The robot cannot harm a human being, this includeds psycological damage and one would assume the personal damages o fhaving yourslef broadcast over the net would be included.
If that law doesn't work, the second one will definately kick in, self preservation except where it conflicts the first. If that robot got caugt, he'd be one smashed bot.
It's very simple really. Microsoft abuses it's customers over and over, and almost everyone that has used an M$ product has a big complaint about it and is looking for an alternative. However, there are very few Apple users who have huge issues with Apple and are looking for alternatives. Therefore, M$==bad, Apple==good
But which is better then, releasing a product fast to the market and patching all the bugs later, or takng the time to catch as many of the bugs as you can and then releasing it?
In that case, you probably have no need for OS X. And that's fine then. Being completely satisfied with your system would mean that you have no reasons to try anything else. The whole point of Apple's switch ads and general Apple evangelism is to bring people who are not satisfied with what they have over to an alternative. Some people are satisfied with Linux, others are not. This is why there are things such as articles to help UNIX users transition into some of the differences in the Mac OS.
The only other reason I could give you to go OS X over Linux is less time spent configuring your machine each time you do something new, but I would assume if you are as satisfied as you claim to be with your system, that you have worked out all the quirks of your set-up so again, that would have no berring for you. Still, if you can get a copy of it cheap, you might want to, just to toy arround with it. They're doing some nifty things, and you never know, you might like one of those ideas.
The reason of course depends. If youre a CLI junkie, and never touch the GUI, there is absolutely no reason to switch.
However if you are someone who spends time in the GUI, likes to do things other than just work with their computer and want a mildly pleasing to look at system, then you have plenty of reasons to switch to OS X.
The biggest reason of those is the fact that you can run *most* of your UNIX apps in OS X, you can run all the OS X apps, *most* of the classic apps and *most* windows apps too (with VPC).
1) You're in for a rude shock if you think there is any such thing as an unbiased viewpoint.
2) The GUI and other components may not be open source, but notice even you have to make the distinction between the GUI and the whole OS. That says something doesn't it? ANd since when was being opensource the measure of the quality of a product? How many programs do you use that aren't open source? Are they bad programs because they aren't opensource?
3) Is it so hard to believe that Apple has produced a product which people are interested in?
Re:call em information broker sugarbitch
on
Libraries Are 31337
·
· Score: 2
FYI, TFT is active matrix. You're probably thinking HPA.
You missed what I said. I said that UNIX had grown up on the x86 before Apple or Next had started using it. There fore it only makes sense that the code you are using would come from x86 code rather than PC. I realize x86 was not the first UNIX architecture, but that was the most logical place for Apple to start drawing code from.
Now it depends on how this was done. I can see the airline and the government having a big issue if these reporters did this and then put it out on the 6:00 news without talking to either the athorities or at least the airline first.
It makes logical sense. OS X takes it's roots (no pun intended) from UNIX, UNIX grew up on x86 architectures long before Apple started using it, therefore it only makes sense that the code would be mostly optimised for CISC.
Ok, to start, even if you don't believe the 2x faster Mhz Myth bit that Apple claims ( and I don't) there is a definate difference between mac and PC processors, and not just in the Mhz rating. The dual 1 Ghz bit seems a bit steep for your system requirements.
Second, you would be crazy to buy a memory upgrade from anywhere except a third party and install it yourself. Apple Dell gateway will all over charge for extra memory. No suprise there.
I have yet to see (except in some really really expensive models) an LCD screen that rivals the one's Apple uses. Seriously, go to and Apple store, play with the LCDs there, then go to a PC store, the difference is incredible.
Not only that, but again, you need to factor in the bits and pieces that Dell isn't giving you (firewire, gigabit ethernet, check the speeds on the super-drive that dell gives you if you get one, the Apple one is generaly a better spec one than most of the PC companies are selling) and which OS does the Dell come with, and what about M$ office (yes Apple works doesn't quite compare, but it sure beats the hell out of notepad).
Also, I see Apple only wanting $200 more to upgrade the dual Ghz from 256 to 512.
I'm not saying the Mac comes out cheaper. In 90% of the cases, the towers are horrible deals. But their laptops compete.
Most teachers I know use macs. We had one teacher at the highschool I worked at who bitched and moaned when we first set him up with an iMac. At the end of the year, he had been promoted to assistant principal at the school and the office he moved into had a PC. The day after he moved in, he called us in to get rid of the PC and bring back his mac. Last I heard, he was seriosly considering buying an iBook.
There isn't a single k-12 teacher I can think of save for computer science teachers that could install, run or even download and make an immage of the linux CDs. That is why linux being free isn't news. That and because linux has always been free, so the norm is not news
Think about it. Take a look arround you at kids. Almost all of them are walking bilboards for one brand name or another. The sony headphones, the ambercrombie and fitch shirts, the Lee jeans, Nike shoes, Fubu jackets, the list goes on and on. Budwiser shirts, DKNY, Weezer etc etc etc. Kids are already used to seeing ads everywhere they look. What difference does it make if there are pepsi posters arroudn school, and Apples in the lab? Kids are either sheep or make their own decisions. Either way, it won't matter what we do.
hmmm, the school district I worked at was almost the exact opposite of your picture. Teachers didn't copy any software, infact they didn't even get the discs, if they wanted somethign they brought it to us and we checked the licences and then did the installs. The school was so paranoid, we couldn't even install NT on the machines we had just finished building untill the new licences came back from M$, despite the fact that we had sent the order out, we were just waiting for confirmation.
The school board at the district did not use macs, in fact the board of ed was pushing to have PCs (lower initial cost don'cha know). This was caused a minor uproard amongst teachers. At the highschool it was a roughly 60-40 split, with heavy support for macs from the art department and the music department (but since when has a highschool cared about them?). At the middle school it was nearly 90% support for macs, only some of the new teachers fresh out of college didn't like the macs. At the elementary school it was 100% support for the macs.
Before someone tries to refute my "lasts longer" statement. Please, don't compare emachines and $400 gateways and compaqs to eMacs. They aren't competitors. the price difference is far greater than 2x.
How are they not competitors? they are aimed at the low end low price market for each of the respective companies? Just because Apple tends to use decent parts in theri machines instead of the crap that goes into the low end PCs doesn't make it unfair to compare them, it just means the PC makers need to put better hardware in.
Yeah it is fine, because no one is a mac user be default. Anyone who uses a mac, uses one by choice and is therefore not locked into the mac. If a mac user wanted to switch to PC (for whatever reason) it would simply be a matter of reselling their mac and software to someone else, since macs have great resale value. However, most computer users, and espesialy students, have only known PC all their lives (or if they've known mac, they've known the shitty setups the schools use). So by furthering their exposure to one and only one platform, they are being further locked into that platform.
Think about it this way, very very few mac users bitch about being locked into Apple, but you can always find a windows user who complains about being locked into microsoft.
Unfortunately not all technology administrators are bright. At a highschool I worked at, one of the guy in charge of technology had us take an inventory of the number of computers that would be nessesary to do that summer's expansion. He told us that with the exception of the art department (which fought tooth and nail for some very nice G4s) all the new machines would be Dells because they were cheaper for the school to purchase. This makes sense only if you don't take into account that the day before, he had been complaining to us about how the new Microsoft licensing scheme was going to bankrupt the tech budget and how he wished there was something other than windows to use (linux doesn't cut it in a highschool, these kids have enough trouble figuring out the difference between using IE on a PC and IE on a mac). The whole situation was even more ironic because the week before he had been compllaining that in the past year, the machines that had been in the shop the most were the new Dells that we had been sent on a trial program. Despite the fact that all of us could see that the Dell package was going to be bad news, all he saw was the low low price on that contract.
Is it really that much more succesful though? Apple makes something like a 15% profit margin on every machine it sells. It has survived practicaly unscathed through economic downturns and contrary to popular belief at the time, survived through the 90's. They are currently growing, still innovating and are the only other OS to succesfuly hold out against Windows (linux is free, it won't go away, ever). Despite many power shifts, bad mistakes and large debts they have somehow managed to stay in business all these years. So tell me, why is Apple unsuccesful?
Slashdot Mirror
It's already covered by the first 2 laws.
The robot cannot harm a human being, this includeds psycological damage and one would assume the personal damages o fhaving yourslef broadcast over the net would be included.
If that law doesn't work, the second one will definately kick in, self preservation except where it conflicts the first. If that robot got caugt, he'd be one smashed bot.
Try Hellsing. Outlawstar is good, but get the subs, and if you're just lookig for something funny, Nadesico wasn't half bad.
It's very simple really. Microsoft abuses it's customers over and over, and almost everyone that has used an M$ product has a big complaint about it and is looking for an alternative. However, there are very few Apple users who have huge issues with Apple and are looking for alternatives. Therefore, M$==bad, Apple==good
But which is better then, releasing a product fast to the market and patching all the bugs later, or takng the time to catch as many of the bugs as you can and then releasing it?
In that case, you probably have no need for OS X. And that's fine then. Being completely satisfied with your system would mean that you have no reasons to try anything else. The whole point of Apple's switch ads and general Apple evangelism is to bring people who are not satisfied with what they have over to an alternative. Some people are satisfied with Linux, others are not. This is why there are things such as articles to help UNIX users transition into some of the differences in the Mac OS.
The only other reason I could give you to go OS X over Linux is less time spent configuring your machine each time you do something new, but I would assume if you are as satisfied as you claim to be with your system, that you have worked out all the quirks of your set-up so again, that would have no berring for you. Still, if you can get a copy of it cheap, you might want to, just to toy arround with it. They're doing some nifty things, and you never know, you might like one of those ideas.
um... most of the PCs I see today are still white, or grey or biege. No aluminum, no black (except the dells).
The reason of course depends. If youre a CLI junkie, and never touch the GUI, there is absolutely no reason to switch.
However if you are someone who spends time in the GUI, likes to do things other than just work with their computer and want a mildly pleasing to look at system, then you have plenty of reasons to switch to OS X.
The biggest reason of those is the fact that you can run *most* of your UNIX apps in OS X, you can run all the OS X apps, *most* of the classic apps and *most* windows apps too (with VPC).
1) You're in for a rude shock if you think there is any such thing as an unbiased viewpoint.
2) The GUI and other components may not be open source, but notice even you have to make the distinction between the GUI and the whole OS. That says something doesn't it? ANd since when was being opensource the measure of the quality of a product? How many programs do you use that aren't open source? Are they bad programs because they aren't opensource?
3) Is it so hard to believe that Apple has produced a product which people are interested in?
FYI, TFT is active matrix. You're probably thinking HPA.
You missed what I said. I said that UNIX had grown up on the x86 before Apple or Next had started using it. There fore it only makes sense that the code you are using would come from x86 code rather than PC. I realize x86 was not the first UNIX architecture, but that was the most logical place for Apple to start drawing code from.
Now it depends on how this was done. I can see the airline and the government having a big issue if these reporters did this and then put it out on the 6:00 news without talking to either the athorities or at least the airline first.
It makes logical sense. OS X takes it's roots (no pun intended) from UNIX, UNIX grew up on x86 architectures long before Apple started using it, therefore it only makes sense that the code would be mostly optimised for CISC.
For those of you that care to get specific, Red Hat is mostly housed on the centenial campus of NCSU.
Ok, to start, even if you don't believe the 2x faster Mhz Myth bit that Apple claims ( and I don't) there is a definate difference between mac and PC processors, and not just in the Mhz rating. The dual 1 Ghz bit seems a bit steep for your system requirements.
Second, you would be crazy to buy a memory upgrade from anywhere except a third party and install it yourself. Apple Dell gateway will all over charge for extra memory. No suprise there.
I have yet to see (except in some really really expensive models) an LCD screen that rivals the one's Apple uses. Seriously, go to and Apple store, play with the LCDs there, then go to a PC store, the difference is incredible.
Not only that, but again, you need to factor in the bits and pieces that Dell isn't giving you (firewire, gigabit ethernet, check the speeds on the super-drive that dell gives you if you get one, the Apple one is generaly a better spec one than most of the PC companies are selling) and which OS does the Dell come with, and what about M$ office (yes Apple works doesn't quite compare, but it sure beats the hell out of notepad).
Also, I see Apple only wanting $200 more to upgrade the dual Ghz from 256 to 512.
I'm not saying the Mac comes out cheaper. In 90% of the cases, the towers are horrible deals. But their laptops compete.
Most teachers I know use macs. We had one teacher at the highschool I worked at who bitched and moaned when we first set him up with an iMac. At the end of the year, he had been promoted to assistant principal at the school and the office he moved into had a PC. The day after he moved in, he called us in to get rid of the PC and bring back his mac. Last I heard, he was seriosly considering buying an iBook.
There isn't a single k-12 teacher I can think of save for computer science teachers that could install, run or even download and make an immage of the linux CDs. That is why linux being free isn't news. That and because linux has always been free, so the norm is not news
Think about it. Take a look arround you at kids. Almost all of them are walking bilboards for one brand name or another. The sony headphones, the ambercrombie and fitch shirts, the Lee jeans, Nike shoes, Fubu jackets, the list goes on and on. Budwiser shirts, DKNY, Weezer etc etc etc. Kids are already used to seeing ads everywhere they look. What difference does it make if there are pepsi posters arroudn school, and Apples in the lab? Kids are either sheep or make their own decisions. Either way, it won't matter what we do.
hmmm, the school district I worked at was almost the exact opposite of your picture. Teachers didn't copy any software, infact they didn't even get the discs, if they wanted somethign they brought it to us and we checked the licences and then did the installs. The school was so paranoid, we couldn't even install NT on the machines we had just finished building untill the new licences came back from M$, despite the fact that we had sent the order out, we were just waiting for confirmation.
The school board at the district did not use macs, in fact the board of ed was pushing to have PCs (lower initial cost don'cha know). This was caused a minor uproard amongst teachers. At the highschool it was a roughly 60-40 split, with heavy support for macs from the art department and the music department (but since when has a highschool cared about them?). At the middle school it was nearly 90% support for macs, only some of the new teachers fresh out of college didn't like the macs. At the elementary school it was 100% support for the macs.
Before someone tries to refute my "lasts longer" statement. Please, don't compare emachines and $400 gateways and compaqs to eMacs. They aren't competitors. the price difference is far greater than 2x.
How are they not competitors? they are aimed at the low end low price market for each of the respective companies? Just because Apple tends to use decent parts in theri machines instead of the crap that goes into the low end PCs doesn't make it unfair to compare them, it just means the PC makers need to put better hardware in.
Two things
1) This would be a special case since a) it's only going to k-12 teachers and b) as I read it, it's the single user version
2) This isn't quite product dumping because if you own a mac, chances are you're probably already using mac OS, meaning this is just a free upgrade.
Yeah it is fine, because no one is a mac user be default. Anyone who uses a mac, uses one by choice and is therefore not locked into the mac. If a mac user wanted to switch to PC (for whatever reason) it would simply be a matter of reselling their mac and software to someone else, since macs have great resale value. However, most computer users, and espesialy students, have only known PC all their lives (or if they've known mac, they've known the shitty setups the schools use). So by furthering their exposure to one and only one platform, they are being further locked into that platform.
Think about it this way, very very few mac users bitch about being locked into Apple, but you can always find a windows user who complains about being locked into microsoft.
Unfortunately not all technology administrators are bright. At a highschool I worked at, one of the guy in charge of technology had us take an inventory of the number of computers that would be nessesary to do that summer's expansion. He told us that with the exception of the art department (which fought tooth and nail for some very nice G4s) all the new machines would be Dells because they were cheaper for the school to purchase. This makes sense only if you don't take into account that the day before, he had been complaining to us about how the new Microsoft licensing scheme was going to bankrupt the tech budget and how he wished there was something other than windows to use (linux doesn't cut it in a highschool, these kids have enough trouble figuring out the difference between using IE on a PC and IE on a mac). The whole situation was even more ironic because the week before he had been compllaining that in the past year, the machines that had been in the shop the most were the new Dells that we had been sent on a trial program. Despite the fact that all of us could see that the Dell package was going to be bad news, all he saw was the low low price on that contract.
Is it really that much more succesful though? Apple makes something like a 15% profit margin on every machine it sells. It has survived practicaly unscathed through economic downturns and contrary to popular belief at the time, survived through the 90's. They are currently growing, still innovating and are the only other OS to succesfuly hold out against Windows (linux is free, it won't go away, ever). Despite many power shifts, bad mistakes and large debts they have somehow managed to stay in business all these years. So tell me, why is Apple unsuccesful?
Bullshit. I have yet to see a single person show me a TOL PC for $1000. So would you care to step up to the challenge?
But if they cook from the inside out, why do the middle of the hot pockets always stay frozen?