before... and you need people to staff those economic opportunities.
Marxism (and liberalism et al.) tries to talk people into being slaves with the idea that "life isn't fair- eat the rich". But life isn't fair-- the only thing you can do about it is give everyone equality of rights, not equality of position. Because if you go down the road of making everyone equal in stature, they are all poor. But if you insure everyone equality of rights, some will be rich, some will be poorer. Some will prefer to collect money, others will prefer to spend time with their children. NEITHER of these activities is wrong.
The "equality of position" people say that everyone should be forced to live as they do-- as slaves of the state, equally poor.
I say, if children are important to you, then play with them. If you don't want to have them, fine. If you want to invest your money and become rich, great. If you'd rather buy new cars and replace them every five years, then, hell, thats' your right.
Just don't tell me that you want to "protect my job" when we all know the score.
When exactly was it that cops stopped being responsible for public safety and became agents of the state?
Have you noticed that people don't even expect cops to do things relating to public safety anymore? ITs just a foregone conclusion that they are the state's bullies-- there to harass drivers, or bust drugs (which has nothing to do with public safety) or provide protection, or run interference for politicos and corporations (such as blocking traffic, or providing "security" which is really just armed enforcement, without the checks or balances of the law.)
When was the last time a cop shot an innocent person and went to jail for it? I can't think of any... seems they do that once a month here in Seattle and are never brought up on charges, let alone serve time.
Hell on TV they don't even try to portray cops as working for any kind of objectivity-- they are always working for the prosecution. Notice that? It wouldn't be so bad if they were genreally trustworthy, but its been widely reported the hundreds of cases where the state forensice expert cooked the evidence (Where was that? Missouri? Maryland?) For decade he was doing this.
Its time to get rid of the police part of the police state-- let private security agencies represent us and defend us-- and make everyone equal under the law. (And no more agents of the state getting first crack at the evidence so they can tamper with it. Completely lacks objectivity that.)
Thanks for listening to my rant. while I was born in the south, I left after I realized just how corrupt the states are.. Florida, LA, Miss, Texas-- hell cops were drowning people in Brayes Bayou and shooting them, while drunk, on the freeway when I left Texas (and of course, no charges are filed.)
I agree, and I'm right behind you. Paying cash more and more.
We use the grocery store cards because we filled out bogus info on them (or in one case never turned in the form, just got the card.)
But it occurs to me that they may correlate this with using the banks card to track us. I trust the bank though-- its not a bank, but an association that has a credit union. No shareholders to keep happy- just depositors. I'm all for market and capitalism, but my exercise of the free market choice I have is choosing a non-commercial bank. Plus I got screwed over by commercial banks too many times.
The problem is, the feds are starting to crack down. Any time you spend $5,000 they have a form you have to fill out. Pretty soon this will be $1,000. So they are starting to track significant transactions directly. (Say buying a car. Another thing I don't use is the credit system- fraudulent from the get go, and the feds have made it impossible to protect your rights in that area- they can say whatever they want about you and as long as they respond to your correspondence within 30 days you can't do squat.) The car dealership is gonna want you to fill out the federal form when you plunk down $15k for a new car... but then, why spend that much when you can get 7 perfectly good toyota carollas for that kind of money?
But I digress... there always is private car sellers who are happy to take travellers checks or money orders... and you can get these without showing ID, IIRC.
When money is outlawed, only outlaws will have cash.
It was in 1985 and 1988, when Apple first introduced them. What only 5 years before Windows support? 7? 10?
Not to mention the 3.5 inch floppy drive, the laserprinter, both co-developed by apple, not having a floppy drive (Which is funny, especially since so many people don't get it. You realize just how stupid it is to have a rackmounted server with a dinky 3.5 inch floppy drive on it?)
etc etc. etc. Yeah, Apple's been copied and these things aren't as special anymore... but the copies always seem to be lower fidelity anyway.
The error you're arguing against is that these people don't understand what OWNERSHIP is. They have trouble grasping why communism won't work-- remember many of them are following the Stallman pied piper.
They fundamentally don't understand that their expectations of a handout from companies, is only going to come by eliminating the concept of ownership-- making them all slaves as well in the process.
And of course, to maintain this illusion, they ignore the fact that the market is quite good at rectifying and eliminating companies that aren't wise-- SonicBlue is at what, $0.44 right now?
We don't need the government-- the market does a much better job and we don't have to give up the bill of rights in the process.
BZZT you're wrong. Companies exist to serve their owners. Employees are necessary, and so companies must serve them as well, to keep them happy and productive. But the employee is not bound to the company by indentured servitude, nor is the company bound to keep the employee around. ITs a fair deal, you find a better job, great.
That a bunch of people have been laid off due to the dotcom bust is not the destruction of careers-- its the destruction of companies! Companies don't come back. Employees get hired again.
And I didn't hear a lot of complaining when those employees (myself included) were hopping jobs.
All the whining that a company doesn't exist to serve you is asking for something that is not your right.
While we're at it, its worth pointing out that the creator of these frauds is more often than not the government.
Enron profited from the California energy crisis because the government of California CREATED the crisis-- by not allowing Electricity sellers to also create the electricity-- forcing them to buy it on the market, and at a disadvantage.
And lying hipocrites such as yourself call that "deregulation". The hell it is. Preventing someone from making what they are required (By law again!) to sell, is not deregulation-- its absurd regulation.
Talk about double speak. Wake up.
I find it funny that those who would make us all slaves to the state in this communist anti-capitalist ideal, are constantly using examples of fraud as the reason to do implement their fraud.
Enron, Global Crossing, et al. broke the law. That doesn't justify making us all slaves to the state, as you advocate. (For that is the ONLY alternative to capitalism. slaves to the state, slaves to a dictator, or slaves to some tyrannical government.)
If you'd actually read of Ayn Rand, you'd know she predicted this. Ever heard of Anaconda Copper? She's already disproven the argument you make... but we both know your audience of hate mongers is going to just shout "yeah! eat the rich!" while they toodle around in SUVs and vote for higher cigarette taxes and the elimination of human rights.
Furthermore, if you ever get your way and eliminate freedom, you will have an armed uprising on your hands, and will, of course loose becuase those you count on for defense (drafted against their will, of course) will not be very motivated.
GREED is a natural force. The only motivation in nature for any organism is survival and to thrive.
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed works. IT clarifies the mind, and focuses the spririt.
This idea that greed = fraud is the lie propagated by those who want to eliminate human rights. FRAUD = FRAUD.
There's no shame in being human and exercising human rights-- and there's nothing inherently unethical about it.
You might as well be complaining that birds are out there eating worms rather than cooperating on farming.
Shame on you.
How is a comment about windows mice working with Unix computers "offtopic" when the topic is a trackpad on a mac as compared to dell, and its alternatives?
We got a moderation problem here. Hope someone catches it in metamod.
Yeah, Apple sure would hate it if a couple million Linux users bought iPods!!!
Sheesh.
Do you now see the master plan?
You have to get the ports out there, on most of the installed base-- that means shipping them a couple years.
And THEN you can release a groundbreaking product that uses them, like the iPod.
You would have hated the iPod if you relied on that iMac and didn't have firewire, right?
To call a $1/port (now $0.25) licensing fee for a hardware technology they invented "Greedy" pales in absurdity.
You must really hate spending hundreds for an intel or AMD processor.
Sheesh!
True. However, the article is talking about USB 2.0, which moves data at 480 Mb/s, vs. the current (?) firewire speed of 400.
Well that's just wrong. 480Mb/s is a *theoretical* speed for USB 2.0. As I understand it, you'll never see that actually on a USB 2 bus because of the poor implementation (though it should be faster than drinking thru a 12Mb/s straw.)
On the other hand, I regularly-- in fact daily-- get 400Mb/s over my firewire bus (Which is 12 feet long, by the way... quite a long run for a high speed serial protocol.)
Furthermore, that's standard firewire. The current top of the line (demonstrated regularly but not yet shipping) version of firewire can do up to 3.2GB/second. (I may be wrong and its 3.2Gb/s)
It's too bad firewire didn't catch on more. Had Apple not been greedy with the name,
Apple was "greedy" with the name? This is your standard issue silliness. You think the MAc would have caught on better if apple had let PC manufacturers call their computers Macs? Yeah, Windows Mac would be the number one OS and apple wouldn't exist--- but the Macintosh would not have won. (Actually it did, everyone runs the Mac UI now.)
Anyway, ANYONE who wants to use the FireWire brand name can use it for 1394 ports. That was another good step towards encouraging Firewire.
Firewire is dominant, and it is winning. I know of some still cameras with USB ports, but of know video cameras with USB 2 ports.
You deserve the flamebait mod.
That Apple had to use TI's first generation FireWire Chips on the Blue and White machines is not surprising-- Firewire was very new then.
That none of their current machines shows they've solved the issue.
That you rant on and on about a machine that shipped three or four years ago, is just silly.
This is funny. A company that doesn't even know what the job title of "Designer" means... and even has managed to make EVERY gui they've released totoally butt ugly is "better" than the products from the one computer company who's influenced global fashions with its computer designs, and consistently beat every other manufacturer on quality comparisons?
Microsoft doesn't make bad hardware-- its one of the few divisions that does good work. The natural keyboard was an excellent product. But its just stupid to claim that Apples hardware is shit-- everyone knows otherwise, even those who hate macs.
I think you're wrong. I believe, but I don't know for sure, that Microsoft mice work with PCs and Windows boxes as well as REAL computers.
They do work with Real computers though, quite nicely. (Where REAL = UNIX, including Mac)
Oh, and they work with Mac OS 9 as well.
I may be wrong but the "scroll area" on the side of the dell is a hardware feature, rather than just software. As such, I doubt it will make it to the powerbook, as it breaks the metaphor, and apple does not like to break metaphors.
However, I do suggest you rent a powerbook for a month. Should cost you a hundred dollars or so. This is a good investment because if you spend $2,000 on your next computer you don't want to get the wrong one (where wrong may be the powerbook or may be another dell.)
I think you'll find after a period of adjustment that the advantages in usability (much of which is from not breaking the metaphor) and other nice things about OS X will far outweight the lack of the "scroll touch pad".
For what its worth, I use an external 3 button mouse (Even though it breaks the metaphor-- I like it for games that don't have the metaphor to be broken) and the scroll wheel works fine.
In Jaguar there's even a new UI for setting the sensitivity of the scroll wheel. Apple totally supports three button and complex mice, but won't ship them for good reasons.
If there isn't a hardware component to the scroll-trackpad, then you could, theoretically, write a kernel extention to add this functionality.
I think,though, you'll find other things compensate for lack of this feature while mobile. (While not mobile, an external trackpad or trackball can be plugged in.)
I was into Rand once, just like most libertarian freedom-lovers were probably hooked on her vibe at one time or another... but then I grew up.
You say that right after attributing to Galt something said by Toohey, in a whole OTHER BOOK. Have you actually read Atlas Shrugged?
You imply I should grow up, right after telling me to stick to rational arguments.
The catholic church is quite wealthy, and exerts great control over much of the world. The guy who speaks to you of sacrifice is taking a cut. But worse than the catholic church-- which you can leave-- is this sacrificial taxation that takes half of my income, I don't have a choice, and there's a gun to my head if I don't pay it.
When they talk about fixing healthcare, solving poverty, they are talking about sacrifice for others, and they mean to-- and repeatedly have (example: Social security)-- take off with the money for their own self interests, rather than give it to the people they collected it for.
As if they had a right to collect "charity" at gunpoint to begin with.
If there's some sophomoric mistake in Rand's philosophy, I-- yet again-- invite you to point it out. But so far, all I've gotten from you are personal attacks.
But I'm not surprised.
Oh, now that's a great load of irony.
Its not defensive to point out the silliness of someone who claims the exact opposite of what is true.
Facts are Facts. Its not up for debate--- course, many people want to believe there is no such thing as reality, whatever you *feel* about something is more important than what it is, etc, etc.
But I will not engage in that kind of thinking.
I've been running it a couple days and Jaguar is quite a delight.
I don't think people realize how much has changed- the new finder looks the same, but from the pointer and beachball replacements, to every button in the UI, Aqua is different... generally its quite a wonderful OS.
If you grab unique IPs that might be good...
but part of the problem is many if not most, mac browsers out there pretend to be IE because for awhile there many websites wouldn't load if the browser didn't indicate it was IE on a PC. (Even though the pages would render fine on a Mac.)
Been there, done that, you ignore what you don't like to hear.
There's no point in wasting time with you... hell your handle is the first clue.
Anyone who thinks a bus that is a quarter as wide but runs at twice the clock rate is "faster" is not worth wasting words on.
Bye.