Sorry for sounding like I was putting all Evangelical Christians into the same basket. For every group there is a lunatic fringe that doesn't represent the larger body. I hate to say it, but the Evangelical movements lunatic fringe is a bit larger, more lunatic, and fringier than most. I didn't mean for it to reflect on everyone in that movement, or holding that belief system though.
My friend's church is very extremist, and very far on the fringe. But it doesn't keep them from having at least 10,000 active members.
When I switched away from Macs (long story, but the lack of control over my hardware played a decent part, and the rate of new paid patches, and the Intel thing) the two things I missed the most was Quicksilver and the fact that EVERY application could seamlessly share data with other applications. Well, I also missed the integrated spell-check and dictionary too...
Quicksilver is one of those rare apps that completely changed how I use a computer. There really hasn't been anything like that since the advent of the GUI (in my experience, I'm sure others will disagree). I loved that it was basically like using the terminal, could could be as simple or complex as you needed it to be. That and doing basic tasks could just turn into muscle memory. To this day, and I haven't used a Mac as a primary computer in almost 5 years now, I still find myself mashing [windows]+[space]+[F] to open a browser, or [windows]+[space]+[S] to pop up Slashdot.
Quicksilver was the perfect bit of software, it was ridiculously simple, but almost infinitely complex. You could dig down in it and basically do everything you could do in a terminal, or more, or just use it as a quick and dirty launcher. Features like it should be an integral part of every OS. Spotlight doesn't quite cut it, it is too simple, Windows Search doesn't do it either. GnomeDo is nice, but it doesn't quite get there.
That was one thing I did notice about OS X, its third-party developer community was awesome, even when it came to OSS. They prove that OSS doesn't have to be a kludgy, ugly mess. This is a lesson you wouldn't learn from just using OSS on Windows and Linux.
I do hate how locked down OS X is though. Its simple because there really isn't any options. When trying to customize it to your work flow, your only option is "grey buttons or rainbow buttons?", and "big dock, or little dock?".
Either that or the environment is a very complicated interlocking system that isn't very well understood by humans. And while having a nice parkland might be nice for us right now, who knows what changes that modification will cause in 100 years. That and some of us like the wilderness, just like some of us like domesticated parks. Some of us even prefer wilderness over said parks. I being on of them. I like inaccessible wilderness, it keeps the rest of the monkeys out.
Sometimes the best way to fix something is to not touch it at all.
And I DO know a couple Christians who actively don't care about the environment because Jesus will return, and usher in the end of the world and a bunch of random torment for vast swaths of the population who aren't in their church, within their life time. Their church also sends money to the Israeli settlement movement, because it will bring on the end faster.
I find this more than a bit creepy. If Christianity didn't have an edict against suicide, there would be no Christians left. There is something very odd trying to actively bring about the end of the world, so a whole bunch of people can go burn in hell, while you and your little family get to sit in heaven and stare at Jesus' navel. There is something to be said for that school of Buddhism (I forgot what its called at the moment) where someone reaches enlightenment, and instead of leaving the cycle of reincarnation to be in whatever Buddhist "heaven" is, they stick around and try to get everyone else saved instead. Seems more noble than the Evangelical route, where you usher in the end of the world just so you can get to heaven, the rest of the world be (literally) damned. To me the desire, by their own mythology, to bring suffering on innumerable others would outweigh the whole personal salvation thing.
But then again I don't think there are many Christians in the world who Jesus would actually recognize as followers.
My own preference is for that definition that "a patriot supports his country always and his government only when it deserves it."
See sig.
Personally I find the term odd. When I think of the US I think first of the people, and then the land, then the (non-political) ethos and personality, and only last, and of late as a generally tragic footnote, the government (by of late, I mean my entire life really). If I had to sacrifice my "country (by this I mean government) for the lives of my friends, or Americans in general, I wouldn't think twice. The government, and their actions aren't really the totality of the US, they are a little, itty-bitty, bit of it; and only when they are acting to promote and better the people, the land, or the ethos. Which isn't something they've done in the last 30+ years, and when they do it generally is only by accident.
This makes me a bit depressed.
I put "non-political" in there because we don't have a political ethos anymore. Or we do, if you can consider acting like an elitist (yes, even the tea-party is elitist) two year old to be an ethos. It wasn't always like this, but Americans now completely fail at politics and public discourse.
I'm rather conflicted. I don't think that there is much argument over Assange's personality, he is definitely an ass. But the actual leak leaves me a bit conflicted. On one hand I agree with you, that information could have had bad effects on people on the ground, and this obviously is bad. On the other hand the people have the right to know how well their money, and lives, are being spent in order to make decisions, and the government often abuses their (justifiable) right to censor data for the protection of troops.
Often the government uses their ability to censor data as propaganda, so we never know HOW bad, or HOW incompetent they're being, so we continue to support the war(s) through blind patriotism and not informed rationalism. Thus having another channel for information flow is a good thing. Most of the time the only thing at stake is the pride and ego of politicians and career generals, and the bottom line of defense contractors. These being injured is never a bad thing in my opinion. The Pentagon Papers was a disastrous hit to the powers that be, at the time, and not many people would argue against its leak, since it was beneficial to us, the public.
But then again, sometimes, probably most of the time, actual combat information is classified for good reasons, the reason that the government has that power; to protect soldiers and collaborators on the ground from retaliation. In these cases, leaks can lead to death, torture, or even the loss of the war (though I don't think we need Wikileaks help on that front). Obviously, in this light leaks are bad.
So the question isn't really answerable until we prioritize the value of having more information versus the potential loss of life of soldiers on the ground. I find it a pretty even match. If we are having a badly orchestrated war leading the a huge, superfluous, loss of life and money, in which information is b being artificially censored to mainly hide that fact; then I would say leaks are good since they may actually prevent further loss of life in the long term, even if they may cause limited casualties in the short. If it is an organized war, which is being properly managed, then leaks will only hurt the effort and cause pointless casualties.
The problem is that we, the people, can't actually tell if our war is good or bad unless we have information leading one way or another. And generally information outside of government channels, since the government generally shouldn't be trusted on its own, without verifiable data.
In this case, I think Wikileaks might have done the right thing (perhaps on accident), by leaking the data. I might be wrong, as I said, I'm on the fence, but leaning VERY slightly towards Wikileaks.
95% of the stories on ABC, NBC, etc are cheerleading pieces about expanding government power.
They were doing the same when Bush was in office, up until the final year or two when the writing was on the wall, and popular opinion veered hard again him. Whoever gets elected next, Obama, whoever the right pushes, or space aliens from wherever ABC and NBC will be the cheerleader for them too. They like to be in good graces with the government, since it gives them access, they also like to be as completely non-confrontational and partisan as possible to maximize their viewing audience.
Basically MSNBC and Fox are niche markets, catering the the hard left and right. They are tabloids, and not really news networks.
Basically we have a dearth of real news currently. A decent news show should be as hated by the left as the right, and should be painted partisan by both.
Your more a Libertarian than a Republican, or conservative then. Conservatives want to roll things back into some religious-free enterprise version of the mythic 50s (think Leave it To Beaver), God, Country and Family. Libertarians want to kill government, and allow some flavor of responsibility to reign. (I put that badly, I know, and someone will reply with a flaming correction)
Liberals think we have an obligation to help and protect those less fortunate, and that the government should exist to nurture the people under it. They don't want everyone to be a ward of the state (or whatnot), they want the state to help people to be better. Pretty much Liberals want us to be more like Europe or Canada.
Pretty much all three of these entities are working towards a mythological utopia based wholly on exclusion and blind ideology. Liberals will be third class citizens in a Libertarian or Conservative utopia, Libertarians will be third class citizens in a... etc... You get the point. Its like the brouhaha over Obama being elected, where the fringier elements of the right basically said "we represent the people, but the people voted the wrong way, and thus the people's opinion doesn't count", this scared the crap out of me. Its another version of "we know better", which is a phrase and ideology that has probably led to more harm than any other. And no, I'm not singling out any one side, I'm sure the result would have been the same no matter which partisan avatar would have won. America completely lost its ability to maintain social or politcal discourse. It is impossible in a society where everyone knows whats best for everyone else, and is always right.
Sorry for the rant, this is something that annoys the hell out of me. We act like a nation of spoiled two year olds now, and it is rather depressing.
As for the media... when your perched to the right or left, everything slightly less right or left than you looks further to the extreme than it probably is. Granted I don't watch network news much anymore (for reasons detailed above), but pretty much the right has Fox, and the left has MSNBC. The rest are rather centrist, or at least partisan schizophrenic.
Politics aside, I agree with your last sentiment, breaking up the monopolies. Concentrating media into a small number of hands is not good for the health of the state or populace.
Your satire is warranted, but one problem; the various Fox talking heads have claimed that AGW is a liberal hoax made to spread socialism, or government control, or whatnot, while, as far as I can tell, the two liberal talking heads have never claimed that the Constitution is a conservative myth.
Actually I don't know a single liberal who disbelieves in the Constitution, or refuses to support it. Both "sides" have their own reading and emphasis of the document, and it is very hard, from an outsider view, to actually say one of them is "correct", since they both use the same document for evidence, and the same body of exterior text as justification. Personally I think the Constitution is a hostage held by both "sides" to further their blind ideological and egotistical partisan bickering.
Murdoch wants to make money, and will abandon any plan that proves itself sufficiently unprofitable. Business men are tiresomely predictable where their wallets are concerned.
Maybe. But there are plenty of examples of failed business models churning along, long after they die. Can we look at music industry, or, increasingly, the newspaper industry, please? Big businesses are slow moving, conservative, behemoths, they love the status quo, and fear new models (for the most part). Murdoch wants to turn the internet into something he already knows, and profits wildly on, television. This is like his moronic attempt at pay-walling his news outlets, he wanted to make online content EXACTLY like paper content.
It doesn't matter if this really works or not. Ideally the motives are profit, but the general motives are more psychological. CEOs are people, and people are prone to faulty motives, and the lack of long term planning and foresight. In the long term this might be abandoned, but in the short term they will fight for it, even if the rest of the population thinks its futile. Again, I will reference the various other media associations who are fighting an unpopular fight to maintain the status-quo, even if that fight is pretty much doomed in the long term.
I'm sick of people painting capitalism as a purely rational exercise. It isn't, and never will be. It is a concept run by people, and people are shockingly non-rational.
I doubt there is a conspiracy. It just is a bunch of people acting like people.
Last time I checked Final Fantasy didn't even have a continuing story, each game is stand alone and completely unrelated to every previous game (not counting the fan service sequel on the PS2)
But then again I gave up on Final Fantasy after IX, when I noticed that my love of the game was almost 100% NES/SNES nostalgia. The only thing I miss about the series (and JRPGs in general) is that their great for being lazy, you don't have to actually do combat, you just navigate menus. Sometimes that is all I want. But Final Fantasy got boring, all of its stories are almost purely political now, and I really don't care about fictional politics. I miss the general tropes of "Giant Evil Guy Wants to Be God, something something something crystals... oh dear, a demon!" Sure, I suppose that isn't as deep as "the country of something wants to conquer the good country of something else, but a silly looking hermaphrodite saves the day!"
Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."
Your reading a bit too much into it.
What I basically meant was popularity often has nothing to do with quality. There is no correlation, most of the time. Sometimes the most popular option is good, sometimes it isn't, but popularity in itself does not equate to quality.
Budweiser isn't the best beer, despite being the most popular beer in the US. Converse makes rather crappy shoes, despite being very popular. I've never had a pair of Nike shoes last over a year, and they are the most popular manufacture. Windows doesn't really soar above Linux or OS X, despite trouncing them in usage numbers... Etc...
And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?
It doesn't have to be used that way, but it is. Go browse random FaceSpace profiles, and see how it is actually used. No, it doesn't HAVE to be used in such a way, but it IS used in such a way.
Unless, of course, the people who I don't know who keep trying to friend me, with 1000+ "friends" really care about me as a person.
I never stated that eschewing popular things was useful either, that option is generally just as shallow and vapid as picking things because the are popular. Generally they amount to the same thing, since there is a vast swath of people who pick things because they are unpopular, making the unpopular choice popular within that in group.
Picking based on how many people pick it is dumb, either way. Unless your going for support, then try to pick the more popular, I suppose. (Why is Ubuntu more friendly than using Fedora? Ubuntu is more popular, meaning their forums are more popular, because of this support is easier...).
Yes, I do look at reviews as well, and dig through support forums, and ask people who would generally know about the product, etc... This is stuff I would do with our without Facebook telling me that Joe Smith likes it. Joe Smith liking it would evaluate lower than negative Amazon reviews (being that they are aggregate, more people with a problem means a higher chance that it is a problem). Joe Smith would rank much lower than actual documentation and specs.
Joe Smith would rank near the bottom of all the criteria I would use to pick a product. Unless Joe smith was a bona fide expert, with a decent amount of experience in the product/service. Even then, just him OWNING it would be rather weak. I rather doubt this service will say "Bob Smith Own This Widget, and Does So For the Following Reasons...", followed by weighty analysis.
Why do I doubt this? Because social networks eschew weighty analysis (or depth) like the plague. They exist for the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper.
I think social search is going to enable more of this behaviour, and I think if you dismiss it so easily, you just don't get social networks.
You're right. I don't.
But then again I still think this will be a failure. If your about to buy something big and expensive (a car), I doubt your first motivation will be what the 200+ faux friends on your social network bought. I also doubt that this is sexy enough to actually make a difference. Putting myself in the shoes of the people I know who are obsessed with Facespace, I still don't see this as a feature killer enough to change ingrained habits and preferences.
Also, I do underestimate social networks (or estimate them just fine), since I don't actually see them changing the world, or people's behaviors. People still evaluate things on the same basis that they have for years. All social networks do is provide more available information, and slight filtering by social preference. Though for people with over a certain threshold of "friends", that filtering is limited.
Has FaceSpace 2.0 Web Synergy actually changed the life of anyone you know? On a fundamental level?
Taking services like Last.fm, for example. It recommends music based on social parameters. Of all the recommendations, I still only choose to buy/listen to around 5%. All it does is increase the amount of information available to me, and filters it by who I associate with and what I listen to (if you listen to X, and someone listens to X and Y, you might like Y). After this information is made available, I them use tradition criteria to decide to listen to it or buy it. This criteria is still largely personal, and individual.
So basically, I'm shopping for a new car. I, for some reason, use Bing. Bing tells me that 20 of my 300 FaceSpace "friends" like Ford Ferengi. Yes, it brings it to my attention, but I will still evaluate it by traditional means (mileage, warranty, service record, reviews, and actual qualitative word of mouth).
Actually, on this line of thought, who the hell buys a car just to be social? I don't think many high school students have that kind of income. Aren't they the only ones that blindly consume to fit into some image of who they want to be?
This was my first impression as well. I suppose I'm not sufficiently "social", or my parents steered me away from the "popularity is the be all end all" high school mentality. I don't really care what car my high horde of anonymous faux online "friends"* like, unless, of course, those friends know something about cars. Which 90% of them don't. If I was shopping for a car, I would ask the one or two gear heads and mechanics I know, and not 200 people who are basically strangers.
I don't get why people don't understand that popularity doesn't instantly equate to quality. The most popular option is often not the best option.
Being just like your social group, or solidifying your insider status, is not a good motivation to by something hugely expensive like a vehicle. Actually, I don't think it is even a good motivation to waste and time or money on insignificant things either. Things should stand up on their own merits, or be personally satisfying first.
But then again I only have 40 friends on FaceSpace (20 of whom I actually know, and or care even a modicum about, whose status updates I completely ignore thanks to the advent of the telephone and the meatspace social networking site called the "pub down the street").
"If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?" No. But I would click on the "like" button!
* As my mom stated the other day, when confronted with social networks for the first time; "did someone change the definition of "friend" or am I missing something?"
Its gets funnier. My girlfriend works a gigantic corporation (in the top 20 in the US), and she is forced to use IE 6, or all their legacy apps die. Recently they also installed a completely locked down copy of Firefox on their network, which is only for, and can only open, a single online app that was smart enough to kill their IE6 compatibility.
At least we think it is just for the legacy app, though we may be wrong since the street-level tech people are also flummoxed and (justifiably) annoyed.
On the bright side, from the corporations point of view, eventually they won't have to block most of the internet, since it won't work with their ancient browser. I keep asking her to present Netscape Navigator 4 as an alternative.
Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down
Why would I waste space on redundant software? If a browser does what I need, then why bother with the others?
On my Linux boxes, currently, I only have Chromium. I used Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and recently hopped shit to the Chrome family. They did the job better, for my tastes (not a universal statement, use what works). Once Adblock for Chrome started actually... you know... blocking ads, Firefox became redundant. On my Win7 box, I have Firefox (testing the beta), Chrome, and... sadly... IE. I use Chrome for 99% of my personal browsing though.
I tried Opera along time ago, and wasn't impressed. It seemed nice, it worked, etc... but it didn't quite match my expectations. It wasn't a version problem, either, it was a general schema problem. The way Opera wants to do stuff doesn't match how I want to do stuff. It might match someone else's though. And that is fine. Same thing with Safari, it was a decent browser, I have no problems with it, but it just didn't quite do it for me. Something intangible was missing.
IE is crap, so I won't bother trying to justify my reasons for not using it.
I agree, fanboyism is among the dumbest things in the world. But it is human nature, we like to feel justified in our (often arbitrary) opinions.
Think of it like this, Quantum mechanics has a LOT of very interesting unexplored/unanswered areas, yet people still obsess over a damn hypothetical cat.
Your not alone, and I do own a Bluray player. In the last year I have bought 4 Bluray movies, and all of them were discounted to within $3 of the DVD, or were from used bookstores. $5 is the price difference I'm willing to pay, if it is more than that I will get the DVD. I'm being generous, since I'm not sure Bluray brings $5 of added value, since they have one killer drawback that DVDs don't, loading screens. I'm not actually sure I can tell the difference between BlueRay and upscaled standard DVDs on my set-up, around 12' from a 40" LCD TV. On some movies the display is even worse, older movies, filmed before digital movies the film grain on the HD version is annoying and distracting. I'm glad I can see all the grain that my old DVDs and inferior technology hid from me. For newer movies I can barely tell the difference, and in a decent double-blind study I might not even be able to, thanks to psychological effects.
I find it bizarre how much they cost in a retail store. They are 2x as much as a DVD. Who the hell pays $22 for a movie? Why not just get two regular DVDs? Or a regular DVD and a six pack. I currently have several thresholds set, I will not pay more than $10 for a DVD thats over six months old. I will not pay more than $15 (at the extreme end, it better had killer special features) for a Blueray. If a movie i really want is above those thresholds, I will go to a used bookstore, if they don't have it or don't have it at the right price, I will buy a couple books instead, and devote that weekends "family fun night" to playing Arkham Horror instead.
So why do I own a Blueray player? Netflix streaming.
People who believe that 0.999... does not equal one also believe that 0.333... does not equal 1/3, and for many of the same reasons.
For once in my life I can claim someone is underestimating the average person!
I don't believe.999... = 1. Let me qualify that a bit, I intellectually and academically know it, but on a softer, more psychological level, I don't actually believe it. When presented with it, my first reaction would be "Hell no! Stupid.", even though I know it is true.
Why? Because your mapping two concepts that we all were taught as a kid isn't true. Does.9 = 1? Or.99? Or.999? or... Or.999999999999(a ridiculous but non-infinite number of times)? Most grade school kids would say "no", and be correct. Then you hit the infinite jump, and suddenly it becomes true. So you run into two problems, the problem of it not being immediately obvious (common sense), and the problem of conceptualizing infinity.
On a lower level, its like saying A = ~A. You have a proof saying basically that ~A was A all along, so the actual preposition was wrong, which makes sense, but on a surface level all you can see is A =~A.
I have no problem whatsoever with 1/3 = 0.3333... This makes sense, its like stating A = A. 1/3 being 0.3333 is obvious. I would even get in trouble in lower level math classes for not mucking with fractions, and going straight for the decimals, since I never say fractions outside of cookbooks and socket sizes. 1/3 = 0.33333... makes sense, it is clear and obvious, and can be explained with a single phrase (not a proof); "the "/" means division"..999999... doesn't have this.
No, I'm not stupid, or at least for this reason. I know damn well that 0.9999... = 1, and if I ever find myself in a situation where that bit of knowledge can be applied (usefully, not just for building my ego on the internet), I will do it properly. My first reaction is still "bullshit!" on a visceral level, though. I don't perceive it as true, even if I know it is.
I suppose I can map this experience to most of the "social knowledge vs. science" debates in our culture currently. I won't.
Perhaps your impression was based on trying to play WoW on the two machines?
Actually that is one of the areas where I didn't notice any difference. WoW was playable on medium settings with a decent FPS, and on both it made me ponder if playing a bit longer than an hour would set the computer on fire.
It was more a general feeling of slowness. Programs took a bit longer to open, there was a very slight increase in interface lag, multi-tasking became a bit more of a pain (actually this was the big one). It wasn't as "Zippy" feeling as the iBook.
There are probably tons of reasons for this, and not just the processor. Rosetta being my favorite thing to heap untold amounts of blame on, also the other components on the board could have been inferior to whatever they used with PPCs. The fact that most of the Intel software were new ports and many bugs didn't quite get weeded out yet. Etc...
I also ponder if when they moved over to dual core architecture if they slightly gimped the single cores, so the Core Solo was even worse off than a normal 1.5ghz Solo.
Also, I really can't tell the difference between 1.2 and 1.5Ghz, at that point the improvement is a bit too incremental to notice. And the actual clock-speed isn't quite that important anymore, so it isn't the only judge of performance.
I'd say the definition of "hipster" is doing things to be seen, and not out of any intrinsic merit of the activity itself. Which pretty much overlays every other inane sub or counter-culture in existence. So I'm guessing the hipster thing is pretty much a blanket term for a class of subcultures of affluent, mostly white, people in their late 20's to early 30s (post college, but prematurity). Characteristics (mostly via internet osmosis, and not actual observation) is a strange cross between luddism and nostalgia and yuppie gadget hording. Riding a gearless bicycle while chatting on your iPhone, for example. Playing old vinyl records while mixing bad music on you exceedingly expensive Apple branded computer. Etc...
There is also something about stupid haircuts and tight pants... That's either hipsters or emo kids, or both, I'm not entirely sure. Its been a bit since I paid attention to what people are doing.
I suppose, if forced to define them in a word, it would be pretentious.
Yes, I wear sandals (which I wasn't aware was hipster garb), and yes I majored in Philosophy (emphasis in philosophy of science and epistemology; which I wasn't aware was a hip area of study). And yes, I hung out in bars (which is pretty common for all college kids) and discussed academics (which might be more rare, but doubtfully uncommon). I didn't do any of this to be seen, being seen by people is pretty damn far at the bottom of my list of priorities.
Pretension is the thing. Yes, a hipster might use a Mac, but they are using it as a fashion accessory, and I might use a Mac but I'm using it for a completely different reason. You, the hipster, are using a Mac for SOCIAL reasons, I'm using mine because I got sick to death of Windows and Linux. Your majoring in philosophy (actually I don't think there was a single person who could be considered "hip" in the program) because it somehow improves your street cred until you flunk out past the 200 level classes (or the first truly analytic class), I'm taking it because I'm genuinely interested in the relation of humans, knowledge, and the real world (whatever that means. I tried psych, but that was terrible). You don't wear shoes because you want people to see your overarching hatred of whatever shoes represent in your subculture, I don't wear shoes because I grew up in the Arizona desert where shoes are really never necessary unless your hiking or your boss forces you to wear them.
Probably the quickest way to see if someone fits into that specific mold is to see their friends. If they all look the same, and share the exact interests, wear roughly the same fashions, music, etc... then you can deduce that the person might be a hipster, or whatever subculture is cool at the moment.
My girlfriend fits the mold bit better, being an genuine artistic-type. But she, sadly, isn't very social, and has pretty much no desire to befriend anyone outside of her limited, and age worn, small group of friends. Being from California is hardly a fashion statement, last I checked you don't have much control over where your born. As I tell her about her California roots, "No one is perfect".
A t-shirt and jeans is part of the hipster ethos (and myriad previous youth cultures), you probably wear a t-shirt and jeans from time to time, so you must also be a hipster, by your criteria.
I feel like its the same as the first step as a 12 step program. Admitting you have a problem. Its an absurd thing. If you don't actually have a problem you won't admit to having one. Being that your not admitting to it, you must have a problem.
People often wander into the fallacy (okay, OS fanboy troll) that all Mac users are some sort of image conscious hipster, and it annoys me. Yes, a lot of hipsters own Macs for image and marketing reasons, but this ignores everyone else. I'm guessing less than 50% of Macs are used by hipsters. though this would differ with other Apple products (the iPhone and iPad probably having the highest percentage of wankers).
I've owned two Macs. The first, an iBook, I bought because my college offered a decent discount, and was willing to throw in a free iPod. The main thing that threw me over the edge was a dodgy computer that probably ate up $500 in upgrades and repairs (mostly caused by said upgrades). I was in college, taking rather intensive courses, and didn't really want to have to fuss with Windows or Linux, or fight the temptation of ripping open my box and replacing things that weren't broke. It was a damn good computer, actually, and it did what I wanted it to do. It was simple, it didn't require much work or maintenance, things actually "just worked" (mostly). No, it wasn't the cutting edge gaming rigs I was used to, but that was the point. It did homework, it did media, it did the internet, and it could stream movies to my TV. Thats all I wanted, or needed at the time. Sadly it also played WoW, which didn't help things.
Image never crossed my mind. I also had to put up with wankers telling me that wearing an iPod in public was an image thing, even though one of the first things I did was to get rid of the crappy, and iconic, white headphones. The iPod was actually the best mp3 player at the time. Image had nothing to do with it, it was better than my stupid 1gb flash player, it was free, so I used it.
Later, after my iBook died, and made me curse the fact I didn't really have access to its hardware (fried HDD, which oddly various flavors of PPC friendly Linux could read, and run on, but lacking sound or wifi drivers). So I bought an Intel MacMini. It was a mistake. It was nothing but an underpowered pain (partly my fault, a 1.2Ghz PPC was better than a 1.5ghz Core Solo), which made me wish I had a "real" computer, so I could at least have the performance and comparability to go with the mindless hassle. Image also didn't play a roll, the iBook was a solid, simple, computer, so the Mini would be too.
My Girlfriend also used pretty much nothing but Macs, and she is a "creative type", though completely non-hip. She grew up in Palo Alto, where the only computers she had access to in schools were Apple products. Her parents got discounts for buying Apples. All her parents "used" (in their parently way) were Macs. Basically she managed to never touch a non-Apple computer until she moved out of California. She used Apple products up until my constant bitching about my Mini got to her, and she realized that her MacBook was a certified lemon. Now she's running Win7, and getting a Ubuntu powered netbook, and daily plays with my Linux powered HTPC. Image never really played a roll there either.
Both of us, while being 90% Mac free (the Mini is now heading for the kitchen)
Neither of use are "Apple Hipster" types. I'm a long-time nerd, and she, while being an english/art major is pretty non-hip, VERY non-hip. I don't wear turtle necks, I think fixed-wheel bikes are stupid. I have never worn loafers outside of a work environment (actually, I don't wear shoes outside of a work enviroment), my glasses are real and not thick plastic, I don't wear tight pants. etc...
I don't hang out with "hipsters", and neither does my girlfriend. Though there was a nice hipster bar down the road that served fairly cheap top shelf bourbon, so I supposed I did from time to time. In college when I first got the Mac, I spend more time in the astronomy building than in... where ever hipsters are. The rest of the time was spent in various philosophy related clubs (read; lets go to a bar and argue about Wittgenstein, Russell and machine intelligence while getting hammered on the c
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for sounding like I was putting all Evangelical Christians into the same basket. For every group there is a lunatic fringe that doesn't represent the larger body. I hate to say it, but the Evangelical movements lunatic fringe is a bit larger, more lunatic, and fringier than most. I didn't mean for it to reflect on everyone in that movement, or holding that belief system though.
My friend's church is very extremist, and very far on the fringe. But it doesn't keep them from having at least 10,000 active members.
When I switched away from Macs (long story, but the lack of control over my hardware played a decent part, and the rate of new paid patches, and the Intel thing) the two things I missed the most was Quicksilver and the fact that EVERY application could seamlessly share data with other applications. Well, I also missed the integrated spell-check and dictionary too...
Quicksilver is one of those rare apps that completely changed how I use a computer. There really hasn't been anything like that since the advent of the GUI (in my experience, I'm sure others will disagree). I loved that it was basically like using the terminal, could could be as simple or complex as you needed it to be. That and doing basic tasks could just turn into muscle memory. To this day, and I haven't used a Mac as a primary computer in almost 5 years now, I still find myself mashing [windows]+[space]+[F] to open a browser, or [windows]+[space]+[S] to pop up Slashdot.
Quicksilver was the perfect bit of software, it was ridiculously simple, but almost infinitely complex. You could dig down in it and basically do everything you could do in a terminal, or more, or just use it as a quick and dirty launcher. Features like it should be an integral part of every OS. Spotlight doesn't quite cut it, it is too simple, Windows Search doesn't do it either. GnomeDo is nice, but it doesn't quite get there.
That was one thing I did notice about OS X, its third-party developer community was awesome, even when it came to OSS. They prove that OSS doesn't have to be a kludgy, ugly mess. This is a lesson you wouldn't learn from just using OSS on Windows and Linux.
I do hate how locked down OS X is though. Its simple because there really isn't any options. When trying to customize it to your work flow, your only option is "grey buttons or rainbow buttons?", and "big dock, or little dock?".
Either that or the environment is a very complicated interlocking system that isn't very well understood by humans. And while having a nice parkland might be nice for us right now, who knows what changes that modification will cause in 100 years. That and some of us like the wilderness, just like some of us like domesticated parks. Some of us even prefer wilderness over said parks. I being on of them. I like inaccessible wilderness, it keeps the rest of the monkeys out.
Sometimes the best way to fix something is to not touch it at all.
And I DO know a couple Christians who actively don't care about the environment because Jesus will return, and usher in the end of the world and a bunch of random torment for vast swaths of the population who aren't in their church, within their life time. Their church also sends money to the Israeli settlement movement, because it will bring on the end faster.
I find this more than a bit creepy. If Christianity didn't have an edict against suicide, there would be no Christians left. There is something very odd trying to actively bring about the end of the world, so a whole bunch of people can go burn in hell, while you and your little family get to sit in heaven and stare at Jesus' navel. There is something to be said for that school of Buddhism (I forgot what its called at the moment) where someone reaches enlightenment, and instead of leaving the cycle of reincarnation to be in whatever Buddhist "heaven" is, they stick around and try to get everyone else saved instead. Seems more noble than the Evangelical route, where you usher in the end of the world just so you can get to heaven, the rest of the world be (literally) damned. To me the desire, by their own mythology, to bring suffering on innumerable others would outweigh the whole personal salvation thing.
But then again I don't think there are many Christians in the world who Jesus would actually recognize as followers.
My own preference is for that definition that "a patriot supports his country always and his government only when it deserves it."
See sig.
Personally I find the term odd. When I think of the US I think first of the people, and then the land, then the (non-political) ethos and personality, and only last, and of late as a generally tragic footnote, the government (by of late, I mean my entire life really). If I had to sacrifice my "country (by this I mean government) for the lives of my friends, or Americans in general, I wouldn't think twice. The government, and their actions aren't really the totality of the US, they are a little, itty-bitty, bit of it; and only when they are acting to promote and better the people, the land, or the ethos. Which isn't something they've done in the last 30+ years, and when they do it generally is only by accident.
This makes me a bit depressed.
I put "non-political" in there because we don't have a political ethos anymore. Or we do, if you can consider acting like an elitist (yes, even the tea-party is elitist) two year old to be an ethos. It wasn't always like this, but Americans now completely fail at politics and public discourse.
I'm rather conflicted. I don't think that there is much argument over Assange's personality, he is definitely an ass. But the actual leak leaves me a bit conflicted. On one hand I agree with you, that information could have had bad effects on people on the ground, and this obviously is bad. On the other hand the people have the right to know how well their money, and lives, are being spent in order to make decisions, and the government often abuses their (justifiable) right to censor data for the protection of troops.
Often the government uses their ability to censor data as propaganda, so we never know HOW bad, or HOW incompetent they're being, so we continue to support the war(s) through blind patriotism and not informed rationalism. Thus having another channel for information flow is a good thing. Most of the time the only thing at stake is the pride and ego of politicians and career generals, and the bottom line of defense contractors. These being injured is never a bad thing in my opinion. The Pentagon Papers was a disastrous hit to the powers that be, at the time, and not many people would argue against its leak, since it was beneficial to us, the public.
But then again, sometimes, probably most of the time, actual combat information is classified for good reasons, the reason that the government has that power; to protect soldiers and collaborators on the ground from retaliation. In these cases, leaks can lead to death, torture, or even the loss of the war (though I don't think we need Wikileaks help on that front). Obviously, in this light leaks are bad.
So the question isn't really answerable until we prioritize the value of having more information versus the potential loss of life of soldiers on the ground. I find it a pretty even match. If we are having a badly orchestrated war leading the a huge, superfluous, loss of life and money, in which information is b being artificially censored to mainly hide that fact; then I would say leaks are good since they may actually prevent further loss of life in the long term, even if they may cause limited casualties in the short. If it is an organized war, which is being properly managed, then leaks will only hurt the effort and cause pointless casualties.
The problem is that we, the people, can't actually tell if our war is good or bad unless we have information leading one way or another. And generally information outside of government channels, since the government generally shouldn't be trusted on its own, without verifiable data.
In this case, I think Wikileaks might have done the right thing (perhaps on accident), by leaking the data. I might be wrong, as I said, I'm on the fence, but leaning VERY slightly towards Wikileaks.
95% of the stories on ABC, NBC, etc are cheerleading pieces about expanding government power.
They were doing the same when Bush was in office, up until the final year or two when the writing was on the wall, and popular opinion veered hard again him. Whoever gets elected next, Obama, whoever the right pushes, or space aliens from wherever ABC and NBC will be the cheerleader for them too. They like to be in good graces with the government, since it gives them access, they also like to be as completely non-confrontational and partisan as possible to maximize their viewing audience.
Basically MSNBC and Fox are niche markets, catering the the hard left and right. They are tabloids, and not really news networks.
Basically we have a dearth of real news currently. A decent news show should be as hated by the left as the right, and should be painted partisan by both.
"libertarian" != "Libertarian"
I am a "libertarian", and pretty much disagree with the "Libertarians" on everything.
Your more a Libertarian than a Republican, or conservative then. Conservatives want to roll things back into some religious-free enterprise version of the mythic 50s (think Leave it To Beaver), God, Country and Family. Libertarians want to kill government, and allow some flavor of responsibility to reign. (I put that badly, I know, and someone will reply with a flaming correction)
Liberals think we have an obligation to help and protect those less fortunate, and that the government should exist to nurture the people under it. They don't want everyone to be a ward of the state (or whatnot), they want the state to help people to be better. Pretty much Liberals want us to be more like Europe or Canada.
Pretty much all three of these entities are working towards a mythological utopia based wholly on exclusion and blind ideology. Liberals will be third class citizens in a Libertarian or Conservative utopia, Libertarians will be third class citizens in a... etc... You get the point. Its like the brouhaha over Obama being elected, where the fringier elements of the right basically said "we represent the people, but the people voted the wrong way, and thus the people's opinion doesn't count", this scared the crap out of me. Its another version of "we know better", which is a phrase and ideology that has probably led to more harm than any other. And no, I'm not singling out any one side, I'm sure the result would have been the same no matter which partisan avatar would have won. America completely lost its ability to maintain social or politcal discourse. It is impossible in a society where everyone knows whats best for everyone else, and is always right.
Sorry for the rant, this is something that annoys the hell out of me. We act like a nation of spoiled two year olds now, and it is rather depressing.
As for the media... when your perched to the right or left, everything slightly less right or left than you looks further to the extreme than it probably is. Granted I don't watch network news much anymore (for reasons detailed above), but pretty much the right has Fox, and the left has MSNBC. The rest are rather centrist, or at least partisan schizophrenic.
Politics aside, I agree with your last sentiment, breaking up the monopolies. Concentrating media into a small number of hands is not good for the health of the state or populace.
Your satire is warranted, but one problem; the various Fox talking heads have claimed that AGW is a liberal hoax made to spread socialism, or government control, or whatnot, while, as far as I can tell, the two liberal talking heads have never claimed that the Constitution is a conservative myth.
Actually I don't know a single liberal who disbelieves in the Constitution, or refuses to support it. Both "sides" have their own reading and emphasis of the document, and it is very hard, from an outsider view, to actually say one of them is "correct", since they both use the same document for evidence, and the same body of exterior text as justification. Personally I think the Constitution is a hostage held by both "sides" to further their blind ideological and egotistical partisan bickering.
Murdoch wants to make money, and will abandon any plan that proves itself sufficiently unprofitable. Business men are tiresomely predictable where their wallets are concerned.
Maybe. But there are plenty of examples of failed business models churning along, long after they die. Can we look at music industry, or, increasingly, the newspaper industry, please? Big businesses are slow moving, conservative, behemoths, they love the status quo, and fear new models (for the most part). Murdoch wants to turn the internet into something he already knows, and profits wildly on, television. This is like his moronic attempt at pay-walling his news outlets, he wanted to make online content EXACTLY like paper content.
It doesn't matter if this really works or not. Ideally the motives are profit, but the general motives are more psychological. CEOs are people, and people are prone to faulty motives, and the lack of long term planning and foresight. In the long term this might be abandoned, but in the short term they will fight for it, even if the rest of the population thinks its futile. Again, I will reference the various other media associations who are fighting an unpopular fight to maintain the status-quo, even if that fight is pretty much doomed in the long term.
I'm sick of people painting capitalism as a purely rational exercise. It isn't, and never will be. It is a concept run by people, and people are shockingly non-rational.
I doubt there is a conspiracy. It just is a bunch of people acting like people.
What lore?
Last time I checked Final Fantasy didn't even have a continuing story, each game is stand alone and completely unrelated to every previous game (not counting the fan service sequel on the PS2)
But then again I gave up on Final Fantasy after IX, when I noticed that my love of the game was almost 100% NES/SNES nostalgia. The only thing I miss about the series (and JRPGs in general) is that their great for being lazy, you don't have to actually do combat, you just navigate menus. Sometimes that is all I want. But Final Fantasy got boring, all of its stories are almost purely political now, and I really don't care about fictional politics. I miss the general tropes of "Giant Evil Guy Wants to Be God, something something something crystals... oh dear, a demon!" Sure, I suppose that isn't as deep as "the country of something wants to conquer the good country of something else, but a silly looking hermaphrodite saves the day!"
Actually, you kind of did, when you said that the "most popular option is often not the best option" - this means by definition that one of the less popular options is often the best option, which by definition means that staying away from the popular product will "often" be the right thing to do. Unless you use "often," but mean "occasionally" or "rarely."
Your reading a bit too much into it.
What I basically meant was popularity often has nothing to do with quality. There is no correlation, most of the time. Sometimes the most popular option is good, sometimes it isn't, but popularity in itself does not equate to quality.
Budweiser isn't the best beer, despite being the most popular beer in the US. Converse makes rather crappy shoes, despite being very popular. I've never had a pair of Nike shoes last over a year, and they are the most popular manufacture. Windows doesn't really soar above Linux or OS X, despite trouncing them in usage numbers... Etc...
And if you don't know him... why the fuck are you friending him on a social network, and then blaming the social network for the "shallowness" of the connection? You realize that just because some people let anybody friend them doesn't mean that's how the tool *has* to be used... right?
It doesn't have to be used that way, but it is. Go browse random FaceSpace profiles, and see how it is actually used. No, it doesn't HAVE to be used in such a way, but it IS used in such a way.
Unless, of course, the people who I don't know who keep trying to friend me, with 1000+ "friends" really care about me as a person.
I never stated that eschewing popular things was useful either, that option is generally just as shallow and vapid as picking things because the are popular. Generally they amount to the same thing, since there is a vast swath of people who pick things because they are unpopular, making the unpopular choice popular within that in group.
Picking based on how many people pick it is dumb, either way. Unless your going for support, then try to pick the more popular, I suppose. (Why is Ubuntu more friendly than using Fedora? Ubuntu is more popular, meaning their forums are more popular, because of this support is easier...).
Yes, I do look at reviews as well, and dig through support forums, and ask people who would generally know about the product, etc... This is stuff I would do with our without Facebook telling me that Joe Smith likes it. Joe Smith liking it would evaluate lower than negative Amazon reviews (being that they are aggregate, more people with a problem means a higher chance that it is a problem). Joe Smith would rank much lower than actual documentation and specs.
Joe Smith would rank near the bottom of all the criteria I would use to pick a product. Unless Joe smith was a bona fide expert, with a decent amount of experience in the product/service. Even then, just him OWNING it would be rather weak. I rather doubt this service will say "Bob Smith Own This Widget, and Does So For the Following Reasons...", followed by weighty analysis.
Why do I doubt this? Because social networks eschew weighty analysis (or depth) like the plague. They exist for the most cursory contact, and nothing deeper.
I think social search is going to enable more of this behaviour, and I think if you dismiss it so easily, you just don't get social networks.
You're right. I don't.
But then again I still think this will be a failure. If your about to buy something big and expensive (a car), I doubt your first motivation will be what the 200+ faux friends on your social network bought. I also doubt that this is sexy enough to actually make a difference. Putting myself in the shoes of the people I know who are obsessed with Facespace, I still don't see this as a feature killer enough to change ingrained habits and preferences.
Also, I do underestimate social networks (or estimate them just fine), since I don't actually see them changing the world, or people's behaviors. People still evaluate things on the same basis that they have for years. All social networks do is provide more available information, and slight filtering by social preference. Though for people with over a certain threshold of "friends", that filtering is limited.
Has FaceSpace 2.0 Web Synergy actually changed the life of anyone you know? On a fundamental level?
Taking services like Last.fm, for example. It recommends music based on social parameters. Of all the recommendations, I still only choose to buy/listen to around 5%. All it does is increase the amount of information available to me, and filters it by who I associate with and what I listen to (if you listen to X, and someone listens to X and Y, you might like Y). After this information is made available, I them use tradition criteria to decide to listen to it or buy it. This criteria is still largely personal, and individual.
So basically, I'm shopping for a new car. I, for some reason, use Bing. Bing tells me that 20 of my 300 FaceSpace "friends" like Ford Ferengi. Yes, it brings it to my attention, but I will still evaluate it by traditional means (mileage, warranty, service record, reviews, and actual qualitative word of mouth).
Actually, on this line of thought, who the hell buys a car just to be social? I don't think many high school students have that kind of income. Aren't they the only ones that blindly consume to fit into some image of who they want to be?
This was my first impression as well. I suppose I'm not sufficiently "social", or my parents steered me away from the "popularity is the be all end all" high school mentality. I don't really care what car my high horde of anonymous faux online "friends"* like, unless, of course, those friends know something about cars. Which 90% of them don't. If I was shopping for a car, I would ask the one or two gear heads and mechanics I know, and not 200 people who are basically strangers.
I don't get why people don't understand that popularity doesn't instantly equate to quality. The most popular option is often not the best option.
Being just like your social group, or solidifying your insider status, is not a good motivation to by something hugely expensive like a vehicle. Actually, I don't think it is even a good motivation to waste and time or money on insignificant things either. Things should stand up on their own merits, or be personally satisfying first.
But then again I only have 40 friends on FaceSpace (20 of whom I actually know, and or care even a modicum about, whose status updates I completely ignore thanks to the advent of the telephone and the meatspace social networking site called the "pub down the street").
"If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?" No. But I would click on the "like" button!
* As my mom stated the other day, when confronted with social networks for the first time; "did someone change the definition of "friend" or am I missing something?"
Its gets funnier. My girlfriend works a gigantic corporation (in the top 20 in the US), and she is forced to use IE 6, or all their legacy apps die. Recently they also installed a completely locked down copy of Firefox on their network, which is only for, and can only open, a single online app that was smart enough to kill their IE6 compatibility.
At least we think it is just for the legacy app, though we may be wrong since the street-level tech people are also flummoxed and (justifiably) annoyed.
On the bright side, from the corporations point of view, eventually they won't have to block most of the internet, since it won't work with their ancient browser. I keep asking her to present Netscape Navigator 4 as an alternative.
Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners?
Thank you, your koan lead to much enlightenment.
Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down
Why would I waste space on redundant software? If a browser does what I need, then why bother with the others?
On my Linux boxes, currently, I only have Chromium. I used Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and recently hopped shit to the Chrome family. They did the job better, for my tastes (not a universal statement, use what works). Once Adblock for Chrome started actually... you know... blocking ads, Firefox became redundant. On my Win7 box, I have Firefox (testing the beta), Chrome, and... sadly... IE. I use Chrome for 99% of my personal browsing though.
I tried Opera along time ago, and wasn't impressed. It seemed nice, it worked, etc... but it didn't quite match my expectations. It wasn't a version problem, either, it was a general schema problem. The way Opera wants to do stuff doesn't match how I want to do stuff. It might match someone else's though. And that is fine. Same thing with Safari, it was a decent browser, I have no problems with it, but it just didn't quite do it for me. Something intangible was missing.
IE is crap, so I won't bother trying to justify my reasons for not using it.
I agree, fanboyism is among the dumbest things in the world. But it is human nature, we like to feel justified in our (often arbitrary) opinions.
Again, technically, and not perceptively.
Think of it like this, Quantum mechanics has a LOT of very interesting unexplored/unanswered areas, yet people still obsess over a damn hypothetical cat.
Your not alone, and I do own a Bluray player. In the last year I have bought 4 Bluray movies, and all of them were discounted to within $3 of the DVD, or were from used bookstores. $5 is the price difference I'm willing to pay, if it is more than that I will get the DVD. I'm being generous, since I'm not sure Bluray brings $5 of added value, since they have one killer drawback that DVDs don't, loading screens. I'm not actually sure I can tell the difference between BlueRay and upscaled standard DVDs on my set-up, around 12' from a 40" LCD TV. On some movies the display is even worse, older movies, filmed before digital movies the film grain on the HD version is annoying and distracting. I'm glad I can see all the grain that my old DVDs and inferior technology hid from me. For newer movies I can barely tell the difference, and in a decent double-blind study I might not even be able to, thanks to psychological effects.
I find it bizarre how much they cost in a retail store. They are 2x as much as a DVD. Who the hell pays $22 for a movie? Why not just get two regular DVDs? Or a regular DVD and a six pack. I currently have several thresholds set, I will not pay more than $10 for a DVD thats over six months old. I will not pay more than $15 (at the extreme end, it better had killer special features) for a Blueray. If a movie i really want is above those thresholds, I will go to a used bookstore, if they don't have it or don't have it at the right price, I will buy a couple books instead, and devote that weekends "family fun night" to playing Arkham Horror instead.
So why do I own a Blueray player? Netflix streaming.
People who believe that 0.999... does not equal one also believe that 0.333... does not equal 1/3, and for many of the same reasons.
For once in my life I can claim someone is underestimating the average person!
I don't believe .999... = 1. Let me qualify that a bit, I intellectually and academically know it, but on a softer, more psychological level, I don't actually believe it. When presented with it, my first reaction would be "Hell no! Stupid.", even though I know it is true.
Why? Because your mapping two concepts that we all were taught as a kid isn't true. Does .9 = 1? Or .99? Or .999? or ... Or .999999999999(a ridiculous but non-infinite number of times)? Most grade school kids would say "no", and be correct. Then you hit the infinite jump, and suddenly it becomes true. So you run into two problems, the problem of it not being immediately obvious (common sense), and the problem of conceptualizing infinity.
On a lower level, its like saying A = ~A. You have a proof saying basically that ~A was A all along, so the actual preposition was wrong, which makes sense, but on a surface level all you can see is A =~A.
I have no problem whatsoever with 1/3 = 0.3333... This makes sense, its like stating A = A. 1/3 being 0.3333 is obvious. I would even get in trouble in lower level math classes for not mucking with fractions, and going straight for the decimals, since I never say fractions outside of cookbooks and socket sizes. 1/3 = 0.33333... makes sense, it is clear and obvious, and can be explained with a single phrase (not a proof); "the "/" means division". .999999... doesn't have this.
No, I'm not stupid, or at least for this reason. I know damn well that 0.9999... = 1, and if I ever find myself in a situation where that bit of knowledge can be applied (usefully, not just for building my ego on the internet), I will do it properly. My first reaction is still "bullshit!" on a visceral level, though. I don't perceive it as true, even if I know it is.
I suppose I can map this experience to most of the "social knowledge vs. science" debates in our culture currently. I won't.
Perhaps your impression was based on trying to play WoW on the two machines?
Actually that is one of the areas where I didn't notice any difference. WoW was playable on medium settings with a decent FPS, and on both it made me ponder if playing a bit longer than an hour would set the computer on fire.
It was more a general feeling of slowness. Programs took a bit longer to open, there was a very slight increase in interface lag, multi-tasking became a bit more of a pain (actually this was the big one). It wasn't as "Zippy" feeling as the iBook.
There are probably tons of reasons for this, and not just the processor. Rosetta being my favorite thing to heap untold amounts of blame on, also the other components on the board could have been inferior to whatever they used with PPCs. The fact that most of the Intel software were new ports and many bugs didn't quite get weeded out yet. Etc...
I also ponder if when they moved over to dual core architecture if they slightly gimped the single cores, so the Core Solo was even worse off than a normal 1.5ghz Solo.
Also, I really can't tell the difference between 1.2 and 1.5Ghz, at that point the improvement is a bit too incremental to notice. And the actual clock-speed isn't quite that important anymore, so it isn't the only judge of performance.
I'd say the definition of "hipster" is doing things to be seen, and not out of any intrinsic merit of the activity itself. Which pretty much overlays every other inane sub or counter-culture in existence. So I'm guessing the hipster thing is pretty much a blanket term for a class of subcultures of affluent, mostly white, people in their late 20's to early 30s (post college, but prematurity). Characteristics (mostly via internet osmosis, and not actual observation) is a strange cross between luddism and nostalgia and yuppie gadget hording. Riding a gearless bicycle while chatting on your iPhone, for example. Playing old vinyl records while mixing bad music on you exceedingly expensive Apple branded computer. Etc...
There is also something about stupid haircuts and tight pants... That's either hipsters or emo kids, or both, I'm not entirely sure. Its been a bit since I paid attention to what people are doing.
I suppose, if forced to define them in a word, it would be pretentious.
Yes, I wear sandals (which I wasn't aware was hipster garb), and yes I majored in Philosophy (emphasis in philosophy of science and epistemology; which I wasn't aware was a hip area of study). And yes, I hung out in bars (which is pretty common for all college kids) and discussed academics (which might be more rare, but doubtfully uncommon). I didn't do any of this to be seen, being seen by people is pretty damn far at the bottom of my list of priorities.
Pretension is the thing. Yes, a hipster might use a Mac, but they are using it as a fashion accessory, and I might use a Mac but I'm using it for a completely different reason. You, the hipster, are using a Mac for SOCIAL reasons, I'm using mine because I got sick to death of Windows and Linux. Your majoring in philosophy (actually I don't think there was a single person who could be considered "hip" in the program) because it somehow improves your street cred until you flunk out past the 200 level classes (or the first truly analytic class), I'm taking it because I'm genuinely interested in the relation of humans, knowledge, and the real world (whatever that means. I tried psych, but that was terrible). You don't wear shoes because you want people to see your overarching hatred of whatever shoes represent in your subculture, I don't wear shoes because I grew up in the Arizona desert where shoes are really never necessary unless your hiking or your boss forces you to wear them.
Probably the quickest way to see if someone fits into that specific mold is to see their friends. If they all look the same, and share the exact interests, wear roughly the same fashions, music, etc... then you can deduce that the person might be a hipster, or whatever subculture is cool at the moment.
My girlfriend fits the mold bit better, being an genuine artistic-type. But she, sadly, isn't very social, and has pretty much no desire to befriend anyone outside of her limited, and age worn, small group of friends. Being from California is hardly a fashion statement, last I checked you don't have much control over where your born. As I tell her about her California roots, "No one is perfect".
A t-shirt and jeans is part of the hipster ethos (and myriad previous youth cultures), you probably wear a t-shirt and jeans from time to time, so you must also be a hipster, by your criteria.
I feel like its the same as the first step as a 12 step program. Admitting you have a problem. Its an absurd thing. If you don't actually have a problem you won't admit to having one. Being that your not admitting to it, you must have a problem.
People often wander into the fallacy (okay, OS fanboy troll) that all Mac users are some sort of image conscious hipster, and it annoys me. Yes, a lot of hipsters own Macs for image and marketing reasons, but this ignores everyone else. I'm guessing less than 50% of Macs are used by hipsters. though this would differ with other Apple products (the iPhone and iPad probably having the highest percentage of wankers).
I've owned two Macs. The first, an iBook, I bought because my college offered a decent discount, and was willing to throw in a free iPod. The main thing that threw me over the edge was a dodgy computer that probably ate up $500 in upgrades and repairs (mostly caused by said upgrades). I was in college, taking rather intensive courses, and didn't really want to have to fuss with Windows or Linux, or fight the temptation of ripping open my box and replacing things that weren't broke. It was a damn good computer, actually, and it did what I wanted it to do. It was simple, it didn't require much work or maintenance, things actually "just worked" (mostly). No, it wasn't the cutting edge gaming rigs I was used to, but that was the point. It did homework, it did media, it did the internet, and it could stream movies to my TV. Thats all I wanted, or needed at the time. Sadly it also played WoW, which didn't help things.
Image never crossed my mind. I also had to put up with wankers telling me that wearing an iPod in public was an image thing, even though one of the first things I did was to get rid of the crappy, and iconic, white headphones. The iPod was actually the best mp3 player at the time. Image had nothing to do with it, it was better than my stupid 1gb flash player, it was free, so I used it.
Later, after my iBook died, and made me curse the fact I didn't really have access to its hardware (fried HDD, which oddly various flavors of PPC friendly Linux could read, and run on, but lacking sound or wifi drivers). So I bought an Intel MacMini. It was a mistake. It was nothing but an underpowered pain (partly my fault, a 1.2Ghz PPC was better than a 1.5ghz Core Solo), which made me wish I had a "real" computer, so I could at least have the performance and comparability to go with the mindless hassle. Image also didn't play a roll, the iBook was a solid, simple, computer, so the Mini would be too.
My Girlfriend also used pretty much nothing but Macs, and she is a "creative type", though completely non-hip. She grew up in Palo Alto, where the only computers she had access to in schools were Apple products. Her parents got discounts for buying Apples. All her parents "used" (in their parently way) were Macs. Basically she managed to never touch a non-Apple computer until she moved out of California. She used Apple products up until my constant bitching about my Mini got to her, and she realized that her MacBook was a certified lemon. Now she's running Win7, and getting a Ubuntu powered netbook, and daily plays with my Linux powered HTPC. Image never really played a roll there either.
Both of us, while being 90% Mac free (the Mini is now heading for the kitchen)
Neither of use are "Apple Hipster" types. I'm a long-time nerd, and she, while being an english/art major is pretty non-hip, VERY non-hip. I don't wear turtle necks, I think fixed-wheel bikes are stupid. I have never worn loafers outside of a work environment (actually, I don't wear shoes outside of a work enviroment), my glasses are real and not thick plastic, I don't wear tight pants. etc...
I don't hang out with "hipsters", and neither does my girlfriend. Though there was a nice hipster bar down the road that served fairly cheap top shelf bourbon, so I supposed I did from time to time. In college when I first got the Mac, I spend more time in the astronomy building than in... where ever hipsters are. The rest of the time was spent in various philosophy related clubs (read; lets go to a bar and argue about Wittgenstein, Russell and machine intelligence while getting hammered on the c