political crap

[j763]

Lockheed Martin sucks.

I don't like the idea of Apple being involved in sales to the military.

Oh well, at least they only give the GOP a meagre $3000 every year, compared with hundreds of thousands to the dems.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by j763
Lockheed Martin sucks.

I don't like the idea of Apple being involved in sales to the military.

Oh well, at least they only give the GOP a meagre $3000 every year, compared with hundreds of thousands to the dems.


Why are you trolling the military? I also don't understand your last statement. You know there are actual people in the military that use computers. They see that apple logo and go out and buy one that's more money in the coffers at apple to make better stuff for YOU.

I suppose Apple should just NOT sell to particular government agencies because why the hell would they want to make money or expand market share? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mvc]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Why are you trolling the military? I also don't understand your last statement.

I suspect its a little thing called principle - there are still a few idealists in this world who don't like this whole shooting people concept:rolleyes:

[JohnStrass]

Originally posted by j763
Lockheed Martin sucks.

I don't like the idea of Apple being involved in sales to the military.

Oh well, at least they only give the GOP a meagre $3000 every year, compared with hundreds of thousands to the dems.
This is also the best reason NOT to buy a DELL. Michael Dell was Bush's #1 contributor (along with ENRON). Republican computer:mad:

[sedarby]

Originally posted by mvc
I suspect its a little thing called principle - there are still a few idealists in this world who don't like this whole shooting people concept:rolleyes:
Apple is a business for profit not a non-profit so any sale is welcome. Apple has a responsibility to pursue any avenue for sales no matter what the CEO's views might be concerning the military.

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by mvc
I suspect its a little thing called principle - there are still a few idealists in this world who don't like this whole shooting people concept:rolleyes:

Well, I'm still cool with shooting people. In fact, I'm down with the atomic bomb too. I'm glad we dropped them. You know why? Because my entire family line would've ended if they hadn't, as would have millions of others, both Japanese and American. understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, it is my opinion (and the opinion of many others) that conflict is a natural part of life, and thumb wrestling between national leaders hasn't solved those problems in the past. I used to be a pacifist, but then I realized that if people are going to shoot at us, we have to shoot back, because it isn't fair to those who are getting shot at.

"Oh, I'm so sorry to tell you this Jimmy, but your father died today. You see, he was being shot at terrorists (just to prevent an Iraqi War argument), and we don't believe in shooting people, so we just kinda stood there."

Originally posted by sedarby
Apple is a business for profit not a non-profit so any sale is welcome. Apple has a responsibility to pursue any avenue for sales no matter what the CEO's views might be concerning the military.


Very, very good point. Sure, if Steve Jobs were a pacifist (which wouldn't surprise me), and were other major shareholders (SJ is a major shareholder, right? Not like #1, but one of the top?), they could operate the company on principle. But perhaps they realized this time that they had an obligation to the shareholders (myself included) to try and expand the company and maximize profits.

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by mvc
I suspect its a little thing called principle - there are still a few idealists in this world who don't like this whole shooting people concept:rolleyes:
Principles are nice.

But principles + firepower are much more effective. :D

[bobindashadows]

Originally posted by Hawthorne
Principles are nice.

But principles + firepower are much more effective. :D
Yeah... (despite unfounded arguments to the contrary), there aren't that many (percentage speaking) people who enjoy war. I don't want to hear "GORGE DUBYA (HEHE I MADE FUN OF 'W') BUSH LIKE TO KILL AND MASSACRE PEOPLE BECAUSE I SAY SO WTF OMG LOL!@!1!11!" Just keep it to yourself. Very, very few people enjoy the prospect of war. I can't name one that I personally know. There's the obvious, Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong (Or is it Mao Tse Tung? Are those 2 different people?), the rest of the Good Old Boys (terrorists), but how many average people actually like war? In principle, there would be no war. In practice, there is war, but people still don't like it.

[mistersquid]

Originally posted by bobindashadows
Well, I'm still cool with shooting people. In fact, I'm down with the atomic bomb too. I'm glad we dropped them. You know why? Because my entire family line would've ended if they hadn't, as would have millions of others, both Japanese and American.

First, please excuse the off-topicness of this post. But given that yesterday was the 58th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima on which occasion Hiroshima's Mayor Akiba declaimed the re-proliferation of "usable" nuclear arms by the United States (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-japan-hiroshima-anniversary.html), I hope you will indulge me.

Your version of Hobson's Choice--either the bomb is dropped or I am not born--neglects not only that your ancestors may have survived even if the Japanese had not ended their hostilities on 14 August 1945, but also that the bomb was probably not necessary to end the war. There is much evidence pointing to the fact that Emperor Hirohito was considering surrender prior to the "persuasive" force of Little Boy's detonation over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and Fat Man's detonation over Nagasaki 3 days later.

Furthermore, even if your existence depends on the detonation of either of those bombs, your argument reduces to your preference for your own existence over the existence of hundreds of thousands of others. As such, your argument is philosophically meaningless.

While I agree that pacifism is not the only response one may have toward violence, it is often the best. The problem is that when a violence is pursued as a course of action, it is often pursued without any sense of proportion. The use of nuclear weapons in World War II is one of the most horrifying examples of the application of violence disproportionate with its intended mission.

[york2600]

Originally posted by JohnStrass
This is also the best reason NOT to buy a DELL. Michael Dell was Bush's #1 contributor (along with ENRON). Republican computer:mad:

Here's another reason for you: Worlds largest computer maker was the last to have a full scale recycling program and still recycles the smallest percentage of PCs. Pretty crappy if you ask me. You make the toxic waste you better be helping to clean it up.

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by mvc
I suspect its a little thing called principle - there are still a few idealists in this world who don't like this whole shooting people concept:rolleyes:

Wake up buddy, military or not there will always be someone shooting at someone. Idealistic principles and reality are two different things. :rolleyes: :mad:

[donniedarko7]

Whats with all the politicians here? Don't they have other forums for that sort of stuff? Keep your communist views to yourself.

[ibookin']

What's with all the political discussion here?

Anyway this is GREAT for Apple, but I'm wondering about why the people purchasing the xServes would choose them over faster, cheaper servers from Dell, IBM, etc. that would run Linux as well. If you want to run a Linux server, going with Apple at this point seems like a bad idea.

Like others, however, I believe that the servers that will be delivered will be G5-based. That would make them worth their cost.