I don't even want people that ingest that filth sharing any sort of demographic with me.
while i don't have the market research to back this up, i have a strong suspicion that MTV's target audience is almost identical to that of XBox, or PS2, or .
When we were making the revolution here, we hoped for honesty and transparency. We were naive.
i don't get it. i guess you are trying to be funny.
Wondering how big percentage of this sum is not in cash but in the unmanageable crap he peddles as software...
i suppose that the recipients of those windows boxes w/ MS word, et. al. loaded on them, should have stood up and said "we don't want your bug ridden OS! we refuse! give us linux or or nothing!"... is that right? my guess is that those people were pretty damn happy to get them. don't be so arrogant. most people in the world can't afford to have your principles.
many of the posts on this thread seem to stating this, in a nutshell: "yes this is a good thing but hey they are just trying to make more money through positive PR". really? if you choose to live in any degree of capitalist society you accept this. this is the best you can hope for.
as much as the/. crowd can't stand it, bill gates is extremelely philanthropic...
"Forbes calculates that Gates has given 37% of his wealth--more than $28 billion--to charitable causes, largely via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (By contrast, add up the donations made by billionaires Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer and you get about $2.55 billion--not even the equivalent of a decent tip on a $28-billion tab.)
reasonable? well, certainly not realistic. any normal person will hear about high-profile cases like this. do you want to limit jurys to shut-ins without TV, radio, and internet access?
another option would be to trust people to listen to the evidence presented and make a decision on that. could you do that? i think i could.
try to understand this. i was not attempting to compare YOUR apple to a dell. i simply picked a random apple laptop, found a comparable dell laptop, and quoted the price. i don't know you, nor do i know the specs of your laptop so i had hoped that would be obvious to you. i guess not. you said:
This is about what I'd expect to pay for a nice Intel laptop with similar specs
in general, that is not true. you can think what you want, but don't deceive people by making the statement that you exect to pay the same amount for a comparable intel-based laptop. if you really believe this, go do some homework. it took me about 3 minutes.
Furthermore, Dell's Inspiron line is comparable to the iBook
you want to talk ibooks huh? the closest ibook that is comparable to the dell i quoted is $1499. that's still $400 more, and it has a smaller screen, slower processor, less memory, and a smaller drive. can you please explain how comparing the ibook makes your point? or better yet, can you please just do some homework?
my post was certainly based on more factual information that yours since i actually quoted the specs of the two systems, and they are both currently shipping off the shelf with no aftermarket mods.
on top of this, you can get less expensive than dell. that even magnifies the price difference more. also, when you buy non-apple you don't get raped for peripherals / add-ons.
I don't know where you get off, but it's apparent you haven't used Macs much
i did not say anything about using them did i? this was about price. please read the post before replying next time.
Okay, let's talk about lies
i did not lie. it's right there on the websites. apple.com, dell.com. anyone can check it out.
apples and oranges
uhhh. apples and oranges? the apple powerbook and dell inspiron 7000 i compared were equivalent systems. the apple was 44% more expensive. period. not up for discussion. just the facts. i don't have anything against apple. you've confused me for someone that cares a lot more than you think. however, when i saw such a blatant lie about pricing i thought i'd say something. no one should believe either of us anyway. simply go and check it out for yourself.
from apple's website: 15", 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB powerbook is $1999. from dell's website, a 15", 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB inspiron 6000 is $1127. i customized the dell to meet the major characteristic of the powerbook... including wireless support, larger hard drive etc.
if anyone doesn't believe me, go and look on apple and dell's website. it took me 3 minutes.
the dell is nearly half as much. and please don't argue all of the little crap, like that the powerbook has a backlit keyboard. my guess is that to most people, things like that aren't worth $1000. but if you absolutely positively have to have bright colors and backlit keyboards, by all means, apple is for you.
the majority of the posts here are essentially expressing outrage that an advertiser would attempt to muscle google into altering it's keyword based advertising policy. the bottom line is that in the vast majority of the situations google will GLADLY bow before their advertisers. please stop acting like google is this benign entity. they do what their advertisers say. google may have opposed this specific issue because they make more $$$ off the louis vuitton knock-offs than they do from the real thing. however, this is clearly not always the case... read this:
summary: royal caribbean cruise lines is a big client of google, so they refuse to sell adds that disparage RCCL. the situation doesn't matter.
When Oceana challenged the ban, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google responded with an e-mail advising the group that it doesn't accept ads with "language that advocates against Royal Caribbean.
to what lengths would google refuse? here's an example of open ocean pollution. okay, so you probably won't be drinking that directly. what if it was your groundwater that was polluted? what if it was an industrial plant a few miles away?
google's market dominance would certainly allow them to tell RCCL "too bad". RCCL would probably continue to advertise anyway, or better yet, be forced to address the issues raised by oceana. but they didn't. google chooses to tell the little guy to piss off.
google's dominance allows them to control information. and they are using it to make money, without regard to the good of society. yes of course, it's all legal they are a private company.
to make the point, i don't think your distinction matters. do you think it matters if MS restricts MS office to the window OS, or restricts the windows OS to running on MS office (vs. open office or whatever)? in either case they are using a monopoly on one product to enforce a monopoly on another different product.
what apple is doing isn't any differnt. iTMS is the dominant online music store. ipods are the dominant music players. ipod has 92.2% percent of the market (http://news.com.com/Its+all+about+the+iPod/2100-1 041_3-5406519.html).iTMS has 70% of the market (http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Apple+whistles+a+ha ppy+iTunes/2100-1041_3-5406671.html).is 70% a monopoly? what other music stores do you ever hear mentioned? whatever the reality it, it seems valid to me to at least question if ipod is using it's online music store monopoly to enforce it's portable digital music player monopoly. even if it's not illegal (agreed, the lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell), it's certainly not consumer friendly.
going back to my original point... what if MS announced it was EOL'ing the office suite for mac os? they don't have to support it on mac right? nothing illegal about that. but here's the reality. in my place of work, about 20% of the folks have macs. every one of them i know has MS office installed. why? because MS word / excel / powerpoint are defacto stands in many places of business. MS office on mac os is the only reason they can get away with using a mc. when looking for work, i don't know how many times it's been insisted that i send my resume in word format. not PDF, not HTML, not even text. how many of the mac users would avoid apple boxes in the future if MS pulled office from mac OS? a large enough % that it would seriously hurt apple. if you would find yourself bashing MS for this move, then you should also bash apple.
in response to the folks that will say "good, use the openoffice port to os x"... it is simply not an option in most enterprises to rely on an unsupported open source software project.
as much as i wanted it to be the case, i could not replace my copper with VoIP because VoIP inherently does not support modem-based transmissions. i have several legacy devices around my house including my first-gen Tivo and digital cable box that are modem based. VoIP does not pass the full audio spectrum of a copper line, and modems simply will not work, and it's not cost effective for me to have both copper and VoIP, even if VoIP offers free unlimited long distance.
These are (oddly enough) the same stumbling blocks that continue to stump them with all product releases
compared to what? MS is the most successful software company ever, period. if you somehow think that MS is faltering, or losing market share, or doesn't know what's going on in any way you need to read something other than/. the fact that passport was abandoned means nothing. every successful company makes forays into new territory and fails some of the time.
all of this BS about FF being poised to overtake IE is an example. you think MS was taken by surprise? MS could easily implement everything that FF does and has. FF is nothing to them. the vast majority of internet users don't even understand that there are different browsers.
Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the/. community would be screaming bloody murder. apple is certainly under no obligation to actively, support real's DRM, but that's not what we're talking about. apple has taken specific action to disallow real's DRM.
apple is using it's monopoly in the digital audio player market to maintain it's monopoly in the online digital music market. what if microsoft used it's monopoly in the OS business to maintain it's monopoly in the browser business? oh! wait that already happend.
the only difference here is that/. loves apple, and/. hates real. folks should try to look a few millimeters past their brand loyalty.
Sun seems to be consistently missing the BUS here. They came up with "Network is the computer" and now MS is selling ".NET ":)
??? so, sun thought of it first, therefore they missed the boat? which is it? you knew that a pointless jab at sun would get you mod'd up, or that you could not resist the urge to make a little play on words?
so you've taken biology 101, you've read some sci-fi novels. it's very humorous that so many folks have taken an authoritative position on this. NASA has the best minds on the subject, probably in the world, and they take cross planetary contamination seriously.
the article that this thread is referencing does not say that infection is likely... it says that 1) it is possible and 2) if it happend, it would be really bad. the fact that it is unlikely is not the point. there are lots of examples of things that we take precautions against not because they are statistically likely, but rather because of the dire consequences.
Until we actually find a single trace of life there this is all due to an overintake of Hollywood crap.
it strikes me that this is one of those things that it is better to be safe than sorry about. the very fact that we have zero experience with non-terran life forms seems a pretty good reason to take precautions against them.
Government policies are already driving away foreign students
yes, we have a real problem here in the US with attracting foreign students. that was sarcasm. you need to get out more.
i really don't agree that tighting locking of sensitive data is a bad thing. a foreign student should not ever have easy access to sensitive data. moreover, it sounds like a good thing if they must explicitly be granted access to this data (via obtaining a PIV).
That means Alice the undergrad researcher can't even access the computer system the lab runs on without dragging the boss over to log her in. Which will be impossible on the weekends or at night.
??? so alice udnergrad doesn't have access to the data, and her boss should use his PIV to give her access? sorry, but this is a really good example of why such a system is a good idea. i question if you have any sort of experience accessing non-public computers at all. even your typical software company schools every employee about why they should never let anyone else use their account and to always lock down their system when they leave the terminal.
God doesn't send anyone to hell (because we're already heading that way) - he only provides a way for them to be saved through Christ.
sounds like you are trying to say that god doesn't make people to hell, he just programmed the rules that send people to hell. i don't see the difference.
ummm. what about spirit and opportunity? what about cassini? i think we could say that those have been somewhat successful, right?
the (near) future of space travel is not manned. sending humans into space with a reasonable safety factor is prohibitively expensive. and please don't point to that russian craft until it flies successfully, tens of times.
I think this tries to highlight another reason why allowing a third party review your code is a good thing
open source does not prevent security bugs. why don't you go google for mozilla or firefox security problems. they existed. they were quickly patched, as was the issue you're ragging on sun about. for a platform that is as widely used as java, there have been amazingly few security issues. huh? i guess that proves that open source is not the way to go right?
slashdot reminds me of right-wing radio more and more. it's a place where people come to have their beliefs re-affirmed and not for real discourse and facts.
linux=good
sun=bad
apple=okay
ipod=good
riaa=bad
etc.
now, this thread, like many others, is just a bait to get/. users to complain in their tired and tedious and precitable manner about sun micro. there was a security bug, it was quickly fixed. where's the story?
the last thread i read about sun had some guy stating that sun was crap because they didn't include enough tools, and he cited the lack of gzip. solaris has bundled gzip for many, many years. you know what also? when i installed linux back in 1994 on my 80386, 66Mhz PC, linux didn't inlude gzip either. huh! linux sucks!
fluorescents are actually more efficient. they have 7w fluorescents with a 60w incandescent equivalent. even if you stretch it and call that even... the LED bulbs last about 6x longer than the fluorescents, but they are 10x more expensive. fluorescents are a better deal. this is not to mention that very, very few people will ever spend ~$80 for a light bulb, regardless of the efficiency or life span. that being said, great potential. get it down in the $20 range.
i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
i don't understand. per capita emmisions encourages efficiency, because you get more production per allowed pollutant output. anything that allows some to pollute more than others simply because they are making more money in the process of polluting only encourages inefficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
while i don't have the market research to back this up, i have a strong suspicion that MTV's target audience is almost identical to that of XBox, or PS2, or .
i don't get it. i guess you are trying to be funny.
Wondering how big percentage of this sum is not in cash but in the unmanageable crap he peddles as software...
i suppose that the recipients of those windows boxes w/ MS word, et. al. loaded on them, should have stood up and said "we don't want your bug ridden OS! we refuse! give us linux or or nothing!" ... is that right? my guess is that those people were pretty damn happy to get them. don't be so arrogant. most people in the world can't afford to have your principles.
many of the posts on this thread seem to stating this, in a nutshell: "yes this is a good thing but hey they are just trying to make more money through positive PR". really? if you choose to live in any degree of capitalist society you accept this. this is the best you can hope for.
/. crowd can't stand it, bill gates is extremelely philanthropic ...
0 04gates.html)
.. but that does not dimish the good things that happen as a result of the cash.
as much as the
"Forbes calculates that Gates has given 37% of his wealth--more than $28 billion--to charitable causes, largely via the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (By contrast, add up the donations made by billionaires Warren Buffett, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison and Steve Ballmer and you get about $2.55 billion--not even the equivalent of a decent tip on a $28-billion tab.)
(source: http://forbes.com/philanthropy/2004/10/04/cz_ec_1
sure, he gets tax breaks, he gets PR
reasonable? well, certainly not realistic. any normal person will hear about high-profile cases like this. do you want to limit jurys to shut-ins without TV, radio, and internet access?
another option would be to trust people to listen to the evidence presented and make a decision on that. could you do that? i think i could.
exactly:A 2-E044-115D-A04483414B7F0000
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A45
now, can we trust those whackos over at sciam?
also in breaking news today ...
corporations motivated by possible monetary gains.
try to understand this. i was not attempting to compare YOUR apple to a dell. i simply picked a random apple laptop, found a comparable dell laptop, and quoted the price. i don't know you, nor do i know the specs of your laptop so i had hoped that would be obvious to you. i guess not. you said:
This is about what I'd expect to pay for a nice Intel laptop with similar specs
in general, that is not true. you can think what you want, but don't deceive people by making the statement that you exect to pay the same amount for a comparable intel-based laptop. if you really believe this, go do some homework. it took me about 3 minutes.
Furthermore, Dell's Inspiron line is comparable to the iBook
you want to talk ibooks huh? the closest ibook that is comparable to the dell i quoted is $1499. that's still $400 more, and it has a smaller screen, slower processor, less memory, and a smaller drive. can you please explain how comparing the ibook makes your point? or better yet, can you please just do some homework?
my post was certainly based on more factual information that yours since i actually quoted the specs of the two systems, and they are both currently shipping off the shelf with no aftermarket mods.
on top of this, you can get less expensive than dell. that even magnifies the price difference more. also, when you buy non-apple you don't get raped for peripherals / add-ons.
I don't know where you get off, but it's apparent you haven't used Macs much
i did not say anything about using them did i? this was about price. please read the post before replying next time.
Okay, let's talk about lies
i did not lie. it's right there on the websites. apple.com, dell.com. anyone can check it out.
apples and oranges
uhhh. apples and oranges? the apple powerbook and dell inspiron 7000 i compared were equivalent systems. the apple was 44% more expensive. period. not up for discussion. just the facts. i don't have anything against apple. you've confused me for someone that cares a lot more than you think. however, when i saw such a blatant lie about pricing i thought i'd say something. no one should believe either of us anyway. simply go and check it out for yourself.
the prices have been on par with Intel machines
... including wireless support, larger hard drive etc.
that is a lie.
from apple's website: 15", 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB powerbook is $1999. from dell's website, a 15", 1.5GHz, 512MB, 80GB inspiron 6000 is $1127. i customized the dell to meet the major characteristic of the powerbook
if anyone doesn't believe me, go and look on apple and dell's website. it took me 3 minutes.
the dell is nearly half as much. and please don't argue all of the little crap, like that the powerbook has a backlit keyboard. my guess is that to most people, things like that aren't worth $1000. but if you absolutely positively have to have bright colors and backlit keyboards, by all means, apple is for you.
some little dorky scammer trying to sell code he didn't write
worked for mr. gates, didn't it?
the majority of the posts here are essentially expressing outrage that an advertiser would attempt to muscle google into altering it's keyword based advertising policy. the bottom line is that in the vast majority of the situations google will GLADLY bow before their advertisers. please stop acting like google is this benign entity. they do what their advertisers say. google may have opposed this specific issue because they make more $$$ off the louis vuitton knock-offs than they do from the real thing. however, this is clearly not always the case ... read this:
. shtml
http://juneauempire.com/stories/021304/sta_google
(previously posted here)
summary: royal caribbean cruise lines is a big client of google, so they refuse to sell adds that disparage RCCL. the situation doesn't matter.
When Oceana challenged the ban, Mountain View, Calif.-based Google responded with an e-mail advising the group that it doesn't accept ads with "language that advocates against Royal Caribbean.
to what lengths would google refuse? here's an example of open ocean pollution. okay, so you probably won't be drinking that directly. what if it was your groundwater that was polluted? what if it was an industrial plant a few miles away?
google's market dominance would certainly allow them to tell RCCL "too bad". RCCL would probably continue to advertise anyway, or better yet, be forced to address the issues raised by oceana. but they didn't. google chooses to tell the little guy to piss off.
google's dominance allows them to control information. and they are using it to make money, without regard to the good of society. yes of course, it's all legal they are a private company.
to make the point, i don't think your distinction matters. do you think it matters if MS restricts MS office to the window OS, or restricts the windows OS to running on MS office (vs. open office or whatever)? in either case they are using a monopoly on one product to enforce a monopoly on another different product.
1 041_3-5406519.html).iTMS has 70% of the market (http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Apple+whistles+a+ha ppy+iTunes/2100-1041_3-5406671.html).is 70% a monopoly? what other music stores do you ever hear mentioned? whatever the reality it, it seems valid to me to at least question if ipod is using it's online music store monopoly to enforce it's portable digital music player monopoly. even if it's not illegal (agreed, the lawsuit has a snowball's chance in hell), it's certainly not consumer friendly.
... what if MS announced it was EOL'ing the office suite for mac os? they don't have to support it on mac right? nothing illegal about that. but here's the reality. in my place of work, about 20% of the folks have macs. every one of them i know has MS office installed. why? because MS word / excel / powerpoint are defacto stands in many places of business. MS office on mac os is the only reason they can get away with using a mc. when looking for work, i don't know how many times it's been insisted that i send my resume in word format. not PDF, not HTML, not even text. how many of the mac users would avoid apple boxes in the future if MS pulled office from mac OS? a large enough % that it would seriously hurt apple. if you would find yourself bashing MS for this move, then you should also bash apple.
... it is simply not an option in most enterprises to rely on an unsupported open source software project.
what apple is doing isn't any differnt. iTMS is the dominant online music store. ipods are the dominant music players. ipod has 92.2% percent of the market (http://news.com.com/Its+all+about+the+iPod/2100-
going back to my original point
in response to the folks that will say "good, use the openoffice port to os x"
as much as i wanted it to be the case, i could not replace my copper with VoIP because VoIP inherently does not support modem-based transmissions. i have several legacy devices around my house including my first-gen Tivo and digital cable box that are modem based. VoIP does not pass the full audio spectrum of a copper line, and modems simply will not work, and it's not cost effective for me to have both copper and VoIP, even if VoIP offers free unlimited long distance.
These are (oddly enough) the same stumbling blocks that continue to stump them with all product releases
/. the fact that passport was abandoned means nothing. every successful company makes forays into new territory and fails some of the time.
compared to what? MS is the most successful software company ever, period. if you somehow think that MS is faltering, or losing market share, or doesn't know what's going on in any way you need to read something other than
all of this BS about FF being poised to overtake IE is an example. you think MS was taken by surprise? MS could easily implement everything that FF does and has. FF is nothing to them. the vast majority of internet users don't even understand that there are different browsers.
Apple is doing nothing legally, technically, ethically, morally or wrong.
/. community would be screaming bloody murder. apple is certainly under no obligation to actively, support real's DRM, but that's not what we're talking about. apple has taken specific action to disallow real's DRM.
/. loves apple, and /. hates real. folks should try to look a few millimeters past their brand loyalty.
i think this can be better phrased as: "nobody can stop them". sorry, but if our friends in redmond did something like this the
apple is using it's monopoly in the digital audio player market to maintain it's monopoly in the online digital music market. what if microsoft used it's monopoly in the OS business to maintain it's monopoly in the browser business? oh! wait that already happend.
the only difference here is that
Sun seems to be consistently missing the BUS here. They came up with "Network is the computer" and now MS is selling ".NET " :)
??? so, sun thought of it first, therefore they missed the boat? which is it? you knew that a pointless jab at sun would get you mod'd up, or that you could not resist the urge to make a little play on words?
so you've taken biology 101, you've read some sci-fi novels. it's very humorous that so many folks have taken an authoritative position on this. NASA has the best minds on the subject, probably in the world, and they take cross planetary contamination seriously.
... it says that 1) it is possible and 2) if it happend, it would be really bad. the fact that it is unlikely is not the point. there are lots of examples of things that we take precautions against not because they are statistically likely, but rather because of the dire consequences.
the article that this thread is referencing does not say that infection is likely
Until we actually find a single trace of life there this is all due to an overintake of Hollywood crap.
it strikes me that this is one of those things that it is better to be safe than sorry about. the very fact that we have zero experience with non-terran life forms seems a pretty good reason to take precautions against them.
we still haven't seen any all-conquering all-devouring super-micro-organism-to-destroy-anything
...)
how about homo sapiens? (okay, it's not micro
Government policies are already driving away foreign students
yes, we have a real problem here in the US with attracting foreign students. that was sarcasm. you need to get out more.
i really don't agree that tighting locking of sensitive data is a bad thing. a foreign student should not ever have easy access to sensitive data. moreover, it sounds like a good thing if they must explicitly be granted access to this data (via obtaining a PIV).
That means Alice the undergrad researcher can't even access the computer system the lab runs on without dragging the boss over to log her in. Which will be impossible on the weekends or at night.
??? so alice udnergrad doesn't have access to the data, and her boss should use his PIV to give her access? sorry, but this is a really good example of why such a system is a good idea. i question if you have any sort of experience accessing non-public computers at all. even your typical software company schools every employee about why they should never let anyone else use their account and to always lock down their system when they leave the terminal.
God doesn't send anyone to hell (because we're already heading that way) - he only provides a way for them to be saved through Christ.
sounds like you are trying to say that god doesn't make people to hell, he just programmed the rules that send people to hell. i don't see the difference.
ummm. what about spirit and opportunity? what about cassini? i think we could say that those have been somewhat successful, right?
the (near) future of space travel is not manned. sending humans into space with a reasonable safety factor is prohibitively expensive. and please don't point to that russian craft until it flies successfully, tens of times.
open source does not prevent security bugs. why don't you go google for mozilla or firefox security problems. they existed. they were quickly patched, as was the issue you're ragging on sun about. for a platform that is as widely used as java, there have been amazingly few security issues. huh? i guess that proves that open source is not the way to go right?
slashdot reminds me of right-wing radio more and more. it's a place where people come to have their beliefs re-affirmed and not for real discourse and facts.
now, this thread, like many others, is just a bait to get
the last thread i read about sun had some guy stating that sun was crap because they didn't include enough tools, and he cited the lack of gzip. solaris has bundled gzip for many, many years. you know what also? when i installed linux back in 1994 on my 80386, 66Mhz PC, linux didn't inlude gzip either. huh! linux sucks!
fluorescents are actually more efficient. they have 7w fluorescents with a 60w incandescent equivalent. even if you stretch it and call that even ... the LED bulbs last about 6x longer than the fluorescents, but they are 10x more expensive. fluorescents are a better deal. this is not to mention that very, very few people will ever spend ~$80 for a light bulb, regardless of the efficiency or life span. that being said, great potential. get it down in the $20 range.
As long as it's per capita GDP, fine
i don't understand. this does nothing other than allow the rich to remain rich. clearly not fair, good luck getting the rest of the world to agree to that obviously.
The only way to factor in efficiency is to look at CO2 compared to per capita GDP. Otherwise you are punishing those that most efficiently use energy.
i don't understand. per capita emmisions encourages efficiency, because you get more production per allowed pollutant output. anything that allows some to pollute more than others simply because they are making more money in the process of polluting only encourages inefficiency.