Instead of asking people to grow up and join the rest of the world, I'd ask you to get out of your hole and realize that people need to earn a salary to pay for their apartment, food,... so their company needs to be able to sell the game to pay its employees, and the Linux market ain't gonna pay the bills.
See, there's the problem. Herd mentality, like I said. Developing for Linux could pay the bills. But instead of being creative or innovative, they follow the herd, and end up producing just another Windows application. This probably costs them more than catering to a niche market would, as the world is full of Windows applications. They just aren't thinking about it. Rather than setting themselves apart from the pack, they say "me too". That's not how Google, Apple or even Microsoft got to where they are today.
If you need proof of Steve Jobs' Cult of Personality please find the nearest apple fanboy
There were Apple fanboys long before Jobs returned to the company, and they tend to be fans of the products, not of Steve Jobs personally. If anything, the Apple fanboys are much less rabid than they were before Jobs returned. Remember back to 1996, before Jobs came back. I think you'll find a lot more eye-opening evangelism back then.
I think the problem that you have is that Jobs is charismatic, and he is an actual icon of the personal computer revolution. So, should Steve be dull and boring? Is it his fault that he's an interesting figure? That's just who he is, it's his nature.
Bill Gates is in the same boat - he's not charismatic, but he is worshipped by many, who mistakenly think that he invented modern computing. Is Microsoft a Cult of Personality just because many people exaggerate Gates' contribution?
A cult of personality is often created by others, but if this is Jobs' case, he is not humble in his fame at all.
Except that nothing about Apple has anything to do with your definition. I don't see images of Steve Jobs plastered on Apple products. I don't see him asking for unquestioning adulation. In fact, he's a very private person - he appeared yearly (not any longer) for Macworld, and appears at shareholder meetings. He very occasionally writes these missives. Jobs certainly doesn't feed a cult, if anything, he wants it to die.
How? Please read up on what a Cult of Personality [wikipedia.org] actually is before making broad statements and changing what people actually said to support your wild conclusions.
I actually never mentioned "Cult of Personality" in the paragraph you quoted. I was talking about cult-like or mythical thinking. And that's exactly what you demonstrated in your "I can see through it" bullshit diatribe.
Once again, learn what a cult of personality is
Since you're such an expert on cults of personality - why would you describe Apple this way? Apple doesn't resemble anything of the definition you linked to. And by the way, I was using "creative license" in my reply to you. Maybe you should look that up? I said you had a cult of anti-personality, because you seem to believe that anything that is popular must be non-authentic, or corrupt in some way.
I said, its people who don't have the intelligence or discipline to learn (perhaps I should have said those who cant think for themselves) tend to become enamoured with an image or person.
So, what does that have to do with Apple, since it's not a cult of personality, and there are many valid technical reasons to choose the platform?
What I said primarily comes from the fact that I don't like being lumped in with a group that feels that it needs to be someone else or requires a charismatic leader to give their lives purpose or definition.
Again, what does any of this have to do with Apple? people like the products, they don't buy because Steve Jobs told them to.
A cult of anti-personality is an oxymoron.
How so? You seem to be distrustful of anybody that is charismatic, or things that are popular. So, you worship the stance that you are beyond emotion and charismatic manipulation, to the extent that you are actually affected by charisma in a reflexive way.
And when the web finally came about? Guess what the first browsers were for? Unix, then PC. Mac came last. As usual
Uhh, that's wrong. The first web browser was for the NeXT - you know, the company lead by Steve Jobs? It was written in Objective C, which still has a legacy today in Mac OS X.
You also overlook the fact that many pieces of important software were released first for Mac. Microsoft Excel? First on a Mac. Photoshop? First on a Mac. It was a long time before Windows got these applications.
As for the rest of your arguments, they are basically retarded, and amount to "Apple stuff was too expensive for me" and "I'm better than you because I'm a real computer geek!"
WTF? Since when was Apple based on a cult of personality? It is based on selling computers and software. Do you really think that anybody buys an Apple machine out of a sense of loyalty to Steve Jobs?
Speak for yourself, I for one am capable of seeing through a cult of personality, so are most technically inclined people. Its those who don't have the intelligence and/or discipline to learn that become enamoured with an image or personality.
Complete fail. You've just demonstrated how prone to cult-like or mythical thinking you are. In your case - the "techies are superior and see through all the bullshit" cult. That's a cult of personality, or maybe a cult of anti-personality.
He understands what Apple is and is not about, and he sticks to that vision. Most other CEOs would probably have Apple going in utterly random directions, chasing the latest buzzword they heard.
The most annoying thing about this topic when it comes up, is the people who say "Which platform are you going to develop for? The one with 90% marketshare, or the one with 5%?"
This strikes me as artless and demeaning. I wouldn't want to buy software from somebody who thinks like this. It's like a musician saying "Well, 90% of the market likes Britney Spears style bland pop, so that's the music I'll make." Where's your goddamned passion? Do you care about what you make, or is it just something to sell to the lowest common denominator?
The world is full of niche markets, and they are often very satisfying, much more so than the 90% of generic crap. But for some reason, this is overlooked in computing. People find it normal that there are Ferrari dealerships and high-end gourmet BBQ, but a software company catering to a minority platform? Unthinkable! The software world needs to grow up and join the rest of the world.
Well, what's a "gamer"? Not every person who plays games is "hardcore". If you are a Mac user and want to occasionally play a game, you wouldn't want the hassle (and expense) of maintaining a Windows XP install just for something you do occasionally. You'd either buy a game console, or buy the games that are available for your Mac. And that's exactly what millions of users do.
That shareware app may well have some ghastly adware mess (or be an outright trojan), plus they've already got your $20 and your credit card number.
Care to point out any recent Mac shareware where this was the case? Malware and adware is almost non-existent on the Mac platform. If any were to be released, Mac users would know about it from places like Versiontracker, which is where they tend to look for software.
The Mac software scene is not perfect, but nobody who has any experience with it would deny that it's qualitatively different from the Windows (and Linux) ways. It still feels like there's a community there - like there's some sort of respect between users and developers. There's less of the deceptive bullshit that you get with the Windows scene, and developers seem to have more time for users than the Linux OSS developers - who generally tend to have an attitude of "Oh, you want a new feature or bug fix? Well, write it yourself, and don't bother me!"
I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves
What about that (completely legitimate) media company that they did a DoS attack on, causing a very real disruption to their business? I'm also pretty confident that MediaSentry has also violated numerous other computer security laws, that would get an individual hacker sent to prison.
It's equally "suspicious" -- or non-suspicious -- regardless of who does it.
You're obviously not familiar with the last 8 years of the Bush administration, are you? Bush could announce a plan to save puppies from being murdered, and we'd be right to be suspicious about his motivations.
Do you take the word of a serial felon with the same trust as Nobel-winning scientist? Would you treat Martin Luther King with the same distrust as Richard Nixon? The source does matter.
What lack of understanding the consumer market? Even if Linux is not a hit in the consumer market, it still manages to be a decent desktop and server environment. If Linux can do it, why can't Microsoft? There's no technical reason why there should be such a differentiation, or price difference.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a tool I'd be horrified to see in the hands of my enemy, I reckon it's a bad idea, whether the incumbent is my enemy or my friend.
I can agree on that. I'm just not sure this is about putting weapons into space. Time will tell, I guess.
Instead of asking people to grow up and join the rest of the world, I'd ask you to get out of your hole and realize that people need to earn a salary to pay for their apartment, food, ... so their company needs to be able to sell the game to pay its employees, and the Linux market ain't gonna pay the bills.
See, there's the problem. Herd mentality, like I said. Developing for Linux could pay the bills. But instead of being creative or innovative, they follow the herd, and end up producing just another Windows application. This probably costs them more than catering to a niche market would, as the world is full of Windows applications. They just aren't thinking about it. Rather than setting themselves apart from the pack, they say "me too". That's not how Google, Apple or even Microsoft got to where they are today.
If you need proof of Steve Jobs' Cult of Personality please find the nearest apple fanboy
There were Apple fanboys long before Jobs returned to the company, and they tend to be fans of the products, not of Steve Jobs personally. If anything, the Apple fanboys are much less rabid than they were before Jobs returned. Remember back to 1996, before Jobs came back. I think you'll find a lot more eye-opening evangelism back then.
I think the problem that you have is that Jobs is charismatic, and he is an actual icon of the personal computer revolution. So, should Steve be dull and boring? Is it his fault that he's an interesting figure? That's just who he is, it's his nature.
Bill Gates is in the same boat - he's not charismatic, but he is worshipped by many, who mistakenly think that he invented modern computing. Is Microsoft a Cult of Personality just because many people exaggerate Gates' contribution?
A cult of personality is often created by others, but if this is Jobs' case, he is not humble in his fame at all.
Except that nothing about Apple has anything to do with your definition. I don't see images of Steve Jobs plastered on Apple products. I don't see him asking for unquestioning adulation. In fact, he's a very private person - he appeared yearly (not any longer) for Macworld, and appears at shareholder meetings. He very occasionally writes these missives. Jobs certainly doesn't feed a cult, if anything, he wants it to die.
How? Please read up on what a Cult of Personality [wikipedia.org] actually is before making broad statements and changing what people actually said to support your wild conclusions.
I actually never mentioned "Cult of Personality" in the paragraph you quoted. I was talking about cult-like or mythical thinking. And that's exactly what you demonstrated in your "I can see through it" bullshit diatribe.
Once again, learn what a cult of personality is
Since you're such an expert on cults of personality - why would you describe Apple this way? Apple doesn't resemble anything of the definition you linked to. And by the way, I was using "creative license" in my reply to you. Maybe you should look that up? I said you had a cult of anti-personality, because you seem to believe that anything that is popular must be non-authentic, or corrupt in some way.
I said, its people who don't have the intelligence or discipline to learn (perhaps I should have said those who cant think for themselves) tend to become enamoured with an image or person.
So, what does that have to do with Apple, since it's not a cult of personality, and there are many valid technical reasons to choose the platform?
What I said primarily comes from the fact that I don't like being lumped in with a group that feels that it needs to be someone else or requires a charismatic leader to give their lives purpose or definition.
Again, what does any of this have to do with Apple? people like the products, they don't buy because Steve Jobs told them to.
A cult of anti-personality is an oxymoron.
How so? You seem to be distrustful of anybody that is charismatic, or things that are popular. So, you worship the stance that you are beyond emotion and charismatic manipulation, to the extent that you are actually affected by charisma in a reflexive way.
(that I invented before the word "tag" existed on the internet, in 2000ish)
Are you delusional or something? The word "tag" existed on the internet since the internet began, decades before 2000.
And when the web finally came about? Guess what the first browsers were for? Unix, then PC. Mac came last. As usual
Uhh, that's wrong. The first web browser was for the NeXT - you know, the company lead by Steve Jobs? It was written in Objective C, which still has a legacy today in Mac OS X.
You also overlook the fact that many pieces of important software were released first for Mac. Microsoft Excel? First on a Mac. Photoshop? First on a Mac. It was a long time before Windows got these applications.
As for the rest of your arguments, they are basically retarded, and amount to "Apple stuff was too expensive for me" and "I'm better than you because I'm a real computer geek!"
Sadly I never got the chance to use an Amiga.
May God have mercy upon your soul.
WTF? Since when was Apple based on a cult of personality? It is based on selling computers and software. Do you really think that anybody buys an Apple machine out of a sense of loyalty to Steve Jobs?
Speak for yourself, I for one am capable of seeing through a cult of personality, so are most technically inclined people. Its those who don't have the intelligence and/or discipline to learn that become enamoured with an image or personality.
Complete fail. You've just demonstrated how prone to cult-like or mythical thinking you are. In your case - the "techies are superior and see through all the bullshit" cult. That's a cult of personality, or maybe a cult of anti-personality.
He understands what Apple is and is not about, and he sticks to that vision. Most other CEOs would probably have Apple going in utterly random directions, chasing the latest buzzword they heard.
The real reason you would use "an" instead of "a" in this case is because it pronounced "eff, wai, eye", implying a vowel sound at the beginning.
No, it's pronounced "For Your Information." Don't you expand written contractions when reading them?
They just plug it in, turn it on, and the user menuâ"complete with cute tail-wagging puppyâ"comes up.
But then they'll just be scammed by some fake site that duplicates the tail-wagging puppy experience.
In Windows, you plug it in, and it works. Or, you put in the CD, install the drivers, and it works.
Are you sure it was Windows you were using? That doesn't sound like a typical experience.
Wait, how is xkcd an "inside joke"? There must be many hundreds of thousands of readers.
The most annoying thing about this topic when it comes up, is the people who say "Which platform are you going to develop for? The one with 90% marketshare, or the one with 5%?"
This strikes me as artless and demeaning. I wouldn't want to buy software from somebody who thinks like this. It's like a musician saying "Well, 90% of the market likes Britney Spears style bland pop, so that's the music I'll make." Where's your goddamned passion? Do you care about what you make, or is it just something to sell to the lowest common denominator?
The world is full of niche markets, and they are often very satisfying, much more so than the 90% of generic crap. But for some reason, this is overlooked in computing. People find it normal that there are Ferrari dealerships and high-end gourmet BBQ, but a software company catering to a minority platform? Unthinkable! The software world needs to grow up and join the rest of the world.
Well, what's a "gamer"? Not every person who plays games is "hardcore". If you are a Mac user and want to occasionally play a game, you wouldn't want the hassle (and expense) of maintaining a Windows XP install just for something you do occasionally. You'd either buy a game console, or buy the games that are available for your Mac. And that's exactly what millions of users do.
They have 30 files? That's impressive.
That shareware app may well have some ghastly adware mess (or be an outright trojan), plus they've already got your $20 and your credit card number.
Care to point out any recent Mac shareware where this was the case? Malware and adware is almost non-existent on the Mac platform. If any were to be released, Mac users would know about it from places like Versiontracker, which is where they tend to look for software.
The Mac software scene is not perfect, but nobody who has any experience with it would deny that it's qualitatively different from the Windows (and Linux) ways. It still feels like there's a community there - like there's some sort of respect between users and developers. There's less of the deceptive bullshit that you get with the Windows scene, and developers seem to have more time for users than the Linux OSS developers - who generally tend to have an attitude of "Oh, you want a new feature or bug fix? Well, write it yourself, and don't bother me!"
So, you're OK with companies breaking criminal laws to enforce civil copyright laws? I think you might need to increase the dosage on your medication.
I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves
What about that (completely legitimate) media company that they did a DoS attack on, causing a very real disruption to their business? I'm also pretty confident that MediaSentry has also violated numerous other computer security laws, that would get an individual hacker sent to prison.
... by inventing new characters.
Uh... Hmm... How about... Ghost Mutt?
For neocons, corruption is their goal, their way of life. Democrats just get tempted into it.
It's equally "suspicious" -- or non-suspicious -- regardless of who does it.
You're obviously not familiar with the last 8 years of the Bush administration, are you? Bush could announce a plan to save puppies from being murdered, and we'd be right to be suspicious about his motivations.
Do you take the word of a serial felon with the same trust as Nobel-winning scientist? Would you treat Martin Luther King with the same distrust as Richard Nixon? The source does matter.
What lack of understanding the consumer market? Even if Linux is not a hit in the consumer market, it still manages to be a decent desktop and server environment. If Linux can do it, why can't Microsoft? There's no technical reason why there should be such a differentiation, or price difference.
Wow...what do you have against people that work hard and make a lot of money??!?!
What? poorer people tend to work a lot harder than the wealthy. Many wealthy people don't even work at all.