That is why [Bush] gets support and [Evangelical Christians] took over the Republician party.
History will show that it's the other way around: in the 1980's, the republican party (under neoconservative control) took over the evangelical vote. All they have to do is adopt some token moral issues (abortion, gay marriage) and they've instantly got all the Bible thumpers voting for them, despite their other dispicable behavior (war mongering, etc.). Pardon the cliche, but it's like taking candy from a baby.
But to re-iterate, the Republicans are not controlled by the evangelicals. The Republicans merely use them as a means to get power, and proceed with carrying out their own agenda.
Gosh, I thought I was pretty clear in my post but I've got 2 people contradicting me with exactly what I'm trying to express.
The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat.
The Soviet threat started out pretty insignifigant. They didn't set out with the goal of being able to destroy all life, it just ended up that way. From the start (right after WW2), they were painted as the source of all evil in the world and that simply wasn't true. This lie prompted the arms race which led to the serious threat. Who knows, maybe Bush's rhetoric will create a similar problem in the middle east (if several nuclear-capable powers in the region went against us).
The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't.
I went on to say this in my post, but I'll elaborate: Of course terrorism is exaggerated. The neoconservative machine has a lot more momentum because of it. The whole point of neoconservatism is to keep society in order by uniting them against a common enemy. If you have to lie to the public to keep them in line, you do. People are unlikely to have disturbances amongst themselves if they both hate the same enemy.
All politicians fall short of delivering their ideals. Promising a lot is no longer a way to get a lot of power. Promising to protect people from an enemy, is.
So, when you ask: "Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security?", the answer is: POWER, AND LOTS OF IT! Do you really think Bush would have been re-elected without the war on terror? His domestic record is horrible. It's only because people think he will protect them from "evil-doers" that this horrid first-term was excused.
Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.
Terrorism is a real threat now. I think the poster was likening the two, because they're both exaggerated for political purposes. The neo-conservative philosophy revolves around the idea of a nation striving against some sort of 'evil' entity. This can be real or fake, but it works best when it's a little of both. Once people have seen a terrorist attack, it doesn't take much to convince them that there's some worldwide organization that was behind it.
Re:Car analogies rarely work, however...
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, you're totally right. The $500 OS X machine is definately an attractive sell, and easy to convince others to buy.
It also occured after my post, how the Mac mini is much like the G4 cube, only with a more realistic business plan. The G4 cube was a horrid failure because it was more expensive than the equivalent G4 tower. People like portability and a small footprint, even enough to sacrifice some speed or expandability -- but not if they have to pay more for it.
Sibling post made a good point: it's likely to preserve compatibility with graphic tablets that have no right click.
Also, no one is going to write code for a right click for mac if it involves holding a key and clicking the one button.Sure they will, and they do! What you won't find is people making features only available using right-click. In other words, the system should be 100% usable with 1 mouse button. If you want to speed things up by using a second button, go for it: you can use the keyboard with the stock mouse, or purchase a new mouse. This part of the human interface guidelines that make Macs feel so natural to novices and advanced users alike. When you want to do something, it's generally in the first place you look.
I sure like being able to use my Cingular phone on AT&T networks. It's like, all the sudden, my phone doesn't suck anymore!
Car analogies rarely work, however...
on
Mac mini to PC Hack
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think of Apple as more closely matched to BMW. It's a brand whose primary goal is to build a reliable piece of hardware that is enjoyable to use. It's easy to form an opinion about it, but until you get behind the wheel/screen, you just won't get it Much like BMW, Apple has recently put a lot of effort into aesthetics, and therefore the brand has been making its way into the "luxury" market, while keeping its core goals (quality, enjoyable use) intact.
BMW's aren't the fastest cars on the road, but they're still plenty fast. Anyone with some mechanical skill can turbocharge a Dodge Neon or something and end up with more bang-for-the-buck, but it's just not the same.
...now that that analogy is wearing thin, let me address a couple points...
I'd be surprised if we don't see a PC variant with better specs within a few months. -- Me too! Apple always has a bunch of companies rushing to implement a knock-off of it's current design. (I'm not saying that Apple never takes other peoples ideas, I'm simply saying that when they announce something big/cool, other companies copy it in droves. There are too many examples to list, but here's a few: System7, iPod, Titanium PowerBook, etc.)
Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space? -- I don't think the Mac mini is meant to be the fastest, most upgradable machine they have. In fact, I would speculate that most people buying a Mac mini are buying it as a second computer. I think it has 2 target markets, one of which is more important than the others:
The important one: non-mac users who are flirting with the idea of switching. Maybe they use Macs at work or school, and a PC at home. Perhaps they have an iPod and iTunes, and enjoy the experience, and want iPhoto, iMovie, iEtc. I think this is the critical target group, because this is like training wheels for the switch to Mac. If they like the Mac experience, they may end up switching, or if they don't divorce the PC, at least they could become a long term Apple customer, possibly buying more Apple products in the future. For this group, processor speed isn't all that important. This computer is just to organize their photos, music, and "digital life". Since the price of entry is so low, it's hard for these folks to say no at this point.
The other group: those who want a net-appliance. Anyone who may have bought a Cobalt Qube is probably eyeing the Mac mini right now. A set-top box, a home router/server, etc. It's good for little projects like that. Again, processor speed isn't as important as it would be in other applications.
...they are going to produce their own set top box or game console... -- Apple has a nasty habbit of coming up with ideas a few years before the market is ripe for it. The video game console is no different: at one point they planned to release the Pippin, which was somewhere between an XBOX and WebTV as far as featureset.... I don't think this ever made it into production.
If your user base is mostly Mac, then you'll probably almost completely igore the right mouse button, maybe putting a few things in there for those users who don't see Ctrl+Click as so much of a pain, but definately not providing the same rich context menu support you would if you expected everyone to be right clicking.
No, there's a difference... I think you've stumbled upon it on the end of your post. [Most] Mac developers don't ignore the right mouse button. That would be foolish, it's really useful! However, because the default configuration of the platform is ONE button, they do not link a feature to the right mouse button which can not be found elsewhere. This just ensures good design. The right mouse button is there for speeding up a task, but it shouldn't be something a program depends on. Much like nobody would use a keyboard accelerator (Command-Q, Alt-X, etc...) without having a visible UI component that does the same thing. It's role is a time-saver, and this helps keep it that way.
Taking your idea one step furthuer: If it came with a clicker that supported 2 buttons, but by default had a trim piece that used both as one, that would be neat. Then we uber-users could just pry the button off and snap on the 2-button trim. Another alternative is having a 2-button pad as a BTO option.
That would be neat. I don't think it will happen though, and only having a single button is not enough to keep me away from this beautiful hardware and platform. It really is just a joy to use.
Thankfully, there are work-arounds as you say. I'll just plug one for anyone interested, it's called SideTrack.
It lets you use the physical button for right-click and touchpad tap for left. This is how I used my PC laptop anyway, so it was a comfortable switch.
Unless the information he wants to get to is anti-chinese-government, I don't think they will give him any trouble as he's a foreigner. Most of the information blocked is of this sort anyway.
With that said, trying to circumvent censorship isn't worth the risk. Whenever you're abroad it's a bad idea to engage in criminal activity.
Well, a subsidiary (Cingular) "merged" -- more or less the same thing. A great day for me, as I have Cingular but live in a house only covered by AT&T.
The article pages render fine, it's just the main index that renders funny. Make a live-bookmark folder for the headlines and you won't have to visit the front page anymore.
So the user has the freedom to choose their favorite n-button mouse. Now those who were complaining about the one-button mouse, can complain that it doesn't come with one.
Innovation is not dead, it's just not part of their business model. It's easier to let smaller studios do the innovation, and then either buy them out or pummel them into mediocrity with a ripoff competitor that they market strongly.
To look at this and say innovation is dead within the industry is silly.
Use some variety of MPEG4 (divx, xvid, 3ivx, etc.) and if the filesize is too large, provide CORAL or BitTorrent links to help let your downloaders share the burden.
The reason you need a lot of RAM is because its the cheapest way to make your system faster. OSX uses unused physical memory for disk cache, which helps make your system snappy.
It also cuts down on the amount of CPU needed, as stuff can be computed and stored in memory so it doesn't need to be computed again. This cuts down the time you wait for the computed result, which is good for all computers. It's also of particular use to notebooks like yours, as hitting RAM instead of CPU saves battery life.
With that said, it is indeed expensive. I'd probably buy the gig from crucial.com and install myself...
It's more or less the same story as Internet Explorer. In the case of IE, Microsoft's goal was to pervert the HTML standard to the point where HTML written for IE wouldn't render in other browsers. This way they could hijack the standard, and the browser marketshare at the same time. This failed, but they came close and there are still some annoying sites that are tested to IE's broken rendering engine, and give the other browsers trouble.
With WMP, they aren't screwing with open formats, just pushing their own proprietary format. Ideally they want all websites using their format, streaming to their client. It pisses me off because this is exactly what other media companies do (RealNetworks etc), and as a result I have a handful of movie players when I really only want ONE. "It's just like MPEG but it's owned by us" isn't a valid reason for me to use these formats...
Slashdot Mirror
That is why [Bush] gets support and [Evangelical Christians] took over the Republician party.
History will show that it's the other way around: in the 1980's, the republican party (under neoconservative control) took over the evangelical vote. All they have to do is adopt some token moral issues (abortion, gay marriage) and they've instantly got all the Bible thumpers voting for them, despite their other dispicable behavior (war mongering, etc.). Pardon the cliche, but it's like taking candy from a baby.
But to re-iterate, the Republicans are not controlled by the evangelicals. The Republicans merely use them as a means to get power, and proceed with carrying out their own agenda.
Gosh, I thought I was pretty clear in my post but I've got 2 people contradicting me with exactly what I'm trying to express.
The difference is that terrorism is hardly a significant threat.
The Soviet threat started out pretty insignifigant. They didn't set out with the goal of being able to destroy all life, it just ended up that way. From the start (right after WW2), they were painted as the source of all evil in the world and that simply wasn't true. This lie prompted the arms race which led to the serious threat. Who knows, maybe Bush's rhetoric will create a similar problem in the middle east (if several nuclear-capable powers in the region went against us).
The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't.
I went on to say this in my post, but I'll elaborate: Of course terrorism is exaggerated. The neoconservative machine has a lot more momentum because of it. The whole point of neoconservatism is to keep society in order by uniting them against a common enemy. If you have to lie to the public to keep them in line, you do. People are unlikely to have disturbances amongst themselves if they both hate the same enemy.
All politicians fall short of delivering their ideals. Promising a lot is no longer a way to get a lot of power. Promising to protect people from an enemy, is.
So, when you ask: "Why are Republicans so willing to sacrifice everything that is great about this country for the illusion of security?", the answer is: POWER, AND LOTS OF IT! Do you really think Bush would have been re-elected without the war on terror? His domestic record is horrible. It's only because people think he will protect them from "evil-doers" that this horrid first-term was excused.
Communisim was a real threat in the cold war period. "We will bury you." was not a joke.
Terrorism is a real threat now. I think the poster was likening the two, because they're both exaggerated for political purposes. The neo-conservative philosophy revolves around the idea of a nation striving against some sort of 'evil' entity. This can be real or fake, but it works best when it's a little of both. Once people have seen a terrorist attack, it doesn't take much to convince them that there's some worldwide organization that was behind it.
Yeah, you're totally right. The $500 OS X machine is definately an attractive sell, and easy to convince others to buy.
It also occured after my post, how the Mac mini is much like the G4 cube, only with a more realistic business plan. The G4 cube was a horrid failure because it was more expensive than the equivalent G4 tower. People like portability and a small footprint, even enough to sacrifice some speed or expandability -- but not if they have to pay more for it.
Sibling post made a good point: it's likely to preserve compatibility with graphic tablets that have no right click.
Also, no one is going to write code for a right click for mac if it involves holding a key and clicking the one button.Sure they will, and they do! What you won't find is people making features only available using right-click. In other words, the system should be 100% usable with 1 mouse button. If you want to speed things up by using a second button, go for it: you can use the keyboard with the stock mouse, or purchase a new mouse. This part of the human interface guidelines that make Macs feel so natural to novices and advanced users alike. When you want to do something, it's generally in the first place you look.
I sure like being able to use my Cingular phone on AT&T networks. It's like, all the sudden, my phone doesn't suck anymore!
BMW's aren't the fastest cars on the road, but they're still plenty fast. Anyone with some mechanical skill can turbocharge a Dodge Neon or something and end up with more bang-for-the-buck, but it's just not the same.
...now that that analogy is wearing thin, let me address a couple points...
I'd be surprised if we don't see a PC variant with better specs within a few months. -- Me too! Apple always has a bunch of companies rushing to implement a knock-off of it's current design. (I'm not saying that Apple never takes other peoples ideas, I'm simply saying that when they announce something big/cool, other companies copy it in droves. There are too many examples to list, but here's a few: System7, iPod, Titanium PowerBook, etc.)
Other than the SFF community who are they targeting? Are most Mac/PC users going to give up significant amounts of horsepower to save a couple inches of space? -- I don't think the Mac mini is meant to be the fastest, most upgradable machine they have. In fact, I would speculate that most people buying a Mac mini are buying it as a second computer. I think it has 2 target markets, one of which is more important than the others:
...every time I use the Mac at work, it's an exercise in frustration.
So why don't you axe your boss for a 2 button mouse you can use?
If your user base is mostly Mac, then you'll probably almost completely igore the right mouse button, maybe putting a few things in there for those users who don't see Ctrl+Click as so much of a pain, but definately not providing the same rich context menu support you would if you expected everyone to be right clicking.
No, there's a difference... I think you've stumbled upon it on the end of your post. [Most] Mac developers don't ignore the right mouse button. That would be foolish, it's really useful! However, because the default configuration of the platform is ONE button, they do not link a feature to the right mouse button which can not be found elsewhere. This just ensures good design. The right mouse button is there for speeding up a task, but it shouldn't be something a program depends on. Much like nobody would use a keyboard accelerator (Command-Q, Alt-X, etc...) without having a visible UI component that does the same thing. It's role is a time-saver, and this helps keep it that way.
Taking your idea one step furthuer: If it came with a clicker that supported 2 buttons, but by default had a trim piece that used both as one, that would be neat. Then we uber-users could just pry the button off and snap on the 2-button trim. Another alternative is having a 2-button pad as a BTO option.
That would be neat. I don't think it will happen though, and only having a single button is not enough to keep me away from this beautiful hardware and platform. It really is just a joy to use.
Thankfully, there are work-arounds as you say. I'll just plug one for anyone interested, it's called SideTrack. It lets you use the physical button for right-click and touchpad tap for left. This is how I used my PC laptop anyway, so it was a comfortable switch.
asshole.
Leave it to some meth-head to figure this crap out. :-P
Am I the only one who thinks these two claims next to each other look funny?
EOM
Unless the information he wants to get to is anti-chinese-government, I don't think they will give him any trouble as he's a foreigner. Most of the information blocked is of this sort anyway.
With that said, trying to circumvent censorship isn't worth the risk. Whenever you're abroad it's a bad idea to engage in criminal activity.
Well, a subsidiary (Cingular) "merged" -- more or less the same thing. A great day for me, as I have Cingular but live in a house only covered by AT&T.
The article pages render fine, it's just the main index that renders funny. Make a live-bookmark folder for the headlines and you won't have to visit the front page anymore.
So the user has the freedom to choose their favorite n-button mouse. Now those who were complaining about the one-button mouse, can complain that it doesn't come with one.
"George Bush is the bestest president since JESUS!"
Stay tuned...
Innovation is not dead, it's just not part of their business model. It's easier to let smaller studios do the innovation, and then either buy them out or pummel them into mediocrity with a ripoff competitor that they market strongly.
To look at this and say innovation is dead within the industry is silly.
Use some variety of MPEG4 (divx, xvid, 3ivx, etc.) and if the filesize is too large, provide CORAL or BitTorrent links to help let your downloaders share the burden.
The reason you need a lot of RAM is because its the cheapest way to make your system faster. OSX uses unused physical memory for disk cache, which helps make your system snappy.
It also cuts down on the amount of CPU needed, as stuff can be computed and stored in memory so it doesn't need to be computed again. This cuts down the time you wait for the computed result, which is good for all computers. It's also of particular use to notebooks like yours, as hitting RAM instead of CPU saves battery life.
With that said, it is indeed expensive. I'd probably buy the gig from crucial.com and install myself...
Oh man he was suuuuuuuch a bad actor. This is bad news if they are depending on him to save the show.
It's more or less the same story as Internet Explorer. In the case of IE, Microsoft's goal was to pervert the HTML standard to the point where HTML written for IE wouldn't render in other browsers. This way they could hijack the standard, and the browser marketshare at the same time. This failed, but they came close and there are still some annoying sites that are tested to IE's broken rendering engine, and give the other browsers trouble.
With WMP, they aren't screwing with open formats, just pushing their own proprietary format. Ideally they want all websites using their format, streaming to their client. It pisses me off because this is exactly what other media companies do (RealNetworks etc), and as a result I have a handful of movie players when I really only want ONE. "It's just like MPEG but it's owned by us" isn't a valid reason for me to use these formats...
Maybe it's time to get a Mac. They're fun! (Most of) your linux software will work on it. :-)