No. It means that according to the standards maintained in this news article you and I have equal authority and should be on the frontpage of CNN, sharing a scoop, reporting that OS X and Windows are equally safe and that contrary to expert opinion, there's no such things as a computer virus, except for maybe that one thing you ran along some 15 years ago.
I admit though that I didn't make much of an argument, it was a bit of an emotional post...
I've been running sophos anti virus software on my mac since, well, since they became available. Thing is, apart from updating itself once in a while I haven't had ONE virus showing up. Every now and then I even scan my system. Just for kicks (I'm easily excited).
Apart from all the other "usual crap", I wonder how this type of articles make it to mainstream news outlets. Even Steve Jobs' brand of underwear would be more newsworthy than this kind of FUD.
There is - like in most of this type of journalism - no real defense against it. Whatever argument you use against "two guys encountering something weird" in "serious news outlets", you must be a mac zealot in denial. Right?
Re:Nice for people with nothing to do
on
Explorer Destroyer
·
· Score: 1
I see no difference to websites that are IE only, Flash only, Windows only, etc. In essence it's just a big FUCK YOU at the hapless visitor who for some reason or other still uses IE.
If you can afford to drive away your target audience, fine. Go for it. But apart from throwing your own frustration at the end user, I see no benefit whatsoever.
Can't imagine any end-user going "Oh, well, I'll download Firefox then, no problem."
There are lots of reasons for still listening to vinyl that don't make you a backward maniac.
e.g. stuff that isn't on CD, performances that are not or badly digitized, and indeed stuff that for some reason still sounds better on vinyl. Admittedly, the last reason meaning that your ear is more attuned to the typical vinyl sound, so in that case it doesn't mean the vinyl is "better".
But the first two reasons still count. Especially if you're not solely into "popular" music. Which doesn't necessarily mean you're a classical or jazz buff. Same shit applies for most any 60's, 70's and 80's music that's just a bit out of mainstream but still incredibly ahem, hip. Ska, dub, funk, you name it. Even disco - if you're not totally braindead and only listen to Abba...
Disclaimer: I can't wait to get my new setup so that I can digitize everything and seriously damage some hard drives instead of hauling those kilo's of recycled tires with me...
Compare to "I don't buy macs because I hate those stuckup mac users".
Which is of course a very bad reason not to buy macs. But if you can't buy a mac without having at one point or another to deal with snubby mac users, it can be a real issue for some. Nowadays that isn't an issue anymore. You can buy wherever you like and don't have to suffer macdom anywhere in any form.
Same goes for Linux. If I can't install, use and troubleshoot without having to deal with people who are stuckup, impatiant with dumb users and whatever, then suddenly the Linux community at large becomes an issue. For some distro's and programs this isn't really an issue. Most really widespread FOSS projects have good manuals, are simple and have nice support.
But hey, you know it happens, you know "they" are out there...
So while I don't at all agree with the article, there is a certain grain of truth burried in the bull.
The chinese, koreans (either), russkies, cubans, arabians, frenchies, krauts, africanians... Let's just be done with it and establish our proud heritage once more, what? All this long war on terror crap is sissy talk. Nuke nuke nuke nuke!
disclaimer: this is not a serious post. Not funny either, but hey...
"I've found that most people who are ignorant of evolutionary processes lead sheltered lives."
Well, I've been around and am saddened to have to inform you that I have found that the vast majority of people don't know of or don't believe in the validity of evolution theory.
I was profoundly shocked to find out that in my immediate surroundings, even my well educated family there are people who without any reason or willingness to consider scientific proof, flat out reject the notion that we are descendant from apes - which to me is confirmation of the fact...
Sad but true, only 2 % of this planet's population doesn't believe in a supernatural being that guides our life.
Now, of that 98% of believers, how many do you think are motivated to take some scientific thingy seriously, especially if you take into consideration that most creation stories start with a god creating a complex universe. Where evolution implies that simple elements combine to emerge as complex systems?
I have no objection to you arguments, but sir, have you not once visited Newfoundland, the source of all that's good and at the same time hilarious in conversation with Canadiens?
At the basis of this there is something. It may even resemble intelligent design, or it may be put simpler in philosphically meaningless statements like "simpe structures have a tendency to become complex and emergent the moment they stop and think about things".
What is at stake here is that now religious overtones are impeding scientific or even just alternative thinking.
That to me is more frightening than saying "yes, everything is random, wooptiedoooooo!".
The simple fact that it is becoming science versus religion.
Re:Sheezus, enough with the conceit already...
on
Going To Boot Camp
·
· Score: 1
OK, let me tell you straight. If you can look beyond Windows propaganda, you're already way ahead. It IS possible to read mac propaganda and find straight facts. What you don't want to do is let it get to you. It's advertising, it's deliberate.
It's like buying soap. It makes you clean. End of story. Or not? Apparently, it will also make you sexy, give you that special smell, make you happy!!!!!!
Don't look at mac users or Apple, look at your own bullshit detector and slap on a tolerance doodah.
I think what poster meant was, how long until we see standard dual boot WITH Windows already installed. I bet a lot of shops will offer that option. Why not? It means a guaranteed sale of Windows on top of a mac box. Else shopper will get curious, get a copy and do it himself anyway.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of gamers are not 13 year olds;-) I think if you substitute casual gamer for closet gamer it all makes more sense. People who don't consider themselves gamers but nevertheless end up spending quite some time on Quake, the Sims and other really popular titles.
I ended up buying a PC a couple of years ago (and regretting it immensely) solely for playing Dungeon Master or something like that, such a clever, funny and engrossing game that I just had to have it. Me a gamer? No way. In the end I gave away that box with no regret, piece of junk, but the fun I had...
Simply put because other tasks would be casual as well, instead of a pain. We're talking casual here, cool and relax. Well, OS X and its standard apps are as casual as you can get. Maintaining a mac is like maintaining your lightswitch (when compared to maintaining a PC). It is still a computer, you WILL call it names now and then, but it's way less trouble than your average XP gaming experience coupled with casual internet access, casual porn snooping followed by casual mindwipe, reactor core swap and reinstall of the whole thing. Hard to keep your cool... or explain to your casual girlfriend...
"I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?"
For most applications I think the reverse is true. IF more people switch and as a consequense spend more time in OS X, THEN the demand for an OS X port will actually grow.
But for games you may be right. I think those games that are not for the biggest possible audience (Quake, the Sims and the like), but for this or that hip crew of live fast, frag faster maniacs, the programmers can be as blasé about it as they like, and in fact should be since they need to keep their speed and have better things to do than spend their time and efforts on big-little endian or other ethnical considerations.
The killer apps are all there. On both platforms. This concept may work on a game console, apparently it doesn't work with computers in the customer space.
The average person has average needs that are well covered by an average system, wouldn't you say? Those swayed by killer apps were or are switching. They are however not average users, but people who for instance see Final Cut Pro, Logic, Aperture or any other mac only product as a way to get more bang for buck.
As was the case with the original mac, when pre press people saw huge reasons to go for it for the same reasons.
I am a mac user who was already convinced in 1984 and somewhat stubborn in the late nineties. Now, I see that I still do average stuff faster than most windows users, but that still some specialized applications are reserved for this or that platform. Like autocad on pc, FCP on mac. They make people stick with their choice or switch once in a while, but not the way Halo made people jump to XBox.
Killer apps are somewhat misunderstood, I believe.
What I think is that this is the next Killer Accomodation that will see some incremental growth for Apple, which makes it worth their while to keep focussing on groovy software/hardware integration aimed at some vertical markets and the consumer space.
It will make me upgrade to a bigger, fatter mac since I can totally ditch the PC I still need for professional reasons.
He DID change his desktop picture, but the computer always makes it go away. That's why he has three screens. None of them however want to show him his desktop picture. Next year he's going to try to get a whiteboard and have someone stick his favorite wallpaper on it.
Re:Does anyone really believe this article?
on
How Bill Gates Works
·
· Score: 1
If you don't advertise your work when someone does an interview about your work you're really really Really stupid.
I have had the honour to interview Steve Jobs on his dayly routine. He's been kind enough to give me his regular to do list: - go to work - shout - have lunch, fire caterer, unless there's pudding. I like pudding. Pudding is huge. - shout some more - say hi to Ives (don't shout, don't shout, isn't Ives fantastic?) - shout to everybody else - go home (don't shout at kids! Kids are great, don't you just love kids? Kids are the future, believe me)
I don't entirely agree. You still can doubt that for instance mammals change over time without the interference of humans. It takes more than a bit of idiocy and stubborn refusal to at least entertain the possibility that you're a pea brain, but there is still room for a sliver of doubt. And debate. Whatever others say, that's my opinion, the proof is in every good book on science, and every scientific conference you care to visit. There's always room for doubt. As there is always opportunity to make a bloody fool of yourself.
Whether it's evolution or intelligent design however is not something to contemplate. Intelligent design is a stupid idea, as stupid ideas go, people are welcome to them. But to weigh it against evolution theory, even for the sake of discussion is one bridge too far.
Evolution theory is a sound scientific theory that so far holds its own against everything *scientific* you want to throw at it. Sure, it gets revised now and then. Just like bibles, but not for the sake of political correctness. That's the whole point, the process of science at work.
I think God and intelligent design belong in the the other corner, namely, religious philosophies that don't need, let me rephrase, that can't stand the burden of proof. So... if you want, you can say that evolution is the preferred method of doing intelligent design for God. If you like you can say anything at all.
What you can't in all seriousness say is that intelligent design is an alternative for evolution theory. An alternative for evolution theory is another scientific theory, not religious supposition. The difference is that one is subject to a set of rules, and is subject to - and NEEDS - scrutiny of the scientific community. The other is basically a free for all game of opinions that everybody can entertain without never EVER having to prove anything.
The need to prove something means you have doubts. Doubt has no place in religion. You may doubt in yourself, but not in God. Or so I'm told. Anyway, that's up to religious people to figure out. Their game, not mine.
Of course, when you joke that science is almost religion, I do see your point. At the basis of all philosophy and science lay some fundamentals that you must accept, if only for the sake of discussion.
They are not absolutes however. It's OK to doubt - or to set other - premises as long as you are perfectly clear about it. And its always refreshing to absurdly doubt all observational "truths" if only to see what happens if you do.
For instance, Plato can safely do deformed rabbit and talk about illusions, the real reality as opposed to the one we live in, and still be considered sane. He had some instructional examples of illusions and anyway, he was a philosopher, not a scientist, at least not as we define one today. So, truth and beauty, wonderful stuff...
If we like we can do mathematics on the basis that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. And surprise surprise still come to results that are extremely useful to some people. And even fit some observations better than you know, straight forward no nonsense honest to god manly math.
My point, don't confuse science with religion. They can safely (or embarrassingly uncomfortably) live together in the same universe, but the one has nothing much to do with the other.
He means you can debate it as much as you like but other than in bible studies, you are required to bring some evidence if you publish and want to be called a scientist. It doesn't need to be 100% conclusive evidence since that doesn't exist, but without any, you're just a man with an opinion. That alone doesn't make for interesting debate. But no worries, a man with an opinion can still become tv preacher, politician or any other thing he fancies.
Slashdot Mirror
No. It means that according to the standards maintained in this news article you and I have equal authority and should be on the frontpage of CNN, sharing a scoop, reporting that OS X and Windows are equally safe and that contrary to expert opinion, there's no such things as a computer virus, except for maybe that one thing you ran along some 15 years ago.
I admit though that I didn't make much of an argument, it was a bit of an emotional post...
I've been running sophos anti virus software on my mac since, well, since they became available. Thing is, apart from updating itself once in a while I haven't had ONE virus showing up. Every now and then I even scan my system. Just for kicks (I'm easily excited).
Apart from all the other "usual crap", I wonder how this type of articles make it to mainstream news outlets. Even Steve Jobs' brand of underwear would be more newsworthy than this kind of FUD.
There is - like in most of this type of journalism - no real defense against it. Whatever argument you use against "two guys encountering something weird" in "serious news outlets", you must be a mac zealot in denial. Right?
:-) ha! didn't think of that one.
I see no difference to websites that are IE only, Flash only, Windows only, etc. In essence it's just a big FUCK YOU at the hapless visitor who for some reason or other still uses IE.
If you can afford to drive away your target audience, fine. Go for it. But apart from throwing your own frustration at the end user, I see no benefit whatsoever.
Can't imagine any end-user going "Oh, well, I'll download Firefox then, no problem."
I'd love to just point and speak to my computer, and where convenient use a tablet or glove or whatever comes most natural.
Reminds me of Sun's vision of the future. What was that video called? Starlight?
"I have ziss smelly cheese and will trade you for your beyoutiful wife, d'accord?"
Disclaimer: living in France and loving it...
There are lots of reasons for still listening to vinyl that don't make you a backward maniac.
e.g. stuff that isn't on CD, performances that are not or badly digitized, and indeed stuff that for some reason still sounds better on vinyl. Admittedly, the last reason meaning that your ear is more attuned to the typical vinyl sound, so in that case it doesn't mean the vinyl is "better".
But the first two reasons still count. Especially if you're not solely into "popular" music. Which doesn't necessarily mean you're a classical or jazz buff. Same shit applies for most any 60's, 70's and 80's music that's just a bit out of mainstream but still incredibly ahem, hip. Ska, dub, funk, you name it. Even disco - if you're not totally braindead and only listen to Abba...
Disclaimer: I can't wait to get my new setup so that I can digitize everything and seriously damage some hard drives instead of hauling those kilo's of recycled tires with me...
Compare to "I don't buy macs because I hate those stuckup mac users".
Which is of course a very bad reason not to buy macs. But if you can't buy a mac without having at one point or another to deal with snubby mac users, it can be a real issue for some. Nowadays that isn't an issue anymore. You can buy wherever you like and don't have to suffer macdom anywhere in any form.
Same goes for Linux. If I can't install, use and troubleshoot without having to deal with people who are stuckup, impatiant with dumb users and whatever, then suddenly the Linux community at large becomes an issue. For some distro's and programs this isn't really an issue. Most really widespread FOSS projects have good manuals, are simple and have nice support.
But hey, you know it happens, you know "they" are out there...
So while I don't at all agree with the article, there is a certain grain of truth burried in the bull.
The chinese, koreans (either), russkies, cubans, arabians, frenchies, krauts, africanians ...
Let's just be done with it and establish our proud heritage once more, what?
All this long war on terror crap is sissy talk. Nuke nuke nuke nuke!
disclaimer: this is not a serious post. Not funny either, but hey...
"I've found that most people who are ignorant of evolutionary processes lead sheltered lives."
Well, I've been around and am saddened to have to inform you that I have found that the vast majority of people don't know of or don't believe in the validity of evolution theory.
I was profoundly shocked to find out that in my immediate surroundings, even my well educated family there are people who without any reason or willingness to consider scientific proof, flat out reject the notion that we are descendant from apes - which to me is confirmation of the fact...
Sad but true, only 2 % of this planet's population doesn't believe in a supernatural being that guides our life.
Now, of that 98% of believers, how many do you think are motivated to take some scientific thingy seriously, especially if you take into consideration that most creation stories start with a god creating a complex universe. Where evolution implies that simple elements combine to emerge as complex systems?
I have no objection to you arguments, but sir, have you not once visited Newfoundland, the source of all that's good and at the same time hilarious in conversation with Canadiens?
For shame!
At the basis of this there is something. It may even resemble intelligent design, or it may be put simpler in philosphically meaningless statements like "simpe structures have a tendency to become complex and emergent the moment they stop and think about things".
What is at stake here is that now religious overtones are impeding scientific or even just alternative thinking.
That to me is more frightening than saying "yes, everything is random, wooptiedoooooo!".
The simple fact that it is becoming science versus religion.
OK, let me tell you straight. If you can look beyond Windows propaganda, you're already way ahead. It IS possible to read mac propaganda and find straight facts. What you don't want to do is let it get to you. It's advertising, it's deliberate.
It's like buying soap. It makes you clean. End of story. Or not? Apparently, it will also make you sexy, give you that special smell, make you happy!!!!!!
Don't look at mac users or Apple, look at your own bullshit detector and slap on a tolerance doodah.
I think what poster meant was, how long until we see standard dual boot WITH Windows already installed. I bet a lot of shops will offer that option. Why not? It means a guaranteed sale of Windows on top of a mac box. Else shopper will get curious, get a copy and do it himself anyway.
I don't think you are right. The majority of hard-core PC gamers who buy built to order or build their own... Well, there you're probably dead on.
Contrary to popular belief a lot of gamers are not 13 year olds ;-)
I think if you substitute casual gamer for closet gamer it all makes more sense. People who don't consider themselves gamers but nevertheless end up spending quite some time on Quake, the Sims and other really popular titles.
I ended up buying a PC a couple of years ago (and regretting it immensely) solely for playing Dungeon Master or something like that, such a clever, funny and engrossing game that I just had to have it. Me a gamer? No way. In the end I gave away that box with no regret, piece of junk, but the fun I had...
Simply put because other tasks would be casual as well, instead of a pain. We're talking casual here, cool and relax. Well, OS X and its standard apps are as casual as you can get. Maintaining a mac is like maintaining your lightswitch (when compared to maintaining a PC). It is still a computer, you WILL call it names now and then, but it's way less trouble than your average XP gaming experience coupled with casual internet access, casual porn snooping followed by casual mindwipe, reactor core swap and reinstall of the whole thing. Hard to keep your cool... or explain to your casual girlfriend...
"I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?"
For most applications I think the reverse is true.
IF more people switch and as a consequense spend more time in OS X, THEN the demand for an OS X port will actually grow.
But for games you may be right. I think those games that are not for the biggest possible audience (Quake, the Sims and the like), but for this or that hip crew of live fast, frag faster maniacs, the programmers can be as blasé about it as they like, and in fact should be since they need to keep their speed and have better things to do than spend their time and efforts on big-little endian or other ethnical considerations.
The killer apps are all there. On both platforms. This concept may work on a game console, apparently it doesn't work with computers in the customer space.
The average person has average needs that are well covered by an average system, wouldn't you say? Those swayed by killer apps were or are switching. They are however not average users, but people who for instance see Final Cut Pro, Logic, Aperture or any other mac only product as a way to get more bang for buck.
As was the case with the original mac, when pre press people saw huge reasons to go for it for the same reasons.
I am a mac user who was already convinced in 1984 and somewhat stubborn in the late nineties. Now, I see that I still do average stuff faster than most windows users, but that still some specialized applications are reserved for this or that platform. Like autocad on pc, FCP on mac. They make people stick with their choice or switch once in a while, but not the way Halo made people jump to XBox.
Killer apps are somewhat misunderstood, I believe.
What I think is that this is the next Killer Accomodation that will see some incremental growth for Apple, which makes it worth their while to keep focussing on groovy software/hardware integration aimed at some vertical markets and the consumer space.
It will make me upgrade to a bigger, fatter mac since I can totally ditch the PC I still need for professional reasons.
He DID change his desktop picture, but the computer always makes it go away. That's why he has three screens. None of them however want to show him his desktop picture. Next year he's going to try to get a whiteboard and have someone stick his favorite wallpaper on it.
If you don't advertise your work when someone does an interview about your work you're really really Really stupid.
I have had the honour to interview Steve Jobs on his dayly routine.
He's been kind enough to give me his regular to do list:
- go to work
- shout
- have lunch, fire caterer, unless there's pudding. I like pudding. Pudding is huge.
- shout some more
- say hi to Ives (don't shout, don't shout, isn't Ives fantastic?)
- shout to everybody else
- go home (don't shout at kids! Kids are great, don't you just love kids? Kids are the future, believe me)
I don't entirely agree. You still can doubt that for instance mammals change over time without the interference of humans. It takes more than a bit of idiocy and stubborn refusal to at least entertain the possibility that you're a pea brain, but there is still room for a sliver of doubt. And debate. Whatever others say, that's my opinion, the proof is in every good book on science, and every scientific conference you care to visit. There's always room for doubt. As there is always opportunity to make a bloody fool of yourself.
Whether it's evolution or intelligent design however is not something to contemplate. Intelligent design is a stupid idea, as stupid ideas go, people are welcome to them. But to weigh it against evolution theory, even for the sake of discussion is one bridge too far.
Evolution theory is a sound scientific theory that so far holds its own against everything *scientific* you want to throw at it. Sure, it gets revised now and then. Just like bibles, but not for the sake of political correctness. That's the whole point, the process of science at work.
I think God and intelligent design belong in the the other corner, namely, religious philosophies that don't need, let me rephrase, that can't stand the burden of proof. So... if you want, you can say that evolution is the preferred method of doing intelligent design for God. If you like you can say anything at all.
What you can't in all seriousness say is that intelligent design is an alternative for evolution theory. An alternative for evolution theory is another scientific theory, not religious supposition. The difference is that one is subject to a set of rules, and is subject to - and NEEDS - scrutiny of the scientific community. The other is basically a free for all game of opinions that everybody can entertain without never EVER having to prove anything.
The need to prove something means you have doubts. Doubt has no place in religion. You may doubt in yourself, but not in God. Or so I'm told. Anyway, that's up to religious people to figure out. Their game, not mine.
Of course, when you joke that science is almost religion, I do see your point. At the basis of all philosophy and science lay some fundamentals that you must accept, if only for the sake of discussion.
They are not absolutes however. It's OK to doubt - or to set other - premises as long as you are perfectly clear about it. And its always refreshing to absurdly doubt all observational "truths" if only to see what happens if you do.
For instance, Plato can safely do deformed rabbit and talk about illusions, the real reality as opposed to the one we live in, and still be considered sane. He had some instructional examples of illusions and anyway, he was a philosopher, not a scientist, at least not as we define one today. So, truth and beauty, wonderful stuff...
If we like we can do mathematics on the basis that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. And surprise surprise still come to results that are extremely useful to some people. And even fit some observations better than you know, straight forward no nonsense honest to god manly math.
My point, don't confuse science with religion. They can safely (or embarrassingly uncomfortably) live together in the same universe, but the one has nothing much to do with the other.
True, but it takes a leap of faith to conclude there is no real evidence to support evolution theory.
He means you can debate it as much as you like but other than in bible studies, you are required to bring some evidence if you publish and want to be called a scientist.
It doesn't need to be 100% conclusive evidence since that doesn't exist, but without any, you're just a man with an opinion. That alone doesn't make for interesting debate. But no worries, a man with an opinion can still become tv preacher, politician or any other thing he fancies.