This is news for Windows users because they'll be rebooting all the time. I don't think the boot time is relevant to anyone else because they are not forced into rebooting all the time.
Jeez, put your half price budget piece of crap and your head in the sand and shut up already. You've obviously got an axe to gring against Apple but the best you can come up with is price? You've got a lot to learn about Mac vs Windows, and for that matter a lot to learn about how to do an accurate price comparison.
I disagree that they need to collect more money off movie downloads. When a song is used in a movie the recording industry (ASCAP, etc.) is payed a licensing fee. I do not know if it is a one time fee or a per sale fee, but they are paid and agreed to that licensing structure. If they want more money then they need to negotiate that with the movie producers, but they already agree for that music to be licensed for that video production so they are not entitled to anything else. Lobbying for laws to be written on this subject is ridiculous.
I think there are some great solutions out here, but I think the guy is stuck with slow satellite access if he wants to go out in the middle of nowhere. About the fastest mobile satellite feed i've seen this morning was for 128KB down, which is pretty slow for anything other than just text. I guess he doesn't really have that much to bitch about though, he's going to be cruising in an RV full time instead of being stuck in a cubicle. I wish I had that problem.
So this provides a router that fails over to the stronger bandwidth provider when you lose connectivity with anther one, is that right (in a nutshell)? But doesn't his problem remain that he still won't have a bandwidth provider when he's in the middle of nowhere because there will be no cellular signal and he won't have satellite because it is too expensive?
I don't think a Hummer is paying the same as a Tercel. Hummers use more gas, hence more gas tax is being paid to the government. A gas tax accomplishes this just fine without installing unnecessary GPS equipment that gives the government too much opportunity to monitor us, and it has the added benefit of taxing fuel guzzling vehicles more money because they use more gas. The GPS unit would actually be a step back because both the Hummer and Tercel would pay the same based on mileage, even though the Tercel is more energy efficient.
All your arguments are actually making his point. Rather than line by line I'll just pick on one of your replies:
"There are entire franchises that run on Unix-based systems" - Go back and read his post again for some perspective. He is not talking about Bank of America. He is talking about small business users who need an invoicing/accounting solution (hence his reference to Intuit). Feel free to understand his post before commenting on it.
Linux may be powerful but it's not ready for the masses or small business yet. Hopefully it will be some day because I'd love to see MS gone, but it isn't ready yet.
Do you realize that no one cares about the ridiculous grammar lessons you're dumping on us? Forest. . ..Trees. . . Are you seeing the big picture of the discussion or just nit-picking on some minutia that isn't necessary to understand the discussion thread?
As much as I share your enthusiasm for making MS pay for getting people's machines cleaned of malware I think that there is still a gaping hole in social engineering malware (the user is the problem) and the fact that I don't want ANY government to build out a system that can monitor and disconnect users automatically. That is a system just waiting for abuse to jump on board.
I've got no mod points right now, but I have to say your reply was kind of dumb. I think you might fall under the stupid demographic for actually dissecting his tongue in cheek idea.
Seriously, where do you work (or what specific industry) where they are so prohibitive? Mine technically doesn't allow it either, but it's not enforced. Does your employer enforce it rigorously?
Way to not understand the issue. They didn't pick AT&T because they were the best network. They didn't do an exclusive deal because they wanted to exclude other carriers. They could have sold on any network and then the iPhone would have been restricted like all other phones on Verizon/AT&T. Phone features disabled, horrid application stores with overpriced apps that actually expire over time, etc.
In order to give the customers the full features of the iPhone they had to find a carrier willing to depart from their usual crappy business practices and to do that they had to cut an exclusive deal. Blame the carriers. I'm sure Apple would just as soon the iPhone be used on any network by anyone.
You can't do CAD on your Mac? Since when? Or is the magic qualifier that you can't do "serious" CAD? Can you do non-serious CAD? What is the difference?
Not trying to rip on you, but I thought CAD programs were available for the Mac, just maybe not the one you would prefer?
Yes, and he could also have NOT chosen to use Apple's RAM upgrade, bought his own and the price would be equal. Again, Macs are within $100 or so of similarly spec'd Windows machines.
That is complete and utter BS and you either don't understand what you are writing or you're an outright liar. Snow Leopard will run on ANY Intel Mac. Your attempt to say it won't run on a 5 or 9 year old Mac is disingenuous because there are no 5 or 9 year old Intel Macs. You're either woefully stupid or attempting to pull of a good lie.
And for the record, Apple has great compatibility with their older hardware and their new OS releases generally run faster than past ones. Learn your facts and/or learn how not to lie through your teeth before you post again.
Oh, and by the way, you didn't run Windows on "old hardware", you just admitted in your post that you doubled the RAM, so apparently Windows DIDN'T run on old hardware, did it?
1. Apple did not block the Pre. Apple modified iTunes to not allow a vendor ID spoofing. Palm's low budget hack is what caused the issue with the Pre. Apple simply fixed an issue in their iTunes synch and closed a potential security/legal liability hole at the same time since a device spoofing an iPod could potentially be corrupted by iTunes when it attempts to update firmware on the device.
2. Apple dropping support for Palm synch is because Palm dropped their support of these legacy Palm devices years ago. Apple simply decided to no longer support Palm devices that Palm no longer supports. There is nothing nefarious in that decision. If there is then there must also must be something nefarious in Palm's decision not to support their own products.
3. There was nothing anti-competitive in what Apple did in either of these circumstances. In both instances Palm has showed a laziness in supporting their own products. If Palm won't properly support their own products then there is no reason Apple should do it for them.
I personally don't have much confidence in scientists who seem more concerned with protecting their reputation and belittling anyone who questions their conclusions (and the failure of their conclusions). Scientists, for all their haughty hot air, seem no more immune to the flaws of the human ego than anyone else. For that reason I would be fine with an extensive third party review of the evidence.
Judges deal all the time in topics that they have no expertise in. They have to get educated in the finer nuances of all sorts of topics. I don't see how this is any different. While they won't probably understand every minute point I don't think it is necessary to have that level of understanding. Educated witnesses can usually poke holes in the BS of someone who is spewing crap, and I think that would be a bit refreshing on this particular topic.
Please refer back to my request for PROOF. Your attempt to turn correlation into the proof is pathetic, and not scientific in any way. You've obviously drunk the koolaid.
Slashdot Mirror
This is news for Windows users because they'll be rebooting all the time. I don't think the boot time is relevant to anyone else because they are not forced into rebooting all the time.
Jeez, put your half price budget piece of crap and your head in the sand and shut up already. You've obviously got an axe to gring against Apple but the best you can come up with is price? You've got a lot to learn about Mac vs Windows, and for that matter a lot to learn about how to do an accurate price comparison.
I disagree that they need to collect more money off movie downloads. When a song is used in a movie the recording industry (ASCAP, etc.) is payed a licensing fee. I do not know if it is a one time fee or a per sale fee, but they are paid and agreed to that licensing structure. If they want more money then they need to negotiate that with the movie producers, but they already agree for that music to be licensed for that video production so they are not entitled to anything else. Lobbying for laws to be written on this subject is ridiculous.
I think there are some great solutions out here, but I think the guy is stuck with slow satellite access if he wants to go out in the middle of nowhere. About the fastest mobile satellite feed i've seen this morning was for 128KB down, which is pretty slow for anything other than just text. I guess he doesn't really have that much to bitch about though, he's going to be cruising in an RV full time instead of being stuck in a cubicle. I wish I had that problem.
So this provides a router that fails over to the stronger bandwidth provider when you lose connectivity with anther one, is that right (in a nutshell)? But doesn't his problem remain that he still won't have a bandwidth provider when he's in the middle of nowhere because there will be no cellular signal and he won't have satellite because it is too expensive?
I don't think a Hummer is paying the same as a Tercel. Hummers use more gas, hence more gas tax is being paid to the government. A gas tax accomplishes this just fine without installing unnecessary GPS equipment that gives the government too much opportunity to monitor us, and it has the added benefit of taxing fuel guzzling vehicles more money because they use more gas. The GPS unit would actually be a step back because both the Hummer and Tercel would pay the same based on mileage, even though the Tercel is more energy efficient.
All your arguments are actually making his point. Rather than line by line I'll just pick on one of your replies:
"There are entire franchises that run on Unix-based systems"
- Go back and read his post again for some perspective. He is not talking about Bank of America. He is talking about small business users who need an invoicing/accounting solution (hence his reference to Intuit). Feel free to understand his post before commenting on it.
Linux may be powerful but it's not ready for the masses or small business yet. Hopefully it will be some day because I'd love to see MS gone, but it isn't ready yet.
Do you realize that no one cares about the ridiculous grammar lessons you're dumping on us? Forest. . . .Trees. . . Are you seeing the big picture of the discussion or just nit-picking on some minutia that isn't necessary to understand the discussion thread?
As much as I share your enthusiasm for making MS pay for getting people's machines cleaned of malware I think that there is still a gaping hole in social engineering malware (the user is the problem) and the fact that I don't want ANY government to build out a system that can monitor and disconnect users automatically. That is a system just waiting for abuse to jump on board.
I've got no mod points right now, but I have to say your reply was kind of dumb. I think you might fall under the stupid demographic for actually dissecting his tongue in cheek idea.
I am calling you out Sir! The Shuffle does not have less slectability than an 8-track deck, it has the SAME functionality!
Consider yourself rebuked!
It's weird in here, but I just blame the Jews.
Seriously, where do you work (or what specific industry) where they are so prohibitive? Mine technically doesn't allow it either, but it's not enforced. Does your employer enforce it rigorously?
That doesn't even make sense.
Way to not understand the issue. They didn't pick AT&T because they were the best network. They didn't do an exclusive deal because they wanted to exclude other carriers. They could have sold on any network and then the iPhone would have been restricted like all other phones on Verizon/AT&T. Phone features disabled, horrid application stores with overpriced apps that actually expire over time, etc.
In order to give the customers the full features of the iPhone they had to find a carrier willing to depart from their usual crappy business practices and to do that they had to cut an exclusive deal. Blame the carriers. I'm sure Apple would just as soon the iPhone be used on any network by anyone.
You'd have a point if that was what he actually said. Nice argument with yourself though.
You can't do CAD on your Mac? Since when? Or is the magic qualifier that you can't do "serious" CAD? Can you do non-serious CAD? What is the difference?
Not trying to rip on you, but I thought CAD programs were available for the Mac, just maybe not the one you would prefer?
Yes, and he could also have NOT chosen to use Apple's RAM upgrade, bought his own and the price would be equal. Again, Macs are within $100 or so of similarly spec'd Windows machines.
That is complete and utter BS and you either don't understand what you are writing or you're an outright liar. Snow Leopard will run on ANY Intel Mac. Your attempt to say it won't run on a 5 or 9 year old Mac is disingenuous because there are no 5 or 9 year old Intel Macs. You're either woefully stupid or attempting to pull of a good lie.
And for the record, Apple has great compatibility with their older hardware and their new OS releases generally run faster than past ones. Learn your facts and/or learn how not to lie through your teeth before you post again.
Oh, and by the way, you didn't run Windows on "old hardware", you just admitted in your post that you doubled the RAM, so apparently Windows DIDN'T run on old hardware, did it?
What kind of logic is that? If Win 7 is Vista SP3 then APPLE is the one charging for service packs? WTF? That makes absolutely NO sense.
A few corrections on your errors in your post.
1. Apple did not block the Pre. Apple modified iTunes to not allow a vendor ID spoofing. Palm's low budget hack is what caused the issue with the Pre. Apple simply fixed an issue in their iTunes synch and closed a potential security/legal liability hole at the same time since a device spoofing an iPod could potentially be corrupted by iTunes when it attempts to update firmware on the device.
2. Apple dropping support for Palm synch is because Palm dropped their support of these legacy Palm devices years ago. Apple simply decided to no longer support Palm devices that Palm no longer supports. There is nothing nefarious in that decision. If there is then there must also must be something nefarious in Palm's decision not to support their own products.
3. There was nothing anti-competitive in what Apple did in either of these circumstances. In both instances Palm has showed a laziness in supporting their own products. If Palm won't properly support their own products then there is no reason Apple should do it for them.
What exactly is the monopoly that you think Apple is maintaining? I think you're confused as to what defines a monopoly.
I personally don't have much confidence in scientists who seem more concerned with protecting their reputation and belittling anyone who questions their conclusions (and the failure of their conclusions). Scientists, for all their haughty hot air, seem no more immune to the flaws of the human ego than anyone else. For that reason I would be fine with an extensive third party review of the evidence.
Judges deal all the time in topics that they have no expertise in. They have to get educated in the finer nuances of all sorts of topics. I don't see how this is any different. While they won't probably understand every minute point I don't think it is necessary to have that level of understanding. Educated witnesses can usually poke holes in the BS of someone who is spewing crap, and I think that would be a bit refreshing on this particular topic.
Please refer back to my request for PROOF. Your attempt to turn correlation into the proof is pathetic, and not scientific in any way. You've obviously drunk the koolaid.
To throw a common phrase scientists use back in their face, "correlation does not imply causation."
Sorry, but your statement fails miserably as proof.