...and you aren't helping the situation.
Ad homs are not an argument. They are just a sure sign that you have nothing meaningful to say.
I used to have Macs. For one brief moment, they were price competitive HTPCs. Then tech changed and I had Macs lying around. I could see for myself what they hubub was about.
It didn't inspire anyone to defect from anything else.
The reliability of the Minis wasn't anything to write home about either.
The poverty arguement. You're so funny. (not)
You need to take the blinders off and get out more.
Plenty of people who seem to have money to burn won't have any thing to do with Macs. There are entire affluent suburbs filled with people like that.
Unfortunately, Apple decided to discontinue it's only product line that wasn't a total joke designed for clueless rubes.
Even if I had 30 Benjamins I was ready to set on fire, there's nothing Apple has to sell me.
High quality parts? Quit swimming in the Kool-Aid.
They use generic PC parts the same as the rest of the industry. Sometimes the same exact quirks exist between Apple's and Dells. They are impacted by the same bad engineering choices.
Except there are more options with PCs. You can avoid an inherently problematic form factor with Dell. There's something else to choose.
Been there. Done that. Not impressed at all.
You're just repeating the same nonsense as the original article which was marketing masquerading as journalism to begin with.
No. MacOS is still very much a second rate platform for "buying things". All of the hype didn't change the fact that MacOS is still a marginalized minority platform.
MacOS remains more like Linux in this regard.
...except no one really uses the FreeBSD part.
All of the relevant end user interactions are with the proprietary non-FreeBSD part. MacOS is much like Windows in that it's a proprietary subsystem riding on top of some other core OS. Apple benefits from the generous free work of the FreeBSD developers while presenting what is pretty much a completely proprietary system.
$500 is a lot of money just to try some other OS out.
... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]
Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]
Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source
Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.
The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]
No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?
It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.
Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:
Again, even those contrarians are able to recognize that the correct equation (neglecting reflections) is:
electrical heating power per square meter + (e*s)*T4^4 = (e*s)*T1^4
Note that this equation obeys conservation of energy because it accounts for the temperature of the chamber walls.
Even the analysis Jane reviewed himself and found well-designed uses that equation on page 16 to describe the radiative component of heating power. Note that they don't use Jane's Slayer equation which stubbornly refuses to account for the temperature of the ambient chamber walls, which violates conservation of energy.
So not only do the vast majority of physicists disagree with Jane's Slayer nonsense, most climate contrarians are also rational enough to back away from the Slayers. Even the convicted scam artist who conned Jane and Lonny Eachus knows better than to ask Sky Dragon Slayers to prop up his latest scam.
So why is Jane/Lonny Eachus still regurgitating Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense, when all Jane/Lonny has to do to recognize they're wrong is try to write down an energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms?
The article makes a big deal of Mac OS X's UNIX certification. Although it didn't hurt, the certification really had nothing to do with the rise in popularity of the Mac. Using open source code certainly allowed Apple to take advantage of (and then build upon) the cool stuff we've enjoyed on Linux for years, but what broke Microsoft's stranglehold on the consumer mindset was really the iPod, and later the iPhone. That's what made people think that buying a Mac might be a viable alternative to Windows. Of course once they made the switch, users were able to see that the technology really works, but without the iPod, most people would never have considered the Mac as an option.
There were other factors at work too:
> Apple has taken the best of PC ecosystem, but avoided taking on the disadvantages.
This is such a joke. It's simply not true. WinDOS still has the "ecosystem" advantage. It's sad but true. What Apple has is perception driven by good marketing and IGNORANCE.
Macs are a mythical product that most people are unfamiliar with because the whole platform has a high barrier to entry. There are very few people in a good position to comment on Macs. You have to spend a great deal of money and have already swallowed all the Kool-Aid.
I bought into the myth too myself before a had a Mac to play around with.
So, this is a voluntary thing, doesn't involve any certification, has no actual enforcement, and only exist in about half the US states or slightly less.
You're confusing certification with the status of a benefit corporation. Certification has no legal enforcement power other than revoking certification; OTOH, under the model legislation it just takes 2% of stockholders to initiate a benefit enforcement proceeding against a benefit corporation and have court enforce the public benefit provisions of its charter. (Your state may vary -- it looks like in NJ any stockholder can bring such action.)
So long as it exists in the state where Ello is incorporated (which is apparently does), it doesn't matter that not all states yet have benefit corporation legislation.
Yes, benefit corporations are new. If I was going to bet my life on questions of how courts will treat them I might be wary. But as a general matter they seem like they could be a useful way to reign in privacy violations by tech companies by providing a legally enforceable guarantee of behavior.
Well, you've not given a meaningful link since it's the same slashdot article we're all reading right now.
My bad on the HTML. I meant this.
I never run out of space. As disks get larger and larger, the risk of running out of space seems like the single least significant thing possible. The real issue is corruption.
Based on the headline, I would have expected this to be about content verification with all of the ZFS fanboys coming out of the work to extol it's virtues.
It sounds good in principle, but is it really legally binding in any sense?
Yes. A corporation's charter is legally binding on it, and "benefit corporations" are a distinct type of legal entity.
...except a job is a little bit more significant to your life than some meaningless Internet bulletin board.
If you interfere with someone at work, you are interfering with their livelihood. You are interfering with their ability to stay fed and keep a roof over their heads. You're probably also impacting one or more dependents.
It's an entirely different thing.
You have failed to demonstrate any actual harm. Laws based on zero demonstrated harm are always a bad idea.
Function reject.
