A guy I know who works in recuriting pointed something interesting out to me:
The Baby Boomers are going "out of business" (well, beginning) in the next two or three years, and a lot of companies are building "piplines" in order to get the right people on the job.
So, even though they may not have something right now, it looks like in a year or two those links will pay off.
The point is, 99% of the people who say they can't because of "compatability" are just saying it because they:
1. Don't want a Mac in the first place. 2. Are afraid of change. 3. Have no idea what it actually is they can't live without under Windows.
I regularly exchange files with Windows Users and nobody ever had problems. I have seen more problems between older and newer versions of Office than between Mac and Windows machines.
IBM got out of the PC Business because everybody was making PC.
IBM had NOTHING that differenciated them from Dell, HP or any other Asian PC maker.
Apple has Mac OS X (as one thing) to differentiate them.
Yes, iPods and iTunes are making them money right now, but I doubt very much that Apple stops making computers anytime soon. IF they would turn into The iPod Company(TM) why even bother with Mac OS X? It would be way more consequent for them to stop anything that has to do with computers and just concentrate on "portable devices".
It has been said before, and it will be said again: Apple has NOTHING absolutly NOTHING to win by releasing an unbundled OS X version, if anything they shoot themselves in the foot by doing so.
HOW would they gain by selilng OS X? They subsidize the software development by selling hardware. You have to sell a LOT of boxes in order to pay for software development.
Much worse: The Slashdot crowd constantly forgets that Joe Shmoe doesn't CARE what OS he is running as long as s/he can do what s/he wants to do on the computer.
Nobody is going to go out and buy Mac OS X, throws windows of his machine and switches, if people would be doing this, Linux would be way further on the Desktop.
Licensing it to the likes of Dell? Doubtful, they would just create a direct competition which would undermine the HW business, and how WELL licensing works can already be seen in the HP iPod deal which came to an end and didn't work so well for HP (and I doubt very much that Apple would give Dell or HP or Leonov any freedom whatsoever).
Look at the iTunes phone from Motorola, the thing is crippled beyond believe, and that is by design. Whatever / Whoever wants to play with Apple would need to release a product that is inferior to what Apple is selling themselves.
So no, as much as it may be a wet dream for most Slashbots, chances are close to nil that Apple will ever release OS X as a box to the masses.
I find Windows utterly non intuitive after spending the last 8 years working mainly in Unix and for the past four years in Mac environments (at home and at work).
Windows behaves odd at times and to do certain things is "politely put" utterly clumsy.
Why would a new CPU raise Apples Marketshare? Because now suddenly all the Linux people are going to run out and buy Apple HW in order to install Linux on it?
The average user doesn't care what is IN the box as long as it does what they want them to do.
Yeah, maybe Apple gains another percentage point or more, but clearly not because they put an Intel CPU into their machines.
I'm quite tech saavy (or so I'd like to think). I run several web servers (one has a medium load). I see performance issues as being very unprofessional and quite easily fixable. Personally, I have no patience for services that can't keep basic web servers going because I know how simple it really is. Even on my low-traffic websites, I would never allow performance issues to impact the user experience. To me, if a service can't keep web servers up and working 99% of the time, they're not worth visiting.
Wow. I see you have absolutly no idea how complex large Systems are..... But that's okay, after all you host several webservers and one of them even has a medium load .
I have, on occasion, actually mixed Coke / Pepsi with Coffee, not that bad in my opinion, but then tastes are differently, I also liked "Fanta Mango" in Germany when everybody else just found it vile.
There have been studies done where they fed pure fructose to mice and others got normal sugar. The ones on the fructose gained weight almost instantly. It seems that the sugars are so simple that the body doesn't "register" them as energy and just plain either puts them straight to use or just puts them into storage.
Because it means that by and large, the 1st ammendment has been upheld in the areas of the internet pertinent to the discussion, against pressure by those with money and a sticks up their asses to corrupt it.
"By large" is already showing that there is an erosion. Ultimatly though it were the courts who upheld it, not the politicians.
I'm going to make a judgement call here and say that political speech is the most important form of speech. Perhaps you disagree, but when all is said and done, I'll take censorship of the discussion of copy-prevention circumvention over censorship of political beliefs because without political speech you can't undo DMCA-style censorship, but talking about copying DVDs will do little to relieve political censorship.
No I do agree, but limiting hate speech is in my eyes not something that is preventing political speech. You cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theater either, even the US Supreme Court acknowledges that there are limits on free speech.
The difference, as I see it, is that in Europe there are clearer guidelines about what is valid and what isn't. That doesn't mean there is outright censorship.
The point I was merely driving home is that there is no absolut freedom, it always requires a limit to some degree or the other.
In this case, the US has done a pretty good job of upholding their rhetoric regarding freedom of expression and the internet. It hasn't been perfect, but it has been a heck of a lot better than most of the countries who were big pushers of this new shared goverance plan.
And this has to do with corruption what?
I am in no way a US nationalist, but in this specific case I believe that any change coming from this specific EU effort would have been a loss for free speech on the net.
Here's a question: Does it matter who does the censoring? In the EU you have anti hate laws that prevent certain forms of Speech, in the US you have things like the DMCA that prevent other things.
The difference? One came out historical context, the other one was paid for by lobbying groups on behalf of the industry.
There is a latin saying which fully describes the way most large corporations treat their customers in the USA, "Caveat Emptor" -- buyer beware. The case you describe is a natural response to that attitude on the part of those large retail corporations, I like to call it "Caveat Vendor" -- seller beware. Because turnabout is always fair play, I see no substance in your charge that caveat vendor behavior is dishonest or corrupt.
You know, there is another saying: Two wrongs don't make a right, and you are not morally "scot free" because the other one may have screwed you over.
Furthermore, I have worked in Retail in the past as well, if at the end of the day the money in the register doesn't add up, guess who is paying for that? Hint: It's not the company.
blockquote>i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought.
Oh please,
ANY organization of any significant size is corrupted, it is not the organization though but the people working there.
If you think the US Government is any less corrupt than any similar size organization you live in a dream world, just look at current US politics.
Ask yourself this: Last time you were given incorrect change in your favour, did you correct that mistake or did you just pocket the difference and thought: "Suckers"? If people are tempted by change to be dishonest why would they suddenly become more honest when the payoff is a lot bigger?
This may be true in a couple of hundred years, but most of the stuff a 17 year old puts on the net today will in all likelyhood still be around 30 years from now.
Sure, an archelogist in 2580 will most likely not be able to learn that Danny had a crush on Anna in Highschool and how "whatever" their respective life's were but the hiring manager twenty years out will.
Whatever one may have carved in his desk or sprayed on a wall is probably long gone by now. It may be remembered by the handful of people how may have seen it and be able to associate it with who did it.
These days, with MySpace, Google, the Internet Archive there is a good chance that 20 years from now, someone types in your name and finds all the things that one types today.
Yeah sure, kids are being told not to "give information about yourself" to strangers, but I guess MySpace is a pretty good example on how this is ignored.
I am sure future partners / employers are going to be thrilled to read what someone did when they were 15, or 17 or 20. Especially if it relates to their sexual experiences or their griping about their boss etc.
(and it gets cold up here - we're only a 3 hour drive from Canada)
And as we all know, the weather is determined soley by the countries borders, thus Mexico is blisterin hot, Canada is covered in ice and snow year round
You must have missed it. The iPod uses a DB to "find" the files, and does not go through the file system to find the files (in fact, they aren't ordered in any "meaningful" way on the file system).
Well, I'm not sure why he would be offended, since most of their customers *do* display a propensity to steal their music.
Sure, I buy a DVD, CD etc. and then I am the one who steals????
What kind of logic is that?
I mean seriously.
When I go to the library and copy a CD I am also totally correct in doing this because I pay a levy on my blank media. Same goes if I borrow the CD from a friend and do the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's bad. A good PM at least has a grasp of the technology and knows when s/he's getting bullshitted.
A guy I know who works in recuriting pointed something interesting out to me:
The Baby Boomers are going "out of business" (well, beginning) in the next two or three years, and a lot of companies are building "piplines" in order to get the right people on the job.
So, even though they may not have something right now, it looks like in a year or two those links will pay off.
What compatability?
Office? Is around for the Mac and works fine.
What else? Games? Well, fine, get an XBOX.
The point is, 99% of the people who say they can't because of "compatability" are just saying it because they:
1. Don't want a Mac in the first place.
2. Are afraid of change.
3. Have no idea what it actually is they can't live without under Windows.
I regularly exchange files with Windows Users and nobody ever had problems. I have seen more problems between older and newer versions of Office than between Mac and Windows machines.
IBM got out of the PC Business because everybody was making PC.
IBM had NOTHING that differenciated them from Dell, HP or any other Asian PC maker.
Apple has Mac OS X (as one thing) to differentiate them.
Yes, iPods and iTunes are making them money right now, but I doubt very much that Apple stops making computers anytime soon. IF they would turn into The iPod Company(TM) why even bother with Mac OS X? It would be way more consequent for them to stop anything that has to do with computers and just concentrate on "portable devices".
Michael
It has been said before, and it will be said again: Apple has NOTHING absolutly NOTHING to win by releasing an unbundled OS X version, if anything they shoot themselves in the foot by doing so.
HOW would they gain by selilng OS X? They subsidize the software development by selling hardware. You have to sell a LOT of boxes in order to pay for software development.
Much worse: The Slashdot crowd constantly forgets that Joe Shmoe doesn't CARE what OS he is running as long as s/he can do what s/he wants to do on the computer.
Nobody is going to go out and buy Mac OS X, throws windows of his machine and switches, if people would be doing this, Linux would be way further on the Desktop.
Licensing it to the likes of Dell? Doubtful, they would just create a direct competition which would undermine the HW business, and how WELL licensing works can already be seen in the HP iPod deal which came to an end and didn't work so well for HP (and I doubt very much that Apple would give Dell or HP or Leonov any freedom whatsoever).
Look at the iTunes phone from Motorola, the thing is crippled beyond believe, and that is by design. Whatever / Whoever wants to play with Apple would need to release a product that is inferior to what Apple is selling themselves.
So no, as much as it may be a wet dream for most Slashbots, chances are close to nil that Apple will ever release OS X as a box to the masses.
I find Windows utterly non intuitive after spending the last 8 years working mainly in Unix and for the past four years in Mac environments (at home and at work).
Windows behaves odd at times and to do certain things is "politely put" utterly clumsy.
Guess "intuitive" is what you "grow up" with.
Even if they use it they don't know it.
I have worked in Dev Shops (as a SysAdmin etc.) and we had Unix developers who didn't know the first thing about the Unix they were programming on.
Why would a new CPU raise Apples Marketshare? Because now suddenly all the Linux people are going to run out and buy Apple HW in order to install Linux on it?
The average user doesn't care what is IN the box as long as it does what they want them to do.
Yeah, maybe Apple gains another percentage point or more, but clearly not because they put an Intel CPU into their machines.
Wow. I see you have absolutly no idea how complex large Systems are..... But that's okay, after all you host several webservers and one of them even has a medium load .
It has been quite a while since I was in the States so I couldn't really compare :)
Though I did realize when I was living there that was I gaining quite a bit of weight due to coke.
And I didn't know what the Pareve seal meant, thanks for the info.
M.
Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks for the info.
M.
I have, on occasion, actually mixed Coke / Pepsi with Coffee, not that bad in my opinion, but then tastes are differently, I also liked "Fanta Mango" in Germany when everybody else just found it vile.
There have been studies done where they fed pure fructose to mice and others got normal sugar. The ones on the fructose gained weight almost instantly. It seems that the sugars are so simple that the body doesn't "register" them as energy and just plain either puts them straight to use or just puts them into storage.
\
Umm....
Not according to the label of the bottle I have here:
""Sugar/Clucose-Frucose" Means it could be either. I bet it isn't sugar.
iChat wasn't able to connect for around an hour today either. Completely gone, nada, nothing, zilch.
All those services go down from time to time, heck, I pay how much for it again.... Oh yeah, nothing.
"By large" is already showing that there is an erosion. Ultimatly though it were the courts who upheld it, not the politicians.
No I do agree, but limiting hate speech is in my eyes not something that is preventing political speech. You cannot scream "Fire" in a crowded theater either, even the US Supreme Court acknowledges that there are limits on free speech.
The difference, as I see it, is that in Europe there are clearer guidelines about what is valid and what isn't. That doesn't mean there is outright censorship.
The point I was merely driving home is that there is no absolut freedom, it always requires a limit to some degree or the other.
And this has to do with corruption what?
Here's a question: Does it matter who does the censoring? In the EU you have anti hate laws that prevent certain forms of Speech, in the US you have things like the DMCA that prevent other things.
The difference? One came out historical context, the other one was paid for by lobbying groups on behalf of the industry.
You know, there is another saying: Two wrongs don't make a right, and you are not morally "scot free" because the other one may have screwed you over.
Furthermore, I have worked in Retail in the past as well, if at the end of the day the money in the register doesn't add up, guess who is paying for that? Hint: It's not the company.
blockquote>i would much rather have the united states in control than some beurocratic UN organization that's been proven it has members that can be bought.
Oh please,
ANY organization of any significant size is corrupted, it is not the organization though but the people working there.
If you think the US Government is any less corrupt than any similar size organization you live in a dream world, just look at current US politics.
Ask yourself this: Last time you were given incorrect change in your favour, did you correct that mistake or did you just pocket the difference and thought: "Suckers"? If people are tempted by change to be dishonest why would they suddenly become more honest when the payoff is a lot bigger?
This may be true in a couple of hundred years, but most of the stuff a 17 year old puts on the net today will in all likelyhood still be around 30 years from now.
Sure, an archelogist in 2580 will most likely not be able to learn that Danny had a crush on Anna in Highschool and how "whatever" their respective life's were but the hiring manager twenty years out will.
Small difference here.
Whatever one may have carved in his desk or sprayed on a wall is probably long gone by now. It may be remembered by the handful of people how may have seen it and be able to associate it with who did it.
These days, with MySpace, Google, the Internet Archive there is a good chance that 20 years from now, someone types in your name and finds all the things that one types today.
Yeah sure, kids are being told not to "give information about yourself" to strangers, but I guess MySpace is a pretty good example on how this is ignored.
I am sure future partners / employers are going to be thrilled to read what someone did when they were 15, or 17 or 20. Especially if it relates to their sexual experiences or their griping about their boss etc.
And as we all know, the weather is determined soley by the countries borders, thus Mexico is blisterin hot, Canada is covered in ice and snow year round
You must have missed it. The iPod uses a DB to "find" the files, and does not go through the file system to find the files (in fact, they aren't ordered in any "meaningful" way on the file system).
Sure, I buy a DVD, CD etc. and then I am the one who steals????
What kind of logic is that?
I mean seriously.
When I go to the library and copy a CD I am also totally correct in doing this because I pay a levy on my blank media. Same goes if I borrow the CD from a friend and do the same thing.
Odd,
never had any issues with it on either my Powerbook or Powermac.....
I heard though it likes memory.
Have you had a look at Pages? That may just fit your bill?