I don't think that was an issue. I think all the people being deposed from Infineon were mid to high level management (iirc). I don't think there was a single tech guy from Infineon at all.
The engineer that was there, that I mentioned, was not an employee, though. He was a hired expert witness.
Actually, no -- and, honestly, the German connection was not in my mind when I wrote that (although the image of them swaggering around back when I worked with them may have had some connection to that). Infineon had hired a New York law firm to handle their case. The law firm for Infineon was from the Southwest, somewhere from Texas to California (don't remember exactly, and don't remember the firm names).
I remember only one German, either as a lawyer or a witness. He was being questioned about a meeting. Even though it was an "official" meeting, and minutes were kept (and he had his notes, on VERY old floppies, he said), he couldn't remember anyone there and basically wouldn't admit to being there, or knowing what was going on. I forgot the details, but it was all I could do to keep from laughing. It was almost as bad as Clinton and his, "I did not have sex with that woman" thing -- I expected the German, at any moment, to start saying something like, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
This German was much more like Sgt. Schultz -- except we all knew he knew exactly what he claimed he didn't know.
First, it's about time. I worked as a videographer in 2000-2001, and taped MANY Rambus/Infineon depositions. I was glad to be in the know about what was going on, but after a while it got quite boring -- except in situations where a lawyer was questioning an expert. I remember one time an Infineon lawyer was questioning a Rambus hired expert and asked him what a flip-flop was. He answered a switch, then the lawyer asked him if it could be used as memory, and the expert (rightly, if you remember your electronics) said in some situations. After an hour, the lawyer still wasn't clear on what a flip-flop was, but the expert had answered every question accurately!
It was pretty clear, from the beginning (I think one deposition I had to do one Saturday morning was the first in the case), that Rambus was trying to pull a fast one, but all the technicalities let them keep doing it. Unfortunately, the Infineon lawyers were, almost every single one, rude, pompous jerks that reminded me of Commandant Klink swaggering around like they were important and the Rambus lawyers are calm, polite, and great to work for. It was a shame to see the nice guys on the side I hoped would lose.
Just hook the thing up to a good random number generator, like a good cup of really hot tea. It'll be sure to wipe out those rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
Oh, and call it a Seldon box, just for fun.
Re:Should have thought of this *before* she left
on
Low Tech Gutenberg?
·
· Score: 1
Whether or not a package has a label on it, there's still a chance that if someone even suspects it's valuable, it might not get there. I bet if you ask a few people who have sent/received packages in similar places, you'd find out that many times the packages arrive opened, or opened and re-sealed.
I'm happy, I enjoy life, I'm making more than I need, and I have a business I created that is successful.
Not buying into the lifestyle you've created doesn't mean I'm into the hippie lifestyle. It's not either black or white. There's a lot of gray area in between -- and for those with imagination, there's a whole rainbow in between.
I just decided to stop playing by the hardball rules where everything is zero-sum (it's not enough for me to win, but others have to lose), and focused more on win-win situations. Maybe it's beyond your view of the world, but it works great for me.
I have the resources I need. Within a year or so I'll be starting a new business, using the profit from this one, where I'll be producing (in digital video and digital film) my own movies from the scripts I write. I don't see how I can be giving up a +1 when I found a way to do what few writers can: create a film company that produces his own scripts the way he wants, without producers telling him what to re-write.
But, again, with that deep and original insight you show into the business world, I'm sure you're doing a fantastic job with your own business that's dominating the rest of the world.
And you think any other major company is in it to provide a better product or service?
Did I say I thought that? Where did I say I thought that? Where did I imply I thought that?
Microsoft is the company under discussion, so my comments were about Microsoft.
So how, exactly, did you infer that I felt no other company behaves the same way.
The world revolves around money, power, and influence.
Yeah, I thought that way at one point. I'm glad I dropped out of the rat race and found I can live without taking part of that lifestyle. It makes life much easier and enjoyable. I've also left a lot of stress behind and am much healthier. The world is what we make of it. If you want to insist it is about money and power, than I hope you find a lot of money and power. I'm sure with your insights, you've found it wasy to start your own business and will soon be dominating your own field of endeavor.
Look at their attitudes from the beginning. They can never accept simple success. They only consider themselves successful when they have destroyed the competition. They have never competed on the quality of their product, or on a level playing field. They compete by force, like buying out their opposition, or giving away products until the opposition goes broke.
While they like the money, it's about a small group of men at the top who want nothing more than to rule the world.
That makes it sound so much like Mos Eisley, now I want to go there. (I figure if I make it, I know where I can pick up a slightly used landspeeder cheap.)
Okay, so the Lizard is split into Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird. With XUL, you can write applications that run on Mozilla. It does about everything but play games and work as an office suite. So when are we going to see Mozilla integrated in with OpenOffice and the two together turned into MOS (Mozilla OS)?
Yes, it's true. Anything digital can be cracked. I agree, but it just seems to me Microsoft makes far less effort at making ANYTHING of theirs secure (again, promise, get money, fix a few bugs while working on the next version you can charge for) than other companies or groups. I'm not jumping on them because they're MS, I'm jumping on them because, in my experience, they don't produce secure tools.
And yes, I'm sure when Linux is much more common place, we'll see problems there, too, but when that happens, I'll bail for BSD or something else. There is also more of a focus on security in Linux in the first place.
I really do not mean this just as a troll, but after all the problems with Windows, IE, Outlook, and Office, I find it impossible to feel secure with ANYTHING Microsoft sells. I feel they have proven their focus is on getting a product out and getting the money, THEN worrying about fixing it, which is usually done with upgrades that cost more money. They're a business, and their goal is to get you to buy it, but I have yet to see one shred of evidence that they are as concerned about their products being secure as they are about getting paid.
I think I once read something about Bill Gates saying his business model was to first promise something great, second, get the money, third, deliver it, and fourth, worry about the bugs and fixes later. We all know, though, that once you've sold something, the support from almost anywhere is not as focused as their efforts to produce the next thing they can sell, which is often the upgrade to fix the problems in the earlier version.
It depends on how fast one's brain kicks in. It's an instinct to put the fire out immediately, after all even a small bag on fire poses a threat to one's home (I know a flam on my front porch, if the weather has been dry, threatens the whole area because of all the leaves and sticks in the area). Likely someone who realizes what it is would realize as their foot is coming down, or just after. Instinct would kick in and operate while the thought is still forming.
I'm sure you (and everyone else here) has heard of one like that, but I'll mention it anyway.
Instead of piling on his doorstop, drop some into a paper bag, put it on his porch, set it on fire, then knock loudly and run. Of course, when he sees it, the first thing he'll do is try to stomp out the fire...
Fish work better if they're fresh, then left in the hubcaps during the early summer. That way if they see you prowling around, they don't see any damage, and about the time they feel safe (in a day or two), the fish start smelling and it'll take them a good while to find them. There's also a good chance the heat will bake the dead fish onto the hubcaps and wheels themselves, so by the time they find them, they'll have quite an interesting cleanup job.
You're right. I forgot about it. There were a few good points to Voyager, especially after Nick Sagan came in. There's a line in one episode where Neelix says, "You can't scare me with your technobabble." That was a symptom the series was about to go through a serious change. The newer writers, at that point, started focusing on characters and relationships, and the show became more about the characters than about getting home.
I knew, from the beginning, that there would be a number of "This is it! We've found the way home!" episodes, which are really, really stupid. The viewers KNOW it won't happen, because if it did, there'd be no more series. We all knew from the start that Voyager would either get home in the last act of the last episode. It did, and for me, the ending was poor. It was too abrupt, with NO reaction. I really felt, after watching years of Voyager (and wondering why I was still watching), that I deserved to see some face to face scenes with Tom Paris and his Father and with Barkley and some of the crew. Getting those scenes from an alternative future timeline was NOT emotionally satisfying.
On the other hand, The Fugitive was at the top of the ratings for years, and Dr. Kimball never found the one-armed man until the last act of the last episode. I always felt it a shame Gilligan didn't get the same treatment and had to wait years before they finally got off that island (they waited so long, Ginger no longer even looked the same). At least with Gilligan, the point was humor, not trying to get off the island.
I wanted to learn 68k. I still have my Amiga 2000 in the attic. I never got used to all the new things like memory management and stuff so I never programmed my Amiga in anything other than Amiga Basic (I did write a scirpt on it, though, that got me in the door and pitching to Ron D. Moore when he was co-exec-producer for ST:TNG).
I'll appologise though for thinking you were one of the "Mac fanatics"
Thanks. It's hard to tell. I used to get fed up with people that knew little about computers, but now I'm in a different position. When I buy equipment, one major concern is how fast can I get it in production, and what kind of training will it require. There are many times I have to work with people that don't know anyting about computers, but are very competent in their field. I'm hiring them to do a job, so I want to make sure they have tools to do their job, instead of tools they have to figure out.
You'll be amazed at how printing out the first few pages of the helpfile,
No, I've seen it work. I've also worked with a number of clients and people working for me who are quite compentent (like lawyers or mortgage brokers), who will avoid a computer if they think they will have ANY trouble using it. (Yes, it's an ego problem, but to me I want the work done, or want to please the client rather than spend time trying to insist they learn an interface.)
You've got a great point, one that I'll remember, about making interfaces pretty. I never noticed that.
If I were working with people who were working from the ground up, I would like them to use whatever I have, but in a field like video editing, I might start by training someone, but eventually have to hire someone who is already trained. I've found it's much easier all around to use the simplest interfact.
Soon I'll probably be using a G5 on my desk. Yes, as you agree, it's an easy to use interface, but I'll be using it when I want to do the editing and I want to be able to reboot to Linux (I've heard Debian can work well on a G4/G5). I've gotten quite used to KDE and a lot of nice little features it has, and would rather not switch if I don't have to.
If the article was about "ease of use" I'd say "Get a mac", but it isn't.
I can agree. I have to admit that I'm speaking out of my prejudice, and giving much more weight to the video editing than anything else. Considering that, other than a few puzzles for distraction, the only game I tend to play is Myst (and its sequals), I always underestimate gaming.
I have a business that got started because of a suite of programs I wrote. It took me 3-4 years, doing almost nothing but programming 24/7. I used to program in 6502 Assembler, back when the Apple//e was a big deal. I hadn't programmed in a decade, and learned Perl, Java, Javascript, HTML, TCL, and several other languages to get this done (many of the languages I had to learn didn't even exist when I had programmed before). All this was done, btw, to create a company that fund me starting a video production company where I can write my own scripts and shoot them, instead of spending my time with video shooting weddings and school plays.
In short, I have no problem dealing with more than just a simple to use program, which you call dumb proof. I have had to learn, on my own, how to design a user interface that makes a complex setting editor seem simple to clients who barely know how to click their way through a series of folders on a Windows system. I know that on/. there is a tendency to look down on ANYTHING that doesn't require a strong computer background to understand, but there's also a lot to be said for using a tool that works.
When I pick up a hammer, I don't have to read the directions. I've used it, I know it, it works like all other hammers I've used. Rather than spending any time learning to use it, I can go directly to the task at hand. When I pick up a new video camera, in most cases I can use it almost immediately, since most features are the same from camera to camera (I can rarely even tell you what camera I am using, since I don't remember model names and numbers well -- I often just know by the feel where the controls are).
The same is true with editing. There are interfaces and customs that have evolved over the history of video production. When I sit down at an Avid, I don't have to waste time thinking about HOW I'm going to edit, I spend my time thinking about WHAT I'm editing and can focus on things like what is the right transition, is the pacing of this scene what I want it to be, do I need an establishing shot, or is it clear from the interior sets where the characters are. If I have to spend time reading manuals, looking up features, and continually checking helpfiles, then I'm spending my time (which, as a video professional, is very valuable) NOT editing, but learning a new system.
So you may like to use words lime "dumb proof", but it's not that simple. I can handle the full, 100% geek stuff, but if I'm doing a job, I want to sit down and use the tool and be productive as quickly as possible and have as much power at my fingertips as possible immediately. If the programmers at Apple have been able to produce a program that is powerful, gives me all I need in a video editor (or DVD authoring program), and is easy for me to use, then they have outdone what the competition has done. Instead of giving me a program where I need to waste time figuring it out, I can take a program like Final Cut, sit down, and be doing my job at full capacity in minutes, instead of hours. What's even better, from my point of view, is that my employees can do the same thing.
It might cost more to get a Mac, but it's a one time expense, compared to having to pay employees for the hours it can take when they learn programs without as intuitive an interface. I'm paying them to edit, not to have to learn a program that wasn't designed with enough elegance and simplicity that they could learn it while they worked.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that was an issue. I think all the people being deposed from Infineon were mid to high level management (iirc). I don't think there was a single tech guy from Infineon at all.
The engineer that was there, that I mentioned, was not an employee, though. He was a hired expert witness.
Actually, no -- and, honestly, the German connection was not in my mind when I wrote that (although the image of them swaggering around back when I worked with them may have had some connection to that). Infineon had hired a New York law firm to handle their case. The law firm for Infineon was from the Southwest, somewhere from Texas to California (don't remember exactly, and don't remember the firm names).
I remember only one German, either as a lawyer or a witness. He was being questioned about a meeting. Even though it was an "official" meeting, and minutes were kept (and he had his notes, on VERY old floppies, he said), he couldn't remember anyone there and basically wouldn't admit to being there, or knowing what was going on. I forgot the details, but it was all I could do to keep from laughing. It was almost as bad as Clinton and his, "I did not have sex with that woman" thing -- I expected the German, at any moment, to start saying something like, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
This German was much more like Sgt. Schultz -- except we all knew he knew exactly what he claimed he didn't know.
First, it's about time. I worked as a videographer in 2000-2001, and taped MANY Rambus/Infineon depositions. I was glad to be in the know about what was going on, but after a while it got quite boring -- except in situations where a lawyer was questioning an expert. I remember one time an Infineon lawyer was questioning a Rambus hired expert and asked him what a flip-flop was. He answered a switch, then the lawyer asked him if it could be used as memory, and the expert (rightly, if you remember your electronics) said in some situations. After an hour, the lawyer still wasn't clear on what a flip-flop was, but the expert had answered every question accurately!
It was pretty clear, from the beginning (I think one deposition I had to do one Saturday morning was the first in the case), that Rambus was trying to pull a fast one, but all the technicalities let them keep doing it. Unfortunately, the Infineon lawyers were, almost every single one, rude, pompous jerks that reminded me of Commandant Klink swaggering around like they were important and the Rambus lawyers are calm, polite, and great to work for. It was a shame to see the nice guys on the side I hoped would lose.
Why subscribe to Slashdot for that?
Just hook the thing up to a good random number generator, like a good cup of really hot tea. It'll be sure to wipe out those rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
Oh, and call it a Seldon box, just for fun.
Whether or not a package has a label on it, there's still a chance that if someone even suspects it's valuable, it might not get there. I bet if you ask a few people who have sent/received packages in similar places, you'd find out that many times the packages arrive opened, or opened and re-sealed.
So Emacs is Vi with fuzzy dice?
But you can go much faster in a GTO.
So is Emacs a fruit or a muscle car?
(And why would one want to throw an orange GTO? They're much more fun to drive.)
An OS, hunh? Someone else just told me it's a religion.
So let me get this straight: Someone had to write Viper to make Emacs work as well as vi?
(Yes, I realize how dangerous it is to make a joke like that!)
I'm happy, I enjoy life, I'm making more than I need, and I have a business I created that is successful.
Not buying into the lifestyle you've created doesn't mean I'm into the hippie lifestyle. It's not either black or white. There's a lot of gray area in between -- and for those with imagination, there's a whole rainbow in between.
I just decided to stop playing by the hardball rules where everything is zero-sum (it's not enough for me to win, but others have to lose), and focused more on win-win situations. Maybe it's beyond your view of the world, but it works great for me.
I have the resources I need. Within a year or so I'll be starting a new business, using the profit from this one, where I'll be producing (in digital video and digital film) my own movies from the scripts I write. I don't see how I can be giving up a +1 when I found a way to do what few writers can: create a film company that produces his own scripts the way he wants, without producers telling him what to re-write.
But, again, with that deep and original insight you show into the business world, I'm sure you're doing a fantastic job with your own business that's dominating the rest of the world.
And you think any other major company is in it to provide a better product or service?
Did I say I thought that? Where did I say I thought that? Where did I imply I thought that?
Microsoft is the company under discussion, so my comments were about Microsoft.
So how, exactly, did you infer that I felt no other company behaves the same way.
The world revolves around money, power, and influence.
Yeah, I thought that way at one point. I'm glad I dropped out of the rat race and found I can live without taking part of that lifestyle. It makes life much easier and enjoyable. I've also left a lot of stress behind and am much healthier. The world is what we make of it. If you want to insist it is about money and power, than I hope you find a lot of money and power. I'm sure with your insights, you've found it wasy to start your own business and will soon be dominating your own field of endeavor.
It's about power and domination, period.
Look at their attitudes from the beginning. They can never accept simple success. They only consider themselves successful when they have destroyed the competition. They have never competed on the quality of their product, or on a level playing field. They compete by force, like buying out their opposition, or giving away products until the opposition goes broke.
While they like the money, it's about a small group of men at the top who want nothing more than to rule the world.
misinterpreting your position
And that's the sound of another thousand after wondering just what that phrase referred to.
That makes it sound so much like Mos Eisley, now I want to go there. (I figure if I make it, I know where I can pick up a slightly used landspeeder cheap.)
So EMACS is some kind if viper clone?
Hmmmm..
Maybe I should have used "light sarcasm" tags. I didn't realize anyone would be literal enough to take that comment seriously.
EMACS?
Isn't that some kind of vi clone? (he said as he hid under the table, cowering in fear...)
Okay, so the Lizard is split into Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird. With XUL, you can write applications that run on Mozilla. It does about everything but play games and work as an office suite. So when are we going to see Mozilla integrated in with OpenOffice and the two together turned into MOS (Mozilla OS)?
Yes, it's true. Anything digital can be cracked. I agree, but it just seems to me Microsoft makes far less effort at making ANYTHING of theirs secure (again, promise, get money, fix a few bugs while working on the next version you can charge for) than other companies or groups. I'm not jumping on them because they're MS, I'm jumping on them because, in my experience, they don't produce secure tools.
And yes, I'm sure when Linux is much more common place, we'll see problems there, too, but when that happens, I'll bail for BSD or something else. There is also more of a focus on security in Linux in the first place.
I really do not mean this just as a troll, but after all the problems with Windows, IE, Outlook, and Office, I find it impossible to feel secure with ANYTHING Microsoft sells. I feel they have proven their focus is on getting a product out and getting the money, THEN worrying about fixing it, which is usually done with upgrades that cost more money. They're a business, and their goal is to get you to buy it, but I have yet to see one shred of evidence that they are as concerned about their products being secure as they are about getting paid.
I think I once read something about Bill Gates saying his business model was to first promise something great, second, get the money, third, deliver it, and fourth, worry about the bugs and fixes later. We all know, though, that once you've sold something, the support from almost anywhere is not as focused as their efforts to produce the next thing they can sell, which is often the upgrade to fix the problems in the earlier version.
It depends on how fast one's brain kicks in. It's an instinct to put the fire out immediately, after all even a small bag on fire poses a threat to one's home (I know a flam on my front porch, if the weather has been dry, threatens the whole area because of all the leaves and sticks in the area). Likely someone who realizes what it is would realize as their foot is coming down, or just after. Instinct would kick in and operate while the thought is still forming.
I'm sure you (and everyone else here) has heard of one like that, but I'll mention it anyway.
Instead of piling on his doorstop, drop some into a paper bag, put it on his porch, set it on fire, then knock loudly and run. Of course, when he sees it, the first thing he'll do is try to stomp out the fire...
Fish work better if they're fresh, then left in the hubcaps during the early summer. That way if they see you prowling around, they don't see any damage, and about the time they feel safe (in a day or two), the fish start smelling and it'll take them a good while to find them. There's also a good chance the heat will bake the dead fish onto the hubcaps and wheels themselves, so by the time they find them, they'll have quite an interesting cleanup job.
You're right. I forgot about it. There were a few good points to Voyager, especially after Nick Sagan came in. There's a line in one episode where Neelix says, "You can't scare me with your technobabble." That was a symptom the series was about to go through a serious change. The newer writers, at that point, started focusing on characters and relationships, and the show became more about the characters than about getting home.
I knew, from the beginning, that there would be a number of "This is it! We've found the way home!" episodes, which are really, really stupid. The viewers KNOW it won't happen, because if it did, there'd be no more series. We all knew from the start that Voyager would either get home in the last act of the last episode. It did, and for me, the ending was poor. It was too abrupt, with NO reaction. I really felt, after watching years of Voyager (and wondering why I was still watching), that I deserved to see some face to face scenes with Tom Paris and his Father and with Barkley and some of the crew. Getting those scenes from an alternative future timeline was NOT emotionally satisfying.
On the other hand, The Fugitive was at the top of the ratings for years, and Dr. Kimball never found the one-armed man until the last act of the last episode. I always felt it a shame Gilligan didn't get the same treatment and had to wait years before they finally got off that island (they waited so long, Ginger no longer even looked the same). At least with Gilligan, the point was humor, not trying to get off the island.
I used to write in m68k ASM when amiga
I wanted to learn 68k. I still have my Amiga 2000 in the attic. I never got used to all the new things like memory management and stuff so I never programmed my Amiga in anything other than Amiga Basic (I did write a scirpt on it, though, that got me in the door and pitching to Ron D. Moore when he was co-exec-producer for ST:TNG).
I'll appologise though for thinking you were one of the "Mac fanatics"
Thanks. It's hard to tell. I used to get fed up with people that knew little about computers, but now I'm in a different position. When I buy equipment, one major concern is how fast can I get it in production, and what kind of training will it require. There are many times I have to work with people that don't know anyting about computers, but are very competent in their field. I'm hiring them to do a job, so I want to make sure they have tools to do their job, instead of tools they have to figure out.
You'll be amazed at how printing out the first few pages of the helpfile,
No, I've seen it work. I've also worked with a number of clients and people working for me who are quite compentent (like lawyers or mortgage brokers), who will avoid a computer if they think they will have ANY trouble using it. (Yes, it's an ego problem, but to me I want the work done, or want to please the client rather than spend time trying to insist they learn an interface.)
You've got a great point, one that I'll remember, about making interfaces pretty. I never noticed that.
If I were working with people who were working from the ground up, I would like them to use whatever I have, but in a field like video editing, I might start by training someone, but eventually have to hire someone who is already trained. I've found it's much easier all around to use the simplest interfact.
Soon I'll probably be using a G5 on my desk. Yes, as you agree, it's an easy to use interface, but I'll be using it when I want to do the editing and I want to be able to reboot to Linux (I've heard Debian can work well on a G4/G5). I've gotten quite used to KDE and a lot of nice little features it has, and would rather not switch if I don't have to.
If the article was about "ease of use" I'd say "Get a mac", but it isn't.
I can agree. I have to admit that I'm speaking out of my prejudice, and giving much more weight to the video editing than anything else. Considering that, other than a few puzzles for distraction, the only game I tend to play is Myst (and its sequals), I always underestimate gaming.
I have a business that got started because of a suite of programs I wrote. It took me 3-4 years, doing almost nothing but programming 24/7. I used to program in 6502 Assembler, back when the Apple //e was a big deal. I hadn't programmed in a decade, and learned Perl, Java, Javascript, HTML, TCL, and several other languages to get this done (many of the languages I had to learn didn't even exist when I had programmed before). All this was done, btw, to create a company that fund me starting a video production company where I can write my own scripts and shoot them, instead of spending my time with video shooting weddings and school plays.
/. there is a tendency to look down on ANYTHING that doesn't require a strong computer background to understand, but there's also a lot to be said for using a tool that works.
In short, I have no problem dealing with more than just a simple to use program, which you call dumb proof. I have had to learn, on my own, how to design a user interface that makes a complex setting editor seem simple to clients who barely know how to click their way through a series of folders on a Windows system. I know that on
When I pick up a hammer, I don't have to read the directions. I've used it, I know it, it works like all other hammers I've used. Rather than spending any time learning to use it, I can go directly to the task at hand. When I pick up a new video camera, in most cases I can use it almost immediately, since most features are the same from camera to camera (I can rarely even tell you what camera I am using, since I don't remember model names and numbers well -- I often just know by the feel where the controls are).
The same is true with editing. There are interfaces and customs that have evolved over the history of video production. When I sit down at an Avid, I don't have to waste time thinking about HOW I'm going to edit, I spend my time thinking about WHAT I'm editing and can focus on things like what is the right transition, is the pacing of this scene what I want it to be, do I need an establishing shot, or is it clear from the interior sets where the characters are. If I have to spend time reading manuals, looking up features, and continually checking helpfiles, then I'm spending my time (which, as a video professional, is very valuable) NOT editing, but learning a new system.
So you may like to use words lime "dumb proof", but it's not that simple. I can handle the full, 100% geek stuff, but if I'm doing a job, I want to sit down and use the tool and be productive as quickly as possible and have as much power at my fingertips as possible immediately. If the programmers at Apple have been able to produce a program that is powerful, gives me all I need in a video editor (or DVD authoring program), and is easy for me to use, then they have outdone what the competition has done. Instead of giving me a program where I need to waste time figuring it out, I can take a program like Final Cut, sit down, and be doing my job at full capacity in minutes, instead of hours. What's even better, from my point of view, is that my employees can do the same thing.
It might cost more to get a Mac, but it's a one time expense, compared to having to pay employees for the hours it can take when they learn programs without as intuitive an interface. I'm paying them to edit, not to have to learn a program that wasn't designed with enough elegance and simplicity that they could learn it while they worked.