Wow. I didn't say you didn't want a computer, just that most people would rather have an appliance that lets them do the things they want to do, whether it's email, web, chat, word processing, film editing, web design, or programming. And I bet if you search deep within your soul, you'll find you don't really want a car; you want the ability to travel with convenience and ease. You've got it with your car, but I've got it with my MetroCard. These are only means to an end.
See, from my perspective, it's Microsoft and the PC world who are busy sniffing their own farts. They're convinced that everyone wants their fancy, shiny, but ultimately useless nerd-tech demos of the day, and moreover, that everyone is willing to restructure their lives to accommodate their schlock. Meanwhile, Apple actually respects its customers' needs and delivers products, like the iMac, that fit into their lives with a minimum of fuss.
Wrong. Most people who buy a computer don't want a computer per se. They want to write emails, create photo albums, listen to music, browse the web. The computer is just the means by which all this is accomplished. Very few in the tech industry seem to realize this.
Sort of how Nintendo declares that while Sony and Microsoft see themselves as tech companies who make games, Nintendo sees itself as a game company that just happens to use tech.
Don't forget that Macs were supporting dual display setups (and triple, etc.) before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't.
If you knew anything about the CSM, you'd know the vast majority of its editorial staff has nothing to do with the church itself. The CSM has bias, as you note does every publication, but it's not a Christian Science bias, if that makes sense.
But it won't be "compatible" in the sense of running the way you'd expect a Mac program to run. You don't get Keychain integration, Services, printing is a bear, and the interface (metaphors, philosophy, etc.) is almost entirely different between the Mac and PC versions. Seems to me that if you want to run Windows programs, you're better off just running Windows instead of glopping together some awful reanimated monstrosity from beyond the grave.
As far as Office and iTunes go, aren't the Mac-native versions of both programs better, anyway? Why would anyone want to run the Windows versions of either?
I'm not saying AT&T is "the best of us," but your proposed remedies are fucking childish. Do you also support capital punishment for late pizza delivery?
Google Earth still hasn't come out for Mac. Sure, it runs on OS X, but only like Frankenstein runs the Idiotarod. It's nowhere close to being a Mac application in philosophy or interface.
On the bright side, several months ago I heard Google was looking for Cocoa developers. And they recently hired Doug Bowman, the stopdesign guy, which can only improve the company's heretofore crippled sense of aesthetics. Anyone got news on more recent developments?
Sorry about not intuiting your nationality, I guess I was overeager to reply. But I do know for a fact that holding quality of life constant, city residents use less energy per capita--electricity plus gas--than rural residents, due to the fact that large buildings are more energy-efficient to maintain and build, again per capita, than single-family dwellings. All the statistics I've ever seen (and believe me, this field is full of statistics) confirm this observation. None contradict it. It's such a self-evident tenet of urban planning as to be a truism. I suspect you're forgetting the "per capita" part, which is key.
Moreover, this pattern applies to habitation on every continent in the world, North America or no. Where city dwellers do use more energy per capita--Freetown (Sierra Leone) vs. rural central African farm communities, for example--you'll immediately note that the discrepancy is due to that aforementioned quality of life thing. To bring the same goods and services already available in Freetown to rural Sierra Leone would take a comparatively enormous amount of energy, both in infrastructure maintenance and development. Per capita, natch.
I know I'm not explaining this very well, so here's perhaps the best explanation I've seen: "New York is the Greenest City in America." If you're interested, and you seem to be, that article will be worth the read.
A Mac is more than its software. You can install OS X on your homebrew PC 'til the fat man croaks, but where's your command key, your startup chime, your flashing disk on startup, your magnetic power connector, your backlit keyboard, your FireWire target disk mode? Oops, they didn't survive the installation. Trivial, maybe, but these are the sorts of details that fucking make the Mac what it is.
A Mac is more than hardware, either, as you pointed out. Its soul may be somewhere in the code, but that code is spread between both hardware and software. It's an integrated platform, and to force it into components like it were a beige-box PC sort of misses the point, I think.
Finally, if you find the Mac guy "bloody annoying," you need to relax. It's just a commercial, and obviously not targeted at the likes of you.
I don't know. I think they're just right for the target audience; that is, if you find them callous and mean-spirited, maybe you take life too seriously to enjoy using a Mac at all. (Not you, of course. I mean "you" in the general.) On the other hand, if you're light-hearted enough to laugh along with the absurdity of the caricatures--one of smugness, the other abject squareness--you just might be the kind of person to appreciate a Mac.
One more thing regarding your "high energy cost of a high rise." If you think about it, a 1,000 unit apartment building is always going to be more energy-efficient than 1,000 units (of the same size) spread out over many acres. With freestanding single-family homes, you end up radiating a lot of heat, or cold air in summer, to the elements outside. Same with light pollution. I'm constantly amazed that this shouldn't be immediately intuitive--I'd guess it has something to do with property lust, or some residual frontier mentality (I'm North American--are you?).
Cities create huge resource demands, but are these demands any less than the same demands spread over 10 times the physical area? Just the opposite, actually. How much energy is wasted trucking food and finished goods to every last corner of inhabited land? Herbs and spices for that chicken you grow? How much gravel and asphalt, how much gasoline?
If anything, it's self-reliance that's "unnatural" (though I hate that word, I admit). Humans, like chimps and most great apes, are social creatures and we thrive in a social setting.
Don't get me wrong. I love backpacking, and I try to go hiking upstate or out of country a few weeks every year. But it's a mistake to pretend the let's-all-go-live-on-farms is sustainable for living conditions other than constant risk of famine and disease. Human history suggests otherwise. Until modernity, most people in cities were still drawing at least part of their nutrition from their (landlords') own soil and starving far less often than those abandoned in the countryside.
Saying that Hamas and Hizballah seek to exterminate all Jews is like saying that the Knesset seeks to exterminate all Muslims. You and I know that latter claim is pure bullshit--at least from our perspective--but that's exactly what gets reported in the Middle Eastern and North African media. Same way our media reports the former, and in no less strident a tone, given our Enlightenment-era faith in the objective ideal.
And in the more specific instance under discussion, note that Hizballah and Hamas have moderated their positions towards Israel as they've become more and more involved in the democratic process. Hamas was reportedly on the verge of forming a coalition with the PLO--adopting its acceptance of Israel's right to exist--just before Israel began its latest assault on the PA. Hamas's remaining leaders have stepped back and reradicalized in the month and a half since then. I fail to see how any of this serves Israel's long-term interests.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I didn't say you didn't want a computer, just that most people would rather have an appliance that lets them do the things they want to do, whether it's email, web, chat, word processing, film editing, web design, or programming. And I bet if you search deep within your soul, you'll find you don't really want a car; you want the ability to travel with convenience and ease. You've got it with your car, but I've got it with my MetroCard. These are only means to an end.
See, from my perspective, it's Microsoft and the PC world who are busy sniffing their own farts. They're convinced that everyone wants their fancy, shiny, but ultimately useless nerd-tech demos of the day, and moreover, that everyone is willing to restructure their lives to accommodate their schlock. Meanwhile, Apple actually respects its customers' needs and delivers products, like the iMac, that fit into their lives with a minimum of fuss.
Wrong. Most people who buy a computer don't want a computer per se. They want to write emails, create photo albums, listen to music, browse the web. The computer is just the means by which all this is accomplished. Very few in the tech industry seem to realize this.
Sort of how Nintendo declares that while Sony and Microsoft see themselves as tech companies who make games, Nintendo sees itself as a game company that just happens to use tech.
You believe wrong.
Don't forget that Macs were supporting dual display setups (and triple, etc.) before Windows even knew what to do with one screen. Some say it still doesn't.
If you knew anything about the CSM, you'd know the vast majority of its editorial staff has nothing to do with the church itself. The CSM has bias, as you note does every publication, but it's not a Christian Science bias, if that makes sense.
"Simple enough; the wheel is not a wheel."
How intuitive, then, that it looks like a wheel. Typical Microsoft industrial design.
Thank god the alternative media isn't politically biased, commercially dishonest, or hearsay.
Click the "Album" column header again. It goes from sorting by "Album," to "Album by Artist," to "Album by Year," then back to "Album."
Looks fine here in Safari. Maybe it's time for you to upgrade.
Didn't the author claim microkernels would prevail?
But it won't be "compatible" in the sense of running the way you'd expect a Mac program to run. You don't get Keychain integration, Services, printing is a bear, and the interface (metaphors, philosophy, etc.) is almost entirely different between the Mac and PC versions. Seems to me that if you want to run Windows programs, you're better off just running Windows instead of glopping together some awful reanimated monstrosity from beyond the grave.
As far as Office and iTunes go, aren't the Mac-native versions of both programs better, anyway? Why would anyone want to run the Windows versions of either?
Windows Update.
Well, yeah, dude. Just trying to make a point.
Any Slashdot post that begins with "bloodfarts" is worth reading. Wish I had mod points.
I'm not saying AT&T is "the best of us," but your proposed remedies are fucking childish. Do you also support capital punishment for late pizza delivery?
Google Earth still hasn't come out for Mac. Sure, it runs on OS X, but only like Frankenstein runs the Idiotarod. It's nowhere close to being a Mac application in philosophy or interface.
On the bright side, several months ago I heard Google was looking for Cocoa developers. And they recently hired Doug Bowman, the stopdesign guy, which can only improve the company's heretofore crippled sense of aesthetics. Anyone got news on more recent developments?
Sorry about not intuiting your nationality, I guess I was overeager to reply. But I do know for a fact that holding quality of life constant, city residents use less energy per capita--electricity plus gas--than rural residents, due to the fact that large buildings are more energy-efficient to maintain and build, again per capita, than single-family dwellings. All the statistics I've ever seen (and believe me, this field is full of statistics) confirm this observation. None contradict it. It's such a self-evident tenet of urban planning as to be a truism. I suspect you're forgetting the "per capita" part, which is key.
Moreover, this pattern applies to habitation on every continent in the world, North America or no. Where city dwellers do use more energy per capita--Freetown (Sierra Leone) vs. rural central African farm communities, for example--you'll immediately note that the discrepancy is due to that aforementioned quality of life thing. To bring the same goods and services already available in Freetown to rural Sierra Leone would take a comparatively enormous amount of energy, both in infrastructure maintenance and development. Per capita, natch.
I know I'm not explaining this very well, so here's perhaps the best explanation I've seen: "New York is the Greenest City in America." If you're interested, and you seem to be, that article will be worth the read.
What makes you think we want you on our platform to begin with, beige boy? These ads aren't meant for you.
A Mac is more than its software. You can install OS X on your homebrew PC 'til the fat man croaks, but where's your command key, your startup chime, your flashing disk on startup, your magnetic power connector, your backlit keyboard, your FireWire target disk mode? Oops, they didn't survive the installation. Trivial, maybe, but these are the sorts of details that fucking make the Mac what it is.
A Mac is more than hardware, either, as you pointed out. Its soul may be somewhere in the code, but that code is spread between both hardware and software. It's an integrated platform, and to force it into components like it were a beige-box PC sort of misses the point, I think.
Finally, if you find the Mac guy "bloody annoying," you need to relax. It's just a commercial, and obviously not targeted at the likes of you.
I don't know. I think they're just right for the target audience; that is, if you find them callous and mean-spirited, maybe you take life too seriously to enjoy using a Mac at all. (Not you, of course. I mean "you" in the general.) On the other hand, if you're light-hearted enough to laugh along with the absurdity of the caricatures--one of smugness, the other abject squareness--you just might be the kind of person to appreciate a Mac.
Just one man's opinion.
One more thing regarding your "high energy cost of a high rise." If you think about it, a 1,000 unit apartment building is always going to be more energy-efficient than 1,000 units (of the same size) spread out over many acres. With freestanding single-family homes, you end up radiating a lot of heat, or cold air in summer, to the elements outside. Same with light pollution. I'm constantly amazed that this shouldn't be immediately intuitive--I'd guess it has something to do with property lust, or some residual frontier mentality (I'm North American--are you?).
Cities create huge resource demands, but are these demands any less than the same demands spread over 10 times the physical area? Just the opposite, actually. How much energy is wasted trucking food and finished goods to every last corner of inhabited land? Herbs and spices for that chicken you grow? How much gravel and asphalt, how much gasoline?
If anything, it's self-reliance that's "unnatural" (though I hate that word, I admit). Humans, like chimps and most great apes, are social creatures and we thrive in a social setting.
Don't get me wrong. I love backpacking, and I try to go hiking upstate or out of country a few weeks every year. But it's a mistake to pretend the let's-all-go-live-on-farms is sustainable for living conditions other than constant risk of famine and disease. Human history suggests otherwise. Until modernity, most people in cities were still drawing at least part of their nutrition from their (landlords') own soil and starving far less often than those abandoned in the countryside.
I foed you for this.
You're absolutely right regarding English grammar. Obviously, it should have been "Pay that which for you get." Stupid editors.
I guess, when it comes to Slashdot, you truly do get that for which you pay.
Saying that Hamas and Hizballah seek to exterminate all Jews is like saying that the Knesset seeks to exterminate all Muslims. You and I know that latter claim is pure bullshit--at least from our perspective--but that's exactly what gets reported in the Middle Eastern and North African media. Same way our media reports the former, and in no less strident a tone, given our Enlightenment-era faith in the objective ideal.
And in the more specific instance under discussion, note that Hizballah and Hamas have moderated their positions towards Israel as they've become more and more involved in the democratic process. Hamas was reportedly on the verge of forming a coalition with the PLO--adopting its acceptance of Israel's right to exist--just before Israel began its latest assault on the PA. Hamas's remaining leaders have stepped back and reradicalized in the month and a half since then. I fail to see how any of this serves Israel's long-term interests.