They make decent money from iPods, but not enough to offset the fact that they entire company rests on the health of one man. One man with cancer who's known to rely on fruity crystals and snake oil over medical treatment.
If you buy a copy of Windows, you can transfer it to a machine from any other vendor.
Further, you don't need to tie yourself to Windows at all anymore. If you develop for.NET, you can transfer to any system that supports that at any time.
A particular Apple machine might suit my purposes at one time, but that doesn't imply that they'll always be able to meet my needs. I wouldn't lash myself to the mast of Apple any more than I would Dell or Acer or any other hardware vendor. So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person.
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
They've almost died on PC sales several times
on
Psystar Crushed In Court
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Their real profit these days is the iPod/iPhone/iTunes segment. Which they would make approximately zero on if they were only available to Mac users.
Psystar winning would be terrible for Microsoft
on
Psystar Crushed In Court
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Microsoft is very happy with the status quo. Apple voluntarily limits itself to the tiny niche that is their own hardware. As is, they're absolutely no threat to Microsoft.
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
I wouldn't buy a laptop without a standard VGA connector. But I've seen plenty of sheepish Mac users running through presentations with broken dongles.
Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector. If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors, their presentations would just be untinted, and no one would know they'd paid extra for their computer.
Think horses, not zebras. When you hear "the scientific establishment is persecuting me," think crackpot.
I can tell you that I'm currently losing 2-3 kg per month, and I'm doing it without tracking carbs at all, outside of total calories. I am keeping fat at below 60 g/day, preferably less. I can tell you that the idea that a low fat/calorie, carb irrelevant diet is not successful is indisputably false.
Perhaps a low carb/calorie fat irrelevant diet would also be successful. I don't know. It's dishonest to dispute that the available data is at best inconclusive, and possibly contradicts that theory.
That's the one point that needs to be understood. There's no effortless magic bullet to losing weight.
The problem I think is that real weight loss is so gradual that you won't notice the change as it's happening. You don't get the positive feedback that you need to learn.
Based on you're synopsis, his theory is quite trivially wrong. Cutting carbs is purely a gimmick and isn't, in and of itself, going to help anyone lose weight. Cutting the calories in those carbs can, but eating lard because it's low in carbs is quite obviously a bad idea.
That of course is not what Atkins (or presumably this guy) actually say, but it is how they get translated for the masses.
But I think it's fair to say that you couldn't remain healthy on 900 calories a day, where as 1700 - 800 is entirely doable. In fact that's very close to what I've been doing.
Famine victims in third world countries would presumably get at least moderate exercise, what with not having cars. That said, no one is suggesting that you'll lose all or even a large portion of your muscle mass from dieting.
Slashdot Mirror
Grow or die. Microsoft hasn't got any room to grow in the OS market...
I'd happily short Apple stock the day before Job's death, if I had that particular bit of info.
I run mostly Linux, with the odd windows VM. What hole would OS X fill for me?
They make decent money from iPods, but not enough to offset the fact that they entire company rests on the health of one man. One man with cancer who's known to rely on fruity crystals and snake oil over medical treatment.
Webkit (ie, KDE's html renderer) is pretty slick. But there's no more reason to use it with OS X than any other system.
Even if your needs remain constant, Apple's offering's don't.
You can probably work around it if cost is irrelevant, but it's not for any reasonable person.
If you buy a copy of Windows, you can transfer it to a machine from any other vendor.
Further, you don't need to tie yourself to Windows at all anymore. If you develop for .NET, you can transfer to any system that supports that at any time.
All the interesting bits are either proprietary, or written by someone else.
Apple has never given it a real chance.
A particular Apple machine might suit my purposes at one time, but that doesn't imply that they'll always be able to meet my needs. I wouldn't lash myself to the mast of Apple any more than I would Dell or Acer or any other hardware vendor. So long as OS X is tied to a single vendor, it's absolutely irrelevant to any reasonable person.
Psystar isn't a front for anyone. That doesn't mean they haven't been used by real players.
The truly powerful don't need to do anything so unsubtle as conspiracy nuts like to believe. They can take existing bit players, and give them the right nudge for the same effect.
Their real profit these days is the iPod/iPhone/iTunes segment. Which they would make approximately zero on if they were only available to Mac users.
Microsoft is very happy with the status quo. Apple voluntarily limits itself to the tiny niche that is their own hardware. As is, they're absolutely no threat to Microsoft.
OS X is a decent operating system, but few people can be satisfied by a single hardware vendor. Might as well write off Apple as a player now, as it's unlikely they'll ever release the death grip and let the world play with OS X.
I didn't mean to imply that exercise alone would help much, if at all.
I wouldn't buy a laptop without a standard VGA connector. But I've seen plenty of sheepish Mac users running through presentations with broken dongles.
Mac users want that distinctive green, blue or pink tint that only an Apple dongle can give you when they hook up to a standard projector. If Mac laptops had standardized display connectors, their presentations would just be untinted, and no one would know they'd paid extra for their computer.
Think horses, not zebras. When you hear "the scientific establishment is persecuting me," think crackpot.
I can tell you that I'm currently losing 2-3 kg per month, and I'm doing it without tracking carbs at all, outside of total calories. I am keeping fat at below 60 g/day, preferably less. I can tell you that the idea that a low fat/calorie, carb irrelevant diet is not successful is indisputably false.
Perhaps a low carb/calorie fat irrelevant diet would also be successful. I don't know. It's dishonest to dispute that the available data is at best inconclusive, and possibly contradicts that theory.
That's the one point that needs to be understood. There's no effortless magic bullet to losing weight.
The problem I think is that real weight loss is so gradual that you won't notice the change as it's happening. You don't get the positive feedback that you need to learn.
Based on you're synopsis, his theory is quite trivially wrong. Cutting carbs is purely a gimmick and isn't, in and of itself, going to help anyone lose weight. Cutting the calories in those carbs can, but eating lard because it's low in carbs is quite obviously a bad idea.
That of course is not what Atkins (or presumably this guy) actually say, but it is how they get translated for the masses.
Unfortunately :(
By losing 2-3 kg/month.
Though I likely have a slow metabolism. Eating 500 calories less than the estimated base metabolic rate for my height and build had me gaining weight.
I'm hardly starving myself, though. 1700 calories can be a lot if you stay away from high fat foods.
But I think it's fair to say that you couldn't remain healthy on 900 calories a day, where as 1700 - 800 is entirely doable. In fact that's very close to what I've been doing.
Famine victims in third world countries would presumably get at least moderate exercise, what with not having cars. That said, no one is suggesting that you'll lose all or even a large portion of your muscle mass from dieting.
Burning fat just isn't the only or first tactic available. Reducing metabolism and muscle mass will also happen.
Though if you die of "starvation" with love handles, it'll really be malnutrition.