With entire industries ( asbestos , tobacco) being literally driven into bankruptcy by the trial lawyers using US JUSTICE system and billions of dollars being awarded in civil actions against corporations every year, your claim borders on lunacy.
A couple of extreme examples that involve millions of deaths hardly disproves my claim. That's like saying that the claim that cigarettes cause cancer "borders on lunacy" because you know two smokers that died of old age.
This is like the Napster lawsuit. Napster would be alive and thriving today had it been started by Microsoft or AOL rather than by a college student. No court would ever have held that a major corporation was responsible for copyright violations of its customers/users.
News.com is in no real danger because they are part of the "establishment." If sued, they will go to court, wave the flag, use variations of the same arguments that 2600 did, and, unlike 2600, prevail. Although it sucks, I am coming to believe that the judicial branch has been bought off just like the other branches of government -- or have been stocked with appointees that value the interests of major corporations with much higher regard than the rights of individuals and small businesses. Just look at the 180 degree turn the Justice Department did with regards to the Microsoft lawsuit when the Bush administration came into office.
Come on, im running UT2003 @1024 and max detail with my old Duron750 + Geforce2 MX 32MB
Then what you consider an acceptable minimum frame rate is different than what I do, that's all. Nothing wrong with that and I say be glad that you are satisfied. For the record, I'm using an Athlon XP1700+, plenty of RAM, and a Western Digital 120GB/7200rpm/8MB-cache hard drive. I am dissatisified with the frame rate when there is a lot of on-screen action with multiple bots in a fire fight.
Huh? Why not plug a new graphic card in a free AGP-slot?
Because neither of the integrated graphics motherboards that I own have AGP slots. Many integrated graphics motherboards lack AGP slots. Those that have them are often plagued with problems related to the OS/BIOS when using a video board plugged into the AGP slot. Because the graphics is integrated, many motherboards with integrated video only get the most cursory evaluation of their ability to work with add-in cards. As a result, there are often incompatabilities and performance issues that are discovered after the boards have been installed for a year or two and people start upgrading.
nVidia has that covered with its planned boards, its called an AGP slot:)
And many other companies have not. Neither of the integrated video motherboards that I have include an AGP slot. Besides, I don't want unused hardware on my motherboard heating up the case and being a potential failure point.
I have a severely overclocked GeForce 3 Ti200 and am getting ready to upgrade. Why? Becuase Unreal Tournament 2003 has unacceptable frame rates above 800x600 -- especially with things like trilinear filtering, hi-res textures, etc. enabled. What possible good would an even older generation of 3D video integrated on to a motherboard be?
I have two other systems with integrated video. One is a Dell server and the other is a homebuilt server (at $239 after rebate, I couldn't pass up the Dell). For servers, integrated video is fine. The only other value to integrated video is for general office use PCs where gaming performance is (should?) not be an issue.
Even if someone were to decide that the 3D performance with an integrated video was acceptable, where is the upgrade path when a new game they want won't run at an acceptable speed? Throw out the whole motherboard and get a new one? What was a simple upgrade now turns into a major pain, possibly with an entire OS reinstall (Windows becomes even more unstable after you swap the hardware out from under it and it attempts to re-detect).
So why put a 3D accelerator on the motherboard? So that marketing dweebs can advertise a cheap PC to consumers by touting the "advanced 3D graphics accelerator for the ultimate gaming experience!" Stupid people will buy them and companies will make money. It's as simple as that.
First off, the product is not just the software. The product is the software *and* the regulations.
Unsigned stipulations from a vendor do not constitute "regulations." The product is just the software.
Secondly, The Box clearly states that there are conditions defined inside. It may not state what the conditions are on the outside, but it does let you know that you are making a gamble by buying it. If you don't want to make that bet, dint buy the product.
Then I hope to some day sell you software with a EULA that states that, by opening the package, you agree to deed all of your real property to me and that you will send me nude photos of your wife/girlfriend (so that I don't have to download them from newsgroups).
It might not be what we want from a product, but life is tough.
That's why we have consumer protection laws. It's so that manufacturers can't pawn of any non-functional junk they want on the American public. If anyone ever deserved to be screwed over by a company, it's you with your whole macho "life is tough" mentality.
Please explain to everyone why you believe that software should be treated differently than cars, microwave ovens, and dishwashers. What is it about software, as a product, that makes you believe it should be exempt from truth in advertising laws? Why should they be able to disclaim responsibility when their product fails? Why should they be able to limit how you use it (did you ever buy a rake and find the manufacturer limiting its use to leaves and prohibiting its use to clean up grass clippings?)
The arguement that partial enclosure of a person body constitutes a separate legal space deserving of separate protection is arguable, does this mean I can't stare at a woman in a mesh top, but I can stare at one in a tight sweater?
In the former case, the person is making her breasts publically visible. You are not using some type of clandestine means to see what's under her top. That's really the essence of Peeping Tom laws -- the clandestine means.
> Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of > privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt > without panties underneath guilty of indecent > exposure?
I wouldn't think so, she is taking reasonable means to conceal herself. Some jurisdictions may disagree.
Most jurisdictions have laws that stipulate what must be covered, not requirements that people make reasonable efforts to cover themselves.
I think what will put an end to this is when one of these cameras catches a shot of an underage girl. Then we are talking about child pornography. A little jail time will ensure that, at the least, such cameras only appear in areas frequented by adults.
Why shouldn't companies slap whatever restrictions they want on their products?
Because once you buy it, it's your product. But the entire software world is broken. They insist that they aren't supplying you with a product -- only a license to use the software. That's why you have to agree to the EULA and then, only after having done so, come to find that the product is hopelessly broken and that the EULA precludes you getting a refund.
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason. Imagine what the world would be like if all products were sold like software.
Sorry about your Ford Explorer rolling and killing your wife, but the EULA states that there is no guarantee of suitability for any given purpose.
Too bad about your $8,000 plasma TV not working, but our EULA states that, once opened, it cannot be returned.
And to everyone reading this, don't start with the whining about software being "different." It's only different in that commercial software is often a bug-ridden mess due to the fact the EULAs prevent consumers from having legal recourse. Software isn't more complex than a Boeing 747. It's not more complex to engineer than a modern 3D graphics accelerator. Because of EULAs, Microsoft is protected and, thus, feels safe in creating bad video editors rather than making their OS secure and stable without crippling bugs. The best thing that could happen would be for the courts to declare software a "product" and make the industry (of which I am a part) responsible for what they sell to the public.
Is She in a place where she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, are her legs in a different place then the rest of her.
I say "yes". Her legs are below the rest of her and she has a reasonable expectation that anyone, or any security camera, will be viewing her from a vantage point above the hemline of her skirt. Also, privacy is not an all-or-nothing affair. She should expect that, if she adjusts her bra, for instance, a camera might catch it. But that does not mean that she should have a "reasonable expectation" that hidden cameras will be employed to see up her skirt.
Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt without panties underneath guilty of indecent exposure?
They must judge the law and the actions fairly, whether they agree or disagree with the actions themselves.
Judges can infer the intent of the legislators when a law does not directly address a given situation.
This ruling is fundamentally flawed. Women wear skirts with the expectation that people will not see up them since people, are, by and large, taller than 24". A woman could reasonably expect that, were she not walking on a scaffolding that people would not see up her skirt. That technology has made it possible for someone to violate a woman's privacy with a quarter-sized camera does not mean that it should be legal.
Another question: Based on this ruling, a woman should expect that people will be able to see up her skirt. Does that mean that she would be guilty of exposing herself if she wore a knee length skirt with no underwear?
In the interest of reducing the load on the servers, I present the direct link to the full-screen version of The Two Towers trailer.
Use this link to save it to your hard disk rather than beating up on the servers every time you wish to view the trailer. Also good for writing to CD to give to someone without broadband (assuming that you get the copyright holder's permission, of course).
Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but I can't see that choosing a hard disk on its noise production is in any way sensible.
Noise is damned important in many applications. TiVo, for instance, needs lots of capacity, but speed is not a critical issue. Any modern 5,400RPM drive is more than sufficient. Who wants to watch a movie and listen to a loud whine from a disc drive? Also, since TiVos tend to live in "entertainment centers" and have limited cooling, heat is a big concern.
Another good example is my firewall machine. It runs my mail server, FTP server, and web server. It performs NAT for my network. The a-number-1 thing that I want from that machine (outside of reliability) is quiet. None of the applications on that machine get much action. My web server is a private page that lets me look at my system temperatures and voltages -- so it does not generate a lot of hits. The mail server serves me and a few freinds. But the machine is in my office running 24/7. I don't want to hear a loud hard drive, nor do I want to put six fans in the case to extract heat. So I run a slow, low wattage Duron (650mhz) and a 20GB, 5,400RPM hard drive.
It's all additive. The machine on which I work is loud enough because of my "need-for-speed." It's got multiple fans, hard drives, etc. And it sounds like it. The quieter I can make the other machines, the better off I will be.
Although for me (being legally blind), it was well worth the risk.
I did not mean to suggest that it was never worth the risk. In your case, it sounds like it was a very reasonable risk and I hope that it worked out well.
Why ever do anything when someone will just come up with a better way to do it tomorrow?
These are our eyes we're talking about! You get only one chance. If laser surgery destroys your vision, you don't get another chance. That's it. Game over.
You act like this is a discussion of whether to buy a new pair of Nike sneakers now or wait for next year's model. If that's really how you perceive this, your big problem is not with your eyes, but with what's behind them.
there are halos around lights at night {snip} What I perceived (and almost nobody talks) is a loss of contrast... I can see less in a dark room (dark==at night, with lights off... just the dim from the street)... the halos I really can't say much
As an amateur astronomer, that kind of stuff scares the hell out of me. There is no way that I am going to risk my night vision just so I don't have to wear contacts or glasses.
It's not like this surgury is a once-in-a-lifetime deal. It's been around for a few years. It has improved. I can only assume that it will improve further. Why risk your vision now when you can wait a few more years for the techniques and equipment to improve?
If wearing glasses ever bothers me so much that I'm tempted by risky laser surgery, then I'll see a shrink rather than an opthalmologist.
Yeah - look at the way Jaguar and Porsche suffer from being confined to a tiny part of the overall car market.
That analogy is flawed because Jaguars and Porsches are a lot faster than the average car.
Mac people are like the guys who buy jags, mgs and so on. Sure it will always be a small part of the market but that doesn't mean Apple can't make money doing it.
To carry the analogy further, Macs are like niche cars that can't use the same fuels, oils, or tires as "normal" cars. That's the problem that Apple has: In order to be successful, they have to convince software publishers to create Mac titles. Those companies have to be convinced that it's a financially sound decision to hire Mac software engineers, Mac support staff, and to buy Macs to be used for development, testing, and support.
Apple is always on the hairy edge. If there were fewer Mac titles, they'd lose market share. Then there would be fewer Macs and the incentive to develop Mac titles would be less -- which would mean even fewer titles. I think you see where this is going.
I wish Apple well, but the only way that I think they have a chance in the long run is to bit the bullet, change CPU families, and create Macs that perform as well as PCs at similar price points.
If they try to become a software house like Microsoft by selling OS-X for generic x86 PCs, they will probably be destroyed by Microsoft. If Microsoft actually viewed Apple as a competitor (rather than a faux competitor that keeps the FTC off of their backs), life would get ugly at Apple. Microsoft would likely not produce a version of Office for OS-x86 (clever name, eh?). Microsoft would discourage Windows developers from creating titles for OS-x86. Microsoft could withold support or even actively sabotage titles with "service packs" to punish software publishers who released OS-x86 titles.
And there are now hundreds pouring out from the college I work at who think Nikon stinks [snip] Funny how that works, isn't it? Out with the old, in with the new.
You know what's even funnier? That you think Nikon, a company with $3.8 billion in sales last year, will be affected by the opinions of a handful of college kids who lose parts to old slide scanners. What a friggin' hoot!
Just out of curiosity, I did a Google search for the phrase Nikon sucks and the word CoolScan. Out of 2.5 billion web pages they've indexed, there were zero occurrences. That's right; not even one. So then I searched for just the phrase "Nikon sucks". That phrase only appeared on three web sites (four now that I've written this). "Nikon stinks turned up only a single web page and the phrase was being used to characterize the stupidity of a discussion, not Nikon as a company. It seems that there are not many people that share your opinion.
Nikon has been the top choice of professional photographers for decades and I'm sure that they will remain so for years to come. Take a look on National Geographic's web site and see what percentage of the pictures were taken with Nikon SLR cameras. Here's a link to get you started. I sure haven't seen any mass exodus away from Nikon. Nor have I had any problems with my Nikon SLRs or lenses. You need to grow up and realize that Nikon is in business to sell products, not to provide you with replacement parts and new drivers for obsolete slide scanners.
Nikon, in general, deserves a bad name if they can't support the digital end of things properly, and from my experience, I'd rather buy a PCChips or Acer product instead.
There are thousands of professional photographers that have been made very happy by Nikon over the years.
Nikon doesn't give two shits about their customers. Just ask anyone who owns an older model CoolScan.
You're comparing an old slide scanner to a pro-model SLR camera? Get real. They aren't even from the same branches of the company. That's like deciding that you won't buy a Yamaha piano because Yamaha stopped carrying parts for your motocross bike.
Nikon is the choice of pros for reasons other than pixel count. Nikon understands the concept of an investment. They realize that a professional photographer does not want to replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses just to get a new camera body. That's why you can take 20 and 30 year old Nikon lenses and put them on a brand-new Nikon digital SLR. Sure, it won't magically turn them into autofocus, but they will still work fine.
Nikon also builds a level of quality into their cameras that's just missing from many other brands. While Canon and Minolta make some great cameras, the pro Nikons are almost beyond reproach. Many of them have been used by photojournalists in such grueling conditions that it's a wonder that they work at all, but they just keep going until the lettering is all worn off of the countrols and the bodies look like they've been dragged behind trucks.
Consumer camera manufacturers don't get it, changing lenses on an all-too-frequent basis. They often come up with an all-new design that is totally incompatible with older lens series. While Canon has had some success in the semi-pro and pro market, Nikon is still king of the hill there.
Many, if not most, businesses use Linux/BSD in some manner. Linux and BSD are very frequently powering the company's firewall, mail server, or web server. Proprietary Unix solutions (like Solaris) are losing market share to Linux and BSD. Now that Walmart is shipping $199 PCs with Lindows (a Linux-based OS) as an alternative to Windows machines, I'd say that blows the whole computer-hobbyists-only theory out of the water. These low-cost PCs are being sold to the mass-market.
Again, though, I said "ISO images." You are the one that decided that all ISO images must be operating systems.
Slashdot Mirror
With entire industries ( asbestos , tobacco) being literally driven into bankruptcy by the trial lawyers using US JUSTICE system and billions of dollars being awarded in civil actions against corporations every year, your claim borders on lunacy.
A couple of extreme examples that involve millions of deaths hardly disproves my claim. That's like saying that the claim that cigarettes cause cancer "borders on lunacy" because you know two smokers that died of old age.
This is like the Napster lawsuit. Napster would be alive and thriving today had it been started by Microsoft or AOL rather than by a college student. No court would ever have held that a major corporation was responsible for copyright violations of its customers/users.
News.com is in no real danger because they are part of the "establishment." If sued, they will go to court, wave the flag, use variations of the same arguments that 2600 did, and, unlike 2600, prevail. Although it sucks, I am coming to believe that the judicial branch has been bought off just like the other branches of government -- or have been stocked with appointees that value the interests of major corporations with much higher regard than the rights of individuals and small businesses. Just look at the 180 degree turn the Justice Department did with regards to the Microsoft lawsuit when the Bush administration came into office.
Come on, im running UT2003 @1024 and max detail with my old Duron750 + Geforce2 MX 32MB
Then what you consider an acceptable minimum frame rate is different than what I do, that's all. Nothing wrong with that and I say be glad that you are satisfied. For the record, I'm using an Athlon XP1700+, plenty of RAM, and a Western Digital 120GB/7200rpm/8MB-cache hard drive. I am dissatisified with the frame rate when there is a lot of on-screen action with multiple bots in a fire fight.
Huh? Why not plug a new graphic card in a free AGP-slot?
Because neither of the integrated graphics motherboards that I own have AGP slots. Many integrated graphics motherboards lack AGP slots. Those that have them are often plagued with problems related to the OS/BIOS when using a video board plugged into the AGP slot. Because the graphics is integrated, many motherboards with integrated video only get the most cursory evaluation of their ability to work with add-in cards. As a result, there are often incompatabilities and performance issues that are discovered after the boards have been installed for a year or two and people start upgrading.
nVidia has that covered with its planned boards, its called an AGP slot :)
And many other companies have not. Neither of the integrated video motherboards that I have include an AGP slot. Besides, I don't want unused hardware on my motherboard heating up the case and being a potential failure point.
I have a severely overclocked GeForce 3 Ti200 and am getting ready to upgrade. Why? Becuase Unreal Tournament 2003 has unacceptable frame rates above 800x600 -- especially with things like trilinear filtering, hi-res textures, etc. enabled. What possible good would an even older generation of 3D video integrated on to a motherboard be?
I have two other systems with integrated video. One is a Dell server and the other is a homebuilt server (at $239 after rebate, I couldn't pass up the Dell). For servers, integrated video is fine. The only other value to integrated video is for general office use PCs where gaming performance is (should?) not be an issue.
Even if someone were to decide that the 3D performance with an integrated video was acceptable, where is the upgrade path when a new game they want won't run at an acceptable speed? Throw out the whole motherboard and get a new one? What was a simple upgrade now turns into a major pain, possibly with an entire OS reinstall (Windows becomes even more unstable after you swap the hardware out from under it and it attempts to re-detect).
So why put a 3D accelerator on the motherboard? So that marketing dweebs can advertise a cheap PC to consumers by touting the "advanced 3D graphics accelerator for the ultimate gaming experience!" Stupid people will buy them and companies will make money. It's as simple as that.
If the submitter is an anonymous coward, how come there is a link to an e-mail address of jthomas@poweronemedia.com?
First off, the product is not just the software. The product is the software *and* the regulations.
Unsigned stipulations from a vendor do not constitute "regulations." The product is just the software.
Secondly, The Box clearly states that there are conditions defined inside. It may not state what the conditions are on the outside, but it does let you know that you are making a gamble by buying it. If you don't want to make that bet, dint buy the product.
Then I hope to some day sell you software with a EULA that states that, by opening the package, you agree to deed all of your real property to me and that you will send me nude photos of your wife/girlfriend (so that I don't have to download them from newsgroups).
It might not be what we want from a product, but life is tough.
That's why we have consumer protection laws. It's so that manufacturers can't pawn of any non-functional junk they want on the American public. If anyone ever deserved to be screwed over by a company, it's you with your whole macho "life is tough" mentality.
Please explain to everyone why you believe that software should be treated differently than cars, microwave ovens, and dishwashers. What is it about software, as a product, that makes you believe it should be exempt from truth in advertising laws? Why should they be able to disclaim responsibility when their product fails? Why should they be able to limit how you use it (did you ever buy a rake and find the manufacturer limiting its use to leaves and prohibiting its use to clean up grass clippings?)
The arguement that partial enclosure of a person body constitutes a separate legal space deserving of separate protection is arguable, does this mean I can't stare at a woman in a mesh top, but I can stare at one in a tight sweater?
In the former case, the person is making her breasts publically visible. You are not using some type of clandestine means to see what's under her top. That's really the essence of Peeping Tom laws -- the clandestine means.
> Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of
> privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt
> without panties underneath guilty of indecent
> exposure?
I wouldn't think so, she is taking reasonable means to conceal herself. Some jurisdictions may disagree.
Most jurisdictions have laws that stipulate what must be covered, not requirements that people make reasonable efforts to cover themselves.
I think what will put an end to this is when one of these cameras catches a shot of an underage girl. Then we are talking about child pornography. A little jail time will ensure that, at the least, such cameras only appear in areas frequented by adults.
Because once you buy it, it's your product. But the entire software world is broken. They insist that they aren't supplying you with a product -- only a license to use the software. That's why you have to agree to the EULA and then, only after having done so, come to find that the product is hopelessly broken and that the EULA precludes you getting a refund.
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason. Imagine what the world would be like if all products were sold like software.
And to everyone reading this, don't start with the whining about software being "different." It's only different in that commercial software is often a bug-ridden mess due to the fact the EULAs prevent consumers from having legal recourse. Software isn't more complex than a Boeing 747. It's not more complex to engineer than a modern 3D graphics accelerator. Because of EULAs, Microsoft is protected and, thus, feels safe in creating bad video editors rather than making their OS secure and stable without crippling bugs. The best thing that could happen would be for the courts to declare software a "product" and make the industry (of which I am a part) responsible for what they sell to the public.
Is She in a place where she should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, are her legs in a different place then the rest of her.
I say "yes". Her legs are below the rest of her and she has a reasonable expectation that anyone, or any security camera, will be viewing her from a vantage point above the hemline of her skirt. Also, privacy is not an all-or-nothing affair. She should expect that, if she adjusts her bra, for instance, a camera might catch it. But that does not mean that she should have a "reasonable expectation" that hidden cameras will be employed to see up her skirt.
Again, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is a woman who wears a knee-length skirt without panties underneath guilty of indecent exposure?
They must judge the law and the actions fairly, whether they agree or disagree with the actions themselves.
Judges can infer the intent of the legislators when a law does not directly address a given situation.
This ruling is fundamentally flawed. Women wear skirts with the expectation that people will not see up them since people, are, by and large, taller than 24". A woman could reasonably expect that, were she not walking on a scaffolding that people would not see up her skirt. That technology has made it possible for someone to violate a woman's privacy with a quarter-sized camera does not mean that it should be legal.
Another question: Based on this ruling, a woman should expect that people will be able to see up her skirt. Does that mean that she would be guilty of exposing herself if she wore a knee length skirt with no underwear?
In the interest of reducing the load on the servers, I present the direct link to the full-screen version of The Two Towers trailer.
Use this link to save it to your hard disk rather than beating up on the servers every time you wish to view the trailer. Also good for writing to CD to give to someone without broadband (assuming that you get the copyright holder's permission, of course).
Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but I can't see that choosing a hard disk on its noise production is in any way sensible.
Noise is damned important in many applications. TiVo, for instance, needs lots of capacity, but speed is not a critical issue. Any modern 5,400RPM drive is more than sufficient. Who wants to watch a movie and listen to a loud whine from a disc drive? Also, since TiVos tend to live in "entertainment centers" and have limited cooling, heat is a big concern.
Another good example is my firewall machine. It runs my mail server, FTP server, and web server. It performs NAT for my network. The a-number-1 thing that I want from that machine (outside of reliability) is quiet. None of the applications on that machine get much action. My web server is a private page that lets me look at my system temperatures and voltages -- so it does not generate a lot of hits. The mail server serves me and a few freinds. But the machine is in my office running 24/7. I don't want to hear a loud hard drive, nor do I want to put six fans in the case to extract heat. So I run a slow, low wattage Duron (650mhz) and a 20GB, 5,400RPM hard drive.
It's all additive. The machine on which I work is loud enough because of my "need-for-speed." It's got multiple fans, hard drives, etc. And it sounds like it. The quieter I can make the other machines, the better off I will be.
Although for me (being legally blind), it was well worth the risk.
I did not mean to suggest that it was never worth the risk. In your case, it sounds like it was a very reasonable risk and I hope that it worked out well.
Why ever do anything when someone will just come up with a better way to do it tomorrow?
These are our eyes we're talking about! You get only one chance. If laser surgery destroys your vision, you don't get another chance. That's it. Game over.
You act like this is a discussion of whether to buy a new pair of Nike sneakers now or wait for next year's model. If that's really how you perceive this, your big problem is not with your eyes, but with what's behind them.
there are halos around lights at night
{snip}
What I perceived (and almost nobody talks) is a loss of contrast... I can see less in a dark room (dark==at night, with lights off... just the dim from the street)... the halos I really can't say much
As an amateur astronomer, that kind of stuff scares the hell out of me. There is no way that I am going to risk my night vision just so I don't have to wear contacts or glasses.
It's not like this surgury is a once-in-a-lifetime deal. It's been around for a few years. It has improved. I can only assume that it will improve further. Why risk your vision now when you can wait a few more years for the techniques and equipment to improve?
If wearing glasses ever bothers me so much that I'm tempted by risky laser surgery, then I'll see a shrink rather than an opthalmologist.
Elvis is coming back man, Elvis.
No, Elves are coming back!
I don't know what kind of Macs you're using, but mine uses the same electricity (fuel) as all the PCs out there.
The "fuel" I referred to is the software.
Yeah - look at the way Jaguar and Porsche suffer from being confined to a tiny part of the overall car market.
That analogy is flawed because Jaguars and Porsches are a lot faster than the average car.
Mac people are like the guys who buy jags, mgs and so on. Sure it will always be a small part of the market but that doesn't mean Apple can't make money doing it.
To carry the analogy further, Macs are like niche cars that can't use the same fuels, oils, or tires as "normal" cars. That's the problem that Apple has: In order to be successful, they have to convince software publishers to create Mac titles. Those companies have to be convinced that it's a financially sound decision to hire Mac software engineers, Mac support staff, and to buy Macs to be used for development, testing, and support.
Apple is always on the hairy edge. If there were fewer Mac titles, they'd lose market share. Then there would be fewer Macs and the incentive to develop Mac titles would be less -- which would mean even fewer titles. I think you see where this is going.
I wish Apple well, but the only way that I think they have a chance in the long run is to bit the bullet, change CPU families, and create Macs that perform as well as PCs at similar price points.
If they try to become a software house like Microsoft by selling OS-X for generic x86 PCs, they will probably be destroyed by Microsoft. If Microsoft actually viewed Apple as a competitor (rather than a faux competitor that keeps the FTC off of their backs), life would get ugly at Apple. Microsoft would likely not produce a version of Office for OS-x86 (clever name, eh?). Microsoft would discourage Windows developers from creating titles for OS-x86. Microsoft could withold support or even actively sabotage titles with "service packs" to punish software publishers who released OS-x86 titles.
Just my $.02 on the subject.
And there are now hundreds pouring out from the college I work at who think Nikon stinks
[snip]
Funny how that works, isn't it? Out with the old, in with the new.
You know what's even funnier? That you think Nikon, a company with $3.8 billion in sales last year, will be affected by the opinions of a handful of college kids who lose parts to old slide scanners. What a friggin' hoot!
Just out of curiosity, I did a Google search for the phrase Nikon sucks and the word CoolScan. Out of 2.5 billion web pages they've indexed, there were zero occurrences. That's right; not even one. So then I searched for just the phrase "Nikon sucks". That phrase only appeared on three web sites (four now that I've written this). "Nikon stinks turned up only a single web page and the phrase was being used to characterize the stupidity of a discussion, not Nikon as a company. It seems that there are not many people that share your opinion.
Nikon has been the top choice of professional photographers for decades and I'm sure that they will remain so for years to come. Take a look on National Geographic's web site and see what percentage of the pictures were taken with Nikon SLR cameras. Here's a link to get you started. I sure haven't seen any mass exodus away from Nikon. Nor have I had any problems with my Nikon SLRs or lenses. You need to grow up and realize that Nikon is in business to sell products, not to provide you with replacement parts and new drivers for obsolete slide scanners.
Nikon, in general, deserves a bad name if they can't support the digital end of things properly, and from my experience, I'd rather buy a PCChips or Acer product instead.
There are thousands of professional photographers that have been made very happy by Nikon over the years.
Nikon doesn't give two shits about their customers. Just ask anyone who owns an older model CoolScan.
You're comparing an old slide scanner to a pro-model SLR camera? Get real. They aren't even from the same branches of the company. That's like deciding that you won't buy a Yamaha piano because Yamaha stopped carrying parts for your motocross bike.
Nikon is the choice of pros for reasons other than pixel count. Nikon understands the concept of an investment. They realize that a professional photographer does not want to replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses just to get a new camera body. That's why you can take 20 and 30 year old Nikon lenses and put them on a brand-new Nikon digital SLR. Sure, it won't magically turn them into autofocus, but they will still work fine.
Nikon also builds a level of quality into their cameras that's just missing from many other brands. While Canon and Minolta make some great cameras, the pro Nikons are almost beyond reproach. Many of them have been used by photojournalists in such grueling conditions that it's a wonder that they work at all, but they just keep going until the lettering is all worn off of the countrols and the bodies look like they've been dragged behind trucks.
Consumer camera manufacturers don't get it, changing lenses on an all-too-frequent basis. They often come up with an all-new design that is totally incompatible with older lens series. While Canon has had some success in the semi-pro and pro market, Nikon is still king of the hill there.
Few is a number, not a proportion.
Many, if not most, businesses use Linux/BSD in some manner. Linux and BSD are very frequently powering the company's firewall, mail server, or web server. Proprietary Unix solutions (like Solaris) are losing market share to Linux and BSD. Now that Walmart is shipping $199 PCs with Lindows (a Linux-based OS) as an alternative to Windows machines, I'd say that blows the whole computer-hobbyists-only theory out of the water. These low-cost PCs are being sold to the mass-market.
Again, though, I said "ISO images." You are the one that decided that all ISO images must be operating systems.