The laws which govern the FDA and our activities were promulgated to protect the US population from unscrupulous operators that made drugs from sometimes toxic chemicals under unsterile conditions that more often killed or maimed the patients than helped.
We have developed a process of approving drugs that is copied world wide because of its effectiveness. It is not the role of the US government to govern HOW those drugs are marketed, beyond our mandate. We cannot set prices. We cannot tell drug companies which drugs to apply for. We process the NDAs that are brought to us by the drug industry. We cannot do more. To allow this drug to be used beyond its currently approved purpose is to violate the law, and we cannot do that and maintain our credibility.
In the past, drugs have been anecdotally shown to be useful for one thing or another, and yet, under closely controlled clinical trials, failed to be as safe or effective as first seen. Clinical trials are used for a purpose, and that purpose is to PROVE, scientifically, that a drug is safe and effective. It is to protect the American public from harm.
Period, end of story.
We are American, too. We go to the same hospitals, doctors and pharmacies that you do. So do our spouses and children. FDA employees that are caught taking brides are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution under applicable Federal law. We do NOT tolerate such illegality!
They need the money to PROVE that it is effective. There is also a safety element as well. Since effectiveness at the new use may require the drug to be used at a different dosage or strength, safety at that new dosage or strength must also be shown.
FDA will not take your word for effectiveness through anecdotal evidence. They require formal clinical trials, and clinical trials are expensive.
Again, it is not the Brand, per se that FDA approves.
FDA approves the drug as manufactured BY THAT MANUFACTURER. The reason is that the manufacturing facility itself is part of the approval process. It must meet FDA standards in order to be approved. If a manufacturer builds a new facility, even if it will make currently approved drugs, it must still be newly inspected and approved for each drug it will make.
So the reason FDA requires each manufacturer to seek separate approval for each drug isn't Brand related, but related to the fact that not all physical manufacturing plants are necessarily made equal.
If a company wants to use a currently approved drug for a use other than for which it is currently used, it must apply for a new NDA (New Drug Application), which starts the approval process off as new. Safety isn't an issue, since the company can point to a safety record as part of the original NDA, plus a public record of safe use under that prior approval, so the process IS cheaper. However, unless the company can point to a lengthy record of the drug being used for the new purpose (doctors can use approved drugs for different uses than that for which they were approved but it isn't strictly legal) new clinical trials will be needed. These trials are needed to prove efficacy, not safety. When other companies then apply to use that same drug they do so as a generic drug, so the applications do not require clinical trials.
FDA doesn't approve a Brand, per se, but they approve a drug, period. What protects that manufacturer is the fact, that mostly, a new drug is protected by a patent. Once that patent expires, that drug is then open to development by other companies as generic drugs, and it this process that is easier as you noted.
A company can apply to FDA and receive approval to sell a drug as a generic drug. That application does not carry with it the same requirements of clinical trials, but simply to prove to FDA that the manufacture of that drug will result in the same identical drug. FDA will inspect the facility where the drug is to be sold, to ensure that the facility adheres to FDA standards in that manufacturing process. FDA also looks at that manufacturing process to ensure that it will result in the same identical chemical structure, at the applied for strength and dosage.
I think the colonies DO speak English! The development of different dialects between England and the US is not, I think, due to the form of our government, but due to the physical separation of the two populations. Indeed, there are different ways to pronounce the same language just within England, as well as between widely separated parts of the US.
I concede, however, the possibility that the queen would still be on our money.
I think the original idea you are objecting to is that Scientology should be respected as a religion.
I think there is somewhat of a difference, as noted somewhere else above, in that one can respect another's belief but still have little respect for the organized part of that religion.
As I noted in my quote, "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." It is true. However, another fact that the quote doesn't mention is that, once laughed at, the first man slices the laugher's guts out for the laugh. That's how seriously people take their beliefs.
One should respect another's belief - it is a part of the American 'compact' that we tolerate, indeed, also respect, each other's beliefs. It is necessary to respect others, lest they stop respecting yours!
You can scoff, laugh, point fingers, roll on the floor, and call another man's religion stupid - as long as you do it behind closed doors, and not to his face.
I am not religious, I do not subscribe to the beliefs of any religion, I have my own ideas about some of those basic questions about where we came from and the reasons for existence. In fact, I believe that almost every organized religion that has ever existed has had as a basic premise its own survival first, and the welfare of its adherents dead last, and most existed to allow the authorities to control the population through religious extortion, as well as to milk their pockets as much as possible.
However, I am also capable of, at least publicly, showing respect for other individuals' beliefs. That, I believe, is necessary for me to demand respect for my own beliefs.
There are literally over 30,000 different denominations of Protestant christian churches in the US, not just hundreds. Most are probably just one church wonders, but...
Just what are your criteria for deciding what beliefs are "stupid"? What makes your approach towards this any different from others'?
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." Another of Lazarus Long's witticisms, per Robert Heinlein.
Basically, yes, although what most people mean when they say a religion is a recognized religion in the US, what they are referring to is a recognition by the IRS as a tax-exempt religious organization. Religions in the US are not licensed, controlled or even defined by law in any way, due to the Constitutional prohibition against government involvement in religion. If you wish to organize a group based upon the belief that the universe was created by the divine spaghetti monster, and your activities fit the IRS definition of a charitable organization, you can get a tax-exempt status as a religious organization, and the government will keep their hands off your activities to the same extent they do for all other religions. It is the way religious activities and organizations work in the US.
The IRS recognizes a plethora of organizations as being eligible for tax-exempt status. Religious organizations are just one such major classification.
There are, however, limits to activities that such groups can engage in and maintain that status. go to this URL: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139017, 00.html and it will explain and give additional links for more information.
None of that changes the fact that your balance, like I noted, is skewed.
Nothing I said claimed that the Mac OS is invincible. You can take your Arty McStrawman back to where you drug him out from under some rock. What does matter is that, on balance, the Mac OS IS less vulnerable than the bug riddled mess that is Windows, which, like has been noted before, is much of the reason why malware writers go after Windows, and not the relative numbers.
The Month of Apple Bugs couldn't even find 30 bugs in the OS itself to fill up a typical month, let alone 31 for the chosen month of January. Just how does that stack up to the huge number of vulnerabilities, exploits, viruses, worms and trojans now hitting even the 1/4 of all PCs you cite?
I'm sorry, but your balance seems just a bit skewed.
...botnet owners are going for the easiest source of income.
Yeah, and he DID mention Windows as the "low hanging fruit", did he not? That does translate into the "easiest source of income".
Kinda makes our point. Doesn't matter if the Mac OS has vulnerabilities or not. Doesn't matter if his numbers are right or not. (Which, at the rate of sales per Q1 this year, may well be right.)
The point is, that Windows is so vulnerable, due in large part to lazy or uneducated users failing to patch their systems and running older, vulnerable versions of it that constantly get infected. So who in their right mind wants to learn to write software for a new OS when they can stick to the old tried and true that is still as open as a $10 whore? So the relative numbers are really meaningless, it's the relative vulnerability that really matters.
What more Mac users are beginning to try to get across to Apple, (but are being eclipsed by stunts like these) is that while this may be true now, reducing the Mac OS' exposure to real harmful stuff, as it's market share rises (as it is doing) its attractiveness also rises. By 2008, Apple's market share will be much higher than it is today, and by extension, so will that attraction.
So they need to alter their procedures NOW, not later.
But Microsoft's HUGE vulnerabilities aren't helped by Windows users sticking their heads in the sand, either.
You have to realize that MOAB isn't an unwarranted attack against Apple. It's backlash...
Oh, yeah, backlash. Is that why they inserted html code into the web page for day 29 that crashes Safari? Complete with a nasty little jibe at "loopers" (whatever that is???)
Complete bullshit.
These guys are only after the same thing Maynor and Ellch were after last summer - notoriety and publicity.
Anything that includes a hidden attack in the code of a web page is unethical, unwarranted, unprofessional and just plain old wrong.
Sure, Apple needs to improve. If I were there, there would be a Zero Day Exploit Team in place and there would have been since the advent of OS X. Even if all they do is mostly sit around with their thumbs in their collective ears, they'd be there to respond at least, if not to actively search for vulnerabilities.
But I'm not and there isn't. But that does NOT excuse childish, unprofessional and unethical pranks.
And just what do you think the articles were talking about? Orange juice?
They were articles about scientists doing studies whose results made them worried about a warming trend. Shrill news reporters' reports made them sound worse than they really were. Yes, there were scientists that were worried about warming.
You're just being stubbornly stupid, when you weren't there and don't know what you are talking about.
Neither I not the other poster asserted that any of the articles we remember reading, nor any of the literature mentioned in either of the wiki articles you refer to may be right. You are not reading our posts at all. My assertion, and that of the other poster, is that one reason a lot of people now find the assertions of the scientific community more difficult to believe than might otherwise be the case is because of the articles we read in the 70's, as noted in your quote. As I noted in my earlier post, the press was just as excited and shrill over those "reports" as they have been at times regarding cooling.
Note this again: I DO NOT ASSERT THAT THE ARTICLES I REMEMBER READING ARE TRUE. I am not a scientist, and I cannot do more than read what the press presents me with in their articles and news reports. Like many other Americans, when presented with conflicting reports, the later of them must meet a higher standard of proof to overcome the earlier conflicting reports.
Stop trying to convert me to believe in global cooling, that is not the point of this thread, nor of my post. The very quote you show proves that I and the other poster were right - that in the 70's or so, there were numerous reports in the press about a possible warming trend that some scientists were worried about. The press reported it with great fanfare. In later years, when reports of global cooling came out, those reports were often greeted with derision, because of the earlier reports. A lot of controversy has ensued, much of it paid for by corporate opponents of the kinds of actions suggested to counter the human-related causes of that cooling. All of this would have been easier for the cooling proponents to counter had it not been for the earlier hooraw about warming.
Whether or not cooling is happening as a result of human actions is a subject for elsewhere, not this thread.
In some case, yeah, they are, when it comes to PCs. Our users are professionals in other areas of expertise, not geeks. It is our responsibility to keep their PCs in running order. We find that if we don't have them reboot periodically (every nite isn't REALLY required, but it is easier to have them do it that way than to tell them to keep track of it any other way) many machines have stability issues.
Our environment isn't yours. We use different apps, and a wide variety of them, too. You are obviously aware of how to keep your PC stable and running. Congratulations. You are in the top 2% of Windows users. Pat yourself on the back. My users are not. I and the other techs have to coddle them, stroke their egos, and sometimes lie to them to keep them happy. We also have over 10,000 of them, where you only have one.
And I run iTunes on my PC at work, too. Have done so since Apple released it for Windows on win2k. No crashes, no freezes, no problems. Maybe you should check with your local Apple store for expert advice.
Those "updates" that come out every month aren't system updates in the same sense at all. They are mostly SECURITY updates. Apple's point updates are known to contain new functions at times, not necessarily just bug fixes. Apples 'updates' are really system updates, not 'security updates' such as Microsoft issues. Don't make me laugh!
You display an amazing amount of selective blindness. Apple is the only PC manufacturer that is gaining market share. They are the only one that is showing a sales growth rate three times that of other sellers. I don't have to CALCULATE anything, I just read the sales figures, which you obviously ignore.
Sorry, read that Wiki article again. It contains evidence that what I remember keeps popping up. If it wasn't written about, they wouldn't have had to mention it.
I'm tired of hearing that "Microsoft was at the right place at the right time".
BS!
Microsoft gained a dominant place in the computer market because they employed predatory marketing practices that prevented PC manufacturers from installing competing OSes on their boxes. They have since maintained that position by employing those same practices to continue to stifle competition and any innovation that would compete with their products. Public record. United States vs. Microsoft Corporation, I don't remember the year.
The main reason Apple continued to survive is that they made their own hardware, so MS couldn't prevent the sale of their OS. *nix, Sun, and others survived because they ran on large Enterprise systems that MS couldn't dominate in that same way. Linux has survived for the same (other) reason Apple did, due to a small, but vocal and loyal fan base. ( OK, there may be some other reasons too, but that's good enough for one sentence.)
Otherwise, I pretty much go along with your other premises.
That is a (what to call it?) "rumor"? myth? Yes, there are some issues that could work better with reset permissions, given that screwed permissions can block off access to a directory an app needs in order to work, but that is really quite rare. In the early versions of X, Apple used to advise repairing permissions prior to an update, but have since incorporated that into the update process, so is now unnecessary, and so they do not advise that any more, AFAIK.
OTOH, I work for a major Federal Agency, and a standard procedure for "fixing" broken PCs is to re-image the box. It is just too much a waste of time to muck about in the bowels of the OS (or broken apps) to find out what is not working. It is quicker and easier to just re-image, which is the corporate equivalent of reinstalling Windows. We just have the apps pre-installed that way, saving time. We can re-image a box in under an hour, in most cases, right over the network, even saving user files, data and preferences. You'd be surprised how normal people can screw up Windows without even trying.
No, his claim is that (and this is a matter of public record) Microsoft used predatory practices to BECOME a monopoly, and used such practices since to kill competition and stifle innovation that would successfully compete with them.
To the parent, yes there was such a court case, and there was a consent decree that settled it. That is where all this is publicly recorded.
Windows may be YOUR choice because YOU don't want to "be forced" to buy the hardware and software from the same company.
Most consumers, not being geeks that know how to mix and match their own components (like you), just want to go to the store and buy a computer with an OS pre-installed. For that reason, Microsoft's predatory monopolistic practices have stifled any possible competitors, save one that makes their own OS, so MS couldn't prevent the sale of their OS.
If MS had had to compete in an open, competitive market, there's no telling how many operating systems now might be on the market.
-Reliability - I ran my G4 DPP 1 gig MDD running OSX 10.2 - 3 for over 4 years 24/7 without a reboot, save updates or upgrades with no kernel crashes, memory issues, etc. Before that, I ran an iMac 400 AV for 5 yrs under the same conditions (started with OS 8, I think, upgraded to 9 then OS X) with similar results. The only times I had kernel crashes were under 10.1. Those are long gone. I now run my G4 in my bedroom, and since it was called the Windtunnel for good reason, I turn it off at nite now.
I work for a Federal Agency, and we need the machines (IBM ThinkCenters running XP Pro) left on at nite for push updates. We tell the users to reboot before going home. Why? Stability reasons. Even XP eventually has memory issues if left running for too long, and a regular reboot keeps thing running smooth.
So much for reliability.
User Interface: Personal preference. I know as many folks that have a personal preference for Windows as for Macs. They like it cause they are comfortable with it. However, ALL the people I know that have switched actually do prefer the Mac. But it is still a personal preference thing.
Cost - $129 OS X - $199 - $399 Vista. Mac OS X gets updated to a new version every 18 months or so. It's not Apple's fault that Microsoft can't update theirs more often than 7 years apart.
Apple only charges for the major point versions. There are 9 or 10 updates to each of those before a new point version is released for sale. XP is on, what? SP TWO? In how many years?
Compatability - Mac OS - I have numerous files from the late 80's and early 90's created under old versions of MacWrite and Excel. I could open the MacWrite files using the original program as late as 4 yrs ago, using my old iMac, running Classic and system 9. That computer can still open them. The Excel files can open on my new Intel MacBook using NeoOffice.
Actually, that category is a stupid one to use to compare the two - both systems have a mixed record in using old programs or opening old files. Neither wins here.
Open architecture - this is also stupid. Microsoft is famous for having a closed system, failing to adhere to open standards, taking such standards and altering them and releasing them as Microsoft standards and forcing them on the industry using their monopoly power. Apple is also closed, but OS X adheres to open standards such as TCP/IP, Java, etc., much better than Microsoft. It is widely known in networking circles that Windows doesn't even adhere properly to the ubiquitous TCP/IP standards. Apple wins here, too. (open architecture has nothing to do with the number of apps available. I can buy an app for OS X for any purpose I need.)
Vulnerabilities: You are right, Apple wins.
Bugs - Stupid here, too. It isn't just a tie, but all software has bugs. Some are vulnerabilities, some cause instability, some cause crashes. Narrow it down to make any sense at all.
Total: Apple is winning. Apple's sales are growing at three times the rate of any other PC manufacturer in the market. It is the only one with a growing market share. In the last year, 50% of all Mac sales at all venues, were new Mac users, that had never bought a Mac before. That means they were either new to the computer market, or switchers from other systems.
I don't think Vista's market share will grow as fast as you think.
Nobody using OS X uses Appletalk. As a matter of fact, if you had OS 9 and a Mac with an Ethernet card, you connected to other computers using tcp/ip. Printing still used it, over the old style serial ports. It hasn't been universal since system 8, and even that used tcp/ip, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the need for clinical trials...
What would you have us do?
The laws which govern the FDA and our activities were promulgated to protect the US population from unscrupulous operators that made drugs from sometimes toxic chemicals under unsterile conditions that more often killed or maimed the patients than helped.
We have developed a process of approving drugs that is copied world wide because of its effectiveness. It is not the role of the US government to govern HOW those drugs are marketed, beyond our mandate. We cannot set prices. We cannot tell drug companies which drugs to apply for. We process the NDAs that are brought to us by the drug industry. We cannot do more. To allow this drug to be used beyond its currently approved purpose is to violate the law, and we cannot do that and maintain our credibility.
In the past, drugs have been anecdotally shown to be useful for one thing or another, and yet, under closely controlled clinical trials, failed to be as safe or effective as first seen. Clinical trials are used for a purpose, and that purpose is to PROVE, scientifically, that a drug is safe and effective. It is to protect the American public from harm.
Period, end of story.
We are American, too. We go to the same hospitals, doctors and pharmacies that you do. So do our spouses and children. FDA employees that are caught taking brides are referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution under applicable Federal law. We do NOT tolerate such illegality!
No.
They need the money to PROVE that it is effective. There is also a safety element as well. Since effectiveness at the new use may require the drug to be used at a different dosage or strength, safety at that new dosage or strength must also be shown.
FDA will not take your word for effectiveness through anecdotal evidence. They require formal clinical trials, and clinical trials are expensive.
Again, it is not the Brand, per se that FDA approves.
FDA approves the drug as manufactured BY THAT MANUFACTURER. The reason is that the manufacturing facility itself is part of the approval process. It must meet FDA standards in order to be approved. If a manufacturer builds a new facility, even if it will make currently approved drugs, it must still be newly inspected and approved for each drug it will make.
So the reason FDA requires each manufacturer to seek separate approval for each drug isn't Brand related, but related to the fact that not all physical manufacturing plants are necessarily made equal.
If a company wants to use a currently approved drug for a use other than for which it is currently used, it must apply for a new NDA (New Drug Application), which starts the approval process off as new. Safety isn't an issue, since the company can point to a safety record as part of the original NDA, plus a public record of safe use under that prior approval, so the process IS cheaper. However, unless the company can point to a lengthy record of the drug being used for the new purpose (doctors can use approved drugs for different uses than that for which they were approved but it isn't strictly legal) new clinical trials will be needed. These trials are needed to prove efficacy, not safety. When other companies then apply to use that same drug they do so as a generic drug, so the applications do not require clinical trials.
Wrong.
. htm
FDA doesn't approve a Brand, per se, but they approve a drug, period. What protects that manufacturer is the fact, that mostly, a new drug is protected by a patent. Once that patent expires, that drug is then open to development by other companies as generic drugs, and it this process that is easier as you noted.
A company can apply to FDA and receive approval to sell a drug as a generic drug. That application does not carry with it the same requirements of clinical trials, but simply to prove to FDA that the manufacture of that drug will result in the same identical drug. FDA will inspect the facility where the drug is to be sold, to ensure that the facility adheres to FDA standards in that manufacturing process. FDA also looks at that manufacturing process to ensure that it will result in the same identical chemical structure, at the applied for strength and dosage.
A FAQ about generic drugs can be found here: http://www.fda.gov/cder/consumerinfo/generics_q&a
Hmm,
I think the colonies DO speak English! The development of different dialects between England and the US is not, I think, due to the form of our government, but due to the physical separation of the two populations. Indeed, there are different ways to pronounce the same language just within England, as well as between widely separated parts of the US.
I concede, however, the possibility that the queen would still be on our money.
I think the original idea you are objecting to is that Scientology should be respected as a religion.
I think there is somewhat of a difference, as noted somewhere else above, in that one can respect another's belief but still have little respect for the organized part of that religion.
As I noted in my quote, "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." It is true. However, another fact that the quote doesn't mention is that, once laughed at, the first man slices the laugher's guts out for the laugh. That's how seriously people take their beliefs.
One should respect another's belief - it is a part of the American 'compact' that we tolerate, indeed, also respect, each other's beliefs. It is necessary to respect others, lest they stop respecting yours!
You can scoff, laugh, point fingers, roll on the floor, and call another man's religion stupid - as long as you do it behind closed doors, and not to his face.
I am not religious, I do not subscribe to the beliefs of any religion, I have my own ideas about some of those basic questions about where we came from and the reasons for existence. In fact, I believe that almost every organized religion that has ever existed has had as a basic premise its own survival first, and the welfare of its adherents dead last, and most existed to allow the authorities to control the population through religious extortion, as well as to milk their pockets as much as possible.
However, I am also capable of, at least publicly, showing respect for other individuals' beliefs. That, I believe, is necessary for me to demand respect for my own beliefs.
There are literally over 30,000 different denominations of Protestant christian churches in the US, not just hundreds. Most are probably just one church wonders, but...
Just what are your criteria for deciding what beliefs are "stupid"? What makes your approach towards this any different from others'?
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." Another of Lazarus Long's witticisms, per Robert Heinlein.
Basically, yes, although what most people mean when they say a religion is a recognized religion in the US, what they are referring to is a recognition by the IRS as a tax-exempt religious organization. Religions in the US are not licensed, controlled or even defined by law in any way, due to the Constitutional prohibition against government involvement in religion. If you wish to organize a group based upon the belief that the universe was created by the divine spaghetti monster, and your activities fit the IRS definition of a charitable organization, you can get a tax-exempt status as a religious organization, and the government will keep their hands off your activities to the same extent they do for all other religions. It is the way religious activities and organizations work in the US.
, 00.html and it will explain and give additional links for more information.
The IRS recognizes a plethora of organizations as being eligible for tax-exempt status. Religious organizations are just one such major classification.
There are, however, limits to activities that such groups can engage in and maintain that status. go to this URL: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=139017
The Agency I work for filters and blocks .zip files, too. They have proven to contain harmful executables in past malware attacks, too.
None of that changes the fact that your balance, like I noted, is skewed.
Nothing I said claimed that the Mac OS is invincible. You can take your Arty McStrawman back to where you drug him out from under some rock. What does matter is that, on balance, the Mac OS IS less vulnerable than the bug riddled mess that is Windows, which, like has been noted before, is much of the reason why malware writers go after Windows, and not the relative numbers.
Nice try at changing the subject...
EQUALLY? I still don't see that.
The Month of Apple Bugs couldn't even find 30 bugs in the OS itself to fill up a typical month, let alone 31 for the chosen month of January. Just how does that stack up to the huge number of vulnerabilities, exploits, viruses, worms and trojans now hitting even the 1/4 of all PCs you cite?
I'm sorry, but your balance seems just a bit skewed.
I can see by the drivel you spout why you did it while hiding your identity...
...botnet owners are going for the easiest source of income.
Yeah, and he DID mention Windows as the "low hanging fruit", did he not? That does translate into the "easiest source of income".
Kinda makes our point. Doesn't matter if the Mac OS has vulnerabilities or not. Doesn't matter if his numbers are right or not. (Which, at the rate of sales per Q1 this year, may well be right.)
The point is, that Windows is so vulnerable, due in large part to lazy or uneducated users failing to patch their systems and running older, vulnerable versions of it that constantly get infected. So who in their right mind wants to learn to write software for a new OS when they can stick to the old tried and true that is still as open as a $10 whore? So the relative numbers are really meaningless, it's the relative vulnerability that really matters.
What more Mac users are beginning to try to get across to Apple, (but are being eclipsed by stunts like these) is that while this may be true now, reducing the Mac OS' exposure to real harmful stuff, as it's market share rises (as it is doing) its attractiveness also rises. By 2008, Apple's market share will be much higher than it is today, and by extension, so will that attraction.
So they need to alter their procedures NOW, not later.
But Microsoft's HUGE vulnerabilities aren't helped by Windows users sticking their heads in the sand, either.
You have to realize that MOAB isn't an unwarranted attack against Apple. It's backlash...
Oh, yeah, backlash. Is that why they inserted html code into the web page for day 29 that crashes Safari? Complete with a nasty little jibe at "loopers" (whatever that is???)
Complete bullshit.
These guys are only after the same thing Maynor and Ellch were after last summer - notoriety and publicity.
Anything that includes a hidden attack in the code of a web page is unethical, unwarranted, unprofessional and just plain old wrong.
Sure, Apple needs to improve. If I were there, there would be a Zero Day Exploit Team in place and there would have been since the advent of OS X. Even if all they do is mostly sit around with their thumbs in their collective ears, they'd be there to respond at least, if not to actively search for vulnerabilities.
But I'm not and there isn't. But that does NOT excuse childish, unprofessional and unethical pranks.
And just what do you think the articles were talking about? Orange juice?
They were articles about scientists doing studies whose results made them worried about a warming trend. Shrill news reporters' reports made them sound worse than they really were. Yes, there were scientists that were worried about warming.
You're just being stubbornly stupid, when you weren't there and don't know what you are talking about.
I'm finished with you.
Can't let go, can you?
Neither I not the other poster asserted that any of the articles we remember reading, nor any of the literature mentioned in either of the wiki articles you refer to may be right. You are not reading our posts at all. My assertion, and that of the other poster, is that one reason a lot of people now find the assertions of the scientific community more difficult to believe than might otherwise be the case is because of the articles we read in the 70's, as noted in your quote. As I noted in my earlier post, the press was just as excited and shrill over those "reports" as they have been at times regarding cooling.
Note this again: I DO NOT ASSERT THAT THE ARTICLES I REMEMBER READING ARE TRUE. I am not a scientist, and I cannot do more than read what the press presents me with in their articles and news reports. Like many other Americans, when presented with conflicting reports, the later of them must meet a higher standard of proof to overcome the earlier conflicting reports.
Stop trying to convert me to believe in global cooling, that is not the point of this thread, nor of my post. The very quote you show proves that I and the other poster were right - that in the 70's or so, there were numerous reports in the press about a possible warming trend that some scientists were worried about. The press reported it with great fanfare. In later years, when reports of global cooling came out, those reports were often greeted with derision, because of the earlier reports. A lot of controversy has ensued, much of it paid for by corporate opponents of the kinds of actions suggested to counter the human-related causes of that cooling. All of this would have been easier for the cooling proponents to counter had it not been for the earlier hooraw about warming.
Whether or not cooling is happening as a result of human actions is a subject for elsewhere, not this thread.
In some case, yeah, they are, when it comes to PCs. Our users are professionals in other areas of expertise, not geeks. It is our responsibility to keep their PCs in running order. We find that if we don't have them reboot periodically (every nite isn't REALLY required, but it is easier to have them do it that way than to tell them to keep track of it any other way) many machines have stability issues.
Our environment isn't yours. We use different apps, and a wide variety of them, too. You are obviously aware of how to keep your PC stable and running. Congratulations. You are in the top 2% of Windows users. Pat yourself on the back. My users are not. I and the other techs have to coddle them, stroke their egos, and sometimes lie to them to keep them happy. We also have over 10,000 of them, where you only have one.
And I run iTunes on my PC at work, too. Have done so since Apple released it for Windows on win2k. No crashes, no freezes, no problems. Maybe you should check with your local Apple store for expert advice.
Those "updates" that come out every month aren't system updates in the same sense at all. They are mostly SECURITY updates. Apple's point updates are known to contain new functions at times, not necessarily just bug fixes. Apples 'updates' are really system updates, not 'security updates' such as Microsoft issues. Don't make me laugh!
You display an amazing amount of selective blindness. Apple is the only PC manufacturer that is gaining market share. They are the only one that is showing a sales growth rate three times that of other sellers. I don't have to CALCULATE anything, I just read the sales figures, which you obviously ignore.
Sorry, read that Wiki article again. It contains evidence that what I remember keeps popping up. If it wasn't written about, they wouldn't have had to mention it.
NOW discussion over.
I'm tired of hearing that "Microsoft was at the right place at the right time".
BS!
Microsoft gained a dominant place in the computer market because they employed predatory marketing practices that prevented PC manufacturers from installing competing OSes on their boxes. They have since maintained that position by employing those same practices to continue to stifle competition and any innovation that would compete with their products. Public record. United States vs. Microsoft Corporation, I don't remember the year.
The main reason Apple continued to survive is that they made their own hardware, so MS couldn't prevent the sale of their OS. *nix, Sun, and others survived because they ran on large Enterprise systems that MS couldn't dominate in that same way. Linux has survived for the same (other) reason Apple did, due to a small, but vocal and loyal fan base. ( OK, there may be some other reasons too, but that's good enough for one sentence.)
Otherwise, I pretty much go along with your other premises.
No, you really don't.
That is a (what to call it?) "rumor"? myth? Yes, there are some issues that could work better with reset permissions, given that screwed permissions can block off access to a directory an app needs in order to work, but that is really quite rare. In the early versions of X, Apple used to advise repairing permissions prior to an update, but have since incorporated that into the update process, so is now unnecessary, and so they do not advise that any more, AFAIK.
OTOH, I work for a major Federal Agency, and a standard procedure for "fixing" broken PCs is to re-image the box. It is just too much a waste of time to muck about in the bowels of the OS (or broken apps) to find out what is not working. It is quicker and easier to just re-image, which is the corporate equivalent of reinstalling Windows. We just have the apps pre-installed that way, saving time. We can re-image a box in under an hour, in most cases, right over the network, even saving user files, data and preferences. You'd be surprised how normal people can screw up Windows without even trying.
No, his claim is that (and this is a matter of public record) Microsoft used predatory practices to BECOME a monopoly, and used such practices since to kill competition and stifle innovation that would successfully compete with them.
To the parent, yes there was such a court case, and there was a consent decree that settled it. That is where all this is publicly recorded.
Windows may be YOUR choice because YOU don't want to "be forced" to buy the hardware and software from the same company.
Most consumers, not being geeks that know how to mix and match their own components (like you), just want to go to the store and buy a computer with an OS pre-installed. For that reason, Microsoft's predatory monopolistic practices have stifled any possible competitors, save one that makes their own OS, so MS couldn't prevent the sale of their OS.
If MS had had to compete in an open, competitive market, there's no telling how many operating systems now might be on the market.
-Reliability - I ran my G4 DPP 1 gig MDD running OSX 10.2 - 3 for over 4 years 24/7 without a reboot, save updates or upgrades with no kernel crashes, memory issues, etc. Before that, I ran an iMac 400 AV for 5 yrs under the same conditions (started with OS 8, I think, upgraded to 9 then OS X) with similar results. The only times I had kernel crashes were under 10.1. Those are long gone. I now run my G4 in my bedroom, and since it was called the Windtunnel for good reason, I turn it off at nite now.
I work for a Federal Agency, and we need the machines (IBM ThinkCenters running XP Pro) left on at nite for push updates. We tell the users to reboot before going home. Why? Stability reasons. Even XP eventually has memory issues if left running for too long, and a regular reboot keeps thing running smooth.
So much for reliability.
User Interface: Personal preference. I know as many folks that have a personal preference for Windows as for Macs. They like it cause they are comfortable with it. However, ALL the people I know that have switched actually do prefer the Mac. But it is still a personal preference thing.
Cost - $129 OS X - $199 - $399 Vista. Mac OS X gets updated to a new version every 18 months or so. It's not Apple's fault that Microsoft can't update theirs more often than 7 years apart.
Apple only charges for the major point versions. There are 9 or 10 updates to each of those before a new point version is released for sale. XP is on, what? SP TWO? In how many years?
Compatability - Mac OS - I have numerous files from the late 80's and early 90's created under old versions of MacWrite and Excel. I could open the MacWrite files using the original program as late as 4 yrs ago, using my old iMac, running Classic and system 9. That computer can still open them. The Excel files can open on my new Intel MacBook using NeoOffice.
Actually, that category is a stupid one to use to compare the two - both systems have a mixed record in using old programs or opening old files. Neither wins here.
Open architecture - this is also stupid. Microsoft is famous for having a closed system, failing to adhere to open standards, taking such standards and altering them and releasing them as Microsoft standards and forcing them on the industry using their monopoly power. Apple is also closed, but OS X adheres to open standards such as TCP/IP, Java, etc., much better than Microsoft. It is widely known in networking circles that Windows doesn't even adhere properly to the ubiquitous TCP/IP standards. Apple wins here, too. (open architecture has nothing to do with the number of apps available. I can buy an app for OS X for any purpose I need.)
Vulnerabilities: You are right, Apple wins.
Bugs - Stupid here, too. It isn't just a tie, but all software has bugs. Some are vulnerabilities, some cause instability, some cause crashes. Narrow it down to make any sense at all.
Total: Apple is winning. Apple's sales are growing at three times the rate of any other PC manufacturer in the market. It is the only one with a growing market share. In the last year, 50% of all Mac sales at all venues, were new Mac users, that had never bought a Mac before. That means they were either new to the computer market, or switchers from other systems.
I don't think Vista's market share will grow as fast as you think.
Nobody using OS X uses Appletalk. As a matter of fact, if you had OS 9 and a Mac with an Ethernet card, you connected to other computers using tcp/ip. Printing still used it, over the old style serial ports. It hasn't been universal since system 8, and even that used tcp/ip, too.