I saw nobody answered your questions, so I thought I would give it a shot. Keep in mind that my answers may not be entirely accurate.
One problem is that you seem to be creating scenarios based on somewhat faulty assumptions, which creates a ridiculous scenario, but I'll try to clarify.
Question 1: The short answer to your question is that many government functions (e.g. military) would be funded with usage fees rather than by taxation (which Libertarians view as legalized theft).
Question 2: See number 1.
3: The innuendo in your question suggests that kids will now start doing drugs because they're legal.
First, you need to understand that the Libertarian philosophy is that it's a natural right for living beings of all species to consume that which they choose. Therefore, laws banning consumption of drugs, fatty foods, etc, seem as ridiculous as laws banning the practice of religion, or bans on free speech. Some see it as a right vs. wrong issue, and others (like me) see it as a practical issue -- laws trying to stop people from engaging in natural behavior are impossible to enforce. But another part is being at liberty to think for yourself instead of having Big Brother "nanny-ing" you.
Second, I "feel" that the innuendo of your question is suggesting that the anti-drug laws in place now are the chief reason why more kids don't do drugs. However, for one example, kids today find marijuana (illegal) much easier to obtain than alcohol (regulated). Sorry, I don't have a link to the study that showed this (read it years ago), but ask your friends and they'll probably confirm that generally speaking, this is true.
Thirdly, there was a time, believe it or not, when all this crap was legal. Somehow, when Coca-cola had cocaine in it, not everyone in the US turned into a coke-whore.
The most important thing in regard to kids and narcotics is that legalization of drugs will FORCE parents to fall back onto the REAL solution to prevent kids from using drugs -- which is better parenting.
Question 4: There is obvious innuendo here and you wrote it in the form of a complex question, but that's ok.
First, understand that child pornography in many cases would involve CHILD RAPE, which would still be illegal (with publishers, etc contributing to the crime). It wouldn't happen.
I'll discuss this one further with you if you'll assume that Libertarians are more reasonable than to allow child rape (which is always unacceptable.)
Question 5: There's more innuendo here. Deregulation doesn't mean allowing blatant FRAUD and CRIME -- these should be punished. For example, hitmen wouldn't be "legal" in a Libertarian society. The power situation is a bad example as well. Do you know how much gov't regulation is already in there? It's like a tangled ball of yarn.
Question 6: This question is so full of suggestions and faulty assumptions that I don't even know where to start. All I can say is that you should credit Libertarians with some rationality and assume we wouldn't let convicted criminals walk the street just because they don't "feel" like serving their 20 year sentence.
It would probably be a very similar situation to how the US was shortly after it founded. Warrants required for searches, speedy trials, innocent until proven guilty, jury comprised of peers, etc.
Email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes stories is the continuation of the cloning box story. Calvin determined that his previous clones were evil because he didn't include a "Moral Ethicator" (??). So he basically wrote "Good" and "Evil" on the box, and tacked on a switch to choose between the two.
While most of the western world is arguing against the medical use of cloned human embryos to help the living (for "moral" reasons), its refereshing to see a country trying to take it to the next level.
At the very simplist aspect, I see (say) beef DNA being combined with (say) certain parts of fish DNA to make leaner beef, or fatter fish. They, of course, could never be released into the wild.
Being a Mac user, I think that the first creature that they should create is a dogcow. And they should name him Clarus. Dogcows would be cool -- you would have all the benefits of a cow (i.e. steak and milk) in the convenience of a dog.
Then, when he gets sick and has to be put to sleep, instead of just crying your eyes out, you could take him to the butcher and your family can have a nice steak dinner while remembering old Clarus.
Never before can I remember society banning science from developing beneficial technology. Its spooky the way that we seem to embrace technology that destroys life, but are wary about technology that saves, preserves, or creates it.
Remembering the idea from the Judge in the Simpsons, its about time someone issues a restraining order -- Religion has to stay at least 10 feet away from Science at all times.
I used to load trailers at UPS (college job) and I can tell you that this is an EXTREMELY VALID POINT. The other loaders and I used to beat the fuck out of a lot of packages -- especially if you need a package to squeeze into a wall.
Don't send something UPS ground unless you expect it to be slammed around.
(Hey everyone, This is my first troll. I know its not what you're used to, but I wanted something original. I promise that future posts will be about Malda and the rest of the slashdot tea room boys.)
What do you think of when you look at the Apple?
Most people act shocked and step back when asked this question. However, Apple is important in all of our lives, and this is a question that must be considered.
There is chocolate to vanilla. The mouse to the keyboard. Mac to PC. God to satan. Yin to yang. Something to nothing.
I have always been made to feel like an outsider. Apple does not follow the norm and is therefore considered an outsider. As a Mac user and a professional Mac-fixer (for the extreme rarity that they would somehow fail or break), I am a part of Apple.
When I look at the Apple, and think of everything Apple has done during my lifetime -- from the utter defeats of the Newton and the Pippen, to the glorious, eternal victories of the iMac and Mac OS X. I think of Adam and Eve. They fucked up by taking a bite out of one of God's priceless Apples, yet that did not stop them from continuing their trek on the road to enlightenment. God did not throw their souls into the Lake of Fire. They even got to have sex a few times.
The Apple is glorious because it ideally represents the human condition. We all fuck up sometimes -- but we use the erasers on our pencils and move on. In doing so we better ourselves and excel to the ultimate level.
Apple does this, and those who wish to crush it have no choice but to emulate it. Theiving, pathetic scoundrel technologies such as M$ Windows, and PC makers who now have "pretty cases" are nothing but parasites, leeching off of the superior technology that sustains them.
A new Apple computer running with the latest version of Mac OS represents the acme of human-computer acheivement. Everyone knows this, but few will admit it.
Now is an extremely exciting time for Mac users. We have regrouped, rearmed, and are ready to launch a massive assault on our parasitic enemies.
Our last blow to the evil empire was the iPod. An excellent mask for a fast punch to the face. The black eye is beginning to show.
October 24th, 2001. Apple releases an intresting but non-revolutionary device. News coverage of this arguably "yawn-inspiring" device is everywhere.
October 25th, 2001. Microsoft releases Windows XP, aka "Windows' os X riP-off".
A man stands lonely in front of hundreds of copies of XP, realizing that nobody wants to spend more money on a computer which displays an ugly OS, and serves oftentimes as a confusing tool that they must use in order to get their work done and survive.
People care more about the iPod because it is designed to add pleasure to its owner's life. This is technology that says "Let me make your life a little easier, more enjoyable, and better".
XP is technology that says "People like OS X because its more beautiful!? Fuck! Throw a nice candy-store coating on 2000 and name it something else. By the way, I want users to rent their Windows operating system from now on".
Throwing a candy coating onto Windows is like an Arby's manager ordering his pimply-faced teen fry-guy to put on a fucking smile.
... And people realize that this is bullshit. They see XBoxes crashing in toystores (my NES, SNES, Game Boy, and N64 NEVER EVER CRASHED). They see XP being proclaimed as stable on TV, then crashing ten seconds later.
They work at their crummy jobs punching numbers into on ugly monior with a stupid grey bar at the bottom of their monitor all day, every fucking day. The boot to a M$ OS, launch their M$ email client, their M$ web browser, connect to their M$ ISP, and create files in M$ applications. The go home and watch MSNBC. Now M$ has slapped a color onto their OS, began selling it for $100, and makes plans for its owners to begin RENTING it.
Why?
Because somebody beat them bad, and they now have a fresh creature to leech off of, and they are saying and doing whatever it takes to make a fucking buck from it.
People and Apple are coming together, because they both share in a common human problem -- making a mistake, yet learning from it, trying hard, and winning. They are realizing that they wasted a good part of their lives punching numbers into a cheap PC running a commodity OS. They want something better. They want a Mac.
Users no longer want to pay for something that will help them work faster. They want something that will help them acheive the same thing that work does -- a better life.
The world is starting to recognize that Apple has always operated under this philosophy. Apple represents the good of mankind, and those who wish to make the world a better place.
Actually, Netscape 6 for OS X is so great, that I'm actually making the switch.
IT IS FAST!!!
On my iMac 233 here at work with IE 5, loading this story took five minutes, and pretty much froze my computer while it was doing it.
On my G4 867 at home, it would probably take 45 seconds to a minute in IE. I'm not exactly sure though, because I use Netscape for OS X there, and it loads in about THREE TO FOUR SECONDS. That is raw and uncut, nested.
So, Netscape isn't dead yet. (At least on the Mac)
Lets call their sales line and ask to return all the Bungie stuff we've ever owned. I doubt many people there now remember Operation Desert Storm, but I sure as hell don't want any of their crap anymore.
Just for the record, how many PC users bought Marathon 2 ???
As an interesting side note, I know of a shareware game company called Spidweb Software, which makes great RPGs. The lead programmer was interviewed, and asked whether he sold more Mac or PC games.
He said that he sold more Mac games.
If you make a game for the Mac, even if its native, you will make some profit. There is really no reason not to, unless its a crappy game.
The thought that Bungie would think of abandoning the Mac, on top of selling out, shows that Jason Jones and its other heads are probably screwed up on heroin or something.
Re:Why the bloody hell does the release day matter
on
Gamecube Hits US Early
·
· Score: 1
When will people realize -- Nintendo doesn't need to market to the adult market -- most of them GREW UP to Nintendo.
Many adult gamers spent a significant chunk of their lives squashing goombas, blasting Ridley, or nailing Gannon.
They remember how superior early Nintendo systems were to the old competitor consoles.
Nintendo is very smart to make their games have a "childish" spin. Its called the nostalgia factor.
And its cheap enough that they might as well get it.
I still think that a SNES provided a better gaming experience for its time that the PS did. SNES had stable, FAST, easy to load games.
I found that PS was slow to start, had games that stopped in the middle of the game to load ( which took forever) and had games that crashed more than they should have.
I think most older gamers have loyalty to Nintendo, and that those who switched to PS will miss some of the conveniences that Nintendo consoles provided, and the more enjoyable games, and will return to where the real fun is -- Nintendo.
I think most people that buy GameCubes do it for the classic Nintendo-only games.
Metroid, Zelda, and Mario Bros. are good enough for me. Metroid is moving to first person. That is leaps and bounds beyond the original 1986 version, which is still a good game.
The only problem is that I never found first-person games to be very comfortable on a video game controller. I much prefer the keyboard and mouse approach.
Anyone else feel the same way or have any advice for making the switch?
I have had almost every game that Bungie made, back from their crappy "Operation Desert Storm" game, Minitaur, Pathways into Darkness, as well as the entire marathon series. I implore the Mac community not to support them any longer.
Bungie got started on the Mac and owes everything to the Mac community that supported it. It could not get a good foothold into the PC market with Marathon 2, yet Mac users continued to pay them big bucks.
Now, Bungie has sold out to the evil empire and HAD SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED NOT BRINGING HALO TO THE MAC, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUCH OF ITS DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE ON THE MAC.
It later agreed to it, but it will probably be a crappy port instead of a native program, which could make it run much, much slower.
Bungie probably won't ever release any more Mac software after Halo.
There's lots of better companies out there that have promised to support the Mac platform, like Id. RTCW looks like its going to be very cool.
I was out of service for a MONTH with PacBell DSL, which I had to pay for.
I had to re-initialize the hard drive on my Mac, and when I reinstalled the DSL software, it was unable to create a connection.
So, I spent an hour on the phone with some southern-yokel who was trying to walk me through a clean installation (which I had already tried five times, so I just pretended to do it), before she agreed to send a tech over.
Lo and behold, when he arrives, he looks at the version of the software and says "dude this doesn't work on OS 9!.. this CD has what you need...and yeah.. I don't know Macs at all, so can you install it?"
Its pretty pathetic that they couldn't check the version over the phone, and that these "techs" use mac derivative operating systems and can't figure out how to double-click a CD on the desktop and run an installer.
I now use RoadRunner, and setting it up on an unsupported 10 year old 68k mac with IPnetrouter only took a matter of minutes.
Although I will be installing YDL on a partition in my new 867mhz G4 when I get it, there are some points I would like to make.
I am not doing it because Apple isn't providing me with something stable or fast enough.
I am not doing it because the OS doesn't provide enough features.
I am not doing it because Linux is superior to OS X.
Quite frankly, although these are arguably untrue today, once the tranistion is completed, and OS X becomes the dominant and leading consumer *nix distro, its superiority will be unquestioned.
This article is a perfect example of the Linux/OS X cold-war taking place. Although the two have many things in common, and enjoy mutual benefits from the other's existance, there are many in the Linux community who are threatened by and fear OS X. Even Mr. Torvalds fired a shot, stating that OS X makes ALL the design flaws one could make, AND invented some of its own. (I'm fully aware that it was probably directed at the micro-kernel, but what was said was said).
Who can blame the Linux community for feeling animosity towards OS X? Much of the Linux community has spent the later part of the 90's trying to convince their friends to take MS off their desktops in favor of a "free" (free as in most people could care less) *nix OS.
All of a sudden, a company develops a *nix distro destined to be more beautiful and more usable than any other, with the goal of making it the world's most advanced OS and finally bringing *nix to the users -- within ONE year. Where Linux has failed, Mac OS X will succeed.
To add insult to injury -- this company is Apple. A company that many curse as a cancer on the computer world. A company whose user base is considered to be sub-human by ungrateful Linux and Windows users who lash out at Apple while using their Macintosh-derivative computers and USB peripherals.
It seems that the author of the article is one of these people. If he was really the Mac user he claimed to be, he wouldn't have used the same weak arguments against OS X that won't mean anything in September.
Although I say this, I am not so preoccupied with this cold-war to not use Linux as a tool when needed. Particularly, I am installing it to learn it and to play Counter-Strike.
Those who are trying to promote Linux on Macs are going to shoot themselves in the foot by attacking OS X. The best way to promote it is to target the older Macs, those who want free (beer) software, those who want to learn, and those who want games like Half-Life.
stacks of "certifications" as to their supposed ability
People who bash certification usually have none of their own, and little understanding of the knowledge behind them. These are people equate someone's years of hard work and effort to nothing. Sometimes they may even take someone's resume who has been working in the field for a few years, and throw it out, simply because they see the MCSE and think that they are therefore worthless.
What is amusing is the wide range of opinions concerning certification vs. college. Some of the same people who hate certification (and the certified) love college boys -- yet the reasons they cite for hating the certs (no *real* exp.) are oftentimes equally valid for fresh college degrees.
I think that many forget what exactly a certification is. It is the vendor's way of stating that the holder has demonstrated their profeciency and knowledge of a specific skill or product. They may have done this by temporarily memorizing test questions or reading material, or *gasp* they may have gone to a training center and received hands-on training about the subject.
The truth is, a certified engineer who has taken their education seriously is quite well-versed in the product or skill, and sometimes may know more about the total power and ability of a product than someone who has been doing only low-level administration.
Of course, the above doesn't apply for MCSE's. Those guys don't know jack.:-)
What you're refering to is the CCIE, and the test, afaik, is more than one day.
Novell's CNE is hard too.
Arrested with Squirtgun
on
Water Guns
·
· Score: 1
A few years ago, back in HS, I spent about $70 on a HUGE, "Constant Pressue" based Super-Soaker system with the intent of converting it into a flame thrower.
Instead, I drove around with my friends squirting people on the street. But this gun was so powerful, a one second blast would drench someone from head to toe.
We did this one night, then the next day we did it again, and I shot some cracked-out dude who got into his car and chased us, and tried to push us into oncoming traffic.
When the cops got us, they wanted to let me go, but he insisted on pressing charges. The cops thought it was funny, and tried to talk him out of it, but he was an asshole.
So I was arrested, but they were cool to me. The cops were even willing to give me my gun back, but my stupid mom wouldn't let me have it.
It was fun though. I encourage everyone to get a giant super soaker and squirt pedestrians from their cars.
I used to have some hope that the AIM alliance could put out some better chips, but quite frankly, after seeing the story, I feel that they are too far behind at this point to compete. Mac users deserve something better. I'm not sure anymore if OS X makes up for this much difference in CPU power.
I think that I am totally ready to have Apple move over to x86. How much farther ahead does Intel have to get before something is changed?
Actually, I'm kinda depressed about the whole thing. If anyone has anything that would cheer me up, I'd sure like to hear it...
I don't know if you are refering to capitalistm, but if you are, that is not what capitalism is about. In a complete free-market, one still couldn't make a legal living by being a hitman.
Since Macs don't even have a TENTH of the apps that windows does, of course they don't need big hard drives.
The more one uses a specific application for a work-related purpose, the more files are saved to the hard drive to take up space until used again.
Given that Macs are up to twice as easy to use as Windows machines, and with OS X, 10000 times more stable, one can logically conclude that someone working with a Mac will produce 20000 times as much as someone working with a dozer box that crashes 5 times a day, losing valuable work and information.
Therefore, the Mac hard drive will quickly fill up with work documents, putting it to good use.
However, as impressive as the PowerPC processor is, you will *not* get the same performance for the buck out of a Mac that you will out of an x86 machine. It won't happen.
You do the PPC injustice. The benchmarks here show that while you'll save a couple bucks with an x86, a properly tuned G4 system is superior.
And don't pull that "Total Cost of Ownership" crap. TCO is based very heavily on the previous experience and knowledge of the users. If they have Mac experience, they'll have less trouble with Macs. If they have Windows experience, they'll have less trouble with Windows.
The fact of the matter is that TCO is a valid argument, which is probably why you are trying to derail it. Go on eBay, and you can find three-year old Macs being sold for 50% of what they were purchased originally. How does your x86 stand up to that?
Besides that, OS X is so easy to use and rock solid, that the time you will save using it over the course of the year, you will be able to purchase at least one other x86 -- at least if your time is worth money.
Macs are awesome machines -- that is why Apple is still in business.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw nobody answered your questions, so I thought I would give it a shot. Keep in mind that my answers may not be entirely accurate. One problem is that you seem to be creating scenarios based on somewhat faulty assumptions, which creates a ridiculous scenario, but I'll try to clarify. Question 1: The short answer to your question is that many government functions (e.g. military) would be funded with usage fees rather than by taxation (which Libertarians view as legalized theft). Question 2: See number 1. 3: The innuendo in your question suggests that kids will now start doing drugs because they're legal. First, you need to understand that the Libertarian philosophy is that it's a natural right for living beings of all species to consume that which they choose. Therefore, laws banning consumption of drugs, fatty foods, etc, seem as ridiculous as laws banning the practice of religion, or bans on free speech. Some see it as a right vs. wrong issue, and others (like me) see it as a practical issue -- laws trying to stop people from engaging in natural behavior are impossible to enforce. But another part is being at liberty to think for yourself instead of having Big Brother "nanny-ing" you. Second, I "feel" that the innuendo of your question is suggesting that the anti-drug laws in place now are the chief reason why more kids don't do drugs. However, for one example, kids today find marijuana (illegal) much easier to obtain than alcohol (regulated). Sorry, I don't have a link to the study that showed this (read it years ago), but ask your friends and they'll probably confirm that generally speaking, this is true. Thirdly, there was a time, believe it or not, when all this crap was legal. Somehow, when Coca-cola had cocaine in it, not everyone in the US turned into a coke-whore. The most important thing in regard to kids and narcotics is that legalization of drugs will FORCE parents to fall back onto the REAL solution to prevent kids from using drugs -- which is better parenting. Question 4: There is obvious innuendo here and you wrote it in the form of a complex question, but that's ok. First, understand that child pornography in many cases would involve CHILD RAPE, which would still be illegal (with publishers, etc contributing to the crime). It wouldn't happen. I'll discuss this one further with you if you'll assume that Libertarians are more reasonable than to allow child rape (which is always unacceptable.) Question 5: There's more innuendo here. Deregulation doesn't mean allowing blatant FRAUD and CRIME -- these should be punished. For example, hitmen wouldn't be "legal" in a Libertarian society. The power situation is a bad example as well. Do you know how much gov't regulation is already in there? It's like a tangled ball of yarn. Question 6: This question is so full of suggestions and faulty assumptions that I don't even know where to start. All I can say is that you should credit Libertarians with some rationality and assume we wouldn't let convicted criminals walk the street just because they don't "feel" like serving their 20 year sentence. It would probably be a very similar situation to how the US was shortly after it founded. Warrants required for searches, speedy trials, innocent until proven guilty, jury comprised of peers, etc. Email me if you'd like to discuss this further.
That's ok. The fact that we saved your ass in WW2 must eat away at you every day.
If you think the DOS CLI kicked so much ass, you should get a new G4 with OS X and use a real unix CLI.
And Macs will allow them to work with mommy's and daddy's M$ files -- even without Virtual PC.
Sounds like your Macintosh understanding is sorely lacking. Please pick up Mac OS X for Dummies at your nearest retailer.
One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes stories is the continuation of the cloning box story. Calvin determined that his previous clones were evil because he didn't include a "Moral Ethicator" (??). So he basically wrote "Good" and "Evil" on the box, and tacked on a switch to choose between the two.
While most of the western world is arguing against the medical use of cloned human embryos to help the living (for "moral" reasons), its refereshing to see a country trying to take it to the next level.
At the very simplist aspect, I see (say) beef DNA being combined with (say) certain parts of fish DNA to make leaner beef, or fatter fish. They, of course, could never be released into the wild.
Being a Mac user, I think that the first creature that they should create is a dogcow. And they should name him Clarus. Dogcows would be cool -- you would have all the benefits of a cow (i.e. steak and milk) in the convenience of a dog.
Then, when he gets sick and has to be put to sleep, instead of just crying your eyes out, you could take him to the butcher and your family can have a nice steak dinner while remembering old Clarus.
Never before can I remember society banning science from developing beneficial technology. Its spooky the way that we seem to embrace technology that destroys life, but are wary about technology that saves, preserves, or creates it.
Remembering the idea from the Judge in the Simpsons, its about time someone issues a restraining order -- Religion has to stay at least 10 feet away from Science at all times.
I used to load trailers at UPS (college job) and I can tell you that this is an EXTREMELY VALID POINT. The other loaders and I used to beat the fuck out of a lot of packages -- especially if you need a package to squeeze into a wall.
Don't send something UPS ground unless you expect it to be slammed around.
Apple didn't steal from Xerox -- they hired Jeff Raskin who himself brought the technology to Xerox. They got his brain along with it.
(Hey everyone, This is my first troll. I know its not what you're used to, but I wanted something original. I promise that future posts will be about Malda and the rest of the slashdot tea room boys.)
What do you think of when you look at the Apple?
Most people act shocked and step back when asked this question. However, Apple is important in all of our lives, and this is a question that must be considered.
There is chocolate to vanilla. The mouse to the keyboard. Mac to PC. God to satan. Yin to yang. Something to nothing.
I have always been made to feel like an outsider. Apple does not follow the norm and is therefore considered an outsider. As a Mac user and a professional Mac-fixer (for the extreme rarity that they would somehow fail or break), I am a part of Apple.
When I look at the Apple, and think of everything Apple has done during my lifetime -- from the utter defeats of the Newton and the Pippen, to the glorious, eternal victories of the iMac and Mac OS X. I think of Adam and Eve. They fucked up by taking a bite out of one of God's priceless Apples, yet that did not stop them from continuing their trek on the road to enlightenment. God did not throw their souls into the Lake of Fire. They even got to have sex a few times.
The Apple is glorious because it ideally represents the human condition. We all fuck up sometimes -- but we use the erasers on our pencils and move on. In doing so we better ourselves and excel to the ultimate level.
Apple does this, and those who wish to crush it have no choice but to emulate it. Theiving, pathetic scoundrel technologies such as M$ Windows, and PC makers who now have "pretty cases" are nothing but parasites, leeching off of the superior technology that sustains them.
A new Apple computer running with the latest version of Mac OS represents the acme of human-computer acheivement. Everyone knows this, but few will admit it.
Now is an extremely exciting time for Mac users. We have regrouped, rearmed, and are ready to launch a massive assault on our parasitic enemies.
Our last blow to the evil empire was the iPod. An excellent mask for a fast punch to the face. The black eye is beginning to show.
October 24th, 2001. Apple releases an intresting but non-revolutionary device. News coverage of this arguably "yawn-inspiring" device is everywhere.
October 25th, 2001. Microsoft releases Windows XP, aka "Windows' os X riP-off".
A man stands lonely in front of hundreds of copies of XP, realizing that nobody wants to spend more money on a computer which displays an ugly OS, and serves oftentimes as a confusing tool that they must use in order to get their work done and survive.
People care more about the iPod because it is designed to add pleasure to its owner's life. This is technology that says "Let me make your life a little easier, more enjoyable, and better".
XP is technology that says "People like OS X because its more beautiful!? Fuck! Throw a nice candy-store coating on 2000 and name it something else. By the way, I want users to rent their Windows operating system from now on".
Throwing a candy coating onto Windows is like an Arby's manager ordering his pimply-faced teen fry-guy to put on a fucking smile.
... And people realize that this is bullshit. They see XBoxes crashing in toystores (my NES, SNES, Game Boy, and N64 NEVER EVER CRASHED). They see XP being proclaimed as stable on TV, then crashing ten seconds later.
They work at their crummy jobs punching numbers into on ugly monior with a stupid grey bar at the bottom of their monitor all day, every fucking day. The boot to a M$ OS, launch their M$ email client, their M$ web browser, connect to their M$ ISP, and create files in M$ applications. The go home and watch MSNBC. Now M$ has slapped a color onto their OS, began selling it for $100, and makes plans for its owners to begin RENTING it.
Why?
Because somebody beat them bad, and they now have a fresh creature to leech off of, and they are saying and doing whatever it takes to make a fucking buck from it.
People and Apple are coming together, because they both share in a common human problem -- making a mistake, yet learning from it, trying hard, and winning. They are realizing that they wasted a good part of their lives punching numbers into a cheap PC running a commodity OS. They want something better. They want a Mac.
Users no longer want to pay for something that will help them work faster. They want something that will help them acheive the same thing that work does -- a better life.
The world is starting to recognize that Apple has always operated under this philosophy. Apple represents the good of mankind, and those who wish to make the world a better place.
Actually, Netscape 6 for OS X is so great, that I'm actually making the switch.
IT IS FAST!!!
On my iMac 233 here at work with IE 5, loading this story took five minutes, and pretty much froze my computer while it was doing it.
On my G4 867 at home, it would probably take 45 seconds to a minute in IE. I'm not exactly sure though, because I use Netscape for OS X there, and it loads in about THREE TO FOUR SECONDS. That is raw and uncut, nested.
So, Netscape isn't dead yet. (At least on the Mac)
Lets call their sales line and ask to return all the Bungie stuff we've ever owned. I doubt many people there now remember Operation Desert Storm, but I sure as hell don't want any of their crap anymore.
Just for the record, how many PC users bought Marathon 2 ???
As an interesting side note, I know of a shareware game company called Spidweb Software, which makes great RPGs. The lead programmer was interviewed, and asked whether he sold more Mac or PC games.
He said that he sold more Mac games.
If you make a game for the Mac, even if its native, you will make some profit. There is really no reason not to, unless its a crappy game.
The thought that Bungie would think of abandoning the Mac, on top of selling out, shows that Jason Jones and its other heads are probably screwed up on heroin or something.
When will people realize -- Nintendo doesn't need to market to the adult market -- most of them GREW UP to Nintendo.
Many adult gamers spent a significant chunk of their lives squashing goombas, blasting Ridley, or nailing Gannon.
They remember how superior early Nintendo systems were to the old competitor consoles.
Nintendo is very smart to make their games have a "childish" spin. Its called the nostalgia factor.
And its cheap enough that they might as well get it.
I still think that a SNES provided a better gaming experience for its time that the PS did. SNES had stable, FAST, easy to load games.
I found that PS was slow to start, had games that stopped in the middle of the game to load ( which took forever) and had games that crashed more than they should have.
I think most older gamers have loyalty to Nintendo, and that those who switched to PS will miss some of the conveniences that Nintendo consoles provided, and the more enjoyable games, and will return to where the real fun is -- Nintendo.
I think most people that buy GameCubes do it for the classic Nintendo-only games.
Metroid, Zelda, and Mario Bros. are good enough for me. Metroid is moving to first person. That is leaps and bounds beyond the original 1986 version, which is still a good game.
The only problem is that I never found first-person games to be very comfortable on a video game controller. I much prefer the keyboard and mouse approach.
Anyone else feel the same way or have any advice for making the switch?
I have had almost every game that Bungie made, back from their crappy "Operation Desert Storm" game, Minitaur, Pathways into Darkness, as well as the entire marathon series. I implore the Mac community not to support them any longer.
Bungie got started on the Mac and owes everything to the Mac community that supported it. It could not get a good foothold into the PC market with Marathon 2, yet Mac users continued to pay them big bucks.
Now, Bungie has sold out to the evil empire and HAD SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED NOT BRINGING HALO TO THE MAC, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUCH OF ITS DEVELOPMENT WAS DONE ON THE MAC.
It later agreed to it, but it will probably be a crappy port instead of a native program, which could make it run much, much slower.
Bungie probably won't ever release any more Mac software after Halo.
There's lots of better companies out there that have promised to support the Mac platform, like Id. RTCW looks like its going to be very cool.
It just makes me sick.
I was out of service for a MONTH with PacBell DSL, which I had to pay for.
I had to re-initialize the hard drive on my Mac, and when I reinstalled the DSL software, it was unable to create a connection.
So, I spent an hour on the phone with some southern-yokel who was trying to walk me through a clean installation (which I had already tried five times, so I just pretended to do it), before she agreed to send a tech over.
Lo and behold, when he arrives, he looks at the version of the software and says "dude this doesn't work on OS 9!.. this CD has what you need...and yeah.. I don't know Macs at all, so can you install it?"
Its pretty pathetic that they couldn't check the version over the phone, and that these "techs" use mac derivative operating systems and can't figure out how to double-click a CD on the desktop and run an installer.
I now use RoadRunner, and setting it up on an unsupported 10 year old 68k mac with IPnetrouter only took a matter of minutes.
I am not doing it because Apple isn't providing me with something stable or fast enough.
I am not doing it because the OS doesn't provide enough features.
I am not doing it because Linux is superior to OS X.
Quite frankly, although these are arguably untrue today, once the tranistion is completed, and OS X becomes the dominant and leading consumer *nix distro, its superiority will be unquestioned.
This article is a perfect example of the Linux/OS X cold-war taking place. Although the two have many things in common, and enjoy mutual benefits from the other's existance, there are many in the Linux community who are threatened by and fear OS X. Even Mr. Torvalds fired a shot, stating that OS X makes ALL the design flaws one could make, AND invented some of its own. (I'm fully aware that it was probably directed at the micro-kernel, but what was said was said).
Who can blame the Linux community for feeling animosity towards OS X? Much of the Linux community has spent the later part of the 90's trying to convince their friends to take MS off their desktops in favor of a "free" (free as in most people could care less) *nix OS.
All of a sudden, a company develops a *nix distro destined to be more beautiful and more usable than any other, with the goal of making it the world's most advanced OS and finally bringing *nix to the users -- within ONE year. Where Linux has failed, Mac OS X will succeed.
To add insult to injury -- this company is Apple. A company that many curse as a cancer on the computer world. A company whose user base is considered to be sub-human by ungrateful Linux and Windows users who lash out at Apple while using their Macintosh-derivative computers and USB peripherals. It seems that the author of the article is one of these people. If he was really the Mac user he claimed to be, he wouldn't have used the same weak arguments against OS X that won't mean anything in September.
Although I say this, I am not so preoccupied with this cold-war to not use Linux as a tool when needed. Particularly, I am installing it to learn it and to play Counter-Strike.
Those who are trying to promote Linux on Macs are going to shoot themselves in the foot by attacking OS X. The best way to promote it is to target the older Macs, those who want free (beer) software, those who want to learn, and those who want games like Half-Life.
People who bash certification usually have none of their own, and little understanding of the knowledge behind them. These are people equate someone's years of hard work and effort to nothing. Sometimes they may even take someone's resume who has been working in the field for a few years, and throw it out, simply because they see the MCSE and think that they are therefore worthless.
What is amusing is the wide range of opinions concerning certification vs. college. Some of the same people who hate certification (and the certified) love college boys -- yet the reasons they cite for hating the certs (no *real* exp.) are oftentimes equally valid for fresh college degrees.
I think that many forget what exactly a certification is. It is the vendor's way of stating that the holder has demonstrated their profeciency and knowledge of a specific skill or product. They may have done this by temporarily memorizing test questions or reading material, or *gasp* they may have gone to a training center and received hands-on training about the subject.
The truth is, a certified engineer who has taken their education seriously is quite well-versed in the product or skill, and sometimes may know more about the total power and ability of a product than someone who has been doing only low-level administration.
Of course, the above doesn't apply for MCSE's. Those guys don't know jack. :-)
kidding...
Novell's CNE is hard too.
Instead, I drove around with my friends squirting people on the street. But this gun was so powerful, a one second blast would drench someone from head to toe.
We did this one night, then the next day we did it again, and I shot some cracked-out dude who got into his car and chased us, and tried to push us into oncoming traffic.
When the cops got us, they wanted to let me go, but he insisted on pressing charges. The cops thought it was funny, and tried to talk him out of it, but he was an asshole.
So I was arrested, but they were cool to me. The cops were even willing to give me my gun back, but my stupid mom wouldn't let me have it.
It was fun though. I encourage everyone to get a giant super soaker and squirt pedestrians from their cars.
So you're going to buy a new G4 with OS X, right??
http://www.barefeats.com/pentium.html.
I used to have some hope that the AIM alliance could put out some better chips, but quite frankly, after seeing the story, I feel that they are too far behind at this point to compete. Mac users deserve something better. I'm not sure anymore if OS X makes up for this much difference in CPU power.
I think that I am totally ready to have Apple move over to x86. How much farther ahead does Intel have to get before something is changed?
Actually, I'm kinda depressed about the whole thing. If anyone has anything that would cheer me up, I'd sure like to hear it...
Great, then maybe you and the other Linux user can have some friends. :-)
Get used to it -- you're going to hear more comments like this in times to come.
I don't know if you are refering to capitalistm, but if you are, that is not what capitalism is about. In a complete free-market, one still couldn't make a legal living by being a hitman.
The more one uses a specific application for a work-related purpose, the more files are saved to the hard drive to take up space until used again.
Given that Macs are up to twice as easy to use as Windows machines, and with OS X, 10000 times more stable, one can logically conclude that someone working with a Mac will produce 20000 times as much as someone working with a dozer box that crashes 5 times a day, losing valuable work and information.
Therefore, the Mac hard drive will quickly fill up with work documents, putting it to good use.
You do the PPC injustice. The benchmarks here show that while you'll save a couple bucks with an x86, a properly tuned G4 system is superior.
And don't pull that "Total Cost of Ownership" crap. TCO is based very heavily on the previous experience and knowledge of the users. If they have Mac experience, they'll have less trouble with Macs. If they have Windows experience, they'll have less trouble with Windows. The fact of the matter is that TCO is a valid argument, which is probably why you are trying to derail it. Go on eBay, and you can find three-year old Macs being sold for 50% of what they were purchased originally. How does your x86 stand up to that?
Besides that, OS X is so easy to use and rock solid, that the time you will save using it over the course of the year, you will be able to purchase at least one other x86 -- at least if your time is worth money. Macs are awesome machines -- that is why Apple is still in business.