Although I don't disagree with what I think is your larger point, that it is individuals and not guns who are bear the responsibility for gun violence, I do have two minor criticisms:
There is, in fact, evidence from psychology that the mere visual presence of a gun increases an individual's propensity to violent thinking. I don't have a reference handy, and am only remembering this from my social psychology textbook, so I can't vouch for sure as to the accuracy of my expression of the finding, but I think that was the gist of it. This is a long way from saying that a gun "creates the motivation" for violence, but I do think it prevents you from logically lumping guns together with crowbars, hands, and cars without further comment.
In your third paragraph, you refer to guns as "the tools of freedom." Could the statement you make not be turned around just as reasonably to read, "Gun control opponents try to prevent the elimination of the tools of violence because they MIGHT be used by their owners as tools for defending freedom?" After all, guns are used as tools of illegal violence every day in the United States, but it's been a couple of hundred years since they were used by ordinary civilians in defense of freedom. I just don't find it highly plausible that individual ownership of guns is still necessary for the defense of freedom, from either our own or a foreign government. This alone does not mean that the government has an unfettered right to deprive individuals of guns, and you may still make a case for the utility of guns for personal self-defense, but I don't think the colonial argument is anywhere near as relevant, if at all, in 2002.
Right. And if a college or university decided to give away laptops preloaded with Linux, there would be no question of its newsworthiness and the appropriateness of its posting on Slashdot (granted, that really would be newsworthy as something both novel and cool). The point is, stuff about Macs gets posted and read because a lot of people who read Slashdot like Macs, just like to a greater degree stuff about Linux gets posted because the editors, posters, and readers really like it, simple as that. As has been said plenty of times before, if Macs aren't your thing and you don't want to read about them on Slashdot, filter out the Apple topics.
And of course it would be different if it was Microsoft. While "screaming that the world is going to end" would be foolish, it is true that Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, has at its disposal forms of leverage which are unavailable to Apple (which, as has been often reported, is becoming the underdog in the education market it traditionally dominated in the past). I see far less detriment in a move which benefits the market underdog compared with one which further increases the hold of the market dominator. And anyway, the school's motivation here is obviously not to promote Apple and its products; they're doing it because it benefits themselves, and, to a lesser extent, their students.
Who is this typical Mac user or zealot whom you describe, and about whose origins you hypothesize? I ask because I'm wondering if there even is any such thing as the typical Mac user, or the typical Windows user, typical Linux user, etc. Yes, I realize we all have "my experience" on which to draw for support in our stereotyping, but experience can be a notoriously poor source of information when it comes to characterizing whole groups of people. For example, after forming our stereotypes, we are far more likely to remember and allow to make an impression those people we encounter who reinforce the stereotype than those who refute it.
I realize, of course, that without the ability to talk about groups of computer users in sweeping generalities, both positively and negatively, a good chunk of the threads on Slashdot would disappear. But there are logical flaws in these claims which render them silly, both in those which generalize about the awfulness of Mac zealots, and those which generalize about Mac users being creative professionals who don't need to be technically proficient. The bottom line is, if you haven't systematically and objectively studied a group of people, and if your claims are based solely on "your experience", you don't know what you're talking about when you generalize about them.
And just as a personal counterexample: I am a Mac user, I am very technical, I am not nor have I ever been intimidated by using a computer, I am not a creative professional and have never even launched Photoshop, I know plenty about Windows and Unix, and am trained as a Unix sysadmin. I started screwing around with old Macs a couple of years ago because it was cheap, fun, and a challenge to get a twelve-year-old computer working and usable; now, I'm happy to have a well-designed computer that runs Unix and is fun. Yes, I know that I'm supposed to be in the Mac minority here, but, beyond your biased experience, how do you know that?
It seems to be popular to respond to this article with the standard "more FUD from Microsoft" line, but does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Note that for the purposes of this discussion, "Microsoft owns Slate, stupid" doesn't count as evidence, since it tells us nothing about the editorial control Microsoft has over what appears in Slate. As a regular reader of Slate, I can attest that I have yet to see any blatantly pro-Microsoft bias in the articles which appear in it. In fact, the writers and editors are usually quite scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of bias. So, based on my reading the damn thing for a couple of years now, my conclusion is that what appears in Slate reflects the ideas and opinions of the people who work for Slate, not the people who control Microsoft.
Allow me to pre-empt any "You're a Microsoft shill" replies: no, I'm not. I think their business practices are on the whole contemptible, and that their software design sucks. But in this case, the "more Microsoft FUD" response is just a lazy way out. If you think the article was inaccurate and flawed in its conclusions, tell us why. But enough of this "Who owns Slate? LOL!" bullshit.
Actually, it was my understanding that the previous OmniWeb icon looked too much like the icon for the 'Internet' pane under System Preferences, not the 'Network' icon. And, comparing them, they do look pretty similar, especially at the small size at which the 'Internet' icon is usually viewed in the System Preferences window. Too bad, though: I really preferred the old OmniWeb icon to the current blue-and-green one.
This case doesn't seem to be the classic one of Apple getting tough on third parties over UI issues. I could be wrong, but it looks like Apple simply asked the Omni Group to change their icon, and the Omni people granted their request. It would make sense that these two companies would want to remain on good terms, as the Omni Group, as far as I'm concerned, is setting the standards for how OS X applications should look and behave--in some cases, even more so than Apple is.
And how could you not love a software company who states that their mission is to "make software that is useful and fun?"
Apple sells the myth of G4 performance superiority with Photoshop benchmarks, thus convincing the gullible and non-technical people. Photoshop indeed performs better on a Mac because it is optimized for the platform[.]
This raises a question about the importance of benchmarks: if a technical magazine says your computer is slower, but the application you use the most every day (as many Apple users do Photoshop) runs faster on your computer, then who's being fooled? While we technical folks might tend to obsess over benchmarks, the masses of gullible, non-technical people only care about getting their stuff done as easily and as quickly as possible, regardless of the technical merits of the chip powering their computer.
CNET seems to have crafted more pseudo-news on the cynical premise that, when you need some quick hits, try a "Microsoft vs. Somebody" story or an "Embattled Apple" story, or, if you really want hits, a "Microsoft vs. Apple" story.
See if this sounds like a plausible timeline:
Microsoft (not for the first time) preannounces a product by many months.
CNET writer reads this, glances at calendar, sees upcoming Macworld, says "Aha! Microsoft vs. Apple! Must be a story here somewhere!"
CNET writer gets usual motley crew of industry analysts to concur that, yep, sometimes Microsoft and Apple don't get along.
CNET writer comes up with appropriately bellicose terms, like "pre-emptive strikes", "strategic attack", "salvo", and "thunder-stealing".
Reader says to self, "Shit! There must be a war goin' on here!" Reader forgets that "strategic attack" implies some sort of, well, strategy on Microsoft's part, evidence for which is never given in the story.
This isn't to say that it's either impossible or implausible that Microsoft would time their announcement to undercut Apple; but where's the supporting evidence for this, beyond a little anonymous insider grousing?
Slashdot Mirror
Right. And if a college or university decided to give away laptops preloaded with Linux, there would be no question of its newsworthiness and the appropriateness of its posting on Slashdot (granted, that really would be newsworthy as something both novel and cool). The point is, stuff about Macs gets posted and read because a lot of people who read Slashdot like Macs, just like to a greater degree stuff about Linux gets posted because the editors, posters, and readers really like it, simple as that. As has been said plenty of times before, if Macs aren't your thing and you don't want to read about them on Slashdot, filter out the Apple topics.
And of course it would be different if it was Microsoft. While "screaming that the world is going to end" would be foolish, it is true that Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, has at its disposal forms of leverage which are unavailable to Apple (which, as has been often reported, is becoming the underdog in the education market it traditionally dominated in the past). I see far less detriment in a move which benefits the market underdog compared with one which further increases the hold of the market dominator. And anyway, the school's motivation here is obviously not to promote Apple and its products; they're doing it because it benefits themselves, and, to a lesser extent, their students.
Who is this typical Mac user or zealot whom you describe, and about whose origins you hypothesize? I ask because I'm wondering if there even is any such thing as the typical Mac user, or the typical Windows user, typical Linux user, etc. Yes, I realize we all have "my experience" on which to draw for support in our stereotyping, but experience can be a notoriously poor source of information when it comes to characterizing whole groups of people. For example, after forming our stereotypes, we are far more likely to remember and allow to make an impression those people we encounter who reinforce the stereotype than those who refute it.
I realize, of course, that without the ability to talk about groups of computer users in sweeping generalities, both positively and negatively, a good chunk of the threads on Slashdot would disappear. But there are logical flaws in these claims which render them silly, both in those which generalize about the awfulness of Mac zealots, and those which generalize about Mac users being creative professionals who don't need to be technically proficient. The bottom line is, if you haven't systematically and objectively studied a group of people, and if your claims are based solely on "your experience", you don't know what you're talking about when you generalize about them.
And just as a personal counterexample: I am a Mac user, I am very technical, I am not nor have I ever been intimidated by using a computer, I am not a creative professional and have never even launched Photoshop, I know plenty about Windows and Unix, and am trained as a Unix sysadmin. I started screwing around with old Macs a couple of years ago because it was cheap, fun, and a challenge to get a twelve-year-old computer working and usable; now, I'm happy to have a well-designed computer that runs Unix and is fun. Yes, I know that I'm supposed to be in the Mac minority here, but, beyond your biased experience, how do you know that?
It seems to be popular to respond to this article with the standard "more FUD from Microsoft" line, but does anyone have any evidence to back that up? Note that for the purposes of this discussion, "Microsoft owns Slate, stupid" doesn't count as evidence, since it tells us nothing about the editorial control Microsoft has over what appears in Slate. As a regular reader of Slate, I can attest that I have yet to see any blatantly pro-Microsoft bias in the articles which appear in it. In fact, the writers and editors are usually quite scrupulous about avoiding even the appearance of bias. So, based on my reading the damn thing for a couple of years now, my conclusion is that what appears in Slate reflects the ideas and opinions of the people who work for Slate, not the people who control Microsoft.
Allow me to pre-empt any "You're a Microsoft shill" replies: no, I'm not. I think their business practices are on the whole contemptible, and that their software design sucks. But in this case, the "more Microsoft FUD" response is just a lazy way out. If you think the article was inaccurate and flawed in its conclusions, tell us why. But enough of this "Who owns Slate? LOL!" bullshit.
Actually, it was my understanding that the previous OmniWeb icon looked too much like the icon for the 'Internet' pane under System Preferences, not the 'Network' icon. And, comparing them, they do look pretty similar, especially at the small size at which the 'Internet' icon is usually viewed in the System Preferences window. Too bad, though: I really preferred the old OmniWeb icon to the current blue-and-green one.
This case doesn't seem to be the classic one of Apple getting tough on third parties over UI issues. I could be wrong, but it looks like Apple simply asked the Omni Group to change their icon, and the Omni people granted their request. It would make sense that these two companies would want to remain on good terms, as the Omni Group, as far as I'm concerned, is setting the standards for how OS X applications should look and behave--in some cases, even more so than Apple is.
And how could you not love a software company who states that their mission is to "make software that is useful and fun?"
Apple sells the myth of G4 performance superiority with Photoshop benchmarks, thus convincing the gullible and non-technical people. Photoshop indeed performs better on a Mac because it is optimized for the platform[.]
This raises a question about the importance of benchmarks: if a technical magazine says your computer is slower, but the application you use the most every day (as many Apple users do Photoshop) runs faster on your computer, then who's being fooled? While we technical folks might tend to obsess over benchmarks, the masses of gullible, non-technical people only care about getting their stuff done as easily and as quickly as possible, regardless of the technical merits of the chip powering their computer.
CNET seems to have crafted more pseudo-news on the cynical premise that, when you need some quick hits, try a "Microsoft vs. Somebody" story or an "Embattled Apple" story, or, if you really want hits, a "Microsoft vs. Apple" story.
See if this sounds like a plausible timeline:
This isn't to say that it's either impossible or implausible that Microsoft would time their announcement to undercut Apple; but where's the supporting evidence for this, beyond a little anonymous insider grousing?