You're just as bad as the inconsiderate cell phone users, but go on thinking you're superior and have a right to shut them down. Don't even think about collateral damage. I'm not even talking about the hyperbole regarding blocking emergency calls, just the plain fact that you're blocking signal for *everyone else* too.
Is it ok if they complain about some dickhead jamming their cellular reception so they can't browse the net, send text messages, listen to internet radio etc? Or if they "want to do that nonsense" they can do it out of range of you, eh?
Not bonch, never been bonch, never been anyone else.
Your desperate reach for an ad hominem attack is telling though, although I'm not sure whether I fuck men or not is relevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you forgot to log in! Schoolboy error. How embarrassing for you!
I don't live in the US any more, but I'm hardly unique (ie, there are people like me still there) who would really love to go electric since our driving patterns are ideally suited to having a small, quiet, economical electric car that you recharge at night at home. (DISCLAIMER: yes, I'm aware, you need to tow your boat from LA to NYC every 2 days while simultaneously carrying 8 people and their luggage and there are no charging stations on route... electric cars useless for everyone etc etc, no possible use case etc etc...)
However, the current economics aren't making them viable - they're just too expensive at the moment but it's a chicken and egg problem since it's early generation tech and in low initial demand.
Don't mistake slow sales of a very expensive electric vehicle as definitive proof of a lack of interest. When (if?) I can buy one for a similar cost (also factoring in fuel costs) to the 2 litre turbodiesel minivan I drive right now (53 mpg EU / 44.1 mpg US) that can easily haul 5 adults and luggage then I am sure sales will pick right up. Cracking that early adopter and economy of scale problem is not easy though. Bear in mind that I also pay around $8 per gallon for diesel in the UK and it's still cheaper than going all-electric right now (or even to hybrid).
Well, the eMac is a PowerPC G4 machine with a CRT screen. This isn't just "we want faster computers! wah!" it's "we really need to get computers with Intel CPUs in them". The 2006 eMac was obsolete when it was new.
Whether they buy a fleet of new Windows boxes or new Macs, the fact of the matter is they *do* need to get something newer than what they have if they're going to be able to use them effectively with things like Google Docs and CS5/CS6 etc.
The same is true for most Macs - the one I am using right now is from 2006 and it has a Core 2 Duo and can easily handle things like Google Docs. It's getting a little long in the tooth in terms of the GPU, but for the bulk of the things I do with it it is absolutely fine.
These eMacs were budget (and out of date) machines even back then - they are using PPC G4 chips and CRT screens, even after the rest of the Mac line had gone first to G5 PPC and then to Intel. That doesn't mean all Macs of that era are quite so obsolete.
Although, even if they *had* bought PCs, there is still going to be a limitation to upgrading them unless you swap out the motherboard, and at that point you might as well buy a new machine.
My internet connection is faster than a 10/100 switch, so it really did get faster when I put a gig switch into one of the branches where a couple of machines were stuck far from the router with only a single cable run to share and I didn't have a gig switch handy.
That might have something to do with the *way* you point out your opinion on the walled garden model, and the subsequent characterisation of those who choose to use it.
It's rarely an actual debate on/. and more like a vehement stream of abuse directed at Apple, Apple users or anyone who dares to offer constructive criticism of Android.
Hell, you can't even post a positive comment about Apple on here any more without being accused of being a sock puppet account for a PR agency.
Debating the actual point rather than going for a personal attack might be better if you don't want to be accused of being a "nutty RMS fanboy".
FTR, my opinion is that the iOS model should follow something much more like the system Apple are adopting for Mountain Lion (apps from the store signed and launched without user input, apps from elsewhere queried on first launch by admin password) which marries the benefits of both models. What do I know though? I don't make smartphones.
You don't understand what antitrust means, clearly.
This may be a stupid policy from Apple, but it's not an antitrust violation since they do not hold a monopoly position in the smartphone market. Well, unless everyone on slashdot has been vastly overstating the market share of Android...
Either Android is "killing" in marketshare, or Apple has a monopoly and is thus exposed to antitrust. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Of course I do. This isn't about Apple or Microsoft, it's about the definitions used to describe security threats and the distinction is important.
The more the anti-Apple brigade run around wailing about what they perceive Apple users think about "viruses" in a story about a trojan the less the discussion is about the actual threat in question.
I also make the distinction on Windows, especially when educating users (generally family members) whose machines I occasionally look after.
It may seem pedantic, but the intentional muddying of the terms to score cheap jabs at Apple users and then claiming "pff, viruses, malware... it's all the same, you know what I meant" isn't helpful to anyone.
As far as "why I'm here"... I'm here because this is a discussion site I've been on for 12 years. Sorry if I didn't justify my existence, I forget myself sometimes.
I'm not bonch, I've never been bonch, and I've had this account for about 12 years (since registering it) but keep believing those wild conspiracy theories!
I'm exactly the same. I didn't even get any malware on OS 8.6/9, but that was because we isolated the machine and it really only edited video. I've never been infected on any of my OS X machines, in the 10 years since I've been using it.
In which case, pretty much every large company is in violation - shell companies for purchases are extremely common and have been for many, many years.
It's a front line tactic for disguising your plans from competitors and the media. It's also perfectly legal.
Look at it carefully. It does not make that statement. As I mentioned in another comment, they lie by omission, because they're talking about the PC.
The phrase "last year there were 114,000 known viruses for PC... yeah but not Mac..." is accurate. What it doesn't mean is that it's immune. They can't state that (and don't) because it isn't true.
And the idea that less tech savvy people believing that Macs can't get viruses is probably from personal experience. There have been a handful of viruses for OS X in the decade that it's been the primary OS for the Mac, and most of them were proof of concept efforts.
Plenty of trojans though, some of which have been quite sophisticated, most of them have simply been installers that claim to be for another program, downloaded from torrent sites.
So again, where does it say that Apple computers are immune?
It states that Windows PC are clearly not, but it doesn't actually say that OS X *doesn't* have malware - it actually lies by omission in that respect (the PC gives up and the Mac wins by default, not because it has no viruses).
The reason that they never state that they're immune is because, quite simply, they're not.
Apple can certainly say they're more secure than Windows though, which is what they did.
(this relates to both viruses and trojans, although the former are *much* less common on the Mac than the latter, although the same is likely true for Windows too).
Well, the story is pretty cut and dried - they bought the worldwide rights, and Proview's parent company signed off on that. Now they don't believe China is covered under "worldwide".
Or rather, they don't consider that the subsidiary that sold the trademark to Apple's shell company had the authorisation to sell the Chinese rights, despite the parent being party to, and signing, the deal.
Either way, it's something of a desperate grab, since they (Proview) have also already lost a court case on this in Hong Kong.
Calling it "stolen" is a little biased, given that they believe they bought the worldwide rights (they have documents and everything, stating that) but now apparently they didn't... or maybe they did! Who knows!
Slashdot Mirror
You're just as bad as the inconsiderate cell phone users, but go on thinking you're superior and have a right to shut them down. Don't even think about collateral damage. I'm not even talking about the hyperbole regarding blocking emergency calls, just the plain fact that you're blocking signal for *everyone else* too.
Is it ok if they complain about some dickhead jamming their cellular reception so they can't browse the net, send text messages, listen to internet radio etc? Or if they "want to do that nonsense" they can do it out of range of you, eh?
Your mom says you're grounded and she's also taking the batteries out of your Xbox 360 controllers.
It almost feels too easy doing this, like beating a 5 year old at chess but..
U mad bro?
Amusing, but weak.
Not bonch, never been bonch, never been anyone else.
Your desperate reach for an ad hominem attack is telling though, although I'm not sure whether I fuck men or not is relevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you forgot to log in! Schoolboy error. How embarrassing for you!
The do, and people do.
I don't live in the US any more, but I'm hardly unique (ie, there are people like me still there) who would really love to go electric since our driving patterns are ideally suited to having a small, quiet, economical electric car that you recharge at night at home. (DISCLAIMER: yes, I'm aware, you need to tow your boat from LA to NYC every 2 days while simultaneously carrying 8 people and their luggage and there are no charging stations on route... electric cars useless for everyone etc etc, no possible use case etc etc...)
However, the current economics aren't making them viable - they're just too expensive at the moment but it's a chicken and egg problem since it's early generation tech and in low initial demand.
Don't mistake slow sales of a very expensive electric vehicle as definitive proof of a lack of interest. When (if?) I can buy one for a similar cost (also factoring in fuel costs) to the 2 litre turbodiesel minivan I drive right now (53 mpg EU / 44.1 mpg US) that can easily haul 5 adults and luggage then I am sure sales will pick right up. Cracking that early adopter and economy of scale problem is not easy though. Bear in mind that I also pay around $8 per gallon for diesel in the UK and it's still cheaper than going all-electric right now (or even to hybrid).
If you do something totally crazy and actually RTFA you'll note that they address this very question.
It is distinct from polarisation, which the FA talks about considerably, including an analogy for the layman.
Photons do.
Photons are part of the EM spectrum.
Well, the eMac is a PowerPC G4 machine with a CRT screen. This isn't just "we want faster computers! wah!" it's "we really need to get computers with Intel CPUs in them". The 2006 eMac was obsolete when it was new.
Whether they buy a fleet of new Windows boxes or new Macs, the fact of the matter is they *do* need to get something newer than what they have if they're going to be able to use them effectively with things like Google Docs and CS5/CS6 etc.
The same is true for most Macs - the one I am using right now is from 2006 and it has a Core 2 Duo and can easily handle things like Google Docs. It's getting a little long in the tooth in terms of the GPU, but for the bulk of the things I do with it it is absolutely fine.
These eMacs were budget (and out of date) machines even back then - they are using PPC G4 chips and CRT screens, even after the rest of the Mac line had gone first to G5 PPC and then to Intel. That doesn't mean all Macs of that era are quite so obsolete.
Although, even if they *had* bought PCs, there is still going to be a limitation to upgrading them unless you swap out the motherboard, and at that point you might as well buy a new machine.
Click to Flash is your friend.
(or the appropriate plugin for your browser of choice).
I think autoplay videos were at least as big of a reason for installing it as blocking flash adverts. I'll start the video when *I'm* ready thanks.
Dick Clark is not 100 years old.
You're off by an order of magnitude.
My internet connection is faster than a 10/100 switch, so it really did get faster when I put a gig switch into one of the branches where a couple of machines were stuck far from the router with only a single cable run to share and I didn't have a gig switch handy.
Still, I agree with the spirit of your post. ;)
That might have something to do with the *way* you point out your opinion on the walled garden model, and the subsequent characterisation of those who choose to use it.
It's rarely an actual debate on /. and more like a vehement stream of abuse directed at Apple, Apple users or anyone who dares to offer constructive criticism of Android.
Hell, you can't even post a positive comment about Apple on here any more without being accused of being a sock puppet account for a PR agency.
Debating the actual point rather than going for a personal attack might be better if you don't want to be accused of being a "nutty RMS fanboy".
FTR, my opinion is that the iOS model should follow something much more like the system Apple are adopting for Mountain Lion (apps from the store signed and launched without user input, apps from elsewhere queried on first launch by admin password) which marries the benefits of both models. What do I know though? I don't make smartphones.
It does give you +5 chat up skill though.
Although that might just be the lack of neckbeard chafing. ;)
You don't understand what antitrust means, clearly.
This may be a stupid policy from Apple, but it's not an antitrust violation since they do not hold a monopoly position in the smartphone market. Well, unless everyone on slashdot has been vastly overstating the market share of Android...
Either Android is "killing" in marketshare, or Apple has a monopoly and is thus exposed to antitrust. You can't have your cake and eat it.
All those other tablet makers using rounded rectangles who are also being sued agree with you... oh wait...
Of course I do. This isn't about Apple or Microsoft, it's about the definitions used to describe security threats and the distinction is important.
The more the anti-Apple brigade run around wailing about what they perceive Apple users think about "viruses" in a story about a trojan the less the discussion is about the actual threat in question.
I also make the distinction on Windows, especially when educating users (generally family members) whose machines I occasionally look after.
It may seem pedantic, but the intentional muddying of the terms to score cheap jabs at Apple users and then claiming "pff, viruses, malware... it's all the same, you know what I meant" isn't helpful to anyone.
As far as "why I'm here"... I'm here because this is a discussion site I've been on for 12 years. Sorry if I didn't justify my existence, I forget myself sometimes.
I'm not bonch, I've never been bonch, and I've had this account for about 12 years (since registering it) but keep believing those wild conspiracy theories!
It's really quite funny.
Also, you forgot to log in.
I'm exactly the same. I didn't even get any malware on OS 8.6/9, but that was because we isolated the machine and it really only edited video. I've never been infected on any of my OS X machines, in the 10 years since I've been using it.
So you're saying this trojan is a virus?
Mhmmmhmmmm.
Try harder next time.
In which case, pretty much every large company is in violation - shell companies for purchases are extremely common and have been for many, many years.
It's a front line tactic for disguising your plans from competitors and the media. It's also perfectly legal.
You are misreading it - I mean the exact opposite; that not all Apple users (or computer users in general) are technology-literate.
In other words, I'm talking about the sort of people who frequent technology websites such as Slashdot.
Look at it carefully. It does not make that statement. As I mentioned in another comment, they lie by omission, because they're talking about the PC.
The phrase "last year there were 114,000 known viruses for PC... yeah but not Mac..." is accurate. What it doesn't mean is that it's immune. They can't state that (and don't) because it isn't true.
And the idea that less tech savvy people believing that Macs can't get viruses is probably from personal experience. There have been a handful of viruses for OS X in the decade that it's been the primary OS for the Mac, and most of them were proof of concept efforts.
Plenty of trojans though, some of which have been quite sophisticated, most of them have simply been installers that claim to be for another program, downloaded from torrent sites.
So again, where does it say that Apple computers are immune?
It states that Windows PC are clearly not, but it doesn't actually say that OS X *doesn't* have malware - it actually lies by omission in that respect (the PC gives up and the Mac wins by default, not because it has no viruses).
The reason that they never state that they're immune is because, quite simply, they're not.
Apple can certainly say they're more secure than Windows though, which is what they did.
(this relates to both viruses and trojans, although the former are *much* less common on the Mac than the latter, although the same is likely true for Windows too).
Well, the story is pretty cut and dried - they bought the worldwide rights, and Proview's parent company signed off on that. Now they don't believe China is covered under "worldwide".
Or rather, they don't consider that the subsidiary that sold the trademark to Apple's shell company had the authorisation to sell the Chinese rights, despite the parent being party to, and signing, the deal.
Either way, it's something of a desperate grab, since they (Proview) have also already lost a court case on this in Hong Kong.
Calling it "stolen" is a little biased, given that they believe they bought the worldwide rights (they have documents and everything, stating that) but now apparently they didn't... or maybe they did! Who knows!