you should understand that just because the Mac has least market peneteration, people and companies just don't care to make Spyware for it. Nobody wants to work on something that'll give them the computer usage statistics of just a few percent of user among the billions of those out there.
This is only partially true. If it were, we'd see far more malware directed at UNIX/Linux/Other servers. That would hit a LOT of users. So Windows has lots of users AND its security model pretty much sucks, which combine to make it the target of choice for the enterprising computer vandal.
OS X is fundamentally more secure than Windows. Now before I get flamed as a Jobs-fellating mac fanboi, note that I'm not saying OS X is perfect. Got it? Not perfect. Good. Better. Me like. But not perfect. Thanks for listening, and OS X is not perfect.
This makes me so mad I can barely see. How will this guy live with himself after wasting bandwidth and heartbeats sharing such shitty movies? I hope they double the fine and sentence.
Jeez, everyone's jumping all over this. "Why not read the street signs?" "What about GPS? This is stupid!" So the submitter cited some lame examples. Join the 0.05% percent of slashdotters and RTFA. He cites ideas like taking a picture of a cafe and getting a food review, or taking a picture of a French menu and getting a translation.
Maybe it could never work, but in principle, this isn't a bad idea.
As a kid, my favorite comics were Siler Surfer, Captain Marvel (Marvel's Captain Marvel, whom they killed off), and the Fantastic Four. So a large part of me eagerly anticipates this, but I also can't help but wonder...Do we REALLY want cinematic versions of every frickin' comic and TV show? Maybe Hollywood could stick to ORIGINAL ideas?
This is one of the reason I call bullshit on anyone who says that videogames can't actually spawn violence, or that it's easy to entirely differentiate between videogames and real life. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
I remember Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, talking about the various theories of Venus' rich biosphere. He noted that when we look at Venus, we can't see anything at all, and conclude that it must be teeming with life!
This is a similar situation. So far, you've observed that GTA has not incited violence, so you've concluded that it must incite violence. It's not a very convincing line of reasoning.
I could see that if we were talking about becoming a doctor, or an artist, or even other jobs that have more human interaction, but software engineering to computer engineering? That's a pretty small change. "Oh, insurance is so boring, I want to move into my real passion -- accounting!"
Good point. I'm thinking of a general principle, but the specifics might make it kind of a silly choice to make.
Then again, I don't really know. Maybe accounting is really a lot more rewarding for someone than insurance. Hell, I know a friend of a friend of a friend who just loves his job mucking out septic tanks. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Perhaps, but hindsight is 20/20. You take a risk by leaving your comfortably dull situation. It might work out, and it might not. I don't think someone who takes a risk for a good reason is stupid just because things didn't work out.
I think OP's point was that taking this risk is inherently stupid. I can't agree.
First step, stop lying: "A few months ago, I quit my secure, well-paying (but boring) job as a software engineer"
Second step, if that really is the truth, you're clearly not bright enough to go back to school.
Jeez, that's cynical. Some of us have been willing to trade some security and salary for a shot at a job we would actually enjoy. I did that, and am much, much happier for it.
I hope I have get to see the next time you make a mistake and some jackass jumps all over you for it.
It's true that you shouldn't be jumped on for the occasional typo, grammatical error, or whatever. But your original post was overflowing with errors. Look:
assumpsion
incorect
Its a 'fact'
can not
faster then light, well that is unless its being ejected from a black hole. (Should be "than" and "it's." Also a run-on sentence.)
The universe is already known to not be consistent, everything we know about it is hinged on the current situation it was observed in, its all relative. (Three sentences strung together with commas, and "its" should be "it's.")
"Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"
Informal communication doesn't require the highest standards, but your writings are loaded with errors. It may be unjust, but an inability to write coherently, grammatically, and with mostly correct spelling doesn't help one's credibility. I really don't mean this to be a flame - It's just that you're wrong feeling persecuted for some random slip. The errors are consistent.
And just because you want it to be doesn't mean there is a god. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's not a very fruitful line of argument.
I don't have the strength to get into a whole thing over this, but I must say three things:
1 - Relativity is not the same as inconsistency. 2 - Your assertions are a bunch of nonsequiturs, and it looks as if you really don't know much about physics. 3 - In light of that, who the hell are you to determine what's a "correct" answer to "Is Light a Partical (sic) or Wave?" (Bonus 3b: Why the weird capitalization?)
Its all politics, if the engineers had 100% say, they would have designed the bot to work on mars for 20-30years, even with dead batteries, just make it work in the day and smart software to know where its up to if it looses power.
I love it when somone just pulls stuff like this out of their ass and decides it's true. Why 20-30 years? As long as you're making stuff up, make it 100! Do I hear 1000? And it could run on cold fusion and and turn into a helicopter, too! Stupid politicians -- they ruin everything.
Why do people insist on acting like they know the inner workings of something like NASA when, in fact, they know precisely squat?
My God, we're doomed! I mean, if an asteroid too small to hit the surface can go undetected, how will we blast it out of the sky with our Planetary Orbital Defense Network?
Problem is, he wasn't making an extreme generalization about PC users. He was saying that we always see that type of comment in response to anything about the cost of using a Mac. So the only generalization was that such comments appear, and yes, he did caricature those comments for humorous effect. But what you wrote is not analogous.
It's almost noon, so it's time for my martini to warm me up for my Candle Artists Against War group trip to the Morrisey concert. Ta!
Tell your friend not to install all that stuff that gives him malware.
Yeah. Tell him not to install IE!
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick. I just know from experience that all of my non-geek (not stupid) relatives get infested with spyware during the course of just browsing with IE. Nobody here is saying Macs are impregnable, but it is simply undeniable that they do not have the spyware issues at all. On my Windows boxes, I get spyware infections regularly (not often, but regularly). I fix them, because I'm vigilant, but even with high security settings, some stuff gets through and I have to remove it. For a non-geek, this is a nightmare, and I get annoyed at all the talk about "moron users" being the cause of all malware infections. Yeah, a lot of malware takes some bonehead moves to get, but much does not.
I don't use Windows much anymore, but I spend a lot of time cleaning up relatives' PCs, although that has taken a downturn since I've started convincing them to use Firefox. IE is Internet Evil.
Yes, that money may have been better spent in actually fixing the items that need these security tools, but it seems like they can't win either way.
Since they haven't fixed those items, they don't deserve to "win" either way.
I keep seeing the analogy with people's complaints about IE. Not the same. With IE, MS undercut the competition with a tool for using the computer, not for fixing problems of its own making. The WWW isn't a Microsoft bug.
MS is caught in a Catch-22 of its own making. My heart bleeds.
First off, they probably figured that, no matter what they did, you (as someone who had read and enjoyed the book) wouldn't like their adaptation.
Probably so. But it's not true, and it seems like throwing a bone to us readers doesn't cost them anything.
Second, imagine Danny Glover whispering Ged in his ear with that echoey effect...not quite the same as Sparrow Hawk.
Again, you're probably right. Wouldn't be the first time the story is driven by an effect, rather than the other way around.
And the staff he carried around, it had a hawk's head on it. It's a little harder to have something iconic of the name Ged and it wouldn't seem as meaninful for his staff to be tied to his common name
Fair point, but I'd find it more compelling if they'd actually managed to imbue anything in this turdburger with meaning.:-)
Perhaps Ged tested better in focus groups or something.
I guess I don't see much point in making a movie version of a book and then just randomly altering the story. I know, the name's a draw. As an aside, this all reminds me of one of my pet peeves: It seemed to be a fad some handful of years ago to put the book's author's name in movie titles. The example that comes to mind is "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Dammit, that is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula; Bram Stoker never wrote a bloody screenplay, he wrote a book! The title is false by definition! There oughta be a law, mutter, mutter...
OK, I'm rambling. Sorry.
Not saying it was the right call, but perhaps that's what they were thinking.
I understand. It's always hard to peer into the mind of someone who's not thinking very clearly in the first place.:-)
Pretty mild namecalling. But still, I gave in to my baser impulses and shouldn't call names. So I hereby apologize for that. I'm sorry.
No, it really doesn't. It's not 'stupid' either.
Yes it does! Yes it is! Infinity! Nyeah!:-P
Really. Are you going to want to join their community then? Are you going to want to go to them for help, tips, advice? Are you honestly telling me that on finding a board full of Subaru-owning (/Subaru fanboys(?)) 'arrogant dickheads' you wanted in on that experience?
I bought a frickin' car. I didn't join their "community." I have found other Subaru owners that are very helpful, but that doesn't negate the fact that it would be easy for me to pick out the worst of the whole and paint them with the "dickhead" epithet. I didn't have that experience. Your idea that buying iron means you're obliged to be in a community of any kind is odd.
Besides, as I've written elsewhere, if you think the Mac community is nothing but mindless fanboys, you're wrong. I'd like to know where a dickhead-free body of users of any platform exists.
Interesting criterion for determining if a question has been asked. Feel free to omit a reply to this if you can't find a question in my previous sentence to answer. I said he posed a question: 'MacOS amazes me, but not as much as peoples resistance to it amazes me.' Did you think OP was just thinking and accidentally carried on typing?
That is a statement, not a question. You can infer a question, but he didn't pose a question. Posing a question is an explicit act. Commenting on an offered opinion is not answering a question, so I don't need a question to give a response. I was just saying you didn't answer a posed question. I wouldn't even have answered this, but you challenged me and I had to preserve my honor.
I disagree. But kudos to you for assuming offence on someone else's behalf and jumping in!
Come on. Work with me. This is a public forum. You didn't write a private message, and I found it likely to be offensive (I was not personally offended.). Obviously, so did a moderator. Yet you'd rather attribute it to all those mean Mac users and not consider your own behavior.
Firstly, I don't think you're in a position to be handing out 'free tips'. But then again: who'd pay.
Cute. You seem to be very fond of judging everything by who says it, rather than its own merit.
Secondly, I said 'people like you' because that's what I meant.
I never said that wasn't what you meant. I said that you shouldn't be surprised when you make that kind of remark that people find it offensive.
I was specifically talking about users like the OP. If you want to read an offensive connotation into that or see that as 'flamebait' then that's really up to you.
I didn't moderate your comment. I was explaining to you why you're more likely to have actually been offensive than merely persecuted.
But I think what you're missing is that while you claim to have only been addressing OP and users like him, your statements further imply that such people are representative of Mac users as a whole - otherwise, why would you be so concerned about the "experience?"
I will now magnanimously give you the last word, should you want it.
That's not: refuse to use; have never used; will never own; will recoil whenever I see one.
OK, Mr. Hairsplitter, let me amend my comment to be more precise:
Choosing to resist a type of computer because you don't like the attitude of some of its users is pretty stupid.
There. It still works.
It's simply that I find a lot of the users' advocacy myopic and off-putting.
OK, but how does that indicate anything at all about the platform's usefulness to you? When I was car shopping, I went to a Subaru user's board and thought most of the people there were arrogant dickheads. Didn't stop me from considering, and buying, a Subaru.
And tellingly, I dare to post this opinion, I answer a posed question, and it's 'flamebait'.
You didn't answer a posed question. I went back and looked at said flamebait's parent, and it doesn't even contain a single question mark. You just wrote a really insulting response to someone else's opinion. That's not just a neutral opinion, and it could reasonably be contrued as flamebait (Here's a free tip: you are usually in flamebait territory whenever you use the phrase "people like you."). But you just go ahead and enjoy thinking you're being persecuted for nobly standing up for truth.
What I don't get is, why make such a change at all? It serves no dramatic purpose, but it's jarring to those of us who read the books. Do they make changes just for the sake of making changes?
I am usually a pretty accepting type when it comes to these kinds of adaptations. I give the makers a lot of benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like it. I tried to like it. But I thought this thing absolutely blew. Very, very disappointing.
Not if you're accustomed to getting your support from user communities online, rather than calling support. It would take an awful lot of zealots to turn me off of an operating system, but I've certainly seen this phenomenon in action. Ask the "wrong" question and everyone piles on with criticism, the question goes unanswered, and the user who is evaluating some new technology says "to hell with it."
I'd love to see an example of this. In my experience, the community of Mac users has been a great resource, and I've never seen a case of someone getting trashed for asking an honest question, the occasional troll notwithstanding.
So, while it's not as Truly Perfect as the Apple True Believers will try and tell you, it is a damn fine system.
I'm not trying to be a dickhead here, and I'm not objecting to anything you wrote, but I have a general observation.
It occurs to me that this True Believer stuff is an overblown perception. I know a lot of people like me, who love OS X, but not a single one of them is without some complaints about it. I sure don't know of anyone who says it's perfect. Apple users tend to get pretty devoted and enthusiastic, but I think the caricature of the Apple True Believer/Zealot/Mindless Fanboi is a bit more than is actually the case.
Just for one thing I dislike about OS X: Lack of thumbnail view in finder windows. You have to go to column view and click images one at a time to see their previews. Annoying.
I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you why I resist Macs: it's because of people like you. Frankly, I find your amazement at MacOS and blind belief in Apple frightening.
Choosing not to use a type of computer because you don't like the attitude of some of its users is pretty stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
For those who don't get it:
They could RTFA, as well. I know - I'm a dreamer.
you should understand that just because the Mac has least market peneteration, people and companies just don't care to make Spyware for it. Nobody wants to work on something that'll give them the computer usage statistics of just a few percent of user among the billions of those out there.
This is only partially true. If it were, we'd see far more malware directed at UNIX/Linux/Other servers. That would hit a LOT of users. So Windows has lots of users AND its security model pretty much sucks, which combine to make it the target of choice for the enterprising computer vandal.
OS X is fundamentally more secure than Windows. Now before I get flamed as a Jobs-fellating mac fanboi, note that I'm not saying OS X is perfect. Got it? Not perfect. Good. Better. Me like. But not perfect. Thanks for listening, and OS X is not perfect.
This makes me so mad I can barely see. How will this guy live with himself after wasting bandwidth and heartbeats sharing such shitty movies? I hope they double the fine and sentence.
Jeez, everyone's jumping all over this. "Why not read the street signs?" "What about GPS? This is stupid!" So the submitter cited some lame examples. Join the 0.05% percent of slashdotters and RTFA. He cites ideas like taking a picture of a cafe and getting a food review, or taking a picture of a French menu and getting a translation.
Maybe it could never work, but in principle, this isn't a bad idea.
As a kid, my favorite comics were Siler Surfer, Captain Marvel (Marvel's Captain Marvel, whom they killed off), and the Fantastic Four. So a large part of me eagerly anticipates this, but I also can't help but wonder...Do we REALLY want cinematic versions of every frickin' comic and TV show? Maybe Hollywood could stick to ORIGINAL ideas?
Yeah, I know... Canned ideas mean more $$$$.
Still, can't they just leave some things be?!
I'm honestly torn about this.
This is one of the reason I call bullshit on anyone who says that videogames can't actually spawn violence, or that it's easy to entirely differentiate between videogames and real life. I'd like to hear more opinions on this.
I remember Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, talking about the various theories of Venus' rich biosphere. He noted that when we look at Venus, we can't see anything at all, and conclude that it must be teeming with life!
This is a similar situation. So far, you've observed that GTA has not incited violence, so you've concluded that it must incite violence. It's not a very convincing line of reasoning.
He is not the character you reference, but by an astonishing coincidence his name is, in fact, Winston Rothschild!
Actually, I can't remember the guy's name. Just his smell.
I could see that if we were talking about becoming a doctor, or an artist, or even other jobs that have more human interaction, but software engineering to computer engineering? That's a pretty small change. "Oh, insurance is so boring, I want to move into my real passion -- accounting!"
Good point. I'm thinking of a general principle, but the specifics might make it kind of a silly choice to make.
Then again, I don't really know. Maybe accounting is really a lot more rewarding for someone than insurance. Hell, I know a friend of a friend of a friend who just loves his job mucking out septic tanks. Takes all kinds, I guess.
Perhaps, but hindsight is 20/20. You take a risk by leaving your comfortably dull situation. It might work out, and it might not. I don't think someone who takes a risk for a good reason is stupid just because things didn't work out.
I think OP's point was that taking this risk is inherently stupid. I can't agree.
First step, stop lying:
"A few months ago, I quit my secure, well-paying (but boring) job as a software engineer"
Second step, if that really is the truth, you're clearly not bright enough to go back to school.
Jeez, that's cynical. Some of us have been willing to trade some security and salary for a shot at a job we would actually enjoy. I did that, and am much, much happier for it.
I hope I have get to see the next time you make a mistake and some jackass jumps all over you for it.
It's true that you shouldn't be jumped on for the occasional typo, grammatical error, or whatever. But your original post was overflowing with errors. Look:
assumpsion
incorect
Its a 'fact'
can not
faster then light, well that is unless its being ejected from a black hole. (Should be "than" and "it's." Also a run-on sentence.)
The universe is already known to not be consistent, everything we know about it is hinged on the current situation it was observed in, its all relative. (Three sentences strung together with commas, and "its" should be "it's.")
"Is Light a Partical or a Wave?"
Informal communication doesn't require the highest standards, but your writings are loaded with errors. It may be unjust, but an inability to write coherently, grammatically, and with mostly correct spelling doesn't help one's credibility. I really don't mean this to be a flame - It's just that you're wrong feeling persecuted for some random slip. The errors are consistent.
And just because you want it to be doesn't mean there is a god. Lather, rinse, repeat. That's not a very fruitful line of argument.
I don't have the strength to get into a whole thing over this, but I must say three things:
1 - Relativity is not the same as inconsistency.
2 - Your assertions are a bunch of nonsequiturs, and it looks as if you really don't know much about physics.
3 - In light of that, who the hell are you to determine what's a "correct" answer to "Is Light a Partical (sic) or Wave?" (Bonus 3b: Why the weird capitalization?)
Its all politics, if the engineers had 100% say, they would have designed the bot to work on mars for 20-30years, even with dead batteries, just make it work in the day and smart software to know where its up to if it looses power.
I love it when somone just pulls stuff like this out of their ass and decides it's true. Why 20-30 years? As long as you're making stuff up, make it 100! Do I hear 1000? And it could run on cold fusion and and turn into a helicopter, too! Stupid politicians -- they ruin everything.
Why do people insist on acting like they know the inner workings of something like NASA when, in fact, they know precisely squat?
My God, we're doomed! I mean, if an asteroid too small to hit the surface can go undetected, how will we blast it out of the sky with our Planetary Orbital Defense Network?
Extreme generalizations you say? My bad.
Problem is, he wasn't making an extreme generalization about PC users. He was saying that we always see that type of comment in response to anything about the cost of using a Mac. So the only generalization was that such comments appear, and yes, he did caricature those comments for humorous effect. But what you wrote is not analogous.
It's almost noon, so it's time for my martini to warm me up for my Candle Artists Against War group trip to the Morrisey concert. Ta!
Tell your friend not to install all that stuff that gives him malware.
Yeah. Tell him not to install IE!
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a dick. I just know from experience that all of my non-geek (not stupid) relatives get infested with spyware during the course of just browsing with IE. Nobody here is saying Macs are impregnable, but it is simply undeniable that they do not have the spyware issues at all. On my Windows boxes, I get spyware infections regularly (not often, but regularly). I fix them, because I'm vigilant, but even with high security settings, some stuff gets through and I have to remove it. For a non-geek, this is a nightmare, and I get annoyed at all the talk about "moron users" being the cause of all malware infections. Yeah, a lot of malware takes some bonehead moves to get, but much does not.
I don't use Windows much anymore, but I spend a lot of time cleaning up relatives' PCs, although that has taken a downturn since I've started convincing them to use Firefox. IE is Internet Evil.
Yes, that money may have been better spent in actually fixing the items that need these security tools, but it seems like they can't win either way.
Since they haven't fixed those items, they don't deserve to "win" either way.
I keep seeing the analogy with people's complaints about IE. Not the same. With IE, MS undercut the competition with a tool for using the computer, not for fixing problems of its own making. The WWW isn't a Microsoft bug.
MS is caught in a Catch-22 of its own making. My heart bleeds.
Choosing to use a computer because of rave reviews on Slashdot is even stupider.
Prolly at least *as* stupid. Not sure if it's moreso or not.
First off, they probably figured that, no matter what they did, you (as someone who had read and enjoyed the book) wouldn't like their adaptation.
:-)
:-)
Probably so. But it's not true, and it seems like throwing a bone to us readers doesn't cost them anything.
Second, imagine Danny Glover whispering Ged in his ear with that echoey effect...not quite the same as Sparrow Hawk.
Again, you're probably right. Wouldn't be the first time the story is driven by an effect, rather than the other way around.
And the staff he carried around, it had a hawk's head on it. It's a little harder to have something iconic of the name Ged and it wouldn't seem as meaninful for his staff to be tied to his common name
Fair point, but I'd find it more compelling if they'd actually managed to imbue anything in this turdburger with meaning.
Perhaps Ged tested better in focus groups or something.
I guess I don't see much point in making a movie version of a book and then just randomly altering the story. I know, the name's a draw. As an aside, this all reminds me of one of my pet peeves: It seemed to be a fad some handful of years ago to put the book's author's name in movie titles. The example that comes to mind is "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Dammit, that is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula; Bram Stoker never wrote a bloody screenplay, he wrote a book! The title is false by definition! There oughta be a law, mutter, mutter...
OK, I'm rambling. Sorry.
Not saying it was the right call, but perhaps that's what they were thinking.
I understand. It's always hard to peer into the mind of someone who's not thinking very clearly in the first place.
Oh good: opening with name calling.
:-P
Pretty mild namecalling. But still, I gave in to my baser impulses and shouldn't call names. So I hereby apologize for that. I'm sorry.
No, it really doesn't. It's not 'stupid' either.
Yes it does! Yes it is! Infinity! Nyeah!
Really. Are you going to want to join their community then? Are you going to want to go to them for help, tips, advice? Are you honestly telling me that on finding a board full of Subaru-owning (/Subaru fanboys(?)) 'arrogant dickheads' you wanted in on that experience?
I bought a frickin' car. I didn't join their "community." I have found other Subaru owners that are very helpful, but that doesn't negate the fact that it would be easy for me to pick out the worst of the whole and paint them with the "dickhead" epithet. I didn't have that experience. Your idea that buying iron means you're obliged to be in a community of any kind is odd.
Besides, as I've written elsewhere, if you think the Mac community is nothing but mindless fanboys, you're wrong. I'd like to know where a dickhead-free body of users of any platform exists.
Interesting criterion for determining if a question has been asked. Feel free to omit a reply to this if you can't find a question in my previous sentence to answer. I said he posed a question: 'MacOS amazes me, but not as much as peoples resistance to it amazes me.' Did you think OP was just thinking and accidentally carried on typing?
That is a statement, not a question. You can infer a question, but he didn't pose a question. Posing a question is an explicit act. Commenting on an offered opinion is not answering a question, so I don't need a question to give a response. I was just saying you didn't answer a posed question. I wouldn't even have answered this, but you challenged me and I had to preserve my honor.
I disagree. But kudos to you for assuming offence on someone else's behalf and jumping in!
Come on. Work with me. This is a public forum. You didn't write a private message, and I found it likely to be offensive (I was not personally offended.). Obviously, so did a moderator. Yet you'd rather attribute it to all those mean Mac users and not consider your own behavior.
Firstly, I don't think you're in a position to be handing out 'free tips'. But then again: who'd pay.
Cute. You seem to be very fond of judging everything by who says it, rather than its own merit.
Secondly, I said 'people like you' because that's what I meant.
I never said that wasn't what you meant. I said that you shouldn't be surprised when you make that kind of remark that people find it offensive.
I was specifically talking about users like the OP. If you want to read an offensive connotation into that or see that as 'flamebait' then that's really up to you.
I didn't moderate your comment. I was explaining to you why you're more likely to have actually been offensive than merely persecuted.
But I think what you're missing is that while you claim to have only been addressing OP and users like him, your statements further imply that such people are representative of Mac users as a whole - otherwise, why would you be so concerned about the "experience?"
I will now magnanimously give you the last word, should you want it.
Yes it is but that's _not_ what I said.
'...I can tell you why I resist Macs'...
That's not: refuse to use; have never used; will never own; will recoil whenever I see one.
OK, Mr. Hairsplitter, let me amend my comment to be more precise:
Choosing to resist a type of computer because you don't like the attitude of some of its users is pretty stupid.
There. It still works.
It's simply that I find a lot of the users' advocacy myopic and off-putting.
OK, but how does that indicate anything at all about the platform's usefulness to you? When I was car shopping, I went to a Subaru user's board and thought most of the people there were arrogant dickheads. Didn't stop me from considering, and buying, a Subaru.
And tellingly, I dare to post this opinion, I answer a posed question, and it's 'flamebait'.
You didn't answer a posed question. I went back and looked at said flamebait's parent, and it doesn't even contain a single question mark. You just wrote a really insulting response to someone else's opinion. That's not just a neutral opinion, and it could reasonably be contrued as flamebait (Here's a free tip: you are usually in flamebait territory whenever you use the phrase "people like you."). But you just go ahead and enjoy thinking you're being persecuted for nobly standing up for truth.
they switched Ged's true and use-names!
What I don't get is, why make such a change at all? It serves no dramatic purpose, but it's jarring to those of us who read the books. Do they make changes just for the sake of making changes?
I am usually a pretty accepting type when it comes to these kinds of adaptations. I give the makers a lot of benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like it. I tried to like it. But I thought this thing absolutely blew. Very, very disappointing.
Not if you're accustomed to getting your support from user communities online, rather than calling support. It would take an awful lot of zealots to turn me off of an operating system, but I've certainly seen this phenomenon in action. Ask the "wrong" question and everyone piles on with criticism, the question goes unanswered, and the user who is evaluating some new technology says "to hell with it."
I'd love to see an example of this. In my experience, the community of Mac users has been a great resource, and I've never seen a case of someone getting trashed for asking an honest question, the occasional troll notwithstanding.
So, while it's not as Truly Perfect as the Apple True Believers will try and tell you, it is a damn fine system.
I'm not trying to be a dickhead here, and I'm not objecting to anything you wrote, but I have a general observation.
It occurs to me that this True Believer stuff is an overblown perception. I know a lot of people like me, who love OS X, but not a single one of them is without some complaints about it. I sure don't know of anyone who says it's perfect. Apple users tend to get pretty devoted and enthusiastic, but I think the caricature of the Apple True Believer/Zealot/Mindless Fanboi is a bit more than is actually the case.
Just for one thing I dislike about OS X: Lack of thumbnail view in finder windows. You have to go to column view and click images one at a time to see their previews. Annoying.
I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you why I resist Macs: it's because of people like you. Frankly, I find your amazement at MacOS and blind belief in Apple frightening.
Choosing not to use a type of computer because you don't like the attitude of some of its users is pretty stupid.