This is me not arguing.

Why would a judge adjust their intellectual stance for something outside of their expertise (technology, as opposed to legal doctrine)?

Could they be MORE savvy about it? Maybe. But most of them are of an age where they didn't grow up with this stuff, and indeed, have spent the majority of their lifetimes predating this technology in widespread use. By this point, picking up more than bare rudiments is VERY difficult for these people.

Unfortunately, getting people into these professions with a "born into it" familiarity is going to take quite a while. And by that point, most of the damage will have been done.

Oh. Has someone NOT been getting regular sex for the last entirety of their life?

Oh wait. Slashdot. My bad!

Considering that most of the judge from the 21st century are, at most, 12, and not even lawyers, let alone judges, yet kinda makes this tough.

Their tendency to over-reach their supplier's manufacturing capabilities. While this excess of ambition has served them well with the push into 64-bit and multi-core computing, it can sometimes lead to them painting themselves into a corner. And it's happened several times in their history.

Their tendency to come of with what are, at the time, hugely over-complex chips.

Their inability, due to their lack of actual fab space to implement in a timely fashion.

The last leads to a disheartening tendency towards paper launches.

Their piss poor support of what they DO have out. Especially early on. They struggle to get stuff out the door, but usually all the amenities aren't in place at that point.

They essentially went from fighting a single-front war with Intel to a two-front war with Intel and nVidia in two of the most cut-throat markets in computer electronics. And they were doing neither of them well.

The fact that the acquisition of ATI ate up valuable capital that could have gone towards pushing their CPU architecture forward (and out the door) in a more timely fashion.

Their continued need to support ATI continuing to eat into valuable capital.

The fact that the market, while bigger than ever, is more cut-throat than ever due to the economy.

It's not real hard to come up with the reasons why AMD's in such trouble.

Translation: They won't work for something that makes poverty wages look generous and lock themselves into a Company Store setup on top of that...

While the language is a bit...hyperbolic, he's essentially right.

Okay, this got a snicker outta me.

Like I said. =)

Face it, Apple's desire to move into the enterprise space is about on par with most people's desire to have unprotected anal sex with someone who's not only HIV positive, but has full-blown, late-stage AIDS.

Apple simply doesn't have the mindset or resources to take on enterprise computing.

With Joe SingleUser and Bob SmallBusiness, if something doesn't break Apple's way, or they feel that it's not in their economic best interests, they can bury the project with little to no repercussions.

With enterprise computing, large chunks of money and contracts with performance clauses would place far FAR greater demands on Apple to actually deliver. And, if they couldn't, killing the project is nearly impossible without some form of highly visible financial harm to the company.

Additionally, while lots of money IS coming in, the margins are FAR lower than Apple's consumer presence. Apple's shareholders want their fat dividend checks.

The only areas where Apple fits into business are places they're already slam-dunk entries. Content production and the like.

That's without even getting into the reality of real IT groups responding to pushes to transition their business to Apple almost universally going something like this:

*GUFFAW*
"Oh! You were serious?"
*Insane Laughter*