At least be honest. The millions that marched against the war did it because they tend to be anti-war. WMDs or not, they opposed the war. C'mon. Admit it. It had nothing to to with believing that there were no WMDs.
For the record, I marched against the war because I thought that the claims of WMDs weren't believable, and that the government hadn't presented adequete justification, rather than being specifically "anti-war". I'm not saying that I'm a representative sample, but your wide generalisation isn't really very true to life.
And don't twist his words. He said "we all believed WMD exist", and most people did.
Most people I know didn't think they existed, but again, I can't claim that my friends are a representative sample of the UK. Most people who I knew who were intelligent were at least very skeptical of the claims, which largely hinged upon a lack of proof of their non-existence (which obviously could not be provided).
Actually speaking as a Brit, we all believed WMD exist and so did the majority of Europe AFAIK.
Actually, speaking as a Brit, there was a huge anti-war movement, the "evidence" for WMDs was largely discredited, and most people were at least fairly incredulous about the chance of weapons in Iraq.
Secondly, Apple does not wish to restrict their user base, they wish to ensure that they survive in a meaningful sense.
I didn't mean user base as such, I meant hardware base (to their hardware), and largely for the reasons you mention. I don't see a reason why they would go to the trouble of designing their own chipset etc. families, but of course it is possible.
You know, a certain other OS manufacturing guy took the other route. He made an OS and even though it is an inferior product, gave the buyer the freedom to install it on the hardware of their choice. He's doing pretty well these days.
Right, Apple wants the fastest, smoothest and most gorgeous OS. It won't run on any old X86. You don't see V12 engines in Hyundais either. You don't see marble floors in Section 8 housing. You don't see big, soft seats in coach class.
The difference being that even with technically (I mean, by specification, not including whatever funky copy-protection nonsense is on there) identical hardware, Apple wishes to restrict their base.
Mac OS X x86 also runs on the AMD platform. ???
This is probably just to point out that it's not locked to some specific Intel optimisations/instructions at present.
They do have a cheek referring to this as a review though, it's barely more than a set of screenshots.
Macs are supposed to be good for art, just because they are marketed as being good for art.
Macs are no better for art than any other system.
Linux boxes tend to not be great for art because they don't have such good tools (at least without running them through Wine or whatever, not that that's a huge problem), and after hearing a well-reasoned argument from an artist for some of the features in OSX (granted, they were largely features that only exist in later versions) I'm prepared to say that in some ways they're better for such things.
I don't really mean to sound whiney, but it's never cool to like the market leader. It's cool to like the smaller company. Macs are good for art, so the artist clique are the ones that identify the systems as cool — just as "proper" geeks are usually Linux enthusiasts. It's all image.
I don't think there's as much of a void between Apple and MS as people think. Apple's market share just comes from their "cool factor", so it's something they focus on.
One could enforce using a system in object space, rather than memory space, too, and compile this to native code with little or no peformance loss — this is what the Microsoft's research project Singularity, mentioned on here not long ago, is suggesting.
Back to the topic, though, in practice, the performance hit of managed code is negligable in most cases, and the extra safety it provides is far more valuable. Nobody can write bug-free code. Making entire classes of serious bugs impossible to implement is a very good thing.
There's a few more problems, unfortunately, to C than you allude to, but there is work in creating a C-like language which is more safe — Cyclone comes to mind if you're interested.:)
I guess the difference is that that bug isn't really likely to come up in standard usage. Although it was widespread and known for so long, it never caused any widespread problems, unlike every example in that rundown, which are all worse.
I'm not saying it's not serious — it clearly is. It's just less serious than each of the ones in the article.
That's not really his argument — he's more saying that saying one is open, when in reality one is not, is worse than not being open at all since the advertised benefits are in essence missing.
I don't know if I agree with his claims, but this argument (as an argument, before attempting to apply it to people) isn't particularly outlandish.
The way I heard it, it sounded like it was copying itself from the CD to the machine without the users consent. I assumed this would be called a virus as it is replicating itself. Maybe trend micro's quiz didn't educate me very well
Nah, viruses copy themselves, this one is installed by another part of the software when the CD is inserted, then does not copy itself. The difference is subtle, though. "Trojan" is very accurate.
Re:Well, not to defend an evil empire or anything,
on
Mandriva Linux 2006 Review
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
but what is so unfriendly about the Windows XP install, in particular?
In terms of software installation, I believe that the problem they're getting at is that you have to obtain the software yourself. Of course, this is something of an oversimplification (in particular, in some cases, this could be easier than using package management), but their emphasis is on the fact that all the software you want for your system is available in one place, and is easy and consistent to install.
Windows installer packages fix the second one of these gripes, whereas with the first, I suppose there are pros and cons.
I just checked, and it's not included in 2000 by default (I think it was made after release or something). It's available with the Resource Kit, apparently.
Interesting, yes. I often think it's strange how many believe that Open Source is a better course for all software, or that Closed Source is the same. In reality, I don't think either succeeds in the needs of everyone 100% of the time. There's problems and benefits of both, which are often framed within context.
Slashdot Mirror
For the record, I marched against the war because I thought that the claims of WMDs weren't believable, and that the government hadn't presented adequete justification, rather than being specifically "anti-war". I'm not saying that I'm a representative sample, but your wide generalisation isn't really very true to life.
Most people I know didn't think they existed, but again, I can't claim that my friends are a representative sample of the UK. Most people who I knew who were intelligent were at least very skeptical of the claims, which largely hinged upon a lack of proof of their non-existence (which obviously could not be provided).
Actually, speaking as a Brit, there was a huge anti-war movement, the "evidence" for WMDs was largely discredited, and most people were at least fairly incredulous about the chance of weapons in Iraq.
If you could point me to the part of my post where I said it wasn't, I'd be most grateful. :)
I was attempting to fix what seemed to me to be a thoroughly broken analogy. Nothing more. Chill.
I didn't mean user base as such, I meant hardware base (to their hardware), and largely for the reasons you mention. I don't see a reason why they would go to the trouble of designing their own chipset etc. families, but of course it is possible.
Cheers for clarifications though.
Torvalds?
Don't hurt me
The difference being that even with technically (I mean, by specification, not including whatever funky copy-protection nonsense is on there) identical hardware, Apple wishes to restrict their base.
This is probably just to point out that it's not locked to some specific Intel optimisations/instructions at present.
They do have a cheek referring to this as a review though, it's barely more than a set of screenshots.
Linux boxes tend to not be great for art because they don't have such good tools (at least without running them through Wine or whatever, not that that's a huge problem), and after hearing a well-reasoned argument from an artist for some of the features in OSX (granted, they were largely features that only exist in later versions) I'm prepared to say that in some ways they're better for such things.
I don't really mean to sound whiney, but it's never cool to like the market leader. It's cool to like the smaller company. Macs are good for art, so the artist clique are the ones that identify the systems as cool — just as "proper" geeks are usually Linux enthusiasts. It's all image.
I don't think there's as much of a void between Apple and MS as people think. Apple's market share just comes from their "cool factor", so it's something they focus on.
...if only I bought 5 computers per year!
This is not a hugely practical solution to a problem that doesn't have to exist in the first place.
Or Boo.
Don't kill me.
I believe the implication is that it's better than shooting them.
One could enforce using a system in object space, rather than memory space, too, and compile this to native code with little or no peformance loss — this is what the Microsoft's research project Singularity, mentioned on here not long ago, is suggesting.
Back to the topic, though, in practice, the performance hit of managed code is negligable in most cases, and the extra safety it provides is far more valuable. Nobody can write bug-free code. Making entire classes of serious bugs impossible to implement is a very good thing.
There's a few more problems, unfortunately, to C than you allude to, but there is work in creating a C-like language which is more safe — Cyclone comes to mind if you're interested. :)
His point — "This is why we need more managed code." — is still valid, though.
I guess the difference is that that bug isn't really likely to come up in standard usage. Although it was widespread and known for so long, it never caused any widespread problems, unlike every example in that rundown, which are all worse.
I'm not saying it's not serious — it clearly is. It's just less serious than each of the ones in the article.
Even more off-topic, my gay friend uses "gay" as a derogatory term because he "hates all gay people".
It weirds me out.
I think you just essentially restated what I was saying, but yes, his argument is subjective to the frame from which he's arguing.
That's not really his argument — he's more saying that saying one is open, when in reality one is not, is worse than not being open at all since the advertised benefits are in essence missing.
I don't know if I agree with his claims, but this argument (as an argument, before attempting to apply it to people) isn't particularly outlandish.
Well, the rootkit component is a harmful component not (apparently) warned about in the documentation, which would make it a little different there.
I didn't even know that could be done. Doesn't really seem like a virus, still.
Nah, viruses copy themselves, this one is installed by another part of the software when the CD is inserted, then does not copy itself. The difference is subtle, though. "Trojan" is very accurate.
In terms of software installation, I believe that the problem they're getting at is that you have to obtain the software yourself. Of course, this is something of an oversimplification (in particular, in some cases, this could be easier than using package management), but their emphasis is on the fact that all the software you want for your system is available in one place, and is easy and consistent to install.
Windows installer packages fix the second one of these gripes, whereas with the first, I suppose there are pros and cons.
I just checked, and it's not included in 2000 by default (I think it was made after release or something). It's available with the Resource Kit, apparently.
Interesting, yes. I often think it's strange how many believe that Open Source is a better course for all software, or that Closed Source is the same. In reality, I don't think either succeeds in the needs of everyone 100% of the time. There's problems and benefits of both, which are often framed within context.
So it was possible through the DRM system, which is what I was meaning.
Considering that your post was just before the post that made yours "Redundant", that does seem a little unfair.