At this point, hackers are well aware of a large installed userbase for Apple products, and certainly would attack them. If they could. Obviously they can't.
I know slashdotters don't like to read the article, but did you even read the summary? Hackers just hacked an Apple product. Sure, OSX is more secure than Windows, but it's not infallable. But if you want to continue believing the Macbook is invincible, go ahead.
Computers are cheaper than ever but people keep looking at the worst possible low-end crap when comparing price tags.
Why shouldn't they, when just about any computer on the market can do what they want, which is mainly browsing the internet, doing email, basic digital picture manipulation, and listening to MP3's? The crappiest $300 Dell Celeron computer can do this, hence the reason why these people balk at paying over twice as much for a Mac (or even a quality PC system with non-integrated graphics and more than 256MB of ram).
If I remember right, Windows NT 3.51 and possibly NT 4 ran their network drivers in user space, but were later moved in order to improve performance. But I may be wrong about that.
Not such a big deal now, but back in the days of Classic as well as the early OSX days, it was a serious omission. It was pretty annoying to have to unplug your laptop and remove the battery every time it decided to lock hard.
No you're not the only one. I think the whole white plastic thing looks cheap and ugly, hence I'm not a big fan of the current iMacs and iBooks/MacBooks (except that black one). I do like the look of the "cheese grater" G5 tower, and the Mac Mini isn't bad either. When it comes to notebooks, I think that IBM did it best with the utilitarian, no nonsense design with the Thinkpad. Though really, I don't care much what it looks like, which is why my PC is housed in a cheap, boring beige box under the desk.
What does a typical family vehicle need 4WD for? I live in Minnesota, and in winter driving a FWD/AWD sedan/wagon/van will do just as good of a job if not better than the 4WD SUV - especially in the hands of a typical driver. All that 4WD does for most people is get them into more trouble than it gets them out of.
I would assume they must mean getting into the car, and getting it started. Unless those 26 "couldn't get into" cars had bulletproof glass, I would assume even the crudest of theives could break a window to gain entry.
Perhaps the guy who bought the 13 mpg SUV did so because he lives less than a mile from work and hardly drives?
I've always found this a strange argument. Even if you drive 10 miles a week, you can still cut your gas usage in half (or more) by buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.
This is quite deceptive. Because while your basic formula is correct, the fact is that a 1000kg car may be doing zero damage to the road surface. And 32 x 0 = ? Typical road surface has a critical point where as long as all the vehicles that drive over the surface are under a given weight, the road surface will survive forever. (Discounting weather and other erosive sources.)
Actually, you are being deceptive. You must of missed the word "roughly" in the link. In the real world, just because some random light vehicle does no damage, that doesn't mean heavier vehicles don't do damage because x*0=0.
Besides, even if you are right, once the road surface gets some damage (a heatcrack, pothole, erosion, whatever), heavier vehicles are going to cause the damage to get worse a lot quicker than the light vehicles.
1) The reason is presumably for the same reason that we have a progressive income tax scheme? Although one thing no one takes into account is people who make the choice to live near their jobs. A person with a Hummer and a 5 mile commute uses less gas than a person with a Prius and a 50 mile commute. I think people should get a 50% refund on say, 5000 miles worth of gas tax on their income tax return. That way, people who don't drive much, or drive efficient cars, or both, get rewarded.
By making it a distance, you're simply helping out the people who choose vehicles that consume more gasoline per mile driven. If anything, it should be a set number of gallons, that way the more the people with the more efficient cars can get further on their tax free gas. It wouldn't hurt if the person with the monster SUV and the 5 mile commute cuts back too.
Sure, stock may not be worth the claim, but why would you steal stock door panels?
Probably the same reason Acuras get stripped - they probably took the parts and sold them to some guy who wants to fancy up his Expedition (or whichever Ford SUV they base the Navigator off of). I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of other random trim pieces were also missing.
There really isn't any reason why someone with the right tools couldn't program a key to steal a car "out in the field", given enough time alone with the vehicle.
On the other hand, when it is cheaper to pay out of pocket for an accident than it is to report it to the insurance company and let them pay for it, then why bother with insurance in the first place?
IF your folks are worried about a reinstall, they're NOT ready to survive a catastropic harddrive crash.
Much less full reload to clear an infection.
Why not? They could have a RAID1 array and be doing a complete backup of their entire harddrive every night to a remote location, and it still wouldn't change the fact that their Windows install is not legit and that they might have to do a complete reinstall of Windows and all their programs to rectify it.
I'm right in the middle of their target age group, and I think that TV is crap. From what I have seen, the shift is starting to happen in the other direction. Young people are turning away from the TV in droves to things like video games and the internet. The young viewers that are left are also the ones most likely to get their TV fix with a DVR or by downloading the show without ads. Hence, the advertising seems to be aimed more towards the viewers TV has left, which is older people. I should also point out that the same thing seems to be happening to FM radio, except there it is a bit more obvious.
Of course, my experience could be affected by the fact that what little TV I watch is mostly things like the Nightly News, which seems to be entirely dominated by medicine ads.
You mean like how The Matrix and The Pirates of the Caribbean suddenly became a part of a trilogy when the originals became hugely successful and Hollywood realized that there would be money in making a sequel, but they didn't want to call them sequels?
Are you joking? How about all the reality shows that currently air on TV, or anything that MTV currently airs? While there are a few shows out there that do stimulate the brain, most of them are simply mindless drivel - and that's the way it's always been. Besides, you're forgetting classic shows like Mission Impossible and the original Star Trek.
So in summary, Windows isn't ready because their 64bit version of Windows isn't that well supported and they are still pushing a 32bit version. Umm... ok. Linux, which there are plenty of native 64bit distros out there that run pretty well, is not ready either. But the Intel based Macs, with their 32bit chips running a 32bit OS, is ready?
Are you parroting some Microsoft astroturfer, or did you just make that up?
Just listening to the Mac enthusiasts on this site and others, the adoption of the Intel based Macs has been very fast. Keep in mind that these computers have only been out a few months, and it seems a significant percentage of the Apple faithful has already forked over a significant chunk of change for one or more. They seem to like to comparison them to their "older" systems, which seem to often turn out be fairly new G4 laptops and G5 based machines. Most of rest seem to be waiting for either the second generation or the Intel based workstations to buy. As someone typing this on a PC that dates back to OSX 10.1 with no immediate plans to upgrade, it does seem rather strange.
Someone did the math awhile ago, I can't find the link, but you're just plain wrong. The Mac is maybe $50 or $100 more than a comparable PC.
The problem isn't comparable computers so much - the problem is that the $299 Dell is a really popular computer amonst Joe Average. The cheapest Mac really is about 3 times as expensive, once you add in a basic 17" screen, mouse, and keyboard. That fact alone means that the Joe Averages aren't going to be buying Macs enmass.
Yeah, we all know that you can hook up a two button scroll mouse and it'll just work. But you don't think that having to carry around a second mouse as a work-around for a deficiency present in all Apple laptops as valid complaint?
Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.
While electrical power is certainly nessecary for a modern life, a cell phone* really isn't, and Windows XP certainly is not. So I think his point stands, the artists don't really need to enter a relationship with the record companies, but if they want to get anywhere they pretty much have to, and at their terms.
*I know the parent didn't say cell phones, but I've never seen a residental land line where you had to sign a contract, so I'm assuming he must mean a cell phone.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, hackers are well aware of a large installed userbase for Apple products, and certainly would attack them. If they could. Obviously they can't.
I know slashdotters don't like to read the article, but did you even read the summary? Hackers just hacked an Apple product. Sure, OSX is more secure than Windows, but it's not infallable. But if you want to continue believing the Macbook is invincible, go ahead.
Computers are cheaper than ever but people keep looking at the worst possible low-end crap when comparing price tags.
Why shouldn't they, when just about any computer on the market can do what they want, which is mainly browsing the internet, doing email, basic digital picture manipulation, and listening to MP3's? The crappiest $300 Dell Celeron computer can do this, hence the reason why these people balk at paying over twice as much for a Mac (or even a quality PC system with non-integrated graphics and more than 256MB of ram).
If I remember right, Windows NT 3.51 and possibly NT 4 ran their network drivers in user space, but were later moved in order to improve performance. But I may be wrong about that.
Macs don't have reset buttons. 'nuff said.
Not such a big deal now, but back in the days of Classic as well as the early OSX days, it was a serious omission. It was pretty annoying to have to unplug your laptop and remove the battery every time it decided to lock hard.
But my point still holds: today's Macs are cheaper than yesterday's PCs.
Likewise, today's PC's are cheaper than yesterday's Macs. Seriously, what is your point?
No you're not the only one. I think the whole white plastic thing looks cheap and ugly, hence I'm not a big fan of the current iMacs and iBooks/MacBooks (except that black one). I do like the look of the "cheese grater" G5 tower, and the Mac Mini isn't bad either. When it comes to notebooks, I think that IBM did it best with the utilitarian, no nonsense design with the Thinkpad. Though really, I don't care much what it looks like, which is why my PC is housed in a cheap, boring beige box under the desk.
What does a typical family vehicle need 4WD for? I live in Minnesota, and in winter driving a FWD/AWD sedan/wagon/van will do just as good of a job if not better than the 4WD SUV - especially in the hands of a typical driver. All that 4WD does for most people is get them into more trouble than it gets them out of.
I would assume they must mean getting into the car, and getting it started. Unless those 26 "couldn't get into" cars had bulletproof glass, I would assume even the crudest of theives could break a window to gain entry.
Perhaps the guy who bought the 13 mpg SUV did so because he lives less than a mile from work and hardly drives?
I've always found this a strange argument. Even if you drive 10 miles a week, you can still cut your gas usage in half (or more) by buying a more fuel efficient vehicle.
This is quite deceptive. Because while your basic formula is correct, the fact is that a 1000kg car may be doing zero damage to the road surface. And 32 x 0 = ? Typical road surface has a critical point where as long as all the vehicles that drive over the surface are under a given weight, the road surface will survive forever. (Discounting weather and other erosive sources.)
Actually, you are being deceptive. You must of missed the word "roughly" in the link. In the real world, just because some random light vehicle does no damage, that doesn't mean heavier vehicles don't do damage because x*0=0.
Besides, even if you are right, once the road surface gets some damage (a heatcrack, pothole, erosion, whatever), heavier vehicles are going to cause the damage to get worse a lot quicker than the light vehicles.
1) The reason is presumably for the same reason that we have a progressive income tax scheme? Although one thing no one takes into account is people who make the choice to live near their jobs. A person with a Hummer and a 5 mile commute uses less gas than a person with a Prius and a 50 mile commute. I think people should get a 50% refund on say, 5000 miles worth of gas tax on their income tax return. That way, people who don't drive much, or drive efficient cars, or both, get rewarded.
By making it a distance, you're simply helping out the people who choose vehicles that consume more gasoline per mile driven. If anything, it should be a set number of gallons, that way the more the people with the more efficient cars can get further on their tax free gas. It wouldn't hurt if the person with the monster SUV and the 5 mile commute cuts back too.
Sure, stock may not be worth the claim, but why would you steal stock door panels?
Probably the same reason Acuras get stripped - they probably took the parts and sold them to some guy who wants to fancy up his Expedition (or whichever Ford SUV they base the Navigator off of). I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of other random trim pieces were also missing.
If your car gets stolen, they are still ahead.
But they aren't stupid either. If your car is one of the ones that got stolen and they can weasel out of paying for it, they are even further ahead.
There really isn't any reason why someone with the right tools couldn't program a key to steal a car "out in the field", given enough time alone with the vehicle.
On the other hand, when it is cheaper to pay out of pocket for an accident than it is to report it to the insurance company and let them pay for it, then why bother with insurance in the first place?
IF your folks are worried about a reinstall, they're NOT ready to survive a catastropic harddrive crash.
Much less full reload to clear an infection.
Why not? They could have a RAID1 array and be doing a complete backup of their entire harddrive every night to a remote location, and it still wouldn't change the fact that their Windows install is not legit and that they might have to do a complete reinstall of Windows and all their programs to rectify it.
I'm right in the middle of their target age group, and I think that TV is crap. From what I have seen, the shift is starting to happen in the other direction. Young people are turning away from the TV in droves to things like video games and the internet. The young viewers that are left are also the ones most likely to get their TV fix with a DVR or by downloading the show without ads. Hence, the advertising seems to be aimed more towards the viewers TV has left, which is older people. I should also point out that the same thing seems to be happening to FM radio, except there it is a bit more obvious.
Of course, my experience could be affected by the fact that what little TV I watch is mostly things like the Nightly News, which seems to be entirely dominated by medicine ads.
You mean like how The Matrix and The Pirates of the Caribbean suddenly became a part of a trilogy when the originals became hugely successful and Hollywood realized that there would be money in making a sequel, but they didn't want to call them sequels?
Are you joking? How about all the reality shows that currently air on TV, or anything that MTV currently airs? While there are a few shows out there that do stimulate the brain, most of them are simply mindless drivel - and that's the way it's always been. Besides, you're forgetting classic shows like Mission Impossible and the original Star Trek.
So in summary, Windows isn't ready because their 64bit version of Windows isn't that well supported and they are still pushing a 32bit version. Umm... ok. Linux, which there are plenty of native 64bit distros out there that run pretty well, is not ready either. But the Intel based Macs, with their 32bit chips running a 32bit OS, is ready?
You don't make any sense at all.
Are you parroting some Microsoft astroturfer, or did you just make that up?
Just listening to the Mac enthusiasts on this site and others, the adoption of the Intel based Macs has been very fast. Keep in mind that these computers have only been out a few months, and it seems a significant percentage of the Apple faithful has already forked over a significant chunk of change for one or more. They seem to like to comparison them to their "older" systems, which seem to often turn out be fairly new G4 laptops and G5 based machines. Most of rest seem to be waiting for either the second generation or the Intel based workstations to buy. As someone typing this on a PC that dates back to OSX 10.1 with no immediate plans to upgrade, it does seem rather strange.
One the other hand, running a pirated version of OSX on your PC is a lot cheaper - especially if you already own the PC hardware.
Someone did the math awhile ago, I can't find the link, but you're just plain wrong. The Mac is maybe $50 or $100 more than a comparable PC.
The problem isn't comparable computers so much - the problem is that the $299 Dell is a really popular computer amonst Joe Average. The cheapest Mac really is about 3 times as expensive, once you add in a basic 17" screen, mouse, and keyboard. That fact alone means that the Joe Averages aren't going to be buying Macs enmass.
Yeah, we all know that you can hook up a two button scroll mouse and it'll just work. But you don't think that having to carry around a second mouse as a work-around for a deficiency present in all Apple laptops as valid complaint?
Comparing the process of entering into a business partnership of your own volition with purchasing services that are largely considered basic necessities for living a modern life is a ridiculous analogy.
While electrical power is certainly nessecary for a modern life, a cell phone* really isn't, and Windows XP certainly is not. So I think his point stands, the artists don't really need to enter a relationship with the record companies, but if they want to get anywhere they pretty much have to, and at their terms.
*I know the parent didn't say cell phones, but I've never seen a residental land line where you had to sign a contract, so I'm assuming he must mean a cell phone.