The way you avoid that isn't to cause an uproar after the fact. The way you avoid that is to prevent the cameras from being installed in the first place.
And how does one do that? The same way they should have somehow magically prevented Google Streetview being made in the first place?
What draconian laws and actions from the Government have you prevented, btw? Or is it easier just to mock other people whilst doing nothing more than posting to Slashdot?
That's all well and good, but how does one run the Government out of town simply by chasing a van? If only it was that simple! But sadly, things are more complex than that.
There are plenty of people who dislike the Government's monitoring - on what basis do you conclude that they have no problem with that? Oh wait, it's easier to get +5 insightful if you make a straw man to argue against.
Which country are you from? Why hasn't the US population chased their Government out, due to similar laws? I mean, what with their guns, that should be even easier, right?
Well done UK, saving your draconian measures for political agendas. Your people deserve what they get.
Yes the 78% of people who didn't vote for the Government last election are personally responsible for their actions, and fully deserve everything they get.
Which country are you from - is your Government perfect, or do you deserve what they do wrong too?
Superluminal speeds have been seen and documented.
By FTL, he means transmitting information faster than the speed of light, which has not been observed. The examples you cite do not, and hence are no violation of causality. They are no more relevant examples than waving a laser pointer on the moon, or a pre-programmed set of LEDs that scroll a message "faster" than the speed of light.
Indeed, the difference is between perpetual motion, and a perpetual motion machine.
Perpetual motion is not a violation of conservation of energy - although it's still in practice impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I'm not sure your examples would really be 100% perpetual, just very close?)
A perpetual motion machine however implies doing work, suggesting that energy can continually be transformed from one form to another.
Maybe, but why do we hear these stories about just how many people are downloading films? Which is it? If the cinema's doing so well despite leaks and downloading, it means we shouldn't worry about it so much.
Personally I can enjoy a trip to the cinema - but the social aspect comes on being with someone I know, not complete strangers who are more likely to just be annoying.
Heaven forbid people be allowed to have opinions on this site that disagree with you. Please read up on how moderation works - if someone gets modded up, how is that a decision by the site?
Every story concerning piracy takes the pirates POV, every criticism of thepiratebay is brushed aside
Links to examples, please?
and now top stories are new hollywood movies
I see only one other story on movies or P2P.
complete with +5 modded links to copyrighted material.
It's +5 informative, which seems entirely fair. That moderation doesn't mean his opinion is good or bad, it's simply noting that he's supplying information. What's your point?
I thought bit-torrent was only used for free speech and linux distros?
The question is, are they basing their decisions on things such as faith, religion, "communication" with their God?
There's no way you can make an analogous situation for atheists - yes, they might happen to make bad decisions in other ways, just as theists can too, but there is no "atheism" equivalent for any of these. I mean, what, are you suggesting concern over someone basing their decision on not-faith, no-religion, or not-communicating with a God they don't believe in?
You are reversing his logic. The OP said that we shouldn't vote for people who "advertise their religiousity". This doesn't mean that therefore a less religious person is necessarily always better, as some might be bad in other ways. Saying "Advertising religion => bad leader" doesn't mean "Not advertising religion => Good leader".
As for Stalin:
The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
- Sam Harris.
The problem is not that some bad leaders happen to be theists, nor is it that some happen to be atheists. Yes, both of those are unfair arguments.
What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence - whether that's theism, or fascism, or whatever else. This isn't all theists, but it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God.
Atheists might happen to be like this in other ways but this behaviour is not due to their atheism. There is no society that suffered as a result of people turning to reason and evidence, rather than faith.
The difference is that if I choose to have an app live within the App Store ecosystem is has a huge chance of being seen and used by many, many people where it would simply languish if I just had it on my own website.
You know, centralised app stores have been around long before Apple decided to do one. Many networks might have one, for example.
Are you seriously suggesting that before Apple came along, the only way to distribute an application was to set up your own website? Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have witnessed the birth of another mythical "Apple first".
Or if I want to do something outside the scope of what the App Store might allow, I can do anything up to and including simply releasing a ton of source code for everyone to use.
But then it won't Just Work on people's phones, they'll have to jailbreak it (or worse, compile it from source, if that's what you mean - yes, you and I can do that, but this is a ludicrous suggestion for most phone users, especially for a phone where the sole major selling point is that it is allegedly "easy to use" and "Just Works").
I don't want to have to hack my phone, I expect it to Just Work.
And even though I could follow the instructions to do so if I had to, do you honestly expect that random members of the public can do so? This isn't a case of "pressing two buttons at once"[*], the point is that most people won't realise you have to "jailbreak" their phone, or even have a clue what it is.
[*] And I can't help laughing at the irony - whatever happened to "one mouse button is easier, because most users get confused with two"?
Clearly Google's world view is that you should not be annoying the carriers and so ban apps that do.
Correction: they don't allow you to download an application from their store, if it breaks the TOS of your network.
You can still download this application if your network allows this (see an earlier comment - apparently there was a temporary mistake when they unintentionally removed it for all networks). You are free to download applications from any other place on the Internet - just like every other phone out there, except the Iphone. You want to tether, or download an app, it Just Works.
With Apple however, you have no way of tethering AFAIK, nor any way to download apps from elsewhere, unless you jailbreak the phone.
At least Apple don't have the gall to push the iPhone/iTouch as an open platform.
dismissed the US-UK relationship as "nothing special"
Given that "special" was used as double-speak meaning things like one-sided extradition treaties, and us following the US into a dubious war, I'm fine with that...
Dear 4chan losers, your internet memes are funny to you on the internet and in your dorms with your loser mates... Did someone seriously stand up and say "1984 is a warning not a manual" in real life on national TV? Yes yes they did and I gotta say it doesn't translate....at all
Firstly I don't see why that statement is so bad, although yes I realise one must be careful of 1984-style comparsions, for fear of triggering "But we're not as bad as that, therefore it's okay" fallacy in response.
But aren't these two responses complete opposites? The problem with 1984/police-state comparisons that they come across as too serious and doom-mongering, which is the very opposite of light-hearted jokes and Internet memes. Consider the style of protesting at the anti-Scientology Anonymous protests - the fact that they can be seen having a bit of fun about it helps suppress the "But there are worse things to worry about, stop being so serious" response.
Seriously if that's the best you can come up with, regurgitating +5 slashdot comments
Yes, posts with "+5 Interesting" are obviously of no value;)
I dared predict that Google was going to have to impose some limitations
Restrictions on their online store != restrictions on the phone.
(OOI though, are there no longer phones that do "tethering" as standard? I've seen it being done for years, from smart phones, down to my basic cheap non-smart Motorola V980, with no special applications needed. Or if most phones still do this, how come Slashdot publicity is focused on the two niche phones in the market that impose all these limitations? I mean, I'm undecided Android, but this logic of "If Android is bad, the Iphone must be good" is tiresome, when there are far bigger players in the market that don't have all these restrictions, and it's been this way for years.)
I don't know if the US does things differently, but things like.uk, and I presume.ie are country codes, not Government ones. They are in no way comparable to.gov or.edu (that would be.gov.ie, I presume).
Possibly you are confused how country codes work, because in the US it's common to just swipe up.com or.org, even for US-specific sites. But there are country codes out there that the rest of the world uses, and they are intended for all uses in that country, not just the Government.
The nationally owned ones are solely responsible to that nation's government.
Yes, heaven forbid anyone be allowed disagree with what a Government does. I'll remember that next time there's a story about the US Government does something - "Who cares? It's solely the responsibility of that nation's Government".
They could also just move out of Ireland. That's a choice too.
I take it you make this point everytime there's a story about things going on in the US? "Why complain, you could just move to another country!"
Maybe I am triviliazing the issue, but being restricted on possible domains on a TLD that only applies to a single country does not seem as big of an issue as actually interferring with what traffic can reach a country. It's large scale censorship such as the Great Firewall in China that should be more concerning than this.
Thank you Captain Obvious. A kick in the teeth is not as bad as dying. What's your point, other than to argue with a straw man?
Since when did "must be at least as worse as what happens in China" become a criterion for covering the story? How many of the Slashdot stories currently on the front page are about things as bad as bad things in China?
Honestly, the "not as bad as China" meme is getting old.
If the Irish people feel that they are being oppressed and it is a free speech issue, then they need to address that with their politicians.
Again, thank you for your insight into the bleeding obvious. And how do you think people might be aware of this issue so that they can contact politicians? Perhaps by covering the story on news sites such as this?
I've been using Apple products since the Apple ][, my friend, and fast they are not.
I've got ten year old PCs that run real-world data processing loads faster, and render web pages faster, than the latest mac with all the bells and whistles. Apple software sacrifices speed for a really pretty, moron-friendly interface just loaded with bling and eyecandy.
And before you ask, yes I do run almost entirely in text mode. If poorly designed web sites didn't force me into graphics display I'd still be using a text browser exclusively. I want to get stuff done, not watch TV. Macs are best for artists and people with computer use patterns that are intellectually equivalent to TV-watching.
No wonder we "never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow" - anyone who does so here gets modded down.
I don't know if the above user's experiences are typical or not, but his experience is valid just as much as the OP's anecdotes of "but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow".
Wait - so if a Mac is slow, there's a reason, but not if Windows is slow? Right.
You completely miss the point. There are just as likely to be fair explanations for why Windows is slow, that aren't the fault of Windows, but your whole point rested on the mere idea of, let me repeat it for you:
but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow
As if to suggest that that alone was sufficient to prove a point. Well, you've been proven wrong - someone has complained about a Mac being slow, so your point is invalid. If you want to retreat to a point where you claim that they are slow due to different reasons, then please feel free to submit the evidence.
However, since PCs are used vastly more, I expect to be more likely to complain about them. Also they are less likely to be computer newbies (people who know about computers are less likely to say vague things like "My computer is slow"). You also have to factor in the whole "cool" brand image thing - people who have spent loads of money on a MacBook to be different aren't going to be admitting if it's then slow, are they? You might as well say you've never heard a Windows fan complain that Windows is slow - even if they've experienced it, they won't tell you. The difference here is that it's PCs which are mostly used by the average user (who happily complain), whilst Macs (and Amigas) are more likely to be used by people who specifically love them.
On the other hand we have PC manufacturers selling dirt cheap machines that "run" Vista but not well. If those same manufacturers only sold machines that ran their intended software well, the price point comparison would be pretty moot.
This is highly misleading. Yes, there might still be some PC manufacturers that try to shave off pennies by not including enough (do they still? This isn't 2007 anymore, 2GB is pretty standard), but the price required to have more than enough hardware to run Vista well is vastly lower than those MacBooks. I bet the one that Lauren walked out with was more than sufficient.
(OS X's requirements aren't exactly low these days, either.)
That's a good question that everyone should ask, but it has nothing to do with a Mac Tax. It's a "high-end computer tax." If Apple is making a business of only selling high-end computers, that's the market they've chosen, nothing wrong with that.
And there's also nothing wrong with Microsoft - or anyone else - pointing out that Apple don't offer any options for users other than the high end market.
Now if you want to say that macs are overpriced
I'd say "expensive" rather than "overpriced". I agree, you might argue it's okay for what it includes (I haven't checked), but that doesn't stop it being expensive - in this case, compared to other computers that are more than good enough for the vast majority of people who'll be watching Microsoft's advert (note that their advert doesn't say "overpriced" at all as far as I can tell, it merely points out that you can't get a Mac in that price range apart from one single model that she doesn't want, which is entirely factual).
I also don't really understand why there's all this hate against people who choose to buy high-end computers. It's true that they're not getting the most bang for the buck, but if it weren't for those buyers financing the high performance parts, the mid-range computers wouldn't advance as quickly.
Now you're diverting the argument. You can plug high end components (e.g., CPU or graphics card) into PCs that are still relatively cheap. I see no evidence that Mac users are pushing forward the industry or bringing lower prices. You might as well claim that we should be thankful to Amiga users, as they are higher priced these days. No one has anything against high-end users, that's a straw man (and no one hates Macs - this is the common pro-Apple fallacy where not using or liking the Mac must be out of some irrational hatred; I'd argue that there's at least as much "hate" and stereotyping towards people who use Windows).
What people are concerned with is trying to entice those people who are less knowledgable computers into spending vastly more than they need. This is bad whether it's a PC, Mac or a BeBox - I hate it when you get people trying to insist they better get a quad core machine so they can send emails, and so on. But it seems to be a particular issue with the Mac - "Get a Mac", they'll pipe up, "Think Different (and do just as I tell you)!" and give promises of how it will Just Work. So I'm glad to see an advert that counters this, and shows how you can get a computer that does what people want much more cheaply, just so long as it isn't a Mac.
It's also countering the idea that you need to spend money to be "cool" - that even people who know what they want are assumed to be "cheap" (consider the Ferrari comparisons in this thread) or ironically following the crowd ("Think Different"), or ignorant in their choices. This doesn't just apply to Macs (although it'd be one example), it's a plague in marketing in general, that people are pressured to spend just to get a brand name. So good luck to Microsoft for mocking it - "I'm just not cool enough to be a Mac person".
If they want them, and can afford them, who are you to tell you they're wrong?
I don't see where he tells anyone they are wrong? It's about marketing. The only one saying anyone's wrong is the pro-Apple blog that is the subject of this article, that suggests that Microsoft are wrong in their marketing.
Especially when you're indirectly benefiting from their choice.
You're quite right - Apple's product line serves to maximise their profits, and do not benefit consumers. It just so happens that in the PC market, there are plenty that manage to stay in business whilst giving a range of products, and not charging a premium. I guess that's the extra competition, which is always a good thing for consumers.
You see, you're missing the point. The point isn't questioning why Apple charge so much money or offer so few products - the answer is bleeding obvious, you don't need to be an economist or market analyst to work that one out. The point is simply that they do - because some people still seem to think that they don't, and that Apple are acting in their interest, rather than Apple's own interest.
You should therefore be directing what you say to the Apple fans, not the PC users who are well aware of it, and that's why they're sticking with PCs. Should I decide which company to buy from based on what's best for the company, or what's best for me? I would think the answer ought to be obvious, so explaining how Apple's actions benefit themselves is redundant.
She'd also be happier with a dirt cheap netbook (buy a Linux one if you are that worried about viruses - but my computer inexperienced parents have ran Vista for a couple of years, without me having to clean up the mess). Cheaper, does what most people need, and vastly more portable.
I've never understood the market for the Mac Mini. So it might be "small" compared to the largest PCs, but in today's age of laptops and netbooks, it's nothing. So you've got the disadvantages of laptops (in terms of both price and performance), but it's still not as portable as one - the worst of both worlds, in my opinion. (And you can get small desktop PCs too, anyway, that will also be cheaper.)
However, it's not much more, and besides, the advantages are worth the price of admission.
What's much more though? Given that you can buy Linux PCs these days.
Slashdot Mirror
The way you avoid that isn't to cause an uproar after the fact. The way you avoid that is to prevent the cameras from being installed in the first place.
And how does one do that? The same way they should have somehow magically prevented Google Streetview being made in the first place?
What draconian laws and actions from the Government have you prevented, btw? Or is it easier just to mock other people whilst doing nothing more than posting to Slashdot?
That's all well and good, but how does one run the Government out of town simply by chasing a van? If only it was that simple! But sadly, things are more complex than that.
There are plenty of people who dislike the Government's monitoring - on what basis do you conclude that they have no problem with that? Oh wait, it's easier to get +5 insightful if you make a straw man to argue against.
Which country are you from? Why hasn't the US population chased their Government out, due to similar laws? I mean, what with their guns, that should be even easier, right?
Well done UK, saving your draconian measures for political agendas. Your people deserve what they get.
Yes the 78% of people who didn't vote for the Government last election are personally responsible for their actions, and fully deserve everything they get.
Which country are you from - is your Government perfect, or do you deserve what they do wrong too?
(And I have to agree with "citation needed".)
Superluminal speeds have been seen and documented.
By FTL, he means transmitting information faster than the speed of light, which has not been observed. The examples you cite do not, and hence are no violation of causality. They are no more relevant examples than waving a laser pointer on the moon, or a pre-programmed set of LEDs that scroll a message "faster" than the speed of light.
Indeed, the difference is between perpetual motion, and a perpetual motion machine.
Perpetual motion is not a violation of conservation of energy - although it's still in practice impossible due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I'm not sure your examples would really be 100% perpetual, just very close?)
A perpetual motion machine however implies doing work, suggesting that energy can continually be transformed from one form to another.
Maybe, but why do we hear these stories about just how many people are downloading films? Which is it? If the cinema's doing so well despite leaks and downloading, it means we shouldn't worry about it so much.
Personally I can enjoy a trip to the cinema - but the social aspect comes on being with someone I know, not complete strangers who are more likely to just be annoying.
Not sure what that's got to do with anything. I do pay for the TV that I bittorrent.
Heaven forbid people be allowed to have opinions on this site that disagree with you. Please read up on how moderation works - if someone gets modded up, how is that a decision by the site?
Every story concerning piracy takes the pirates POV, every criticism of thepiratebay is brushed aside
Links to examples, please?
and now top stories are new hollywood movies
I see only one other story on movies or P2P.
complete with +5 modded links to copyrighted material.
It's +5 informative, which seems entirely fair. That moderation doesn't mean his opinion is good or bad, it's simply noting that he's supplying information. What's your point?
I thought bit-torrent was only used for free speech and linux distros?
+5 hyprocrites
+5 straw man
The question is, are they basing their decisions on things such as faith, religion, "communication" with their God?
There's no way you can make an analogous situation for atheists - yes, they might happen to make bad decisions in other ways, just as theists can too, but there is no "atheism" equivalent for any of these. I mean, what, are you suggesting concern over someone basing their decision on not-faith, no-religion, or not-communicating with a God they don't believe in?
You are reversing his logic. The OP said that we shouldn't vote for people who "advertise their religiousity". This doesn't mean that therefore a less religious person is necessarily always better, as some might be bad in other ways. Saying "Advertising religion => bad leader" doesn't mean "Not advertising religion => Good leader".
As for Stalin:
The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
- Sam Harris.
The problem is not that some bad leaders happen to be theists, nor is it that some happen to be atheists. Yes, both of those are unfair arguments.
What we should be concerned his people who based their actions and judgements upon faith, rather than reason and evidence - whether that's theism, or fascism, or whatever else. This isn't all theists, but it's often the ones who brag about how religious they are, and tell us how they speak to God.
Atheists might happen to be like this in other ways but this behaviour is not due to their atheism. There is no society that suffered as a result of people turning to reason and evidence, rather than faith.
I'm sure you can name a few.
Who else, OOI? (Please, don't say Hitler.)
The difference is that if I choose to have an app live within the App Store ecosystem is has a huge chance of being seen and used by many, many people where it would simply languish if I just had it on my own website.
You know, centralised app stores have been around long before Apple decided to do one. Many networks might have one, for example.
Are you seriously suggesting that before Apple came along, the only way to distribute an application was to set up your own website? Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we have witnessed the birth of another mythical "Apple first".
Or if I want to do something outside the scope of what the App Store might allow, I can do anything up to and including simply releasing a ton of source code for everyone to use.
But then it won't Just Work on people's phones, they'll have to jailbreak it (or worse, compile it from source, if that's what you mean - yes, you and I can do that, but this is a ludicrous suggestion for most phone users, especially for a phone where the sole major selling point is that it is allegedly "easy to use" and "Just Works").
With a jail-broken
There's your problem.
I don't want to have to hack my phone, I expect it to Just Work.
And even though I could follow the instructions to do so if I had to, do you honestly expect that random members of the public can do so? This isn't a case of "pressing two buttons at once"[*], the point is that most people won't realise you have to "jailbreak" their phone, or even have a clue what it is.
[*] And I can't help laughing at the irony - whatever happened to "one mouse button is easier, because most users get confused with two"?
Clearly Google's world view is that you should not be annoying the carriers and so ban apps that do.
Correction: they don't allow you to download an application from their store, if it breaks the TOS of your network.
You can still download this application if your network allows this (see an earlier comment - apparently there was a temporary mistake when they unintentionally removed it for all networks). You are free to download applications from any other place on the Internet - just like every other phone out there, except the Iphone. You want to tether, or download an app, it Just Works.
With Apple however, you have no way of tethering AFAIK, nor any way to download apps from elsewhere, unless you jailbreak the phone.
At least Apple don't have the gall to push the iPhone/iTouch as an open platform.
No, but people claim it "Just Works".
dismissed the US-UK relationship as "nothing special"
Given that "special" was used as double-speak meaning things like one-sided extradition treaties, and us following the US into a dubious war, I'm fine with that...
Dear 4chan losers, your internet memes are funny to you on the internet and in your dorms with your loser mates ... Did someone seriously stand up and say "1984 is a warning not a manual" in real life on national TV? Yes yes they did and I gotta say it doesn't translate....at all
Firstly I don't see why that statement is so bad, although yes I realise one must be careful of 1984-style comparsions, for fear of triggering "But we're not as bad as that, therefore it's okay" fallacy in response.
But aren't these two responses complete opposites? The problem with 1984/police-state comparisons that they come across as too serious and doom-mongering, which is the very opposite of light-hearted jokes and Internet memes. Consider the style of protesting at the anti-Scientology Anonymous protests - the fact that they can be seen having a bit of fun about it helps suppress the "But there are worse things to worry about, stop being so serious" response.
Seriously if that's the best you can come up with, regurgitating +5 slashdot comments
Yes, posts with "+5 Interesting" are obviously of no value ;)
I dared predict that Google was going to have to impose some limitations
Restrictions on their online store != restrictions on the phone.
(OOI though, are there no longer phones that do "tethering" as standard? I've seen it being done for years, from smart phones, down to my basic cheap non-smart Motorola V980, with no special applications needed. Or if most phones still do this, how come Slashdot publicity is focused on the two niche phones in the market that impose all these limitations? I mean, I'm undecided Android, but this logic of "If Android is bad, the Iphone must be good" is tiresome, when there are far bigger players in the market that don't have all these restrictions, and it's been this way for years.)
I don't know if the US does things differently, but things like .uk, and I presume .ie are country codes, not Government ones. They are in no way comparable to .gov or .edu (that would be .gov.ie, I presume).
Possibly you are confused how country codes work, because in the US it's common to just swipe up .com or .org, even for US-specific sites. But there are country codes out there that the rest of the world uses, and they are intended for all uses in that country, not just the Government.
The nationally owned ones are solely responsible to that nation's government.
Yes, heaven forbid anyone be allowed disagree with what a Government does. I'll remember that next time there's a story about the US Government does something - "Who cares? It's solely the responsibility of that nation's Government".
They could also just move out of Ireland. That's a choice too.
I take it you make this point everytime there's a story about things going on in the US? "Why complain, you could just move to another country!"
Maybe I am triviliazing the issue, but being restricted on possible domains on a TLD that only applies to a single country does not seem as big of an issue as actually interferring with what traffic can reach a country. It's large scale censorship such as the Great Firewall in China that should be more concerning than this.
Thank you Captain Obvious. A kick in the teeth is not as bad as dying. What's your point, other than to argue with a straw man?
Since when did "must be at least as worse as what happens in China" become a criterion for covering the story? How many of the Slashdot stories currently on the front page are about things as bad as bad things in China?
Honestly, the "not as bad as China" meme is getting old.
If the Irish people feel that they are being oppressed and it is a free speech issue, then they need to address that with their politicians.
Again, thank you for your insight into the bleeding obvious. And how do you think people might be aware of this issue so that they can contact politicians? Perhaps by covering the story on news sites such as this?
I've been using Apple products since the Apple ][, my friend, and fast they are not.
I've got ten year old PCs that run real-world data processing loads faster, and render web pages faster, than the latest mac with all the bells and whistles. Apple software sacrifices speed for a really pretty, moron-friendly interface just loaded with bling and eyecandy.
And before you ask, yes I do run almost entirely in text mode. If poorly designed web sites didn't force me into graphics display I'd still be using a text browser exclusively. I want to get stuff done, not watch TV. Macs are best for artists and people with computer use patterns that are intellectually equivalent to TV-watching.
No wonder we "never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow" - anyone who does so here gets modded down.
I don't know if the above user's experiences are typical or not, but his experience is valid just as much as the OP's anecdotes of "but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow".
Wait - so if a Mac is slow, there's a reason, but not if Windows is slow? Right.
You completely miss the point. There are just as likely to be fair explanations for why Windows is slow, that aren't the fault of Windows, but your whole point rested on the mere idea of, let me repeat it for you:
but you never hear folks complaining that Macs are slow
As if to suggest that that alone was sufficient to prove a point. Well, you've been proven wrong - someone has complained about a Mac being slow, so your point is invalid. If you want to retreat to a point where you claim that they are slow due to different reasons, then please feel free to submit the evidence.
I never hear people complaining Amigas are slow.
However, since PCs are used vastly more, I expect to be more likely to complain about them. Also they are less likely to be computer newbies (people who know about computers are less likely to say vague things like "My computer is slow"). You also have to factor in the whole "cool" brand image thing - people who have spent loads of money on a MacBook to be different aren't going to be admitting if it's then slow, are they? You might as well say you've never heard a Windows fan complain that Windows is slow - even if they've experienced it, they won't tell you. The difference here is that it's PCs which are mostly used by the average user (who happily complain), whilst Macs (and Amigas) are more likely to be used by people who specifically love them.
On the other hand we have PC manufacturers selling dirt cheap machines that "run" Vista but not well. If those same manufacturers only sold machines that ran their intended software well, the price point comparison would be pretty moot.
This is highly misleading. Yes, there might still be some PC manufacturers that try to shave off pennies by not including enough (do they still? This isn't 2007 anymore, 2GB is pretty standard), but the price required to have more than enough hardware to run Vista well is vastly lower than those MacBooks. I bet the one that Lauren walked out with was more than sufficient.
(OS X's requirements aren't exactly low these days, either.)
Well done for being a perfect example of what the OP was complaining about.
If you want to start a debate, rather than a tired old flamewar, let's see evidence, not assertions.
(PS - you do realise you can run more than just Windows on PCs, don't you?)
That's a good question that everyone should ask, but it has nothing to do with a Mac Tax. It's a "high-end computer tax." If Apple is making a business of only selling high-end computers, that's the market they've chosen, nothing wrong with that.
And there's also nothing wrong with Microsoft - or anyone else - pointing out that Apple don't offer any options for users other than the high end market.
Now if you want to say that macs are overpriced
I'd say "expensive" rather than "overpriced". I agree, you might argue it's okay for what it includes (I haven't checked), but that doesn't stop it being expensive - in this case, compared to other computers that are more than good enough for the vast majority of people who'll be watching Microsoft's advert (note that their advert doesn't say "overpriced" at all as far as I can tell, it merely points out that you can't get a Mac in that price range apart from one single model that she doesn't want, which is entirely factual).
I also don't really understand why there's all this hate against people who choose to buy high-end computers. It's true that they're not getting the most bang for the buck, but if it weren't for those buyers financing the high performance parts, the mid-range computers wouldn't advance as quickly.
Now you're diverting the argument. You can plug high end components (e.g., CPU or graphics card) into PCs that are still relatively cheap. I see no evidence that Mac users are pushing forward the industry or bringing lower prices. You might as well claim that we should be thankful to Amiga users, as they are higher priced these days. No one has anything against high-end users, that's a straw man (and no one hates Macs - this is the common pro-Apple fallacy where not using or liking the Mac must be out of some irrational hatred; I'd argue that there's at least as much "hate" and stereotyping towards people who use Windows).
What people are concerned with is trying to entice those people who are less knowledgable computers into spending vastly more than they need. This is bad whether it's a PC, Mac or a BeBox - I hate it when you get people trying to insist they better get a quad core machine so they can send emails, and so on. But it seems to be a particular issue with the Mac - "Get a Mac", they'll pipe up, "Think Different (and do just as I tell you)!" and give promises of how it will Just Work. So I'm glad to see an advert that counters this, and shows how you can get a computer that does what people want much more cheaply, just so long as it isn't a Mac.
It's also countering the idea that you need to spend money to be "cool" - that even people who know what they want are assumed to be "cheap" (consider the Ferrari comparisons in this thread) or ironically following the crowd ("Think Different"), or ignorant in their choices. This doesn't just apply to Macs (although it'd be one example), it's a plague in marketing in general, that people are pressured to spend just to get a brand name. So good luck to Microsoft for mocking it - "I'm just not cool enough to be a Mac person".
If they want them, and can afford them, who are you to tell you they're wrong?
I don't see where he tells anyone they are wrong? It's about marketing. The only one saying anyone's wrong is the pro-Apple blog that is the subject of this article, that suggests that Microsoft are wrong in their marketing.
Especially when you're indirectly benefiting from their choice.
Nonsense.
You're quite right - Apple's product line serves to maximise their profits, and do not benefit consumers. It just so happens that in the PC market, there are plenty that manage to stay in business whilst giving a range of products, and not charging a premium. I guess that's the extra competition, which is always a good thing for consumers.
You see, you're missing the point. The point isn't questioning why Apple charge so much money or offer so few products - the answer is bleeding obvious, you don't need to be an economist or market analyst to work that one out. The point is simply that they do - because some people still seem to think that they don't, and that Apple are acting in their interest, rather than Apple's own interest.
You should therefore be directing what you say to the Apple fans, not the PC users who are well aware of it, and that's why they're sticking with PCs. Should I decide which company to buy from based on what's best for the company, or what's best for me? I would think the answer ought to be obvious, so explaining how Apple's actions benefit themselves is redundant.
She'd also be happier with a dirt cheap netbook (buy a Linux one if you are that worried about viruses - but my computer inexperienced parents have ran Vista for a couple of years, without me having to clean up the mess). Cheaper, does what most people need, and vastly more portable.
I've never understood the market for the Mac Mini. So it might be "small" compared to the largest PCs, but in today's age of laptops and netbooks, it's nothing. So you've got the disadvantages of laptops (in terms of both price and performance), but it's still not as portable as one - the worst of both worlds, in my opinion. (And you can get small desktop PCs too, anyway, that will also be cheaper.)
However, it's not much more, and besides, the advantages are worth the price of admission.
What's much more though? Given that you can buy Linux PCs these days.