Yes, I'm dumb. I recently built a media PC with an Intel 533Mhz FSB board with onboard sound and networking...the board cost $99 CDN. The board takes either SDRAM or DDRRAM. Clearly you have such a lack of a point that you're just sputtering like the troglodyte fanboy that you are. I'll buy an AMD any day of the week when it wins the price/performance ratio, and have for the past several years, but currently it is neck and neck and price is no longer an advantage.
Regarding the "coward" thing, I get a real kick out of that, and clearly you're talking about our lack of participation in Iraq. While you're just a dumb troll blathering off, I do feel the urge to reply specifically to this because I see that sort of nonsense from the far right (in papers like the National Post: A paper which I subscribe to because of a couple of great columnists, but the editorial board is a bunch of Bush idolizing, hypocritical morons), anxious to take any pot shot at the government of Canada (be it REFORM!!!! advocates, or the West that simply likes to go against anything and everything that they perceive the East to be for).
You see Canada relies heavily upon the United States for trade (naturally given that we share North America), and it's something that is held over us constantly: Don't want to impose draconian immigration rules to placate a country that currently hosts 10,000,000 illegal immigrants and has rampant gun running and drug problems? Uh oh, the US will shut down trade! Don't want to join the war on Iraq? Uh oh, the US will shut down trade! I find it laughable that anyone could dare to blather about Canadians being cowards when we've put more on the line than just about ANYONE: We put our quality of life entirely on the line saying "no thanks" to the war on Iraq. That's far more than Britain, Australia, or any of the "we'll buddy up to Papa Bush to try to earn props" Eastern European countries offers up. Tell me again how we're cowards you reject. I'm not even commenting on my personal opinion on the war in Iraq (don't presume I'm against it), however the cowardly action we could have taken would be to send troops just to placate the vengeful Bush administration, or to do what countries like Australia did and sail some ships around the area while talking about our support. Even worse are the rest of the "coalition of the willing" countries that have offered nothing more than lip service to ensure they don't get blacklisted. Heroes indeed.
BTW: Obviously you're not fighting in Iraq, so unless you plan on picking up an M16 and heading over, you're the coward. Just because your administration decided to pursue an action with the lives of other people (currently 100+ American missing or dead) doesn't make you a hero.
...when you consider you can get the same power as an Intel chip in an AMD chip for typically half to one-third the price
I'm typing this reply on an Athon equipped PC, and historically agree, but AMD had better get their ass in gear quite quickly: Taking a quick look at the place I normally order from (CDN $), a P4 2.4Ghz 533Mhz bus processor (512KB cache) is coming in at $249.99. For just a bit less you can get the Athlon 2400+, or for $30 more you can get the Barton 2500+. In other words power/dollar is pretty much on par now, so AMD has definitely lost that historical advantage.
Seriously. Actually, I wonder how many radio stations use MP3 as a native format for songs they play now.
And I'd wonder why in the world they would use a lossy format?
MP3 is not a magic format, but is helpful when you'd like to store audio data in less space: Given that they're in the music business, I'd hope that they'd invest in appropriate storage to save from unnecessarily degrading their music.
Indeed, if storage space continues to ramp upwards I'd expect the MP3 format to start to disappear, as it rightly should. If I have a blue laser DVD storing 27GB or whatever, I'd just as well save the songs in uncompressed, or losslessly compressed, formats, as already I can fit so much that it becomes more of an administrative problem than a storage problem.
Yet the United States, when it felt militarily overwhelmed by the Soviets (although that turned out to be a giant fraud to sell military equipment: The US always eclipsed the soviets), developed a wide range of biological, nuclear (including tactical nuclear), and chemical weapons.
a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force
A funny thing about military power is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: Build yourself a great military to deal with the "world's threats", and the world's threats will build a military in turn. i.e. The US continually built up arms to counter what they saw as a great Soviet menace, causing the Soviets to do so in kind. Of course if you build your military too powerful, such that smaller countries don't have a chance to make an exercise at least restrictively costly for you, smaller countries who feel threatened will resort to alternatives: Is there anyone who doesn't think that the Iraq situation has done more to proliferate WMDs than every before? Hint: Every little country, say the Irans, Cubas and North Koreas, have more of a motivation than ever to acquire a force to counter what could be the next "regime change". I'm not speaking politically here, and am making no commentary on the war but that the logical conclusion is that it will naturally lead to the militarization of "evil" nations.
Excellent question. Honestly reading the submission I was trying to figure out the same thing, matching up quotation marks. Is the submitter suffering from MPD and his many inner demons (pardon the pun) support it? Inquiring minds would like to know who "we" is.
Ellison's prophetic comments, much like Scott McNealy of Sun, are generally worthless: If one looked at his historical claims they would find an astoundingly poor accuracy of their predictions. At some point shouldn't someone call him on his abilities as a seer?
The most ridiculous part of his comments that immediately pointed out how uninformed and idiotic his vitriolic claims are is the statement "They had a virtual monopoly on Web servers, and then they were wiped off the face of the earth. And it's going to happen to them again on Linux.". The Slashdot summary itself points to the Netcraft graph, but strangely fails to points out the absurdity of Ellison's statement: Microsoft has never had a "virtual monopoly" on web servers. Indeed, Microsoft was an underdog, came into the game after Apache, and has grown to 28%, gaining 5% or so during a period when Apache marketshare has remained constant.
P.S. Ellison is going to have to develop a new angle to push Oracle - When SQL Server trounced them in the clustered results on the TPC-C, Ellison and friends proclaimed that clustered results don't count, getting the TPC to allow one to separate clustered and non-clustered. Well now Microsoft beats Oracle at non-clustered results too. I'm sure there'll be some new angle to defend against this.
Let me guess: Out of work and FURIOUS that your l33t Java skillz aren't getting your prime billing? I'll put pretty good money on that.
Its "Java Programming" and ".NET Programming." Refine your search dickhead.
Yes, only search criteria chosen by you, selected specifically to accommodate your delusions, will suffice. Sorry but I don't play along with that sort of data manipulation. Please tell me why ".NET" and "Java" isn't satisfactory? Because it makes you lose? Probably 99% of books that say "Java" will be about Java programming (though perhaps there may be a few about the Island of Java), as probably 99% of books that have ".NET" in their name are about programming in.NET. Now perhaps they might have titles like "Architecting Applications in.NET", or "Developing for.NET", or "C#.NET for Java Fascists", but they're still.NET.
It is called being fucked in the ass by a company that covers up technology failure after technology failure with marketing hype blah blah blah blah
You have got some serious rage issues. Seriously. It isn't so personal, you know. Bill Gates doesn't hate you. Microsoft isn't trying to steal your DNA to super gorillas.
Brilliant debating technique! Clearly you must be some sort of super-intelligent hybrid human/robot!
Oh yeah clown?
Cutting! You, sir, must be the president of your local debating club.
Doing a search for jobs here [dice.com] will show you that there are 4268 jobs with "Java" in their descriptions with only 366 jobs matching "C#" and 17 jobs matching ".NET"
I'm sorry, does "Microsoft shop" mean "C# programmer"? I'm afraid you have a gross inability to read. The point, stunningly clear to those who's vision isn't clouded by anti-Microsoft rage, is that there are loads of Microsoft shops out there that will eventually, to a pretty high degree, switch to.NET.
Why don't you go take a look at the bookstore [amazon.com] and search "Java Programming" then ".NET programming?" I get 601 books for.NET and 1463 for Java. That is over 2x more books for Java.
Ignoring your absurd search criteria, searching on ".NET" yields 2229 hits, whereas "Java" yields 2075 hits. Ooooh, must hurt to get burned by your own crappy 'evidence'. Of course I was never talking about historical books written and sitting in a warehouse somewhere (by that metric I would have expected Amazon to have many many multiples more Java books as they've had years to be written, while.NET books are relatively hot off the press. I'm quite surprized to find that's not the case), but what is actually stocked at your local brick and mortar book shop (you know: books that they think they might sell) : At my local shops Java has perhaps 1/4 the number of books of.NET. This was a simple observation in regards to a ridiculous claim that no one uses Java (I actually was recently at a bookstore and was very surprized to see the number of.NET books), so I'm quite surprized to see you swagger in here, linguistic disabilities in full evidence, shooting off your guns all over the place.
What bothers me even more than Microsoft's shitty products blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Funny you say that, as what bothers me even more are contrarians who believe that everything positive about Microsoft (as a professional software developer I'm well aware of the huge number of Microsoft shops out there) must simply be untrue, bleating complete nonsense as "evidence". Blah.
Most Microsoft shops have or will switch to.NET (it's a natural progression), and of course Microsoft shops comprise the majority of "shops" out there. Indeed the most telling evidence of.NETs stunning market presence can be seen at your local bookshop: Already there are probably 2x the number of.NET books than there are Java books (seriously, go take a look).
I am betting 1% of the readers come back and think the new protocol is a good thing before realizing its a hoax
I'd also put down that about 80% of/. readers are releasing a collecting groan and muttering something along the lines of "Oh God...is it April 1st again...". I'm not being a spoilsport, but after a few years April Fools Day jokes start to seem a little formulaic and predictable.
I entirely agree with this, and there are also those who confuse sound with wallhacking (for those who wonder, Q3 has pretty good stereo sound that allows you to audibly detect where people are within a certain range. Actually the sound algorithms are quite weak as they don't take into account sound supression, echos and reflection, etc): There is no doubt that with human egos as the evaluators there are cases where there are false positives.
Having said that, what I'm talking about moreso is incredibly clear: There's one opponent guy and you can see on the radar (which is a part of the game now) where he is, and the guy you are ghosting inexplicably pauses as her turns past where the guy is. When it happens it is absolutely stunningly crystal clear (people also have a tendency to like to look at walls...).
Speaking of Diablo, the online variant of it was absolutely destroyed by cheaters. I know that shortly after boring of the single player game I gave the online variant a try: After several attempts at play, always to be PKd by cheaters (level 2s with hundreds of HP, for instance), I gave up on it forever and never tried it again.
Wallhackers and the honesty of surveillance
on
Cheating Online Gamers
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm a fan of the game Urban Terror, a mod for Quake 3, and play online a fair bit (I usually run Visual Studio on one monitor, UT on the other: One good thing about being a rambo player in team survivor games is that I'm dead the majority of the time, and hence find it to actually be a remarkably productive time): While recently an anti-cheat tool, PunkBuster was added to Q3 (and it is constantly updated), there is still a serious issue of cheaters, the most common among them being wallhackers. What is a wallhacker? Well it's what was mentioned in the summary: Wire frame worlds, allowing cheating players to view other players whereever they are on the map, obviously giving a pretty clear advantage.
So what does this have to do with the honesty of surveillance? Well in team survivor when you die you can ghost other players as they move around the map, and it tends to be that wallhackers are discovered quite quickly--Their behaviour and actions in the game do not correlate with the information that they should be visually receiving (from what we can see ghosting them). Usually this quickly leads to cries of cheater and a vote to kick the offending player.
One organization makes a robotically controlled radiation delivery "laser" that does effectively that by continuously moving around your body: It aims at the tumor constantly, but only spends a very small percentage of time on any other area of the body, hence the total radiation to the tumor is very high, while the destruction of healthy cells is limited.
Hearing about that product I imagine that that is a really cool and noble software development pursuit.
Anyway, you forget the maintainance costs of the workstations - and I think that the MAC is quite cheaper on this side
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover OS/X is "better" and simply has less bugs, so overall the productivity on the OS/X could be better than on XP.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover I would think about the difference of the power consumption - maybe current is very cheap in your country but I would believe that the MAC needs less power - this could sum up to ~ $50.- to $100.- / year, these are costs that are quite often forgotten in calculations - this way a flatscreen can be a lot cheaper than a power hungry cathode ray screen.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics? Your entire post is entirely based upon completely unsubstantiated claims, going so far as deriving some bogus power consumption values based upon bogus (non-existent) power consumption values. I'm not saying that these numbers don't exist somewhere out there, but my impression is that you're just giving the Mac entirely the benefit of the doubt and just presuming that it must be better at everything.
I had a variable with the word "threat" in it today, and it took every ounce of willpower to stop typing "thread". Indeed I had to go back and correct quite a few instances where I used the latter rather than the former.
Agreed. I'm not picking on Nicholas, or the article that he authored, but he summary that was given on Slashdot (which was precisely what the guy I was responding to was commenting upon).
The original article triumphantly proclaimed that 40% of developers were focused on Linux, cleverly failing to mention that that 40% is among the subset of developers who develop for Linux... It's akin to saying that 99% of people are smokers...if you only include people with cigarettes in their pocket.
-People who have cigarettes in their pocket often are smokers. Conclusion: Putting cigarettes in your pocket causes you to start smoking.
-People with heavy pockets often have lots of spare change. Conclusion: Heavy pockets are especially desirable for spare change, which will often cluster together in a heavy mass of metal.
-There is a startling correlation between owning a Ferrari and having lots of money. Conclusion: Buying a Ferrari causes one to suddenly come into wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm dumb. I recently built a media PC with an Intel 533Mhz FSB board with onboard sound and networking...the board cost $99 CDN. The board takes either SDRAM or DDRRAM. Clearly you have such a lack of a point that you're just sputtering like the troglodyte fanboy that you are. I'll buy an AMD any day of the week when it wins the price/performance ratio, and have for the past several years, but currently it is neck and neck and price is no longer an advantage.
Regarding the "coward" thing, I get a real kick out of that, and clearly you're talking about our lack of participation in Iraq. While you're just a dumb troll blathering off, I do feel the urge to reply specifically to this because I see that sort of nonsense from the far right (in papers like the National Post: A paper which I subscribe to because of a couple of great columnists, but the editorial board is a bunch of Bush idolizing, hypocritical morons), anxious to take any pot shot at the government of Canada (be it REFORM!!!! advocates, or the West that simply likes to go against anything and everything that they perceive the East to be for).
You see Canada relies heavily upon the United States for trade (naturally given that we share North America), and it's something that is held over us constantly: Don't want to impose draconian immigration rules to placate a country that currently hosts 10,000,000 illegal immigrants and has rampant gun running and drug problems? Uh oh, the US will shut down trade! Don't want to join the war on Iraq? Uh oh, the US will shut down trade! I find it laughable that anyone could dare to blather about Canadians being cowards when we've put more on the line than just about ANYONE: We put our quality of life entirely on the line saying "no thanks" to the war on Iraq. That's far more than Britain, Australia, or any of the "we'll buddy up to Papa Bush to try to earn props" Eastern European countries offers up. Tell me again how we're cowards you reject. I'm not even commenting on my personal opinion on the war in Iraq (don't presume I'm against it), however the cowardly action we could have taken would be to send troops just to placate the vengeful Bush administration, or to do what countries like Australia did and sail some ships around the area while talking about our support. Even worse are the rest of the "coalition of the willing" countries that have offered nothing more than lip service to ensure they don't get blacklisted. Heroes indeed.
BTW: Obviously you're not fighting in Iraq, so unless you plan on picking up an M16 and heading over, you're the coward. Just because your administration decided to pursue an action with the lives of other people (currently 100+ American missing or dead) doesn't make you a hero.
...when you consider you can get the same power as an Intel chip in an AMD chip for typically half to one-third the price
I'm typing this reply on an Athon equipped PC, and historically agree, but AMD had better get their ass in gear quite quickly: Taking a quick look at the place I normally order from (CDN $), a P4 2.4Ghz 533Mhz bus processor (512KB cache) is coming in at $249.99. For just a bit less you can get the Athlon 2400+, or for $30 more you can get the Barton 2500+. In other words power/dollar is pretty much on par now, so AMD has definitely lost that historical advantage.
Degredation of audio quality is cumulative, not a "weakest link".
Seriously. Actually, I wonder how many radio stations use MP3 as a native format for songs they play now.
And I'd wonder why in the world they would use a lossy format?
MP3 is not a magic format, but is helpful when you'd like to store audio data in less space: Given that they're in the music business, I'd hope that they'd invest in appropriate storage to save from unnecessarily degrading their music.
Indeed, if storage space continues to ramp upwards I'd expect the MP3 format to start to disappear, as it rightly should. If I have a blue laser DVD storing 27GB or whatever, I'd just as well save the songs in uncompressed, or losslessly compressed, formats, as already I can fit so much that it becomes more of an administrative problem than a storage problem.
Yet the United States, when it felt militarily overwhelmed by the Soviets (although that turned out to be a giant fraud to sell military equipment: The US always eclipsed the soviets), developed a wide range of biological, nuclear (including tactical nuclear), and chemical weapons.
a completely dominant military force does everything better than a weaker military force
A funny thing about military power is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: Build yourself a great military to deal with the "world's threats", and the world's threats will build a military in turn. i.e. The US continually built up arms to counter what they saw as a great Soviet menace, causing the Soviets to do so in kind. Of course if you build your military too powerful, such that smaller countries don't have a chance to make an exercise at least restrictively costly for you, smaller countries who feel threatened will resort to alternatives: Is there anyone who doesn't think that the Iraq situation has done more to proliferate WMDs than every before? Hint: Every little country, say the Irans, Cubas and North Koreas, have more of a motivation than ever to acquire a force to counter what could be the next "regime change". I'm not speaking politically here, and am making no commentary on the war but that the logical conclusion is that it will naturally lead to the militarization of "evil" nations.
Excellent question. Honestly reading the submission I was trying to figure out the same thing, matching up quotation marks. Is the submitter suffering from MPD and his many inner demons (pardon the pun) support it? Inquiring minds would like to know who "we" is.
Ellison's prophetic comments, much like Scott McNealy of Sun, are generally worthless: If one looked at his historical claims they would find an astoundingly poor accuracy of their predictions. At some point shouldn't someone call him on his abilities as a seer?
The most ridiculous part of his comments that immediately pointed out how uninformed and idiotic his vitriolic claims are is the statement "They had a virtual monopoly on Web servers, and then they were wiped off the face of the earth. And it's going to happen to them again on Linux.". The Slashdot summary itself points to the Netcraft graph, but strangely fails to points out the absurdity of Ellison's statement: Microsoft has never had a "virtual monopoly" on web servers. Indeed, Microsoft was an underdog, came into the game after Apache, and has grown to 28%, gaining 5% or so during a period when Apache marketshare has remained constant.
P.S. Ellison is going to have to develop a new angle to push Oracle - When SQL Server trounced them in the clustered results on the TPC-C, Ellison and friends proclaimed that clustered results don't count, getting the TPC to allow one to separate clustered and non-clustered. Well now Microsoft beats Oracle at non-clustered results too. I'm sure there'll be some new angle to defend against this.
Let me guess: Out of work and FURIOUS that your l33t Java skillz aren't getting your prime billing? I'll put pretty good money on that.
.NET. Now perhaps they might have titles like "Architecting Applications in .NET", or "Developing for .NET", or "C#.NET for Java Fascists", but they're still .NET.
Its "Java Programming" and ".NET Programming." Refine your search dickhead.
Yes, only search criteria chosen by you, selected specifically to accommodate your delusions, will suffice. Sorry but I don't play along with that sort of data manipulation. Please tell me why ".NET" and "Java" isn't satisfactory? Because it makes you lose? Probably 99% of books that say "Java" will be about Java programming (though perhaps there may be a few about the Island of Java), as probably 99% of books that have ".NET" in their name are about programming in
It is called being fucked in the ass by a company that covers up technology failure after technology failure with marketing hype blah blah blah blah
You have got some serious rage issues. Seriously. It isn't so personal, you know. Bill Gates doesn't hate you. Microsoft isn't trying to steal your DNA to super gorillas.
I beg to differ you idiot.
.NET.
.NET and 1463 for Java. That is over 2x more books for Java.
.NET books are relatively hot off the press. I'm quite surprized to find that's not the case), but what is actually stocked at your local brick and mortar book shop (you know: books that they think they might sell) : At my local shops Java has perhaps 1/4 the number of books of .NET. This was a simple observation in regards to a ridiculous claim that no one uses Java (I actually was recently at a bookstore and was very surprized to see the number of .NET books), so I'm quite surprized to see you swagger in here, linguistic disabilities in full evidence, shooting off your guns all over the place.
Brilliant debating technique! Clearly you must be some sort of super-intelligent hybrid human/robot!
Oh yeah clown?
Cutting! You, sir, must be the president of your local debating club.
Doing a search for jobs here [dice.com] will show you that there are 4268 jobs with "Java" in their descriptions with only 366 jobs matching "C#" and 17 jobs matching ".NET"
I'm sorry, does "Microsoft shop" mean "C# programmer"? I'm afraid you have a gross inability to read. The point, stunningly clear to those who's vision isn't clouded by anti-Microsoft rage, is that there are loads of Microsoft shops out there that will eventually, to a pretty high degree, switch to
Why don't you go take a look at the bookstore [amazon.com] and search "Java Programming" then ".NET programming?" I get 601 books for
Ignoring your absurd search criteria, searching on ".NET" yields 2229 hits, whereas "Java" yields 2075 hits. Ooooh, must hurt to get burned by your own crappy 'evidence'. Of course I was never talking about historical books written and sitting in a warehouse somewhere (by that metric I would have expected Amazon to have many many multiples more Java books as they've had years to be written, while
What bothers me even more than Microsoft's shitty products blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...
Funny you say that, as what bothers me even more are contrarians who believe that everything positive about Microsoft (as a professional software developer I'm well aware of the huge number of Microsoft shops out there) must simply be untrue, bleating complete nonsense as "evidence". Blah.
Most Microsoft shops have or will switch to .NET (it's a natural progression), and of course Microsoft shops comprise the majority of "shops" out there. Indeed the most telling evidence of .NETs stunning market presence can be seen at your local bookshop: Already there are probably 2x the number of .NET books than there are Java books (seriously, go take a look).
Heh that's just something that teachers tell their students to get them to cut out the crap when the day has barely begun.
I am betting 1% of the readers come back and think the new protocol is a good thing before realizing its a hoax
/. readers are releasing a collecting groan and muttering something along the lines of "Oh God...is it April 1st again...". I'm not being a spoilsport, but after a few years April Fools Day jokes start to seem a little formulaic and predictable.
I'd also put down that about 80% of
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/19/234625 1
l d=-1&commentsort=0&tid=126&mode=thread&cid=2882245
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26525&thresho
Errrr...it could very well be in WinZip self-extracting format which would thoroughly make you look like a pompous ahole.
I entirely agree with this, and there are also those who confuse sound with wallhacking (for those who wonder, Q3 has pretty good stereo sound that allows you to audibly detect where people are within a certain range. Actually the sound algorithms are quite weak as they don't take into account sound supression, echos and reflection, etc): There is no doubt that with human egos as the evaluators there are cases where there are false positives.
Having said that, what I'm talking about moreso is incredibly clear: There's one opponent guy and you can see on the radar (which is a part of the game now) where he is, and the guy you are ghosting inexplicably pauses as her turns past where the guy is. When it happens it is absolutely stunningly crystal clear (people also have a tendency to like to look at walls...).
http://www.alliancestudio.com/tk/rot13.html
Speaking of Diablo, the online variant of it was absolutely destroyed by cheaters. I know that shortly after boring of the single player game I gave the online variant a try: After several attempts at play, always to be PKd by cheaters (level 2s with hundreds of HP, for instance), I gave up on it forever and never tried it again.
I'm a fan of the game Urban Terror, a mod for Quake 3, and play online a fair bit (I usually run Visual Studio on one monitor, UT on the other: One good thing about being a rambo player in team survivor games is that I'm dead the majority of the time, and hence find it to actually be a remarkably productive time): While recently an anti-cheat tool, PunkBuster was added to Q3 (and it is constantly updated), there is still a serious issue of cheaters, the most common among them being wallhackers. What is a wallhacker? Well it's what was mentioned in the summary: Wire frame worlds, allowing cheating players to view other players whereever they are on the map, obviously giving a pretty clear advantage.
So what does this have to do with the honesty of surveillance? Well in team survivor when you die you can ghost other players as they move around the map, and it tends to be that wallhackers are discovered quite quickly--Their behaviour and actions in the game do not correlate with the information that they should be visually receiving (from what we can see ghosting them). Usually this quickly leads to cries of cheater and a vote to kick the offending player.
One organization makes a robotically controlled radiation delivery "laser" that does effectively that by continuously moving around your body: It aims at the tumor constantly, but only spends a very small percentage of time on any other area of the body, hence the total radiation to the tumor is very high, while the destruction of healthy cells is limited.
Hearing about that product I imagine that that is a really cool and noble software development pursuit.
Anyway, you forget the maintainance costs of the workstations - and I think that the MAC is quite cheaper on this side
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover OS/X is "better" and simply has less bugs, so overall the productivity on the OS/X could be better than on XP.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics?
Moreover I would think about the difference of the power consumption - maybe current is very cheap in your country but I would believe that the MAC needs less power - this could sum up to ~ $50.- to $100.- / year, these are costs that are quite often forgotten in calculations - this way a flatscreen can be a lot cheaper than a power hungry cathode ray screen.
And this is based upon what empirical metrics? Your entire post is entirely based upon completely unsubstantiated claims, going so far as deriving some bogus power consumption values based upon bogus (non-existent) power consumption values. I'm not saying that these numbers don't exist somewhere out there, but my impression is that you're just giving the Mac entirely the benefit of the doubt and just presuming that it must be better at everything.
I had a variable with the word "threat" in it today, and it took every ounce of willpower to stop typing "thread". Indeed I had to go back and correct quite a few instances where I used the latter rather than the former.
Intriguing, no?
Agreed. I'm not picking on Nicholas, or the article that he authored, but he summary that was given on Slashdot (which was precisely what the guy I was responding to was commenting upon).
The original article triumphantly proclaimed that 40% of developers were focused on Linux, cleverly failing to mention that that 40% is among the subset of developers who develop for Linux... It's akin to saying that 99% of people are smokers...if you only include people with cigarettes in their pocket.
Other startling facts:
-People who have cigarettes in their pocket often are smokers. Conclusion: Putting cigarettes in your pocket causes you to start smoking.
-People with heavy pockets often have lots of spare change. Conclusion: Heavy pockets are especially desirable for spare change, which will often cluster together in a heavy mass of metal.
-There is a startling correlation between owning a Ferrari and having lots of money. Conclusion: Buying a Ferrari causes one to suddenly come into wealth.