Well, I don't know California laws, but other states are not so lenient. Many do require you to stop and render assistance, even if that is getting help.
I apologize for being so late to the discussion, but I couldn't let this pass:...but when you passed him up and tooted your horn YOU probably violated the law, as most states have a Good Samaritan law requiring you to stop and render assistance!
Actually, the MacBooks also have integrated graphics, which is why I mentioned the fact that the MacBook Pro has a separate video card. Because of that, the MacBook cannot use Aperture.
And, also, for what it's worth, I'm not a granny either. I am, however, a Grandpa. So there!:-P
That's pretty simplistic. There are a broader spectrum of users and uses for personal computers than the picture you try to draw.
Some people only need email, a few photos, surf the web, etc. For them, a $599 Mac mini would work fine. That plays nicely with lower priced units, especially if you've already got a monitor, etc.
Others make a greater use of the processor with movies, large photo processing, etc., or need a computer with a larger monitor, which they may not currently have. Thus, they'll need an iMac. Or perhaps they need some portability, so the MacBook would work. If they do any amateur photography, a MacBook Pro is better, because of the separate graphics card.
It's when you get into the mid to high ranges that the current crop of Macs really shine today; they are realistically priced compared to the competition. IF you bother to do a proper comparison.
Contrasting simple web surfing with Professional users is waaay too simplistic for reality.
No, the insurance of the driver is liable, not yours, unless you allowed an uninsured driver to use your car, in which case, you'll probably loose your policy. Most policies will cover you as the driver of a car you are driving, whether borrowed or rented. The owner of the vehicle is not liable. Just be sure anyone you lend a car to is licensed and insured.
Oh, please! You give the Feds way too much credit.
Yeah, eventually, you'd see military control of the armories, but in cases where large scale defections of Guard units occur, the weapons could be stolen and moved before the military gets word. It is not as controlled a situation as you and other conspiracy theorists like to imagine.
Yes, you are correct as to the chaotic nature of such a situation, but that just lends credence to what I'm saying. It wouldn't be terribly clear to anybody just when the break would come, and lot of people would tend to want to be ready when it did.
Your picture of "loyal Republicans" being in control is just so naive. Just how well do you think a state governor can "control" his state? That varies from state to state, but most state constitutions limit the power of their executive to prevent just the kind of scenario you suggest. There are so many people that own guns, so many guns that are unregistered, state Guard units couldn't keep up with it, even if you could persuade them to begin confiscating guns. But I suspect if a State governor tried to do that, most Guard officers would refuse the order, realizing it would be illegal.
And your scenario of the Guard becoming "unacceptable" to join? Please, such a situation would take too long for older trained personnel, such as myself, to die off that to even suggest it as a tactic is ridiculous. There are just too many militarily trained people in this country, many of them quite willing to imagine having to man an insurrection against an oppressive government. You underestimate the intelligence of the average American joe. Military units would have a hard time maintaining cohesiveness in a situation of general unrest such as we're talking about. The military hasn't grouped military units (save the Guard) by home location since the War between the States. It was found to be too devastating to a single locality if a unit was destroyed in battle, the losses to a single community could be extreme. So you would have a hard time doing what you describe to keep things in hand.
American soldiers are not like medieval armsmen. They are not loyal to a single leader. They take an oath to defend the the Constitution, and loyalty to a single leader, even the Presidency itself, is NOT part of that oath. To expect American soldiers to fire upon American citizens in general revolt against a government that has become as oppressive as you seem to imagine the Bush Administration getting is just beyond anything I can imagine happening. This is a modern volunteer military. Most of them are there for just a few years, and will not feel the institutional loyalty necessary to carry out the kind of oppressive measures necessary to defend a dictatorship. Widespread desertion would decimate the milirary's ability to function, and eventually such a government would collapse. The American people would never support a dictator, I'm afraid.
Uh, yeah, I DO remember saying that - I even included a quote to that effect. That's why I didn't dispute it. So you don't have to get a superior attitude.
And I notice that you didn't address MY original point, that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the Feds' power. So thanks for conceding MY point, whenever the Bill of Rights was written.
If it was that obvious, it wouldn't have been felt necessary to add the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, now would it? Read the Constitution word for word, and it never says anything about limiting the powers of the Federal government in just that way. That was a hole the Supreme Court could drive a tank through. So they closed it with the amendment.
A quote:
"The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty." from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of _Rights
So you're saying that the entire Constitution gives a false sense of security. With that attitude, why even have the Constitution?
And if that happens, what you are seeing today in Iraq will be like a Sunday school by comparison. There are millions of Americans, trained by the Armed forces, either currently civilians, or employed by the National Guard, that will be more than happy to join in if that ever becomes necessary. Not to mention all of the weapons stored at National Guard armories.
Then you'll get to the part where American troops refuse to fire on civilians. That will happen, because of the oath that US Armed Forces officers take upon taking their commissions. It requires them first to defend the Constitution. The tradition of all the Military academies is to "Duty, Honor, Country". Nowhere in that tradition will you find anything that would lead American officers to order American troops to fire on Americans. Not if the political situation would be one where it's the Feds in the role of oppressors.
Just look at Iraq today, and they don't have any tanks or airplanes, either. Cruise missiles need specific targets, as do cluster bombs. Hide some troops where they can't be seen, and that cluster bomb is so much junk. Give me a half gallon bottle filled with gas, and I'll blow that Abrams sky high. I might die doing it, but I'd say that one ground troop in a trade for a multi-million dollar tank is fair in combat, wouldn't you say?
The second amendment was intended to allow the American people to retain sufficient firepower to give the government pause if it ever fell to people that felt the necessity to begin oppressing the American people. A general uprising and refusal to obey illegally empowered martial law authority would definitely keep that authority too busy to even think about real oppression. It wouldn't last long.
Converse to what you allege, the Constitution DOEs limit the Federal Government. It does this by reserving all rights not specifically given to the Federal government to the States, or the people. Yes, the Constitution was intended to build a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed. that's why the preamble reads the way it does. But the Constitution is intended to limit the Federal government's power. This is done through the Tenth Amendment as follows:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is to prevent the Feds from arbitrarily seizing power without checks and balances to prevent it.
Actually, it is more complicated than that, as the Supreme Court has noted in past judgments. It is not only the content (hint: fighting words) but context as well. I.e., you can be prosecuted for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but yelling "Fire!" in the middle of a largely deserted warehouse where no loss of life is a concern is much less likely. In other words, there is also an element of intent as well, as with any crime. It is the combination of content, context and venue that make the difference. Thus, content IS relevant, since it is mostly content that spells the difference between protected political speech and unprotected hate or inciting speech. Context or venue can serve mitigating evidence of innocent intent, but it is the words contained within that speech that have the effect of inciting people to violent action. Thus, even a song such as you cite could also be found, by a court, to have an unprotected purpose, given the right context and venue.
But the point is that the statement inciting people to go kill a white man is not "protected speech" in the definition of the Supreme Court, thus can be legally censored prior to publication by the government, plus, should your statement actually incite someone to go and do just that, and that could proved, you could then be held liable for complicity in that murder in a criminal sense.
So, yeah, you CAN say whatever you want, but like you said, you might not like the consequences.
I can second those issues. I work for a Federal agency in tech support, and I've seen the same things over and over again. Dell used to be a workhorse, but in recent years, they've seemed to be on the downhill slide, quality wise. It's gotten so bad, we switched to IBM, which haven't been any better. I had a Thinkpad have the ethernet problem you mentioned, and I took Lenovo three tries to fix it. That's THREE mobo's they replaced!
I think hardware issues are endemic to the industry, and reflect the state of the art as it exists today. Once they get to where the units are powerful enough, and technology isn't so hotly changing, maybe they can catch their breath and improve reliability a bit. (Ha...ha... rotsa ruck!)
Sorry I didn't see your post till today, I've been busy.
You miss my point on the car/computer analogy, and I think, deliberately. Yeah, you can fix yer Chevy cheaper. Any item you buy for as much more as you pay for a Mercedes is gonna cost more to fix - so what? People that buy them EXPECT that, it's no surprise. They don't buy it cause it's cheaper, they buy it because it's better made, more reliable, and gives you a better ride, and (tada!) "user experience"! Inside is more comfortable, better laid out, etc., etc. Yeah, with that particular car there are some folks that buy it because of the cache, but when I was in Germany (in the Army years ago) I knew a LOT of GI's that took advantage of living there to buy one cheaper than they could in the US. And you can bet they didn't do it because of the cache, they bought the lower cost models available there, because they are better made cars. As with any higher priced commodity, you'll find that kinda mix of motives.
This is the same thing that drive a lot of people to buy Macs. It is the entire user experience. It is the way the OS is designed, the way that the computer is designed. The way things work together, and just feel good. I have been in the desktop support field for ten years, and use and fix a lot of PCs every day. I go home and do my own work on Macs. Why? Because they're better computers. Period, end of story. You can offer all the excuses you want, but in my professional opinion, they are better made, and typical users experience less trouble and fewer problems with the OS.
And scoff if you wish, but I didn't lie, there have been many comparisons between Dell and Mac since the Mac Pro came out, and when comparing computers equipped exactly the same, Dell really does come out higher. Yeah, you can cut and paste whatever you wish to cut the price. But I'm not gonna get into a blow-by-blow price war here. I've seen others do it, so I know it can be done. You can believe it or not, I don't care. I am tired of arguing with PC apologists that refuse to listen to reasonable arguments, as well as facts that have been publicly posted where they can be easily found. The old myth that Apples are more expensive across the board is busted, whether you like it or not.
Apple increased their market share by an amazing 1.3 percent (of absolute share, not percentage increase - from 4.8 to 6.1%) in just a single quarter. That is not just an increase of units sold - that represents NEW customers. People that are buying macs that owned PCs before. Half of customers that bought computers at the Apple stores were switchers. Market analysts from an amazing number of publications that have a history of either non-bias or being PC centric have come out in the last couple of weeks, some before the market share increase was published, going on the record that they feel that Apple is doing the right thing, and is on its way up. The next two sellers on the list, Gateway and Dell, both sold a lot more in sheer numbers, but Gateway LOST money last quarter, and Dell made less profit than Apple with more than twice the number of units sold. They are the only computer maker that has had a solid record of rising sales and profits since 2001.
You can argue the details till (and long past) the cows come home. But the term "not in the same class" doesn't usually just mean price, and you are as aware of that as I am, you just want to argue. I am finished arguing, my points have been adequately made and repeated. If you are not able or willing to look at the issue with an open mind and do your own FAIR examination looking at the new Apple products and the company for real indicators that their star is rising in this market - well, I can't change your mind. But your negative opinion won't change what's happening in the market. Watch it and see.
Sure as shootin, when someone gets personally insulting they aren't too certain of their arguing position.
You have no idea of my qualifications. I DID read your previous statement, which was why I called BS. It is obvious YOU have no idea what you're talking about, or you would have argued the point, and not attacked me instead. Your previous statement is only an attack on Apple, with very little real knowledge of their past history, or even history of the firm and its sales since 2000. Either of those would give anyone with even a little common sense an idea that your assertions are nonsense.
Read some of the other responses to your comments and you'll see that I am not alone in seeing the obvious. At any rate, I'll not answer you again, you've shown yourself to be of insufficient intellect to argue with.
Doesn't change my point, which was that Apple was running OS X parallel to PPC on Intel for most of OS X's developmental life. So they didn't "get dumped" by anybody. Sounds more like they were at the very least hedging their bets, and possibly eyeing the jump quite a while in advance. Steve may have been concerned about the future development of the PPC chip (by both IBM and Motorola) very early on, and decided to make sure they didn't get blind-sided by either company.
Apple did not "get dumped" by IBM. The PPC chips they were using were manufactured by Motorola, not IBM. IBM simply partnered with them and Motorola to develop it, and went on to manufacture their own version of it. At one time, they did buy the IBM version, but moved to Motorola a few years ago.
Apple has been running an Intel version of Mac OS X since the very beginning. They began developing it in a dual process from the git go. How do you think they were able to switch from PPC to Intel in less than a year? You don't think they actually DEVELOPED the OS Intel version from scratch in a year? D'oh! So, actually, Intel really was their first choice!
And given the fact that their US share went from 4.8% to 6.1 % in just one quarter, then I'd have to say that, yeah, there is an increasing number of people in the computing world that ARE willing to pay for Apple computers, and they aren't all higher priced anymore, either. (and along with the US market, their standing worldwide went up too, just not quite as dramatically.)
You don't have to use MS Office; NeoOffice (www.neooffice.org) is a Mac OS X optimized Office alternative that opens and saves to MS Office formatted files. It even opened and used my Office templates! It is a bit more basic, but who uses 90% of Office's bloated features, anyway?
Apple has decided not to aggressively go after the Enterprise market, at least for now. That's obvious. That market would require Apple to alter some basic marketing strategies that Steve brought to Apple after his return, and he's not ready to do that. I think that, eventually, they will, or they wouldn't stay in that market with the XServe. But that's for the future.
But it looks to me as if Steve finally saw the light, and has built a strategy to very aggressively go after the home consumer market. After all, if you win there, and also in the education market, there will be more than enough name recognition to allow an aggressive move Enterprise-wise in a few years.
I think Apple finally has a good long term plan, and it looks as if it is finally bearing fruit. But in the past, Apple has not shown a lot of willingness to play in the price wars. Their position of loosing money as recently as the late 90's is still, I think, keeping them cautious. But their margins are so high (29% on this last report) that they have a lot of room to play if they really want to.
Price-wise, Apple is doing much better, they really only have to do better at the mid ranges. They have more than once expressed no interest in playing in the low end el cheapo market, and I don't blame them. I think as they begin to grab more market share they will let some better, lower priced Macs emerge at the mid levels, and then you'll really see their share zoom upwards...
But as to a unique product, of course, it is differentiated markedly from the rest - they sell a vertical product. The others sell PCs with an OS slapped on from another manufacturer. Two different products sold by two different manufacturers. Apple sells the whole banana, from the hardware to the OS, to the bundled software. It really is a better commodity than the others, and one could almost call it a whole separate market on its own. Apple sells not just a PC, it sells an experience, and Steve expounds on that every chance he gets.
You may want to rethink that "niche" comment - their market share just blasted past the 5% mark straight up to 6.1%. Not bad for a niche company, huh?...maybe the niche will just grow until it displaces a larger share of the rest of the market?
No need to do a review of the two - I was simply making the point that they are very different, in spite of your attempt to equate the paint jobs. I work as a techie for the FDA; we use Thinkpads extensively, and I am very familiar with them, including the many flaws we see on a regular basis, including the crappy hard drives that fail like leaves in autumn, lid catches that break consistently, and the fact that I've seen Lenovo take as many as three attempts to successfully replace a motherboard so that the damn thing would work properly.
So what does that prove? That any company that uses modern computer components has failures, and some people are unlucky enough to buy the dogs.
I bought one of the 2.0 Ghz white MacBooks, and it has exhibited NONE of the issues popularized in the Mac media. I could easily extrapolate that the claims of heat problems, plastic discoloration, and random shutdowns are so much crap. However, that would be just as erroneous as your extrapolation that your experience is a good generalization of Apple's reliability. Your observations, like mine, are valid for our own individual experiences, and are not reliable indicators of the overall reliability or lack thereof for all Apple equipment.
There have been very good publications by such organizations as Consumer Reports that indicate that not only is Apple's overall history of equipment reliability a good one, but is also one of the best in the industry, and Apple is consistently rated higher overall than almost all other computer manufacturers regarding equipment reliability by its customers.
I am glad, though to hear that you value the OS as good enough to overcome your equipment failures; i hope that your next Mac is less of a lemon.
You're right about the mid level stuff - and it does chap a lot of us off. But this still shows that Apple is moving in the right direction, though. And even in the mid ranges, the prices are not that far off, considering the real markets till now. But I think that'll change. Apple is moving towards the home consumer market, and that means they'll need to look back at the stuff consumers'll want. (But don't lump the MBP in with the midrange - it's is definitely the high range of the notebook line! A LOT of professionals use and buy it, so the market for that is high end, not mid range consumer...)
On the other hand, with a newly minted market share of 6.1% (up from less than 5 in just three months), and sales increases of over 34% year over year, they must be doing something right, huh? Even with the $150 color premium the black MacBooks are almost literally flying off the shelves and out the warehouse doors, so obviously, a LOT of folks are willing to pay it, aren't they?
However, if you are going to compare the design and color of the black MacBook with a Thinkpad, you are waaaay off base. The two are NOT that much alike. About the only comparison you can make is that they are both black, but that's all.
No, you're wrong, Apple does a lot more than just design cases. They design the whole banana. Sure, they use a lot of common components, but not all of the pieces that go into Macs are common components. Find a picture of the new Mac Pro on the inside and that'll tell you just how different their designs are. And that's just the physical design. The OS and the bundled software is part of that design.
Apple designs the complete system, from the ground up. That's why things work together!
And leave off the higher price bullsh**. Price out a Dell with all the same hardware and software components, and Dell has been proven, with the Mac Pro, to be several hundred dollars more expensive. There have been a number of demonstrations, from such non-biased sources as ZDNet and CNet, to prove it.
Comparing Apple and Dell is like comparing Chevy and Mercedes. They're not even in the same class.
Didn't you see the news? Apple just blew past 5% to 6.1% market share, in just one quarter! ALL the analysts are predicting a banner year for Apple next year. Their share of the notebook market (US) is even bigger, and grew by something like 47% in the last year... and the iPod isn't so popular because of just the iPod, it's the whole banana from the ITS to iTunes, to the iPod of your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't know California laws, but other states are not so lenient. Many do require you to stop and render assistance, even if that is getting help.
I apologize for being so late to the discussion, but I couldn't let this pass: ...but when you passed him up and tooted your horn YOU probably violated the law, as most states have a Good Samaritan law requiring you to stop and render assistance!
Actually, the MacBooks also have integrated graphics, which is why I mentioned the fact that the MacBook Pro has a separate video card. Because of that, the MacBook cannot use Aperture.
:-P
And, also, for what it's worth, I'm not a granny either. I am, however, a Grandpa. So there!
That's pretty simplistic. There are a broader spectrum of users and uses for personal computers than the picture you try to draw.
Some people only need email, a few photos, surf the web, etc. For them, a $599 Mac mini would work fine. That plays nicely with lower priced units, especially if you've already got a monitor, etc.
Others make a greater use of the processor with movies, large photo processing, etc., or need a computer with a larger monitor, which they may not currently have. Thus, they'll need an iMac. Or perhaps they need some portability, so the MacBook would work. If they do any amateur photography, a MacBook Pro is better, because of the separate graphics card.
It's when you get into the mid to high ranges that the current crop of Macs really shine today; they are realistically priced compared to the competition. IF you bother to do a proper comparison.
Contrasting simple web surfing with Professional users is waaay too simplistic for reality.
Sorry I'm late to this, but...
No, the insurance of the driver is liable, not yours, unless you allowed an uninsured driver to use your car, in which case, you'll probably loose your policy. Most policies will cover you as the driver of a car you are driving, whether borrowed or rented. The owner of the vehicle is not liable. Just be sure anyone you lend a car to is licensed and insured.
Just where in this forum did you read that any of us think we're TOTALLY secure? Moronic coward...
Oh, please! You give the Feds way too much credit.
Yeah, eventually, you'd see military control of the armories, but in cases where large scale defections of Guard units occur, the weapons could be stolen and moved before the military gets word. It is not as controlled a situation as you and other conspiracy theorists like to imagine.
Yes, you are correct as to the chaotic nature of such a situation, but that just lends credence to what I'm saying. It wouldn't be terribly clear to anybody just when the break would come, and lot of people would tend to want to be ready when it did.
Your picture of "loyal Republicans" being in control is just so naive. Just how well do you think a state governor can "control" his state? That varies from state to state, but most state constitutions limit the power of their executive to prevent just the kind of scenario you suggest. There are so many people that own guns, so many guns that are unregistered, state Guard units couldn't keep up with it, even if you could persuade them to begin confiscating guns. But I suspect if a State governor tried to do that, most Guard officers would refuse the order, realizing it would be illegal.
And your scenario of the Guard becoming "unacceptable" to join? Please, such a situation would take too long for older trained personnel, such as myself, to die off that to even suggest it as a tactic is ridiculous. There are just too many militarily trained people in this country, many of them quite willing to imagine having to man an insurrection against an oppressive government. You underestimate the intelligence of the average American joe. Military units would have a hard time maintaining cohesiveness in a situation of general unrest such as we're talking about. The military hasn't grouped military units (save the Guard) by home location since the War between the States. It was found to be too devastating to a single locality if a unit was destroyed in battle, the losses to a single community could be extreme. So you would have a hard time doing what you describe to keep things in hand.
American soldiers are not like medieval armsmen. They are not loyal to a single leader. They take an oath to defend the the Constitution, and loyalty to a single leader, even the Presidency itself, is NOT part of that oath. To expect American soldiers to fire upon American citizens in general revolt against a government that has become as oppressive as you seem to imagine the Bush Administration getting is just beyond anything I can imagine happening. This is a modern volunteer military. Most of them are there for just a few years, and will not feel the institutional loyalty necessary to carry out the kind of oppressive measures necessary to defend a dictatorship. Widespread desertion would decimate the milirary's ability to function, and eventually such a government would collapse. The American people would never support a dictator, I'm afraid.
Certainly the military would not.
Uh, yeah, I DO remember saying that - I even included a quote to that effect. That's why I didn't dispute it. So you don't have to get a superior attitude.
And I notice that you didn't address MY original point, that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the Feds' power. So thanks for conceding MY point, whenever the Bill of Rights was written.
If it was that obvious, it wouldn't have been felt necessary to add the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, now would it? Read the Constitution word for word, and it never says anything about limiting the powers of the Federal government in just that way. That was a hole the Supreme Court could drive a tank through. So they closed it with the amendment.
f _Rights
A quote:
"The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty." from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_o
So you're saying that the entire Constitution gives a false sense of security. With that attitude, why even have the Constitution?
And if that happens, what you are seeing today in Iraq will be like a Sunday school by comparison. There are millions of Americans, trained by the Armed forces, either currently civilians, or employed by the National Guard, that will be more than happy to join in if that ever becomes necessary. Not to mention all of the weapons stored at National Guard armories.
Then you'll get to the part where American troops refuse to fire on civilians. That will happen, because of the oath that US Armed Forces officers take upon taking their commissions. It requires them first to defend the Constitution. The tradition of all the Military academies is to "Duty, Honor, Country". Nowhere in that tradition will you find anything that would lead American officers to order American troops to fire on Americans. Not if the political situation would be one where it's the Feds in the role of oppressors.
Just look at Iraq today, and they don't have any tanks or airplanes, either. Cruise missiles need specific targets, as do cluster bombs. Hide some troops where they can't be seen, and that cluster bomb is so much junk. Give me a half gallon bottle filled with gas, and I'll blow that Abrams sky high. I might die doing it, but I'd say that one ground troop in a trade for a multi-million dollar tank is fair in combat, wouldn't you say?
The second amendment was intended to allow the American people to retain sufficient firepower to give the government pause if it ever fell to people that felt the necessity to begin oppressing the American people. A general uprising and refusal to obey illegally empowered martial law authority would definitely keep that authority too busy to even think about real oppression. It wouldn't last long.
Converse to what you allege, the Constitution DOEs limit the Federal Government. It does this by reserving all rights not specifically given to the Federal government to the States, or the people. Yes, the Constitution was intended to build a stronger Federal government than the Articles of Confederation allowed. that's why the preamble reads the way it does. But the Constitution is intended to limit the Federal government's power. This is done through the Tenth Amendment as follows:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is to prevent the Feds from arbitrarily seizing power without checks and balances to prevent it.
Actually, it is more complicated than that, as the Supreme Court has noted in past judgments. It is not only the content (hint: fighting words) but context as well. I.e., you can be prosecuted for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but yelling "Fire!" in the middle of a largely deserted warehouse where no loss of life is a concern is much less likely. In other words, there is also an element of intent as well, as with any crime. It is the combination of content, context and venue that make the difference. Thus, content IS relevant, since it is mostly content that spells the difference between protected political speech and unprotected hate or inciting speech. Context or venue can serve mitigating evidence of innocent intent, but it is the words contained within that speech that have the effect of inciting people to violent action. Thus, even a song such as you cite could also be found, by a court, to have an unprotected purpose, given the right context and venue.
Yeah, you can, because you have the ability.
But the point is that the statement inciting people to go kill a white man is not "protected speech" in the definition of the Supreme Court, thus can be legally censored prior to publication by the government, plus, should your statement actually incite someone to go and do just that, and that could proved, you could then be held liable for complicity in that murder in a criminal sense.
So, yeah, you CAN say whatever you want, but like you said, you might not like the consequences.
I can second those issues. I work for a Federal agency in tech support, and I've seen the same things over and over again. Dell used to be a workhorse, but in recent years, they've seemed to be on the downhill slide, quality wise. It's gotten so bad, we switched to IBM, which haven't been any better. I had a Thinkpad have the ethernet problem you mentioned, and I took Lenovo three tries to fix it. That's THREE mobo's they replaced!
I think hardware issues are endemic to the industry, and reflect the state of the art as it exists today. Once they get to where the units are powerful enough, and technology isn't so hotly changing, maybe they can catch their breath and improve reliability a bit. (Ha...ha... rotsa ruck!)
Sorry I didn't see your post till today, I've been busy.
You miss my point on the car/computer analogy, and I think, deliberately. Yeah, you can fix yer Chevy cheaper. Any item you buy for as much more as you pay for a Mercedes is gonna cost more to fix - so what? People that buy them EXPECT that, it's no surprise. They don't buy it cause it's cheaper, they buy it because it's better made, more reliable, and gives you a better ride, and (tada!) "user experience"! Inside is more comfortable, better laid out, etc., etc. Yeah, with that particular car there are some folks that buy it because of the cache, but when I was in Germany (in the Army years ago) I knew a LOT of GI's that took advantage of living there to buy one cheaper than they could in the US. And you can bet they didn't do it because of the cache, they bought the lower cost models available there, because they are better made cars. As with any higher priced commodity, you'll find that kinda mix of motives.
This is the same thing that drive a lot of people to buy Macs. It is the entire user experience. It is the way the OS is designed, the way that the computer is designed. The way things work together, and just feel good. I have been in the desktop support field for ten years, and use and fix a lot of PCs every day. I go home and do my own work on Macs. Why? Because they're better computers. Period, end of story. You can offer all the excuses you want, but in my professional opinion, they are better made, and typical users experience less trouble and fewer problems with the OS.
And scoff if you wish, but I didn't lie, there have been many comparisons between Dell and Mac since the Mac Pro came out, and when comparing computers equipped exactly the same, Dell really does come out higher. Yeah, you can cut and paste whatever you wish to cut the price. But I'm not gonna get into a blow-by-blow price war here. I've seen others do it, so I know it can be done. You can believe it or not, I don't care. I am tired of arguing with PC apologists that refuse to listen to reasonable arguments, as well as facts that have been publicly posted where they can be easily found. The old myth that Apples are more expensive across the board is busted, whether you like it or not.
Apple increased their market share by an amazing 1.3 percent (of absolute share, not percentage increase - from 4.8 to 6.1%) in just a single quarter. That is not just an increase of units sold - that represents NEW customers. People that are buying macs that owned PCs before. Half of customers that bought computers at the Apple stores were switchers. Market analysts from an amazing number of publications that have a history of either non-bias or being PC centric have come out in the last couple of weeks, some before the market share increase was published, going on the record that they feel that Apple is doing the right thing, and is on its way up. The next two sellers on the list, Gateway and Dell, both sold a lot more in sheer numbers, but Gateway LOST money last quarter, and Dell made less profit than Apple with more than twice the number of units sold. They are the only computer maker that has had a solid record of rising sales and profits since 2001.
You can argue the details till (and long past) the cows come home. But the term "not in the same class" doesn't usually just mean price, and you are as aware of that as I am, you just want to argue. I am finished arguing, my points have been adequately made and repeated. If you are not able or willing to look at the issue with an open mind and do your own FAIR examination looking at the new Apple products and the company for real indicators that their star is rising in this market - well, I can't change your mind. But your negative opinion won't change what's happening in the market. Watch it and see.
Sure as shootin, when someone gets personally insulting they aren't too certain of their arguing position.
You have no idea of my qualifications. I DID read your previous statement, which was why I called BS. It is obvious YOU have no idea what you're talking about, or you would have argued the point, and not attacked me instead. Your previous statement is only an attack on Apple, with very little real knowledge of their past history, or even history of the firm and its sales since 2000. Either of those would give anyone with even a little common sense an idea that your assertions are nonsense.
Read some of the other responses to your comments and you'll see that I am not alone in seeing the obvious. At any rate, I'll not answer you again, you've shown yourself to be of insufficient intellect to argue with.
Doesn't change my point, which was that Apple was running OS X parallel to PPC on Intel for most of OS X's developmental life. So they didn't "get dumped" by anybody. Sounds more like they were at the very least hedging their bets, and possibly eyeing the jump quite a while in advance. Steve may have been concerned about the future development of the PPC chip (by both IBM and Motorola) very early on, and decided to make sure they didn't get blind-sided by either company.
Just good planning.
Apple did not "get dumped" by IBM. The PPC chips they were using were manufactured by Motorola, not IBM. IBM simply partnered with them and Motorola to develop it, and went on to manufacture their own version of it. At one time, they did buy the IBM version, but moved to Motorola a few years ago.
Apple has been running an Intel version of Mac OS X since the very beginning. They began developing it in a dual process from the git go. How do you think they were able to switch from PPC to Intel in less than a year? You don't think they actually DEVELOPED the OS Intel version from scratch in a year? D'oh! So, actually, Intel really was their first choice!
And given the fact that their US share went from 4.8% to 6.1 % in just one quarter, then I'd have to say that, yeah, there is an increasing number of people in the computing world that ARE willing to pay for Apple computers, and they aren't all higher priced anymore, either. (and along with the US market, their standing worldwide went up too, just not quite as dramatically.)
You don't have to use MS Office; NeoOffice (www.neooffice.org) is a Mac OS X optimized Office alternative that opens and saves to MS Office formatted files. It even opened and used my Office templates! It is a bit more basic, but who uses 90% of Office's bloated features, anyway?
Apple has decided not to aggressively go after the Enterprise market, at least for now. That's obvious. That market would require Apple to alter some basic marketing strategies that Steve brought to Apple after his return, and he's not ready to do that. I think that, eventually, they will, or they wouldn't stay in that market with the XServe. But that's for the future.
But it looks to me as if Steve finally saw the light, and has built a strategy to very aggressively go after the home consumer market. After all, if you win there, and also in the education market, there will be more than enough name recognition to allow an aggressive move Enterprise-wise in a few years.
I think Apple finally has a good long term plan, and it looks as if it is finally bearing fruit. But in the past, Apple has not shown a lot of willingness to play in the price wars. Their position of loosing money as recently as the late 90's is still, I think, keeping them cautious. But their margins are so high (29% on this last report) that they have a lot of room to play if they really want to.
Price-wise, Apple is doing much better, they really only have to do better at the mid ranges. They have more than once expressed no interest in playing in the low end el cheapo market, and I don't blame them. I think as they begin to grab more market share they will let some better, lower priced Macs emerge at the mid levels, and then you'll really see their share zoom upwards...
But as to a unique product, of course, it is differentiated markedly from the rest - they sell a vertical product. The others sell PCs with an OS slapped on from another manufacturer. Two different products sold by two different manufacturers. Apple sells the whole banana, from the hardware to the OS, to the bundled software. It really is a better commodity than the others, and one could almost call it a whole separate market on its own. Apple sells not just a PC, it sells an experience, and Steve expounds on that every chance he gets.
You may want to rethink that "niche" comment - their market share just blasted past the 5% mark straight up to 6.1%. Not bad for a niche company, huh? ...maybe the niche will just grow until it displaces a larger share of the rest of the market?
No need to do a review of the two - I was simply making the point that they are very different, in spite of your attempt to equate the paint jobs. I work as a techie for the FDA; we use Thinkpads extensively, and I am very familiar with them, including the many flaws we see on a regular basis, including the crappy hard drives that fail like leaves in autumn, lid catches that break consistently, and the fact that I've seen Lenovo take as many as three attempts to successfully replace a motherboard so that the damn thing would work properly.
So what does that prove? That any company that uses modern computer components has failures, and some people are unlucky enough to buy the dogs.
I bought one of the 2.0 Ghz white MacBooks, and it has exhibited NONE of the issues popularized in the Mac media. I could easily extrapolate that the claims of heat problems, plastic discoloration, and random shutdowns are so much crap. However, that would be just as erroneous as your extrapolation that your experience is a good generalization of Apple's reliability. Your observations, like mine, are valid for our own individual experiences, and are not reliable indicators of the overall reliability or lack thereof for all Apple equipment.
There have been very good publications by such organizations as Consumer Reports that indicate that not only is Apple's overall history of equipment reliability a good one, but is also one of the best in the industry, and Apple is consistently rated higher overall than almost all other computer manufacturers regarding equipment reliability by its customers.
I am glad, though to hear that you value the OS as good enough to overcome your equipment failures; i hope that your next Mac is less of a lemon.
You're right about the mid level stuff - and it does chap a lot of us off. But this still shows that Apple is moving in the right direction, though. And even in the mid ranges, the prices are not that far off, considering the real markets till now. But I think that'll change. Apple is moving towards the home consumer market, and that means they'll need to look back at the stuff consumers'll want. (But don't lump the MBP in with the midrange - it's is definitely the high range of the notebook line! A LOT of professionals use and buy it, so the market for that is high end, not mid range consumer...)
On the other hand, with a newly minted market share of 6.1% (up from less than 5 in just three months), and sales increases of over 34% year over year, they must be doing something right, huh? Even with the $150 color premium the black MacBooks are almost literally flying off the shelves and out the warehouse doors, so obviously, a LOT of folks are willing to pay it, aren't they?
However, if you are going to compare the design and color of the black MacBook with a Thinkpad, you are waaaay off base. The two are NOT that much alike. About the only comparison you can make is that they are both black, but that's all.
No, you're wrong, Apple does a lot more than just design cases. They design the whole banana. Sure, they use a lot of common components, but not all of the pieces that go into Macs are common components. Find a picture of the new Mac Pro on the inside and that'll tell you just how different their designs are. And that's just the physical design. The OS and the bundled software is part of that design.
Apple designs the complete system, from the ground up. That's why things work together!
And leave off the higher price bullsh**. Price out a Dell with all the same hardware and software components, and Dell has been proven, with the Mac Pro, to be several hundred dollars more expensive. There have been a number of demonstrations, from such non-biased sources as ZDNet and CNet, to prove it.
Comparing Apple and Dell is like comparing Chevy and Mercedes. They're not even in the same class.
BS.
Didn't you see the news? Apple just blew past 5% to 6.1% market share, in just one quarter! ALL the analysts are predicting a banner year for Apple next year. Their share of the notebook market (US) is even bigger, and grew by something like 47% in the last year... and the iPod isn't so popular because of just the iPod, it's the whole banana from the ITS to iTunes, to the iPod of your choice.
Read a little more and you might learn something.