Take your stuff for the lesser-brain-evolved people from my screen. If I want to watch a commercial for an overpriced product that will make sure I'm in a vendorlock I go to youtube and watch that commercial.
How does garbage like this get modded up as "Insightful?" You're the stereotypical neckbeard who thinks they're smarter than everyone else because they run Linus Torvald's UNIX clone. Slashdot has become so ridiculously over the top with its Apple hatred lately. Seriously, I can't believe anyone would care so much about the brand of computers they see in movies that they would angrily write an online post about it.
The weight/size argument doesn't hold because you can get PCs with the same performance that are as small and light as the MacBook Pro - or in some cases lighter and smaller. The ThinkPad T420s is lighter (by almost a pound) and thinner than the MacBook Pro 13 and it has the same Sandy Bridge dual-core CPUs.
But it trades off other advantages and features. You're isolating features and comparing them to PCs that match those individual features, but you're not comparing the whole machines. For example, the LCD quality of the ThinkPad T420 is inferior, it doesn't come with Firewire or ThunderBolt ports, and so on. You mention MIL-STD tests, but you don't mention the thickness and weight of those particular laptops that have passed such tests--if you want to lug around a 6.5 pound HP laptop with only five hours of battery life, go right ahead. You also leave out the MacBook Pro's multi-touch trackpad, which provides the same touch capabilities as the iPhone (which OS X Lion is taking large advantage of). I could go on and on.
The MBP is targeted at Apple's pro audience which is more likely to require extra features (e.g., Firewire is often used for high-speed data transfer from film and audio devices, high-quality screen is needed for graphics work). You get what you pay for, and Apple doesn't like to compromise the features of its pro machines for affordability, so their computers end up being more expensive because they offer so much.
Not only is it legal, but for Slashdotters to imply it's not is bizarre considering how many anti-copyright posts appear on Slashdot. Apparently, we're in favor of copyright law when it benefits GPL software and against copyright law for anything else.
That's the big fact that constantly gets ignored. I've seen it claimed more than once by people on Slashdot that Google were the ones who "came clean." No! Google at first denied that they were scanning any personal data-- only after being pressed by German regulators did they finally admit that they had scanned and stored 600GB worth of personal data over the course of four years.
Google only fessed up because of inquiries from the German government. You can bet that you would have never heard about it otherwise. I can't believe people actually buy Google's story of "accidentally" archiving 600GB of personal data for four years.
And (flamewar time) I continued to be baffled over all the flack they got over the stupid wifi thing. They came clean, admitted everything, co-operated with the investigations and people still tore them 12 new ones. Personally I think they should have been commended for admitting they made a mistake rather than going into full on cover up mode.
How could you be baffled over it? It doesn't make you pause a bit that this technically-minded company--the biggest internet company in the world--somehow accidentally scanned and saved people's data for four freaking years? They only came clean after inquiries from German regulators and claim they were totally unaware of the 600 GB of data they had collected up to that point. Seriously?
If they were any other company, you'd be tearing them a new one. Could you imagine the uproar if Apple had done it? They can't even set restrictions for App Store submissions to their own platform without a cadre of whiny haters showing up to tell everyone how evil their "walled garden" is. Google can sniff people's WiFi data for four years, yet Google fans don't bat an eye.
Your trust in Google is based entirely on what Google says. Where is the objective evidence for what you've been claiming about their superior moral fibers and their superior privacy policies? If Microsoft or Facebook drove a van through people's neighborhoods and "accidentally" archived their emails and passwords, I'm willing to bet you'd be all over them for it.
Google is exceptionally good at balancing customer value with non-intrusive ads, very high moral fibers and overall being a bunch of really nice people. They understand their business model and manages to keep greedy bastards from running the show.
This is exactly the public image they want to put out. There's no evidence at all that they have higher morals compared to any other advertising company or that their people are any nicer. It's just that they give you free services, so you get emotionally attached to them. Those free services, of course, are there to get your personal information indexed for advertisers. It's not done out of benevolence.
Your later posts about privacy are silly given that this is a company which drove vans through neighborhoods and "accidentally" archived people's personal data. That's a pretty big, self-serving accident for a technical company like Google to make. I use Gmail and the Google search engine, but I don't pretend they're any less devious than any other company. They're not even an open source company--the search engine itself is as closed source as Windows.
So, at launch, Honeycomb will not have very many tablet-specific apps, so early adopters will be stuck mostly with regular Android apps. Wow! Big surprise.
That's actually a bigger issue than your dismissiveness implies.
No offense, but when you can't even capitalize or punctuate properly, it makes you seem less informed about things. Just something to keep in mind when getting involved in online political debates.
No offense, but your entire post is a list of tired cliches and platitudes with no substance. The same criticisms could just as easily be leveled toward the left side of the political spectrum:
"In America, scientists are tolerated only so long as they tow the party line. When science diverges from short-term environmentalist interests, you can be sure that scientists cannot be trusted, that scientists are tools of Big Oil, anti-environment, and anti-American Way. Your child-like faith does you great credit and will serve you well when Hillary Clinton is chosen to be the next President, and all those redneck laws limiting government power are thrown out the window, and any scientist who contradicts Al Gore's yearly apocalyptic predictions or disagrees with raising taxes on society out of guilty feelings over man's existence on the planet will be re-educated in their proper globally-aware requirements."
Slashdot Mirror
How does garbage like this get modded up as "Insightful?" You're the stereotypical neckbeard who thinks they're smarter than everyone else because they run Linus Torvald's UNIX clone. Slashdot has become so ridiculously over the top with its Apple hatred lately. Seriously, I can't believe anyone would care so much about the brand of computers they see in movies that they would angrily write an online post about it.
People have always been free to use alternative browsers on their desktop machines.
At least it discredited one more excuse used by Opera supporters and other fans for justifying their pet browsers' relatively minuscule market shares.
But it trades off other advantages and features. You're isolating features and comparing them to PCs that match those individual features, but you're not comparing the whole machines. For example, the LCD quality of the ThinkPad T420 is inferior, it doesn't come with Firewire or ThunderBolt ports, and so on. You mention MIL-STD tests, but you don't mention the thickness and weight of those particular laptops that have passed such tests--if you want to lug around a 6.5 pound HP laptop with only five hours of battery life, go right ahead. You also leave out the MacBook Pro's multi-touch trackpad, which provides the same touch capabilities as the iPhone (which OS X Lion is taking large advantage of). I could go on and on.
The MBP is targeted at Apple's pro audience which is more likely to require extra features (e.g., Firewire is often used for high-speed data transfer from film and audio devices, high-quality screen is needed for graphics work). You get what you pay for, and Apple doesn't like to compromise the features of its pro machines for affordability, so their computers end up being more expensive because they offer so much.
Maturity.
No, 24-bit audio is actually a noticeable improvement. If you're not listening through Dell laptop speakers, of course.
Not only is it legal, but for Slashdotters to imply it's not is bizarre considering how many anti-copyright posts appear on Slashdot. Apparently, we're in favor of copyright law when it benefits GPL software and against copyright law for anything else.
Slashdotters will never admit it, but piracy was the final nail in the coffin of PC gaming.
How many times are you going to reply to yourself? You do it in every Google article.
Whew! An anonymous coward has told us all to ignore this.
Of course, if it was anyone but Google, we'd be in an uproar. But it's Google, which has such a great track record when it comes to privacy *cough*.
And then I get silently modded down by a biased moderator. God, Slashdot's comment section sucks.
I bet you'd consider the article a piece of accurate journalism if it was favorable to Google.
That's the big fact that constantly gets ignored. I've seen it claimed more than once by people on Slashdot that Google were the ones who "came clean." No! Google at first denied that they were scanning any personal data -- only after being pressed by German regulators did they finally admit that they had scanned and stored 600GB worth of personal data over the course of four years.
Google only fessed up because of inquiries from the German government. You can bet that you would have never heard about it otherwise. I can't believe people actually buy Google's story of "accidentally" archiving 600GB of personal data for four years.
How could you be baffled over it? It doesn't make you pause a bit that this technically-minded company--the biggest internet company in the world--somehow accidentally scanned and saved people's data for four freaking years? They only came clean after inquiries from German regulators and claim they were totally unaware of the 600 GB of data they had collected up to that point. Seriously?
If they were any other company, you'd be tearing them a new one. Could you imagine the uproar if Apple had done it? They can't even set restrictions for App Store submissions to their own platform without a cadre of whiny haters showing up to tell everyone how evil their "walled garden" is. Google can sniff people's WiFi data for four years, yet Google fans don't bat an eye.
The Microsoft strategy of relevance.
Your trust in Google is based entirely on what Google says. Where is the objective evidence for what you've been claiming about their superior moral fibers and their superior privacy policies? If Microsoft or Facebook drove a van through people's neighborhoods and "accidentally" archived their emails and passwords, I'm willing to bet you'd be all over them for it.
Evidence please.
This is exactly the public image they want to put out. There's no evidence at all that they have higher morals compared to any other advertising company or that their people are any nicer. It's just that they give you free services, so you get emotionally attached to them. Those free services, of course, are there to get your personal information indexed for advertisers. It's not done out of benevolence.
Your later posts about privacy are silly given that this is a company which drove vans through neighborhoods and "accidentally" archived people's personal data. That's a pretty big, self-serving accident for a technical company like Google to make. I use Gmail and the Google search engine, but I don't pretend they're any less devious than any other company. They're not even an open source company--the search engine itself is as closed source as Windows.
Because this is Google territory, and Google is one of Apple's competitors.
That's actually a bigger issue than your dismissiveness implies.
Not only that, but many Xerox employees actually went on to work at Apple and create the Macintosh.
No offense, but when you can't even capitalize or punctuate properly, it makes you seem less informed about things. Just something to keep in mind when getting involved in online political debates.
Way to think for yourself there...
No offense, but your entire post is a list of tired cliches and platitudes with no substance. The same criticisms could just as easily be leveled toward the left side of the political spectrum:
"In America, scientists are tolerated only so long as they tow the party line. When science diverges from short-term environmentalist interests, you can be sure that scientists cannot be trusted, that scientists are tools of Big Oil, anti-environment, and anti-American Way. Your child-like faith does you great credit and will serve you well when Hillary Clinton is chosen to be the next President, and all those redneck laws limiting government power are thrown out the window, and any scientist who contradicts Al Gore's yearly apocalyptic predictions or disagrees with raising taxes on society out of guilty feelings over man's existence on the planet will be re-educated in their proper globally-aware requirements."