Aah, Islamist terror has to be brought back to the doorsteps of Iran. That's where the legs are growing from, that's where we have to hit hard.
Right, because Iran is teeming with terrorist training camps... oh shit, wait, that's Pakistan.
Iranian nuclear program has to be stopped, Iranian terrorist support has to be stopped, Iranian leaders must be killed, those who support them must be killed.
So you are in favor of killing roughly a quarter of the Iranian citizenry. (Assuming you define support narrowly. If it's a question as simple as: "Do you like America or Iran more?" then we up that to about 95%.)
Look, it's no secret that Iran hates Israel. It's actually pretty illogical for them to do so, but no one claimed that Khameini was a level-headed kind of guy. But if you had any grasp of world politics or history, you would know that part of the reason Iran hates America so much is because America has been a complete asshole to Iran since, oh, the day the two countries were formally introduced. To date, Iran has had its oil fields exploited heavily by foreign powers (early 20th century to 1953, and then again until 1979), was occupied by the Allied forces to serve as a supply depot for the African theatre (all of World War II), had its democratically elected prime minister and its first truly democratic government overthrown by CIA and BIS forces (1953), watched the Shah grow increasingly repressive while supported by American advisors and money (right up to 1979), was the victim of chemical warfare during the Iran-Iraq war thanks to the European and American financial support of Iraq (1980-1988), had a passanger airliner downed by American gunships without a formal apology ever issued (although America did pay for the damages) (1988), and has been the recipient of embargoes, fiery rhetoric, and widely publicized support for resistance groups by America. (1979-2006.)
Iran is not going to trust America, period. And really, I don't blame them. But from a purely realist standpoint, Iran is not the biggest threat in the Middle East. Israel is. To date, Israel has caused more instability in the region than any other nation, and its destruction would probably do more to stabilize the region than anything else would--in the short-term. (Realistically, it would only take a few years before radical Muslims found an excuse to begin killing again.) But even if we remove Israel from the "threat" list, the next up are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is by far the largest source of terrorism in the world. Every crazy fuck we hear about on the news has trained in a madrasa in Pakistan--and they get their funding from rich Wahabbis from Saudi Arabia. Iran is a Shi'a nation; take a look at Iraq to see how much Islamic terrorists like Shi'a Muslims. These people are not going to work together. And besides aggression against Israel (thanks to Hezbollah), Shi'a Muslims are, by and large, not the people blowing themselves up. Iran funds Hezbollah, but it's not a terrorist breeding ground, not in the same sense that Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria are--and all of the terrorists from those areas pretty much hate Iranians.
I agree with you that the Iranian regime needs to change. But you're making it out like they're the puppeteer of all the evil Islamic thugs in the Middle East--and they're not. They don't even really get along with those evil Islamic thugs. This is not to say Iran isn't funding its own evil Islamic thugs, but if you want to take out the bulk of terrorists, start with Pakistan. It's the source.
Alternatively, forcibly convert everyone to Islam. Then we will all be on the same side.
While, obviously, your response was tongue-in-cheek, and your predecessor's was just flamebait, I find it an interesting question. Would terrorism really stop if everyone was converted to Islam?
My guess is no. I'm a Muslim, and I'm fairly certain that if the Islamic extremists managed to destroy the Western world, we'd see a situation similar to that of the Taleban in Afghanistan--an increasingly repressive regime based entirely on tightening the limits on what "true" Islam can be considered. I'm in no position to say that most Muslims disapprove of terrorism, (I often feel like this is lip service), but I can tell you for certain that the extremists are crazy sons of bitches, and there's no such thing as a Muslim that doesn't believe, to the letter, what they believe. You are either one of them, or you're a heretic. And if you fall into the latter category, then you're going to get a.) shot, b.) stoned, or c.) burned alive. Or blown up, if you're not easily incarcerated.
I think the point of the OP was that America shares responsibility for a lot of the terrorist attacks committed on it, as much as we prefer to completely ignore it. You are aware, of course, that the reason Iranians seized the American embassy was precisely because the last time the Iranians had a democratic movement, the American embassy was the HQ of Operation Ajax, which deposed of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister and reinstated the despotic Shah?
The entire situation is a mess, and a question we should be asking ourselves is whether we're making it better, or worse. Yes, we're preventing terrorist attacks--but at what cost? And I'm not talking about the loss of civil liberties--I am talking about the lives of American soldiers. Islamic extremists are flooding to terrorist training camps because of what we've done since 2001. And now, I can guarantee you, the Lebanese will never trust America again, because we decided that Israel's right to defend itself (by killing over 700 Lebanese, some/most/we don't know of which were Hezbollah, and destroying Lebanese infrastructure) superceded the importance of Lebanese well-being. Does it really matter who was justified in doing what? The end result is that Lebanese casualties are over ten times those of Israel, and America not only let it happen, but in fact stymied the cease-fire process to make sure Israel had more time to do it. The Lebanese won't forget that, and I would not be surprised at all if we started seeing Lebanese faces show up in terrorist plots soon. Do I even need to mention how many Iraqis want to see Americans dead? And for what? The nation's oil supply is as tenuous as ever. Do you feel more secure?
Maybe things will be better after this is all over. I hope so. I would genuinely hate to see so many American lives lost only to make the situation worse.
Trying to humanize Islam is like trying to humanize Nazism.
That's not a counter-argument. That's a wholescale denunciation of everything Islam could possibly stand for. You have essentially equated the world's second largest religion with a philosophy that single-handedly caused over 6-9 million in the slaughter of innocents alone. This is not counting the war casualties.
I don't know what to make of people like you, or people like the creator of that website. In a lot of ways you remind me of Muslim extremists, (whom I have actually met), because there is an overwhelming sense of hatred, of aggression, that no amount of victory or destruction can ever pacify. The OPs statement wasn't about religion, it was about people. Every Muslim is a human being first. (Or do you deny that too?) And human beings, or at least the vast majority of them, don't want to see their brothers and sisters die, or watch their children grow up in a warzone. The problem with the Middle East, (and I am an Iranian-American, so I have some personal perspective on this), is that they don't yet understand that they have to let go. There are decades of humiliation and occupation that spur the extremists to hate the West, to hate everything the West is associated with. And the average Muslim in the Middle East is ambivalent to the actions of those extremists. They refuse to condemn the atrocities that happen in their countries, because they too hold on to the pain and anger that centuries of hostilities between the Christian and Islamic world has inspired. But it's pointless. They have to let go, and consciously reject Bin Laden's embrace of death. (I am not saying every Muslim follows the bullshit that spews from Bin Laden's mouth, but there is a tacit acceptance of that lifestyle in every Islamic nation--if there was not, then extremists would find no quarter anywhere.) Once Muslims (and more generally, Arabs and Iranians, because not all of them are Muslims) make that decision--that they would rather build infrastructure than strike back at aggressors--then things will change. But that sort of shift in philosophy takes decades in and of itself, and will probably involve lots of bloodshed. But the only hope the Islamic world has is itself. No amount of Western intervention will ever "fix" the it--and it does need fixing. But it has to come from inside. Inshallah, it will happen. Or my culture, my religion, and my people will die out, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves. (Although I doubt they'll see it that way.)
When Microsoft takes from Apple, it's because Apple came up with a great idea. When Apple takes from Microsoft, it's because Microsoft has pushed a new industry standard on the market.
You make it sound like Microsoft has never had a good idea in its life, and that Apple only borrows from Microsoft when it has no other choice. This is not the case. "Time Machine," for example, is Volume Shadow Copy, except probably easier to implement. (Although this depends on how MS integrates it into Vista.) I'm not an expert in Apple's OS (I stick to Windows and Linux myself) but I'm sure if I did a little digging I could find plenty of genuinely insightful concepts created at Microsoft that Apple copied.
Everyone steals from everyone. The only real concern should be who presents the most user-friendly package without compromising security or reliability. If that package is also pretty, hey, all the better. Apple's done a much better job at this than Microsoft, although to be fair (from a security standpoint), Microsoft's user base is much larger, so those holes that are found receive much greater publicity and affect a lot more people--which has greatly aided the conception that Windows is not a secure OS.
wake me up when windos or macos can boot into a command line and be administered from that... As for windos... heh... what a piece of shit... add all the features you want, it may shine like a pearl, but at its very core it is pure shit. it works for laptops and home lusers, sure, but who cares? not me.
I don't know what's more terrifying: your grammar, or your grasp of the computer industry. Either way, congratulations on excluding 95% of all computer users from your utopia. Good thinking.
I've got a friend in just that boat. He was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and it's resulted in his being an alcoholic with no chance of recovery.
You are aware that fetal alcohol syndrome is a suite of birth defects, right? Alcoholism isn't a birth defect, it's a medical condition caused by the frequent and excessive consumption of alcohol. Consumption. Which means some complete asshole gave this friend of yours a bottle of booze. It's not like he came out of his mother's womb with one hand clutching a half of Jack Daniel's; someone put that bottle in his hands. And given that we don't know how severe his case of fetal alcohol syndrome is, we can't really say whether or not he possessed the faculty to understand the decision being made.
It's my fault that those people are homeless in some indirect way and I want to do something to help them.
I don't really know what to say to this. I just feel very sorry for you, that you would live your life in repentance for crimes you never committed. It seems a sad way to live.
People often forget there is a considerable difference in the reliability of ATA drives versus SCSI. If you are going to use some sort of ATA based SAN be prepared for disk failures much sooner than if they were SCSI.
This is not necessarily true. It all depends on how your network storage is being used. SCSI drives are built and firmware'd for the sole purpose of running a server, and they consistently beat any ATA drive (be it IDE or Serial) when it comes to server performance and reliability. ATA drives just aren't built to handle the sort of usage a server requires--note that this isn't a reflection of quality, but of purpose. But a file server (which is the only thing the SAN would be used for) requires much less robust firmware than a server housing MySQL, PHP, maybe a CRM suite, e-mail server, etc.--and so ATA drives shouldn't immediately be ruled as less reliable. The maturity of the technology plays a more important role than the interface.
For a start, it's a specification from Coraid, not an industry standard.
I don't know that this is true, because the LinuxJournal article directly contradicts it. (Unless I'm misreading it.) Here's what the LJ says:
ATA over Ethernet is a network protocol registered with the IEEE as Ethernet protocol 0x88a2.
So, it looks like the protocol has been officially registered and was granted approval by the IEEE--so that makes it an industry standard. It may not be adopted yet, but it's certainly not something like 802.11 pre-n or anything; there's an official and approved protocol.
It's ok. In the magical world where studies say only what you want them to, and all of your opinions can be counted as cold hard facts, I'm sure things are going well. Maybe next time you'll not be so forthcoming with claims when the data clearly does not support you.
I am consistently amazed at how many people bitch about this. Get over it. I can't read every article, and I appreciate these recaps. If you don't, fine; just shut the hell up about it. No one's got a gun to your head to force you to read the backslash posts.
Yes, they're fundamentally different, but the end result ends up looking the same. Do you really think there's a huge chasm, to the gamer, between: "Oh, this staff lets me shoot fireballs? Cool." and "Oh, this engine lets me break event horizon? Cool." Maybe there's a plausible (to a certain extent) explanation behind the second, but both are essentially transparent to the user. I think this is just a scenario where the philosophical gulf may be tremendous, but the practical result is roughly the same.
Most people are not the people that like sci-fi though. A much higher proportion of sci-fi aficionados are also going to have at least passing familiarity with these issues AND be more demanding of the realism. That sci-fi crowd is the early-adopting crowd.
But by necessity, at some point, they'll have to make a concession. After all, in faster-than-light travel were perfectly explainable, and we had the schematics for all the necessary machinery and could present it in such a way as to be understood by the average intellectual, my guess is we'd be well on our way to Alpha Centauri by now. We can try to make sci-fi realistic, but eventually we just have to take it on faith that "yes, this works, we figured it out, and no I can't really explain it in great detail." At some level the distinction blurs between sci-fi and fantasy--because if everything in sci-fi were possible and explicable, then it wouldn't really be sci-fi, it would just be fiction.
You need the same phenomena with sci-fi people. The difference is the sci-fi people are going to be much more demanding. If you don't impress them (and I mean get them really excited) then the word-of-mouth machine never gets started.
But is the dearth of sci-fi games a function of the genre, or just an unfortunate circumstance of the MMO market? I would argue that it's not because fantasy games are harder, it's because MMO makers are retarded. Most fantasy MMOs suck too. It's just that a few companies have managed to make good games, which happened to be in a fantasy setting. Sooner or later someone will make a good game that happens to be in a sci-fi setting. It's not a question of difficulty per genre, but one of simple economics. WoW has now provided an excellent formula for a fantasy MMO. No one has done so for a sci-fi MMO. Which genre has the better risk/return ratio?
Sci-fi demands some exercise in explanation. Fantasy does not. This means fantasy is easier.
Perhaps, but I would say advanced particle physics and quantum mechanics are difficult enough sciences that most people will accept any explanation given at face value, which essentially makes the distinction somewhat meaningless.
I would say the real reason why sci-fi is more difficult to pull off than fantasy is because science fiction removes the human element altogether. The driving force behind any MMO is to make your avatar more powerful. But in a true sci-fi world, individual people become powerful through the tools they use and the things they own, and not through personal growth. A laser shot from a ship piloted by a level 1 captain shouldn't do any more damage than one shot from the same ship piloted by a level 20 captain--so clearly the traditional method of "leveling" would need significant tweaking. This is akin to the same "explanation" you quoted earlier, but I'd rather label it as "internal consistency." A sci-fi world could not be internally consistent while operating under the same basic system as, say, WoW. This doesn't make it more difficult than a fantasy MMO, it just requires a different take on it--and we all know how successful video game companies are at breaking free of traditional formulae.
Oh yeah, and the E1505 has four more onboard (ZOMG ONBOARD THAT MAKES IT WORTH A HOJILLION DOLLARZORZ) USB ports than the Macbook Pro. Shit, according to my mythical integrated worth calculator, that just made the Apple like fifty thousand dollars more expensive than the Dell. Shit.
The ratings, especially for laptops, show it well behind Sony and Lenovo and even further behind Apple. They do nothing to support your position that Apple machines and Dell machines are of comparable quality.
Here are the official numbers: Apple also scored an 82, with Lenovo at 69, Toshiba 57, Dell at 56 and the rest below 55. First, these numbers are for tech support, NOT build quality. Tech support. Furthermore, you have shown me two laptop PC manufacturers that are better than Dell at tech support.That is not the majority of the market. So, AGAIN, you are wrong--Dell is not at the bottom of the barrel for technical support. And for the last fucking time, the statistics here do not reflect on the quality of the machines. These are tech support figures. TECH SUPPORT. There are NO statistics for hardware quality--only this: "Repair history showed the same general trend, with Apple desktops having the fewest repairs by far, according to Consumer Reports readers." A blip, saying Apple desktops are repaired significantly less, according to users, than any PC manufacturer, and the survey does not define repair.
Dell does rank near the bottom every year. Who is lower than they are?
This year? HP, Gateway, eMachines, Compaq, WinBook, and more--according to the numbers, they all scored less than Dell this year on laptop tech support. 2006 does not support your statement. Last year, year before last? I don't know. You're the one who claims Dell is terrible; you link me some data that proves they're actually worse than major PC manufacturers--or even near the bottom.
You're going to believe whatever you want, no matter what evidence is presented.
You're accusing me of this?! After you blatantly misinterpret inconclusive data as though it was a double-blind study that demonstrably shows Apple makes better laptops? I'm sorry you can't find studies to back up your idiotic assertions. I don't claim things that can't be proven. Does Apple make better machines than Dell? I don't know, but there's no data to show that they do, so I must conclude that no, they do not. You, on the other hand, are willing to take survey numbers on tech support satisfaction and make a blanket-fucking-statement about the quality of the company's machines.
No, configuring a cheap ass system and then claiming you can add on a bunch of extra third party gear in USB ports and whatnot does not count.
Cheap-ass according to you. To anyone with half a brain, the features you think are so amazing only have a stand-alone market value of $300 at best, and there's an established market precedent that shows that integrated features always cost less than the separate components. That other $950 is still not accounted for. If you value the integration of those features so much, great. The average home user clearly does not, because Dell is selling a shitload more laptops than Apple. Apple hardware is more expensive, and objectively, this cost cannot be justified. There is no conclusive data that shows that the Dell is of lesser build quality than the Apple (no, NONE), the core hardware is as close as it can get to being equivalent, and their warranty coverage is the same. Any value you add after that point is subjective. You're wrong, and the only one blowing smoke up his ass is you.
Ugh, the stream of bullshit coming out of Ballmer's mouth just makes my head spin. I don't understand why every chief officer in a tech company thinks they have to admit absolutely no fault and use meaningless business speech? Listen to some of the crap Balmer says:
I must be the champion of innovation. That doesn't mean I must be the guy who comes up with every innovation, but I really have to carry the mantle that says we're going to innovate, we're going to do new things, we're going to get into new areas, we're going to protect and nurture all kinds of innovation. That is my role.
This is not a one-trick pony. We are multicapable, multicore.
The best thing we can do for our shareholders is to be willing to be open-minded to possibilities.
They can't be open-minded, no, they have to be willing to be open-minded. What the hell? And what the hell does being multicapable mean? It's all a bunch of fluff talk, intended to make people think Microsoft is "dynamic," and that they're "expanding into key new markets." Just call it like it is, man. Microsoft hasn't done anything really impressive, on the software front, for five years. Your stock has flat-lined. It's ok to admit that you've got serious work to do. Instead he wants to tout how amazing Microsoft is, or how cutting-edge and forward-thinking their staff is. Just give it a rest. The PR machine really makes me sick.
No, I don't own a Q1. I just think that the reviewing method was bad at best, and outright biased at worst. I've no doubt that the Newton is a fantastic machine. But to argue that it has a better LCD screen based solely on battery life is outright stupid. Battery life is a separate category altogether, one that the Q1 loses terribly, no questions asked. But what is the review trying to accomplish here? It doesn't seem clear to me. What are the standards by which a ultra-mobile PC should be judged? If you're going to say: "the display is an important factor," then judge the display independently of other things, unless the two are functionally equivalent. It seems very clear to me that the Q1 has a much nicer display, hands-down. Its pathetic battery life is a different issue altogether.
Frankly, Microsoft has yet to make an impressive mobile machine. Like many here have noted, the Windows OS isn't suited for stylus navigation--it was designed with a mouse and keyboard in mind. Therefore, any portable machine based on a Windows OS is going to be inherently flawed. I'm not a big fan of styluses myself, and I hope in the future someone can figure out a way of making a truly intuitive OS that doesn't rely on one.
Furthermore, get a load of this gem: "It would be easy to dismiss the Newton's greyscale screen as inferior to the Q1's full-colour display, but Apple's choice of a greyscale LCD is one of the reasons the Newton enjoys over 30 hours of continuous battery life, compared to the Q1's 2.5 hours." WTF? This is biased reviewing at its best. An LCD screen should be reviewed based on the qualities of the goddamned screen. Which display is sharper? Which is brighter? Which is clearer? Which screen allows more versatility? Battery life is a separate goddamned category. It should not be a factor in deciding which screen is better than another unless all other things are equal--which they clearly are not. The entire review is basically the reviewers saying: "Yeah, the Q1 is really nice, but we want a PDA, and that's not what the Q is, so Apple wins."
Above, I say: "All of the things that can be qualitatively measured have been accounted for." It should read: "All of the things that can be quantitatively measured have been accounted for."
Sorry it took me a bit longer than normal; yesterday was a busy day at work.
You linked references to the data including numbers yourself. If you don't believe you, well I guess I don't care.
I believe me when it comes to 2006, which shows that, contrary to your assertion, Dell is not at the bottom of the PC market for tech support. It is squarely in the middle for both laptops and desktops. Which was my original point, way back then, you know, before you decided to ignore it: customer satisfaction of tech support of PCs (and this is why I distinguished between PCs and Macs) is very low. Is Dell exceptional in its low customer satisfaction? No, it's just right in line with everyone else. Your claim, and I quote, was: "Dell ranks near the bottom for customer satisfaction, support surveys, and hardware reliability almost every year, significantly worse than even HP or Gateway." My counter-claim is that no, in 2006 Dell was neck in neck with the other companies. So, your claim was patently false for 2006. Yes, you were wrong. Very wrong. Say it with me. I know you can. Now, you say that you have more data (from years past) that you cannot provide that asserts that Dell is near the bottom. I say (by way of analogy) that your asserted claims are as good as my corresponding claims about your mother's case of genital warts. Until you link me to more numbers that show Dell near or at the bottom of the satisfaction charts for PCs, you're wrong. They're not. The problem is industry-wide, not Dell-specific.. until you can prove otherwise.
Value is subjective. Price is not. Thus in a comparison we have to consider the latter, not the former.
That is my point in its entirety. It was my fault for wording it badly--I meant to say that the value of an Apple laptop is subjective, but it is exactly what you are arguing makes the Apple laptop cost more, in terms of price. This value you attach to an Apple is purely subjective--it is no way quantifiable beyond what I have already listed, which is the market price of all of the components in separate add-on cards. (The sum total of which is less than $300.) All of the things that can be qualitatively measured have been accounted for. That difference of price is something you are taking subjective issue with, not objective. Objectively, the two machines are as close to the same as can possibly be. No two computers are ever going to have all of the same components if they're built by separate vendors, but we can align as many of the performance-determining components as possible, which I've done. You state: "The market value of these features integrated and the whole thing built with the quality of parts that go into a pro grade notebook is more than you are guessing," but it's not, simply because it's not quantifiable. The value of integrating these features is not something we can put a price on--it depends totally on the user. You then say: "How many digital audio ports on the mac? One. How many on the Dell? Zero. Are one and zero quantities or not? More important to this comparison, how much does each component cost in the market?" From a hardware standpoint, the monetary value of the associated hardware is a few hundred dollars, if I'm being generous. I listed out how much the separate components cost--and we can even get the digital audio integrated for 13 more dollars. An integrated motherboard never costs more than the separate hardware does, period. (For an example, go look at a high-end mobo for an A64, and then price out a budget board and buy all of the associated PCI cards it would take to bring it back up to speed.) So, quantitatively, the difference is a few hundred dollars. But how much does someone value the integration? How much extra are they willing to pay? That's subjective. You then go on to say: "Not at all. Higher grade parts cost more money. Money is quantitative. The market judges the quality and assigns a quantity
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because Iran is teeming with terrorist training camps... oh shit, wait, that's Pakistan.
So you are in favor of killing roughly a quarter of the Iranian citizenry. (Assuming you define support narrowly. If it's a question as simple as: "Do you like America or Iran more?" then we up that to about 95%.)
Look, it's no secret that Iran hates Israel. It's actually pretty illogical for them to do so, but no one claimed that Khameini was a level-headed kind of guy. But if you had any grasp of world politics or history, you would know that part of the reason Iran hates America so much is because America has been a complete asshole to Iran since, oh, the day the two countries were formally introduced. To date, Iran has had its oil fields exploited heavily by foreign powers (early 20th century to 1953, and then again until 1979), was occupied by the Allied forces to serve as a supply depot for the African theatre (all of World War II), had its democratically elected prime minister and its first truly democratic government overthrown by CIA and BIS forces (1953), watched the Shah grow increasingly repressive while supported by American advisors and money (right up to 1979), was the victim of chemical warfare during the Iran-Iraq war thanks to the European and American financial support of Iraq (1980-1988), had a passanger airliner downed by American gunships without a formal apology ever issued (although America did pay for the damages) (1988), and has been the recipient of embargoes, fiery rhetoric, and widely publicized support for resistance groups by America. (1979-2006.)
Iran is not going to trust America, period. And really, I don't blame them. But from a purely realist standpoint, Iran is not the biggest threat in the Middle East. Israel is. To date, Israel has caused more instability in the region than any other nation, and its destruction would probably do more to stabilize the region than anything else would--in the short-term. (Realistically, it would only take a few years before radical Muslims found an excuse to begin killing again.) But even if we remove Israel from the "threat" list, the next up are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is by far the largest source of terrorism in the world. Every crazy fuck we hear about on the news has trained in a madrasa in Pakistan--and they get their funding from rich Wahabbis from Saudi Arabia. Iran is a Shi'a nation; take a look at Iraq to see how much Islamic terrorists like Shi'a Muslims. These people are not going to work together. And besides aggression against Israel (thanks to Hezbollah), Shi'a Muslims are, by and large, not the people blowing themselves up. Iran funds Hezbollah, but it's not a terrorist breeding ground, not in the same sense that Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria are--and all of the terrorists from those areas pretty much hate Iranians.
I agree with you that the Iranian regime needs to change. But you're making it out like they're the puppeteer of all the evil Islamic thugs in the Middle East--and they're not. They don't even really get along with those evil Islamic thugs. This is not to say Iran isn't funding its own evil Islamic thugs, but if you want to take out the bulk of terrorists, start with Pakistan. It's the source.
While, obviously, your response was tongue-in-cheek, and your predecessor's was just flamebait, I find it an interesting question. Would terrorism really stop if everyone was converted to Islam?
My guess is no. I'm a Muslim, and I'm fairly certain that if the Islamic extremists managed to destroy the Western world, we'd see a situation similar to that of the Taleban in Afghanistan--an increasingly repressive regime based entirely on tightening the limits on what "true" Islam can be considered. I'm in no position to say that most Muslims disapprove of terrorism, (I often feel like this is lip service), but I can tell you for certain that the extremists are crazy sons of bitches, and there's no such thing as a Muslim that doesn't believe, to the letter, what they believe. You are either one of them, or you're a heretic. And if you fall into the latter category, then you're going to get a.) shot, b.) stoned, or c.) burned alive. Or blown up, if you're not easily incarcerated.
I think the point of the OP was that America shares responsibility for a lot of the terrorist attacks committed on it, as much as we prefer to completely ignore it. You are aware, of course, that the reason Iranians seized the American embassy was precisely because the last time the Iranians had a democratic movement, the American embassy was the HQ of Operation Ajax, which deposed of Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister and reinstated the despotic Shah?
The entire situation is a mess, and a question we should be asking ourselves is whether we're making it better, or worse. Yes, we're preventing terrorist attacks--but at what cost? And I'm not talking about the loss of civil liberties--I am talking about the lives of American soldiers. Islamic extremists are flooding to terrorist training camps because of what we've done since 2001. And now, I can guarantee you, the Lebanese will never trust America again, because we decided that Israel's right to defend itself (by killing over 700 Lebanese, some/most/we don't know of which were Hezbollah, and destroying Lebanese infrastructure) superceded the importance of Lebanese well-being. Does it really matter who was justified in doing what? The end result is that Lebanese casualties are over ten times those of Israel, and America not only let it happen, but in fact stymied the cease-fire process to make sure Israel had more time to do it. The Lebanese won't forget that, and I would not be surprised at all if we started seeing Lebanese faces show up in terrorist plots soon. Do I even need to mention how many Iraqis want to see Americans dead? And for what? The nation's oil supply is as tenuous as ever. Do you feel more secure?
Maybe things will be better after this is all over. I hope so. I would genuinely hate to see so many American lives lost only to make the situation worse.
From the most informative link provided:
That's not a counter-argument. That's a wholescale denunciation of everything Islam could possibly stand for. You have essentially equated the world's second largest religion with a philosophy that single-handedly caused over 6-9 million in the slaughter of innocents alone. This is not counting the war casualties.
I don't know what to make of people like you, or people like the creator of that website. In a lot of ways you remind me of Muslim extremists, (whom I have actually met), because there is an overwhelming sense of hatred, of aggression, that no amount of victory or destruction can ever pacify. The OPs statement wasn't about religion, it was about people. Every Muslim is a human being first. (Or do you deny that too?) And human beings, or at least the vast majority of them, don't want to see their brothers and sisters die, or watch their children grow up in a warzone. The problem with the Middle East, (and I am an Iranian-American, so I have some personal perspective on this), is that they don't yet understand that they have to let go. There are decades of humiliation and occupation that spur the extremists to hate the West, to hate everything the West is associated with. And the average Muslim in the Middle East is ambivalent to the actions of those extremists. They refuse to condemn the atrocities that happen in their countries, because they too hold on to the pain and anger that centuries of hostilities between the Christian and Islamic world has inspired. But it's pointless. They have to let go, and consciously reject Bin Laden's embrace of death. (I am not saying every Muslim follows the bullshit that spews from Bin Laden's mouth, but there is a tacit acceptance of that lifestyle in every Islamic nation--if there was not, then extremists would find no quarter anywhere.) Once Muslims (and more generally, Arabs and Iranians, because not all of them are Muslims) make that decision--that they would rather build infrastructure than strike back at aggressors--then things will change. But that sort of shift in philosophy takes decades in and of itself, and will probably involve lots of bloodshed. But the only hope the Islamic world has is itself. No amount of Western intervention will ever "fix" the it--and it does need fixing. But it has to come from inside. Inshallah, it will happen. Or my culture, my religion, and my people will die out, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves. (Although I doubt they'll see it that way.)
You make it sound like Microsoft has never had a good idea in its life, and that Apple only borrows from Microsoft when it has no other choice. This is not the case. "Time Machine," for example, is Volume Shadow Copy, except probably easier to implement. (Although this depends on how MS integrates it into Vista.) I'm not an expert in Apple's OS (I stick to Windows and Linux myself) but I'm sure if I did a little digging I could find plenty of genuinely insightful concepts created at Microsoft that Apple copied.
Everyone steals from everyone. The only real concern should be who presents the most user-friendly package without compromising security or reliability. If that package is also pretty, hey, all the better. Apple's done a much better job at this than Microsoft, although to be fair (from a security standpoint), Microsoft's user base is much larger, so those holes that are found receive much greater publicity and affect a lot more people--which has greatly aided the conception that Windows is not a secure OS.
I don't know what's more terrifying: your grammar, or your grasp of the computer industry. Either way, congratulations on excluding 95% of all computer users from your utopia. Good thinking.
The above post is an excellent one, and should be modded to +5 ASAP. DarkSarin, do you have any more books to recommend on behavior?
You are aware that fetal alcohol syndrome is a suite of birth defects, right? Alcoholism isn't a birth defect, it's a medical condition caused by the frequent and excessive consumption of alcohol. Consumption. Which means some complete asshole gave this friend of yours a bottle of booze. It's not like he came out of his mother's womb with one hand clutching a half of Jack Daniel's; someone put that bottle in his hands. And given that we don't know how severe his case of fetal alcohol syndrome is, we can't really say whether or not he possessed the faculty to understand the decision being made.
I don't really know what to say to this. I just feel very sorry for you, that you would live your life in repentance for crimes you never committed. It seems a sad way to live.
I'm just curious. What color is the sky in your world?
So then what qualifies as an "industry standard?" Is that just a euphemism for: "the big players have decided to implement this technology?"
This is not necessarily true. It all depends on how your network storage is being used. SCSI drives are built and firmware'd for the sole purpose of running a server, and they consistently beat any ATA drive (be it IDE or Serial) when it comes to server performance and reliability. ATA drives just aren't built to handle the sort of usage a server requires--note that this isn't a reflection of quality, but of purpose. But a file server (which is the only thing the SAN would be used for) requires much less robust firmware than a server housing MySQL, PHP, maybe a CRM suite, e-mail server, etc.--and so ATA drives shouldn't immediately be ruled as less reliable. The maturity of the technology plays a more important role than the interface.
I don't know that this is true, because the LinuxJournal article directly contradicts it. (Unless I'm misreading it.) Here's what the LJ says:
ATA over Ethernet is a network protocol registered with the IEEE as Ethernet protocol 0x88a2.
So, it looks like the protocol has been officially registered and was granted approval by the IEEE--so that makes it an industry standard. It may not be adopted yet, but it's certainly not something like 802.11 pre-n or anything; there's an official and approved protocol.
It's ok. In the magical world where studies say only what you want them to, and all of your opinions can be counted as cold hard facts, I'm sure things are going well. Maybe next time you'll not be so forthcoming with claims when the data clearly does not support you.
I am consistently amazed at how many people bitch about this. Get over it. I can't read every article, and I appreciate these recaps. If you don't, fine; just shut the hell up about it. No one's got a gun to your head to force you to read the backslash posts.
Yes, they're fundamentally different, but the end result ends up looking the same. Do you really think there's a huge chasm, to the gamer, between: "Oh, this staff lets me shoot fireballs? Cool." and "Oh, this engine lets me break event horizon? Cool." Maybe there's a plausible (to a certain extent) explanation behind the second, but both are essentially transparent to the user. I think this is just a scenario where the philosophical gulf may be tremendous, but the practical result is roughly the same.
But by necessity, at some point, they'll have to make a concession. After all, in faster-than-light travel were perfectly explainable, and we had the schematics for all the necessary machinery and could present it in such a way as to be understood by the average intellectual, my guess is we'd be well on our way to Alpha Centauri by now. We can try to make sci-fi realistic, but eventually we just have to take it on faith that "yes, this works, we figured it out, and no I can't really explain it in great detail." At some level the distinction blurs between sci-fi and fantasy--because if everything in sci-fi were possible and explicable, then it wouldn't really be sci-fi, it would just be fiction.
But is the dearth of sci-fi games a function of the genre, or just an unfortunate circumstance of the MMO market? I would argue that it's not because fantasy games are harder, it's because MMO makers are retarded. Most fantasy MMOs suck too. It's just that a few companies have managed to make good games, which happened to be in a fantasy setting. Sooner or later someone will make a good game that happens to be in a sci-fi setting. It's not a question of difficulty per genre, but one of simple economics. WoW has now provided an excellent formula for a fantasy MMO. No one has done so for a sci-fi MMO. Which genre has the better risk/return ratio?
Oh wait, it's only two extra. That closes the gap to only twenty-five thousand dollars. My mistake.
Perhaps, but I would say advanced particle physics and quantum mechanics are difficult enough sciences that most people will accept any explanation given at face value, which essentially makes the distinction somewhat meaningless.
I would say the real reason why sci-fi is more difficult to pull off than fantasy is because science fiction removes the human element altogether. The driving force behind any MMO is to make your avatar more powerful. But in a true sci-fi world, individual people become powerful through the tools they use and the things they own, and not through personal growth. A laser shot from a ship piloted by a level 1 captain shouldn't do any more damage than one shot from the same ship piloted by a level 20 captain--so clearly the traditional method of "leveling" would need significant tweaking. This is akin to the same "explanation" you quoted earlier, but I'd rather label it as "internal consistency." A sci-fi world could not be internally consistent while operating under the same basic system as, say, WoW. This doesn't make it more difficult than a fantasy MMO, it just requires a different take on it--and we all know how successful video game companies are at breaking free of traditional formulae.
Oh yeah, and the E1505 has four more onboard (ZOMG ONBOARD THAT MAKES IT WORTH A HOJILLION DOLLARZORZ) USB ports than the Macbook Pro. Shit, according to my mythical integrated worth calculator, that just made the Apple like fifty thousand dollars more expensive than the Dell. Shit.
Here are the official numbers: Apple also scored an 82, with Lenovo at 69, Toshiba 57, Dell at 56 and the rest below 55. First, these numbers are for tech support, NOT build quality. Tech support. Furthermore, you have shown me two laptop PC manufacturers that are better than Dell at tech support. That is not the majority of the market. So, AGAIN, you are wrong--Dell is not at the bottom of the barrel for technical support. And for the last fucking time, the statistics here do not reflect on the quality of the machines. These are tech support figures. TECH SUPPORT. There are NO statistics for hardware quality--only this: "Repair history showed the same general trend, with Apple desktops having the fewest repairs by far, according to Consumer Reports readers." A blip, saying Apple desktops are repaired significantly less, according to users, than any PC manufacturer, and the survey does not define repair.
This year? HP, Gateway, eMachines, Compaq, WinBook, and more--according to the numbers, they all scored less than Dell this year on laptop tech support. 2006 does not support your statement. Last year, year before last? I don't know. You're the one who claims Dell is terrible; you link me some data that proves they're actually worse than major PC manufacturers--or even near the bottom.
You're accusing me of this?! After you blatantly misinterpret inconclusive data as though it was a double-blind study that demonstrably shows Apple makes better laptops? I'm sorry you can't find studies to back up your idiotic assertions. I don't claim things that can't be proven. Does Apple make better machines than Dell? I don't know, but there's no data to show that they do, so I must conclude that no, they do not. You, on the other hand, are willing to take survey numbers on tech support satisfaction and make a blanket-fucking-statement about the quality of the company's machines.
Cheap-ass according to you. To anyone with half a brain, the features you think are so amazing only have a stand-alone market value of $300 at best, and there's an established market precedent that shows that integrated features always cost less than the separate components. That other $950 is still not accounted for. If you value the integration of those features so much, great. The average home user clearly does not, because Dell is selling a shitload more laptops than Apple. Apple hardware is more expensive, and objectively, this cost cannot be justified. There is no conclusive data that shows that the Dell is of lesser build quality than the Apple (no, NONE), the core hardware is as close as it can get to being equivalent, and their warranty coverage is the same. Any value you add after that point is subjective. You're wrong, and the only one blowing smoke up his ass is you.
Ugh, the stream of bullshit coming out of Ballmer's mouth just makes my head spin. I don't understand why every chief officer in a tech company thinks they have to admit absolutely no fault and use meaningless business speech? Listen to some of the crap Balmer says:
They can't be open-minded, no, they have to be willing to be open-minded. What the hell? And what the hell does being multicapable mean? It's all a bunch of fluff talk, intended to make people think Microsoft is "dynamic," and that they're "expanding into key new markets." Just call it like it is, man. Microsoft hasn't done anything really impressive, on the software front, for five years. Your stock has flat-lined. It's ok to admit that you've got serious work to do. Instead he wants to tout how amazing Microsoft is, or how cutting-edge and forward-thinking their staff is. Just give it a rest. The PR machine really makes me sick.
Frankly, Microsoft has yet to make an impressive mobile machine. Like many here have noted, the Windows OS isn't suited for stylus navigation--it was designed with a mouse and keyboard in mind. Therefore, any portable machine based on a Windows OS is going to be inherently flawed. I'm not a big fan of styluses myself, and I hope in the future someone can figure out a way of making a truly intuitive OS that doesn't rely on one.
Furthermore, get a load of this gem: "It would be easy to dismiss the Newton's greyscale screen as inferior to the Q1's full-colour display, but Apple's choice of a greyscale LCD is one of the reasons the Newton enjoys over 30 hours of continuous battery life, compared to the Q1's 2.5 hours." WTF? This is biased reviewing at its best. An LCD screen should be reviewed based on the qualities of the goddamned screen. Which display is sharper? Which is brighter? Which is clearer? Which screen allows more versatility? Battery life is a separate goddamned category. It should not be a factor in deciding which screen is better than another unless all other things are equal--which they clearly are not. The entire review is basically the reviewers saying: "Yeah, the Q1 is really nice, but we want a PDA, and that's not what the Q is, so Apple wins."
Above, I say: "All of the things that can be qualitatively measured have been accounted for." It should read: "All of the things that can be quantitatively measured have been accounted for."
Sorry it took me a bit longer than normal; yesterday was a busy day at work.
I believe me when it comes to 2006, which shows that, contrary to your assertion, Dell is not at the bottom of the PC market for tech support. It is squarely in the middle for both laptops and desktops. Which was my original point, way back then, you know, before you decided to ignore it: customer satisfaction of tech support of PCs (and this is why I distinguished between PCs and Macs) is very low. Is Dell exceptional in its low customer satisfaction? No, it's just right in line with everyone else. Your claim, and I quote, was: "Dell ranks near the bottom for customer satisfaction, support surveys, and hardware reliability almost every year, significantly worse than even HP or Gateway." My counter-claim is that no, in 2006 Dell was neck in neck with the other companies. So, your claim was patently false for 2006. Yes, you were wrong. Very wrong. Say it with me. I know you can. Now, you say that you have more data (from years past) that you cannot provide that asserts that Dell is near the bottom. I say (by way of analogy) that your asserted claims are as good as my corresponding claims about your mother's case of genital warts. Until you link me to more numbers that show Dell near or at the bottom of the satisfaction charts for PCs, you're wrong. They're not. The problem is industry-wide, not Dell-specific.. until you can prove otherwise.
That is my point in its entirety. It was my fault for wording it badly--I meant to say that the value of an Apple laptop is subjective, but it is exactly what you are arguing makes the Apple laptop cost more, in terms of price. This value you attach to an Apple is purely subjective--it is no way quantifiable beyond what I have already listed, which is the market price of all of the components in separate add-on cards. (The sum total of which is less than $300.) All of the things that can be qualitatively measured have been accounted for. That difference of price is something you are taking subjective issue with, not objective. Objectively, the two machines are as close to the same as can possibly be. No two computers are ever going to have all of the same components if they're built by separate vendors, but we can align as many of the performance-determining components as possible, which I've done. You state: "The market value of these features integrated and the whole thing built with the quality of parts that go into a pro grade notebook is more than you are guessing," but it's not, simply because it's not quantifiable. The value of integrating these features is not something we can put a price on--it depends totally on the user. You then say: "How many digital audio ports on the mac? One. How many on the Dell? Zero. Are one and zero quantities or not? More important to this comparison, how much does each component cost in the market?" From a hardware standpoint, the monetary value of the associated hardware is a few hundred dollars, if I'm being generous. I listed out how much the separate components cost--and we can even get the digital audio integrated for 13 more dollars. An integrated motherboard never costs more than the separate hardware does, period. (For an example, go look at a high-end mobo for an A64, and then price out a budget board and buy all of the associated PCI cards it would take to bring it back up to speed.) So, quantitatively, the difference is a few hundred dollars. But how much does someone value the integration? How much extra are they willing to pay? That's subjective. You then go on to say: "Not at all. Higher grade parts cost more money. Money is quantitative. The market judges the quality and assigns a quantity