it's a company store. You can buy anything you want, so long as it works with something made by Apple.
It's odd, I can't figure out whether this is really a critique or not. Well, I may be lacking in imagination but I can't see how selling say bananas and top hats would do anything for Apple, or for that matter their customers, that selling an HP-branded all-in-one would. Of course the Apple Stores exist to sell the mother company's products. Ford dealerships don't often sell Honda mufflers and Baskin Robbins doesn't sell Ben and Jerrys.
Frankly, the "general store" model doesn't work very well for complex interconnected systems like computers because you need some way to restrict the amount of products in order to ensure some amount of customer satisfaction. Department stores like Macy's don't have to worry about whether a pair of shoes works with a dress (despite my wife's insistence that they do or do not) and the supermarket doesn't have to consider whether free-range eggs will intergrate with steroid-infused bacon. However, if you want to buy a suit you're often better off going to one store or tailor.
Lastly, most modern stores are "controlled environments," the minute you walk into a store, you're being played on by dozen of small attempts to hold your attention and get you to spend money. Some are just more successful than others.
I'm sorry, but your post contains a number of logical fallacies. I've counted several false dichotomies, appeal to emotion, and enough strawmen for a Wizard of Oz convention. As you admitted, Officer Tunahill wouldn't have been saved by a taser, so what does her death really have to do with this argument aside from your short rant about the "question authority" crowd? Furthermore, if a cop can't control the situation enough to keep someone from taking their gun, how does a taser change this situation?
A taser is less-deadly than a gun, but it's not a safe weapon and cops need to be trained on the use of "non-lethal" weapons just as they're trained to use their clubs, cars, and radios. It's a tool and one obviously capable of taking a life.
Well to be fair, the nuclear power energy also subsists on a substantial amount of government support as well, so you can't necessarily take renewables to task for the same thing. Furthermore, I'm seeing conflicting data on the amount of available uranium. Some figures have suggested that we have approximately 50 years of uranium left, so even with a substantial investment for new power-plants we might get all that far. Furthermore, while the current systems may not provide all that much power per square foot, an increase in development may provide better efficiencies at a lower cost.
I'll have to do the research, but I still think there are substantial questions out there about nuclear energy, including waste, protection against nuclear proliferation, safety issues (including dealing with the low-level waste), and problems with the fuel-supply.
Lastly, we can't just focus on nuclear energy, but rather we should work towards a wide-range of power sources, including nuclear, solar, wind, and tidal where appropriate.
"Generating the terawatts of energy the US and other countries need will never be possible from wind or solar."
I can't make any guarantees, but this seems shortsighted considering the Earth receives something like 89 petawatts at any given time.
Also, you ignore one of the greatest problems with nuclear power, which is the waste. Even the vaunted nuclear submarine has a waste-stream which must be dealt with. Furthermore, nuclear power relies on the mining of large amounts of uranium, an inherently dirty and destructive process. With the right planning this can be mitigated, but let's not pretend that nuclear power is the end-all and be-all of future power-generation. We need a mixture of systems, and frankly if we're going to spend significant amounts of money on R&D, we'd be better off going right to renewables.
By rounding you managed to gloss over an interesting piece of data: OS X has increased from 2.8 ( Jan '05) to 4.0 (July '07) and Linux has increased from 2.7 (Jan '05) to 3.4 (July '07). This is a subtle change, to be sure, but nonetheless interesting.
I don't really know why Apple would care, eMusic is actually complimentary to iTunes and the iPhone and furthermore, who cares? The iPhone is also an iPod and can play regular Mp3s. There isn't much of a story here.
This is an irrelevant argument at best. The fact is a number of White House officials acted in an untoward manner despite specific policies prohibiting them from doing this. Whether the other party does it too is meaningless when deciding if a policy should be followed. If you're really independent you should be willing to kick the GOP in the shins for their malfeasance and reserve the right to do the same thing to the Democrats when they present you with the opportunity.
There's a lot of inertia to this, from the old standard that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" to the current obsession with single-system IT departments working under the banner of efficiency. Windows has a lot to offer, but it's not easy sometimes.
My own experience with small-businesses prove the footprint for Windows: the Macintosh-shop calls me when they want to try something new, the Windows guys call me because something broke.
You're rewriting history. The first iPod worked really well. The software was nice, the hardware was elegant, and the damned thing actually worked. Go back and read the original reviews and you'll see that they were mostly positive. People liked the first iPod. The Zune is a different story, the software is wonky and the player is clunky.
Furthermore, the solid-state click wheel didn't make the battery life go to hell, rather it was the addition of the clock software which meant the iPod would slowly drain over time, but that didn't change the actual battery life.
But, the Zune isn't competing against the 1G 5GB iPod, it's competing against a mature product in a well-defined market. The 1st iPod was 5GB because the drives were limited and most people had small music collections and Mac-only was just an opening salvo. Furthermore, lots of people bought iPods before the Nano, so it was obviously compelling even if you didn't think so; you're forgetting the iPod Mini, which was great.
Lastly, Microsoft had all the information about how to build a good player and good software from the iPod's example and they still couldn't do it. Microsoft should be censored for trying to release a half-baked idea into the wild.
The current type of War in Iraq is a type of war NO ARMY has ever fought
The French in Algeria. The French in Vietnam. The United States in Vietnam. The Germany army in Poland. The Soviets in Afghanistan. The British in Sudan. The British in Ireland. I could go on. IEDs are just another name for booby-trap.
You're arguing intent, as if Bush just tripped and accidentally violated the Constitution or just had a old manuscript version lying around. I disagree, I think the Bush administration knew they were violating the US Constitution and figured they could use secrecy to cover their collective asses. This is far more a threat to democracy than Clinton lying about diddling an intern.
Both of them are liars, but one did it to cover an affair, the other did it to subvert Democracy.
If new demand is created every day than wouldn't new capacity be necessary no matter what I do? So, therefore I may at worst save myself money, however at best I help create a more elastic market in which the daily needs of housing will take up less of the market in comparison to higher-needs sectors like data centers. Thereby, while demand remains high, we get to do more with the same electricity, or we can do more with fewer additional powerplants.
Face it, you're just trying to justify your wasteful habits using adject economic theory to support it.
Oh, and by the way your argument is always made better when you call people silly and stupid.
It is not a 'server OS'?
Well then, I better go tell the guys who maintain our Xserves to shut them down and throw them in the trash. Yep, the RAID arrays too. Oh, and the mail server.
MacOS still remains a consumer OS for people unwilling or unable to understand the guts of a microcomputer
I agree, that's why I removed all the gauges on my car's dashboard too, after all gauges still remain for people unable to understand the guts of an engine. Oh wait. That's not right. Gauges are useful. And so is the GUI layer on OSX Server.
Maybe myopic would be a better term. While you may not save any money, using less electricity is still using less electricity and thereby burning less coal, which makes for cleaner air. So, it will actually personally benefit you, just not immediately or directly. That your overpaying is your problem, but that you use more electricity because you're married to 19th century technology is everyone's.
Furthermore, if everyone in the building used CFL bulbs couldn't you then request a lower fee? Hmmm.
The updates to Tiger including changes in services, security updates, etc and not changes to desktop artwork, but it's easier just to parrot the idiocy of the first poster. Furthermore, assuming you paid full price for each and every version of OSX, you would have spent $645.00 (US), including a copy of Leopard. This is of couse, assuming you paid full price for 10.1 which almost no one did because 10.0 was free and the 10.1 update came on a CD for $30. So in reality, the cost of keeping OSX up to date from 2001 until 2007 would be $546.00 (US).
In other words, your math skills suck, but good for you that you use Ubuntu. I mean, you can't add for shit, but hey you use Ubuntu. Here's a cookie.
Yes, because everyone cares about the opinions of MSFanBoi2. I mean first of all, an admission of being a Microsoft Fanboy would seem like a genius stroke of irony, akin to growing a Magnum PI mustache. So, bravo! And, then to use the Boi spelling, a kind of rich-commentary using the odd spelling from an Avril Lavinge song. Oh the sweet and everlasting genius of such a persona to then try to imagine "the flack if Microsoft made commercials like this."
I know 17 artists, writers, educators, and architects.
The architects use Windows, everyone else uses OSX.
How many have an iPod?
5.
How many bought their Macs before the commercials?
More than half.
Is it possible that your lame-ass attempt at using anecdotal evidence (at best), followed by your scurrilous proclamation that Mac users are sheep, is FUD? Furthermore, it is possible that your ridiculous diatribe about Mac users showed your obvious distaste for anything different from your own, and that you are not only prejudiced and fearful, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Make sure to point out to the one guy that uses a Mac that he's part of the iPod crowd, who can't think for himself and knows nothing about his machine. I hope he kicks your ass.
1. If a species, say the shark, finds an ecological niche in which it is successful, there is little pressure to change. Species don't just change at random, they change because of other species, environmental changes, and mutation. But, there are only a handful of species that have stayed similar to the ancient brethren, even the shark has changed. Hammerheads, for example.
2. Evolution can and does describe the existence of complex structures, and there's no inherent law that states natural selection must dispose of genes, when it's just as easy to carry that information as recessive bits of junk code, which we do see in human beings and other species.
What would you suggest, considering your own research and analyzation, as the fundamental guidance for life on earth, since you find evolution so problematic? I have a feeling the first part of your last sentence explains more about why Americans feel the way they do than the second.
I could see in 2000 voting for the Republican party, I disagreed with the Republican party's platform and I didn't believe in Nader's propositions, but I can understand why. What I cannot understand is why you would vote for Bush again in '04 considering the absolute disaster he had created. With his domestic policies already failing, the economy slowing, the war on terror strained and rendered ineffective by the mire in Iraq, the possible subterfuge, and the general jackassery of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush. Why would you vote for the Republicans again?
By doing so you enabled all the stupidity of the last two years, you gave the Republicans a feeling that no matter what they did, no matter how far they strayed from the original platform and how poorly they executed their policies, you would still vote for them.
Granted, VMS and Virtual Desktops have been around for a long time, but Apple has made this a useful function for the average computer user. Time Machine is especially cool and I can't imagine a number of people actually using it. The genius of this is Apple's taking deep system functions and making them so the average user wants to deal with those services. It's not an invention, but it certaintly is an innovation.
There is, I think, a very big difference between choosing parameters of light and dropping in something else entirely, just as there is a difference between seeing a car accident from a different angle and actually repositioning the cars. I get exactly what you're saying, and it always been a conflict within photography. Essentially, photojournalists need to have the same ethical structures that journalists do, they need to attempt to show the truth. Thus, using double-exposures or the Photoshop Clone tool is a kind of lying. That's very different from choosing light, which is akin to choosing an angle for a story. We know that both actions manipulate the final product, but one is an intentional act to deceive and the other is a merely part of being human.
I think the YouTube video is much more dangerous than Gore's movie. While Gore's movie attempts to present a case the YouTube video merely attempts to subvert that case, not by upfront conflict in the battle of ideas, but rather through the use of chicanery and subterfuge. It feigns Grassroots populism and makes it appear as though regular people disagree with Gore. The YouTube video attempts to hide behind a veil, because the authors know that were they to stand up and make a case we would know how much their case is defined by money and influence rather than ideas.
The worst thing to happen to our public debate is advertising, we're so busy making fantastic Keynote speeches with cool effects and lots of attention-getting hyperbole that we ignore truth and ideas.
If an oil company flak wants to stand up and talk about how he disagrees with Gore, he better do it while admitting where his paycheck comes from, and if someone else wants to stand up and disagree with Gore, they better come armed with facts, figures, and ideas and not some bullshit astroturf intended to confuse people rather than enlighten them.
We're getting to the point that whomever has the best specific effects budget (or Blair Witchs-style cinema verite) wins minds. And it sucks.
There must be a difference between a statement intended to convince and influence others and statements that are intended to deceive and confuse an issue. There must be a difference between advertisements and hyperbole and outright truth. Is every statement relative, then? Doesn't that make every statement meaningless because there can be no objective truth behind it? Or are some statements meaningful and truthful to the best of our abilities and some statements are lies? And if that's true shouldn't a person who believes something based on available facts have more sway than someone who ignores the available facts and instead speaks in counter to those facts.
Al Gore may be using the truth that best suits his arguments, but I think it's ridiculous to compare him to the YouTube video which is a lie within a lie. That you can't see the difference between these two is troubling.
Slashdot Mirror
it's a company store. You can buy anything you want, so long as it works with something made by Apple.
It's odd, I can't figure out whether this is really a critique or not.
Well, I may be lacking in imagination but I can't see how selling say bananas and top hats would do anything for Apple, or for that matter their customers, that selling an HP-branded all-in-one would. Of course the Apple Stores exist to sell the mother company's products. Ford dealerships don't often sell Honda mufflers and Baskin Robbins doesn't sell Ben and Jerrys.
Frankly, the "general store" model doesn't work very well for complex interconnected systems like computers because you need some way to restrict the amount of products in order to ensure some amount of customer satisfaction. Department stores like Macy's don't have to worry about whether a pair of shoes works with a dress (despite my wife's insistence that they do or do not) and the supermarket doesn't have to consider whether free-range eggs will intergrate with steroid-infused bacon. However, if you want to buy a suit you're often better off going to one store or tailor.
Lastly, most modern stores are "controlled environments," the minute you walk into a store, you're being played on by dozen of small attempts to hold your attention and get you to spend money. Some are just more successful than others.
A taser is less-deadly than a gun, but it's not a safe weapon and cops need to be trained on the use of "non-lethal" weapons just as they're trained to use their clubs, cars, and radios. It's a tool and one obviously capable of taking a life.
I'll have to do the research, but I still think there are substantial questions out there about nuclear energy, including waste, protection against nuclear proliferation, safety issues (including dealing with the low-level waste), and problems with the fuel-supply.
Lastly, we can't just focus on nuclear energy, but rather we should work towards a wide-range of power sources, including nuclear, solar, wind, and tidal where appropriate.
I can't make any guarantees, but this seems shortsighted considering the Earth receives something like 89 petawatts at any given time.
Also, you ignore one of the greatest problems with nuclear power, which is the waste. Even the vaunted nuclear submarine has a waste-stream which must be dealt with. Furthermore, nuclear power relies on the mining of large amounts of uranium, an inherently dirty and destructive process. With the right planning this can be mitigated, but let's not pretend that nuclear power is the end-all and be-all of future power-generation. We need a mixture of systems, and frankly if we're going to spend significant amounts of money on R&D, we'd be better off going right to renewables.
By rounding you managed to gloss over an interesting piece of data: OS X has increased from 2.8 ( Jan '05) to 4.0 (July '07) and Linux has increased from 2.7 (Jan '05) to 3.4 (July '07). This is a subtle change, to be sure, but nonetheless interesting.
I don't really know why Apple would care, eMusic is actually complimentary to iTunes and the iPhone and furthermore, who cares? The iPhone is also an iPod and can play regular Mp3s. There isn't much of a story here.
This is an irrelevant argument at best. The fact is a number of White House officials acted in an untoward manner despite specific policies prohibiting them from doing this. Whether the other party does it too is meaningless when deciding if a policy should be followed. If you're really independent you should be willing to kick the GOP in the shins for their malfeasance and reserve the right to do the same thing to the Democrats when they present you with the opportunity.
My own experience with small-businesses prove the footprint for Windows: the Macintosh-shop calls me when they want to try something new, the Windows guys call me because something broke.
Furthermore, the solid-state click wheel didn't make the battery life go to hell, rather it was the addition of the clock software which meant the iPod would slowly drain over time, but that didn't change the actual battery life.
But, the Zune isn't competing against the 1G 5GB iPod, it's competing against a mature product in a well-defined market. The 1st iPod was 5GB because the drives were limited and most people had small music collections and Mac-only was just an opening salvo. Furthermore, lots of people bought iPods before the Nano, so it was obviously compelling even if you didn't think so; you're forgetting the iPod Mini, which was great.
Lastly, Microsoft had all the information about how to build a good player and good software from the iPod's example and they still couldn't do it. Microsoft should be censored for trying to release a half-baked idea into the wild.
The French in Algeria. The French in Vietnam. The United States in Vietnam. The Germany army in Poland. The Soviets in Afghanistan. The British in Sudan. The British in Ireland. I could go on. IEDs are just another name for booby-trap.
Both of them are liars, but one did it to cover an affair, the other did it to subvert Democracy.
I agree, there's a big damned difference.
...which has a great section on the problem of g-forces, or in a few words: what happens when you drop a wrench in a submarine?
Face it, you're just trying to justify your wasteful habits using adject economic theory to support it.
Oh, and by the way your argument is always made better when you call people silly and stupid.
Well then, I better go tell the guys who maintain our Xserves to shut them down and throw them in the trash. Yep, the RAID arrays too. Oh, and the mail server.
MacOS still remains a consumer OS for people unwilling or unable to understand the guts of a microcomputer
I agree, that's why I removed all the gauges on my car's dashboard too, after all gauges still remain for people unable to understand the guts of an engine. Oh wait. That's not right. Gauges are useful. And so is the GUI layer on OSX Server.
Furthermore, if everyone in the building used CFL bulbs couldn't you then request a lower fee? Hmmm.
In other words, your math skills suck, but good for you that you use Ubuntu. I mean, you can't add for shit, but hey you use Ubuntu. Here's a cookie.
Oh, you sir are god of irony. Now shut up.
I know 17 artists, writers, educators, and architects.
The architects use Windows, everyone else uses OSX.
How many have an iPod?
5.
How many bought their Macs before the commercials?
More than half.
Is it possible that your lame-ass attempt at using anecdotal evidence (at best), followed by your scurrilous proclamation that Mac users are sheep, is FUD? Furthermore, it is possible that your ridiculous diatribe about Mac users showed your obvious distaste for anything different from your own, and that you are not only prejudiced and fearful, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Make sure to point out to the one guy that uses a Mac that he's part of the iPod crowd, who can't think for himself and knows nothing about his machine. I hope he kicks your ass.
2. Evolution can and does describe the existence of complex structures, and there's no inherent law that states natural selection must dispose of genes, when it's just as easy to carry that information as recessive bits of junk code, which we do see in human beings and other species.
What would you suggest, considering your own research and analyzation, as the fundamental guidance for life on earth, since you find evolution so problematic? I have a feeling the first part of your last sentence explains more about why Americans feel the way they do than the second.
By doing so you enabled all the stupidity of the last two years, you gave the Republicans a feeling that no matter what they did, no matter how far they strayed from the original platform and how poorly they executed their policies, you would still vote for them.
Magic 8 ball says no, try again later.
There's no point for repeating the same dumb thing over and over and over...
Granted, VMS and Virtual Desktops have been around for a long time, but Apple has made this a useful function for the average computer user. Time Machine is especially cool and I can't imagine a number of people actually using it. The genius of this is Apple's taking deep system functions and making them so the average user wants to deal with those services. It's not an invention, but it certaintly is an innovation.
There is, I think, a very big difference between choosing parameters of light and dropping in something else entirely, just as there is a difference between seeing a car accident from a different angle and actually repositioning the cars. I get exactly what you're saying, and it always been a conflict within photography. Essentially, photojournalists need to have the same ethical structures that journalists do, they need to attempt to show the truth. Thus, using double-exposures or the Photoshop Clone tool is a kind of lying. That's very different from choosing light, which is akin to choosing an angle for a story. We know that both actions manipulate the final product, but one is an intentional act to deceive and the other is a merely part of being human.
The worst thing to happen to our public debate is advertising, we're so busy making fantastic Keynote speeches with cool effects and lots of attention-getting hyperbole that we ignore truth and ideas.
If an oil company flak wants to stand up and talk about how he disagrees with Gore, he better do it while admitting where his paycheck comes from, and if someone else wants to stand up and disagree with Gore, they better come armed with facts, figures, and ideas and not some bullshit astroturf intended to confuse people rather than enlighten them.
We're getting to the point that whomever has the best specific effects budget (or Blair Witchs-style cinema verite) wins minds. And it sucks.
Al Gore may be using the truth that best suits his arguments, but I think it's ridiculous to compare him to the YouTube video which is a lie within a lie. That you can't see the difference between these two is troubling.