I am no child of your evil god. Your morality is corrupted by its vile and malevolent influence. Read the bible sometime and see the horrors that the god you worship with so much glee would inflict upon humanity if he actually existed. If you were not prejudiced and compromised by faith, you would note that your god represents a narcissistic sadistic psychopathic personality disorder on an ego-maniacal power trip.
No. I am being completely honest. I was born into a fundamentalist christian cult. I know them from the inside out in a way that no outsider ever really can.
That is why the Christians don't see any point in conservation for the future because they pray for their evil god to destroy the world, so it does not matter if they leave nothing for the next generation.
Wow. Massive generalization much?
Yes, I probably do generalize a bit much. That does not change the fact that the political arm of American Christianity is rabidly anti-conservation for the reason that I stated. They believe that their god will destroy the world before it matters.
The bible clearly shows that the christian god is an evil god if you bother to read the whole bible without the prejudice that god is good, therefore the evil that he clearly does in the bible must also be good.
We actually are not overpopulated. What we are is under energized. With enough nuclear and solar power, most of the fossil fuels can be used for fertilizer or synthesized. Sea water can be desalinated and the worlds aquifers can be replenished. 7 to 10 billion is easily sustainable if we were not so god damn retarded about solution to energy scarcity. Hell, if we got radical enough with vertical hydroponic food production we might even be able to support a hundred billion humans indefinitely.
That is really bullshit. Its easier to care about the future of the world and human race when you know it will affect your children when they inherit it. That is why the Christians don't see any point in conservation for the future because they pray for their evil god to destroy the world, so it does not matter if they leave nothing for the next generation.
Or perhaps you write code by shaking a magnet over your hard drive in just the right way?
Visual Studio is a good IDE regardless of your experience level. It is comparable to eclipse. Each has areas where it is a bit better than the other, but few major deficiencies.
Especially when it is carpet that uses dynamic variants and prototyping instead of strongly typed references and class based inheritance... am I doing this analogy thing right?
I don't see how this contradicts anything. If a mars sized body impacted the earth, I doubt there was much that wasn't rendered into magma and mixed together.
Price and performance are not subjective in this comparison.
You are being ridiculous. Let me rephrase that. You have earned ridicule.
You are nothing but an apple fanboi so self deluded that you can't even accept faint praise, or a paid schill to stupid to see that I am saying that Mac's have some redeeming qualities and should not be discounted out of hand for having higher prices.
Thank you for changing my mind. Mac's really are worthless shit, if no other reason than because people like you value them. And I will never again consider buying one, just so I don't risk being associated with people like you.
No, I am saying that all macs cost more than their closest performing PC competitors, the raw numbers bear out that indisputable fact. And the primary and often only advantage a mac has are subjective qualities like the feel of the operating system and the shape, material and finish of the packaging.
A PC in a small htpc case that is functionally identical to a mac mini costs less than a mac mini. The mac mini comes in a smaller package than is readily available, a subjective advantage that won't matter to everyone.
The same holds true across the board for mac products. There are android phones with specs similar or better than iPhones at lower costs. There are laptops with similar or better specs than macbooks available at lower cost. There are large desktop PCs with similar or better specs than an iMac available at lower cost. There are compact htpc computers with similar or better specs than a mac mini available at lower cost.
I am not saying that Macs are worthless junk. I am saying that they cost more than functionally similar competitors. And that their worth is subjective and mostly depends on how much value you place on the packaging.
Volume is a nearly useless measurement of a computers size.
Size often does not matter at all if you are within an order of magnitude or so.
And most of the time it does matter, only 1 dimension matters, either height (can I fit it in this vertically narrow space) or width (can I fit it in this horizontally narrow space).
Sometimes you might care about 2 dimensions.
And it is a very rare circumstance that all 3 have any impact unless you live out of a suitcase. And then you want a laptop, not a mini desktop with separate monitor and keyboard.
You can put together a machine with the internal specs of a mac mini for less than $599 (2.3ghz dual core i5, 2gb memory, 500mb hd, intel 3000 graphics) including a small media center case and power supply.
I am not "now claiming", I always claimed. Right there it says "pretty packaging". I am not trying compare laptops to desktops as you infer. I am comparing two mini PC's. the mac mini squeezes in at an 1.5 inches, I can put the same hardware in a readily available 2.75 inch thick case, and I might be able to shave that down a bit more if I didn't stop looking at the first website that I checked. The comparison between larger mac desktops and similar pc desktops are similar. The comparison between mac laptops and similar pc laptops are similar.
To you, saving an inch in a mini pc is worth the extra price you pay. To others, it isn't. It is entirely subjective. What you are saying is exactly the same thing that I said, except you are getting an attitude about it and trying to act offended for no reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I am no child of your evil god. Your morality is corrupted by its vile and malevolent influence. Read the bible sometime and see the horrors that the god you worship with so much glee would inflict upon humanity if he actually existed. If you were not prejudiced and compromised by faith, you would note that your god represents a narcissistic sadistic psychopathic personality disorder on an ego-maniacal power trip.
No. I am being completely honest. I was born into a fundamentalist christian cult. I know them from the inside out in a way that no outsider ever really can.
That is why the Christians don't see any point in conservation for the future because they pray for their evil god to destroy the world, so it does not matter if they leave nothing for the next generation.
Wow. Massive generalization much?
Yes, I probably do generalize a bit much. That does not change the fact that the political arm of American Christianity is rabidly anti-conservation for the reason that I stated. They believe that their god will destroy the world before it matters.
The bible clearly shows that the christian god is an evil god if you bother to read the whole bible without the prejudice that god is good, therefore the evil that he clearly does in the bible must also be good.
We actually are not overpopulated. What we are is under energized. With enough nuclear and solar power, most of the fossil fuels can be used for fertilizer or synthesized. Sea water can be desalinated and the worlds aquifers can be replenished. 7 to 10 billion is easily sustainable if we were not so god damn retarded about solution to energy scarcity. Hell, if we got radical enough with vertical hydroponic food production we might even be able to support a hundred billion humans indefinitely.
That is really bullshit. Its easier to care about the future of the world and human race when you know it will affect your children when they inherit it. That is why the Christians don't see any point in conservation for the future because they pray for their evil god to destroy the world, so it does not matter if they leave nothing for the next generation.
I don't think committing treason and attempting to destroy America is that great of an accomplishment.
IIRC, he lost the rights to it somehow.
Let me guess, you do all your code in vi?
Or perhaps you write code by shaking a magnet over your hard drive in just the right way?
Visual Studio is a good IDE regardless of your experience level. It is comparable to eclipse. Each has areas where it is a bit better than the other, but few major deficiencies.
Especially when it is carpet that uses dynamic variants and prototyping instead of strongly typed references and class based inheritance... am I doing this analogy thing right?
If his name is apparently the same as Japans most prolific criminal, perhaps he should just consider changing his name?
Charon is the largest "moon" compared to its "planet" Pluto.
I don't see how this contradicts anything. If a mars sized body impacted the earth, I doubt there was much that wasn't rendered into magma and mixed together.
You are on slashdot.
You can friend people, have a journal, post articles and discuss crap.
You are on a social network.
I think he exaggerated a bit. But most of the non-protected forests are replanted fast growing pine monocultures, not healthy natural forests.
Price and performance are not subjective in this comparison.
You are being ridiculous. Let me rephrase that. You have earned ridicule.
You are nothing but an apple fanboi so self deluded that you can't even accept faint praise, or a paid schill to stupid to see that I am saying that Mac's have some redeeming qualities and should not be discounted out of hand for having higher prices.
Thank you for changing my mind. Mac's really are worthless shit, if no other reason than because people like you value them. And I will never again consider buying one, just so I don't risk being associated with people like you.
Everything that isn't price and performance is subjective. And you keep ignoring that fact.
The mac mini also has the footprint of the keyboard, monitor and mouse pad.
Besides that, a laptop can take up 0 desk space by using it on your lap.
No, I am saying that all macs cost more than their closest performing PC competitors, the raw numbers bear out that indisputable fact. And the primary and often only advantage a mac has are subjective qualities like the feel of the operating system and the shape, material and finish of the packaging.
A PC in a small htpc case that is functionally identical to a mac mini costs less than a mac mini. The mac mini comes in a smaller package than is readily available, a subjective advantage that won't matter to everyone.
The same holds true across the board for mac products. There are android phones with specs similar or better than iPhones at lower costs. There are laptops with similar or better specs than macbooks available at lower cost. There are large desktop PCs with similar or better specs than an iMac available at lower cost. There are compact htpc computers with similar or better specs than a mac mini available at lower cost.
I am not saying that Macs are worthless junk. I am saying that they cost more than functionally similar competitors. And that their worth is subjective and mostly depends on how much value you place on the packaging.
Volume is a nearly useless measurement of a computers size.
Size often does not matter at all if you are within an order of magnitude or so.
And most of the time it does matter, only 1 dimension matters, either height (can I fit it in this vertically narrow space) or width (can I fit it in this horizontally narrow space).
Sometimes you might care about 2 dimensions.
And it is a very rare circumstance that all 3 have any impact unless you live out of a suitcase. And then you want a laptop, not a mini desktop with separate monitor and keyboard.
You are not disagreeing to me.
You can put together a machine with the internal specs of a mac mini for less than $599 (2.3ghz dual core i5, 2gb memory, 500mb hd, intel 3000 graphics) including a small media center case and power supply.
I am not "now claiming", I always claimed. Right there it says "pretty packaging". I am not trying compare laptops to desktops as you infer. I am comparing two mini PC's. the mac mini squeezes in at an 1.5 inches, I can put the same hardware in a readily available 2.75 inch thick case, and I might be able to shave that down a bit more if I didn't stop looking at the first website that I checked. The comparison between larger mac desktops and similar pc desktops are similar. The comparison between mac laptops and similar pc laptops are similar.
To you, saving an inch in a mini pc is worth the extra price you pay. To others, it isn't. It is entirely subjective. What you are saying is exactly the same thing that I said, except you are getting an attitude about it and trying to act offended for no reason.
You are not disagreeing with me.
Like I said, a pretty package may subjectively be worth the extra cost.
The smallness of the mac mini is part of its pretty package that you pay a premium for.
16 gigs of ddr3 cost me about $115 last year from newegg. Not that expensive.
Yea, now that mac's have abandoned PowerPC, the hardware is not really different than a mid level standard pc.
Depending on what you are looking at, Mac hardware can easily have a 10% to 40% markup for hardware on the base model. And it gets worse for upgrades.
Mac OS and pretty packaging "may" be worthwhile at that markup for some people, but it is mostly subjective.
So they have no idea when it will stop working. Doesn't sound very good to me.