It's a undisputed fact that Black people are over respresented in media. Black people make up 12.12% of the US populace according to the last census. They make up 20% of all media characters/talking heads in media according to some studies. This occurs because Asians of all sorts are under represented (1% of charcters 5% of the pop). Hispanics as well but not as severely. I do imagine that the quality of this over representation is poor.
I am against inefficient gun control. Guns control does not decrease crime and only incurs costs but I am often dumb founded by the intense feeling the americans have about it. It has not provided a failsafe of any kind since the US created a relugar professional army. The initial intent was to allow the early US gov to raise troops should the british decide to attack from "Canada" or the spanish from "mexico". Guns do not deter or encourage crime. This is yrou issue and from the way my original post was moderated it seems to be the iddue for at least 3 other americans. I'd ask you to re evaluate what it is about guns that cause such a huge fetish? Guns would not be able to stop the feds from taking your freedom. Guns didn't keep Wacko "free". The 2nd ammendment has been seriously distorted from it's original intent. BTW I am a gun enthusiast myself but I take it as a hobby.
What other way could we evaluate a political candidate? What is wrong with looking at a persons voting history, public comments and personal preferences to try to determine if this person is worth our vote? Would you have us simply evaluate him on how often the media falls over themselves to praise him, or how large his promises are during his candidacy announcement or campaign? How often has that turned out to be a measure of a president or politician's character or leadership skills? Ever?
The simple fact is that he voted for a very extreme measure of gun control and if someone cares about their second amendment rights, I would think that that someone might pay attention to this.
It's simply that it's over played. It is important to see how a mans record is but it becomes the basis of a smear campaign and is often distorted or brought out of context. Too many americans and one issue voters, and often that issues isn't even in their own interest. Abortion and Gun control coem to mind. Two issues that invoke stong responses in many people. Both issues have little relavance to those who scream about it either way. Guns doe not garentee democracy and have not since the US created a regular professional army. Abortion is a issues for he poor more so then anyone else.
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
The big question then is this: Why is Saudi arabia untouched? A lot of the money required for 9/11 came from Saudi princes. Afganistan was a show of force to deter, Iraq made a farce of the whole thing.
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
They won't if he wins the election. He's against private gun ownership. For example, in 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms. (copied from caosblog.com, but I verified it) Enough to get me to vote for whoever isn't him.
For some reason, person X voted Y way on bullshit issue Z style of smearing seems very american. The american system depends on negative ads too much. It promotes a devisive culture. It splits you down the middle and robs the whole of almost all of it's strength by setting the sides against itself. But if you don't play that game, you lose. I wish Americans were a bit more resistant to jingoisms and slander. From outside, both parties look like conservative white men who grasp for power. Both of them are "right of center". Dems being "slightly right" and repubs being "1 demogogue away from theocracy."
I agree there are many factors. But poverty correlates so well to crime. More specifically "disparity". the greater the disparity in a country the greater the crime.
The amount of gun crime in Canada is negligable. The vast majority of gun crimes commited with hand guns. The majority of the hand guns in canada are not legal and will not be registered. It's basically a ploy to gain support for the liberals from urban people in montreal, toronto, and Vancouver. They made it overly broad because the Liberal are well known to large beucratic messes. For each case of litigation against a beligerent rifle owner there are as many cases against a anqiues dealer who was chased down to registered a non function show piece. Both cases have been infrequent. The majority of the money has been wasted since its hasn't decreased gun crime at all or increased conviction rates.
Ethanol is a potential long term solution.. if about 3/4 of us died. IT's a piece of a solution or a stop gap for now. It provides a means of transporting energy. So if when we become nuclear dependant, we can use something a little less toxic as a automobile fuel.
This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
Thanks for saying this. I remember years ago when The Last Temptation of Christ was in theaters, it was controversial where I lived (Dallas, TX), and theaters were picketed. Some chose not to show it, and others cried "censorship!" when this happened.
If it wasn't for that press and controversy the movies would have died a quick and quiet death at the box office. It was a terrible film. The controversy most likely quadrupled it's gross.
You'll find their behavior was alot more nauanced than that. The crusades had multitudes of motivations and the first was actually a defensive alliance against an aggresive arab empire. The whole religious zealotry angle is more of a "angst ridden high school goth philosopher" angle.
Everyone here is missing the context. YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist. Videos accusing Muslims of raping children, using children as suicide bombers, claims that all Muslims are suicide bombers, graphics of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews, truly offensive depictions of Mohammad (like graphics of Mohammad raping children), calling Arabs "towel heads" and "sand niggers", etc. Similar video simply has not been posted anywhere NEAR as often with Christianity and other religions, but when it is, it's banned too.
And this hasn't happened just once, it's happened thousands of times. YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos. I haven't seen the video that was banned, but even assuming it was fairly tame one can easily see how YouTube might remove it in a knee-jerk manner.
I think 90% of your arguements does not apply to the videos in question. One can see how Islams threat of violence is working. Which is a great tragedy.
They've been saying that for years. And they've been doing more and more sex education for those years. Every young girl who's having sex knows what a condom is, knows what it does, and knows that it's a good idea to use it. However, young teenagers are also notoriously irresponsible, so they routinely throw caution to the wind. Some people say that we should try to stop teens from having sex (the abstinence movement). Others say that we should do more sex education. The real solution is that we need to teach teenagers to be more responsible.
The teen pregnancy has been decreasing for years. It seems education is working.
The nice thing about the English language is that words can be used in context to mean what we want them to, as long as others understand it. If the phrase were "the ultimate source of cool", we would understand it to mean the best source of cool. Not the last. In the same sense, penultimate, in context, would mean second to best source of cool. Not the second to last.
The other thing about english is that you can pick your words to address your audience. Using the words "Hey niggas" to say hello is great if your in a room full of white middle accountants's and your trying to be ironic. Saying the same phrase while in a drug den in kingston(jaimaca) may not be so funny or garner the same reaction if you are the one of the above accountants. So using a word defined as "second to last" while meaning "best" to a group of pedantic nerds is obviously going to make you look foolish.
AT&T (The Bells): Phone/Telecom monopoly. Is there a phone/telecom monopoly today? No. IBM: Hardware monopoly. Is there a hardware monopoly today? No. Microsoft: Software monopoly. Is there a software monopoly today? Yes. Is it shrinking? Yes.
In that vein of thinking, the next evil empire will be.... Google.
The journey to the seed-vault would be fraught with danger. Mutants, savages, the ever-present raiders, hot-zones and weather run amok all dog our heros on their journey. I say heros, because of course we need a team. There has to be the strong and capable ranger-type who doesn't quite trust the kid; the plucky heroine, tomboyish until she lets her hair down and we discover just how beautiful she is; the kid's geeky friend who knows how to fix things; the brawny muscle-type with a secret heart of gold who sacrifices himself when all seems lost, and the sneaky one who turns out to be a traitor like we always suspected he would.
You have just outlined every RPG/kids book/adventure novel/fantasy novel/epic tale/fantasy movie ever made.
Perhaps in a popular FPS. But a lot of games had the regenerative shield idea(ie.Starcraft protoss) . which is just a addition to the idea of "X hits will kill you" HP. Still a good idea. It removed the attrition factor making skilled players able to streak a lot more.
However, when a DEVELOPER OF THE GAME comes in and deliberately tips the balance in favor of an alliance he's not only friendly with, but helped RUN, then there's a real problem. The economic model is no longer cut-throat and capitalistic, it's just unfair.
It's like having a market economy, except God happens ot be very cosy with the CEO of the largest company.
I guess the Jobs RD field technology has been GPL'd? Even ubuntu needs some configuration. Most commodity hardware come with xp drivers. If you've lost them then it's a pain finding them again. A lot of hardware have no linux drivers at all and you need then to code your own or put up a bounty for it. Ubuntu is several steps int he right direction, but as some other poster mentioned... it still falls a bit short of being ready for your mum to use.
Of course it is, it's completely unintuitive. Hell, even the My Documents folder in Windows is hidden away in the file browser by default instead of right there on the desktop... You have to manually link it to the desktop. Which means you have to know how to link it... Which makes it harder to use than Linux or OSX. Then there's all the application links cluttering the desktop, what's that all about? And the applications are under Start-> All Programs > then they're organised by vendor (doh!) rather than purpose.
In Linux, your documents are in Documents, right there on the desktop, the applications are in Applications, organised by purpose.
Face it, Windows is now the hardest to use of the three. It's desktop metaphor is fubar, the applications are hidden away by vendor so you have to know who makes the sofware you want to use to work. Umm.. Linux is the least user friendly of the 3. Mac just works, Windows just barely works.. but works. Linux... requires 16 config file 3 required packages and you need to code your own driver for random network card X if it's not a common one. I think in GUI and user friendlyness *nix has a long way to go.
Note: Dell also charges a price premium. It's fallen a lot since the mid 90's but ti's still abotu 10%-20% over what a whitebox would cost you. So comparing a dell to a MAC is like comparing a Cadilac to a BMW. An expensive POS vs an expensive luxury item. Sure the Mac is close but real prices are found at mom and pops stores. Dell and bestbuy put a bit of a premium on top of the product to leverage their market positions. So for the same price as a Mac you can get a moderately better PC along with Windows. Thats just how they roll, Apple likes nice juicy margins. They can comfortably leave the "make 10 bucks on a $500 machine" to the mom and pops. Conversely I'll keep buying my white boxes.
Dells are for those too clueless to get better. Macs are for those who will pay to be hip. White boxes are for those who want as much for their buck as possible and doesn't care about noise, heat or aesthetics.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a undisputed fact that Black people are over respresented in media. Black people make up 12.12% of the US populace according to the last census. They make up 20% of all media characters/talking heads in media according to some studies. This occurs because Asians of all sorts are under represented (1% of charcters 5% of the pop). Hispanics as well but not as severely. I do imagine that the quality of this over representation is poor.
I am against inefficient gun control. Guns control does not decrease crime and only incurs costs but I am often dumb founded by the intense feeling the americans have about it. It has not provided a failsafe of any kind since the US created a relugar professional army. The initial intent was to allow the early US gov to raise troops should the british decide to attack from "Canada" or the spanish from "mexico". Guns do not deter or encourage crime. This is yrou issue and from the way my original post was moderated it seems to be the iddue for at least 3 other americans. I'd ask you to re evaluate what it is about guns that cause such a huge fetish? Guns would not be able to stop the feds from taking your freedom. Guns didn't keep Wacko "free". The 2nd ammendment has been seriously distorted from it's original intent. BTW I am a gun enthusiast myself but I take it as a hobby.
What other way could we evaluate a political candidate? What is wrong with looking at a persons voting history, public comments and personal preferences to try to determine if this person is worth our vote? Would you have us simply evaluate him on how often the media falls over themselves to praise him, or how large his promises are during his candidacy announcement or campaign? How often has that turned out to be a measure of a president or politician's character or leadership skills? Ever?
The simple fact is that he voted for a very extreme measure of gun control and if someone cares about their second amendment rights, I would think that that someone might pay attention to this.
It's simply that it's over played. It is important to see how a mans record is but it becomes the basis of a smear campaign and is often distorted or brought out of context. Too many americans and one issue voters, and often that issues isn't even in their own interest. Abortion and Gun control coem to mind. Two issues that invoke stong responses in many people. Both issues have little relavance to those who scream about it either way. Guns doe not garentee democracy and have not since the US created a regular professional army. Abortion is a issues for he poor more so then anyone else.
I intensely disagree with this! Deal is, we made it clear and obvious that if anything even remotely resembling a nation state sponsors or protects terrorists, we'll disassemble the government and install our own. Considering the basic fundamentals of game theory, I'm pretty happy with that.
I'm not happy with our involvement in Iraq one bit, but different subject, different day.
The big question then is this: Why is Saudi arabia untouched? A lot of the money required for 9/11 came from Saudi princes. Afganistan was a show of force to deter, Iraq made a farce of the whole thing.
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
They won't if he wins the election. He's against private gun ownership.
For example, in 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in the state. If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.
(copied from caosblog.com, but I verified it)
Enough to get me to vote for whoever isn't him.
For some reason, person X voted Y way on bullshit issue Z style of smearing seems very american. The american system depends on negative ads too much. It promotes a devisive culture. It splits you down the middle and robs the whole of almost all of it's strength by setting the sides against itself. But if you don't play that game, you lose. I wish Americans were a bit more resistant to jingoisms and slander. From outside, both parties look like conservative white men who grasp for power. Both of them are "right of center". Dems being "slightly right" and repubs being "1 demogogue away from theocracy."
I agree there are many factors. But poverty correlates so well to crime. More specifically "disparity". the greater the disparity in a country the greater the crime.
The amount of gun crime in Canada is negligable. The vast majority of gun crimes commited with hand guns. The majority of the hand guns in canada are not legal and will not be registered. It's basically a ploy to gain support for the liberals from urban people in montreal, toronto, and Vancouver. They made it overly broad because the Liberal are well known to large beucratic messes. For each case of litigation against a beligerent rifle owner there are as many cases against a anqiues dealer who was chased down to registered a non function show piece. Both cases have been infrequent. The majority of the money has been wasted since its hasn't decreased gun crime at all or increased conviction rates.
actually, often it is culture. Cultures that favor education tend to do better everywhere and in all social groups. Ones that do not tend ot fail.
Ethanol is a potential long term solution.. if about 3/4 of us died. IT's a piece of a solution or a stop gap for now. It provides a means of transporting energy. So if when we become nuclear dependant, we can use something a little less toxic as a automobile fuel.
This is pretty much what Bill Clinton did. He didn't run on anything extreamly radicle but hope. It was the enternal optimist that painted every picture as better with him. The same stock numbers as we have today, the same or worse unemployment numbers as today, Most of the same if not worse economic indecators as we have today, But the picture was painted so much brighter when he was president. (note that By worse only represents that levels have grown today as a natural prograsion of events, Not something specificly wrong in eiother adminstration)
Did you miss the last 4 years. I am a canadian and we noticed in the last 4 years you've changed a lot. You went from a mostly harmless slightly loud giant with too much money to an antogonistic bully who doesn't have the sense not to spend himself into massive debt. I don't think you've been paying much attention.
I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
Thanks for saying this. I remember years ago when The Last Temptation of Christ was in theaters, it was controversial where I lived (Dallas, TX), and theaters were picketed. Some chose not to show it, and others cried "censorship!" when this happened.
If it wasn't for that press and controversy the movies would have died a quick and quiet death at the box office. It was a terrible film. The controversy most likely quadrupled it's gross.
You'll find their behavior was alot more nauanced than that. The crusades had multitudes of motivations and the first was actually a defensive alliance against an aggresive arab empire. The whole religious zealotry angle is more of a "angst ridden high school goth philosopher" angle.
Everyone here is missing the context. YouTube has been banning anti-Muslim videos much more often than anti-Christian videos because the anti-Muslim videos have been MUCH more offensive and racist. Videos accusing Muslims of raping children, using children as suicide bombers, claims that all Muslims are suicide bombers, graphics of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews, truly offensive depictions of Mohammad (like graphics of Mohammad raping children), calling Arabs "towel heads" and "sand niggers", etc. Similar video simply has not been posted anywhere NEAR as often with Christianity and other religions, but when it is, it's banned too.
And this hasn't happened just once, it's happened thousands of times. YouTube has rules against posting offensive and racist videos. I haven't seen the video that was banned, but even assuming it was fairly tame one can easily see how YouTube might remove it in a knee-jerk manner.
I think 90% of your arguements does not apply to the videos in question. One can see how Islams threat of violence is working. Which is a great tragedy.
They've been saying that for years. And they've been doing more and more sex education for those years. Every young girl who's having sex knows what a condom is, knows what it does, and knows that it's a good idea to use it. However, young teenagers are also notoriously irresponsible, so they routinely throw caution to the wind. Some people say that we should try to stop teens from having sex (the abstinence movement). Others say that we should do more sex education. The real solution is that we need to teach teenagers to be more responsible.
The teen pregnancy has been decreasing for years. It seems education is working.
The nice thing about the English language is that words can be used in context to mean what we want them to, as long as others understand it. If the phrase were "the ultimate source of cool", we would understand it to mean the best source of cool. Not the last. In the same sense, penultimate, in context, would mean second to best source of cool. Not the second to last.
The other thing about english is that you can pick your words to address your audience. Using the words "Hey niggas" to say hello is great if your in a room full of white middle accountants's and your trying to be ironic. Saying the same phrase while in a drug den in kingston(jaimaca) may not be so funny or garner the same reaction if you are the one of the above accountants. So using a word defined as "second to last" while meaning "best" to a group of pedantic nerds is obviously going to make you look foolish.
AT&T (The Bells): Phone/Telecom monopoly. Is there a phone/telecom monopoly today? No.
IBM: Hardware monopoly. Is there a hardware monopoly today? No.
Microsoft: Software monopoly. Is there a software monopoly today? Yes. Is it shrinking? Yes.
In that vein of thinking, the next evil empire will be.... Google.
The journey to the seed-vault would be fraught with danger. Mutants, savages, the ever-present raiders, hot-zones and weather run amok all dog our heros on their journey. I say heros, because of course we need a team. There has to be the strong and capable ranger-type who doesn't quite trust the kid; the plucky heroine, tomboyish until she lets her hair down and we discover just how beautiful she is; the kid's geeky friend who knows how to fix things; the brawny muscle-type with a secret heart of gold who sacrifices himself when all seems lost, and the sneaky one who turns out to be a traitor like we always suspected he would.
You have just outlined every RPG/kids book/adventure novel/fantasy novel/epic tale/fantasy movie ever made.
Perhaps in a popular FPS. But a lot of games had the regenerative shield idea(ie.Starcraft protoss) . which is just a addition to the idea of "X hits will kill you" HP. Still a good idea. It removed the attrition factor making skilled players able to streak a lot more.
However, when a DEVELOPER OF THE GAME comes in and deliberately tips the balance in favor of an alliance he's not only friendly with, but helped RUN, then there's a real problem. The economic model is no longer cut-throat and capitalistic, it's just unfair.
It's like having a market economy, except God happens ot be very cosy with the CEO of the largest company.
I guess the Jobs RD field technology has been GPL'd? Even ubuntu needs some configuration. Most commodity hardware come with xp drivers. If you've lost them then it's a pain finding them again. A lot of hardware have no linux drivers at all and you need then to code your own or put up a bounty for it. Ubuntu is several steps int he right direction, but as some other poster mentioned... it still falls a bit short of being ready for your mum to use.
Ruby weapon: omni-slash + drain mp/hp + mimmic. kill the other two members intentionally and then just mimic until dead.
In Linux, your documents are in Documents, right there on the desktop, the applications are in Applications, organised by purpose.
Face it, Windows is now the hardest to use of the three. It's desktop metaphor is fubar, the applications are hidden away by vendor so you have to know who makes the sofware you want to use to work. Umm.. Linux is the least user friendly of the 3. Mac just works, Windows just barely works.. but works. Linux... requires 16 config file 3 required packages and you need to code your own driver for random network card X if it's not a common one. I think in GUI and user friendlyness *nix has a long way to go.
Note: Dell also charges a price premium. It's fallen a lot since the mid 90's but ti's still abotu 10%-20% over what a whitebox would cost you. So comparing a dell to a MAC is like comparing a Cadilac to a BMW. An expensive POS vs an expensive luxury item. Sure the Mac is close but real prices are found at mom and pops stores. Dell and bestbuy put a bit of a premium on top of the product to leverage their market positions. So for the same price as a Mac you can get a moderately better PC along with Windows. Thats just how they roll, Apple likes nice juicy margins. They can comfortably leave the "make 10 bucks on a $500 machine" to the mom and pops. Conversely I'll keep buying my white boxes.
Dells are for those too clueless to get better.
Macs are for those who will pay to be hip.
White boxes are for those who want as much for their buck as possible and doesn't care about noise, heat or aesthetics.