If the British would have had 1000x superior weapons, I am pretty sure that either: a) america would not be an independent nation today. Or... b) They would have tried to resort to other tactics (like killing british citicens living in the US, or worst).
I do not sympathize with terrorist. Who do they think they are to try an impose will over all others will?
But the problem comes when there should be a "freddom-fighters" war (and some times, they are needed, like the US independence war was needed) and the "freedom-fighters" have the rocks and the tyrants have the nukes.
It's telling that the Slashbots are so upset by RIAA and MS.
Nope, it's telling that the USA doesn't mind having such huge monopolies inside their country as long as they also bring money home.
With that money coming home, they can buy the world, as they are already doing as we speak. Ufff...
Now, I don't think USA is the root of all evil, they care about THEMSELVES, and they are supposed to do so. The problm is when they try to ENFORCE what is only good for them, in the name of peace, freedom and all good on earth.
That not only is EXACTLY what i meant, but also what i said. It works by contradiction and i have hoped people would get it. But your post made it evident thus thanks.
a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms.
Means: if a theory claims to have been proved right, it must then be formal logic (and not a science). The rest of my message sais: All other "kinds of theories" can't be proved right, they can only claim to not have been proved wrong, yet (if ever).
If you reread the post you will see that's what i was talking about.
Mhh, a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms. But you can never be sure about a theory which tries to "discover" reality. Things may not even exist as we think, they may be half truths, "it-depends" truths.
Thus, you can never say your theory reflects reality. The best you can say is that it just doesn't appear contradict what you can measure. Of course, once your theory starts prediction something, and you later on discover it "seems true" means you are on the right track, not that it is true.
Only math and abstract sciences like that can be true, for true means consistent with the axioms. And these axioms do no need to mirror a perceived fenomena.
It's obvious isn't it? It also uses a spacial (patented?) feature where as you can't CLOSE the envelope while leaving a mark on it (that is, any mark, including the post office markings, seals, etc).
I did not claim such a thing existed:) Ok, it was suposed to be pseudo funny, or imaginative. But sometimes i fail miserably:(
me the shit out o... OH, at fscking last! It's my restroom turn. brb guys!.
(Anyway: I should have my sisters take a look and the patent, they may actually LEARN something...)
(Anyway 2: Thanks god MS didn't patent it. A bug in these code could really KILL people. And I can foresee the script kiddies all going to the bath as they see fit.)
"So at the end, it promotes innovation, but depromotes implementations/applications".
The thing are clear:
Patents promote innovations when: - Other companies can catch up pretty quickly - A lot of R&D is needed - You can't use secrecy as a shield
Patents depromote implementation because: - A % of them are not real innovation - You need to spend hue resources to research not your product, but the Patentend stuff itself (the minefield) - A % of them would be unneeded (even if we are talking about real innovations). That is, the innovations would STILL be produced even if there was no patent law.
So the net effect is quetionable. The idea is that if you focus on what it does well, or when it fails, you have a neverending argument. So it all boils down to: how much good it does vs. how much bad it does.
Bottom line: we should have a way to measure the net effect, and decide based on that. If you don't know the net effect, you will see it all boils down to how much lobby the interested parties can buy (people, vs companies vs countries).
I don't know if it makes sense to you anyway...
About the modding up, I don't try to understand it either. It works on AVERAGE. Not on individual posts. But i guess it has to do with the first part of the message. The simple part that explains why patents to MAKE sense (patent law basic argument).
C: hey, i like them (mostly) all men, and knowing me inside out, else they can flirt with me. And being meticulous and fanatics. We like to play dirty.
C++: wack, I am like you C!!! But i'm sad, because they treat me as if i was an object.
Java: dude, that's not the worst. They not oly treat me just like an object, they expect me to suck their nuts in any room, anytime:(
PHP: Ah, well, love is tough. I am easy to get along with. I have a wider audience. They love me, as I don't press them hard. That's your problem, guys. Anyway, most of my lovers expect me to serve them, so they are not much better. But I have tons of them!
C++: Good tip PHP...You are not as pretty as we are, but you fullfill their needs. But you can only do it at the porche. We can do it in the entire house, in rooms, in cars! Ok, JAVA can do it ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, but we can also do that if they give a love and care.
PHP: well...true. The thin...
XML: HEY. Assholes, I like all your bitches, they belong to me now. I will let you all live as long as you don't piss me off. OK (gun pointed at them)...
(well, these discussion could take months... so i leave other languages comments for yourself...but a note: PERL would be just plain "censored" if allowed to speak here).
I mean, the problem here is that your region is better of trying to fuck up societies rights in general, so the copyright owner, that produces / lives / contributes to a given region can keep doing it.
That would be the bottom line of the why. If this wantn't the case, it would be 100% lobby to go against the entire population desires, and to put a burden to the global economic efficiency.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Well phrased. So it all boils down to what is it that they want to do:
ie: companies/individuals of a country have very valuable assets, which they have been enjoying for 45 years, why not want to keep the revenue for 25 more years? If they lose it, then your country loses that copyright to the "world". So hence, trying to push foreing countries to accept US mandated laws.
All in all, I think much of the problems in the the world economy is each country has to protect their own assets, who cares if it is right or wrong to have a company that bough the copyright from a now dead guy, and that didn't pay a dime for next 20 years of revenue (which 10 years ago would have been priced near $0 as you say), actually profits or not exclusively from it?
The only solution i can foresee is to have the copyright extended to the goverment, and use the copyright in the best way possible. But we also know the goverment can't handle things. Maybe attach some general public copyright with certain restrictions (ie: using it, you are bound to the terms of a license which benefits the entire American population)?
If there where no countries, you'd see regions pushing the World Goverment, to accept these licenses. And the regions pushing it would be the ones having the most valuable copyright assets (and it wouldn't matter to them if those are fair, the author is dead or they have already profited more than they have paid for).
The thing goes like this. To produce an innovation, i must spend money. And then i can get the money by orverchaging a bit when i sell the product, to compensate the R&D costs.
Now, if i want to overcharge a bit, but company B has this technology withoout any R&D, the wouldn't care to sell it cheaper (production cost + very small margin). So I can't sell my product unless i charge the same.
So I don't do that R&D and so there is no innovation. But as we already know, the patent system is doomed, because it assumes there is no cost for patent research, it asumes it's costs the same to research 1 patent, 100, 1000000, infinite number.
So at the end, it stiffles promotes innovation, but depromotes implementations/applications, and breaks the techonolical advance foundations which is built layer upon layer.
Unless you can trade cards (patent portfolio), which means only large corporations can access the technology.
In the end, you can never be sure it does more harm than good, but companies are mostly cnfortable with it, because at the end, it's a way to split the cake ($$$).
And that's what companies are about. But as it beign the perfect tool to promote innovations, i very much doubt it.
"If one of my friends died in such a manner I'd be laughing if for no other reason than I know my friend would be laughing at themselves for dying that way."
Really? Maybe you could have tried helping him? If my sister or a driend dies from this, I'd be very unhappy and sad for quite a long time. And I am not easily moved or sentimental.
In general, all things that you would not like to happen to yourself, and that happen to others, are likely candidates (including children starting to death).
I am sure you will apreciate help if you were in their situation, but I am not hoping you will understand this (unless you experience it youself). And probably the one offering you help won't ask nothing in return (and you will be amazed (at that moment, not now thinking you could conceive the situation).
>For instance, *no* ammount of time is > sufficient to break an OTP without the key.
What key? There is no key with clasical OTP. You are not actually locking the data, the pads actually provide the meaning.
A key is something that can be reused, as that is from where the methafore comes from. A OTP can never do that, it's more like a "delayed private message" over an unsecure channel.
One Time Pads are not encryption really, they are like delayed messages. Or statements that depend on the receiving party knowing beforehand which statements are true or false.
I am not saying anything new, just putting some perspective. If I tell you I will LIE in private, and then I go in public and say:
"0"
Then you know I meant 1...
But it's not encryted, the meaning makes sense only because I told you in private part of the message.
In the end, the greatest strenght of OTP is also a weakness. That the pad IS part of the message. It's unbreakable means it's just PART OF THE MESSAGE. It doesn't really mean it's well encrypted.
Or when you encrypt something, you merge it with the crypt? Nope, the correct interpretation is that the crypt should be safe enough that is higly probable that only YOU can open it. But if you lose the key, the encrypted data is STILL there, and someime, maybe someone will be able to find it, and the data _would still_ be there.
If you lose a one time pad, the "message" vanishes, is lost, doesn't exist anymore. And also, you'll probably find out that you have to encrypt your one time pads (or the real message) using a large password, if the storage medium you are using is not 100% secure (you can never remember a sufficently large OTP).
Anyway...i agree, OTP is unbreakable, but a bit useless, unless you only have to send a delayed message over an unsecure channel, and nothing else (as opposed to real encryption - ie: usual meaning).
IANAL, so i am just asking. Many times, we have an idea, implemented, we can document it to a large extent, etc. But we can't patent it So the question really is:
If you can prove you developed certain idea prior to someone else patenting it, do they owe you anything? What are your rights in that case?
If you have some nice rights, then one great thing would be to have a Black (as in nobody knows what it is protected) Anti-Patent Firewall.
How would it work? A central database controlled by a company, where you would send them all your information, and an encripted patent (key you and your company will have to decript). They would certify the date of submission (attorney, notary, etc), and create the record and label the field of discovery and everything that you want disclosed beforehand. You could pay them X bucks for that service.
Then one day some greedy company files a patent for the obvious, but clever idea you devised, and this company is researching all these patents every day, and they discover it...and voila!
Unless you use special (patented?) envelope that can't be opened without leaving a mark with 100% confidence.
Anyway, that may not be italso, because probably the post service can't offer a warranty that the date is correct. They could make a mistake, or be corrupted or a fake.
The best would be to publish an encripted message, which contents are exacly the Patent you want to fill, documenting everything you've discovered (encripted of course). Or having a notary assert the date of the given encripted document (even if it looks like white noise).
It's simple, because the goverment wants to. And there are 2 main motives: 1-Exports: music is cheap to produce and cheap to replicate = high revenues if the musci (medicine, etc) can be controled by an exporting cartel 2-Controling capital outflows and taking away average joes income (both at the same time). If you werent paying so much money for CD and movies and stuff like that, you ll all be using it to buy more housing, food, vacations (abroad?). So these monopolies help with making you think you are richer, but taking a lot of it away from you by letting monopolies increase prices of these good.
Just do the math, and count how much money would be ready to spent if all these markets where competitive. And what would american buy with those resources. Prbably hard good = production cannt rise much = imports = price increases + capital outflows.
I am not an IP expert, but i have seen the mono sources and the mailing lists, and they surelly ARE CONSTANTLY looking at the MS implementation, up to the degree of Miguel commenting in the changelog things like "change method X to assume enconding UTF-8, as this is what the MS implementation does". It may be legal, but there are so much comments like that that it's probably a reality one will infringe.
Re:With enough storage, Chess could be solved too.
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 2
Or may just the exact opposite of a knight. Imagine a setup where a knight at certain location leaves no place for a King to move (stalemate). Promoting to Queen produces the same stalematest. Promoting to a Rook does not. I think the original comment was consistent (but maybe for the wrong reasons:)
Re:With enough storage, Chess could be solved too.
on
Awari Solved
·
· Score: 2
Combinatorics may be your friend, but the number of pieces is irrelevant. Try to figure out a perfect play for a 19x19 (or even 9x9 go game) and, afterwards, drop me an email for your 1 million bucks reward (offered by someone i can't remember of course)
Not so. What AI wants is to have input and she himself figure out if there is a pattern, problem, or solution to be solved. That is, it needs to "selfdetect" the problems and not only calculate solution or arrive at a better way to do predetermined stuff.
At least that's what we call inteligence. Inteligence is beign able to parse data (incoming light (eyes), chemical structure (taste), etc) and beign able to start making sense out of the mess.
Anything that needs to be told what the problem is is just a piece of crap AI thingy.
Who says the Apple hardware doesn't cost more or less than a quality built x86? It may be indeed cheaper, but you'd be required to pay a system price (bundle price) that doesn't reflect hardware costs.
The OS and applications are the expensive, non-commody things here. Locking you to a different hardware than x86 makes sure you can't later switch to Windows if ever need.
Slashdot Mirror
If the British would have had 1000x superior weapons, I am pretty sure that either:
a) america would not be an independent nation today. Or...
b) They would have tried to resort to other tactics (like killing british citicens living in the US, or worst).
I do not sympathize with terrorist. Who do they think they are to try an impose will over all others will?
But the problem comes when there should be a "freddom-fighters" war (and some times, they are needed, like the US independence war was needed) and the "freedom-fighters" have the rocks and the tyrants have the nukes.
It's telling that the Slashbots are so upset by RIAA and MS.
Nope, it's telling that the USA doesn't mind having such huge monopolies inside their country as long as they also bring money home.
With that money coming home, they can buy the world, as they are already doing as we speak. Ufff...
Now, I don't think USA is the root of all evil, they care about THEMSELVES, and they are supposed to do so. The problm is when they try to ENFORCE what is only good for them, in the name of peace, freedom and all good on earth.
That not only is EXACTLY what i meant, but also what i said. It works by contradiction and i have hoped people would get it. But your post made it evident thus thanks.
a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms.
Means: if a theory claims to have been proved right, it must then be formal logic (and not a science). The rest of my message sais: All other "kinds of theories" can't be proved right, they can only claim to not have been proved wrong, yet (if ever).
If you reread the post you will see that's what i was talking about.
Mhh, a Theory can be proved right meaning it can be fully explained by just reasoning, and in relation to a set of axioms. But you can never be sure about a theory which tries to "discover" reality. Things may not even exist as we think, they may be half truths, "it-depends" truths.
Thus, you can never say your theory reflects reality. The best you can say is that it just doesn't appear contradict what you can measure. Of course, once your theory starts prediction something, and you later on discover it "seems true" means you are on the right track, not that it is true.
Only math and abstract sciences like that can be true, for true means consistent with the axioms. And these axioms do no need to mirror a perceived fenomena.
It's obvious isn't it? It also uses a spacial (patented?) feature where as you can't CLOSE the envelope while leaving a mark on it (that is, any mark, including the post office markings, seals, etc).
:) Ok, it was suposed to be pseudo funny, or imaginative. But sometimes i fail miserably :(
I did not claim such a thing existed
me the shit out o... OH, at fscking last! It's my restroom turn. brb guys!.
...)
(Anyway: I should have my sisters take a look and the patent, they may actually LEARN something
(Anyway 2: Thanks god MS didn't patent it. A bug in these code could really KILL people. And I can foresee the script kiddies all going to the bath as they see fit.)
Should have read:
"So at the end, it promotes innovation, but depromotes implementations/applications".
The thing are clear:
Patents promote innovations when:
- Other companies can catch up pretty quickly
- A lot of R&D is needed
- You can't use secrecy as a shield
Patents depromote implementation because:
- A % of them are not real innovation
- You need to spend hue resources to research not your product, but the Patentend stuff itself (the minefield)
- A % of them would be unneeded (even if we are talking about real innovations). That is, the innovations would STILL be produced even if there was no patent law.
So the net effect is quetionable. The idea is that if you focus on what it does well, or when it fails, you have a neverending argument. So it all boils down to: how much good it does vs. how much bad it does.
Bottom line: we should have a way to measure the net effect, and decide based on that. If you don't know the net effect, you will see it all boils down to how much lobby the interested parties can buy (people, vs companies vs countries).
I don't know if it makes sense to you anyway...
About the modding up, I don't try to understand it either. It works on AVERAGE. Not on individual posts. But i guess it has to do with the first part of the message. The simple part that explains why patents to MAKE sense (patent law basic argument).
Bye!
C: hey, i like them (mostly) all men, and knowing me inside out, else they can flirt with me. And being meticulous and fanatics. We like to play dirty.
:(
C++: wack, I am like you C!!! But i'm sad, because they treat me as if i was an object.
Java: dude, that's not the worst. They not oly treat me just like an object, they expect me to suck their nuts in any room, anytime
PHP: Ah, well, love is tough. I am easy to get along with. I have a wider audience. They love me, as I don't press them hard. That's your problem, guys. Anyway, most of my lovers expect me to serve them, so they are not much better. But I have tons of them!
C++: Good tip PHP...You are not as pretty as we are, but you fullfill their needs. But you can only do it at the porche. We can do it in the entire house, in rooms, in cars! Ok, JAVA can do it ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, but we can also do that if they give a love and care.
PHP: well...true. The thin...
XML: HEY. Assholes, I like all your bitches, they belong to me now. I will let you all live as long as you don't piss me off. OK (gun pointed at them)...
(well, these discussion could take months... so i leave other languages comments for yourself...but a note: PERL would be just plain "censored" if allowed to speak here).
I mean, the problem here is that your region is better of trying to fuck up societies rights in general, so the copyright owner, that produces / lives / contributes to a given region can keep doing it.
That would be the bottom line of the why. If this wantn't the case, it would be 100% lobby to go against the entire population desires, and to put a burden to the global economic efficiency.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense. Well phrased. So it all boils down to what is it that they want to do:
ie: companies/individuals of a country have very valuable assets, which they have been enjoying for 45 years, why not want to keep the revenue for 25 more years? If they lose it, then your country loses that copyright to the "world". So hence, trying to push foreing countries to accept US mandated laws.
All in all, I think much of the problems in the the world economy is each country has to protect their own assets, who cares if it is right or wrong to have a company that bough the copyright from a now dead guy, and that didn't pay a dime for next 20 years of revenue (which 10 years ago would have been priced near $0 as you say), actually profits or not exclusively from it?
The only solution i can foresee is to have the copyright extended to the goverment, and use the copyright in the best way possible. But we also know the goverment can't handle things. Maybe attach some general public copyright with certain restrictions (ie: using it, you are bound to the terms of a license which benefits the entire American population)?
If there where no countries, you'd see regions pushing the World Goverment, to accept these licenses. And the regions pushing it would be the ones having the most valuable copyright assets (and it wouldn't matter to them if those are fair, the author is dead or they have already profited more than they have paid for).
Because it's worth a lot, at least $150M, that's why.
Well, they COULD pay:
:-).
149,999,999.999999999999999999999999999999999 (etc)
As it would be equal to 3/20 * x = 150M, and they could probably argue the amount doesn't fit in the Cheque amount area, so they can't pay.
If that didn't work, they could apologize and blame it to a floating point bug in the CPU
The thing goes like this. To produce an innovation, i must spend money. And then i can get the money by orverchaging a bit when i sell the product, to compensate the R&D costs.
Now, if i want to overcharge a bit, but company B has this technology withoout any R&D, the wouldn't care to sell it cheaper (production cost + very small margin). So I can't sell my product unless i charge the same.
So I don't do that R&D and so there is no innovation. But as we already know, the patent system is doomed, because it assumes there is no cost for patent research, it asumes it's costs the same to research 1 patent, 100, 1000000, infinite number.
So at the end, it stiffles promotes innovation, but depromotes implementations/applications, and breaks the techonolical advance foundations which is built layer upon layer.
Unless you can trade cards (patent portfolio), which means only large corporations can access the technology.
In the end, you can never be sure it does more harm than good, but companies are mostly cnfortable with it, because at the end, it's a way to split the cake ($$$).
And that's what companies are about. But as it beign the perfect tool to promote innovations, i very much doubt it.
"If one of my friends died in such a manner I'd be laughing if for no other reason than I know my friend would be laughing at themselves for dying that way."
Really? Maybe you could have tried helping him? If my sister or a driend dies from this, I'd be very unhappy and sad for quite a long time. And I am not easily moved or sentimental.
Some misc reasons in no particular order of importance (just some pointers):
1) Compasion
2) Charity
3) Putting yourself in somebody elses shoes
4) Caring
In general, all things that you would not like to happen to yourself, and that happen to others, are likely candidates (including children starting to death).
I am sure you will apreciate help if you were in their situation, but I am not hoping you will understand this (unless you experience it youself). And probably the one offering you help won't ask nothing in return (and you will be amazed (at that moment, not now thinking you could conceive the situation).
(sorry for the misspellings)
>For instance, *no* ammount of time is
> sufficient to break an OTP without the key.
What key? There is no key with clasical OTP. You are not actually locking the data, the pads actually provide the meaning.
A key is something that can be reused, as that is from where the methafore comes from. A OTP can never do that, it's more like a "delayed private message" over an unsecure channel.
One Time Pads are not encryption really, they are like delayed messages. Or statements that depend on the receiving party knowing beforehand which statements are true or false.
I am not saying anything new, just putting some perspective. If I tell you I will LIE in private, and then I go in public and say:
"0"
Then you know I meant 1...
But it's not encryted, the meaning makes sense only because I told you in private part of the message.
In the end, the greatest strenght of OTP is also a weakness. That the pad IS part of the message. It's unbreakable means it's just PART OF THE MESSAGE. It doesn't really mean it's well encrypted.
Or when you encrypt something, you merge it with the crypt? Nope, the correct interpretation is that the crypt should be safe enough that is higly probable that only YOU can open it. But if you lose the key, the encrypted data is STILL there, and someime, maybe someone will be able to find it, and the data _would still_ be there.
If you lose a one time pad, the "message" vanishes, is lost, doesn't exist anymore. And also, you'll probably find out that you have to encrypt your one time pads (or the real message) using a large password, if the storage medium you are using is not 100% secure (you can never remember a sufficently large OTP).
Anyway...i agree, OTP is unbreakable, but a bit useless, unless you only have to send a delayed message over an unsecure channel, and nothing else (as opposed to real encryption - ie: usual meaning).
IANAL, so i am just asking. Many times, we have an idea, implemented, we can document it to a large extent, etc. But we can't patent it So the question really is:
If you can prove you developed certain idea prior to someone else patenting it, do they owe you anything? What are your rights in that case?
If you have some nice rights, then one great thing would be to have a Black (as in nobody knows what it is protected) Anti-Patent Firewall.
How would it work? A central database controlled by a company, where you would send them all your information, and an encripted patent (key you and your company will have to decript). They would certify the date of submission (attorney, notary, etc), and create the record and label the field of discovery and everything that you want disclosed beforehand. You could pay them X bucks for that service.
Then one day some greedy company files a patent for the obvious, but clever idea you devised, and this company is researching all these patents every day, and they discover it...and voila!
I know...i know...
Unless you use special (patented?) envelope that can't be opened without leaving a mark with 100% confidence.
:)
Anyway, that may not be italso, because probably the post service can't offer a warranty that the date is correct. They could make a mistake, or be corrupted or a fake.
The best would be to publish an encripted message, which contents are exacly the Patent you want to fill, documenting everything you've discovered (encripted of course). Or having a notary assert the date of the given encripted document (even if it looks like white noise).
Then you're set
It's simple, because the goverment wants to. And there are 2 main motives:
1-Exports: music is cheap to produce and cheap to replicate = high revenues if the musci (medicine, etc) can be controled by an exporting cartel
2-Controling capital outflows and taking away average joes income (both at the same time). If you werent paying so much money for CD and movies and stuff like that, you ll all be using it to buy more housing, food, vacations (abroad?). So these monopolies help with making you think you are richer, but taking a lot of it away from you by letting monopolies increase prices of these good.
Just do the math, and count how much money would be ready to spent if all these markets where competitive. And what would american buy with those resources. Prbably hard good = production cannt rise much = imports = price increases + capital outflows.
Would be nice to see the numbers actually...
I am not an IP expert, but i have seen the mono sources and the mailing lists, and they surelly ARE CONSTANTLY looking at the MS implementation, up to the degree of Miguel commenting in the changelog things like "change method X to assume enconding UTF-8, as this is what the MS implementation does". It may be legal, but there are so much comments like that that it's probably a reality one will infringe.
Or may just the exact opposite of a knight. Imagine a setup where a knight at certain location leaves no place for a King to move (stalemate). Promoting to Queen produces the same stalematest. Promoting to a Rook does not. I think the original comment was consistent (but maybe for the wrong reasons :)
Combinatorics may be your friend, but the number of pieces is irrelevant. Try to figure out a perfect play for a 19x19 (or even 9x9 go game) and, afterwards, drop me an email for your 1 million bucks reward (offered by someone i can't remember of course)
Not so. What AI wants is to have input and she himself figure out if there is a pattern, problem, or solution to be solved. That is, it needs to "selfdetect" the problems and not only calculate solution or arrive at a better way to do predetermined stuff.
At least that's what we call inteligence. Inteligence is beign able to parse data (incoming light (eyes), chemical structure (taste), etc) and beign able to start making sense out of the mess.
Anything that needs to be told what the problem is is just a piece of crap AI thingy.
Who says the Apple hardware doesn't cost more or less than a quality built x86? It may be indeed cheaper, but you'd be required to pay a system price (bundle price) that doesn't reflect hardware costs.
The OS and applications are the expensive, non-commody things here. Locking you to a different hardware than x86 makes sure you can't later switch to Windows if ever need.