If thou shall defile a Mac with the unholy DOS or Windows operating system or any derivative of such, thou shall meet eternal life in a world far worse than that entitled to those soulless users of Windows on generic hardware who have refused to convert.
So you see, a true Mac evangelist would not run Windows, even under such great duress.
Wouldn't it be possible to necessitate a finger scan before an RFID reader accessed important data from your card? So, unless it's just a metro card or something, you would have to scan your fingerprint before using it. You still wouldn't have to take your card out. And the cutting off fingers problem is nonexistent because it would be much easier to just steal a card.
But Classic Mac OS's peak marketshare was before viruses were a problem. The later Classic Mac OSs' did have some viruses, and by that time it's marketshare was lower than Mac OS X's current marketshare.
Why would a hacker spend time and resources trying to hack a Mac when only 3.some% of the world uses it when there is huge windows PC monoculture used by 95+% of the planet?
Because, while on Windows viruses are routine, a Mac virus would cause something of a calamity. The writer would get many computers infected. And no, most people who write viruses aren't in it for the money. They want fame, or just the knowledge they damaged a bunch of other people's computers. Someone who wrote a Mac OS X virus would become famous, as it would be the first, and it would infect many computers, as there is nothing to protect against Mac viruses. Now perhaps some adware is made to make money, but even a lot of cross platform applications that install what can be considered adware on Windows do not do so on Macs. The community response would be very damaging to that company. If a Mac virus was more than theoretically possible, there would be one. Remember, there were Mac OS 9 viruses, and it had a lower marketshare than Mac OS X.
Spam and phishing have little to do with computers. Only common sense can solve those problems.
Both anthropogenic global warming, which I believe you are referring to, and evolution (or more importantly, if it was how humans came to be) are theories. Complete belief in them is unreasonable. I'm not saying they are wrong or that I don't think there is a lot of evidence supporting them, or that they are probably somewhat correct. but it is foolish to think they are definitely true. And what makes you think most of the US is "in denial" about them?
I would use Excel. I have Office, I just prefer to use iWork. I don't use spreadsheets very often. I don't like NeoOffice at all. It's speed, or lack thereof, doesn't bother me half as much as it's horrid nonstandard interface (i.e. It's file browser looks like Windows.) I could use it for spreadsheets, as I'm sure it wouldn't take that long and I'm not using a laptop so battery life isn't an issue unless there is a power failure.
Ugh, the point of having a Mac is the same as the point of having any computer. The many people chose Macs is because they are superior computers in many ways (OS: ease of use, security, GUI, aesthetics. Hardware: quality, aesthetics). Anyone who does it to not use Microsoft products isn't using very good reasoning, as Microsoft itself is in no way bad. It just has an inferior OS and software. Although, I don't use any Microsoft products on my Mac. I use Apple's iWork instead of Office, Mail instead of Entourage, Safari instead of IE Mac (which goes without saying), and flip4mac instead of WMP. I just like these products' interfaces and integration.
Yes and no, respectively. Many of the "more discerning user[s]" care about ease of use as well, and although the ITMS music might not be good enough for the most picky audiophiles, iPods will still play higher quality music, including uncompressed. Is the quality of the Napster music better than that on the ITMS? Is it good enough for someone who won't accept iTMS music? An iPod gets you great integration and ease of use. What do the competing players get you? All I can think of is more small features and more file format support. The features are fine, but nothing all that great. The file formats are important for people who have a lot of audio in them, but useless for those who don't (And, excluding WMA, that's most people, and probably most technology enthusiasts). It is possible to convert them, though. I got an iPod because:
It syncs with my iTunes library.
It syncs with my iPhoto library.
It has a good GUI.
All I have to do is plug it in, and it has my music. And I'd think any user would appreciate that.
Ease of use? And the iPod+iTMS has fine music quality. I'm sure Napster, Real, Windows, and Yahoo do too. Most people do not care about music quality as much as you do. Even fewer people care about audio formats. They want to plug it in and buy some music or rip a CD and listen to it. If it's AAC or MP3 or OGG or FLAC or WMA is meaningless.
I think it would always have been called Apple. Sun doesn't have any consumer brand awareness. Apple has quite a lot now (Although it is for iPods), and has always had more than Sun. Someone getting server hardware is going to know that Apple = Sun (Because they'd be paying attention to things like this happening in the computer industry), but an average consumer wouldn't know Sun = Apple.
Why doesn't she want to use Mac OS X? Misinformation about Macs? (Yes, I know some people have a legitimate reason to need to use Windows, but among general consumers there are a lot of falsities about Macs that are considered true. This also is true, albeit to a lesser extent, among enthusiasts). Why don't you give it to her with it running OS X, and see if she likes it better?
Power doesn't necessarily refer to the CPU, but I think they are getting rid of it anyway. I think Steve Jobs said something to the effect that the naming scheme is moving from power to Mac. I think it will be the Mac Pro.
And the oil needed to harvest the food to feed the people who help in the manufacturing of the vehicles. I'm sure one of them needs more people in the manufacturing process. But you also have to account for the oil these people use in their commute. And what about the oil these cars' mechanics use, and what about the oil used to feed these mechanics? And what about the oil needed to get this food to places where these people can buy it? And what about the oil needed to get the farming/auto repair shop/grocery store/etc. corporate employees to work? And the oil needed to provide them with food? Oh, and if some of these people don't use cars, it still takes electricity often made by oil to provide electricity for or produce their cars. There is almost an endless link that would end up making you count nearly everyone and everything that relies on oil, often more than once.
I think all you need for a good comparison is the electricity used in Segways in the amount of oil it takes to produce it compared to the amount of oil used in cars. I would just count bikes as using 0.
Assuming space and accessibility are no concern, what's wrong with sticking the computer in a refrigerator (or freezer if the refrigerator isn't cold enough)? You can probably get a fridge big enough cheaply, and there would be no alterations to the case. For the cords, you might have to cut a hole in the plastic seal on the door, but that wouldn't be too hard. I guess this would be like a lot of the current cooling systems, but a lot cheaper.
Most of your complaints are directed towards Microsoft, not Bill Gates. You complain that it only wants to make money, but that's what should be the case. Microsoft exists to make money for shareholders. So does Apple. And Bill Gates is probably a good person. He's donated a lot to charity. And there is nothing wrong with him trying to make money, although I doubt it's the most important thing to him now considering how much money he already has. Steve Jobs is a much better speaker than Gates, and his company makes much better products than Gate's (In my opinion) but I don't consider him to be a better person. I'm fine with people criticizing Windows (Or any other Microsoft products), but saying Microsoft or Bill Gates is "evil" is stupid. For the record, I am a Mac user and I dislike Windows quite a lot.
If you think that, then don't get the service. You can't force them to provide good service at affordable prices. If these companies are so bad, and you think you could do it much better and as a result make more money, then start your own telecom business. And before you mention that you would have to invest in the infrastructure to provide this, remember that the other companies did too.
So how is it that these other countries' greater restrictions on businesses make them more free? If a company wants to sell a service with a product, it should be free to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
If thou shall defile a Mac with the unholy DOS or Windows operating system or any derivative of such, thou shall meet eternal life in a world far worse than that entitled to those soulless users of Windows on generic hardware who have refused to convert.
So you see, a true Mac evangelist would not run Windows, even under such great duress.
Wouldn't it be possible to necessitate a finger scan before an RFID reader accessed important data from your card? So, unless it's just a metro card or something, you would have to scan your fingerprint before using it. You still wouldn't have to take your card out. And the cutting off fingers problem is nonexistent because it would be much easier to just steal a card.
But Classic Mac OS's peak marketshare was before viruses were a problem. The later Classic Mac OSs' did have some viruses, and by that time it's marketshare was lower than Mac OS X's current marketshare.
Why would a hacker spend time and resources trying to hack a Mac when only 3.some% of the world uses it when there is huge windows PC monoculture used by 95+% of the planet? Because, while on Windows viruses are routine, a Mac virus would cause something of a calamity. The writer would get many computers infected. And no, most people who write viruses aren't in it for the money. They want fame, or just the knowledge they damaged a bunch of other people's computers. Someone who wrote a Mac OS X virus would become famous, as it would be the first, and it would infect many computers, as there is nothing to protect against Mac viruses. Now perhaps some adware is made to make money, but even a lot of cross platform applications that install what can be considered adware on Windows do not do so on Macs. The community response would be very damaging to that company. If a Mac virus was more than theoretically possible, there would be one. Remember, there were Mac OS 9 viruses, and it had a lower marketshare than Mac OS X. Spam and phishing have little to do with computers. Only common sense can solve those problems.
Both anthropogenic global warming, which I believe you are referring to, and evolution (or more importantly, if it was how humans came to be) are theories. Complete belief in them is unreasonable. I'm not saying they are wrong or that I don't think there is a lot of evidence supporting them, or that they are probably somewhat correct. but it is foolish to think they are definitely true. And what makes you think most of the US is "in denial" about them?
You can, via SMS.
That post was made with an automatic complaint generator .
I would use Excel. I have Office, I just prefer to use iWork. I don't use spreadsheets very often. I don't like NeoOffice at all. It's speed, or lack thereof, doesn't bother me half as much as it's horrid nonstandard interface (i.e. It's file browser looks like Windows.) I could use it for spreadsheets, as I'm sure it wouldn't take that long and I'm not using a laptop so battery life isn't an issue unless there is a power failure.
What essential liberty is being given up? And is terrorism a little temporary threat to our safety?
I'd like the cell phone carriers to become a little more open, but I'd much rather them stay like they are than have the government interfere.
Ugh, the point of having a Mac is the same as the point of having any computer. The many people chose Macs is because they are superior computers in many ways (OS: ease of use, security, GUI, aesthetics. Hardware: quality, aesthetics). Anyone who does it to not use Microsoft products isn't using very good reasoning, as Microsoft itself is in no way bad. It just has an inferior OS and software. Although, I don't use any Microsoft products on my Mac. I use Apple's iWork instead of Office, Mail instead of Entourage, Safari instead of IE Mac (which goes without saying), and flip4mac instead of WMP. I just like these products' interfaces and integration.
It should have been "its" . That is the possessive form.
Yes and no, respectively. Many of the "more discerning user[s]" care about ease of use as well, and although the ITMS music might not be good enough for the most picky audiophiles, iPods will still play higher quality music, including uncompressed. Is the quality of the Napster music better than that on the ITMS? Is it good enough for someone who won't accept iTMS music? An iPod gets you great integration and ease of use. What do the competing players get you? All I can think of is more small features and more file format support. The features are fine, but nothing all that great. The file formats are important for people who have a lot of audio in them, but useless for those who don't (And, excluding WMA, that's most people, and probably most technology enthusiasts). It is possible to convert them, though. I got an iPod because: It syncs with my iTunes library. It syncs with my iPhoto library. It has a good GUI. All I have to do is plug it in, and it has my music. And I'd think any user would appreciate that.
Ease of use? And the iPod+iTMS has fine music quality. I'm sure Napster, Real, Windows, and Yahoo do too. Most people do not care about music quality as much as you do. Even fewer people care about audio formats. They want to plug it in and buy some music or rip a CD and listen to it. If it's AAC or MP3 or OGG or FLAC or WMA is meaningless.
I guess that sort of makes sense, but OS X does use double click. I guess you might have meant right click, but it uses that also.
I think it would always have been called Apple. Sun doesn't have any consumer brand awareness. Apple has quite a lot now (Although it is for iPods), and has always had more than Sun. Someone getting server hardware is going to know that Apple = Sun (Because they'd be paying attention to things like this happening in the computer industry), but an average consumer wouldn't know Sun = Apple.
Why doesn't she want to use Mac OS X? Misinformation about Macs? (Yes, I know some people have a legitimate reason to need to use Windows, but among general consumers there are a lot of falsities about Macs that are considered true. This also is true, albeit to a lesser extent, among enthusiasts). Why don't you give it to her with it running OS X, and see if she likes it better?
Power doesn't necessarily refer to the CPU, but I think they are getting rid of it anyway. I think Steve Jobs said something to the effect that the naming scheme is moving from power to Mac. I think it will be the Mac Pro.
I think all you need for a good comparison is the electricity used in Segways in the amount of oil it takes to produce it compared to the amount of oil used in cars. I would just count bikes as using 0.
Assuming space and accessibility are no concern, what's wrong with sticking the computer in a refrigerator (or freezer if the refrigerator isn't cold enough)? You can probably get a fridge big enough cheaply, and there would be no alterations to the case. For the cords, you might have to cut a hole in the plastic seal on the door, but that wouldn't be too hard. I guess this would be like a lot of the current cooling systems, but a lot cheaper.
Most of your complaints are directed towards Microsoft, not Bill Gates. You complain that it only wants to make money, but that's what should be the case. Microsoft exists to make money for shareholders. So does Apple. And Bill Gates is probably a good person. He's donated a lot to charity. And there is nothing wrong with him trying to make money, although I doubt it's the most important thing to him now considering how much money he already has. Steve Jobs is a much better speaker than Gates, and his company makes much better products than Gate's (In my opinion) but I don't consider him to be a better person. I'm fine with people criticizing Windows (Or any other Microsoft products), but saying Microsoft or Bill Gates is "evil" is stupid. For the record, I am a Mac user and I dislike Windows quite a lot.
People have already been able to install Linux on the Nano and play video on it.
If you think that, then don't get the service. You can't force them to provide good service at affordable prices. If these companies are so bad, and you think you could do it much better and as a result make more money, then start your own telecom business. And before you mention that you would have to invest in the infrastructure to provide this, remember that the other companies did too.
So how is it that these other countries' greater restrictions on businesses make them more free? If a company wants to sell a service with a product, it should be free to do so.
Apple has far less ads for it's computers than other companies.