With Vodafone NZ, the credit lasts a year. So that's about US$10 a year to keep my phone active. I usually top mine up every few months, since I hardly ever make any out-going calls. Your cellphone networks sound pretty harsh.
Unless ThinkSecret broke into Apple (physically or electronically) and stole the info they published, they've done nothing wrong.
Yup. So Apple "believes" that this is what's happening, and are suing. Unless of course, ThinkSecret can put themselves in the clear and avoid costly lawyer fees by revealing their sources.
There are always restrictions to freedom. So to speak. E.G. A truly free society could be one of chaos.
No one requires you to release your code under the GLP. What it does do is ensure that if you decide to release code under the GLP, for the intent of making it free, the GLP makes sure it is keep free.
There is nothing immoral or hypocritical about the GLP. If you think there is, then you don't know how the GLP works, or your logic is flawed.
Well. It's got the word free in it, so it must mean freedom for all of society!
Free trade. The Freedome to set the prices we want! And freedom is good for everyone so free trade must be good for everyone!
Bloody hell. No wonder the world is so fucked up when you have idiots who think like this. Are you aware of the flaws in free markert capitalism? If so, then you should be able to see the flaws in free trade. If not, then you need to so some research.
You assume that if this new wheel is damaged, that it would completely disintergate, causing a greater lose of control than a blowen tire. Exactly what in the hell are you basing this assumption on?
Probably because when they don't need to be transfered to the hospital straight away, they still need to be transfered there at some stage? Why leave the patient at risk and come back for them later when you can stabalise them on the way to the hospital?
And does this mean that when the ambulance leaves, it's going to have to go back and pick-up another crew and supplies from somewhere? Or is it going to carry around extra?
I'm well aware of the point he *wanted* to make. My point is that he did a poor job of making it by using faulty reasoning.
While his calculations were a bit off, he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion. He left it open-end, ambiguous on purpose for others to think about and interpret how they like. He did suggest, but that is different to drawing a conclusion.
What a complete idiot you are. You obviously feel ashamed or something, so you're bitting back with something that you know is obviously not his point. We know that's not what he's trying to say. But I'll spell it out anyway.
The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.
Nah. I'm sorry. You're wrong. The only real worthless people around here are ones that find it OK to waste money--that could be spent on aid--to intentionaly do things that waste human lives. Surely you can see the irony of the whole situation?
Running just Word, Safari, and playing an mp3 in the background drags the 256 meg eMac to its knees[...]
I'm only running 10.2.3. I recently discovered that I was only running on 128MB of RAM after I didn't place the RAM back in properly. I don't have Word, so I can't test that. But running Safari, iTunes, iCal and Mail was not too bad. An eMac would do much better than my 600Mhz G3 iBook. I still think they should run atleast 383MB RAM though.
Okay. Where do I plug in the 512 meg RAM, 160 gig Serial ATA HD, and new Dual Layer DVD burner?
I never said they were as upgradable as most PCs. But saying that they were designed not to be upgraded is wrong. The parts that are most likely to get upgraded are upgradable.
My point still stands. If anything, this new iMac only reinforces it.
So, because it more upgradeable, and easier to upgrade than previous iMacs, this reinforces your point that it's not upgradable?
See point 1. This kind of computer is not upgradable, and will probably still be around in 3 years, with a professor asking me why it can't reliable run the latest Office, Safari, and MP3's at the same time on OS 11
You make this sound as if it's problem where he needs more RAM to catch up with the software. What's stopping you from upgrading the RAM?
I was under the impression that apps come out for Macs (generally) after PCs...so if you wanted to get the latest and greatest just as it hit the shelves --- well you are waiting.
If from the same company, then that's usually the case. But otherwise no.
And yes, there generally is less software. But that doesn't mean that you won't find what you want, or speak for the quality of the software. For example: So what if there are over 300 FTP clients avalible for Windows. Only about 10 of them are going excellent programs. As long as you can find a good software package that you're happy with, who really cares if the range isn't as big? Crap is still crap, even if you have a lot of it to choose from.
Also, Macs are a bit more expensive to buy and repair. And aren't MACs at the epitome of "closed source"? I know they have opened up their hardware a little more in recent years - but how far?
The mainboard, CPU and few other things may be Apple only, and more expensive. But RAM and HDDs--the parts that people are most likely to upgrade--are standard. As for being "closed source", why is this such a problem? It's never been a problem for me before. My cellphone and many other electronics I use are also "closed source". Is it really that bad that my computer is? Hardly that different to most of the PC hardware industry anyway.
More importantly for me is that Apple use many open standards when it comes to software. This makes it easier to migrate to another platform if I decide I don't like the direction Apple is heading in.
As for your mouse, we all know you can replace the one that comes with a Mac. I have yet to come across a PC that came with a mouse I liked either, so I always end up replacing mice anyway. The Mac software that came with my MS mouse allows me to set custom functions to all the buttons and to seperate programs, just like the Win software does. Plus there are 3rd party options. Right-click and scrollwheel are supported without needing any drivers. Same situation as a PC.
1) 256 meg RAM and 40 gig. This is not 2001, people. 256 meg RAM hasn't been "enough" RAM since the nineties.
For basic stuff like browsing the web, checking mail, music and DVDs, 256MB is fine.
You're not _meant_ to upgrade a Mac.
Bullshit. Take a look at the new iMac for starters.
3) Tech support. I work in this area, and if this computer is as crappy as they describe, I don't want to support it.
I'm bit confused here. You seem to be saying that a buggy, unrealible computer is the same as an underpowered computer. Exactly why will this peice of crap be a pain in the ass to support?
The problem is that impulse buyers love to find reasons to hate the products they purchased on impulse. They also like to hate the companies that produce them.
Oh dear... It's all so clear now.
Please don't do drugs while posting in Slashdot. OK?
It's actually more ergonomic to use the command key.
Unless you've been doing what I've been doing for the last 30 minutes; browsing the web with my left arm comfortably under my chin, or in my lap half the time.
I'll give you usablity. But not ergonomics. Because in reality, people don't nessesarly sit with their spare hand over the keyboard all the time if they don't need to use it.
However, I agree that when you do have your other hand over the keyboard, it's better (or at least equal).
Apple needs to understand that underspeccing their computers to make a few dollars more per unit or to have the price slightly lower, actually costs them more than it makes.
Ah. It would be interesting to compare the huge amount of consumer research data that Apple has collected with the consumer research data that you have done.
Do you have a link to all this data that you have made your conculsion from, so that we can also have a look and judge for ourselves?
I mean, you have actually done a huge, professional, up-to-date consumer research project specificly regarding this issue, right? Otherwise--although possibly right by chance--you're pretty much just talking out your ass.:P
1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.
Any that means they never will?
2. A new G4 desktop system in Spring of 2005? No chance. Apple is moving away from the Motorola G4 archetecture, in favor of the IBM G5.
Two words: PowerBook, iBook.
Well, a few more words: G4 isn't going any time soon, as they will still be using them for the PowerBook and iBook for a while longer. They have even said themselves not to expect a G5 laptop any time soon. So even though they may upgrade the eMac, there is no reason to believe they won't base this rumored machine on a G4. Especially if it's designed to be a small, bottom end machine. I mean, if it's good enough for their top-end laptops, then surely it's also good enough for their bottem-end desktop?
3. The current G4 eMac is $800, and their margin on it is thin (by Apple standards.) This rumored system is pretty much a G4 with the $100 monitor removed. No way Apple sells it for $500.
Unless you know the cost of the hardware for each of these machines, it's pretty hard to go by the price of the eMac.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar.
Utter BS. How can you possibly make such hardline judgements about complex things like purchasing decisions? For starters, not everyone even likes to buy 2nd hand, let alone that fact that a G4 tower will probably be much bigger than this thing.
Funny (in the insane sence) thing is, more money will probably be spent on the war than ever will be on aid for this disaster.
Even funnier is all this talk about detection and warning systems. How about we just not start wars instead? Can even use the saved money for aid and warning systems for natural disasters.
No. The patent system is bad. Nothing that bad about patents themselves. Many good inventions would probably never see the light of day if it weren't for patents.
Slashdot Mirror
With Vodafone NZ, the credit lasts a year. So that's about US$10 a year to keep my phone active. I usually top mine up every few months, since I hardly ever make any out-going calls. Your cellphone networks sound pretty harsh.
Idiot. The idea is that they learn to be responsible without wasting $500.
Compared to many insects, our response times are incredibly slow.
Yup. So Apple "believes" that this is what's happening, and are suing. Unless of course, ThinkSecret can put themselves in the clear and avoid costly lawyer fees by revealing their sources.
No one requires you to release your code under the GLP. What it does do is ensure that if you decide to release code under the GLP, for the intent of making it free, the GLP makes sure it is keep free.
There is nothing immoral or hypocritical about the GLP. If you think there is, then you don't know how the GLP works, or your logic is flawed.
His views can never be wrong (or right, for that matter). You can only disagree (or agree) with them.
Free trade. The Freedome to set the prices we want! And freedom is good for everyone so free trade must be good for everyone!
Bloody hell. No wonder the world is so fucked up when you have idiots who think like this. Are you aware of the flaws in free markert capitalism? If so, then you should be able to see the flaws in free trade. If not, then you need to so some research.
You assume that if this new wheel is damaged, that it would completely disintergate, causing a greater lose of control than a blowen tire. Exactly what in the hell are you basing this assumption on?
And does this mean that when the ambulance leaves, it's going to have to go back and pick-up another crew and supplies from somewhere? Or is it going to carry around extra?
While his calculations were a bit off, he wasn't really using faulty reasoning because he wasn't trying to make any firm conclusion. He left it open-end, ambiguous on purpose for others to think about and interpret how they like. He did suggest, but that is different to drawing a conclusion.
Well, I guess I did leave myself open for that one, considering this is Slashdot and all. But it just reinforces my point! ;)
The point is that the US gov seems to be more willing to spend money on war than saving lives.
Insightful my ass.
Nah. I'm sorry. You're wrong. The only real worthless people around here are ones that find it OK to waste money--that could be spent on aid--to intentionaly do things that waste human lives.
Surely you can see the irony of the whole situation?
Hmmm... I think the Peace On Earth idea is probably a much easier plan ;)
I'm only running 10.2.3. I recently discovered that I was only running on 128MB of RAM after I didn't place the RAM back in properly. I don't have Word, so I can't test that. But running Safari, iTunes, iCal and Mail was not too bad. An eMac would do much better than my 600Mhz G3 iBook. I still think they should run atleast 383MB RAM though.
Okay. Where do I plug in the 512 meg RAM, 160 gig Serial ATA HD, and new Dual Layer DVD burner?
I never said they were as upgradable as most PCs. But saying that they were designed not to be upgraded is wrong. The parts that are most likely to get upgraded are upgradable.
My point still stands. If anything, this new iMac only reinforces it.
So, because it more upgradeable, and easier to upgrade than previous iMacs, this reinforces your point that it's not upgradable?
See point 1. This kind of computer is not upgradable, and will probably still be around in 3 years, with a professor asking me why it can't reliable run the latest Office, Safari, and MP3's at the same time on OS 11
You make this sound as if it's problem where he needs more RAM to catch up with the software. What's stopping you from upgrading the RAM?
I was under the impression that apps come out for Macs (generally) after PCs...so if you wanted to get the latest and greatest just as it hit the shelves --- well you are waiting.
If from the same company, then that's usually the case. But otherwise no.
And yes, there generally is less software. But that doesn't mean that you won't find what you want, or speak for the quality of the software. For example: So what if there are over 300 FTP clients avalible for Windows. Only about 10 of them are going excellent programs. As long as you can find a good software package that you're happy with, who really cares if the range isn't as big? Crap is still crap, even if you have a lot of it to choose from.
Also, Macs are a bit more expensive to buy and repair. And aren't MACs at the epitome of "closed source"? I know they have opened up their hardware a little more in recent years - but how far?
The mainboard, CPU and few other things may be Apple only, and more expensive. But RAM and HDDs--the parts that people are most likely to upgrade--are standard. As for being "closed source", why is this such a problem? It's never been a problem for me before. My cellphone and many other electronics I use are also "closed source". Is it really that bad that my computer is? Hardly that different to most of the PC hardware industry anyway.
More importantly for me is that Apple use many open standards when it comes to software. This makes it easier to migrate to another platform if I decide I don't like the direction Apple is heading in.
As for your mouse, we all know you can replace the one that comes with a Mac. I have yet to come across a PC that came with a mouse I liked either, so I always end up replacing mice anyway. The Mac software that came with my MS mouse allows me to set custom functions to all the buttons and to seperate programs, just like the Win software does. Plus there are 3rd party options. Right-click and scrollwheel are supported without needing any drivers. Same situation as a PC.
For basic stuff like browsing the web, checking mail, music and DVDs, 256MB is fine.
You're not _meant_ to upgrade a Mac.
Bullshit. Take a look at the new iMac for starters.
3) Tech support. I work in this area, and if this computer is as crappy as they describe, I don't want to support it.
I'm bit confused here. You seem to be saying that a buggy, unrealible computer is the same as an underpowered computer. Exactly why will this peice of crap be a pain in the ass to support?
The problem is that impulse buyers love to find reasons to hate the products they purchased on impulse. They also like to hate the companies that produce them.
Oh dear... It's all so clear now.
Please don't do drugs while posting in Slashdot. OK?
Unless you've been doing what I've been doing for the last 30 minutes; browsing the web with my left arm comfortably under my chin, or in my lap half the time.
I'll give you usablity. But not ergonomics. Because in reality, people don't nessesarly sit with their spare hand over the keyboard all the time if they don't need to use it.
However, I agree that when you do have your other hand over the keyboard, it's better (or at least equal).
Ah. It would be interesting to compare the huge amount of consumer research data that Apple has collected with the consumer research data that you have done.
Do you have a link to all this data that you have made your conculsion from, so that we can also have a look and judge for ourselves?
I mean, you have actually done a huge, professional, up-to-date consumer research project specificly regarding this issue, right? Otherwise--although possibly right by chance--you're pretty much just talking out your ass. :P
Any that means they never will?
2. A new G4 desktop system in Spring of 2005? No chance. Apple is moving away from the Motorola G4 archetecture, in favor of the IBM G5.
Two words: PowerBook, iBook.
Well, a few more words: G4 isn't going any time soon, as they will still be using them for the PowerBook and iBook for a while longer. They have even said themselves not to expect a G5 laptop any time soon. So even though they may upgrade the eMac, there is no reason to believe they won't base this rumored machine on a G4. Especially if it's designed to be a small, bottom end machine. I mean, if it's good enough for their top-end laptops, then surely it's also good enough for their bottem-end desktop?
3. The current G4 eMac is $800, and their margin on it is thin (by Apple standards.) This rumored system is pretty much a G4 with the $100 monitor removed. No way Apple sells it for $500.
Unless you know the cost of the hardware for each of these machines, it's pretty hard to go by the price of the eMac.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar.
Utter BS. How can you possibly make such hardline judgements about complex things like purchasing decisions? For starters, not everyone even likes to buy 2nd hand, let alone that fact that a G4 tower will probably be much bigger than this thing.
Even funnier is all this talk about detection and warning systems. How about we just not start wars instead? Can even use the saved money for aid and warning systems for natural disasters.
Err... Obviously corporate greed, because that is what abuses the patent system. Duh.
No. The patent system is bad. Nothing that bad about patents themselves. Many good inventions would probably never see the light of day if it weren't for patents.
So? Who cares? That right there is an elitist attitude.
For god's sake people. This thing is a HDD ENCLOSURE. You're not going to be copying jack shit to this device without also buying a HDD to go with it.