If they can identify 3% of people are using 40%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97% of normal users.
Well, the telecoms are selling an unlimited data-service... If they start putting caps on their unlimited data-service, then it's not unlimited anymore, now is it? Those customers are paying hard cash for unlimited service, and that's what they should get. If they get less, they should also pay less.
The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here, except in a very few exceptional places with high density, like NYC, SanFran, etc.
Well, in Finland just about every single town has a working mass-transit system. And those towns usually have population-densities that are fraction of population-density of NYC and the like.
Just for the sake of comparison:
population-density in Helsinki: 2,718.38/km2 population-density in Tampere: 399.54/km2
population-density in NYC: 10,606/km2 population-density in San Franciso: 6,688.4/km2
Fact is that majority of Americans live in a place where you could have a working mass-transit.
Norways oil-revenue does jack-shit for Finland, Denmark or Sweden. Or do you think that other Nordic countries get dibs on Norways oil for the sole reason that they happen to be near Norway?
Hell, compared to most other countries, Finland has no natural-resources to speak of. Most of the iron ore is in Sweden, Russians took most of our nickel-deposits after the war. Only thing we have is a bunch of trees.
It was they typical American stupid business move: they looked at the next few quarters, not the next few decades.
Last time I checked, it's now over a decade later and Apple is raking in huge profits...
But that was Jobs at the helm. And sure, after falling from 6% of the market down to below 1.5%, they've rebounded... by using 100% PC hardware and still getting people to pay 2x-3x the price of a similarly equipped PC.
If they are "similarly equipped", then why do those PC's look and feel cheap and crappy when compared to a Mac? Why aren't they as enjoyable to use?
Could it be that computers are more than just collection of parts? Could it be that you can't determine the quality of a computer by staring at a bunch of paper-specs? Audi and VW are made from largely identical parts, yet Audis cost more, and they are also higher-quality cars.
Anyone who things that two computers are similar (and therefore deserve similar prices) just because they have the same CPU or or something like that is a fucking retard.
The iPod, and even more the iPhone has been a bit of a sales booster, but that'll start to fail as the iPhone is eaten by Android over the next several years
Yeah, just like Zune is going to eat the iPod any...day...now...
But make no mistake: Jobs shutting down open MacOS licenseing ensured the dominance of the PC
Was MacOS taking over the market back when they licensed it to third-parties? No. Clones did not boost MacOS market-share since they did not take users away from Microsoft, they took users away from Apple. And that would have meant that Apple would have gone bankrupt.
Sure, it might sound simple, but it's not. Many people have had self-image-issues and/or self-esteem-issues for a long time, asking them to "get over it" is a bit simplistic. It's like telling a depressed person "stop being so damn depressed!".
Now, I DO go to the gym. But there's a division in the gym: there's the weight-training area, and there's the "other" are (where you can do crossing, spinning etc.). The latter is where you can find the mere mortals, whereas the weight-training is usually crowded by the folks who take their workout very seriously, and they have obviously done it for quite some time. No, I'm not saying that the guys pumping iron are judgemental or anything like that. It's just that mingling with them can be daunting.
But I have thought about starting doing weight-training. Reason being that if I wont, I will probably regret it down the road. And probably the experience will not be bad at all. But the first step is always a big step. It was a big step to start going to the gym in the first place.
Not to ebrag but when I go to the gym I burn around 700-900 calories...
Burning only 300 calories isn't go to do much of anything. You could replace that with a walk.
I normally burn about 500-800Kcal at the gym during the 1 hour I'm normally there, sometimes a bit more. My personal record is about 1900Kcal (2 hours of bodypump straight + cycling to and from the gym).
The only thing holding you back is your own shame. Do you think really fit guys at the gym are going to walk over and beat you up? Do you think they care that you're not as fit as them? Do you think for some reason they're offended by being fitter than you?
No, I'm not afraid that they are going to "beat me up" or something like that. But it's inherently embarrassing to do something next to someone who is very skillful at the thing you are struggling with. You feel that the others are comparing you to him, and you are bound to lose. Or that the more skillful person feels like competing with you, fully knowing that he's going to win. And all those things are embarrassing to the losing party. Watching someone doing something easily while you struggle with it is never nice feeling.
Now, it might be that they are really not all that interested in you. It might even be that they are thrilled to have more people pumping iron and they would be very helpful and nice. But the perception is there. Even if that perception is not warranted, taking that first step is a huge step for many.
Those people are also the ones that are intimidating to those who aren't ripped
I know the feeling. I go to the gym. Mostly I take part in the organized excercise (usually crossing and Bodypump. depending on the schedule), but I would like to do some weight-training as well. But the problem there is that that particular area of the gym is crowded with muscular guys who have obviously done it for quite some time and who take it very seriously. Me, a total beginner going there among them? Hardly.
It's designed for audiophiles, what did you expect? Audiophiles are the kind of people who are willing to pay premium cash for a light pen (you know, for coloring the CD's....). Or how about these cables? After all, it produces sound that is "Notably relaxed and highly detailed" (just like the stuff I defecated yesterday) for only $9000 for eight foot pair of speaker-cables! And when you REALLY want that "something extra" to your sound-quality, here's a wooden knob for just $485.
I'd rather have the option than even more regulation.
How would regulation that mandates fuses in power-plugs harm you, a mere consumer? Or is this somekind of "I have god given right to use plugs without fuses!"-thingy? Seriously, what's the harm in having fuses in power-plugs, and what would be the harm in government mandating it? Doesn't government already mandate what kind of powerplugs and electrical system you have? Why aren't you complaining about that, and insisting on more options?
It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.
Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?
Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.
Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.
Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.
phosphor
Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:
Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.
And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!
Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.
The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...
Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.
Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.
Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?
None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".
All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.
Or, you can turn your life over to a government with the promises of all your needs being taken care of from cradle to grave. All you have to give them is... everything.
"Everything"? I live in Finland, were we are apparently taken care of by the state from cradle to grave. Have we given "everything" to the state? No. Sure, we pay taxes (last time I checked, USA has taxes as well). But I own my home, my car, I'm free to marry whoever I want... How exactly have I given "everything" to the state?
The problem, for admirers of this system such as yourself, anyway, is that Europe itself is starting to question such an arrangement. People are beginning to wonder why they can't have a good medical care system without massive government expenditures.
It's fashionable to bash the healthcare-system. But if I feel that the public health-care does not fit my needs, I'm free to use private services.
They're starting to wonder just why it's necessary to be paying so much in taxes.
We are? In fact, several polls in Finland say that people would be willing to pay more taxes for improved public services.
They're starting to wonder why starting a business has to be a bureaucratic nightmare.
It is? There's plenty of entrepreneurs over here. My mother was one. It does't seem that starting a business is a "bureaucratic nightmare". Anyone who wants to start a business can do so.
And they're starting to vote appropriately
The right-wing parties they are voting at the moment are more or less equivalent to Democrats in USA. Some of them would be left from Democrats.
Well, Finland has lower population-density than USA does. So while Finland might be smaller, there are more paying customers in USA. There are other factors to consider besides the size of the country. How about the resources available? If USA had similar amount of resources (money, manpower etc.) available than FInland does, then it might make sense to compare the sizes of the country).
Your primary argument for the Mac's seems to be how they look.
Who cares. It's a tool.
Um, no. Of course I would much rather have good looking hardware than crappy looking hardware, everything else being equal. But this isn't just about looks.
Like I said, I have had to deal with laptops that have broken down because people tripped on the powercord. That would not happen on a Mac. Backlit keyboard makes it a lot more pleasant to use the computer at low-light situations. Trackpad with gestures makes the whole system a lot more pleasant to use.
Sure, someone could say that all of those are minor things and not worth the money. But the thing is that Macs are full of stuff like that, and they do add up. It's nice to use a computer that was not designed to be as cheap as possible, but as pleasant to use as possible. When you design your computer to be cheap, it will feel cheap. I use my computer quite a lot, and I value the fact that the machine is pleasant to use, even if it costs a bit more than some PC-laptop with similar specs costs. And even those specs are misleading, since they usually disregard the little nice things that come with a Mac, OS X, size and weights etc.
And there are a number of aluminum chassis laptops with backlit keyboards and nearly all the stuff you want. Most of the mainstream corp kit is that nowadays.
Um, no. Overwhelming majority of PC-laptops are made from plastic (I'm talking about outer shell here), and backlit-keyboards are very rare. Some Thinkpads have the ThinkLights, but it's not as nice as true backlight is. Dell Studio-series seems to have backlight in some models though.
It's arguable that the Macs are slightly better made from a physical standpoint. But there are some very nice non-apple laptops out there.
The HP Compaq stuff (Elitebook 17" for example), or the Dell Latitude E's, or the Lenovo.
Like I have repeatedly said, I use Lenovo T61 at work, and it's not as nicely built as my pre-unibody MBP at home. It's a lot better than most PC-laptops are (espesially those $700 laptops that are apparently "just as good" as $1700 MBP's are), but still not as good as my MBP is.
Again, I'm a man, so I could care less about size and weight, within reason.
I'm a big and burly man as well, and I still want my laptop to be as small and light as possible. There IS a difference between carrying a light laptop and heavier laptop.
Yes, For the most part the goals are not that different. Most of the Anti-Microsoft hatrid come from
Most of the hatred for MS comes from the fact that they have killed dozens of companies and technologies, and replaced them with inferior ones. The reason for the hate is the multitude of times when they "partner" with some other company, only to stab them in the back. The hatred comes from their repeated breaking of the law and abuse of the monopoly. The hatred comes from the fact that MS actively wants to kill Linux. The hatred for MS is not an irrational feeling, it's based on the actions of MS that has taken place over the course of the years.
Yet, we are supposed to "trust" Microsoft? Is this the fucking bizarro-world or something where black is white, and Microsoft is trustworthy company with good products?
Because a lot of it is good, really good, just because you are an open source zealot and don't want to see it doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have good products.
I don't consider myself a "zealot": What I consider myself to be is a person capable of rational thinking. Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind them. How about "playsforsure"? A bit later MS stabbed it's partners in the back with a fucking Zune. Sendo would have lots of stories to tell about shenanigans Microsoft pulls, as does Apple. How about DR-DOS? Netscape? i4i? IBM?
Are we supposed to now think that "oh, THIS TIME it's going to be different! Honest!". Give me a fucking break! Has Microsoft changed in any way? I sure as hell don't see any changes!
Yes Microsoft would love to see Linux die
So why exactly should we trust them?
but they know that won't happen
No, but MS can push Linux in to a niche, while they keep on dominating.
Microsoft is very aggressive marketing however they can also be good partners.
Unless their partner happens to have some interesting technology or they start threatening Windows. Then Microsoft will crush them, it has happened every single time. Sendo had interesting technology, so MS crushed them. i4i had interesting technology, and MS stile it. Netscape started threatening Windows, and had to be killed. DR-DOS offered better product, so it had to be killed. OS/2 threatened Windows so it had to be killed. List goes on.
The mobile market belongs to *nix and Apple. It's just that simple.
Sales figures suggest otherwise.
What Nokia has going for it, is the fact that it gained dominance years ago. Symbians market-share is going down fast, while sales of iPhone is growing fast. The only reason why iPhone does not dominate the market is is the fact that it has been available for just a bit over 2 years. You can't take over a market like this in such a short time.
Symbian is becoming Nokia's VIsta. And they know it too, their new flagship-phone runs Linux, not Symbian.
The reason is very simple: I am not responding to RMS's opinions on Mono.
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Calling you a Microsoft-apologist is not a "personal attack", it's a fact.
Tell me this: Why should we, the Linux-community, trust Microsoft? Seriously? Why should we do ANYTHING to promote their technology at all?
It's 100% obvious that Microsoft would LOVE to see Linux and free software to crash and burn. They are using just about every trick in the playbook to harm Linux. Their business-practices are appalling and their list of casualties is huge.
Do we have ANY reason to trust them? No. None at all. So why exactly are you such a MS-fanboy? Anything MS announces, you embrace. C#, Moonlight... Why don't you simply start officially working for Microsoft, and stop this "I want to support Linux!"-bullshit? You can't serve two masters.
What part of "I *own* a Studio 15" don't you understand?
Just because you own one does not mean that it's high quality. Which part of that do YOU not understand? Wbat are the odds of you admitting that you bought a piece of shit gear? Next to zero I would guess.
I can tell you firsthand it's of nice quality, and honestly it's one of the best looking laptops I've ever seen in their "black chainlink" color.
I have seen people tell how some piece of PC-hardware is high quality", but when I actually test it, all I find is dull, creaky plastic with mediocre design and bulging dimensions. I use Thinkpad T61 every single day, which is widely recognized as the #1 in quality when PC-laptops are concerned. And sure enough, it's a lot better than most PC-laptops. But it's still not as good as my MBP.
Every single time I see someone make those stupid comparisons about how hou can get a "better machine" while paying less if you get a PC as opposed to Mac. But when I compare those "superior" machines to Macs in real life, it becomes quite obvious that not only are they cheap, they also look and feel cheap. You obviously get what you pay for. Anyone who thinks that there are free lunches, are deluding themselves. PC-hardware might be cheaper, but there's a reason why they are cheaper.
If you look at raw specs, a Chevrolet with similar "specs" as an Audi has would cost less. But anyone with a functional brain would notice the obvious differences between the two after two minutes of hands-on testing.
Slashdot Mirror
If they can identify 3% of people are using 40%, then by all means put a 'cap' on the fixed price service that *doesn't* affect the 97% of normal users.
Well, the telecoms are selling an unlimited data-service... If they start putting caps on their unlimited data-service, then it's not unlimited anymore, now is it? Those customers are paying hard cash for unlimited service, and that's what they should get. If they get less, they should also pay less.
and that our success is unfair and came at the expense of other countries
Well, there have been cases where that is true. United Fruit Company ring a bell?
The USA is too spread out for traditional mass-transit systems to work very well here, except in a very few exceptional places with high density, like NYC, SanFran, etc.
Well, in Finland just about every single town has a working mass-transit system. And those towns usually have population-densities that are fraction of population-density of NYC and the like.
Just for the sake of comparison:
population-density in Helsinki: 2,718.38/km2
population-density in Tampere: 399.54/km2
population-density in NYC: 10,606/km2
population-density in San Franciso: 6,688.4/km2
Fact is that majority of Americans live in a place where you could have a working mass-transit.
So it's only 3000.00 USD per person per year BFD
Norways oil-revenue does jack-shit for Finland, Denmark or Sweden. Or do you think that other Nordic countries get dibs on Norways oil for the sole reason that they happen to be near Norway?
Hell, compared to most other countries, Finland has no natural-resources to speak of. Most of the iron ore is in Sweden, Russians took most of our nickel-deposits after the war. Only thing we have is a bunch of trees.
Could that be because Japan doesn't have to worry about Defense spending?
Japan spends about 46 billion dollars a year on defense, 7th largest amount in the world.
It was they typical American stupid business move: they looked at the next few quarters, not the next few decades.
Last time I checked, it's now over a decade later and Apple is raking in huge profits...
But that was Jobs at the helm. And sure, after falling from 6% of the market down to below 1.5%, they've rebounded... by using 100% PC hardware and still getting people to pay 2x-3x the price of a similarly equipped PC.
If they are "similarly equipped", then why do those PC's look and feel cheap and crappy when compared to a Mac? Why aren't they as enjoyable to use?
Could it be that computers are more than just collection of parts? Could it be that you can't determine the quality of a computer by staring at a bunch of paper-specs? Audi and VW are made from largely identical parts, yet Audis cost more, and they are also higher-quality cars.
Anyone who things that two computers are similar (and therefore deserve similar prices) just because they have the same CPU or or something like that is a fucking retard.
The iPod, and even more the iPhone has been a bit of a sales booster, but that'll start to fail as the iPhone is eaten by Android over the next several years
Yeah, just like Zune is going to eat the iPod any...day...now...
But make no mistake: Jobs shutting down open MacOS licenseing ensured the dominance of the PC
Was MacOS taking over the market back when they licensed it to third-parties? No. Clones did not boost MacOS market-share since they did not take users away from Microsoft, they took users away from Apple. And that would have meant that Apple would have gone bankrupt.
There is a solution to that. Get over it.
Sure, it might sound simple, but it's not. Many people have had self-image-issues and/or self-esteem-issues for a long time, asking them to "get over it" is a bit simplistic. It's like telling a depressed person "stop being so damn depressed!".
Now, I DO go to the gym. But there's a division in the gym: there's the weight-training area, and there's the "other" are (where you can do crossing, spinning etc.). The latter is where you can find the mere mortals, whereas the weight-training is usually crowded by the folks who take their workout very seriously, and they have obviously done it for quite some time. No, I'm not saying that the guys pumping iron are judgemental or anything like that. It's just that mingling with them can be daunting.
But I have thought about starting doing weight-training. Reason being that if I wont, I will probably regret it down the road. And probably the experience will not be bad at all. But the first step is always a big step. It was a big step to start going to the gym in the first place.
Not to ebrag but when I go to the gym I burn around 700-900 calories...
Burning only 300 calories isn't go to do much of anything. You could replace that with a walk.
I normally burn about 500-800Kcal at the gym during the 1 hour I'm normally there, sometimes a bit more. My personal record is about 1900Kcal (2 hours of bodypump straight + cycling to and from the gym).
When you eat 35,000 calories a day, a little exercise isn't going to make much difference.
35,0000 calories is 35Kcal. An average kiwifruit contains about that many calories...
The only thing holding you back is your own shame. Do you think really fit guys at the gym are going to walk over and beat you up? Do you think they care that you're not as fit as them? Do you think for some reason they're offended by being fitter than you?
No, I'm not afraid that they are going to "beat me up" or something like that. But it's inherently embarrassing to do something next to someone who is very skillful at the thing you are struggling with. You feel that the others are comparing you to him, and you are bound to lose. Or that the more skillful person feels like competing with you, fully knowing that he's going to win. And all those things are embarrassing to the losing party. Watching someone doing something easily while you struggle with it is never nice feeling.
Now, it might be that they are really not all that interested in you. It might even be that they are thrilled to have more people pumping iron and they would be very helpful and nice. But the perception is there. Even if that perception is not warranted, taking that first step is a huge step for many.
Those people are also the ones that are intimidating to those who aren't ripped
I know the feeling. I go to the gym. Mostly I take part in the organized excercise (usually crossing and Bodypump. depending on the schedule), but I would like to do some weight-training as well. But the problem there is that that particular area of the gym is crowded with muscular guys who have obviously done it for quite some time and who take it very seriously. Me, a total beginner going there among them? Hardly.
And I'm a guy.
It's designed for audiophiles, what did you expect? Audiophiles are the kind of people who are willing to pay premium cash for a light pen (you know, for coloring the CD's....). Or how about these cables? After all, it produces sound that is "Notably relaxed and highly detailed" (just like the stuff I defecated yesterday) for only $9000 for eight foot pair of speaker-cables! And when you REALLY want that "something extra" to your sound-quality, here's a wooden knob for just $485.
I'd rather have the option than even more regulation.
How would regulation that mandates fuses in power-plugs harm you, a mere consumer? Or is this somekind of "I have god given right to use plugs without fuses!"-thingy? Seriously, what's the harm in having fuses in power-plugs, and what would be the harm in government mandating it? Doesn't government already mandate what kind of powerplugs and electrical system you have? Why aren't you complaining about that, and insisting on more options?
The only problem I see here is, how you get the consent of a goat? And ensure that the consent isn't just because of abuse of power.
That reminds me: how do we get consent from cows and pigs that we can kill and eat them?
How's that ignorance?
It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.
Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?
Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.
Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.
Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.
phosphor
Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html
and here:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.
And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!
Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.
Debunked here:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...
Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.
Debunked here:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Evidence piece number 5. Want me to go on?
Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.
Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?
None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".
All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.
"Highly credible sources" indeed.
Or, you can turn your life over to a government with the promises of all your needs being taken care of from cradle to grave. All you have to give them is... everything.
"Everything"? I live in Finland, were we are apparently taken care of by the state from cradle to grave. Have we given "everything" to the state? No. Sure, we pay taxes (last time I checked, USA has taxes as well). But I own my home, my car, I'm free to marry whoever I want... How exactly have I given "everything" to the state?
The problem, for admirers of this system such as yourself, anyway, is that Europe itself is starting to question such an arrangement. People are beginning to wonder why they can't have a good medical care system without massive government expenditures.
It's fashionable to bash the healthcare-system. But if I feel that the public health-care does not fit my needs, I'm free to use private services.
They're starting to wonder just why it's necessary to be paying so much in taxes.
We are? In fact, several polls in Finland say that people would be willing to pay more taxes for improved public services.
They're starting to wonder why starting a business has to be a bureaucratic nightmare.
It is? There's plenty of entrepreneurs over here. My mother was one. It does't seem that starting a business is a "bureaucratic nightmare". Anyone who wants to start a business can do so.
And they're starting to vote appropriately
The right-wing parties they are voting at the moment are more or less equivalent to Democrats in USA. Some of them would be left from Democrats.
Well, Finland has lower population-density than USA does. So while Finland might be smaller, there are more paying customers in USA. There are other factors to consider besides the size of the country. How about the resources available? If USA had similar amount of resources (money, manpower etc.) available than FInland does, then it might make sense to compare the sizes of the country).
I believe that the WTC towers were collapsed by detonation, for example
Ah, ignorance at it's finest...
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
Your primary argument for the Mac's seems to be how they look.
Who cares. It's a tool.
Um, no. Of course I would much rather have good looking hardware than crappy looking hardware, everything else being equal. But this isn't just about looks.
Like I said, I have had to deal with laptops that have broken down because people tripped on the powercord. That would not happen on a Mac. Backlit keyboard makes it a lot more pleasant to use the computer at low-light situations. Trackpad with gestures makes the whole system a lot more pleasant to use.
Sure, someone could say that all of those are minor things and not worth the money. But the thing is that Macs are full of stuff like that, and they do add up. It's nice to use a computer that was not designed to be as cheap as possible, but as pleasant to use as possible. When you design your computer to be cheap, it will feel cheap. I use my computer quite a lot, and I value the fact that the machine is pleasant to use, even if it costs a bit more than some PC-laptop with similar specs costs. And even those specs are misleading, since they usually disregard the little nice things that come with a Mac, OS X, size and weights etc.
And there are a number of aluminum chassis laptops with backlit keyboards and nearly all the stuff you want. Most of the mainstream corp kit is that nowadays.
Um, no. Overwhelming majority of PC-laptops are made from plastic (I'm talking about outer shell here), and backlit-keyboards are very rare. Some Thinkpads have the ThinkLights, but it's not as nice as true backlight is. Dell Studio-series seems to have backlight in some models though.
It's arguable that the Macs are slightly better made from a physical standpoint. But there are some very nice non-apple laptops out there.
The HP Compaq stuff (Elitebook 17" for example), or the Dell Latitude E's, or the Lenovo.
Like I have repeatedly said, I use Lenovo T61 at work, and it's not as nicely built as my pre-unibody MBP at home. It's a lot better than most PC-laptops are (espesially those $700 laptops that are apparently "just as good" as $1700 MBP's are), but still not as good as my MBP is.
Again, I'm a man, so I could care less about size and weight, within reason.
I'm a big and burly man as well, and I still want my laptop to be as small and light as possible. There IS a difference between carrying a light laptop and heavier laptop.
I can go all day with this, because I'm just plain right.
Nope. Just because ypu happen to prefer generic PC-hardware does not mean that they are universally "better"
Think what you want. It's great looking
Looks like an other PC-laptop to me.
very light
It's heavier than the MBP, not to mention bigger. In a portable computer, size is a pretty important factor.
great battery life.
If you get the uber-extended battery, yes. But then it's a lot heavier than the MBP
What else do you want?
OS X, all-metal design, good design, large trackpad with extensive support for gestures, magsafe.
And the funny thing is that you can have just about all the features you mentioned plus more in a MBP....
And I could make the argument that your Apple doesn't have the ability to be dropped
Why would you want to drop your laptop? And the MBP has the sudden-motion sensor just like PC-laptops do (Apple invented that BTW).
or useable in rain like some PC manufacturers can
Why would I want to use my laptop in rain? And can your Studio 15 be used in rain? No.
Maybe it's just me, but anyone using Apple Products nowadays and complaining about Microsofts activities had better take a look in the mirror.
When Apple becomes a monopoly, you get back to me, OK?
Yes, For the most part the goals are not that different. Most of the Anti-Microsoft hatrid come from
Most of the hatred for MS comes from the fact that they have killed dozens of companies and technologies, and replaced them with inferior ones. The reason for the hate is the multitude of times when they "partner" with some other company, only to stab them in the back. The hatred comes from their repeated breaking of the law and abuse of the monopoly. The hatred comes from the fact that MS actively wants to kill Linux. The hatred for MS is not an irrational feeling, it's based on the actions of MS that has taken place over the course of the years.
Yet, we are supposed to "trust" Microsoft? Is this the fucking bizarro-world or something where black is white, and Microsoft is trustworthy company with good products?
Because a lot of it is good, really good, just because you are an open source zealot and don't want to see it doesn't mean Microsoft doesn't have good products.
I don't consider myself a "zealot": What I consider myself to be is a person capable of rational thinking. Microsoft has a long trail of blood behind them. How about "playsforsure"? A bit later MS stabbed it's partners in the back with a fucking Zune. Sendo would have lots of stories to tell about shenanigans Microsoft pulls, as does Apple. How about DR-DOS? Netscape? i4i? IBM?
Are we supposed to now think that "oh, THIS TIME it's going to be different! Honest!". Give me a fucking break! Has Microsoft changed in any way? I sure as hell don't see any changes!
Yes Microsoft would love to see Linux die
So why exactly should we trust them?
but they know that won't happen
No, but MS can push Linux in to a niche, while they keep on dominating.
Microsoft is very aggressive marketing however they can also be good partners.
Unless their partner happens to have some interesting technology or they start threatening Windows. Then Microsoft will crush them, it has happened every single time. Sendo had interesting technology, so MS crushed them. i4i had interesting technology, and MS stile it. Netscape started threatening Windows, and had to be killed. DR-DOS offered better product, so it had to be killed. OS/2 threatened Windows so it had to be killed. List goes on.
And FWIW, the main OS I use these days is OS X.
The mobile market belongs to *nix and Apple. It's just that simple.
Sales figures suggest otherwise.
What Nokia has going for it, is the fact that it gained dominance years ago. Symbians market-share is going down fast, while sales of iPhone is growing fast. The only reason why iPhone does not dominate the market is is the fact that it has been available for just a bit over 2 years. You can't take over a market like this in such a short time.
Symbian is becoming Nokia's VIsta. And they know it too, their new flagship-phone runs Linux, not Symbian.
The reason is very simple: I am not responding to RMS's opinions on Mono.
I am responding to RMS's last post which is pretty much content free, but does contain another personal attack against me.
Calling you a Microsoft-apologist is not a "personal attack", it's a fact.
Tell me this: Why should we, the Linux-community, trust Microsoft? Seriously? Why should we do ANYTHING to promote their technology at all?
It's 100% obvious that Microsoft would LOVE to see Linux and free software to crash and burn. They are using just about every trick in the playbook to harm Linux. Their business-practices are appalling and their list of casualties is huge.
Do we have ANY reason to trust them? No. None at all. So why exactly are you such a MS-fanboy? Anything MS announces, you embrace. C#, Moonlight... Why don't you simply start officially working for Microsoft, and stop this "I want to support Linux!"-bullshit? You can't serve two masters.
What part of "I *own* a Studio 15" don't you understand?
Just because you own one does not mean that it's high quality. Which part of that do YOU not understand? Wbat are the odds of you admitting that you bought a piece of shit gear? Next to zero I would guess.
I can tell you firsthand it's of nice quality, and honestly it's one of the best looking laptops I've ever seen in their "black chainlink" color.
I have seen people tell how some piece of PC-hardware is high quality", but when I actually test it, all I find is dull, creaky plastic with mediocre design and bulging dimensions. I use Thinkpad T61 every single day, which is widely recognized as the #1 in quality when PC-laptops are concerned. And sure enough, it's a lot better than most PC-laptops. But it's still not as good as my MBP.
Every single time I see someone make those stupid comparisons about how hou can get a "better machine" while paying less if you get a PC as opposed to Mac. But when I compare those "superior" machines to Macs in real life, it becomes quite obvious that not only are they cheap, they also look and feel cheap. You obviously get what you pay for. Anyone who thinks that there are free lunches, are deluding themselves. PC-hardware might be cheaper, but there's a reason why they are cheaper.
If you look at raw specs, a Chevrolet with similar "specs" as an Audi has would cost less. But anyone with a functional brain would notice the obvious differences between the two after two minutes of hands-on testing.