Apple's sole purpose, if you boiled everything down, is to make money. I disagree. As an Apple stockholder (basically my life savings, for the last 6 years), I know that there was plenty more than making money that went into my decision to buy apple stock. I like what they do. Their "sole purpose" might be to serve the interests of their stock holders. But stockholders are human beings, but I know at least one of them has interests beyond making money.
Secondly, I think its clear that Steve Jobs is fundamentally different than Bill Gates, and really is driven by a desire to change the world for the better. Yes he is a shrewd businessman as well, but I think he thinks that if they create great products and make people happy, the money will follow. Bill Gates and Microsoft seem to have the opposite priorities...make money, and create a great product only if you have to to acheive the former goal. If you can do it other ways (such as leveraging the monopoly, etc), just as good.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that companies can decide that doing good things (or being perceived as doing so) is their preferred route to making money. Google, whether or not you agree with their definition of "evil", presumably thinks that it is a good business strategy to try to maintain an image of being a good guy. They think it is a good long term strategy.
Microsoft hasn't really worried too much about that, while other companies have. Now that the internet is what it is, it becomes a much more important priority, as a bad reputation hurts a lot more these days.
Tried it and its slow. But even so, it means I have to keep the extra machine, when I could otherwise sell/give it to someone else. It still takes up space and uses electricity. Its old and slow and ugly and noisy, and I sure as hell don't want to upgrade a computer I only occasionally use. And if it is far away, such as in the basement, I can't easily turn it on and off (since I don't need it most of the time)
That's why I said "for me". In other words, yes, he probably has a good reason, I don't question that. But the ability to run windows on a mac has much more mainstream reasons, and therefore much further reaching implications.
There is one reason, and one reason only, anyone should buy a Mac. To run Mac OS. So....if I buy a four wheel drive vehicle that can go off road, wouldn't it still be nice if I can drive it on regular roads too?
I have a mac because I want to run OS X, sure....but it ROYALLY SUCKS that I still have to keep my old, ugly and slow PC filling up space and making noise just so I can run one or two apps that aren't on the mac and I need to run for whatever reason. Even if money is no issue and I can afford to keep both machines up to date, I don't want two machines. Having a single machine that can run all the apps I need would be immensely useful to me. I'm suprised this isn't obvious to more people.
Boot Camp, the way most Mac users who run Windows go about it, is not a VM. That may be the way most are running it NOW, but running windows on a Mac is a new thing to begin with. I don't think it will stay that way, since virtualization (especially if you still have the ability to run the same copy of windows in dedicated mode) is clearly the better way. I'd bet on Apple including it in future versions for free (even if not for a few years).
A mac actively running OS X is not a "PC" in that sense...since the PC operating system doesn't have access to all the hardware directly. So when it is running in a virtual machine, the mac really is "pretending".
I'm sure you have a good reason for wanting to do that, but none immediately comes to mind to me. I doubt it is something that more that a tiny fraction of mac users (or potential mac users) would have a need for.
Being able to run windows apps on a mac is much more important in terms of its impact on the industry. By allowing people to gradually transition away from windows, it addresses the number one reason that no competitor has been able to make a significant dent in microsoft's monopoly.
The fact that it applies to all virtual machines doesn't mean that mac isn't the one that microsoft is threatened by and motivated by. Nor does the fact that it is still allowed to be run via Boot Camp prove that it the policy is not a defense against macs.
If they had just said "home edition can't be run on computers manufactured by Apple Inc.", that would have been seen as clearly anti-competitive, possibly by the courts, but certainly by consumers. This way is more subtle.
I don't want my room filled with extra equipment. I don't want extra electricity used. I don't want to fill landfills with extra crap. And I don't want to have the inelegance of switching back and forth with a KVM switch.
Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they were able to run Windows apps on their Macs.
The ultimate long term prediction of the stock market is how much profits the company will make. However, you can also bet on the short term, which is whether the stock will go up or down.
Note that you can play the prediction markets the same way, betting on the price of the shares (selling prior to the date of the election/game etc)
In any case, if it makes it easier to see the point, just talk about prediction markets. You are left with one of two logical conclusions: 1) the crowd is remarkably accurate and predicting, or 2) you are an idiot to not put a bunch of money into them.
Try something simpler, like prediction markets (example: intrade.com). The crowd predicts the chances of whatever happening. For example right now it is predicting that the chance of Obama being the democratic candidate is around 19%. Do you think you can consistantly predict more accurately? If you can, you can make a ton of money.
Stock markets are basically the same thing. Calling it a "fallacy" is ridiculous....its just a way of looking at things, and a valid one.
you should throw all your money at the stock market, because if you have any brains whatsoever you can get rich. You should certainly be able to predict better than those stupid crowds whether the stock will go up or down.
Maybe the problem is that wikipedia, as it is currently designed, doesn't tap into that wisdom as effectively as a market does.
I'm even more opposed to the invasion of privacy, so why isn't the article about me? As a write in candidate, I also have a nearly equal chance of winning as Ron Paul does.
Beating up on Apple or yelling at the cashier may be unseemly, but it isn't really stupid. In the case of a cashier, it means that eventually cashiers demand a higher wage to work at places that sell shoddy products. This in turn puts pressure on their employers and suppliers. It may be indirect, but it does work in a Darwinian sense to increase the quality of the products or the improve the policies of the various companies involved.
...would be more along the lines of "as alike as any two arms of a typical snowflake are"
Since we generally assume snowflakes to be radially symettrical, that implies a degree of "alikeness" within the snowflake. Intuitively, that is what would make two snowflakes alike (to me)....if you could look at their individual arms (i.e. 1/6th of the snowflake) and not be able to match them up to the correct snowflake.
If you were just talking about atom-to-atom alikeness, given that snowflakes are far from perfect in their symettry, well that is just dumb.
Obviously, lots of snowflakes would be alike by my definition.
I don't think that's fair to compare the transition from XP to Vista to OS X 10.3 to 10.4. That's basically comparing one year worth of Mac improvements to 5 of Windows'.
It's also misleading in that it says they may have "found" life...if they didn't spot it, or gather data that allows us to spot it now, it doesn't seem to me they found anything. The guy is just speculating that life might exist there, but no one has found it yet. That's a pretty big difference to me.
Even if what you say is true, so? Does (or should) the typical computer user care whether they are are more secure due to the superiority of the software product they are using, or due to the fact that less people are using that product?
So "big pharma" won't sell it. Someone not so big will. And then they will be big.
Your theory is based on the idea that everyone in the industry is cooperating toward the same goal, which isn't reality.
And don't forget that someone with pull in the industry will get cancer themselves, or someone they care about will.
No one else can patent it if is it documented prior art. Even if they don't go public with it, if they can prove that they thought of it first, and didn't abandon it, no one else can patent it.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, I think its clear that Steve Jobs is fundamentally different than Bill Gates, and really is driven by a desire to change the world for the better. Yes he is a shrewd businessman as well, but I think he thinks that if they create great products and make people happy, the money will follow. Bill Gates and Microsoft seem to have the opposite priorities...make money, and create a great product only if you have to to acheive the former goal. If you can do it other ways (such as leveraging the monopoly, etc), just as good.
You also seem to be ignoring the fact that companies can decide that doing good things (or being perceived as doing so) is their preferred route to making money. Google, whether or not you agree with their definition of "evil", presumably thinks that it is a good business strategy to try to maintain an image of being a good guy. They think it is a good long term strategy.
Microsoft hasn't really worried too much about that, while other companies have. Now that the internet is what it is, it becomes a much more important priority, as a bad reputation hurts a lot more these days.
Tried it and its slow. But even so, it means I have to keep the extra machine, when I could otherwise sell/give it to someone else. It still takes up space and uses electricity. Its old and slow and ugly and noisy, and I sure as hell don't want to upgrade a computer I only occasionally use. And if it is far away, such as in the basement, I can't easily turn it on and off (since I don't need it most of the time)
That's why I said "for me". In other words, yes, he probably has a good reason, I don't question that. But the ability to run windows on a mac has much more mainstream reasons, and therefore much further reaching implications.
I have a mac because I want to run OS X, sure....but it ROYALLY SUCKS that I still have to keep my old, ugly and slow PC filling up space and making noise just so I can run one or two apps that aren't on the mac and I need to run for whatever reason. Even if money is no issue and I can afford to keep both machines up to date, I don't want two machines. Having a single machine that can run all the apps I need would be immensely useful to me. I'm suprised this isn't obvious to more people.
A mac actively running OS X is not a "PC" in that sense...since the PC operating system doesn't have access to all the hardware directly. So when it is running in a virtual machine, the mac really is "pretending".
I'm sure you have a good reason for wanting to do that, but none immediately comes to mind to me. I doubt it is something that more that a tiny fraction of mac users (or potential mac users) would have a need for.
Being able to run windows apps on a mac is much more important in terms of its impact on the industry. By allowing people to gradually transition away from windows, it addresses the number one reason that no competitor has been able to make a significant dent in microsoft's monopoly.
The fact that it applies to all virtual machines doesn't mean that mac isn't the one that microsoft is threatened by and motivated by. Nor does the fact that it is still allowed to be run via Boot Camp prove that it the policy is not a defense against macs.
If they had just said "home edition can't be run on computers manufactured by Apple Inc.", that would have been seen as clearly anti-competitive, possibly by the courts, but certainly by consumers. This way is more subtle.
I don't want my room filled with extra equipment. I don't want extra electricity used. I don't want to fill landfills with extra crap. And I don't want to have the inelegance of switching back and forth with a KVM switch.
Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they were able to run Windows apps on their Macs.
...that no longer exist don't tend to have a lot of powers at all.
The ultimate long term prediction of the stock market is how much profits the company will make. However, you can also bet on the short term, which is whether the stock will go up or down.
Note that you can play the prediction markets the same way, betting on the price of the shares (selling prior to the date of the election/game etc)
In any case, if it makes it easier to see the point, just talk about prediction markets. You are left with one of two logical conclusions: 1) the crowd is remarkably accurate and predicting, or 2) you are an idiot to not put a bunch of money into them.
Huh?
Try something simpler, like prediction markets (example: intrade.com). The crowd predicts the chances of whatever happening. For example right now it is predicting that the chance of Obama being the democratic candidate is around 19%. Do you think you can consistantly predict more accurately? If you can, you can make a ton of money.
Stock markets are basically the same thing. Calling it a "fallacy" is ridiculous....its just a way of looking at things, and a valid one.
you should throw all your money at the stock market, because if you have any brains whatsoever you can get rich. You should certainly be able to predict better than those stupid crowds whether the stock will go up or down.
Maybe the problem is that wikipedia, as it is currently designed, doesn't tap into that wisdom as effectively as a market does.
I'm even more opposed to the invasion of privacy, so why isn't the article about me? As a write in candidate, I also have a nearly equal chance of winning as Ron Paul does.
Beating up on Apple or yelling at the cashier may be unseemly, but it isn't really stupid. In the case of a cashier, it means that eventually cashiers demand a higher wage to work at places that sell shoddy products. This in turn puts pressure on their employers and suppliers. It may be indirect, but it does work in a Darwinian sense to increase the quality of the products or the improve the policies of the various companies involved.
...would be more along the lines of "as alike as any two arms of a typical snowflake are"
Since we generally assume snowflakes to be radially symettrical, that implies a degree of "alikeness" within the snowflake. Intuitively, that is what would make two snowflakes alike (to me)....if you could look at their individual arms (i.e. 1/6th of the snowflake) and not be able to match them up to the correct snowflake.
If you were just talking about atom-to-atom alikeness, given that snowflakes are far from perfect in their symettry, well that is just dumb.
Obviously, lots of snowflakes would be alike by my definition.
I don't think that's fair to compare the transition from XP to Vista to OS X 10.3 to 10.4. That's basically comparing one year worth of Mac improvements to 5 of Windows'.
It's also misleading in that it says they may have "found" life...if they didn't spot it, or gather data that allows us to spot it now, it doesn't seem to me they found anything. The guy is just speculating that life might exist there, but no one has found it yet. That's a pretty big difference to me.
Even if what you say is true, so? Does (or should) the typical computer user care whether they are are more secure due to the superiority of the software product they are using, or due to the fact that less people are using that product?
Well if you are that drunk, seems better than the alternative which is that you continue driving.
Well I'd hope it would be smart enough to warn you and give you a minute to pull out of traffic.
Assuming you are speaking of the US patent office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_fi
So "big pharma" won't sell it. Someone not so big will. And then they will be big.
Your theory is based on the idea that everyone in the industry is cooperating toward the same goal, which isn't reality.
And don't forget that someone with pull in the industry will get cancer themselves, or someone they care about will.
No one else can patent it if is it documented prior art. Even if they don't go public with it, if they can prove that they thought of it first, and didn't abandon it, no one else can patent it.
Are we still calling it now that Lynksys/Cisco has a product called that?