Now-days, it is rarely much cheaper to build over buy, especially when you take time into account. In addition, you'd be hard pressed to build an all-in-one machine like these from OTS components.
Computers are just a tool as far as I'm concerned, and I'd rather buy the one that helps me work in the most pleasing and efficient manner then spend my fairly valuable time trying to save $5 on magnetic disks.
In addition to my previous comment, there is little reason to worry about Apple programs running on Linux, as pretty much any Linux-compatible program can be run on OS X either through existing binaries or after a re-compile. Isn't that one of the things that open source software is all about?
For such a supposedly enlightened poster, I'm surprised you use such straw-man arguments as made up sentences like: "If you do so much as find a bug or link to an online manual you get sued."
I think people here appreciate Apple because they make good software that is generally enjoyable to use. People may like the "freedom" of Linux, or the usability of Mac OS, but there is little to like about Windows, except perhaps ubiquity.
Are you sure they require Internet Explorer? Many sites may say Internet Explorer, but don't really require it. I'd investigate.
In the end, you can use a product like VMWare or Parallels to run Windows programs side-by-side with Mac software. Frankly, I wouldn't use a bank that was dumb enough to use ActiveX.
What do you do that the Dell can accomplish better than the Mac? Certainly not gaming, as the Dell has integrated video while the Mac has a discrete graphics solution (and can run Windows if necessary). Certainly not systems administration, or programming, or internet activities...so what exactly?
Minorities being oversampled on TV news? You do realize that in many urban areas, minority males make up the majority of criminals, right? This isn't because of their skin color, but because of other historical and cultural factors that have resulted in this disparity. Just because something is distasteful doesn't mean you can just wish it away. I do agree, though, that it's unfortunate that the present state of affairs leads to racial tension and unwarranted suspicion.
If you seriously believe that this is being done because "The government needs to bring the boogeyman home", you are giving the government way too much credit. As someone who's job it is to actually go after some of these folks, I can see the obvious utility of such a plan, and it's a massive violation of simplicity principles to suggest that that use isn't the primary (or even only) reason to go this route.
Yeah, I'm sure you know all about it.../rolleyes
Seriously, I know you're trying hard to be inflammatory and I'm taking the bait, but until you've actually been there, you really don't know what you're talking about.
What's sad is that while you seem thoughtful and reasonable, many in this thread are actively hostile toward others just because of their religion, while at the same time accusing the religious of small-mindedness. A digusting double-standard.
While pre-existing times of celebration were appropriated, this is common throughout culture and history, regardless of religion. While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ. I find it strange that people are so eager to denigrate one particular religion's holidays...it's pretty small-minded and disgusting.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument about the definition of "irony", but it sure seems "ironic" that China, arguably the piracy capital of the world, is labasting a search company about piracy concerns.
No artificial metric really matters in the security landscape.
In the end, what matters is the real-world security performance of these systems. Sure, it's not so easy to quantify and measure, but stories like this ZDNet fodder are just pageview generators, and nothing more.
While pair programming may not win any contests for LOC/hr efficiency, that is not the only measure of such. For some projects, for some people, pair programming provides efficiency gains in bug creation/resolution, on-spec performance, and reduction of dead-end programming. YMMV.
I think you may be mistaking a page of conceptual ideas for a complete design. Even if the submitted article tries to pass it off as such, these are just a set of proposals that Crockford has been discussing. This particular page is more of a list than anything; it does not contain his entire concept or justification. He does a great job of discussing some of these things in person.
"The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e)."
Because it sure sounds to me like they are separate entities, and that NASA is, by the definition of its charter, a civilian agency. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with the background checks, but your facts are wrong.
It doesn't matter if it's not defense-related. There is plenty of non-defense sensitive information. In addition, anyone at JPL could be exposed, or have access to, a significant amount of classified material. Compartmentalization can only go so far in such an organization.
Is this definitely justified? Not necessarily. However, it does not warrant a knee-jerk "The JBTs are taking away our privacy!" either.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the article is talking about the JPL, where a lot of very sensitive, espionage-sensitive technology is developed and worked on.
Or maybe your rush to sarcasm and hyperbole clouded your judgment.
This is not ignorance; far from it, this attitude comes from extensive, up-close-and-personal familiarity with these processes and the considerations behind them.
Slashdot Mirror
1998 called, they want their PC economics back.
Now-days, it is rarely much cheaper to build over buy, especially when you take time into account. In addition, you'd be hard pressed to build an all-in-one machine like these from OTS components.
Computers are just a tool as far as I'm concerned, and I'd rather buy the one that helps me work in the most pleasing and efficient manner then spend my fairly valuable time trying to save $5 on magnetic disks.
In addition to my previous comment, there is little reason to worry about Apple programs running on Linux, as pretty much any Linux-compatible program can be run on OS X either through existing binaries or after a re-compile. Isn't that one of the things that open source software is all about?
For such a supposedly enlightened poster, I'm surprised you use such straw-man arguments as made up sentences like: "If you do so much as find a bug or link to an online manual you get sued."
I think people here appreciate Apple because they make good software that is generally enjoyable to use. People may like the "freedom" of Linux, or the usability of Mac OS, but there is little to like about Windows, except perhaps ubiquity.
Your entire analysis makes the mistake of assuming that the entire market is made up of customers just like you.
Are you sure they require Internet Explorer? Many sites may say Internet Explorer, but don't really require it. I'd investigate.
In the end, you can use a product like VMWare or Parallels to run Windows programs side-by-side with Mac software.
Frankly, I wouldn't use a bank that was dumb enough to use ActiveX.
It would be even greener if you would just stop using computers.
The Dell XPSOne is also an all-in-one design like the iMac.
What do you do that the Dell can accomplish better than the Mac? Certainly not gaming, as the Dell has integrated video while the Mac has a discrete graphics solution (and can run Windows if necessary). Certainly not systems administration, or programming, or internet activities...so what exactly?
So...your argument is that we replace helicopters with electric scooters?
I don't necessarily agree with this idea either, but your argument makes little sense.
That statistic is not the least bit true.
Are you one of those nuts that thinks guns have a mind of their own, and "could go off at any time"?
The straw men are flying today!
Minorities being oversampled on TV news?
You do realize that in many urban areas, minority males make up the majority of criminals, right? This isn't because of their skin color, but because of other historical and cultural factors that have resulted in this disparity. Just because something is distasteful doesn't mean you can just wish it away. I do agree, though, that it's unfortunate that the present state of affairs leads to racial tension and unwarranted suspicion.
If you seriously believe that this is being done because "The government needs to bring the boogeyman home", you are giving the government way too much credit. As someone who's job it is to actually go after some of these folks, I can see the obvious utility of such a plan, and it's a massive violation of simplicity principles to suggest that that use isn't the primary (or even only) reason to go this route.
Yeah, I'm sure you know all about it.../rolleyes
Seriously, I know you're trying hard to be inflammatory and I'm taking the bait, but until you've actually been there, you really don't know what you're talking about.
What's sad is that while you seem thoughtful and reasonable, many in this thread are actively hostile toward others just because of their religion, while at the same time accusing the religious of small-mindedness.
A digusting double-standard.
While pre-existing times of celebration were appropriated, this is common throughout culture and history, regardless of religion.
While saturnalia, etc., may be a pagan holiday, Christmas itself is very much about Christ. I find it strange that people are so eager to denigrate one particular religion's holidays...it's pretty small-minded and disgusting.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument about the definition of "irony", but it sure seems "ironic" that China, arguably the piracy capital of the world, is labasting a search company about piracy concerns.
No artificial metric really matters in the security landscape.
In the end, what matters is the real-world security performance of these systems. Sure, it's not so easy to quantify and measure, but stories like this ZDNet fodder are just pageview generators, and nothing more.
While pair programming may not win any contests for LOC/hr efficiency, that is not the only measure of such. For some projects, for some people, pair programming provides efficiency gains in bug creation/resolution, on-spec performance, and reduction of dead-end programming. YMMV.
That does sound promising.
I think you may be mistaking a page of conceptual ideas for a complete design. Even if the submitted article tries to pass it off as such, these are just a set of proposals that Crockford has been discussing. This particular page is more of a list than anything; it does not contain his entire concept or justification. He does a great job of discussing some of these things in person.
I especially like the "module" concept, which could help to standardize, secure, and simplify a lot of AJAX and similar concepts.
You mean this part of the charter?
"The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e)."
Because it sure sounds to me like they are separate entities, and that NASA is, by the definition of its charter, a civilian agency. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with the background checks, but your facts are wrong.
It doesn't matter if it's not defense-related. There is plenty of non-defense sensitive information. In addition, anyone at JPL could be exposed, or have access to, a significant amount of classified material. Compartmentalization can only go so far in such an organization.
Is this definitely justified? Not necessarily. However, it does not warrant a knee-jerk "The JBTs are taking away our privacy!" either.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the article is talking about the JPL, where a lot of very sensitive, espionage-sensitive technology is developed and worked on. Or maybe your rush to sarcasm and hyperbole clouded your judgment. This is not ignorance; far from it, this attitude comes from extensive, up-close-and-personal familiarity with these processes and the considerations behind them.