I can imagine the new adds for Verizon even as I type this...
Can you hear me now, bitch?!?!?
Just be prepared for a protracted, hard-fought, even-harder-to-win battle, a battle which by all rights shouldn't have had to be fought in the first place.
Well, power companies would be a good example of geographic monopolies. For that matter, a company that was successful because it produced products and/or services that people wanted (and wanted a lot) for where there was no other entrant into the market, or if there was an entrant into the market but either wasn't significant or didn't last because it's products were legitimately not as good, that would be another example of a different kind of monopoly, but in-and-of-itself not an evil one.
I don't think I like your concept of saying caps should be imposed, mostly because it smacks too much of the failed economic and social system of communist Russia. You're removing incentive, and you have to remember that the analogy of success/power and drugs/addiction is not a perfect parallel.
Not all companies are bad actors, any more than all blacks are murderers and rapists, all middle-easterners are suicide bombers, all women are mentally inferior, etc. And power doesn't actually corrupt every single person; I know plenty of people who either have power but simply have no desire to abuse it, or had power and chose to give it up because they simply weren't interested. Now, does this blow a bell curve or prove the exception to the rule? Well, you can judge; however let's also not lose all of our perspective here, either.
Technically, appropriate ethics and morals on the part of business owners -- of any size -- is sufficient to stop them from hurting anyone. Failing that, appropriate laws backed with appropriate oversight is sufficient. Failing that, litigatory action is sufficient, and after that I guess municipal or federal action is. After that, well... I'm not sure, to be honest.
For instance, I choose to use Apple's products. Apple grosses more than $1 billion annually. I wouldn't want to see them broken up, especially since they are Microsoft's only real competition in the retail and professional markets. Remember the law of unintended consequences! And yes, I know that under your theory, Apple would be broken up into X pieces, each making less than $1 billion each, as would Microsoft (in their case, X * ? pieces). But would this really help?
The biggest problem I see with your system is that it potentially punishes EVERYONE, which is unfair and unjust. And what's more, it punishes them for being successful, instead of punishing them for doing something really wrong. I personally don't care how rich a company becomes, nor how "large" it becomes, so long as it's not achieving either through willfully or negligently harming other businesses and the general public. For anything to be done right, it must start from purity of thought, and be carried through with purity of execution. Mind you, that's purity, not "infalliable perfection". Just mindlessly swinging a large club and arbitrarily taking out everything in sight is not the best approach to anything.
And is anyone here suggesting we should exercise less than due dilligence in not allowing corporations to use the government as their own bully pulpit, club, and judge-jury-executioner, all rolled into one? I, for one, am tired of seeing the government get twisted around and misused like this. Corporate America is using the U.S. government to inforce what should be (however disagreeable) corporate policies, not governmental laws!
Putting legislation in place that tries to uphold this simplistic idea that "all packets are treated equally" is more likely to be overreaching and will actually do more to hinder service providers from finding better ways to utilize the net. Ways that allow them to hopefully bring out better products that we can take advantage of. Theres also a good chance they will come up with something as annoying as what you describe, but as long as there is open competition, these will eventually go by the wayside over time.
Yes, that may be somewhat true, however my own experiences with big industry companies and with the technology industry as a whole suggests otherwise. In fact, so does my experience with and observation of the Federal Government.
I don't mean to be an asshat here or anything, but one constant in business and in industry is greed, and it isn't all 100% about the money. In fact, a lot of it is simply about the power of controlling and manipulating people. And you need more than one Cable ISP and one DSL ISP to have competition. Considering how entrenched local Cable and Telco providers are, it's (unfortunately) up to the government, through regulation, to keep them off of our back.
This isn't to suggest that I think the government is the end all/be all, omnibus solution to our problems. It's just that, as things stand at the moment, it's our only (if seriously flawed) solution. And I have absolutely no problems whatsoever in swinging a mighty club at a company if that's what it takes to keep them from screwing me, whether it's now, five years from now, or twenty-five years from now.
Let's look at your cell phone dilema. There are LOTS of cell phone service providers available pretty much across the whole U.S. Look at how much better those companies' service is vs. your local telco monopoly. They're responsive to your issues (mine always have been), and if you don't get satisfaction at one, they know you can walk away and go to another. Yes, I know there are contracts out there, and I'm not saying this is an infinitely perfect world we live in, either, but while being something of a realist, let's also not get carried away by being unrealistically negative, either. And if you don't believe me about intra-cell phone-competition and how important it is, then look at the efforts by many cell phone providers to buy each other up and eliminate this competition. That alone should make it painfully obvious to any that companies are addicted to power, and they see the path to power by eliminating competition.
Further, I left a mega-corp (Sony, specifically) and the tech industry it was a part of for several reasons, but significantly over the fact that I couldn't abide the controlling manipulation and monetary extraction they engage in, which runs contrary to my own, personal code of ethics. And yes, if you follow that link, you'll find that the jobs there (mine included) were in the process of being outsourced to Alorica at the time I decided to leave, but it doesn't diminish my disgust for what I saw going on, nor how it made me feel to be a part of an industry which does precisely that to the general public.
Besides, no matter what the solution, there must be oversight, or it will be doomed to failure. Those who fail to learn ffrom history are condemned to repeat it.
That would be Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich, the man who nearly bankrupted Cleveland, has been next-to-worthless as a congressman, and dreams of growing up one day and becoming President of the U.S.A. Um, whatever it is you're smoking, can you send me some of it? It must be some pretty good shit if you honestly are trying to imply Kucinich is an "honest politician".
Are you pretending to be ignorant of U.S. history, or are you ignorant?
History Lesson:
George Washington, the first man to hold the presidency, decided to leave after two terms in office, even though in all likelihood he could have been president for the rest of his life, or most of it (ignoring the fact that he died of cancer in 1799 and therefore ultimately would have served only two-point-something terms).
Everyone who ever won the presidency more than once followed Washington's example until Roosevelt. I am not a historian, so I don't know what his intentions or ambitions were, but he may well have continued on indefinitely had he continued to live. In any event, he didn't, dying sometime in early 1945 IIRC.
Two years after his death, the 22nd Ammendment was drafted, and was signed into law shortly thereafter (what, like '51ish, I think). *checks sources* Yup, I was right, February 27, 1951.
So, did you just make that up to look stupid or what?
QUOTE: Doc Ruby And keeping cops honest. Which protects the good ones, which accounts for 99% of the hours cops work. This system would also capture, or deter, the other 1% that does so much harm. While increasing productivity on the street and on the case, cutting costs and corroborating credibility.
What would really be a Good Thing(tm) is if wearing cameras was manditory for politicians, judges and lawyers.
Ok, since there's so many references on here to the Stargate TV seriesis (what do you mean that's not a real word?)...
Let's say a large asteroid (whatever would be big enough to cause catastrophic damage to Earth's population) was on it's way. And further, let's say we don't have the firepower and/or the time to attempt to divert it. However, we happened to have a stargate unit and there existed the technology to build a really, really large-diametered version of it and send it up there, placing it just ahead of the asteroid, activate it, and then nudge it ahead until it swallowed the asteroid.
Ok, my question: Would it be ethical to do that; and would our world society decide to do that, even if it might mean causing that asteroid to strike another (possibly inhabited) world? I'm not looking for some overly-simplistic "Why *no*, of course not! That would be horrible!" answer posted here. I'm curious to see what everyone elses' take on the various countries-of-the-world's attitude would be.
------ Like BSG:TOS? Like Buck Rogers? Check out: <URL:http://home.swfla.rr.com/mikethec>
I can't find where I can mod up your post, BetMonty, but I sure do agree with it. Especially your comments about Sony. They're totally a "Tail Wagging The Dog" company. It's what's put them where they stand now-a-days, and what will kill them if they don't change it.
I have to disagree with this and the theories behind this post.
First, Macs have been, and -- short of Apple suddenly going belly-up -- probably always will be the preferred choice of creative professionals. The fact that most of the creative pro-calliber software out there has a Windows version isn't really changing this very much, and largely due to the fact that creative professionals are not interested in -- and typically don't have the time to be -- computer geeks. They have work to do, and frankly, Windows brings baggage that they have no interest in contending with.
Second, I get a laugh out of reading that Apple is missing the market by not catering to the lucrative game market. Number one, short of them becoming a Windows licensee, this is never going to be possible since the games are not so much Intel-based as they are Win32 based, and that limitation is far more significant than any other factor. Number two, I don't know any hard-core gamers -- not a single one -- who permit anyone's brand-name computer on their desk. Every single true gamer I know and have ever known either builds their own or hires someone to build it for them (because they want top-shelf components with no compromises). So all arguments that Apple alone is missing out on this market are fundamentally flawed -- by this logic, all of the name brand PC makers are missing out on this market.
Having worked for Sony for five years in their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_CISC/ Customer Information Service Center, I can tell you first hand that Apple does their service much better than we/they did, and on the whole Apple is a lot better about admitting to design flaws than Sony is. However, let's also take into consideration that one factor present in Sony's culture, and which isn't in Apple's because Sony is Japanese, is the need to "save face". It goes far beyond any kind of legal considerations, which of course are also present in any kind of business decisions made by any company.
Sony was somewhat infamous internally for having the "three thousand isolated incidents" mentality. Yes, they did admit from time to time there was a flaw, but they tried whenever possible to keep mum on their design issues and shortcomings. For instance, Sony's initial forray into AMD-based laptops resulted in computers which ran hotter and had much shorter battery run-times, well below what was stated. And only after getting beaten over the head by a ton of customers did they go to the length of saying, well, if the customer is still in warranty, we'll throw 'em a bone by sending them -- as a courtesy, mind you -- another battery. The fact that the whole issue centered around the fact that Sony engineers never bothered to impliment any kind of CPU step-down drivers or other technology was avoided at all costs.
But then, that's just me, another used-piece-of-toilet-paper, talking, I guess...
Absolutely. I think the thing a lot of the self-titled über-geeks here and on a number of other forums tend to forget is that it isn't all about them, but about the people off-the-street who buy these things.
Apple is NOT in the business of selling or supporting Windows, and they shouldn't be. Why do Microsoft's work for them? Now, it's not that any business (including Apple) shouldn't try to make themselves attractive to existing and potential customers, but there's a fine line between making yourself available to every customer that walks in the door, and trying to get and hoard every customer that walks in the door.
Now, maybe this will be flame-bait and maybe I'll get modded for saying this, but once you do what you can to educate people, if a non-geek-specialist still wants to run Windows, then he or she isn't the kind of customer Apple wants or needs anyhow. Let them revel in their own ignorance. I'd rather be a part of a user base that chooses to be that user base than one which simply becomes the user base by default. What I don't get is why people think that just because people out there (like me) don't choose to follow the same path as every other schmuck, we're somehow elitist. Yes, I know there are irritants over here in the Mac camp, but we're hardly unique in this. The Linux and the Windows camps have them too, just like there are snobs and freaks amongst the ranks of Star Trek fans (though I'd hardly describe someone as being some kind of kook just because they liked Star Trek).
And let's face facts: There aren't any viruses out there right now for Mac OS X. Hacking and cracking a UNIX-based Mac box is harder than a Windows box. You don't have to sit there on a Mac and become a rocket scientist, taped-pair-of-thick-eyeglasses, three-pack-of-cigarettes-a-day, Mountain Dew-chugging geek just to keep your box secure and generally optimally configured. Now, maybe this offends some people out there, but then, if you want to talk about the small dog, inferiority complex, I think I know where that group of people lives.
I largely agree with this, but I would have to take exception to the notion that somehow Mac users are all universally "in denial".
I've owned a Mac since 1986. I've used many (not all, not by a long shot) other platforms which have existed, including C64, Amiga, Atari, TRS-80, Apple II, MS-DOS, and Win3.1 -> WinXP. I still choose to own a Mac, and for that Mac to be my main computer, because I still find to be true (though, arguably, to a "technical" lesser extent) what I have always found to be true: Apple does it friendlier and (at least for my needs) better than anyone else.
The whole spate of viruses, script kiddies, spyware, and so forth are still a relatively recent phenominon. I can fully remember back when there were viruses for ancient versions of what is now Classic MacOS. I used to have (and had to regularly update) my anti-virus software. I caught (and fortunately killed before they usually did any harm) a number of viruses back then (though by no means anywhere even close to the number that are out there for Windows today). I used to envy the Amiga for it's technical prowess at the time in areas of multiple-app resource management, stereo sound, drop-in-compatibility with video production systems, and a number of other little things. Those were the things I felt the Amiga "did right". But they still weren't sufficient to move me from the Mac platform to it. And frankly the "advantages" of games and availability of "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" in terms of software for Windows are not sufficient to pry the Mac from my hands now.
Bottom line: I'm not in denial (which, I'd like to point out to geography buffs here is in Egypt, btw), and neither is every other Mac user out there. Maybe not all of us, but most of us use what works best for us. And that ain't Windows, folks.
For the most part, it's never been about the users' needs! It's about the needs of the tools that the user uses.
Here's a real-world example: How large of a garage do you need? Answer: You don't need a garage at all. You live inside your house, not in a garage. But the two cars you have, that riding lawnmower, the edger, the four bikes (your's, your spouse's, and two for your kids), the space for the ladder leading up to your attic, the canoe you hang on the wall, etc., these are the things which "need" a 3+ car garage.
So, does Joe Average User need 2 GB of RAM? Well, you're damn straight he does when doing his video-to-DVD project. He double-damn-well needs 2GB when doing image editing of those pics he took of the girls at the beach. (And no, we can save discussions of pr0n for another time.)
Ok, but let's not forget that Microsoft's been promising the general public a "new" *coughbullshitcough* OS for years now, and hasn't delivered on it, other variations or feature-limited iterations notwithstading.
Let's also not forget that when Apple impliments (or invents) something, it does a far better job of making it intuitive to use than Microsoft or most of the rest of the Win32 developer community. They just dumb it down, candy coat it, put in big, colorful buttons and force-feed it down the public's collective throat.
Hmm... I suppose you folks are correct in saying that, but when I saw the "Spaces" demo, My mind didn't go first to Microsoft's PowerToy-required-to-access multi-desktops feature, but to Linux's age-old, well-worn and incredibly useful Multiple Desktops function. If anything, I think Apple made some nice feature specific-UI improvements (just Apple being Apple, as they say).
I got the same impression as the first article writer did about Time Machine: kinda tacky interface, but fundamentally very useful.
Really, this whole premise of "Goodness! Apple copied Microsoft!" boils down to the saying that two wongs don't make a right. I agree with that premise.
Don't take it personally, some people enjoy being stuck up about their own education. For my part, when I graduated in 1990, there had been no discussion at my HS one way or the other about Pluto (certainly not in any kind of detail). I don't believe I'd heard the name "Kupier" until well after I'd gone out into the working world to make my own way.
Of course, maybe I didn't go to the "right" high school. Or maybe I wasn't in the "right" state. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to suffer with post-HS-truth-about-Pluto blues. C 'est la vie.
I was (and still am) a proponent of the probe we're sending to Pluto carrying a robotic aparatus with two flags. When it gets there and a final determination is made, it plants either the "This Is A Planet" or the "This Is Not A Planet" flag at it's north pole. Just because...
Apart from the obvious "poster didn't RTFA" element, this post and some of the discussion thus far is telling in that it shows those who are part of the Anti-Apple / Anti-Anything-Not-Microsoft crowds from those who are willing to be fair-minded in the matter.
The crack about "Well, geez, if this was Microsoft, we'd all be clamoring for BillG's head" shows a line of fundamentally-flawed thinking. *If* this was about Microsoft instead of Apple, we'd be clamoring for BillG's head within the context of this being "the straw which broke the camel's back" and not merely backdating for the benefit of "yet another CEO".
It's amazing how people jump to Bill's defense out of such ignorance. If BillG were *only* guilty of benefitting from backdating, we wouldn't even be having this kind of discussion. But no, let's go pounce on Apple and Steve because we just cannot accept that anyone but Microsoft and BillG is entitled to the right of putting out an operating system for mass consumption. Good f'ing God, y'all, get out more!!!!
I agree: It's sad to hear about OpenDarwin, but I have to wonder how much of a difference it's going to make now that Apple's firmly entrenched in the x86 platform.
BTW, not sure about Gentoo, but I recently nuked my PB and dual-booted with Ubuntu. I'm lovin' every minute of it!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, no problem whatsoever. Have a nice day! :)
Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post, hypermanng. Right tree, wrong branch. *smacks self*
I can imagine the new adds for Verizon even as I type this...
Can you hear me now, bitch?!?!?
Just be prepared for a protracted, hard-fought, even-harder-to-win battle, a battle which by all rights shouldn't have had to be fought in the first place.
Well, power companies would be a good example of geographic monopolies. For that matter, a company that was successful because it produced products and/or services that people wanted (and wanted a lot) for where there was no other entrant into the market, or if there was an entrant into the market but either wasn't significant or didn't last because it's products were legitimately not as good, that would be another example of a different kind of monopoly, but in-and-of-itself not an evil one.
I don't think I like your concept of saying caps should be imposed, mostly because it smacks too much of the failed economic and social system of communist Russia. You're removing incentive, and you have to remember that the analogy of success/power and drugs/addiction is not a perfect parallel.
Not all companies are bad actors, any more than all blacks are murderers and rapists, all middle-easterners are suicide bombers, all women are mentally inferior, etc. And power doesn't actually corrupt every single person; I know plenty of people who either have power but simply have no desire to abuse it, or had power and chose to give it up because they simply weren't interested. Now, does this blow a bell curve or prove the exception to the rule? Well, you can judge; however let's also not lose all of our perspective here, either.
Technically, appropriate ethics and morals on the part of business owners -- of any size -- is sufficient to stop them from hurting anyone. Failing that, appropriate laws backed with appropriate oversight is sufficient. Failing that, litigatory action is sufficient, and after that I guess municipal or federal action is. After that, well... I'm not sure, to be honest.
For instance, I choose to use Apple's products. Apple grosses more than $1 billion annually. I wouldn't want to see them broken up, especially since they are Microsoft's only real competition in the retail and professional markets. Remember the law of unintended consequences! And yes, I know that under your theory, Apple would be broken up into X pieces, each making less than $1 billion each, as would Microsoft (in their case, X * ? pieces). But would this really help?
The biggest problem I see with your system is that it potentially punishes EVERYONE, which is unfair and unjust. And what's more, it punishes them for being successful, instead of punishing them for doing something really wrong. I personally don't care how rich a company becomes, nor how "large" it becomes, so long as it's not achieving either through willfully or negligently harming other businesses and the general public. For anything to be done right, it must start from purity of thought, and be carried through with purity of execution. Mind you, that's purity, not "infalliable perfection". Just mindlessly swinging a large club and arbitrarily taking out everything in sight is not the best approach to anything.
And is anyone here suggesting we should exercise less than due dilligence in not allowing corporations to use the government as their own bully pulpit, club, and judge-jury-executioner, all rolled into one? I, for one, am tired of seeing the government get twisted around and misused like this. Corporate America is using the U.S. government to inforce what should be (however disagreeable) corporate policies, not governmental laws!
Yes, that may be somewhat true, however my own experiences with big industry companies and with the technology industry as a whole suggests otherwise. In fact, so does my experience with and observation of the Federal Government.
I don't mean to be an asshat here or anything, but one constant in business and in industry is greed, and it isn't all 100% about the money. In fact, a lot of it is simply about the power of controlling and manipulating people. And you need more than one Cable ISP and one DSL ISP to have competition. Considering how entrenched local Cable and Telco providers are, it's (unfortunately) up to the government, through regulation, to keep them off of our back.
This isn't to suggest that I think the government is the end all/be all, omnibus solution to our problems. It's just that, as things stand at the moment, it's our only (if seriously flawed) solution. And I have absolutely no problems whatsoever in swinging a mighty club at a company if that's what it takes to keep them from screwing me, whether it's now, five years from now, or twenty-five years from now.
Let's look at your cell phone dilema. There are LOTS of cell phone service providers available pretty much across the whole U.S. Look at how much better those companies' service is vs. your local telco monopoly. They're responsive to your issues (mine always have been), and if you don't get satisfaction at one, they know you can walk away and go to another. Yes, I know there are contracts out there, and I'm not saying this is an infinitely perfect world we live in, either, but while being something of a realist, let's also not get carried away by being unrealistically negative, either. And if you don't believe me about intra-cell phone-competition and how important it is, then look at the efforts by many cell phone providers to buy each other up and eliminate this competition. That alone should make it painfully obvious to any that companies are addicted to power, and they see the path to power by eliminating competition.
Further, I left a mega-corp (Sony, specifically) and the tech industry it was a part of for several reasons, but significantly over the fact that I couldn't abide the controlling manipulation and monetary extraction they engage in, which runs contrary to my own, personal code of ethics. And yes, if you follow that link, you'll find that the jobs there (mine included) were in the process of being outsourced to Alorica at the time I decided to leave, but it doesn't diminish my disgust for what I saw going on, nor how it made me feel to be a part of an industry which does precisely that to the general public.
Besides, no matter what the solution, there must be oversight, or it will be doomed to failure. Those who fail to learn ffrom history are condemned to repeat it.
Um, no.
It's true I do chat with other people online, but it's not the primary reason I pay for my, um, *broadband* connection. Puh-leeze...
That would be Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich, the man who nearly bankrupted Cleveland, has been next-to-worthless as a congressman, and dreams of growing up one day and becoming President of the U.S.A. Um, whatever it is you're smoking, can you send me some of it? It must be some pretty good shit if you honestly are trying to imply Kucinich is an "honest politician".
Are you pretending to be ignorant of U.S. history, or are you ignorant?
History Lesson:
George Washington, the first man to hold the presidency, decided to leave after two terms in office, even though in all likelihood he could have been president for the rest of his life, or most of it (ignoring the fact that he died of cancer in 1799 and therefore ultimately would have served only two-point-something terms).
Everyone who ever won the presidency more than once followed Washington's example until Roosevelt. I am not a historian, so I don't know what his intentions or ambitions were, but he may well have continued on indefinitely had he continued to live. In any event, he didn't, dying sometime in early 1945 IIRC.
Two years after his death, the 22nd Ammendment was drafted, and was signed into law shortly thereafter (what, like '51ish, I think). *checks sources* Yup, I was right, February 27, 1951.
So, did you just make that up to look stupid or what?
QUOTE: Doc Ruby
And keeping cops honest. Which protects the good ones, which accounts for 99% of the hours cops work. This system would also capture, or deter, the other 1% that does so much harm. While increasing productivity on the street and on the case, cutting costs and corroborating credibility.
What would really be a Good Thing(tm) is if wearing cameras was manditory for politicians, judges and lawyers.
Ok, since there's so many references on here to the Stargate TV seriesis (what do you mean that's not a real word?)...
Let's say a large asteroid (whatever would be big enough to cause catastrophic damage to Earth's population) was on it's way. And further, let's say we don't have the firepower and/or the time to attempt to divert it. However, we happened to have a stargate unit and there existed the technology to build a really, really large-diametered version of it and send it up there, placing it just ahead of the asteroid, activate it, and then nudge it ahead until it swallowed the asteroid.
Ok, my question: Would it be ethical to do that; and would our world society decide to do that, even if it might mean causing that asteroid to strike another (possibly inhabited) world? I'm not looking for some overly-simplistic "Why *no*, of course not! That would be horrible!" answer posted here. I'm curious to see what everyone elses' take on the various countries-of-the-world's attitude would be.
------
Like BSG:TOS? Like Buck Rogers? Check out: <URL:http://home.swfla.rr.com/mikethec>
Ok, quit it with the Star Trek VI references already! :) (j/k)
I can't find where I can mod up your post, BetMonty, but I sure do agree with it. Especially your comments about Sony. They're totally a "Tail Wagging The Dog" company. It's what's put them where they stand now-a-days, and what will kill them if they don't change it.
First, Macs have been, and -- short of Apple suddenly going belly-up -- probably always will be the preferred choice of creative professionals. The fact that most of the creative pro-calliber software out there has a Windows version isn't really changing this very much, and largely due to the fact that creative professionals are not interested in -- and typically don't have the time to be -- computer geeks. They have work to do, and frankly, Windows brings baggage that they have no interest in contending with.
Second, I get a laugh out of reading that Apple is missing the market by not catering to the lucrative game market. Number one, short of them becoming a Windows licensee, this is never going to be possible since the games are not so much Intel-based as they are Win32 based, and that limitation is far more significant than any other factor. Number two, I don't know any hard-core gamers -- not a single one -- who permit anyone's brand-name computer on their desk. Every single true gamer I know and have ever known either builds their own or hires someone to build it for them (because they want top-shelf components with no compromises). So all arguments that Apple alone is missing out on this market are fundamentally flawed -- by this logic, all of the name brand PC makers are missing out on this market.
Sony was somewhat infamous internally for having the "three thousand isolated incidents" mentality. Yes, they did admit from time to time there was a flaw, but they tried whenever possible to keep mum on their design issues and shortcomings. For instance, Sony's initial forray into AMD-based laptops resulted in computers which ran hotter and had much shorter battery run-times, well below what was stated. And only after getting beaten over the head by a ton of customers did they go to the length of saying, well, if the customer is still in warranty, we'll throw 'em a bone by sending them -- as a courtesy, mind you -- another battery. The fact that the whole issue centered around the fact that Sony engineers never bothered to impliment any kind of CPU step-down drivers or other technology was avoided at all costs.
But then, that's just me, another used-piece-of-toilet-paper, talking, I guess...
Well, not to nag here, but the MacBook and MacBook Pro line still have single-button mice.
Apple is NOT in the business of selling or supporting Windows, and they shouldn't be. Why do Microsoft's work for them? Now, it's not that any business (including Apple) shouldn't try to make themselves attractive to existing and potential customers, but there's a fine line between making yourself available to every customer that walks in the door, and trying to get and hoard every customer that walks in the door.
Now, maybe this will be flame-bait and maybe I'll get modded for saying this, but once you do what you can to educate people, if a non-geek-specialist still wants to run Windows, then he or she isn't the kind of customer Apple wants or needs anyhow. Let them revel in their own ignorance. I'd rather be a part of a user base that chooses to be that user base than one which simply becomes the user base by default. What I don't get is why people think that just because people out there (like me) don't choose to follow the same path as every other schmuck, we're somehow elitist. Yes, I know there are irritants over here in the Mac camp, but we're hardly unique in this. The Linux and the Windows camps have them too, just like there are snobs and freaks amongst the ranks of Star Trek fans (though I'd hardly describe someone as being some kind of kook just because they liked Star Trek).
And let's face facts: There aren't any viruses out there right now for Mac OS X. Hacking and cracking a UNIX-based Mac box is harder than a Windows box. You don't have to sit there on a Mac and become a rocket scientist, taped-pair-of-thick-eyeglasses, three-pack-of-cigarettes-a-day, Mountain Dew-chugging geek just to keep your box secure and generally optimally configured. Now, maybe this offends some people out there, but then, if you want to talk about the small dog, inferiority complex, I think I know where that group of people lives.
I've owned a Mac since 1986. I've used many (not all, not by a long shot) other platforms which have existed, including C64, Amiga, Atari, TRS-80, Apple II, MS-DOS, and Win3.1 -> WinXP. I still choose to own a Mac, and for that Mac to be my main computer, because I still find to be true (though, arguably, to a "technical" lesser extent) what I have always found to be true: Apple does it friendlier and (at least for my needs) better than anyone else.
The whole spate of viruses, script kiddies, spyware, and so forth are still a relatively recent phenominon. I can fully remember back when there were viruses for ancient versions of what is now Classic MacOS. I used to have (and had to regularly update) my anti-virus software. I caught (and fortunately killed before they usually did any harm) a number of viruses back then (though by no means anywhere even close to the number that are out there for Windows today). I used to envy the Amiga for it's technical prowess at the time in areas of multiple-app resource management, stereo sound, drop-in-compatibility with video production systems, and a number of other little things. Those were the things I felt the Amiga "did right". But they still weren't sufficient to move me from the Mac platform to it. And frankly the "advantages" of games and availability of "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" in terms of software for Windows are not sufficient to pry the Mac from my hands now.
Bottom line: I'm not in denial (which, I'd like to point out to geography buffs here is in Egypt, btw), and neither is every other Mac user out there. Maybe not all of us, but most of us use what works best for us. And that ain't Windows, folks.
Here's a real-world example: How large of a garage do you need? Answer: You don't need a garage at all. You live inside your house, not in a garage. But the two cars you have, that riding lawnmower, the edger, the four bikes (your's, your spouse's, and two for your kids), the space for the ladder leading up to your attic, the canoe you hang on the wall, etc., these are the things which "need" a 3+ car garage.
So, does Joe Average User need 2 GB of RAM? Well, you're damn straight he does when doing his video-to-DVD project. He double-damn-well needs 2GB when doing image editing of those pics he took of the girls at the beach. (And no, we can save discussions of pr0n for another time.)
Let's also not forget that when Apple impliments (or invents) something, it does a far better job of making it intuitive to use than Microsoft or most of the rest of the Win32 developer community. They just dumb it down, candy coat it, put in big, colorful buttons and force-feed it down the public's collective throat.
Hmm... I suppose you folks are correct in saying that, but when I saw the "Spaces" demo, My mind didn't go first to Microsoft's PowerToy-required-to-access multi-desktops feature, but to Linux's age-old, well-worn and incredibly useful Multiple Desktops function. If anything, I think Apple made some nice feature specific-UI improvements (just Apple being Apple, as they say). I got the same impression as the first article writer did about Time Machine: kinda tacky interface, but fundamentally very useful. Really, this whole premise of "Goodness! Apple copied Microsoft!" boils down to the saying that two wongs don't make a right. I agree with that premise.
Don't take it personally, some people enjoy being stuck up about their own education. For my part, when I graduated in 1990, there had been no discussion at my HS one way or the other about Pluto (certainly not in any kind of detail). I don't believe I'd heard the name "Kupier" until well after I'd gone out into the working world to make my own way.
Of course, maybe I didn't go to the "right" high school. Or maybe I wasn't in the "right" state. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to suffer with post-HS-truth-about-Pluto blues. C 'est la vie.
Mike
I was (and still am) a proponent of the probe we're sending to Pluto carrying a robotic aparatus with two flags. When it gets there and a final determination is made, it plants either the "This Is A Planet" or the "This Is Not A Planet" flag at it's north pole. Just because...
The crack about "Well, geez, if this was Microsoft, we'd all be clamoring for BillG's head" shows a line of fundamentally-flawed thinking. *If* this was about Microsoft instead of Apple, we'd be clamoring for BillG's head within the context of this being "the straw which broke the camel's back" and not merely backdating for the benefit of "yet another CEO".
It's amazing how people jump to Bill's defense out of such ignorance. If BillG were *only* guilty of benefitting from backdating, we wouldn't even be having this kind of discussion. But no, let's go pounce on Apple and Steve because we just cannot accept that anyone but Microsoft and BillG is entitled to the right of putting out an operating system for mass consumption. Good f'ing God, y'all, get out more!!!!
I agree: It's sad to hear about OpenDarwin, but I have to wonder how much of a difference it's going to make now that Apple's firmly entrenched in the x86 platform. BTW, not sure about Gentoo, but I recently nuked my PB and dual-booted with Ubuntu. I'm lovin' every minute of it!